South Sudan Joint Response (SSJR) –aap framework By Kayi Joseph Alex SSJR Programme Manager

1. South Sudan Joint Response (SSJR) –aap framework By Kayi Joseph Alex SSJR Programme Manager

2. WHAT IS Dutch relief alliance? The Dutch Relief Alliance (DRA) is a coalition of 16 Dutch aid organisations in partnership with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The Dutch Relief Alliance was established in 2014 to provide rapid and effective emergency aid to victims of international humanitarian crises

3. Dutch relief alliance members Save the Children; CARE Nederland; Dorcas Aid International Tearfund NL; War Child Holland; Plan International Nederland; Red een Kind (Help a Child) ICCO enKerk in Actie; 9. World Vision 10. StichtingVluchteling; (IRC) 11. Cordaid; 12. Terre des Hommes; 13. Oxfam Novib; 14. ZOA 15. SOS Kinderdorpen 16. War Trauma Foundation

4. ssjr5 members_ingo & nngo’S Save the Children; CARE Nederland; Dorcas Aid International Tearfund NL; War Child Holland; Plan International Nederland; Red een Kind (Help a Child) CEDS (NBeG)-Tearfund ACROSS- Help a Child MHA (WBeG)-Dorcas WOCO (UNS)-WCH HDC (USB)-Care WDG (WBeG)-Dorcas UNIDOR (USB)-WCH GREDO (JS)-Plan ACDF (NBeG)-SCI Global Aim (CES)-WCH-ICCO

5. Ssjr5 current presence War Child Holland Plan International CARE WCH Tear fund SCI Help a Child Dorcas Help a Child (ACROSS) Plan International

6. Ssjr5 NNGO presence WOCO UNIDOR HDC ACDF CEDS ACROSS GREDO MHA WDG GA

7. 19,200 Ssjr5 SECTOR presence & targets 15,000 28,000 PROTECTION FSL MPC PROTECTION FSL MPC PROTECTION FSL WASH PROTECTION FSL WASH PROTECTION FSL MPC 7,200 37,100 GA TOTAL=106,500

8. Joint Response: KeyPrincipleslinked to CHS (1/2) • Support relevant (joint assessment) and flexible (25 % line item flexibility) ( CHS1) • Timely (Acute Crisis Fund and Mechanism – decision to fund within 48 hours (eg Nepal). ( CHS 2) • Coordinated and joint program design (  CHS 6) • Joint assessment, evaluation, RTRs, learning, sharing of information. Innovation fund, (CHS 7) • Local capacity building (localization)  also Grand Bargain • Decentralization: move programming from HQs to FO’s (important for localization) • Cost efficiency? Still some work to do. • Accountability (communication, participation, Feedback and Complaints  CHS 3,4,5  As we speak.

9. CHS – QUALITY  ACCOUNTABILITY Humanitarian response: - Is appropriate and relevant. (CHS 1) - Is effective and timely. (CHS 2) - Is strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects. (CHS 3)- Based on communication, participation and feedback. (CHS 4) - Is coordinated and complementary. (CHS 6) - Complaints are welcomed and addressed. (CHS 5) - Humanitarian actors continuously learn and improve. (CHS 7) - Staff are supported to do their job effectively (CHS 8) - Resources are managed and used responsibly (CHS 9)

10. Information sharing in the CHS • CHS 4: Communities and people affected by crisis know their rights and entitlements, have access to information and participate in decisions that affect them. • Humanitarian response is based on communication, participation and feedback.

11. JR-AAP Assessment findings on COMMUNICATION 1/2 • NGO’S • Great variety of communication channels in use (INGOs 5 - 7; NNGOs 3 – 11) • Total list: 35 (not cleaned; cleaned around 20). Majority involve some kind of direct contact between the NGO and the community: eg community meetings, meetings with youth-, women-, children groups, meetings with Protection-, water Management Committee. • Latter are linked to the NGO programs. Other NGO-Program structures: Program Management Committee, Child Friendly Spaces, Savings & Loans Group; Project staff and volunteers. • Officials/Authorities are also an important channel for NGOs to disseminate information: Village Chiefs and Administrator. Block Chief, Line Ministries. • A range of specific coms channels: Radio, megaphone (ie campaigns), banners, t-shirts. • Sometimes types of channels linked to context (network; radio), but most often not (meetings, signposts, drama shows) MiE Accountability to Children & Communities

12. JR-AAP Assessment findings on COMMUNICATION 2/2 • MEETING WITH GROUPS IN COMMUNITY • The groups of men, women and youth (12) which we consulted regarding their source of information mention few: • Community meetings • Chiefs/authorities • Meeting with NGO staff (com groups and committees) • These groups were not necessarily representative for the community as a whole as quite some participants were somehow linked to the program. • NGO inform the community and authorities about the basics of the program at the start of the program, but thereafter focus information provision on activities to beneficiaries and com members linked to the projects. • Interesting: Nile FM (radio – internews) in Malakal. MiE Accountability to Children & Communities

13. Communication Channel Exercise

14. Participation Participation is about having the opportunity to express a view, influencing decision-making and achieving change.

