Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BENCOM
In 2013, F
NEFICMPLA
FSAC was fun
CIARYAINT M
nded by:
Y FEEMECH
EDBACHANIS
CK & SMS
M
be
co
se
co
FOCLJU
Mapping
eneficiary
omplaint
ecurity
ontext in A
OOD SECURITLUSTER IN ANE 2013
of pra
y feedba
mechanis
and
Afghanist
TY & AGRICFGHANISTA
actices o
ack a
sms in foo
agricultu
tan
ULTURE AN
on
nd
od
ure
This paper summarizes the beneficiary feedback and complaint mechanisms and their processes and
procedures which are currently being used by Food Security and Agriculture Cluster (FSAC) member
agencies in Afghanistan. The information has been collected from and validated by 18 participating
member agencies in the period March to June 2013. This study will help other FSAC member agencies
to consider establishing or amending their own beneficiary feedback and complaint mechanisms.
Cover Photo credit: WFP/Assadullah Azhari: Beneficiaries in Faryab province learn about WFP's
beneficiary feedback hotline during leaflet distribution
FSAC Afghanistan
provides an
action oriented
forum for
bringing together
national and
international
humanitarian partners
to improve
timeliness and
effectiveness of
humanitarian assistance
on the lives of
crises affected
population
in Afghanistan
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Thank you very much…. The Food Security and Agriculture Cluster expresses its gratitude to national and international
member agencies who participated in this mapping exercise, especially ACF, ACTED, Action Aid, AIRO,
AREA, Christian Aid, CHA, Concern Worldwide, CoAR, DACAAR, IRC, Islamic Relief, Medair, OHW, Save
the Children, Tearfund, WFP and ZoA. Without their contribution it would not have been possible.
Also, many thanks to Michelle Sanson, the Gender and Protection Officer at WFP and Cyril Lekiefs,
the Food Security and Agriculture Cluster Coordinator for their valuable inputs and feedback.
Amir Hamza Ba-Bakar Khel
Program Officer | FSAC
FSAC objective No. 1
To provide life and
livelihood saving
assistance to
populations known
to be in need of
emergency response
Common Humanitarian
Action Plan
2013
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ________________________________________________________ 1
Thank you very much…. ______________________________________________________ 1
ACRONYMSANDABBREVIATIONS _____________________________________________ 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ______________________________________________________ 4
INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________________ 5
METHODOLOGY ____________________________________________________________ 6
POLICIES __________________________________________________________________ 7
TYPES OF BFC MECHANISMS ________________________________________________ 8
COVERAGE _______________________________________________________________ 10
BY ORGANIZATION ________________________________________________________ 11
FEEDBACK DOCUMENTATION AND RESPONSE ________________________________ 20
BENEFITS OF BFC MECHANISMS ____________________________________________ 23
CHALLENGES _____________________________________________________________ 25
APPENDIXES _____________________________________________________________ 26
3
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACBAR Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief
ACF Action Contre La Faim
ACTED Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development
AIRO Afghanistan Independent Rehabilitation Organization
AREA Agency for Rehabilitation and Energy Conservation in Afghanistan
BFC Beneficiary Feedback and Complaint Mechanism
BFD Beneficiary Feedback Desk
CA Christian Aid
CDC Community Development Council/Committee
CEC Community Education Committee
CHA Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance
CoAR Coordination of Afghan Relief
DACAAR Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees
DDA District Development Association
FSAC Food Security and Agriculture Cluster
gFSC Global Food Security Cluster
IRC International Rescue Committee
IR Islamic Relief
MAIL Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock
MoPH Ministry of Public Health
MoRRD Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
OHW Organization of the Human Welfare
PTA Parents Teacher Association
PMU Project Management Unit
SC Save the Children
WFP World Food Programme
FSAC objective No. 2
To provide life and
livelihood saving
assistance to IDP
populations known
to be in need of
emergency response
Common Humanitarian
Action Plan
2013
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FSAC Afghanistan seeks to support, where possible, its members to increase the quality of their
systems and processes for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. As part of that commitment, a
mapping exercise was conducted to capture existing mechanisms used by FSAC partners for obtaining
feedback from beneficiaries, as a step towards producing an evidence‐informed guidance for
humanitarian agencies on strong and effective feedback mechanisms for affected populations in food
security and agriculture context.
Interviews with 18 member agencies revealed five main beneficiary feedback and complaint (BFC)
mechanisms: informal interaction with project staff, formal interaction with project staff, letter
boxes, community based organizations/institutions, and hotlines. These mechanisms are used
broadly across Afghanistan, covering 30 provinces. Complaints may be made verbally or in writing,
and can be formal or informal. In the case of stronger or sensitive complaints it is common for
agencies to request the complainant to record the complaint in writing.
Only four of the 18 respondents had a policy on BFC. It is considered that grounding a mechanism in a
clear policy on BFC can ensure the mechanism is implemented with the overall policy objectives in
mind, and there is periodic reporting on progress on policy implementation. Implementing agencies
must ensure they have processes and procedures for collecting beneficiary feedback, including
appropriate handling of confidential information. This ensures that beneficiaries raising complaints
are protected and safe. BFCs will fail, however, unless the feedback is acted upon and followed up.
A successful and effective beneficiary feedback and complaint system will only be established when it
is developed in a participatory manner and include representatives from all relevant stakeholders.
This enables it to be contextualized it according to the local context and keep with local governance
structures and fit within the specific nature of the programs being implemented. A successful system
can pave the way to integrate into all programs and activities and promotes the protection and
dignity of beneficiaries.
BFCs facilitate accountability to beneficiaries as well as providing valuable inputs to revise
organizational strategies and policies. Effective mechanisms provide key benefits in that they:
1. Help resolve issues and concerns raised by beneficiaries;
2. Strengthen relationships with communities;
3. Provide an opportunity to improve programming; and
4. Can improve the reputation of the aid agencies.
FSAC objective No. 3
To support
livelihood recovery
of populations
recovering
from shocks
Common Humanitarian
Action Plan
2013
5
INTRODUCTION It is very important to be accountable to the beneficiaries regarding the assistance an agency
provides. Beneficiary feedback and complaint mechanisms help to identify the gaps and areas for
improvement in routinized way. Having a feedback and complaint mechanism allows an agency to
understand, analyze and investigate a situation and to respond accordingly. These mechanisms help
to be sensitized about project activities and beneficiary selection, implementation and to measure
the positive behavioral changes of the targeted population.
The main goal of this mapping exercise was to understand existing mechanisms for obtaining
feedback from beneficiaries used by FSAC partners, as a step towards producing an evidence‐
informed guidance for humanitarian agencies on strong and effective feedback mechanisms for
affected populations in food security and agriculture context.
