report on the hap psea conference 2014

Transcription

Photo courtesy of ACT/Paul Jeffrey
REPORT ON THE HAP
PSEA CONFERENCE 2014
DO COMPLAINTS MECHANISMS WORK?
Funded by the US Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees & Migration
Facilitated by Corinne Davey, Director, Keeping Children Safe
Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Notes from the Conference, 8 May 2014 ................................................................................................ 6
Welcome from HAP’s Executive Director, Marian Casey-Maslen ............................................ 6
Screening of the new version of the film To Serve With Pride ................................................... 7
Panel ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Innovations in practice (discussion groups) ................................................................................. 13
Opportunities and responsibilities for the sector: Complaints, transparency and
building relationships ............................................................................................................................ 16
Complaints mechanisms and PSEA: What next? ......................................................................... 18
Closing words from Marian Casey-Maslen, Executive Director of HAP .............................. 19
Notes from the PSEA Practitioners’ Event on 9 May 2014 ........................................................... 20
Annex A: Panel presentations from 8 May ......................................................................................... 23
Annex B: Participant list from PSEA Conference, 8 May ............................................................... 32
Annex C: Participant list from PSEA Practitioners’ Event, 9 May ............................................. 36
Annex D: Background paper: Do Complaints Mechanisms Work?............................................ 38
Annex E: PSEA Conference evaluation comments ........................................................................... 43
www.hapinternational.org
Report on the HAP PSEA Conference 2014
2
Summary
Seventy-five representatives of non-government organisations, United Nations agencies and donors
gathered on 8 May 2014 to discuss challenges and solutions relating to complaints handling, with a
particular focus on handling complaints of sexual exploitation and abuse by our own workers. Thirty
participants continued the discussions for a further day, in an event specifically for prevention of
sexual exploitation & abuse (PSEA) practitioners on 9 May.
Key findings (drawn from a combination of the presentations and participant discussions)
Do complaints mechanisms work?

The large number of organisations now implementing or setting up complaints mechanisms
demonstrates the sector’s commitment to this aspect of accountability. For example, the
number of HAP members with complaints mechanisms increased from 28 in 2010 to 55 by 2012.

Experience from agencies represented at the meeting suggests that complaints mechanisms
specifically for complaints of sexual exploitation and abuse work less well than complaints
mechanisms set up to receive complaints on an organisation’s service delivery as well as the
conduct of its representatives.

Complaints mechanisms are important, but other avenues for uncovering issues of sexual
exploitation and abuse must also be used – including proactively monitoring for such concerns,
speaking with and listening to affected communities.
Interagency complaints mechanisms

Interagency complaints mechanisms in general are challenging to establish and implement, but
they facilitate reporting and they may make it easier for staff members to blow the whistle on
issues within their own organisation.

Research in Kenya suggested that communities use various processes to complain – some formal,
some informal – and did not always go first to the NGO’s complaints mechanism. Alternative
routes that they used included local government channels and traditional methods of dispute
resolution.
Community engagement on complaints mechanisms

Knowledge, attitude and practice surveys relating to the complaints mechanism have been used
amd found helpful in ensuring that the mechanism is developed and implemented in a way that
is appropriate for the community in question. They can also give a baseline from which to
measure impact after the mechanism has been set up.

It is currently unclear if complaints mechanisms are picking up reports of sexual exploitation and
abuse. A possible reason for this was thought to be insufficient awareness-raising by
3
organisations with communities on their code of conduct and how communities could hold them
accountable for the behaviour of their representatives. It was also felt that communities may
find it difficult to trust the mechanism, and might have particular concerns about whether
confidentiality will be maintained. The importance of having excellent channels of
communication between the organisation and every layer of the communities they work with
was affirmed.

It was noted that cultural and other sensitivities are a particular challenge in organisations’ work
on SEA and broader complaints handling in some contexts.
The use of technology in complaints mechanisms

Mobile phone technology has been found to be useful in handling feedback and complaints in
the situation of remote management in Somalia (http://drc.onlinefeeds.org/).

Technology can add a dimension as a channel for lodging complaints, but it is important that
confidentiality is assured. In some situations, people feel more comfortable with one-to-one
conversations. This is particularly the case where the issue is of SEA.
Publication of information about complaints

Positive experience of publicising data on complaints received was reported, in that donors and
others have expressed their appreciation of the organisation’s commitment to transparency.

Because it is known that low number of reports do not necessarily reflect the actual situation, it
is important for organisations who are publicising information about complaints received to
clarify this for their audience.

HAP is currently developing guidelines and a protocol for organisations interested in publishing
information on the complaints they receive.
Internal organisational arrangements for working on PSEA

Locating the PSEA function within the internal audit department in an organisation has been
found helpful in ensuring that cases are followed up seriously.

A continuing challenge of visibility of the issue of SEA within organisations was highlighted.
Solutions proposed were learning events for senior managers, and induction and regular
refresher training for the staff as a whole.
Recommendations

As more organisations invest resources in working together on interagency complaints
mechanisms, it would be helpful if more research, including quantitative research, could be
undertaken to see if they are effective. Is it the best solution for the people we aim to assist? The
4
research could also consider how an interagency complaints mechanism could be made
sustainable.

More information is needed on how the legal systems in different countries relate to and impact
organisations’ work on PSEA, including employment law and data protection.

Consider how the existing ways of complaints handling/dispute resolution in communities can be
incorporated into organisations’ strategies for complaints and feedback whilst upholding basic
principles of safety and confidentiality.

Learning from investigations into SEA allegations from different agencies to be anonymised and
gathered into a single report, to gather and share organisations’ experience to assist in improving
practice going forward. NB: HAP has offered to coordinate this.

Organisations to review current internal practice and ensure that ongoing age-sensitive
awareness raising of their codes of conduct amongst the people they aim to assist is undertaken
as a first and critical step in the establishment of complaints mechanisms (and even in the
absence of the establishment of these mechanisms).

Participants to discuss with senior management in their organisations how to make their
organisations more accountable for their PSEA responsibilities, including building staff awareness
on PSEA, and strengthening PSEA systems overall.

Consideration to be given on how organisations may be able to build staff capacity to flag early
warning signs of potential SEA, such as grooming behaviour, through complaints and feedback
received, so that abuse may be prevented.

A clearer rationale to be developed for encouraging organisations to publicise information about
the complaints they receive. What do we hope will be achieved by doing this?

Indicators for monitoring inappropriate conduct by staff, including that of a sexual nature, to be
reflected in risk assessment matrixes and monitoring & evaluation processes, and PSEA given
explicit consideration when designing and delivering programmes through a ‘do no harm’
approach.

