Client-Responsive Programming Framework

IRC’s Approach to Accountable Programming

Annexes

Beta Version, December 2016

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Annex 1: Complete List of People Consulted about Client

Responsiveness during the Development of this Framework

The authors would like to thank the following for their invaluable contributions to the content of

the Framework, and the feedback which many of them gave on drafts:

IRC Staff Reviewers

Jonathan Beloe Henrik Boejen Sheree Bennett Laia Blanch Emma Child Patrice Comoe Boa Alyoscia D'Onofrio Daniela De Franco Geoffroy Grolleaux Giorgio Faedo Michelle Gayer Anne Godard Marie France Guimond Ongagwa Gwambaye Kieran Harris Alice Hawkes Lily Jiang Jeff Kalalu Shuna Keen

Noemie Koudier Sergio Kristensen Patricia Kroell Christof Kurz Guillaume Labreque Tzvetomira Laub Oliver Lough Helene Maire Jacqueline Manning Andrew Meaux Matias Meier Tobias Metzner Abukar Mohamud Kate Mojer Mark Montague Liam Morgan Bobi Morris Claire MtGillem Melissa Mulligan

Maclean Natugasha Gergey Pasztor Ellen Patterson Erica Pilcher Stefanie Plant Vanessa Ortiz Wale Osofisan Khusbu Patel Jason Phillips

Pasteur Ruberintwari Zeina Shuhaibar Sanj Srikanthan Kimberly Smith Julie Taft Nicole Walden Martha Williams Mina Zingarello

External Reviewers

Nik Rilkoff, Danish Church Aid Carla Benham, World Vision UK

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Annex 2: IRC’s Commitment to Client Responsiveness Client responsiveness is important to the IRC for many reasons. We believe that:

…by soliciting feedback from our clients on the relevance, quality, and timeliness of our services, we will be better able to ensure that our services are effective in achieving the outcomes we and they seek to achieve. (Effectiveness)

… people affected by crises understand their own needs, preferences, resources, capabilities, and opportunities better than we do. If we listen to aid-affected populations, we will use the resources we steward more wisely. (Efficiency)

…by asking our clients about their perspectives and priorities during post-crisis recovery, we help preserve their sense of self-esteem and sense of agency enabling them to engage and to take control of their lives and futures (Empowerment).

…if we routinely ask our clients about their perspectives, priorities, and expectations and demonstrate that we are listening and responding to them, then clients will gain trust and understanding of IRC and our work. (Trust)

… aligning our programming with the voiced preferences, aspirations, and expectations of our clients is the right thing to do. (Ethical)

by being more client responsive, we contribute to the IRC’s Code of Conduct and institutional goals (such as the IRC 2020 objectives around responsiveness, effectiveness, empowerment, and gender equality) and become more competitive. (Institutional strengthening)

Client responsiveness fits into several of the IRC’s existing internal commitments:

The IRC Way:

Integrity: “we work to build the trust of the communities in which we work.”

Service: “IRC encourages self-reliance and supports the rights of people to fully participate in the

decisions that affect their lives.”

Accountability: “We are accountable and transparent.”

Existing Emergency Unit commitments:

Accountability Statement: “A commitment to a paradigm in which crisis-affected populations are fully

understood to be the reason our unit exists, and their needs and aspirations are always what is most

important to us.”

Program quality statement: “We are committed to ensuring that constant improvements are planned

for, implemented, monitored, and evaluated throughout the entire life of our programs.”

IRC 2020 Strategic Plan:

“We will make our work more responsive to the aspirations of the clients and communities we serve.”

IRC European Strategy: Transparency:

“IRC in Europe will build an evidence base to show that being client responsive makes a difference to

the impact of our programmes (and that it also offers better VFM (value for money) than not doing so).”

“We place … client responsiveness ... at the centre of everything that we do”

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Where client responsiveness fits into IRC’s existing external commitments: Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct: “Ways shall be found to involve program beneficiaries in the management of relief aid. Disaster response assistance should never be imposed on beneficiaries.” Sphere Humanitarian Charter: “We acknowledge that our fundamental accountability must be to those we assist.” Core Humanitarian Standards: “Communities and people affected by crisis:

…Receive assistance appropriate and relevant to their needs; …Are not negatively affected [by assistance]; …Have access to information and participate in decisions that affect them; …Have access to safe and responsive mechanisms to handle complaints.”