15. Participation in the CHS • CHS 4: Communities and people affected by crisis know their rights and entitlements, have access to information and participate in decisions that affect them. • Humanitarian response is based on communication, participation and feedback. World Humanitarian Summit Grand Bargain: Participation Revolution

16. JR-AAP Assessment Prelim findings on Participation and Engagement • COMMUNITIES and PARTICIPATION: • What do we mean by PARTICIPATION • And THE GREAT CONFUSION: What is a community?? • Community engagement (participation) in program design and implementation. Room for improvement. • Use improved AAP for increasing engagement (build JRAAP to support community engagement!): • Community AAP focal point (eg PMC) • Registering SFRCs at community level. Keep them there. • Options to Engage with PMC/Com on : • Analysing SFRCs • Handling SFRCs within current JR period • Handling SFRCs in next JR phase (Imp: multi-year funding) • Do not get too ambitious  MiE Accountability to Children & Communities

17. Complaints & Feedback

18. Complaints and Feedback in the CHS • CHS 5: People affected by crisis have access to safe and responsive mechanisms to handle complaints • Humanitarian response is based on communication, participation and feedback. • Feedback, suggestions, complaints and requests. World Humanitarian Summit Grand Bargain: Participation Revolution

19. INTERESTING: Types of feedback channels • 1.) Reactive channels that provide an opportunity for people to share their feedback and lodge complaints when they desire to do so and about what they want. • Examples include: suggestions boxes, hotlines • 2.) Proactive channels, where we ask people for their feedback. We control who is asked, when, and with what question topics and wording. • Examples include: post-distribution monitoring, feedback focus group discussions, interviews; health facility exit interviews • 3.) Channels capturing daily interaction and communication between project staff and Community. Formal and Informal.

20. JR-AAP Assessment Prelim findings on FEEDBACK & COMPLAINTS 1/2 • JR – PARTNERS: • None of the INGOs and NNGOs have something in place which could be called an Accountability system • (Child)safeguarding focussed. • Components, piece-meal, ad-hoc, unstructured: Yes. • Few have feedback database • 1 NNGO has a full-time Communicating with Community Officer! • Closing feedback loop?! • Community Feedback Committee? • Lots of Com/group meetings. • Field staff during day-to-day work. (IMPORTANT!) • Registering/Documentation – systematic collection of SFRCs. • Lots of room and opportunities for improvement. MiE Accountability to Children & Communities

21. JR-AAP Assessment Prelim findings on FEEDBACK & COMPLAINTS 2/2 • COMMUNITIES on F&C: • SFRC channels: similar to the Communication channels. Meetings and contact with staff. Chiefs. Few additional. • Probing into preferred channels brought little additional info other than: community likes what they know and have. • Feedback and Complaints. But also Requests and Suggestions. Hence SFRCs. • In case of ‘sensitive F&C’ : NGO office; RRC. • Interesting suggestions for the F&C channels: • Have easy access point nearby (office, help desk, focal point) • Calling is fine, but difficult. Rather talk to the staff directly. • If we have a request we sit and wait until project staff shows up MiE Accountability to Children & Communities

22. Complaints and Feedback Channel Exercise

23. A closed standard feedback loop

24. The actual community and NGO loops

25. THE JR FEEDBACK-ENGAGEMENT LOOP

26. Design Principles SSJR-AAP • KEY DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF THE JR-AAP SYSTEM • Decentralized JR-AAP system: focus on Community and individual JR Field Office level. • Ownership JR-AAP preferably with National NGOs. Overview via JR-AAP Committee (INGOs and NNGOs at field location). • The JR aims to up-grade the Standard Feedback Loop to a Feedback Engagement Loop. • The community plays an active role (engagement) in collecting, assessing, categorizing and handling SFRCs. Via Project Management Committee, JR-AAP focal point. • CAPACITY: At the Field Office level, a full time JR-AAP Officer (preferably a team of two, male and female staff if situation and resources permit; • Each field location has an AAP committee, for handling more complex SFRCs and monitoring the AAP System.

27. Design Principles SSJR-AAP • KEY DESIGN PRINCIPLES OF THE JR-AAP SYSTEM • The JR-AAP system is constructed upon existing communication, participation and feedback & complaints components, structures and channels. Components are added to make better use of the potential of the existing components. • Action is build around 3 categories of SFRCs: ‘non-action’; ‘regular’; ‘sensitive’. Latter is outside the mandate of the JR-AAP and handled by the JR-partner concerned. • Proper documentation is key (!), but complicated formats, data collection sheets and data entry processes are to be avoided. (see below). • Keep it simple and realistic (we can always make it more/too complex at a later stage); ‘good is good enough’; try to keep ambition level at bay. • ??

28. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System?

29. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

30. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

31. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

32. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

33. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

34. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

35. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

36. The South Sudan Joint Response Accountability System

37. JR-AAP system

38. LOW HANGING FRUITS • Start documenting (all staff) – all SFRCs via simple notes – at all occasions! • Assign 1 staff at FO level to record, categorize, analyze and process (part-time link to current JD) • Put an ‘AAP Committee’ in place at FO level to decide on handling SFRCs. • Appoint (?) 1 member of the Project Management Committee (or equivalent) as AAP Focal point for the community • Have a logbook/ComBook in place at community level. Start registering SFRCs and processing • Start/increase engaging with community/PMC on how to handle (selected) SFRCs.

39. MiE Accountability to Children & Communities