The terms ‘Beneficiary Feedback Mechanism’ and ‘Complaint Mechanism’ do not translate easily
into Dari and Pashto, and may be considered to have negative connotations. In fact, feedback from
beneficiaries can take the form of both compliments and complaints.
Islamic Relief has defined the terms ‘feedback’ and ‘complaint’ as follows:
Feedback: Inputs which are not due to grievance these are rather suggestions, comments or
viewpoints. Feedback can be considered, discussed, challenged, used or disregarded, it is not
mandatory to respond to feedback.
Complaint: It is the right of project beneficiaries, target communities and other specified
stakeholder to question and receive a response from IR Afghanistan about any real or perceived
violation of their rights and procedural non‐compliance including corruption and bribery. A
complaint is a formal way of voicing concern against actual or perceived violation of rights.
Feedback can be positive or negative, and a complaint is a form of negative feedback. However both
ensure the efforts that the right assistance provided to the right people according to their needs and
in a manner that is appropriate – which require information and assistance from affected people.
The affected populations are in the best position to tell what is working well, what is going wrong
and areas for improvement. In this report FSAC has used the term ‘Beneficiary Feedback and
Complaint Mechanism’ – shortly BFC.
What is a complaint?
(Action Aid)
A complaint is an
external grievance
made against
Action Aid or
more specifically
against one of its
employees, associated
“consultants” or
partners where the
organization has
allegedly failed to
meet a commitment.
That commitment
might be related to
our activities, our
use of resources, our
mission and values, staff
conduct / behavior
6
METHODOLOGY The mapping exercise arises from the gFSC protection mission recommendations in October 2012
and later the Gender study by gFSC Program Advisor in December 2012 – January 2013. The Gender
and Protection missions generated a number of tools and compiled to one toolkit. The idea received
more support during the consultation meetings with gFSC advisors, and thus decided to map out the
current mechanisms through individual face‐to‐face meetings with interested organizations.
All FSAC members were invited to contribute to the mapping; 18 agencies positively responded and
provided information about their practices to FSAC.
The study was divided into two phases, during the first phase the FSAC Program Officer developed a
fifteen‐question questionnaire and collected the information according the questionnaire.
In the second phase the information was validated by each participating agency. That information is
compiled in this report.
The information was collected from and validated by 18participating member agencies in the period
March to June 2013.
Participating
organizations
ACF
ACTED
Action Aid
AIRO
AREA
Christian Aid
CHA
Concern Worldwide
CoAR
DACAAR
IRC
Islamic Relief
Medair
OHW
Save the Children
Tear Fund
WFP
ZoA
7
POLICIES Having a strong policy foundation is important in all areas of humanitarian action, and BFC
mechanisms are no exception. A well designed policy on handling complaints and feedback improves
the quality of work, identifies the areas need improvement and build trust of the relevant
stakeholders.
Of the 18 respondent organizations, four have well‐structured complaint and feedback policies and
complaint/feedback handling tools. These are Islamic Relief, Tearfund, WFP and ZOA. These policies
are based on the accountability and Do No Harm principles. The policies explain the procedures that
how a complaint and feedback can be made and how will be responded, and all the complaints will be
dealt with confidentiality. These organizations considered the complaint policies as an important part
of their organizations and they have commitments to be accountable for their stakeholders. Even
though they have well structured policies but they are trying to improve and encourage their
beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholder to comment on the effectiveness and progress of the
work
Other FSAC member agencies do not have special complaint or feedback policies but all the
participating agencies believe that they are accountable for their beneficiaries and thus they give the
opportunities to provide feedback and complaint on the assistance provided.
• It is the responsibility of project/organization staff members to explain well the processes
of making a complaint.
• There is no fixed or defined timeframe for beneficiaries to submit their complaints within
given timeline; however their doors are open five to six days a week for almost 8 hours
daily.
• It is agreed that all complaints and feedback should be taken seriously. It is of the
responsibility of the project/organization staff members to analyze the feedback provided
and verify and confirm the complaints.
• Complaints should be handled according to the nature of complaint. In any case,
organization staff members or those who receive a complaint should take care of
confidentiality.
• Care should be taken to respect the confidentiality of complainants, and to respond in a
prompt and effective manner.
Policy
(Islamic Relief)
Islamic Relief
Afghanistan recognizes
the right of
stakeholders especially
the right holder
and project
beneficiaries to
complain and seek
redress in a safe,
accessible and
dignified manner.
IR Afghanistan recognizes
complaint handling
mechanism as one
the most important
functions to
materialize its values
and commitment to
continually improve
management practices
and its programs
8
TYPES OF BFC MECHANISMS BFC mechanisms can be formal or informal. Some of the FSAC member agencies which do not have
formal systemized mechanisms remain open to receive feedback and complaints through any possible
channel including Community Development Committees (CDCs), Local Shuras, Community Education
Committees (CECs), Parents Teacher Associations (PTAs), Water Committees, Reflect Circles, volunteer
dedicated persons etc. Feedback can be useful and utilized regardless of whether it was obtained
through a formal or informal pathway.
When talking about that which type of mechanism can work well or has been useful in collecting
feedback and complaints from the beneficiaries, those mechanism which are practiced and
contextualized according the context, worked well.
Almost all the 18 participating agencies described a number of different mechanisms that their
organizations have used either formally or informally, but have used to collect feedback and complaints
from beneficiaries as the primary level stakeholders.
• Beneficiary help desk
• Letter boxes
• Emails
• SMS
• Websites
• Focus group discussions
• Individual interviews during the field visit or collecting stories for the reports/newsletters
• Open meetings with communities or partner agencies
• Visiting beneficiaries especially female (individually)
• Project staff phone numbers
• Community level connections
• Inter‐agency coordination meetings
• Surveys/questionnaires (or additional questions on standard ones)
• Consultations with community institutions/local structures (CDC, PTAs, CECs, Local Shurasetc)
Some of these mechanisms have been implemented at the project level (for feedback on a particular
program in a particular area), others at the programme level (all projects of a particular type, such as
training, across the country) or at the organizational level (for feedback on all activities of the
organization, across the country).
It is noted that participating agencies have additional and separate mechanisms for obtaining feedback
from other stakeholders, such as staff, donors and government. The focus of this mapping exercise was
beneficiary feedback mechanisms.
Key Applicable
Humanitarian and
Partnership
Principles
Participation
Inclusive of all
relevant actors in
planning and
implementing
assistance
Humanity
To prevent and
alleviate human
suffering wherever
it is found; provide
assistance in ways
that respect life,
health and dignity
9
Key Mechanisms
Informal interaction with project staff: All the participating agencies reported that beneficiaries
approach their project staff during their field visits and share their problems. This is the easiest and
most comfortable way for beneficiaries to raise an issue. Usually these type of complaints are not
being recorded, but a serious issue is being recorded into their daily notebooks/dairies for further
discussions. The beneficiaries do not hesitate at all and speak openly. The project staff members try to
find out the best way to respond to their complaints on the spot. In fact beneficiaries usually women
prefer to an immediate solution than have a matter treated as an ongoing complaint.