The Inclusion Charter: “We will systematically engage with all affected people, including the most marginalized, to deliver meaningful participation and consultation to ensure that their views are reflected in all aspects of the response including assessment, design, delivery, and monitoring and evaluation.”

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Commitments & Policies: “Accountability to affected populations is an active commitment to use power responsibly by taking account of, giving account to, and being held to account by the people humanitarian organizations seeks to assist.”

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Annex 3: Select Areas Where Client Responsiveness and

Other IRC Practices and Priorities Complement Each Other

Outcomes & Evidence Framework (OEF)

How OEF supports client responsiveness How client responsiveness supports OEF

OEF helps contextualize, balance, and triangulate client

perspectives.

Client perspectives helps contextualize,

balance, and triangulate evidence from the

OEF and provide new insights.

Adaptive Management (ADAPT)

How ADAPT supports client responsiveness How client responsiveness supports ADAPT

Adaptive management provides the flexibility to change

programming based on client feedback.

Client perspectives better inform our

understanding of our performance in real-time.

Protection Mainstreaming

How Protection Mainstreaming supports client

responsiveness

How client responsiveness supports

Protection Mainstreaming

Protection mainstreaming relies on risk analysis based

on client consultations. Holding those consultations and

responding to risks helps to create safe conditions of

trust and dignity where clients feel empowered to

engage with the IRC.

Client responsiveness provides a channel for

communicating barriers to access and threats to

safety and dignity, including sexual exploitation

and abuse (SEA), corruption, code of conduct

violations, etc.

Measurement / Monitoring for Action

How Measurement supports client responsiveness How client responsiveness supports

Measurement

Information from clients which is captured to verify

project delivery and progress complements client

perspectives collected on a broader range of topics not

directly related to the results chain. Data from other

sources captured for project monitoring also helps to

contextualize, balance, and triangulate client

perspectives.

Client perspectives captured on a broader range

of topics than the project results chain can help

with making sense of project monitoring data,

better inform mid-course corrections and exit

evaluations.

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

EPRU Accountability & Feedback Protocol

How EPRU protocol supports client responsiveness How client responsiveness supports EPRU

protocol

EPRU has developed a set of tools and protocols that

can inform how other units at the IRC implement client

feedback channels.

Ongoing client responsiveness before

emergencies can provide a foundation for

emergency teams’ accountability strategies.

Context Analysis & Conflict Sensitivity (CA/CS)

How CA/CS supports client responsiveness How client responsiveness supports CA/CS

Quality context and conflict analysis helps us better

understand who our clients are and how to engage

them. Context analysis also helps to contextualize client

perspectives.

Client perspectives better inform our

understanding of the shifting contexts of

disasters and crises.

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Annex 4 – Assessment and Prioritisation Tools See accompanying Client Responsive Programming Actions and Enablers Assessment Tool.

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Annex 5 – Common Barriers to Participation in Feedback

Mechanisms Feedback channels need to be selected, established, and managed in ways that provide meaningful and safe access for all clients. Barriers to accessing feedback channels are highly context-dependent and will require a thorough context analysis. Some common barriers to participation in a feedback mechanism are as follows:

Level of literacy among community members;

Cultural appropriateness of face-to-face communication between different gender groups;

Existing community structures, local power dynamics, the extent to which leaders represent the community, and who are the “gatekeepers”;

Marginalization/exclusion which may impact the ability to give feedback or complaint;

Protection, confidentiality and privacy needs;

Risks that local people may encounter if they file a complaint;

Power dynamics between staff, partners and clients;

Level of acceptance of IRC staff and safety and security risks for staff;

Public mobility and participation in public meetings for different gender and age groups;

Access to mobile phones for different gender and age groups;

Communication channels suitable in urban vs. rural contexts;

Financial constraints when client travel is involved;

Appropriateness of the language used to communicate: both the language, dialect and tone;

Access for the disabled, elderly, and other groups with special needs

Resource:

Consider using the Protection Mainstreaming “Sector-Specific Guidance Notes” on identifying access barriers

for further examples. Context Analysis and Social Network Analysis may also assist in understanding these

dynamics

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Annex 6: Definitions and Key Concepts for Building Feedback

Channels

A Closed Feedback Loop: CDA-ALNAP Guidance defines: “A feedback mechanism is seen as effective if, at minimum, it supports the collection, acknowledgement, analysis and response to the feedback received, thus forming a closed feedback loop. Where the feedback loop is left open, the mechanism is not fully effective.”1

