May 2012 Development of an Accountability Framework for CARE International

Why was an Accountability Framework needed?  Research (e.g. a ECB study in 2007) found agencies had too many standards, principles and guidelines…confusing, rather than helping field staff.  Agency performance management systems and donor incentives often don’t reward application of relevant standards.  Agencies are not sufficiently accountable to communities, partners or even to their own internal stakeholders.

Increasing criticism of NGOs  Governments questioning the lack of transparency, cost-effectiveness and marginal impact by NGOs.  A Google search for “NGO Watchdog” returns almost 1½ million hits. Most of these links are to articles and blogs questioning the value-added of NGOs.

Accountability “Cloud” What are we actually accountable for? Local Partner Codes Anti-Terrorist Act National Laws Internal Principles Donor Compliance Cluster Standards UN agency guidelines Host Govt. Standards Local Culture Procurement Regulations Sphere Standards Agency Operations Manual Accountability Frameworks Code of Conduct Internal Project Standards HAP Standards Assistance Delivery

Stakeholder Accountability “Cloud” Who is actually accountable for what? Local Partners Lead Member HQ National Government UN Resident Coordinator Federation Cluster Coordinator Humanitarian Coordinator Govt. Tech Depts. UN Agency Communities Contractors Peer NGOs Donors Country Office Regional Office Senior Management

Stakeholder Power Relations Donor Reps Trad. Leaders Communities Beneficiaries National NGOs Senior Mgmt Nat. Tech Depts. Armed Groups UN Agencies Peer Agencies Cluster Coordinator Agency Donor Govts. Women Less powerMore power Vulnerable Groups Local Partners Host Govt. Men Boys Girls

 No!!! CARE managers only ask for something simple that pulls together existing accountability commitments.  Staff want a tool that can help managers and their teams to be able to address imbalances when meeting these commitments. Isn’t the Accountability Framework just another new initiative?

Dropping the “H” from the HAF CARE’s governance agreed that:  The POC, supported by a Task Force, leads the development of a CI AF  The AF will cover all aspects of CARE’s programming and operations  Communities will be a central focus  As many CARE staff were already using the HAF, this would be the starting point

Development of CARE’s Accountability Framework

Start with…a Map! Step one: know where you’re heading…  What internal and external standards, principles, etc. is CARE signed up to?  Who within CARE has a key role in promoting accountability and how do they define it?  What ongoing processes can this complement?  What are the relevant lessons from peers?  What should a CARE Accountability Framework look like?

What were the main findings from this mapping study?  CARE staff wish to incorporate accountability more fully into their work;  CARE is not sufficiently accountable to communities, our partners, our advocacy targets or the environment;  A big challenge is to reconcile donor compliance while increasing our accountability to communities;  Need more accountability between CARE members;  CARE staff want a robust compliance mechanism for an Accountability Framework so that it is actually applied;  There are many examples of existing good practice which CARE can build upon.

How could an Accountability Framework be put into practice? Accountability processes  Communicate in an open and honest way  Give stakeholders a voice in our decision making  Actively seek feedback and complaint from others  Demonstrate impact, quality and effectiveness  Learn with and from others Accountability enablers  Demonstrate attitudes and behaviors that reflect our  principles and values  Develop appropriate systems to support accountability  Encourage leadership at all levels

Piloting/Testing Steps  Of all our stakeholders, which are the key ones?  What is our relationship to our beneficiaries?  What are our commitments to key stakeholders?  Commitments and practice – what are critical gaps?  Which policies/processes can address gaps?  How can we tell whether we are meeting our commitments? What are our indicators?  How can the AF be improved?

Current Status of the AF…  AF communicated and discussed within CARE  Agreeing on a high-level statement, alongside CARE’s Vision & Mission  AF and draft guidelines being tested in different CARE organisational units  AF is being adopted as a change management process across the organisation for CARE’s 2020 Strategy  Considering setting up an external reference group to support CARE  Pilot version of AF to be approved during 2012

Likely AF Structure  The AF will be two pages; a one page graphic plus some narrative  A series of guidelines for different CARE functional units (e.g. program, finance, etc.) will be attached as annexes  The Humanitarian Accountability Framework will thus be replaced by an annex once the pilot AF is in place.

Some Key Challenges…  How can we rationalize and prioritize all our commitments to produce a useful AF? What will we have to leave out? How will we need to change ourselves?  How can we consider the potential impact on communities during our decision-making processes?  How can we ensure that CARE has the necessary motivation, capacity & resources to put the AF into practice?  How can we still fulfill our accountability commitments when working via partners?