monitoring and accountability

Monitoring and accountability are two vital parts of humanitarian action. You need to monitor to ensure that a programme is going well, that it is having the effect it should, and to work out how to change it to improve it during the programme, or afterwards for similar future situations. Accountability is about ensuring the beneficiaries are aware of the programme, understand what they can expect and what is expected of them, and can provide feedback. Most importantly, and this is what I'm struggling with at the moment, it's about ensuring beneficiaries need and want the programme being run, that they have input into its planning and implementation. It is all about communication and transparency.

As a change to my usual writing, here is a lighthearted example of how monitoring and accountability could be done in Haiti:

We live in a compound of about 15 people. A programme has been developed to provide wellness and staff support to those living in this compound. This programme has developed organically, and is flexible enough to change in accordance with changes in the situation. Whilst it might not have been thoroughly planned from the outset, it is acknowledged that this is arose out of necessity during the emergency phase, and it is deemed to be running smoothly at the moment. 

The lack of planning initially meant that it is only now, several months after the start of the programme, that monitoring and accountability are being mentioned. 

Therefore, I propose the following plan. Collectively, we could monitor who spends nights in rooms which are not their own. This information should be collated into an output tracker highlighting the successes of this programme. The results should also be communicated to our beneficiaries, and thus it is proposed to post up the output tracker on the central noticeboard for all to see. Not only would this improve the flow of information to our beneficiaries, but also provide more opportunities for beneficiaries to give us feedback on our programme and monitor more thoroughly. 

Such a programme will of course have added wider benefits of supporting the markets to regain stability, providing regular demand for Prestige, the local beer, and Barbancourt, the local rum. Indications so far are that the markets can sustain the significant demand that this programme creates. 

The information gathered by this monitoring plan can then be correlated to the number of empty bottles recycled each morning, as an indicator of how much alcohol was consumed on the previous day. This is not a completely reliable indicator, however, since often if we drink outside the compound at a bar, for example, the bottles will not be in our recycling bin. Therefore, a further indicator should be developed of the random bruises acquired during a night of drinking, and matched against incidents occuring in this programme. Similarly, any illness leading to a beneficiary not being able to work, and more importantly not being able to participate in the programme to full effect, should also be monitored and recorded. 

And here this ends, because I'm distracted by Switzerland beating Spain in the World Cup. (No, of course I'm not watching the World Cup when I'm supposed to be working. Of course there aren't TVs in the office specially. Accountability, anyone?)

Mr Peck

[This is posted about two months after it was written.]

Help is coming. But today, hinderance is coming too.

His codename is Mr Peck, because it is an open secret who he really is. We weren't supposed to know until three days ago. I had heard mutterings of his involvement, but I was aware two weeks ago and I think I was possibly the last to know. 

Sean Penn is out here at the moment and has been for a while, taking on the role of a humanitarian. He attends meetings along with the rest of us, gives updates on the work he and his organisation are doing, and the status of the IDP camp they are working in. I offer no opinion as to whether this is a good or bad role for him to be playing in Haiti - I have not had experience of working with him - but merely I think it interesting that Sean Penn has chosen to contribute this way. [Since I wrote this, my opinion of Sean Penn has deteriorated significantly, mostly due to an interview with CNN in which he stated how his was the only aid organisation doing any good work. Moreover he described how he had single-handedly organised a relocation from a flood-prone camp to Corail, in the north of Port-au-Prince. I know of five of six major agencies, including my own, who had significant roles in that move. I don't quite see the contribution he and his organisation made.]

Mr Peck is different, unfortunately. He is an equally, if not more well-known celebrity, and is coming to visit, to see the work that his fundraising has been put to. He will be here for two days and then return, having ensured that sufficient people in his entourage (approximately 20) have taken photos of him with smiling kids. 

Mr Peck began being involved in the work we are doing in Haiti 18 months ago, when he organised fundraising from his fans in order to support a school here. The total raised was $300,000, which is not actually that much money. Moreover, only $40,000 was given to us. It is highly likely Mr Peck can afford to write a cheque for the total amount from his own funds without batting an eyelid, but it still took over a year to receive the remaining 85% of the money. I cannot confirm, but it may have taken a year plus a large earthquake that received lots of press attention. 

Its major benefit was raising awareness amongst his followers. But now the feeling is that we begrudge that. The awareness he raised wasn't all that helpful, and he now is aiming to take portrays him as saintly, how good he is, he was supporting education in Haiti since long before the earthquake. Except the time, and particularly the effort it has taken us to receive the support from him almost means its worthless. 

Now, of course, he's come and the whole office is working to impress him, instead of doing our jobs. Numerous vehicles have been requisitioned to support his two-day trip north, when we are already struggling to provide sufficient vehicles to undertake emergency work. People have moved out of their accommodation, to squat in the rooms of others so that Mr Peck and entourage could sleep comfortably. In general, we are bending over backwards. 

'We' here refers to people on the ground here. If we were to get our way, we would cancel celebrity visits. It's not that easy, however. Head office, of course, likes such visits, but the question remains: Is the awareness raised worth the disruption to programming?