Accountability: you know it when you see it
Which way to accountability?
First came accountability principles and standards. Codes of conduct, certification schemes and commitments then followed. Today it is all about tools. Across the humanitarian community the call is for practical ways to help aid agencies make good on the intentions that underpin the accountability architecture.
It would be convenient if there were a standard way to translate the precepts of accountability into effective action on the ground. But one size does not fit all. Humanitarian interventions come in all shapes and sizes, and in the practice of accountability – as in so much else – context matters. What works in Haiti won’t necessarily succeed in the very different circumstances of the Central African Republic.
The increasingly insistent call for tools comes as donors get impatient at the slow pace of progress. Part of their frustration comes from studies that show how accountability can lead to greater effectiveness and efficiency. A recent ground-breaking set of case studies by CDA and ALNAP offers some important lessons from Haiti, Pakistan and Sudan.
This research is valuable in building the case for doing accountability better and offers useful pointers about ways accountability to beneficiaries can improve outcomes. But we don’t need a comprehensive how-to book, nor a go-to organization or focal point.
The fruits of accountability won’t happen by carving out a new piece of turf in the muddy field of humanitarianism nor by trying to convince overworked skeptics at the front lines of aid to follow the lead of accountability experts.
The answer is simpler. It’s about putting beneficiaries in the driver’s seat by systematically and continuously asking them if they trust the organizations serving them, whether the aid they get is relevant to their needs, and if anyone pays a blind bit of notice to what they think or suggest.
It is only when beneficiaries get the chance to express themselves regularly, safely and transparently on these matters that the organizations whose job it is to help and protect them will actually get it. If aid agencies start managing their programs against this kind of feedback they won’t need accountability experts to tell them what to do. They will create their own expertise in learning from and responding to the people best placed to know what’s what. And in doing so, they will also figure out how to use dialogue to manage expectations.
Accountability to affected people is hard to define. But, to misquote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: ‘You know it when you see it’. We’d be better off acting on what the beneficiaries say than complicating things with new accountability gismos and specialist staff. Better by far to let the agencies mix and match from the many tools already out there and have the beneficiaries tell them how they are doing. That way true accountability lies.
