3. Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF)

The Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS),launched in December 2014, is a set of nine Commitments to communities and people affected by crisis that encapsulate principled, accountable and good quality humanitarian action. While a voluntary code for humanitarian actors at present, the CHS aims to become a means of certification of agencies delivering humanitarian aid. CARE contributed to the development of the CHS and became a founding member of the CHS Alliance in June 2015.

The CHS replaces the 2010 HAP Standards, People in Aid Code of Good Practice and (in 2017) Sphere Project core standards, but sits alongside the Sphere Project Technical Standards and Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief as an inter-agency humanitarian standard.

While the CHS is intended in part to consolidate the very many standards that have been produced to guide global humanitarian programming over recent decades, its raison d’être is to facilitate greater accountability to people affected by crisis because ‘knowing what humanitarian organisations have committed to will enable them to hold those organisations to account’. The CHS, in other words, places people affected by crisis at the centre of humanitarian action and promotes respect for their fundamental human rights.
For more general information about the CHS refer to the CHS Guidance Note and Indicators; FAQs about the CHS and Sphere; and the CHS folder in Minerva, or the FAQs about the CHS and CARE

Each CHS Commitment includes its own set of Performance Indicators, Key Actions and Organisational Responsibilities against which CARE is able to test and demonstrate its compliance.

As a founding member of the CHS Alliance CARE is also committed to contribute to the constant improvement of CHS verification tools and mechanisms. Therefore CARE might decide to adapt any of the CHS quality criteria and particularly the CHS indicators when we deem it appropriate in order to reflect CARE’s specific aspirations especially with regards to gender equality and women’s voice as well as on inclusive governance. In any case, CARE will consider and respect CHS indicators as the minimum standard.

Refer to the generic CHS Guidance Note and Indicators and CHS self-assessment tool for further details and guidance relating to the monitoring of each Commitment.

In CARE performance of a response against these quality criteria is measured through ongoing monitoring (see M&E chapter), Rapid Accountability Reviews (RAR) and CHS verification processes, as described in the HAF Accountability System section below.  Please also refer to the CHS Scorecard for a snapshot of CARE’s performance against these

CARE is committed not only to upholding and promoting high standards of quality and accountability in its humanitarian programming, but also to demonstrating its own best practice. CARE is required to follow the four-stage CHS Verification Scheme, managed by the CHS Alliance – self-assessment, peer review, independent verification and certification – which allows it to measure and evidence its compliance with CHS Commitments at  varied levels of rigour and objectivity.

The CHS self-assessment tool guides organisations through the collection of evidence including structured feedback from staff, partners and people affected by crisism generated from the monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian actions  as well as from the review of documented organisational policies and procedures. the tool includes a scorecard whereby top-line scores against each of the nine Commitments as well as scores for diversity and for every Performance Indicator, Key Action and Organisational Responsibility that fall under each Commitment are generated.

In CARE’s case and for the sake of efficiency and complementarity, CHS verification processes will benefit from existing process and tools:

• CHS Key Actions:  Routine monitoring and evaluation and particularly Rapid Accountability Reviews (RAR) which take place during each CARE emergency response and are centred around the nine CHS Commitments will generate the core of the required data and documentation.
• CHS Organisational Responsibilities: Lessons and recommendations from After Action Reviews and response evaluations will ensure that CHS verification processes are rooted in the real, current experience across emergencies and across the CARE confederation.

For further details about the link between CARE’s accountability processes and CHS assessments refer to section 6 (HAF Accountability System).

Under the leadership of the CARE Emergency Group (CEG), CARE will complete its first CHS self-assessment by June 2017 and will then set out a timeline and process for achieving full CHS certification.

The CARE Program Strategy indicates that CARE is committed to the provision of quality, gender-responsive humanitarian assistance and protection which is locally-led.

The scale of this goal is set to a target of at least 10% of the people in need of humanitarian assistance (OCHA defined) to be participating in CARE’s humanitarian programmes in line with the aforementioned characteristics. Based on various forecasts for trends of natural disasters and human-made crisis we estimate that most likely this translates into at least 50 million people affected by major crisis who, with the support of CARE and its partners, will receive quality, gender-responsive humanitarian assistance and protection which is locally-led

Two global indicators allow CARE to monitor this this goal and targets:

• 19. # and % people satisfied with safety, adequacy, inclusiveness, and accountability of humanitarian assistance and/or protection services provided by CARE and partners.
• 20. # and % people (as % of People in Need where applicable) who obtained (directly/indirectly) humanitarian support and/or protection services provided by/with support from CARE and partners in line with global standards of lifesaving & quality assistance.

Obviously, each response will have its own specific targets based on the operational environment and on the focus on people with particular vulnerability profiles. It is important that each response team defines and justifies the precise scale of the planned interventions in a response strategy.

Furthermore, every humanitarian response by CARE is expected to reflect CARE’s focus on four core sectors – WASH, Shelter, Food & Nutrition Security and Sexual, Maternal & Reproductive Health in emergencies (links to the relevant sections in CET). For each type of intervention, the response strategy should set out specific targets and time frames for individual monitoring and reporting within CARE as well as in the humanitarian system. However in principle CARE aims to develop and implement humanitarian responses which:

• are largely focused on (not more than) 1-2 core sectors
• show clear complementarity between interventions of different sectors

CHS commitments 1 and 2 relates to the Appropriateness, Impartiality, Effectiveness and Timeliness of the response as:

• expressed in the relevant Humanitarian Principles
• defined by the CHS performance indicators for commitments 1 and 2
• laid out by CARE protocols and SOPs

The related Performance Indicators require therefore the documentation of internal processes and decisions as well as the monitoring of the satisfaction of the affected people with CARE’s humanitarian interventions.

