Institutionalising World Vision’s Accountability to Communities

FRAMEWORK In essence this WV’s framework for accountability to communities. It comes with a narrative/policy statement this is fundamentally our reference point. It’s not intended as a ‘how to guide’ rather is an articulation of what it looks like in practice if we say we are accountable to communities – a destination point. It’s divided into four areas – transparency, consultation, participation and collecting and responding to complaints and feedback. The framework came out of the humanitarian accountability movement and as a requirement of our membership to HAP international, however, at the time it was endorsed it was agreed that it should apply to all our programmes – not just humanitarian. So this includes advocacy and development programming.

Move from ad-hoc pockets of good practice As we know though a framework or policy can quickly end up on a shelf or computer file. The challenge is in bringing it to life. In WV we are wanting to do is move from ad hoc pockets of good practice to a standard way of working – the norm Move from ad-hoc pockets of good practice

To a standard way of working – the norm

Moving it up the priority list No one disagrees that we need to be accountable to communities – however it might be further down the priority list. Where we have the examples of good practices it’s higher on the priority list, and so receives dedicated effort and resources. The challenge to instiutionalise accountability to communities is not just get consensus to it’s importance but also to move it up the priority list. To achieve this we work through a number of key leavers – dedicated staff, integrating it at systems level, developing supporting tools and cometencies to implement and checks and reporting that it is actually working

Moving it up the priority list Staff competencies and buy-in Dedicated Staff Systems integration Tools Staff competencies and buy-in Checking No one disagrees that we need to be accountable to communities – however it might be further down the priority list. Where we have the examples of good practices it’s higher on the priority list, and so receives dedicated effort and resources. The challenge to instiutionalise accountability to communities is not just get consensus to it’s importance but also to move it up the priority list. To achieve this we work through a number of key leavers trying to create ‘a snow ball effect’ and maximize roll out – dedicated staff, integrating it at systems level, developing supporting tools and cometencies to implement and checks and reporting that it is actually working

Dedicated staff to drive forward accountability to communities World Vision has dedicated staff to strengthen the organisations accountability to communities at global level, in WVUK, in the Asia Pacific Region, occasionally in country office, and point persons on our National Disaster Management Teams – deployable in emergencies By having staff for accountability to communities there is dedicated focus and energy. The positive being is that the energy is not diluted by other priorities and deliverables. However, the disadvantage is that there is a greater need to proactively seek linkages – for example with quality and DME colleagues - as these are not built into their job description and mandate.

Integration into Strategies, Standards, Guidance Part of this integration is to make sure that accountability to communities is not a stand alone agenda. To help drive the agenda forward we piggy-back on other agendas that are institutionalised and set the direction for the organisation – for example in the latest policy on Learning Evaluation Accountability and Planning we now have specific responsibilities outlined for transparency at community level and for collecting and responding to community feedback. This is aiming for a cascade effect – integrating into high level documents creates space, expectation and demand for implementation. This turns attention to accountability to communities and adds legitimacy, helping to move up the priority list

Tools – Supporting Implementation The overarching documents set our overarching commitments and obligations. The next level is tools that provide the ‘how to’ for delivering on these obligations and responsibilities. Some tools are dedicated for example for leading an assessment at community level to see where our gaps and strengths are in accountability to communities. Others tools integrated accountability for example in our emergency Basic Rapid Assessment survey there are questions relating to accountability to communities such as about preferred ways for receiving information With community feedback systems the majority of our tools and resources are based on humanitarian response. We are trying to build our experience in this area so that we get tailor to these to our development programming and where we have different team structures and operate more with partners and in collaborations. We have Accountability Learning Initiatives in three countries and are working with CDA for technical support and documentation of the learning process. As well we have a tender from DFID for supporting 7 GPAF partners to pilot beneficiary feedback mechanisms and capture learnings.

Training – Attitudes and Competencies And then of course there is the training and awareness raising so that staff have buy-in and are equipped to delver on commitments for accountability to communities. The trainings depending on the length range from awareness and sensitization through to a more in depth focus on attitudes and competencies. When there is sufficient time, they will also build in community assessment and planning processes to strengthen accountability to communities.

‘What gets reported on gets done’ As much as possible we will then add in the checks – I think this is one of the most powerful ways of bringing it up the priority list – what gets reported on gets done. Asking for accountability to communities to be reported on sends a message in through the organisation that it is important, shouldn't’ be an after thought, and that it is valued as a criteria of success. Even if you personally value accountability to communities - Resources, time and effort will always go towards what criteria you will be judged on – that’s why its important for accountability to communities to be one of these criteria In the humanitarian space – offices annually report on their preparedness and meeting of standards for humanitarian accountability. Offices also have to report against a criteria for accountability to communities as part of their annual child well being report. In humanitarian response we are stronger at building processes for working with communities into logframes. However, we’re currently developing standard indicators that can be used in our development programming to and should lead to wider roll out and a picture of how we’re doing across the organsiation. I think this will be the most powerful because it will be measuring from community perspective if they feel sufficiently informed about who we are and our commitments, if they feel adequately involved in decision making and implementation, and if they feel comfortable providing feedback and complaints and that action will be taken in response. This is what it all comes down to and if all of our efforts at institutionalising practices for accountability to communities pay off! We will then be accountable for our commitments to be accountable and compelled to take action if we’re not delivering

So this is a snapshot summary of what we’re doing to bring our programme accountability framework to life