Formal interaction with project staff: This takes place when a monitoring team visits a village/area of
operation, a large number of project beneficiaries are invited to one point either community/town
center, mosque, community leader house or any other place specified for such gatherings. FSAC
agencies are taking care of cultural sensitivities, therefore they conduct separate sessions with women.
The team explains the purpose of their mission and asks the beneficiaries if they have anything to
share. This is also a useful approach but there are fewer chances for every beneficiary to speak.
Letter boxes: letter boxes are established in CDC rooms, town centers and public places which are
accessible for all. Since majority of the targeted population are illiterate, but still agencies received
written complaints. These letters are either written by the religious leader (Mullah Imams) or
beneficiary approached an educated person to put on the paper what he/she feels about the aid and
project activities.
Community based organizations/institutions: Many agencies, to promote and strengthen inter‐
sectoral linkages among different programs, are using the pre established structures e.g. under the
National Solidarity Programme (NSP) programs. Upon the completion of NSP projects, the structures
remained active and have been used for their food and agriculture interventions. In case there is no
pre established committee, the agencies established one.
Hotlines: Almost all aid agencies provide contact details of the relevant program provincial head where
beneficiaries can ring and share the problems they have. The relevant program head takes actions
accordingly. Some agencies have a published hotline number, taking calls from all stakeholders
regarding any project in any province in Afghanistan.
10
COVERAGE These mechanisms are available almost in all provinces of the country.
The
the
hum
part
Cod
Hum
clau
Cod
all A
acco
Com
mem
age
Sec
furt
day
Altho
and p
appro
e Agency Coord
demand from
manitarian ass
tners, compris
de of Conduct:
manitarian Acc
uses on the cod
de of Conduct
ACBAR membe
ordance with t
mplaint Mecha
mber agencies
ency operates a
retariatanalyse
ther investigat
ys after which t
ugh not all pa
projects in a wa
oaches.
levels are a
dinating Body
m the many aid
sistance in Afg
sing over 60 na
: Recently ACB
countability Pa
de of conduct.
(CoC) as a sup
er agencies ar
the Do No Harm
anism: The C
s, beneficiarie
and or any oth
es, verifies an
tion within 10
the relevant AC
articipating age
ay where suita
ACF Af
order
commu
formal
examp
also briefed on
for Afghan Re
agencies and
ghanistan. ACB
ational and inte
BAR has finaliz
artnership (HAP
. Some donors
pporting docum
re committed
m (DNH) princ
CoC contains a
es either direc
er relevant sta
d confirms th
working days.
CBAR member
encies have fo
able mechanism
fghanistan est
to establish
unity develop
agreements
le: MRRD, Mo
all interventio
elief (ACBAR) w
their internati
BAR coordinat
ernational mem
ed a code of c
P). Each memb
now ask appli
ment along wit
to internation
iple.
a section on F
ct or indirect,
akeholder may
e complaints
. TheSteering C
agency is noti
ormal mechan
ms have been
tablished thei
consultation a
ment commit
with relevant
oPH and MAIL.
ons and field le
was created in
ional donors fo
es the human
mber agencies
conduct for its
ber agency is o
icants (NGOs/I
th their project
al standards a
Feedback and
communities
y use the comp
and refers to
Committee tak
fied of the out
BY ORisms, all have
put into place
r complaint m
and coordinat
tees in a par
t government
. Local author
evel activities.
n August 1988,
or a coordinate
nitarian assista
.
s member age
obliged to sign
NGOs) to prov
t proposals. Th
and their work
Complaint m
s where an AC
plaint mechanis
the Steering
kes action with
tcome.
RGANIZdesigned the
e or integrated
mechanism a
tion with com
rticipatory ma
authorities –
ities at provinc
11
in response to
ed approach to
nce among it
ncies based on
and follow the
vide the ACBAR
hrough the CoC
k/operations in
mechanisms. Al
CBAR membe
sm. The ACBAR
Committee fo
hin 30 working
ZATIONir programme
d with differen
decade ago in
mmunities and
nner. ACF ha
– including fo
cial and distric
o
o
s
n
e
R
C
n
ll
r
R
r
g
N s
nt
n
d
s
or
ct
Afgha
uses R
an app
with w
them
about
th
collect
done
physi
the wo
period
the
tru
facili
villag
used
wom
rights
const
prov
lit
nistan Actio
REFLECT Circ
proach of wo
women that
a safe to dis
t issues affec
hem and take
tive action. T
e by allocatin
ical space w
omen can m
dic intervals
assistance o
usted, traine
tator from t
ge. They are
d to educate
men about th
under the A
titution), an
vide functio
teracy classe
n Aid
les as
orking
gives
scuss
cting
e
This is
ng a
here
eet at
with
of a
ed
heir
also
the
heir
Afghan
d to
nal
es
projects fr
beneficiarie
committee
ensures th
members i
complaint
community
The comm
complaint
refers it to
next year.
and as wel
first discus
month’s pl
At commun
informatio
each mont
activities a
suggestion
ultimately
person (ma
bridge com
female) to
to its NSP
MRRD acce
plans, budg
of concern
om 2012 and
es’ selection. I
e. The committ
hat there are
nform all its be
committees.
y members, an
ittees do not y
is stronger and
relevant progr
Action Aid ho
ll as at the nat
ssed at provinc
ans cover the
nity level, the
n among them
h, they review
and performa
s and recomm
fall into the fo
ale and female
mmunities with
speak with bo
programs; the
epted it. Taking
gets and all oth
AIRO
target
AIRO i
benefi
receiv
on the spot, w
ACTED imple
based organ
put into plac
n each targete
tee members
representativ
eneficiaries th
The committ
nd is supposed
yet have a syst
d the committe
ram head at pr
Act
inte
ado
Mid
lds structured
tional level. Al
cial level and t
feedback prov
different com
mselves. For e
w what they ha
nce they dev
mendation. Thi
ormal feedbac
e) in each villag
h Action Aid by
oth men and w
e NSP manual
g the transpar
her details of t
has establishe
ed communiti
involves its be
iciaries. Durin
es both feedb
while feedback
ements their
izations. The
ce after receiv
ed community
are selected
ves from all
at they can sh
tee receives
to respond to
em for registe
ee is not in a p
rovincial level.