Given that PSEA and accountability are interlinked, a closer collaboration between PSEA and
accountability specialists could be helpful in setting up effective and robust complaints
mechanisms able to solicit and handle SEA concerns.
5
Notes from the Conference, 8 May 2014
Welcome from HAP’s Executive Director, Marian Casey-Maslen
Marian Casey-Maslen welcomed everyone to the conference on Protection from Sexual Exploitation
and Abuse (PSEA) and in particular exploring whether or not complaints mechanisms are an effective
accountability mechanism in the context of PSEA.
She thanked the US Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration who have consistently
supported efforts to protect crisis-affected populations from SEA by aid workers and without whose
support the event would not have been possible.
She noted that the conference was not just about complaints. It was about complaints in the context
of SEA. In the past two decades, one of the greatest affronts of dignity by staff of aid organisations
has been that of sexual exploitation and abuse of the people they are there to assist. These involve
situations of armed conflict and other situations.
The respect for human dignity is an explicit, if not the key, underlying human rights principle.
Furthermore, the right to humane treatment is at the heart of both human rights law and
International Humanitarian Law. SEA is not only a violation of the right to dignity; it is a threat to the
health and well-being of all aid programme participants. It undermines the integrity, reputation and
effectiveness of humanitarian action by causing harm to the very people we aim to assist.
We know that progress has been made by some NGOs, UN agencies and donors in ensuring
functioning feedback and complaints mechanisms and we congratulate those who have publicly
shared data related to allegations of SEA and their related outcomes. But it is also well known that
the rate of related criminal prosecutions on SEA remains negligible. There is therefore limited data
and analysis for SEA in the NGO domain and one can only imagine that with an estimated 250,000 aid
workers globally the threat of SEA by aid workers of communities and people affected by crisis
continues.
Sexual exploitation and abuse is one of the greatest abuses of power and its prevention is a key
concern for HAP and in particular, the protection of crisis-affected populations from SEA by aid
workers. It is now nearly more than a decade since the concept of complaints mechanisms in
humanitarian work was proposed. This is a good time to review where we are, and to see if and how
they are working.
This PSEA conference – entitled “Do Complaints Mechanisms Work?” - aims to identify key learning
and action points from developing knowledge and practice on the best means to facilitate reporting
of sexual exploitation and abuse by aid workers. We will hear from organisations which are
implementing complaints mechanisms about the challenges they have experienced and the results
they have observed.
6
Screening of the new version of the film To Serve With Pride
The revised version (2013) of the film To Serve With Pride: Zero Tolerance for Sexual Exploitation and
Abuse was shown in full to the conference participants. This 20-minute film was made to raise
awareness among UN and related personnel about the impact of acts of sexual exploitation and
abuse on individuals and communities. It provides clear information about the obligations of all
people serving the UN as stated in the Secretary-General’s Bulletin on Special Measures for
protection from sexual exploitation and abuse (ST/SGB/2003/13).
The film can be watched and downloaded, and copies ordered from the home page of the InterAgency Standing Committee (IASC) Protection from Sexual Exploitation & Abuse (PSEA) Taskforce
website at: http://www.pseataskforce.org. It is available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish
and Russian, along with a discussion guide.
Following the screening, there was an opportunity for questions to the co-producer of the film,
Jaqueline Carlson of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Question: The child safeguarding team of one organisation shared that they use the film frequently
in internal training within their organisation. Nevertheless, it is a challenge to ensure that staff are
aware of the issue, of the duty to report suspected sexual exploitation or abuse (SEA), and that they
understand that the code of conduct applies in their personal lives also, not only during working
hours.
Answer: Jacqueline mentioned, in response, UNDP’s global campaign to raise staff awareness of
PSEA. The applicability of the code of conduct outside office hours is always the subject of many
questions during staff trainings. Jaqueline felt that we needed to speak more clearly and openly
about it with staff, emphasizing the implications, such as the fact that the purchase of sex is
forbidden by the Secretary-General’s Bulletin, whether or not prostitution is legal in the country in
question.
Question: The challenge of denial of sexual abuse and exploitation was highlighted. It is crucial that
NGOs come to understand why it is important to have a complaints mechanism.
Answer: Jaqueline agreed, affirming that if there is no complaints mechanism, it is more difficult for
a complaint to be raised, and this facilitates the possibility of managers ‘turning a blind eye’ on the
issue. Materials and a guide for a learning event for senior managers on PSEA was developed by the
Task Force in 2009, and is available at http://www.pseataskforce.org/uploads/tools/1328636755.zip
Question: Arising from the Philippines and Syria crisis responses: how should international
organisations apply complaints mechanisms in crisis and/or conflict situations?
Answer: Jaqueline suggested that in these contexts, the key is to ensure that the affected
communities know where to come if they want to lodge a complaint.
Question: Cases of SEA are very challenging to deal with, and can be risky and costly. An organisation
shared how they are currently facing legal action relating to a dismissal made ten years ago in a case
7
of SEA. More work needs to be done on how the legal systems in the contexts relate to/impact on
our work on PSEA.
Answer: Jaqueline noted that the majority of cases that are raised after a long time never get
resolved. One has to work with the national government to investigate, to know the facts and prove
there was an abuse. We need to continue to look for ways to collaborate more with national
authorities.
Question: In the West Bank and Gaza, women would be reluctant to seek legal redress for SEA for
fear of losing their family and job. If they do make a claim, how can we, as NGOs, best support them?
On a separate issue, it seems that young boys are probably also exploited but that these cases are
even less likely to be reported, and were not featured in the film To Serve With Pride.
Answer: Jaqueline noted that when an investigation takes place within UNDP, the complainant may
be taken to another country if there is a risk of reprisals. It takes time to gain the trust of a
community to facilitate the reporting of SEA against boys and men, even more than for girls and
women. Time pressures in the production of the film meant that it was not possible to build this level
of trust, but certainly such cases do occur.
8
Panel
Nicole Gaertner, US Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (BPRM)
BPRM, the humanitarian arm of the Department of State, works on protection, assistance and
durable solutions for refugees and other displaced populations, primarily multilaterally through
international organisations and UN agencies, as well as bilaterally through NGOs. Since 2003, they
have required all partners to have PSEA codes of conduct in place.
BPRM has recently launched a new initiative to address gender-based violence at the onset of global
humanitarian emergencies, called Safe from the Start. Funding of US $10 million has been allocated
for this, as well as new funding for NGOs for more innovative work on gender-based violence,
including PSEA. BPRM has supported HAP and InterAction to help organisations build their capacity in
PSEA work. The challenge for organisations is to build their capacity to operationalize their codes of
conduct through establishing accountability work plans on PSEA.
Since 2011, BPRM has requested partners to develop a PSEA work plan and has provided assistance
and technical advice for organisations as needed. Partners have noted that managing the
implementation of these work plans is a challenge. BPRM also continues to work to promote
harmonisation between donors on PSEA.
Building the capacity of local partners is key to improving accountability towards beneficiaries. Many
national NGOs have little expertise on PSEA, especially on investigating allegations. Those that do it
best have excellent communication channels with the communities they work with, as well as
established safe and effective complaints mechanisms.
Lucy Heaven Taylor (for World Vision):
The most common structure for a complaints mechanism structure is that a complaint is raised and
then dealt with by the NGO in question. World Vision research suggests that the situation in the
contexts where we work is often far more complex than this.
In June 2013, World Vision undertook research in their Angurai programme in Kenya, involving
60,000 community members. Focus groups gathered information on codes of conduct and World
Vision policies. Discussion was initiated on setting up a joint interagency complaint mechanism. It
was found out that communities use various processes to complain, some formal, some informal,
and they did not always use the NGO’s complaints mechanism first.
When interagency coordination is attempted, the situation becomes even more complex, because
each organisation has its own mechanism. The more stakeholders there are, the more likely it is that
breaches of confidentiality can become an issue.
Two examples of inter-agency complaints mechanisms are the Kenya Refugee Programme 2004-2006
and the one implemented in the Thai Burma Border Refugee camps between 2007 and 2010.
Prerequisites are interagency PSEA protocols agreed by all agencies, codes of conduct developed in
local languages, staff training during recruitment and induction, a network of agencies (PSEA focal
points are useful), awareness-raising for all staff, and excellent accessibility. Discussion points arising
from the research were:
9