Feedback Channels: are specific methods or tools by which complaints and feedback are collected. Methods can range from low-tech and traditional tools such as logbooks, suggestion/feedback boxes, satisfaction surveys, and questionnaires to ICT-enhanced channels such as telephone hotlines, SMS-based feedback systems, and crowdsourcing platforms. Informal methods include community help desks, community meetings, and feedback gathered in open-ended conversations during monitoring visits Complaints vs. Feedback: Feedback refers to non-sensitive issues, positive or negative, raised by our clients. Feedback encompasses commendations, suggestions, and complaints about relevance and quality of our services and projects or can be more open-ended in nature (i.e. suggestions of other types of services and interventions). Sensitive complaints refer to allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), corruption, and staff misconduct etc. Type I Feedback: CDA-ALNAP guidance describes this feedback as, “feedback concerning day-to-day implementation, often focused on the quality, type of assistance and users preference about the assistance provided). This type of feedback can be relatively easy (less complex) to act on. This is feedback that often calls for project level adjustments, mid-course modification such as ‘tweaking’ of service delivered or changes to the project in the course of implementation.” Type II feedback: CDA-ALNAP guidance describes this feedback as, “feedback that speaks to ‘big-picture issues’. It often touches on issues beyond the scope of work or remit of a single agency, of a single cluster, or even of the humanitarian community working in a certain context. It often touches on strategic issues at the broader level of the humanitarian response and strategies taken to support people’s and national government’s relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts. This is feedback that may challenge the very premise of a program / or its relevance and context appropriateness. Often such feedback also touches on intended and unintended impact of the program. It is more complex to act on as it often requires input and coordination from different actors (local, internal, humanitarian, non-humanitarian).” It is equally as important as Type I feedback but needs to be managed in a different way as it often requires reflection and action beyond the day-to-day operations of field staff.

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Annex 7: Opportunities and Constraints Presented by your

Operating Environment

IRC does not operate in a vacuum. We can integrate the steps of the client responsiveness cycle flawlessly into all of our programmatic, technical, and administrative processes, and still encounter barriers to putting client responsiveness into action. This section will seek to acknowledge the barriers that are beyond the IRC’s immediate control, and present opportunities for how other institutions and agencies can help us to create an enabling environment for client responsiveness. Donors – The IRC is of course accountable to our donors, as they provide the resources for us to carry out our work across the globe. Donors can provide great incentives for innovation, or can create significant barriers for change, based on how they prioritize and allocate funding. For instance, if we are willing and able to make those changes but our donors are not, then it will be difficult to be responsive and make the necessary changes to our projects. It is best to be up front with donors and advocate for a certain degree of flexibility from the time we finalize our project designs.

Constructive Steps: Many donors are now integrating client responsiveness and accountability into their minimum standards. The IRC can work with donors at different levels to help create an enabling environment:

Awards Management Units in headquarters can advocate for donors to change the way they conduct RFPs to allow more time for consultation and the flexibility for different perspectives. They can also help us to learn how to use the donors’ own language to advocate for responsiveness.

Country Programme Teams can actively maintain a dialogue around client responsiveness with local or regional donor representatives. Show them some of the feedback and demonstrate how you put it into action. If local donor representatives are on your side, you have a powerful advocate.

Constraints

Short timelines to respond to Requests for

Proposals (RFPs) that don’t give the time

for consultations

RFPs are often prescriptive and don’t offer

room to respond to client perspectives in

our project designs

Grant agreements and modification

procedures don’t support easy mid-course

corrections

Concerns about negative client feedback

affect future funding opportunities

Opportunities

Many donors are beginning to understand

the benefits of accountability

Many donors now requiring client

responsiveness; this makes IRC competitive

Advances in donor support for adaptive

management practices

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

M&E and Grants Compliance teams can help to demonstrate that client responsiveness has

a positive impact on program outcomes, and that ‘negative’ client feedback is not a sign of failure, but actually presents great opportunities for course corrections.

National & Local Governments – The IRC is also accountable to national and local governments. If governments truly operate as representatives of their people, then they should be ideal allies of client responsive practices by international NGOs. However, in some countries governments may perceive our client responsiveness efforts as a threat to their authority or reputation.