tion Aid works
erventions); de
opted. There a
dterm Review
meetings wit
l the feedback
then discussed
vided either by
munity level in
example, Wom
ave done and t
velop future p
is way the inf
ck structure/m
ge who receive
y visiting 15 v
women benefic
does not cont
rency and socia
he NSP progra
d an informal
es and used to
neficiaries in a
ng the consu
ack and comp
k sort of issue
feedback mec
mechanism ha
ving so many
ACTED establi
by the commu
community g
are their comp
the feedback
o the complain
ring complaint
position to reso
s on a longer
epending on t
are two structu
and 2) Annual
h community
k from differen
d at national le
y beneficiaries
nstitutions def
men’s Reflect C
they plan for t
plans and co
ormal feedbac
echanisms. Th
es a small stipe
illages a week
ciaries. Additio
tain social aud
al audit into ac
am.
system of disc
o collect inform
any activity or
ultation and
plaints and AIR
are being note
chanism throu
as been integ
complaints es
ishes a commu
unity member
groups. ACTED
plaints and con
k and compla
ts made by the
ts and respons
olve/respond,
term basis (fi
the projects m
ured feedback
Review and p
level groups, t
nt levels is con
evels. The nex
or any relevan
fined mechanis
Circles meet o
the future. Bas
me up with
ck or complain
here is a volun
nd (1‐2000 Afs
k, in pairs (one
nally, Action A
dit but Action
ccount, Action
cussion and co
mation about it
decision that i
discussion pr
RO staff try to
ed for further d
12
ugh community
grated in all it
specially abou
unity complain
rs – but ACTED
D Project staf
ncerns with the
ints from the
e beneficiaries
ses. In case, the
the committee
ve to ten yea
mechanisms are
systems 1) the
planning for the
team member
nsolidated, and
xt six or twelve
nt stakeholders
sms for sharing
on certain day
sed on the pas
certain issues
nt mechanism
nteer dedicated
s per month) to
e male and one
Aid added value
Aid added and
Aid shares the
nsultation with
ts aid activities
mpact upon it
rocesses, AIRO
solve the issue
discussion with
y
ts
ut
nt
D
ff
e
e
s.
e
e
ar
e
e
e
rs
d
e
s.
g
ys
st
s,
s
d
o
e
e
d
e
h
s.
ts
O
e
h
13
their senior management and usually considered in next project phases. Processing a complaint
at AIRO is quite simple, At first step, AIRO acknowledges the complaints received, then they
verify the complaints received. Once the complaint verified the project head decides that how
the complaint will be handled. Sensitive sort of complaints are being taken seriously and AIRO
carries out a confidential investigation to verify the complaints, and later the AIRO executive
board decides a response. AIRO tries to manage the expectations of their beneficiaries
according the project nature and criteria and give a response accordingly.
AREA as a local FSAC partner has also established a formal complaint and feedback letter box
mechanism in all offices for last three years. These complaints boxes are being used by the
organizational staff and beneficiaries as well. Beneficiaries are putting their complaints in the
boxes available at each provincial and district level offices. The AREA staff twice a month open
the letter boxes and check the complaint. The complaints are usually written by an educated
people or the mullah imam in the community. The project staffs then contact with the
complainant and solve the problem on the spot; if possible, otherwise forward the issues to the
senior management, the senior management together with project head, review the complaint
and respond accordingly. Besides the complaint boxes, AREA beneficiaries also send their
complaints through AREA field staff. The field staff members are the ‘Trusted People’ for them
and they do not hesitate while sharing the issues and passing the complaints through them to
the head of programs or any relevant senior staff member. The complaint handling process is
depended on the nature of the complaints, for example, AREA classifies the complaints in order
to ensure that the complaints are handled properly in line with organizational policy and
mandate. If a beneficiary is claiming for more aid and assistance, then AREA field team explains
the project criteria and components. If AREA finds a complaint based on personal interest, they
advise the complainant to avoid this in future to not harm others.
CHA collects beneficiaries’ feedback and complaints through Community
Development Councils (CDCs), which have been established under NSP
Program. These councils have committed with CHA to assist the non‐NSP
beneficiaries as well in their villages. Both NSP and non‐NSP project
beneficiaries submit their complaints to CDCs, the CDCs themselves try
their best to resolve the complaints using methods which they learned
during the program period. In case of failure or if the CDC or its members have a complaint or
suggestion, referral is made to CHA’s Community Mobilizers during their formal visits and
meetings. The Community Mobilizers verify the complaints and try to respond on the same
occasion and in face‐to‐face meetings. If the complaints are more sensitive, referral is made to
the Program Head and senior management at provincial level. Furthermore, CHA structured
with field monitors in each province which they have the responsibility to conduct regular visits
on monthly basis. During the visits field monitors hold interviews with CDC members and
beneficiaries to investigate further the existing problems, feedback or complaints. Field
14
Monitors reflect existing complaints/suggestions in their field visit reports and senior
management at provincial level and take action accordingly. CHA treats all complaints with
equal importance regardless of how they do submit and who is responsible for submission. CHA
encourages complainants to speak openly and freely about their concerns and reassures that
what they say will be treated with appropriate confidence and sensitivity. However, the first
responsibility of CHA staff is to ensure that the complainant has been listened carefully,
analyzed and verified properly which requires prompt action before addressing of complaints
Christian Aid and its partners have established letter boxes in each
community center where each beneficiary can put their letters
(either feedback or complaints); the project staffs together with
any available community committee (CDC, local Shura, etc.) open the letter box regularly. The
letter boxes contain the feedbacks, suggestions and complaints. At the end of each programme,
partners handover this mechanism to community and community leaders are responsible for
using this mechanism in future.
CoAR is the only local Afghan agency that has the HAP (Humanitarian
Accountability Partnership) membership, and actively contributes for all HAP
related events. According to HAP requirement, a complaint mechanism is an
obligatory practice for any member agency. To ensure transparency and in
depth accountability, CoAR provides one page information about the project and its
components (activities, fund, timeline, District and Provincial focal point and donor information)
to display in project site. The form highlights the rights and the benefits of targeted
beneficiaries according to the project. Complainant can directly access to area/district
responsible, provincial/head office responsible persons and even access to funding agencies
through these contacts. There are also letter boxes that give the opportunities to those who
want to submit their complaints in writing. All the complaints are being dealt in very
confidential ways with a quick action plan.