What does our complex working environment mean for accountability mechanisms?
Do we need more research on the effectiveness of joint inter agency complaints mechanisms?
Should we have separate complaints for SEA? If not, how do regular complaints mechanisms
need to be adapted for receiving and dealing with allegations of SEA?
The full presentation can be read in Annex A.
Luc Ferran, International Rescue Committee
Luc shared the experience of conducting a knowledge, attitude and practice survey of users of the
BPRM-funded IRC-implemented community-based complaints mechanisms project on the Thai
Burma border. He urged that such a survey should be included in any project (at the beginning, midpoint and at the end) to ensure that the programmes developed are appropriate for the community
in question.
Rita Mamai, Danish Refugee Council (DRC)
DRC established a beneficiary feedback system in Somalia using SMS technology. The pilot project
took place in June 2011 and it continues to operate now. Beneficiaries give feedback through text
messages, email and voice calls (for those unable to write). This system is helpful as access is a
challenge in Somalia because of the security issues. It is quick and convenient for beneficiaries, DRC
staff can easily access the information, and it helps DRC better monitor the effects of the projects on
the ground.
Concretely, the beneficiary sends an SMS to 332 (connected to all the four telecom service providers
in Somalia) and gets an automatic response. Then, the feedback is analysed, translated into English
and uploaded on the ‘dashboard’. The SMS is followed up through focal points and an appropriate
response is given to the beneficiaries. Sometimes, extra information is requested for clarity (such as
location). When the problem is resolved, it is recorded on the dashboard. The dashboard has two
domains: public and private. The name and telephone number of the complainant are hidden in the
public version. Sensitive complaints can only be accessed in the private domain.
Through this system, DRC received complaints, requests, enquiries, suggestions and appreciation,
with the majority of submissions being requests for services.
Emebet Dlasso and Eric Dentor, International Medical Corps, Ethiopia
IMC are part of a pilot interagency community-based complaint mechanism for protection from SEA.
IMC is working with UNHCR, ARRA (the Ethiopian government refugee agency), Save the Children,
World Food Programme and International Organisation for Migration. IMC is in charge of the
implementation. The project is funded by the US Bureau of Population, Refugees & Migration.
10
Technical support is provided by the IASC AAP/PSEA Task Team. The implementation started in
November 2013, when key staff members were recruited along with refugee volunteer workers, who
were trained to become community mobilisers. Standard Operating Procedures are under
development, along with a steering committee and a clearing house to receive the complaints.
Francesca Bonino, ALNAP
What elements do effective feedback mechanisms include? Here are some reflections based on the
recent research by ALNAP and CBA.
The feedback loop is a closed one: the feedback is given, there is acknowledgement, analysis, an
action is taken (or not), and then a response is given to the community. The response is key to close
the loop and is linked to the flexibility to change. It is important to make mid-course corrections, by
adjusting the service delivery or taking other necessary actions to address problems as they come to
light.
There are resource issues when a feedback mechanism is established. During the collection phase,
technology may assist us, but we should beware of this being to the detriment of data analysis. The
data needs to be analysed; investigation and reporting must take place. Identifying which
communication tools and channels are most appropriate for the use in the feedback and complaints
mechanism is key.
There are specific considerations to keep in mind: confidentiality, repercussions, timing expectations
of quicker and individualized follow-up. Formalising a feedback mechanism is not always the best
way. Traditional systems used on the ground may be more effective. Complaints, on the other hand,
need more formal mechanisms.
Session wrap-up:




How can we build a system/use a system that is informal? What is in place? What about the use
of technology?
Complaints mechanism for complaints of SEA: Should it be a separate one?
What about children and complaints?
Are partnerships good for PSEA?
11
Questions/comments on panel presentations:
Question: How can we make a complaints mechanism project more sustainable so that it continues
in the long term? The commitment is questionable after the project ends.
Answers:
We need to think about the context we are working in and ask ourselves, is an interagency
complaints mechanism better? It can be very efficient and has an added value, but it represents a lot
of work. It is therefore worth thinking about when to do it or not.
For example, in the SMS feedback system, partners and service providers are involved. The Somalia
community appreciates the system of complaints and feedback. Other agencies have shown interest
in the SMS feedback system (such as the UNICEF and the WFP). The fact that national staff are
implementing the system is a step towards sustainability.
If we have new partners for a complaints system, they must sign the protocols. Informing people is a
critical part of accountability. We must monitor the awareness and continue fundraising to enable us
to keep informing beneficiaries of their right to give feedback.
Question: Often, formal systems are not the more effective. They may not work for people who
cannot read and write, and vulnerable people may not be able to access them easily. We need to
consider the rights of the population we assist. Awareness raising activities on rights is key. How does
PSEA relate to GBV programming? How can we link them in humanitarian contexts? It can be
challenging for international agencies to ensure that the mechanisms are effective on the ground.
How can we work with partners to make sure they are effective?
Answers:
SEA can be addressed with the GBV programme in place. The response mechanism works better
when GBV services are already in place.
Getting commitment from agencies to share information is another challenge, and even more when
the organisation’s staff uses data protection as confidentiality peace.
Question: How can we work on PSEA within data protection laws?
Answers:
Bilateral agreements are more and more used - protocols between agencies and an agreement that
sets the tone for complaints handling, and specify how information can be shared. It is important
that complainants are informed about the extent to which the information they give will be shared.
12
Innovations in practice (discussion groups)
Community engagement on complaints mechanisms
















