CARE International Pakistan Program Quality & Accountability Review

1. CARE International PakistanProgram Quality & Accountability Review October 2010

2. Why an Accountability Framework? A 2007 study by CARE and peers found two main challenges when field staff tried to “practice” quality and accountability: • Too many standards, principles and guidelines…which ones are optional and what is mandatory? • Performance management systems and donor incentives didn’t reward application of standards (and staff not penalized if not used).

3. Accountability “Cloud”What are we actually accountable for? Sphere Standards Local Customs Local Partner Codes National Laws Procurement Rules Code of Conduct PARs Govt. Standards HAP Standards CARE Operations Manual CARE Program Principles Donor Compliance CARE’s HAF UN guidelines Cluster Standards Ubora CARE Project Standards

4. Stakeholder Accountability “Cloud”Who is actually accountable for what? Peer NGOs Communities Local Partner National Government Contractors Lead Member HQ Govt. Tech Depts. CARE Member Country Office UN Resident Coordinator UN Agency Donor CEG RMU Humanitarian Coordinator Cluster Coordinator

5. Stakeholder Power Relations More power Less power Host Govt. Donor Reps Beneficiaries Military Donor Govts. Women Senior Mgmt Communities Nat. Tech Depts. Vulnerable Groups UN Agencies Armed Groups National NGOs Agency Local Partners Cluster Coordinator Peer Agencies

6. Summarizes and prioritizes CARE’s humanitarian commitments in a concise two page jargon-free document. Help CARE managers, clarify roles & responsibilities in their teams to help put accountability into practice An annex to the HAF acts as a “road map” to provide additional guidance along with useful references and web links, etc. Balance accountability to different stakeholders, even the less powerful… HAF ObjectivesHow does an accountability framework help?

8. Questions arising from this review… • How to ensure the necessary capacity & resources to put the HAF into practice? • How do we ensure we fulfill our accountability commitments when working with partners? • Given all the priorities and limited capacity…how do we decide which are the critical ones?

9. RAR results show decrease between June & October 2010

10. Summary of Provisional Findings • Communications systems not well-developed (CARE, IPs, communities) • Accountability systems in place for some IPs, but not for CARE • Accountability systems more than just complaints systems • Capacity building for IPs needed to meet minimum standards • Little evidence of integration of DRR

11. Summary of Findings cont… • Humanitarian coordination systems could be made more useful. • IPs can help with coordination load • Location of new Multan office not conducive to coordination • Clusters mainly information sharing • Food security – duplication between clusters, while some coordination mechanisms missing (e.g. cash for work) • Security restrictions on intl. staff in Punjab

12. Recommendations Top Priority…starting at community level and working up; • Communications systems put in place for key stakeholders • Capacity building combined with alignment of activities and approaches with IPs (including alignment of accountability frameworks) • Updated strategy(ies)

13. Other Recommendations • Integration of DRR, environmental impact and longer term planning • Advocacy on better configuration and use of clusters • Review security management system from a quality & accountability perspective