CARE International Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF) Nairobi, 26 January 2012

Rational for the HAF A 2007 study on humanitarian accountability commissioned by CARE and other large INGOs found that three key challenges that were preventing these standards, principles, etc. from being put into practice: 1. A proliferation of manuals, procedures, standards and principles has resulted in confusion amongst staff regarding what is mandatory and what is “optional” guidance in terms of their own accountabilities; 2. Inconsistent application of what are generally considered good standards; and 3. There is usually no price or penalty paid by individual staff or the agency for poor quality at the beneficiary level as long as donors are kept happy.

Rational for the HAF (cont.) The purpose of CARE International’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF) is thus not to create yet another initiative, but rather to organize and prioritize existing internal and international standards, principles, and codes into a user-friendly framework to help CARE staff improve accountability towards our stakeholders, particularly communities affected by disasters. Efforts underway to drop the “H” => HAF will become an AF for all of CARE’s work.

CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF) Using our power responsibly... Humanitarian accountability is an appropriate shift of the balance of power back towards disaster affected people. The HAF is supposed to help balance our accountability commitments to all those stakeholders with less power - including national NGOs who see CARE as a donor. Accountability is both a means for CARE to improve the relevance, quality and impact of our work, and an end in itself, as our stakeholders – especially beneficiaries – have a right to hold CARE to account.

What does accountability mean? Accountability is about how an organization fulfills its responsibilities in meeting the needs of different groups in its decision making and activities: Accountability means making sure that the women, men, and children affected by an emergency are involved in planning, implementing, and judging our response to their emergency. This helps ensure that a project will have the impact they want (The Good Enough Guide)

Foundations of HAF The HAF draws on existing internal and interagency standards and codes for humanitarian quality and accountability that CARE has committed to. This includes: 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 and The People in Aid Code of Conduct.

Good Enough (GE) Approach The HAF will be used as a basis for judging the quality and accountability at each phase of a response using a ‘good enough’ approach. GE approach acknowledges that in an emergency response adopting a quick and simple approach to impact measurement and accountability may be the only practical possibility.

Responsibility for implementing the HAF The quality/accountability of CARE’s work is everybody’s job! Even if the HAF is everybody’s responsibility, we have to assign specific roles and responsibilities and include it in IOPs! CARE’s responsibilities towards the HAF remain the same if we work with and through partners. This needs to be considered when selecting partners, drawing up implementation agreements, providing support for partner capacity building and setting up monitoring and evaluation systems.

Three Components of the Humanitarian Accountability Framework Humanitarian Benchmarks Performance Metrics Compliance System

CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework

Humanitarian Accountability Benchmarks 1. Leadership 2. Planning, Monitoring & Project Design 3. Non-Discrimination and Needs-based Response 4. Participation 5. Transparency 6. Beneficiary Feedback & Complaints Mechanism 7. Evaluations, Reviews and Learning 8. Staff Competence and HR Management.

HAF Benchmarks Benchmark 1: CARE and partner leadership demonstrate their commitment to quality and accountability Possible Indicators: Organization has made a public commitment to comply with specific standards, principles and codes of conduct. Heads of functional units (program, HR, finance, etc.) have laid down their own responsibilities for implementing the HAF. They monitor their compliance and improve systems and procedures if needed.

Benchmark 2: CARE and partners base emergency response on impartial assessment of needs, vulnerabilities and capacities Possible Indicators: Whenever feasible, data is disaggregated by sex and age to ensure that women, girls, boys and men are targeted appropriately. The assessments consider local capacities and institutions, coping mechanisms, risk reduction, and responses by other agencies.

Benchmark 3: CARE and partner use good design and monitoring to drive improvements in our work Possible Indicators: Disaster-affected people (including women and men, boys and girls, and people from vulnerable and marginalized groups) participate in planning, design and monitoring. CARE and partners actively seeks their feedback on impacts. CARE and partners use monitoring results to make prompt changes where needed. It share these results with stakeholders.

Benchmark 4: CARE and partners involve the disaster- affected community throughout our response Possible Indicators: CARE involves beneficiaries (or their representatives) in assessments, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This includes deciding on project activities

Benchmark 5: CARE and partners put formal mechanisms in place to gather and act on feedback and complaints Possible Indicators: CARE and its partners have formal mechanisms to gather and monitor feedback from beneficiaries and other key stakeholders (for example, focus group discussions). CARE and partners have a formal mechanism to take and response to complaints from beneficiaries and other stakeholders. This mechanism is safe, non-threatening way, and accessible to all (women and men, boys and girls, and people from vulnerable groups).

Benchmark 6: CARE and partners publicly communicate our mandate, projects and what stakeholders can expect from us Possible Indicators: CARE and partner communicate key information to all stakeholder groups, for example organization structure, needs assessment findings, project plans, targeting criteria, complaints mechanisms, etc.

Benchmark 7: CARE and partners use impartial reviews and evaluations to improve learning and demonstrate accountability Possible Indicators: Organization earmarks budget for and organizes After Action Reviews and independent real time reviews and/or evaluations. CARE senior managers act (based on clear action plans) on recommendations from AARs, reviews, and evaluations.

Benchmark 8: CARE and partners support its staff, managers and partner agencies to improve quality and accountability Possible Indicators: CARE and partner brief all staff before they go into an emergency. This includes orientation on humanitarian accountability and compliance. Staff and partner understand and practice the non- discrimination principle of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Code of Conduct, and associated principles of impartiality and neutrality in all humanitarian operations.

HAF shortcoming: Working with Partners The HAP standard emphasizes that organizations “working with partners need to apply the HAP Standard in relation to its partners and to work with partners to identify appropriate ways for them to meet the HAP Standard in relation to the people they aim to assist and other stakeholders”. The HAP Standard further requires that organizations working with partners ensure that staff who interact with partners understand the partnership agreements, the implications of the organization’s accountability framework for partners, and each partner’s obligations. “The 2010 HAP Standard in Accountability and Quality Management,” The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, 2010.

Questions please