Have a staff member whose specific role is to engage with communities
Know the communities that you work with
Train people who are enthusiastic about these mechanisms to train their own community, to
improve community engagement.
Look to implement safer programming
Take advantage of existing structures, such as effective community mechanisms for dispute
resolution
Make the most of existing channels and capacities within the organisation
If there is a lack of judicial systems, such as in Somalia, having a complaints mechanism may put
complainants at risk
Prevention: Ideally, a mechanism would have the capacity to flag up behaviours that are
worrying, before abuse occurs
Consultations should include all members of the community, and be aware that the term
‘complaints’ can be a loaded one in some cultures
Promote community committees (with gender/age representation)
Inform communities about the follow-up on complaints
Provide psycho-social support from the very beginning and especially throughout emergency
response
Local governments should be encouraged to have complaints mechanisms - not only NGO
projects
Children can also discuss in groups as is done for adults, according to the context
The trust of beneficiaries is key to make complaints mechanism work: communication with every
layer of the community is important
Beneficiaries could also choose someone to be part of the investigation conducted by the
organisation (designated as “focal point for beneficiaries”).
13
Complaints mechanisms and technology
Key ingredients for the use of modern technology:













Assessment: Who in the target population has access to technology? (for example, in order for
SMS feedback: people need to have access to a phone)
Capacity and skills technical know-how (e.g. how to write SMS/illiteracy)
Ask for preferred ways of communication and monitor their effectiveness (if actually used) (e.g
Philippines: SMS, Facebook; Somalia: Twitter)
Allow technology use in local languages (e.g. Somali for SMS)
Allow staff time for follow-up/response
Technology is not the only channel: Face-to-face contact cannot be eliminated
Communicate the channels, the option of complaining in different languages, which number to
call etc. Also let communities know what the internal process is within the organization.
Allow people to test the mechanism
Monitor: Get users’ feedback and learn from it
Importance of confidentiality and safety: password, restricted intranet vs public domain (focal
points to filter)
Have trained investigators
The telecom service providers should not be able to access the content of messages
Take into account the funding and the cost to beneficiaries of using the system.
Challenges:






What might work in a context does not in another (such as, SMS for sensitive complaints)
Government control over email
Ambiguities in written communication may lead to misunderstandings
Instability due to conflict /crises
Cost of use for beneficiaries
Maintain confidentiality, respect and credibility in the community (for SEA and harassment).
Requirements:





Staff / time involvement
Capacity building
Technology does not replace human interaction (in particular, in the case of SEA complaints,
face-to-face communication is better because of the fear of reprisals)
Proper follow-up by staff (requests for more information, if required, response)
Protocols for the use of technology.
14
Interagency complaints mechanisms














When is it worth it? It depends on the context: You need to consider where you are, whether it
can work or not. Joint complaints mechanisms and investigations are good, but require
commitment to come together under a common effort. It can work, but there are always
challenges. Might it be better if organisations strengthened their internal complaints
mechanisms first?
Agencies need to share their Code of Conduct
Joint agency protocols
Information sharing between agencies
Stronger members supporting those with less capacity
Lead agency coordinates the network.
Look at different disciplinary procedures (NGO/UN). Procedure is very different for UN and NGO
but inter agency might work.
Pick up SEA through informal feedback (especially GBV programmes)
Staff members may strongly prefer to whistle blow to another agency rather than their own,
feeling it will protect them from retaliation
What is the best solution for the beneficiaries? We should not look at what is easier for ourselves
but rather provide an effective mechanism for the beneficiaries
How to make an inter-agency complaints mechanism sustainable (in terms of funding as well)?
Organisations need an internal complaints mechanism even when they are also part of an
interagency mechanism
An interagency mechanism may save money
Challenge: who is taking the responsibility of complaining about other agencies? There is a risk
involved.
Session wrap-up:



Engaging communities in the complaints mechanisms is very important - they must recognise the
mechanisms in place.
Interagency mechanisms are challenging, but they facilitate the reporting and they may help staff
members who need to whistle blow on their own organisation.
Technology can add a dimension as a channel for lodging complaints, but it is important that
confidentiality is assured. In some situations, people feel more comfortable with one-to-one
conversations.
15
Opportunities and responsibilities for the sector: Complaints, transparency and building
relationships
Who do we consider to be our partners in making complaints mechanisms work?







Local authorities (local service providers particularly – state, not NGOs)
Community structures
Youth networks and clusters
Beneficiary groups (children, elders, community leaders, etc)
Local NGOs
INGOs
Donors and other supporters
What do we need from our partners and what can we provide them to make complaints
mechanisms work?
What we can provide:







Mutual trust and respect
Train a person that is enthusiastic to train people in community
Provide coaching (including induction)
Provide robust technological solutions
Provide information
Awareness raising
Technical support
What we need from our partners:



From the government: We need the first response to issues related to rights. Enforce existing
laws.
Need transparency from ourselves and partners, open dialogue to facilitate aid mechanisms
working and communication between stakeholders.
Listen and learn from partners (bottom up approach). Look beyond the usual partners.
What are the challenges?





Cultural barriers to complaints being raised.
Lack of resources.
Lack of accountability structures
Government not always has time to address this issue.
Working with children: high risks, so must be careful when working with them
16

Challenges internally as an organisation (resources, time available to do the work well) and
beyond the organisation.
Making information on complaints public (including SEA complaints)





Challenges: gap in communication, low numbers of reports may give a falsely reassuring
impression of the prevalence of SEA
What do we achieve in making this information public? Needs to be examined (purpose of
sharing the information)
An analysis of what we have learned/what we have done after is a good thing to move forward
It would be good to do reporting not only on the number of cases which sometimes are made
public but also on monitoring information (e.g. how many staff were trained on PSEA)
Welcome signs that the sector is moving towards being more transparent.
17
Complaints mechanisms and PSEA: What next?
Reflections on the day:

Involving communities in complaints mechanisms is challenging but crucial.

Can the collaboration between different NGOs on inter-agency complaints mechanisms work? It
is critical to analyse and find out the solutions when there are risks involved.

It would be helpful if organisations would share information more systematically on the
complaints they receive.

Internal awareness raising and sufficient resourcing are key.

Technology can be used in creating awareness on SEA.

Trust is crucial. If it does not exist, no complaints will be brought. Organisations must sensitise
the communities with whom they are working, and build that trust.

Recent experience suggests that complaints mechanisms specifically for SEA complaints work
less well than complaints mechanisms set up to receive complaints on an organisation’s service
delivery as well as the conduct of its representatives.

Complaints mechanisms are important, but there are also other avenues for uncovering issues of
SEA – including proactively speaking with affected communities and listening to what they have
to say.

With regards to mechanisms more accessible for children, we should look at what sorts of
mechanisms work for them already and work to improve these.

We need to strengthen the way that we handle complaints.

We can learn a lot through investigations and improve after them.
Wrap-up:
Themes that emerged from the day:

Partnerships: Within and beyond organisations;
18

Innovation and learning: The need for innovative tools to help us find better and stronger
practices;

Strategy: The requirement for short, medium and long-term strategies on reporting of PSEA.
Closing words from Marian Casey-Maslen, Executive Director of HAP

HAP is committed to seeing PSEA high on the agenda and to supporting HAP members and
others, where requested, in their work on PSEA.

The IASC AAP/PSEA Task Team is key for collaborative working by UN and NGOs on PSEA.