In order to align with the Global Programme Strategy CARE teams are expected to develop response strategies and implement humanitarian responses that are compliant with criteria established by the CARE Approach Markers

• Gender Marker (minimum score: 2)
• Inclusive Governance Marker  (minimum score: 1)
• and Resilience Marker (minimum score: 1) : support building back stronger approaches for recovery and link to recognised resilience strategies

In its Humanitarian and Emergency Strategy (HES) CARE states its ambition to be a leading humanitarian agency known for  its particular ability to reach and empower women and girls in emergencies as well as:

• its culture of humanitarian leadership and accountability at all levels
• the efficiency of its operational models which expand and nurture strategic partnerships with traditional and non-traditional actors at the local, national, regional and global levels
• the talent, capabilities and capacity of its staff in terms of global preparedness, surge and response management capacity
• its sustainable business model which ensures adequate funding and effective use of resources for humanitarian preparedness and response

The HES sets out organisation-wide strategic priorities for achieving the institutional and operational strengths required to establishing CARE as a leading humanitarian agency. The following table provides an overview of core performance criteria linked to each strategic priority.

content to be developed

The term ‘accountability monitoring’ is used to mean the monitoring of our performance on accountability as described by the thrid pillar of the CARE Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF). In Chapter 32 of the CET you’ll find a more detailed description of CARE’s Quality and Accountability commitments for humanitarian programming.

Accountability monitoring can help CARE to:

• Check that the accountability systems that have been set up are working effectively.
• Focus our monitoring on approach, processes, relationships and behaviours, quality of work, satisfaction as well as outputs and activities.
• Priortise listening to the views of disaster affected people to assess our impact and identify improvements.
• Provide a feedback opportunity for staff, communities and other key stakeholders to comment on our response and how we are complying with our standards and benchmarks.

Accountability monitoring contributes to CARE’s overall monitoring and evaluation activities. Aspects can be integrated into other project monitoring tools, or carried out as a specific activity e.g. a beneficiary satisfaction survey or FGD (Focus Group Discussion) to solicit feedback and complaints from specific groups amongst the crisis affected population, with specific vulnerabilities or in isolated communities as part of a formal complaints mechanism. Ideally, accountability mechanisms and the monitoring of their effectiveness should be built into project proposals from the outset.

Accountability data (including complaints data) needs to be incorporated into monitoring reporting, alongside monitoring of project progress.

Rapid Accountability Review (RAR)

The Rapid Accountability Review (RAR) is the central tool for accountability monitoring in CARE’s humanitarian programmes.

What is a Rapid Accountability Review?

A RAR is a rapid performance assessment of emergency response against CARE’s HAF that takes place within the first few months of an emergency response. It generates findings and recommendations that are used to make immediate adjustments to the response. It is also a key source for any response review and performance management process.  It usually entails interviews with CARE management, staff, communities and other key external stakeholders, and is led by an independent team leader.

What is the purpose of a RAR?

The overall goal of the RAR is to improve the quality of CARE’s response by assessing its compliance with established good accountability practice. More specifically, the RAR:

• Provides a real time assessment of HAF compliance early during a humanitarian response
• Ensures that the views of our key stakeholders are taken into account in making adjustments to our response and in drawing lessons learned.
• Identifies good practices, highlight gaps (including gaps in capacity)  gaps and areas for improvement
• Makes recommendations to CARE management (CO, CI and CARE Members) for immediate action related to the ongoing response

When does it take place?

• Ideally, a RAR is conducted within 2 months of the start of an emergency event, and feeds into the general response review and performance management process
• A similar process can also be repeated at later stages of response in order to take stock of HAF compliance and improvements made, or to feed into a particular event such as a response evaluation, an emergency strategy review, or EPP event

How to conduct a RAR?

Detailed  information about how to conduct a RAR can be found in the Annex 9.6  RAR-Guidance. 

In summary a Rapid Accountability Review should ideally include:

• A self-assessment by CARE staff and partners against relevant indicators (see Annex 9.7: staff engagement)
• Focus group discussions with affected populations (see annexes 9.8a, 9.8b, 9.9,)
• key informant interviews
• an synthesis and analysis meeting / workshop to review results of the above and prepare lessons and recommendations for the ongoing response and for an After Action Review (AAR – see section 8. Learning and Evaluation activities) below

Other examples for accountability monitoring can be found at Annex 9.9a Sample of accountability monitoring tools, including:

• Checklists.
• Simple questionnaires.
• Focus group discussion tools.
• Staff review tools.
• Monitoring tool to help research into local communities’ views.

The RAR Summary (annex 9.6a) provides a tool that facilitates the synthesis of information collected during the accountability monitoring in an organised way against the 9 commitments of the HAF. It also identifies which key performance criteria are relevant at what stage of the response or for what level of accountability review (light, basic, comprehensive).

Depending on the methodology and format of the RAR there can be different reporting formats. Here are few examples:

• RAR findings Ethiopia 2017
• RAR report Haiti 2017 (french)
• RAR/AAR report Papua New Guinea 2018

Checklist

• Organise an After Action Review.
• Conduct an evaluation when required.

CARE’s Policy on Evaluations is available at Annex 9.1. This policy highlights CARE’s commitment to learning from humanitarian response with a view to improve our practices and policies for future responses. All CARE COs are required to comply with this learning policy. Support and advice can be provided by CEG for learning activities.