Concern Worldwide has a unique approach (see box below). CONCERN Worldwide welcomes feedback and complaints and uses it to improve the way that they provide assistance to
targeted beneficiaries and the community members. CONCERN Worldwide respects beneficiaries’ right to make a complaint about any aspect of their programs and work together with beneficiaries to resolve their complaints as quickly as possible. Mostly people write their complaints through petition writers. Petition writers are the formally registered individuals who sit in front of local courts or district administration centers, where community members can document their legal cases for further action. These complaints are mostly for right issues as people think a trace should be created over right infringement. The complainant sees an advantage as registered complaint can be an evident for verification later on. Such complaints are made regarding land ownership,
access to property oThe natureconstructeand not achanneledConcern plevel. Thispays 1 US
report, com
Faryab and
having suc
of problem
project de
complaints
aid and th
assessmen
together w
Project has
Besides the
to the proj
manager a
also has ste
governmen
open and a
has any r
complaint
Committee
useful to k
happening
Project Ma
water, land oof a person, oe of such comed in a neighbll owners are
d through theprovincial ands type is formSD for its writi
mplain and pr
d Balkh provin
h like mechan
ms while access
esign but they
s but more like
e project activ
t and monito
with communit
s a monitoring
e monitoring a
ject. If there is
nd actions are
eering commit
nt authorities
accessible for e
emarks about
or feedback a
es: Under the
now about the
in the targete
anagement Uni
ownership foror a commun
mplaints are vboring area, ce happy for the District God district level
mal way and itng.
DACAA
mecha
which a
rovide their fe
nces. In other
isms. These ar
sing the aid. B
y can discuss
suggestions o
The IRC Q
Afghanista
vities in all pr
oring at field
y members an
g system and a
activities, the M
s any complain
e being taken
ttees. The stee
and IRC releva
everyone – no
t the project
and they are r
NSP program
e implementat
ed communiti
it (PMU).
r the project nity either socvaried e.g. comcomplaint thathe land to be overnor, Provl officers and t used to be t
AR does not
nism but still
all beneficiarie
eedback. Thes
targeted area
re depended o
Beneficiaries ar
s about the i
or feedback.
Quality Assuran
an in Kabul, is
ograms. The
levels. During
nd hear them i
a Monitoring
M&E Officer is
nt or feedback
accordingly. St
ering committe
ant project sta
matter if a bo
implementati
responsible to
, IRC establish
tion progress a
es the CDC is
area and negcially, econommplaint aboutt the area for used etc. Us
vincial Govereven someti
the way for so
have a form
there are inf
es and targeted
se mechanism
as, people bri
on the people w
re not in a pos
implementatio
nce Unit, base
responsible fo
Quality Assur
the field vis
if there is any
and Evaluation
responsible to
k the M&E Off
teering Comm
ee consists of
aff members. T
oy/girl, man, w
ion, he/she c
solve the issu
hes the CDC c
and also are o
responsible t
gative effect omically or envt smell from aa project in osually such crnor, RRD Dmes channelome time tha
mal feedback
formal mecha
d communities
ms are already
ng their comp
who are facing
sition to comm
on of the act
ed in the head
or ensuring the
ance Unit con
its the monit
feedback or c
n (M&E) Office
o hear the peo
ficer shares w
mittees: In som
CDC members
The Steering C
oman or a com
can directly re
ue. Community
committees. T
f help to know
o refer the iss
15
of a project tovironmentally
a public latrineon shared landcomplaints areirector, PMUed to ministe
at complainan
or complain
anisms through
s members can
in practice in
plaints withou
g with any kind
ment about the
tivities, not a
d office of IRC
e quality of the
nducts a timely
oring team si
omplaint. Each
er is on board
ople concerned
ith his/her line
me projects, IRC
s, local relevan
Committees are
mmunity leade
egister his/he
y Developmen
These CDCs are
w what is really
sue to IRC and
o y. e d e
U, er nt
nt
h
n
n
ut
d
e
s
C‐
e
y
it
h
d.
d
e
C
nt
e
er
er
nt
e
y
d
I
d
t
e
Islamic Relie
down into t
the word e
explain the o
COMP
LAINT
the redres
Country Di
to nominat
investigatio
committed
been recei
complaint
and comm
to reach o
according t
operates in
number of
sessions. D
doors are
suggestion
ef has its ow
two parts, C
explain and
organization
P• Clearity• Obligation• Maturity• Persisten
T
• Learning• Adaptatio• Informatio• Negotiatio• Trust
Islami
all the
have t
means
consid
Afghan
s actions are
rector of IR an
te focal points
on team on c
d and acknowle
ived, IR unde
handling mech
itment to cont
M
n
out to their be
to its organizat
n WASH and f
f people from
During these t
open to all
s/recommend
wn comprehe
COMP and LA
talk about
n‐wide effect
n
nce
ononon
c Relief ensur
e stages and du
their say in var
s according to
deration to en
nistan, each pr
being taken a
nd Head of Hu
at each locati
omplaints rela
edges all com
rtakes an init
hanism as one
tinually improv
Medair is an ac
o feedback or
eneficiaries ne
tional mandate
ood assistance
all communit
types of meet
people includ
ations and e
ension for th
AINT (COMP
causes of
ts of effectiv
res that its pro
uring the cour
iety of ways an
the nature of
nable all the
roject site has
according to t
manitarian &
ion. Each office
ated to sexua
plaints immed
ial review of
e the most im
ve managemen
ctive member
complaint pol
eeds and mee
e, mission visio
e fields, explai
ty groups have
ings, Medair i
ding direct, in
even to repo
he word ‘Co
P‐LAINT); th
complaints
ve complaint
ogramming rem
se of project i
nd channels. IR
f the project a
right holders
complaint han
he decision ta
Development
e will have a f
l exploitation
diately upon re
the complaint
portant functi
nt practices and
of HAP Afgha
icy but Medair
et the relevan
on and policy.
ins it plans for
e the opportu
introduces the
direct benefic
rt an unusua
omplaint’. It
e first four
the last fiv
ts handling.
mains benefici
mplementatio
R adopted diffe
and other soci
to lodge com
ndling mechani
aken after inv
Programs will
emale nomine
and abuse. Is
eceipt. Once a
t, IR Afghanis
ions to materi
d its programs
nistan. Even t
r Afghanistan i
t stakeholders
Medair Afghan
r each specific
unity to join th
e feedback sys
ciaries to prov
al activity in 16
is broken
letters of
ve letters
iary focused a
on communitie
erent ways and
ial and cultura
mplaints to IR
ism in place. A
estigation. The
be responsible
ee to be part o
slamic Relief i
complaint ha
stan recognize
ialize its value
.
though there i
s trying its bes
s’ expectation
nistan currently
c community. A
he explanatory
stem. Medair’
vide feedback
the areas o
at
s
d
al
R
ll
e
e
of
s
s
s
s
s
st
s
y
A
y
s
k,
of
interventio
workers/co
ringing or
community
people are
was circula
2012.
the funding
open sourc
Beyond sim
open lines
communica
is from the
make repa
that the sa
a kind of f
into budge
parts with
especially w
insecurity.
consistentl
phones) w
Daikundi, w
overcome
communiti
dedicated t
feedback.
on related to M
ommunity mo
visiting them
y people are co
e illiterate. In t
ated to all proje
Recent
evaluat
althoug
its face
functio
g levels of Wat
ce software pro
mple tracking o
s of commun
ation is from O
e community t
irs, this can be
me small part
feedback on th
eting and plan
a new/rehabil
when commun
Once the sys
y positive and
hich are in wi
where it is pos
illiteracy and
es which are ‘o
telephone num
Medair operat
bilizers to the
in person or d
ommonly rece
he past years,
ects beneficiar
tly OHW also
tion that also
gh this is limite
e, SMS (part of
onality of wate
ter Manageme
ograms to map
of water point
ication and t
OHW to simply
to say they ur
e taken as a kin
has broken on
he quality and
nning of future
litated water p
nities are diffi
stem is establi
interested res
despread use
ssible to get a
d widespread
off the grid’.