HAP is looking to see how PSEA can be included within the upcoming Core Humanitarian
Standard.
19
Notes from the PSEA Practitioners’ Event on 9 May 2014
Session 1: Consultation on draft guidelines and protocol on publication of complaints
metrics
Participants kindly participated in a consultation on the draft guideline and protocol being developed
by HAP to encourage organisations to share information on the type and number of complaints they
receive.
Session 2: Follow up and actions out of the 8 May Conference
Raising awareness
Communities: As part of prevention of SEA, communities need to know that their right to assistance
comes without obligations. It is important that the message is very clear. We need to have frank
conversations with communities. Until this is carried out on a wide scale, it is difficult to judge
whether or not complaints mechanisms are actually working as channels for reporting SEA. Could we
develop common materials for raising awareness with communities? A working group of the IASC
AAP/PSEA Task Team are in the process of developing a campaign for PSEA with a Swiss public
relations company. In addition, Save the Children International’s Child Safeguarding Team will be
looking to develop such materials, and would welcome working with others collaboratively.
Senior management: There is a need to raise awareness of SEA amongst senior management,
including senior management of smaller, national organisations, to promote their ownership of the
issue. Getting senior management engaged is essential, but is often challenging.
Organisation staff: Field workers need to be sensitized on early signs that there may be an issue of
SEA, to give them confidence in flagging it up.
Governments: For example, Kenya has a new Sexual Offences Act, but work is needed to raise
awareness on it and encourage its enforcement.
Incorporation of SEA into risk assessment
There was discussion of the need to incorporate SEA into risk assessment matrixes. The idea of safer
programming, and the ‘do no harm’ approach were seen to be key. One organisation has sited its
PSEA unit within the internal audit department, and felt that this had had a beneficial effect in
getting attention on the issue. UNHCR is looking at ethics-based risk management, which would
include SEA.
Action: Keeping Children Safe and HAP will identify key tools for incorporation of SEA in risk analysis,
and will share these with the attendees of this event, and through the HAP website resource section.
20
Working with partners
The possibility of including gender assessments in partner assessments was suggested.
Involvement of donors
Donors’ influence is helpful in pushing organisations to put in place measures for protection from,
and response to, SEA, and it would be very good if more donors were to take this on.
Reporting of SEA
It seems that SEA cases are often not being reported through formal complaints mechanisms.
One possible explanation for this is the often short-term nature of humanitarian interventions, which
means that there may not be enough time to build a relationship of trust with the affected
communities, through raising awareness and demonstrating the reliability of the complaints
mechanism. There may be concerns about confidentiality, and what will happen after a complaint is
made. Cultural and other sensitivities may also hinder reporting. It is important that organisations
understand the context in which they are working, so that they are aware of what barriers there may
be which could prevent complaints from being made. Consulting with communities as part of the
development of the mechanism should also help enhance its effectiveness, particularly in terms of
them identifying the appropriate channels through which they would want to make complaints.
Action: HAP & Keeping Children Safe will work together to collect, disseminate and/or develop more
guidance on PSEA in rapid response situations.
Some SEA cases seem to be coming in during organisations’ monitoring of their work, and sometimes
as unsolicited feedback. Is there a need to incorporate the issue systematically in monitoring, and
what would it take to achieve this? Could it be done through GBV partners? Ideally, those who deal
directly with communities would be informed on the issue of SEA, alert to hearing or otherwise
noticing early indications, and prepared and confident in how to deal with an allegation
appropriately. Oxfam mentioned that they had had positive experiences of training implementing
partners on this.
Staff training
For International Medical Corps, new staff must score 100% on their online induction training on
PSEA before they can be deployed. Furthermore, all staff members are required to participate in
annual refresher training on PSEA.
Self-assessment
A number of tools exist for organisational self-assessment on their PSEA work.
Action: A PSEA self-assessment is available. It will be sent out to participants of this event, and also
posted in the resource section on the HAP website (by end June 2014).
21
Learning from investigations
It was suggested that organisations could benefit from sharing their learning from the SEA
investigations that they have undertaken. It was further recommended that refresher training for
investigators be offered, where they could offer support to each other, sharing frustrations and
ideas.
Action: HAP agreed to invite organisations to share learning from investigations, and to put together
and disseminate a report, with all identifying details removed.
Sharing of information on perpetrators
The issue of sharing information between organisations on SEA perpetrators was raised.
A draft report by an IASC AAP/PSEA Task Team task group, entitled Guidelines on Good Practice in
PSEA NGO Recruitment and HR Processes, is available online.
Session 3: Short training on PSEA
In the afternoon, HAP trainers assisted by Christine Lipohar, Rita Mamai and Eric Dentor, delivered
an optional two-hour introductory training on PSEA for participants. This was attended by sixteen of
the participants.
22
Annex A: Panel presentations from 8 May
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Annex B: Participant list from PSEA Conference, 8 May
#
Name
Position
Organisation
01
Aarno Lahtinen
Organisational Development
Coordinator
Finn Church Aid
02
Alma Alic
Ethics Officer
World Health Organisation
03
Anbreen Ajaib
Senior Program Specialist-Gender
Strengthening Participatory Organization
04
Aneeta Williams
Gender, Children & Vulnerable
Adults Global Advisor
Tearfund
05
Angela Muchai
Programmes Manager
Kenya Catholic Secretariat
06
Anna Praz
Humanitarian Policy and Advocacy
CARE International Secretariat
Officer
07
Barbara Wetsig-Lynam
Director for Quality Assurance,
Identity and Learning
ACT Alliance
08
Bibekananda Biswal
Deputy Manager-Program &
Emergency
Lutheran World Service India Trust
09
Burçu Munyas Ghadially
Accountability Adviser
Save the Children UK
10
Camille Marquis
Humanitarian Affairs Intern
EU Delegation
11
Christina Oberli
Gender and Diversity Advisor
ICRC
12
Christine Lipohar
Consultant
Independent
13
Coralie Colson
Senior Investigation Specialist
UNHCR
14
Corinne Davey
Director
Keeping Children Safe
15
Danisa Blaser
Care Emergency Group Program
Quality Intern
CARE International Secretariat
16
David Loquercio
Head, Policy & External Relations
HAP International
17
Deqa Yasin
Operations Manager
IIDA Women’s Development Organisation
18
Elisabeth Biber
Emergency Response Team
Welthungerhilfe
19
Emebet Dlasso
Senior Program Officer
International Medical Corps
20
Eric Dentor
GBV/PSEA Manager, Dolo Ado
21
Ester Dross
PSEA, Gender, Child Protection
and AAP consultant
Independent
32
22
Eva Csergö
Certification Officer
HAP
23
Eva Viden
Management Coordinator
Diakonia, Sweden
24
Fadumo Mahmoud Dirie
Project Coordinator
Galkayo Education Center for Peace &
Development
25
Florence Charrière
Intern
HAP International
26
Francesca Bonino
Research Officer, Evaluation,
Learning & Accountability
ALNAP
27
Geneviève Cyvoct
Membership Services Officer
HAP International
28
Gitte Krogh
Senior HR Consultant and Legal
Advisor
DanChurchAid
29
Hannah Clare
Head of Global Safeguarding
Oxfam GB
30
Hélène Maillet-Maghdessian
Admin & HR Officer
HAP International
31
Imogen Jacobs
Attachee
ICRC
32
Indira Joshi
Liaison & Operations Officer
FAO
33
Isabelle Robinson
Project Associate
UNHCR
34
Jaqueline Carleson
Human Resources
UNDP
35
Janette Moritz
Head, Staff Development &
Learning
International Child Safeguarding
Director for West and Central
Africa
Quality & Outcomes Project
Manager
UNOCHA
36
Jérôme Conilleau
37
Jules Tompkins
38
Karen Glisson
Senior Membership & Training
Officer
HAP International
39
Kate Latimir
SRHR Programme Officer
Plan International
40
Laila Al Amine
Operations Officer
ICMC
41
Lamba Nfanda
Responsible of Education,
Accountability Focal Point
OFADEC
42
Latha Caleb
International Director of Child
Safeguarding India
Save the Children International
43
Laura Cometta
Humanitarian Protection Advisor
Concern Worldwide
