drc.dk niels.bentzen@drc.dk

1. www.drc.dk niels.bentzen@drc.dk DRC and HAP certification

2. DRC in HAP: the history • Joined HAP in 2003 • Participated in development of the HAP Standard • Volunteered to be first INGO to go through HAP certification process • HAP field test Somaliland • Baseline completed Feb 2007 (lot of HAP support) • Application file Feb 2007, audit March, certification HQ and field April 2007 • Mid-term review November 2008 • Application for certification renewal March 2010 • Why did we do it? - To improve program quality DRC and HAP certification

3. Logic of the six HAP benchmarks • QUALITY: • HQMS • (BM 1) • Continual • improvement • (BM 6) Information from DRC (BM 2) Feedback to and from beneficiaries Participation (BM 3) Complaints mechanism (BM 5) • Quality of agency staff(BM 4) DRC and HAP certification

4. We thought that we…. Had a good quality management system (HQMS) Were relatively weak re. Information Were strong re. Participation Were relatively weak re staff HRM&D Were relatively strong re. Complaint & Response Mechanisms and just needed to scale it up Had strong system for continuous learning and improving our HQMS We learned that we… Could improve our accountability management Indeed were! Needed to improve our targeting Indeed were! Cannot just apply a standard model and we had also forgotten about staff complaints Indeed had, but needed to make accountability monitoring part of it What did the certification audit show? DRC and HAP certification

5. Accountability…?? DRC and HAP certification

6. Added value?......YES! • Proxy indicators • Capacity assessment: ”Accountability to beneficiaries and stakeholders is the core tenet of DRC’s international engagements” • 70% growth during 3 year certification period • We think the HAP certification process has helped us • Re-discover our fundamental commitments (NGO CoC etc.) • Systematise our quality work (terminology, logic, focus) • Use humanitarian sector’s generic learning • Concretely learn from others • Receiving quality support and guidance from HAP • Achieve a steep quality improvement • We believe • It will minimise ”scandals” (too short period to say yet) DRC and HAP certification

7. Weaknesses We underestimated the task HQ desks and middle level managers and field directors only got on board late Beneficary accountability was perceived as an add-on ”HAP task” Short-term priorities overrule long-term Strengths HQ accountability focal point with direct access to management Priotised by DRC’s top management Coincided with major review of DRC’s Program Handbook and training Played on staff’s professional pride Stick: A certification ”regime” is helpful! Lessons learnt about the process • Conclusion: The first three years were hard, but • Staff now understands the HAP Standard and has generally embraced it • The Standard has been integrated into DRC procedures (less a ”HAP thing” now) • Our compliance has reached a level where further improvement is less demanding DRC and HAP certification