In
of
di
mber which be
tions. Anyone
e head of pro
during the fiel
ived in verbal,
Medair had la
ries; but none
uses SMS as
serves as a for
ed, so far, to W
f the ‘WASH In
er points estab
ent Committee
p activities in r
and committe
tracks each a
y wish the com
rgently need th
nd of complain
n their hand p
d lifespan of th
e projects wh
point. OHW fin
cult to access
ished its easil
sponse from do
across Afghan
signal by goin
solar panels
n selected proj
f a phone line
isplayed in t
eneficiaries and
can report th
ogram in the
ld visits. Feedb
there is no let
aunched hotlin
of the benefic
a mechanism
rm of complai
WASH projects
novation Initia
lished and reh
es established b
remote and dif
ee functionality
nd every res
mmunity a hap
he attention o
t. Or if very ma
ump, for insta
hose parts and
en distributing
nd SMS to be
either due to
y scalable, ve
onors and part
nistan, includin
ng up a hill, vo
make it pos
ects Save the
as a complain
targeted com
d non‐benefici
hrough the com
relevant prov
back or compl
tter box since
ne – and the h
ciaries called on
for remote m
nt and feedba
s in the centra
ative’) is a tool
habilitated by O
by OHW. This
fficult to acces
y OHW uses SM
ponse. Somet
py holiday, an
of an commun
any communit
nce, then OHW
d incorporates
g a package o
an effective m
o the natural e
ry cost effect
tners. It uses t
ng communitie
oice adaptive t
ssible to char
Children has
nts mechanism
mmunities tha
aries could cal
17
mmunity socia
vince either by
laints from the
the majority o
hotline numbe
n the hotline in
monitoring and
ck mechanism
l highlands. On
to monitor the
OHW as well a
uses a series o
s communities
MS to maintain
times irregula
d sometimes i
nity and canno
ties report bac
W takes that a
s that feedbac
of replacemen
monitoring too
environment o
ive and gets a
echnology (ce
es like those in
technology can
rge phones in
tested the use
m. Posters were
at included a
ll to share thei
al
y
e
of
er
n
d
m,
n
e
s
of
s.
n
ar
it
ot
k
s
k
nt
l,
or
a
ll
n
n
n
e
e
a
ir
18
Tearfund works closely with beneficiaries to improve the quality of
feedback they provide. Often, a beneficiary comes with some other
expectations which are not aligned with projects/interventions and Tearfund cannot fulfill their
expectations. These are recorded and often used for the design of new projects if appropriate.
Staff members are obliged/ responsible to report any problems (fraud, misuse, discrimination
or abuse etc). Following some mechanisms that are in practice:
• Regular Communication and discussion with beneficiaries about project components
and all interventions in each community to know what is happening in each targeted
community.
• Links with Community leaders/elders: Those who have an opportunity to interact with
Tearfund staff at field level.
• Tearfund field staff & Program Advisor’s missions to field and interaction with
beneficiaries; during the field visit the advisors have their observations, listen the
beneficiaries and note down if any complaint or feedback from them.
• Joint field visits with partners i.e. DoRR; DIAL.
• The monthly report format has a section about beneficiaries’ feedback. Generally
Tearfund receives feedbacks from all its beneficiaries
• Beneficiaries’ forms: Tearfund has Beneficiary Cards for each selected beneficiary in
which all inputs provided are documented and endorsed by the beneficiary. The card
also had contact telephone numbers of TF contact for any complaint or query.
WFP has established Beneficiary Feedback Desk (BFD) in April
2012 which deals with all beneficiaries complaints either
through phone (call and text message) or email, where
everyone can ring/text or send email to register their
complaints. WFP BFD at head office level is responsible to register each single complaint
received from anyone. There are two stages while receive/response a complaint, 1) Complaint
Receipt & Analysis stage and
2) the Investigation stage (if
needed). When the hotline
was launched, WFP had a
month‐long public
awareness campaign which
included radio messages in
four languages, banners at
food distribution sites,
leaflets and monitors who
provided explanations to
beneficiaries. The hotline is
19
in operation from 8:30 to 16:30 each working day, and callers are guided through a
questionnaire which ensures all the relevant information is collected. WFP’s experience of the
hotline in 2012, where complaints received were used in improving programming and were
instrumental in building strong relationships with communities, made it decide to expand the
hotline in 2013. WFP is also recruiting a female member of staff to receive calls to the hotline,
which will assist female beneficiaries who make complaints. WFP has also recognized that not
all beneficiaries can read printed text on leaflets, and has prepared a cartoon to help explain
about the hotline.
ZOA also have the HAP Afghanistan membership. ZOA sees
complaints from two separate groups: 1) Beneficiaries and
Communities 2) Partner Organizations and other relevant
stakeholders. So far ZOA implements the complaint and
feedback mechanisms in its NSP only in Sari Pul Province;
Each CDC has a letter box where the CDC members and all beneficiaries can put their
complaints and feedback in writing. Beneficiaries can access ZOA staff through their phone
contacts as well, which have been provided to the CDC members. Besides, the beneficiaries can
share their concerns with project staff during their field visits. ZOA plans to launch a telephone
hotline for complaints and feedback from the communities for its projects in future. The
mechanism will be available for all beneficiaries and program stakeholders. The hotline will be
handled by a telephone operator because majority of the beneficiaries are not familiar with the
auto‐answering machine and cannot go through the directions i.e. pressing the right buttons or
numbers getting into the right forum and then record the complaint or feedback. However the
idea is still under discussion at the Management Team table.
20
FEEDBACK DOCUMENTATION AND RESPONSE FSAC partner agencies are demonstrating more accountability through many new accountability
measures. Receiving feedback and complaints from relevant stakeholders has been a normal practice
among all participating agencies. Many FSAC agencies have increased the application of participatory
approaches. These methodologies are the most practical and give positive results. There are
opportunities to gather feedback and complaints and to engage communities in dialogues. However
there is still a need to listen to beneficiaries, gather and analyze beneficiaries’ prospective,
recommendations and complaint in a systematic way.