British Red Cross
33
44
Lilia Aporo Alenyo
Associate Project Coordinator
InterAid Uganda
45
Luc Ferran
Director for Integrity &
Accountability
International Rescue Committee
46
Lucy Heaven Taylor
Consultant
World Vision
47
Madara Hettiarachchi
Associate Director, Humanitarian
Accountability
World Vision
48
Manisha Thomas
49
Marian Casey-Maslen
Executive Director
HAP International
50
Massimo Nicoletti Altimari
Senior Q&A Officer
HAP International
51
Matthew Serventy
Coordinator
IASC AAP/PSEA Task Team
52
Melissa Horn Albuja
GBV and Child Protection Advisor
PRM – U.S Mission, Geneva
53
Menaca Calyaneratne
Director
54
Merce Duran-Sindreu
Consultant in Marketing &
Communication
CIPINA
55
Michel Dikkes
Policy Assistant
HAP
56
Mubarak Maman
Director
57
Mugo Muita
Consultant
Independent
58
Murray Garrard
Communications Officer
HAP International
59
Nadia Dhamani
60
Nicole Gaertner
61
Nimao Amir
Intern
World Health Organisation
62
Papon Lucile
Desk Officer
Handicap International
63
Petra Feil
Program Officer
Lutheran World Federation
64
Philip Simon
Gender Coordinator
IOM
65
Rita Mamai
DHAP Coordinator
Danish Refugee Council, Somalia
IASC Secretariat
Assistant Manager, Organisational Church World Service
Development
Pakistan/Afghanistan
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of
Foreign Affairs Officer
Population, Refugees, and Migration
(PRM)
34
66
Rosie Oglesby
Humanitarian Accountability
Coordinator
ActionAId
67
Sagal Cali
Project Coordinator
Somali Women Development Center
68
Sara Halimah Al-Khalidi
Programme Officer
Medical Aid for Palestinians
69
Smruti Patel
Head of Humanitarian Action
NGO Management Association
70
Sonya Wellhausen
Junior Expert Evaluation
Welthungerhilfe
71
Stephen Robinson
Global GenCap Advisor to the SRP
UNDP/GenCap
72
Theodora Stoyanova
73
Tristan Burnett
Interim Global Coordinator,
PSEA/CBCM
IOM
74
Viktoriya Oberson
Finance and Administration
Manager
HAP International
German Mission to UNOG
35
Annex C: Participant list from PSEA Practitioners’ Event, 9 May
#
Name
Position
Organisation
01
Anbreen Ajaib
Senior Program Specialist-Gender
Strengthening Participatory
Organization
02
Aneeta Williams
Gender, Children & Vulnerable
Adults Global Advisor
Tearfund
03
Angela Muchai
Programmes Manager
Kenya Catholic Secretariat
04
Bibekananda Biswal
Deputy Manager-Program &
Emergency
Lutheran World Service India Trust
05
Burçu Munyas Ghadially
Accountability Adviser
Save the Children UK
06
Christine Lipohar
Consultant
Independent
07
Corinne Davey
Director
Keeping Children Safe
08
Danisa Blaser
Intern
Care International
09
Deqa Yasin
Operations Manager
IIDA Women's Development
Organisation
10
Elisabeth Biber
Emergency Response Team
Welthungerhilfe
11
Emebet Dlasso
Senior Program Officer
12
Eric Dentor
GBV/PSEA Manager, Dolo Ado
13
Ester Dross
PSEA, Gender, Child Protection
and AAP consultant
Independent
14
Fadumo Mahmoud Dirie
Project Coordinator
Galkayo Education Center for Peace &
Development
15
Florence Charrière
Intern
HAP International
16
Isabelle Robinson
Project Associate
UNHCR
17
Jérôme Conilleau
Director
18
Karen Glisson
Senior Membership & Training
Officer
HAP International
19
Lamba Nfanda
Education Manager
OFADEC
20
Latha Caleb
International Director of Child
Safeguarding
36
21
Lilia Aporo Alenyo
Associate Project Coordinator
Interaid Uganda LTD
22
Lucy Heaven Taylor
Consultant
World Vision
23
Menaca Calyaneratne
Director
24
Merce Duran-Sindreu
Consultant
CIPINA
25
Mubarak Maman
Director
26
Nadia Dhamani
Assistant Manager, Organisational Church World Service
Development
Pakistan/Afghanistan
27
Philip Simon
Gender Coordinator
IOM
28
Rita Mamai
DHAP Coordinator
DRC Somalia
29
Sagal Cali
Project Coordinator
Somali Women Development Center
30
Sara Halimah Al-Khalidi
Programme Officer
Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP)
31
Sonya Wellhausen
Junior Expert Evaluation
Welthungerhilfe
37
Annex D: Background paper: Do Complaints Mechanisms Work?
Complaints mechanisms are seen as an essential element of accountability to crisis-affected
populations, and are promoted by standards setting and advisory bodies including HAP, the Sphere
Project, the IASC Commitments on Accountability to Affected Populations, and the IASC Minimum
Operating Standards on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA) by our own personnel.
The IASC Commitments on Accountability to Affected People include the following:
Actively seek the views of affected populations to improve policy and practice in programming,
ensuring that feedback and complaints mechanisms are streamlined, appropriate and robust enough
to deal with (communicate, receive, process, respond to and learn from) complaints about breaches
in policy and stakeholder dissatisfaction.
Why should we have a complaints mechanism?
The idea of a humanitarian or development organisation having a complaints mechanism was almost
unheard of even ten years ago. The need was first identified when the joint evaluation (1996) of the
response to the Rwanda genocide and the 2002 discovery of widespread sexual exploitation and
abuse by humanitarian workers and peacekeepers in West Africa highlighted a serious disconnect an accountability deficit - between the organisations and the people they aimed to assist. This deficit
was observed again in the joint evaluation (2007) of the Indian Ocean tsunami.
It is now recognised that the populations we aim to assist have a right to complain if we fall short of
our commitments in terms of programme delivery and staff conduct. Complaints mechanisms are
supposed to provide the channel for this, and the hope is that they will facilitate the identification of
abuses, including sexual exploitation and abuse, enhance the participatory process, and highlight
shortfalls and gaps in service delivery and programme quality. The data obtained through
systematically recording and analysing the complaints received can assist in improving relevance and
targeting of the services offered.
The role of leadership on complaints mechanisms
The UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin on Special Measures for the Protection from Sexual Exploitation
and Sexual Abuse (2003) charges management with a particular responsibility for developing and
implementing mechanisms to prevent abuse:
… staff are obliged to create and maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and
sexual abuse. Managers at all levels have a particular responsibility to support and develop systems
that maintain this environment.
The importance of leadership and buy-in by senior management on policies and procedures for
dealing with sexual exploitation and abuse, and other breaches of accountability, is crucial, and is
essential in the development and operation of complaints mechanisms.
How can complaints mechanisms enhance programme work?
Experienced programme managers will reflect that there have always been complaints to deal with
in the delivery of our work. Whilst good-hearted individual aid workers have always responded to
complaints with respect, tact and commitment to improve, organisations as a whole have previously
38
lacked a sense of being answerable to the communities we aim to assist (or, often, the host
governments of the countries where we work) – their emphasis has been on accountability to
donors, who have been in a stronger position to require this. There was insufficient recognition of
the time and effort which is required to work in a more responsive, inclusive and transparent way
with the affected populations, and the policies, procedures and funding to facilitate this had been
missing.
Making provision for the affected communities to be involved in the project planning,
implementation and evaluation, and sharing information with them in a timely and accessible way
should assist in making us more accountable and more effective. Having a complaints mechanism
enhances these measures, providing the necessary ‘safety valve’ through which issues can be
highlighted where participation and information sharing have fallen short. Furthermore, having a
system and procedures for handling complaints helps us to be more consistent and effective in our
response, and saves us time because we do not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ in determining how will
we respond to each complaint as it comes.
What progress has been made in introducing complaints mechanisms?
The last five years have seen great progress by organisations in developing and implementing
complaints and response mechanisms. The number of HAP full members with complaints handling
capacity went from 28 in 2010 to 45 in 2011, 55 in 2012. HAP’s annual Perceptions of Accountability
survey observed an increase from 52% (2009) to 60% (2012) in aid workers rating their organisation
highly on its efforts to foster an environment where the assisted population can raise a complaint
about staff misconduct (including sexual exploitation and abuse). This progress is the result of much
committed work and innovation, including:

Commitment by organisations’ senior management to develop and implement complaints
mechanisms

Efforts to ensure community participation in complaints handling, from design through
evaluation

Initiatives to work jointly with partners and other agencies on complaints handling

The use of technology for gathering complaints and analysing those received

Advocacy for the publication of data on complaints received, for transparency, and to promote
wider sectoral understanding of the issues.
What does a ‘working’ complaints mechanism look like?
So what is the experience so far? Do complaints mechanisms work? First of all, it is worth considering
what it means to say that a complaints mechanism is working. This cannot be judged on the number
of complaints received – a complaints mechanism which does not receive any complaints may just as
well be an indication that the mechanism is not trusted as that there are no problems at all in that
programme. There are many barriers which can deter anyone from filing formal complaints, and
even more for the people we aim to assist. The scale of under-reporting is very difficult to assess.
Nevertheless, recent experiences of organisations suggest that the introduction of a complaints
mechanism is a revelation in terms of the complaints that then start arriving.
At a basic level, a working complaints mechanism is one which receives complaints, processes them
in an effective and confidential manner, takes appropriate action in response, and gives feedback to
39
the complainant (ALNAP, 2014). At a more ambitious level, we would perhaps want to take into
consideration whether we and our beneficiaries felt that the complaints mechanism helped them to
exercise their rights and that they saw that it had improved the working relationship and
communication between us. Furthermore, we would look for evidence that it had helped us to
identify gaps in our programming and issues of staff misconduct, so that we could take the necessary
action expediently, and before the scale of the problem or abuse escalated to a point where the
relationship between community and organisation was damaged, the delivery of the work affected
and the reputation and integrity of the organisation was undermined. Ideally, also, a ‘working
complaints mechanism’ would bring the above benefits at a level which justified the investments
made in it – although perhaps not in the initial stages of development and implementation.
What has the experience been so far with complaints mechanisms?
Systematically-collected data on complaints mechanisms and PSEA is in short supply, but the
anecdotal evidence is that the experience of organisations introducing complaints mechanisms has
been mixed so far. It has been difficult to judge the level of resourcing that will be needed, and some
systems have become bureaucratic weights around the neck of programme managers. Some phone
lines (notably in Haiti) have been overwhelmed with calls and have had to close down. Others find
that cultural or contextual factors can make people unwilling to come forward with complaints, and
their mechanism is barely used. Staff morale has been affected by investigations, particularly into
allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, with a frustration and concern expressed that the
quality of investigations is inadequate, opening the possibility for malicious complaints to be made
where a grudge is held, and the accused will be fired more often than not. An early over-reliance on
complaints boxes is now being adjusted, and other options for channelling complaints offered
(Ferran, Wood et al, 2012).
From an early case study of CARE International in Cambodia (Puno, 2006); ‘Project staff should visit
each village regularly and talk with people – this is perhaps the most effective complaint mechanism
of all. This was how the best project feedback was gathered.’
David Bainbridge’s consideration of Tearfund’s experience identified challenges for communities and
staff. Communities expectations were raised when they filed a complaint, and they became
frustrated when follow up was not done as they expected. Building trust and confidence in the
system took time. Managing confidentiality was difficult when feedback was given in meetings in
areas where the tradition is predominantly verbal and literacy rates are low. Handling complaints
against community leaders was very sensitive. Staff felt under pressure due to lack of understanding
of the complaints mechanism, and feared the implications of being reported by the communities or
their colleagues. It was challenging to find a balance between having dedicated accountability staff
and making sure that accountability was understood as everyone’s responsibility (Bainbridge, 2011).
What do crisis-affected communities think of our work on handling complaints?
What do the populations we aim to assist have to say on the subject? The 2013 HAP deployment to
Ethiopia consulted groups of Borena and noted, ‘Community members consistently repeated the
importance of the values of working in harmony and collectively, based on principles of consent and
agreement’. On complaints, specifically, they explained that they would have to travel around 100
kilometres to Yabello, the capital of Borena, to put their grievances in a complaints box. A further
deterrent was a lack of understanding of how complaints were addressed, ‘We know there is a
complaints box: we don’t know how to use it, so we don’t use it’, and a lack of faith in the system,
‘Follow-up is necessary. We give suggestions but there is no follow-up – the NGO did not even come
back’. Kiani cites one more positive outcome – a women’s cooperative in Yabello, who pointed out
40
defects in a building constructed for them by an NGO, which then made the requested changes to
their satisfaction (Kiani, 2013).
The 2014 ALNAP-CDA study of feedback mechanisms (based on field work in Sudan, Pakistan and
Haiti) highlighted overarching considerations and concerns that aid recipients shared with them on
this:

Preference for in-person communication over formalised communication tools and ICT;

Preference for any means of communication that can guarantee direct access to agency staff – in
areas with insecure access, where in-person visits are infrequent, aid recipients flagged their
preference for a toll-free call line or postal address through which they can communicate;

A trust and expectation that follow up will be made:
People use the complaint hotline to attract attention to other issues … because they know IOM will
come and verify (National staff, Shelter Cluster, North Sindh, Pakistan).
We think the feedback mechanism (through the Community Help Desk [CHD] system) is also used as
one way to follow up if beneficiaries raise big issues … it gives us an opportunity to raise issues
because we know the CHD system goes beyond just WV[World Vision], but it will reach OCHA as well
(Women in IDP camp in South Darfur, Sudan) (Bonino, Jean & Knox Clarke, 2014).
Where do we go from here?
As Ferran, Wood et al point out in their Compendium of Practices on Community-Based Complaints
Mechanisms (2012), this is ‘a new field, in which agencies and workers alike are still learning what
works best and what lessons from other fields can be applied … ‘. With this in mind, as we go into
this 8 May conference, here are some questions that we may wish to reflect on:








Is it just that we need to allow more time for practice to get established?
Are there areas of the practice to which we need to give more in-depth consideration, to
overcome specific hurdles?
Do we need to dedicate more resources to this aspect of our work, and advocate with donors
accordingly?
Is it possible that the challenges that we are facing in implementing complaints mechanisms
reflect fundamental shortcomings in our communication and interaction with disaster-affected
communities?
If complaints mechanisms do not work, what is the alternative? Do we need to change our way
of thinking about this altogether?
Do we look to incorporate a complaints handling capacity somehow into our monitoring system,
our collection of feedback?
Do we incorporate work to facilitate PSEA reporting with our GBV programmes?
What reflection on experience and what best practice can we share in this conference to help us
move forward on this?
References and other resources
Bainbridge, D (October 2011) Humanitarian Exchange Magazine, Issue 52, Community feedback and
complaints mechanisms: early lessons from Tearfund’s experience London: ODI.
41
Bonino, F, with Jean, I and Knox Clarke, P (2014) Humanitarian feedback mechanisms: research,
evidence and guidance. ALNAP study, London: ALNAP/ODI
Cosgrave, J (2007) Synthesis Report: Expanded Summary. Joint evaluation of the international
response to the Indian Ocean tsunami. London: Tsunami Evaluation Coalition
Darcy J, Alexander J and M Kiani (2013) 2013 Humanitarian Accountability Report. Geneva:
Humanitarian Accountability Partnership
Eriksson, J (1996) The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda
Experience: Synthesis Report. Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda
Featherstone, A (2013) Improving Impact: Do accountability mechanisms deliver results? Christian
Aid
The Good Enough Guide: Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies (2007) Emergency
Capacity Building Project
Gostelow, L (2010) SCHR Peer Review on Accountability to Disaster-Affected Populations: An
Overview of Lessons Learned’, SCHR
Hansen, C J, Complaints Mechanism Handbook (2008) The Danish Refugee Council
The 2010 HAP Standard in Accountability and Quality Management (2010) Geneva: Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership
IASC Task Force on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by our own staff: Minimum
Operating Standards for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by our own personnel (2012)
Puno, N (2006) CARE International in Cambodia: Complaints Mechanism Case Study.
Samara-Wickrama, K and C Heemskerk, Building Safer Organisations (BSO) Guidelines: Receiving and
investigating allegations of abuse and exploitation by humanitarian workers (2006), Geneva: ICVA
The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response
(2011) Geneva: The Sphere Project
The UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin on Special Measures for the Protection from Sexual Exploitation
and Sexual Abuse ST/SGB/2003/13 (2003)
Website of the IASC Task Force on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by our own staff:
www.pseataskforce.org
Wood, A, Ferran, L, and M Bokanga (2012), Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse:
Compendium of Practices on Community-Based Complaints Mechanisms. IASC Task Force on
Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by our own staff.
42
Annex E: PSEA Conference evaluation comments
Received on the day:

Fantastic day, very well structured, great facilitation. Hope HAP will do it again. Well done!

Interesting day. I hope some of the points raised are picked up on tomorrow.

More in-depth discussions led by PSEA experts on select issues – looking at causes, etc would be
more useful than the more generic discussion on partners, challenges, etc

Very useful, informative, inspiring. Thanks!

Really learned more about CRM and how we can improve on existing systems.

This is such a ‘big’ topic and I feel we have just skimmed through. There is a need to spend a bit
more time into looking closely at some aspects. One day for such an important subject is not
enough.

Very informative. Well organised. It was my first event so a ‘get to know you’ ice breaker would
have been useful but fully appreciate this wasn’t necessary for everyone. Will look out for future
events. Thank you!

Great great day, but need more time to go further and deeper into some aspects. Miss get some
solutions to problems after the brainstormings.

Great opportunity to discuss common challenges, consider new approaches and hear good
practices. Nice to know we’re not alone! Would love to take part in more knowledge-sharing
events, and discuss ideas with the network. Thank you!

Organise regular experience sharing conferences on annual basis.

I agree! (added to above post-it note)

There is a need for a regular similar workshop and monitoring the lessons that have learnt by the
participating organisation.

Time given for group discussions on some topics was very little.

HAP to be more proactive about kicking off study groups on overcoming challenges of this very
difficult task of soliciting and responding to reports on SEA, as well as prevention.

HAP, please challenge a bit more on under-reporting on PSEA and acct!
43
Received by email:

I learnt so much from attending the conference and was truly an eye opening especially on the
SEA subject. The last day of training provided me with an insight into the PSEA further and also
highlighted to myself just how much work we need to do to ensure that there safeguards in
place.

I have now taken upon myself to work with my colleagues in establishing a more stringent code
of conduct and laying out safeguards that we can use to ensure that we work in a more
accountable environment. I also will be visiting HAP site on a more regular basis to get further
information on the subject.

A very informative conference on PSEA. I especially appreciated the high caliber of the
presentations and discussions on day 1 as well as the very skilled and up-to-date global
conference attendees.

A wonderful event. It was very well organized considering there were people from different
countries with different backgrounds but still I felt it was flawless and everything was just
perfect. It was great learning experience for me.

An excellent program.
44

report on the hap psea conference 2014

Transcription

Similar documents

r e snubs regulators

Customer Complaints Procedure Mortgage Services

Lord Wakeham Letter to Inquiry

Konsument Europa - Konsumentverket

redactioneel - menopauze.indd

Feedback Brochure - Central Bayside Community Health Services

Club Philosophy Purpose Overview Process Queries

Lead - It`s More Than Just Paint

Presentation - Actuaries Institute

please click here