Constructive steps:

Country Programme Teams can build positive relationships with national and local governments, explaining the IRC’s rationale for collecting and using client perspectives in support of effective assistance to people affected by crises. Country management may consider sharing aggregated, non-identifiable client perspectives with government representatives to work collectively with them in identifying solutions to those needs that we cannot single-handedly respond to. If working with government actors as partners, we can collect their perspectives as part of our commitment to being responsive to those we serve and to those that we’re working with. By actively collecting and using their perspectives in our programming and modelling responsive partnership, we can create support for client responsiveness with government partners

Constraints

Client feedback often highlights failures in

state services that the IRC cannot address

in the long-term, which reflects negatively

on the government’s image

Some governments see accountability as

threatening and may constrain our ability

to engage meaningfully with clients.

Some governments may block action taken

in response to client feedback

Opportunities

If governments are seen as advocating for

community priorities to NGOs, that is

positive for their image.

The IRC can model accountability by being

more responsive to government partners’

feedback

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Local Implementing Partners – In many countries, the IRC works with local implementing partners. As the primary interface with our clients, how our local partners understand and carry out client responsive practices has a significant impact on how client voices are heard by the IRC as well as how clients perceive the IRC’s responsiveness to their needs.

Humanitarian Peers – We are often not the only humanitarian agency functioning in a given crisis. How our peers engage with affected populations affects how our clients may perceive us, and how we collaborate and coordinate can increase or decrease how effective we can be at addressing client priorities.

Constraints

Staff lack of capacity for data management

and qualitative analysis

Perverse incentives: may see negative

feedback as threatening to future funding

Lack of gender or other identity needs

among many local partners may preclude

the full participation of women or other

marginalized groups in voicing their

opinions.

Opportunities

Local partners often have better access to

clients and may know how to engage more

meaningfully

Local partners may best understand the

barriers to client participation, and thus

may be able to find better, more creative

solutions for soliciting client feedback

The IRC can strengthen partners’ capacities

for responsiveness, accountability, and

protection

Good responsiveness practices can build

trust in local civil society

Constraints

If other actors have collected feedback and

not closed the loop in the past, clients may

be reluctant to share their perspectives

with us

Other partners may not be receptive to

receiving negative feedback about

themselves

Lack of coordination mechanisms to

aggregate feedback ensure unified

responses to clients

Opportunities

If clients prioritize something the IRC can’t

provide them, we can refer them to the

agency who can

If clients prioritize something that no

partner can do, agencies can come

together to advocate for solutions

Possibilities for identifying broader trends

across projects and agencies

From Harm to Home | Rescue.org

Clients – We can never forget that clients have agency and can also themselves create barriers to or can enable client responsiveness. Not everyone will see the value in taking time to provide their perspectives in how the IRC is carrying out its work. However, the aspirations, expectations, and opinions of our clients also provide the driving force behind any responsiveness initiative; if clients want their voices to be heard, whether or not the IRC is ready to listen, they will make their voices heard.

Constructive steps: Many donors are now integrating client responsiveness and accountability into their minimum standards:

Lead by example: if the IRC models the behavior we wish to see – if we share information

with our humanitarian peers, listen to our implementing partners, and communicate honestly

with our clients – we can build trust and facilitate reciprocal behavior.

Understand local power dynamics: the more that you understand local power dynamics, the

better you can put checks and balances in place to prevent gatekeepers.

Explaining how feedback works: take extra time to explain to clients and partners that

feedback will not be perceived as ungrateful and it will not jeopardize services. Explain how it

is one element among many that the IRC has to take into account, which also sets

expectations and provides clarity on some of the constraints that we face.

This product has been funded by the UK Department for

International Development.

The IRC would like to thank the UK Government for their

generous support to the IRC/DFID Strategic Grant, Making the

Case, Making the Difference: Strengthening Innovation and Effectiveness in Humanitarian Assistance.

Constraints

Certain members of the community may act

as ‘gatekeepers’ and prevent diverse voices

from reaching us

Certain cultures see complaining as

ungrateful and are unlikely to provide

negative feedback

Certain clients may fear reprisal or end of

services, despite reassurances from IRC

Opportunities

Provides clients with an actual channel for

engagement and influence over services

that impact their lives

Clients will learn more about how

humanitarian programs work, and what

they can and cannot do

May provide an experience of ‘democracy’

in societies where governments are not

responsive