All FSAC agencies have a routine to collect the feedback and complaints. This is common and is in close
match with each other.
For instance, ACF does not have a formal procedure but ACF beneficiaries are aware that the
CDC/Beneficiary Committees are the focal persons to address issues and refer to ACF if needed. If there
is any major complaint, ACF Field staff are required to report it immediately to Kabul level for analysis
and action. Incase ACF receives any sensitive complaint, it ensures the confidentiality and considers the
sensitivity at 100% as a part of the organizational mandate. For all these, there is an informal procedure
existing. ACF verifies the complaint, responds and take action by the time when complaint receives. By
protocol, sensitive complaints received from the communities are managed through report from field
staff and submitted to Kabul level. Further, ACF field offices submit a weekly situation report to Kabul
and complaints from communities are flagged. However ACF doesn’t record or document the
complaints.
Many other FSAC partner agencies are now trying to standardize the informal beneficiary feedback and
complaint mechanisms, and there are efforts to systemize the mechanisms that have already been in
place. They recognize the value of beneficiary feedback and complaints. They are now taking increased
efforts to systematize their processes. Several agencies noted that local institutions such as CDC, Parent
Teacher Associations (PTA) and Community Education Committees (CEC) or any other local structure are
eager to contribute more in this regard. Difference among men and women made complaints: Generally
women do not want to spread an issue out and think to have on hand answer or response while men are
pulling the case. While this is a little complicated with older people and young boys and girls, when
collecting information or investigating a complaint.
21
Through this study, participating agencies expressed that they are receiving the complaints and feedback
in different words from different types of beneficiaries. Often it has been noticed that a beneficiary has
just a few words to say, but the way he/she speaks is more like a complaint rather than a simple
comment on the aid. It has also been noticed that beneficiaries need some explanations or have some
questions but these have been raised in a way which seems a serious complaint. This usually happens
with female beneficiaries or older men. In such circumstance FSAC agencies use an alternate way of
communicating with their beneficiaries and ensure that the questions and comments have been
answered well either on the spot or a day later.
Although it is difficult to make broad generalisations, these are some of the comments from participating
agencies as to how different gender groups tend to express themselves when making complaints.
There is no one ‘right’ process for BFC mechanisms, but on the next page is a series of recommended steps which may be useful to FSAC agencies wishing to establish a feedback mechanism, or to enhance their existing mechanisms.
Group Speech Manner Tone Other
Men Feel Free Independent Speak shortly Speak bad of other beneficiary
Women Hesitation Dependent Speaks in details and miss main the topic
Boys/Girls YES/NO Doubtful Making fun
Older people Mixed up/confused Blaming community leader/elders
Speaks in details and miss main the topic
Community leader/Elder
Personal interest Expecting more aid/assistance
Persons with
disabilities
Feel excluded Expect things that are out of agency’s control
St
Policy and
St
Receipt and A
St
Analysis an
St
Confi
St
Discuss wit
St
Res
St
Foll
tep 1:
d Mechanism
tep 2:
Acknowledgm
tep 3:
nd Verification
tep 4:
irmation
tep 5:
h complainan
tep 6:
spond
tep 7:
low up
•Dev•Devdata•Ensu•Pub
•Ack•Doc
ment
•Ana•Detepersn
•Cate•Iden•Idenhap•Ente
•Com•Rein•Avont
•Discman•Put comsitua
•Follobee•Thasugg
velop BFC policvelop an approabase for recoure the mechablicize
nowledge reccument/record
alyze the feedbermine if it is sonal interest
egorize the fentify and involntify the causepened, or did er in database
mmunicate witnforce that theoid making pro
cuss with relevngementin place respo
mplaint and redation recurrin
ow this up witn addressednk the complagestions or rec
cyopriate mechaordanism is acces
eipt of the feed feedback/co
back/complaina real complaor dispute
edback/complve the peoplees for complainot happen?e
th individual/ce complaint isomises or raisi
vant program
onse actions tduce the likelig
th complainan
ainant and encommendatio
anism along w
ssible for all
edback/compomplaint
ntint or based o
plainte of concernint‐ what
complainant s being considng expectatio
head and
o address theihood of a sim
nt if the issue
courage furthons
22
with
laint
on
eredons
milar
has
er
23
Best practice? A combination of BFC mechanisms
Beneficiaries have different capacities and preferences, so one BFC mechanism will not suit
all. Some beneficiaries have a mobile phone, others do not. Some are shy, others do not come
to a distribution point. Similarly, some complaints need to be addressed immediately while
others can be investigated and procedures improved over time. Accordingly, it is best to have
a combination of BFC mechanisms – such as having staff open to receiving informal
comments, having a hotline, and holding periodic community consultations. Having more
complaints may not be a sign of a bad project – it may be a sign of positive community
relationships, because people who are willing and comfortable to complain are also people
who have a belief their complaint will be heard and acted upon.
Michelle Sanson, Gender and Protection Officer, WFP
BENEFITS OF BFC MECHANISMS The BFC mechanism is somehow an alert system about the problems and concerns within aid agencies.
This also allows the FSAC partner agencies to rectify and to manage the expectations of their
beneficiaries. The BFC mechanism avoids the expected minor tensions among beneficiaries and project
staff, and the mistakes before they are getting bigger. This is also a helpful way to investigate the issues
and resolve them in participatory manner together with the beneficiaries and other people of concern.
Both feedback and complaint responsive mechanisms are not being used only to respond and record
but they have been used for further improvements, learning and better use of their resources.
Participating agencies have always welcomed the feedback and complaints and considered as
productive information sharing approach among beneficiaries, stakeholders and the organization of
concern. As the study shows that majority of the complaints were about beneficiaries’ selection,
therefore those 18 FSAC agencies have involved the community members from right of the project
design phase. Beneficiaries have been consulted while developing beneficiary selection criteria or have
consulted the local population finding out the most vulnerable people in a community. This has also
been useful to enhance the community ownership of the aid activities and increased the accountability.
“A feedback and complaint mechanism is only effective when it is accessible for all members of the
community (men, women, children, people with disabilities and the most marginalized groups).”
Jennifer Weatherall, Save the Children, Afghanistan.
There is always an opportunity to protect the beneficiaries when they are coming with a sensitive
complaints. All the 18 participating agencies are very receptive and responsive while investigating or
responding to a sensitive complaint. The existing mechanisms among the FSAC agencies help to identify
the vulnerable, marginalized and other different groups in the community levels. Thus this also ensures
to mainstream protection and gender as cross‐cutting issues into their program activities.
The BFC can be used to strengthen linkages with the communities and build good reputation of an aid
agency. Strong and respected coordination with relevant community members and shuras has helped
To be objective in our thinking and open minded
to listen to our stakeholders /
beneficiaries. Getting staff to realize that the
mechanisms are helpful in fine tuning our work /
approaches / designs so that we can constantly as a learning organization do
better.
Mannu Pereira
Kandahar Area Coordinator
Tearfund Afghanistan
24
The IRC staff to access areas that are insecure/ inaccessible by most organizations and government staff.
Community members often accompany The IRC staff members to areas which need to be assessed. They
also travel with The IRC staff during distributions. This adds to the transparency and trust that the IRC
engenders among local populations
25
CHALLENGES Almost all the participating agencies reported that some complaints based on personal interests or
disputes, interrupt the project implementation rhythm and need time to put an end to such anonymous
complaints. “It is always challenging to know the reality but our staffs go in depth to know what actually
happened and why it happened. We are very careful to differentiate the personal interests and the
actual complaints.” Says David Makin‐Taylor Deputy Country Director ACF Afghanistan
Even though agencies have rules to investigate complaints with enough background information i.e.
name of the complainant, province and district, direct or indirect beneficiary of which program etc, but
some complaints by unknown complainants make an agency project staff concerned and confused, and
thinking if it is a real and actual complain or just a rumor.
ACTED Afghanistan believes that communities need to understand what for the feedback mechanism
has been established and how it could be used.
This is also harder for agencies to investigate and find a witness for sensitive sort of complaints. Agencies
are serious because of the future abuse and harm, as they are taking the responsibility to provide a safe
and sound environment for their beneficiaries.
Complaints are always seen and considered negatively but the FSAC agencies are trying to put this in
practice commonly through an acceptable method and to gain the trust of beneficiaries and other
relevant stakeholders.
OHW as a national organization mentioned that beneficiaries cannot differ their requests and
expectation with complaints; sometimes their requests and comes in more like complaining ways. On
the other hand the local practices and local commitments among the communities are not allowing
individuals to make a complaint against their community and people. If one complaint, he/she will
considered ‘out sider in his/her own community. Women have less chance to have a say. They have less
opportunity to voice their opinions and complaints, and because they are traditionally not decision
makers in the community, it is perceived that if they complain against an activity they jeopardize the
future of assistance, which is not their place.
26
APPENDIXES Appendix 1: Coverage
Province FSAC member agencies
Badakhshan ACTED, WFP
Badghis AREA, CoAR, IRC, WFP
Baghlan ACTED, CoAR
Balkh ACTED, Action Aid, Christian Aid, CHA, CoAR, CONCERN Worldwide, Islamic Relief, Save the Children, WFP
Bamyan Action Aid, AREA, CoAR, Islamic Relief, Medair, OHW, Save the Children, WFP
Daikundi ACF, AREA, CoAR, WFP
Farah CHA, CONCERN Worldwide, DACAAR, WFP
Faryab Christian Aid, CHA, COAR, CONCERN Worldwide, Tearfund, WFP
Ghazni CoAR, WFP
Ghor ACF, Christian Aid, CHA, CONCERN Worldwide, WFP
Helmand IRC, Islamic Relief, WFP
Hirat AREA, Christian Aid, CHA, CONCERN Worldwide, DACAAR, IRC, WFP
Jawzjan Action Aid, AIRO, CoAR, DACAAR, Save the Children, Tearfund, WFP, ZOA
Kabul Actiion Aid, AIRO, AREA, Christian Aid, CHA, CONCERN Worldwide, IRC, OHW, Save the Children, WFP, ZOA
Kapisa AREA, CoAR, Tearfund, WFP
Kandahar CHA, CONCERN Worldwide, Islamic Relief, OHW, Save the Children, Tearfund, WFP, ZOA
Khost IRC, WFP
Kunduz ACTED, AREA, WFP
Laghman IRC, WFP
Logar IRC, WFP
Nangarhar AREA, CHA, CoAR, CONCERN Worldwide, DACAAR, IRC, Islamic Relief, OHW, WFP
Nimroz CoAR, Islamic Relief, WFP
Paktya CoAR, IRC, WFP
Parwan AREA, CONCERN Worldwide, Islamic Relief, Save the Children, Tearfund, WFP
Punjsher AREA, Islamic Relief, WFP
Samangan ACF, WFP
Sari Pul CoAR, Islamic Relief, Save the Children, WFP, ZOA
Takhar ACTED, WFP
Uruzgan Islamic Relief, OHW, WFP, ZOA
Wardak AIRO, CoAR, Medair, WFP
Zabul Islamic Relief, OHW, WFP
27
Appendix 2: Beneficiary Feedback and Complaint Mechanism Questionnaire
Beneficiary Feedback and Complaint Mechanism study
Questionnaire for Partner Organizations
Partner Organization: ____ _____________________________________________ Organizational coverage [provincial wise]: ____________________________________________
1) Which kind of mechanisms do you have to receive feedback and complaints from beneficiaries? Informal interaction with project staff during the field visits Formal interaction with project staff Feedback or complaint through Community based organizations (CDC, CEC, PTA etc) Hotline – Toll Free line Letter box Other [please specify]
2) Where do you implement these mechanisms in terms of coverage? Where there the organization operates (whole coverage) Specific areas/districts only [please name the province, district and area name]
3) How long the mechanism (s) has/has been established?
Less than a year 1-3 years 4-10 years More than 10 years
4) At which level the mechanism (s) has/has been established?
Project level Program level Organizational level Other [please specify]
28
5) Which of the following categories of feedback and complaints have been received?
Project design Beneficiary selection Project implementation Fraud or misuse Discrimination based on Ethnicity Discrimination based on Gender Abuse Sexual exploitation and abuse Other [please specify]
6) What is/was the volume of complaints and feedback received in last quarter?
7) What is/was monthly average of complaints?
8) Which of the following group do often complain or provide feedback?
Men Women Youth (girls and boys an age of 17-24 years) Children (boys and girls an age of 10-16 years) Older people (men and women over 65) People with different abilities (disables) Female headed household Older men headed household Community leaders Partner organizations (IP, stakeholder etc) Government authorities Other [please specify]
Descriptive Questions:
9) What potential capacities are available at your organization to implement effectively these mechanisms?
29
10) Is there any procedure to handle the complaint or feedback provided by the beneficiaries or community? Yes No (If yes, please explain)
11) How do you track the complaints particularly the sensitive complaints?
12) Was the community involved to developing the mechanism, if Yes, How?
13) How has the feedback mechanism improved what you do??
14) What are the main challenges you faced with while implementing these mechanisms?
15) What important lessons learned and what are the good practices that can help other partner
organizations?
Thank you for your time and contribution. The interviewer will come back to you to validate the information you provided. Please let us know if you have any concern when the information gets disseminated among the FSAC partners and relevant stakeholders.