Complaint-Mechanisms_final

Complaint Mechanisms for Non-Governmental Organizations A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE 11 | 1 3 H umanitarian Accountability Partnership NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Management: http://reliefweb.int/sites/ reliefweb.int/files/resources/0753C21D42F- International (HAP International), a mul- Innovations Earthscan, London. p. 39. ISBN FEAA4C125727C0053B0D0-HAP%20-%20 Coordination%20-Jan2007.pdf (Retrieved 25 ti-agency initiative founded in 2003, was anC18rdo4s4s0ER7ol3ai6ds8sa8‘ .GbloebatlhHaSndcsh. hettpn:/k/www. October 2016) Luise Ammerschuberthe first international self-regulatory body of 5 W histle-blower = “A person who informs on on behalf ofthe humanitarian sector working to improve globalhand.org/en/browse/guidelines/7/ a person or organization engaged in illicit global_issues/organisation/23481 (Retrieved activity”. Oxford Dictionary. https://en.oxford- the accountability of humanitarian action to dictionaries.com/definition/us/whistle-blo- wer (Retrieved 20/08/2016) people. In 2005, HAP International merged 30/10/2016) JwCorHidthSanPAe,llLoiaips&TnalechaeInIn.etdAsviCdaPnaoanTudmrijtils,nmPneeotweurrkn(On2oi0tw0ry6gn):aoasnfthieCzaotoio4pmH nAeasnPrit(a2ar0ti0aion7)A:n2cc0oo0u7fnHtBaAbPrileiStytaaandnddarfQdouinarlHitAyu-ll

Complaint Mechanism for Non-Governmental Organizations A Practitioner‘s Guide Luise Ammerschuber and Elisabeth Schenk on behalf of The Community of Cooperation of Bread for all & its partner organizations September 2017 Cover page photograph: ton koene / Alamy Stock Photo

Introduction Recent years have seen an increase in the desire are given the opportunity to file a complaint, and need of NGOs to strengthen their accoun- without any fear of retribution, and expect to tability in order to reinforce their legitimacy see a response in a timely manner. Complaint and position as agents of change within society. mechanisms have proven to be a very effective Improving governance and designing effective tool to identify misconduct, give victims a voice programmes are important measures to enhan- and ultimately improve operations. Neverthe- ce accountability. Since 2012, the Community less, they remain a relatively new concept wit- of Cooperation of Bread for all and its partner hin the NGO sector. organizations1 recognized this need and de- This guide was developed for the member orga- fined good governance, with an initial focus on nizations of the Community of Cooperation and the fight against corruption, as one of its key their partners worldwide but is also applicable topics. The working group on Good Governance and relevant to any organization interested in was established with the aim to foster the Com- getting involved in this area. It is based on an munity’s reflection on governance, to create identified need and provides practice-oriented knowledge products for its members, to support guidelines based on the experiences of various member organizations in their effort to improve NGOs. It shows what needs to be taken into con- governance at all levels and to capitalise on ex- sideration when planning, establishing and im- periences and lessons learnt. plementing a successful complaint mechanism. The present Practitioners Guide, a knowledge Our most important message is: you do not product of the working group, focuses on a spe- need to reinvent the wheel when designing cific tool for increased accountability and bet- your complaint mechanism. The guide will be ter governance named “complaint mechanisms”. continuously improved and adapted, based on The latter are formal channels through which our partner’s future experiences in implemen- victims and witnesses of misconduct within an ting complaint mechanisms and – hopefully – organization – ranging from mismanagement enriched with lessons learnt and good practices and corruption to physical and sexual abuse – from within our network. 2|3 1 The partners of the Community of Cooperation of Bread for all are cfd, Connexio, DM – échange et mission, Horyzon, International Blue Cross, Mission 21, Mission Evangélique Braille (MEB), Foundation Salvation Army, Service de Missions et d’Entraide (SME) and TearFund.

Executive Summary The following executive summary can be used Reasons for and Benefits of as a checklist for organizations aiming to esta- a Complaint Mechanism blish a mechanism or that have already establis- hed one and wish to improve it. Complaint Mechanisms: • a llow NGOs to live up to their responsibility What is a Complaint Mechanism? toward donors, project participants, the NGO • Definition: A complaint mechanism (CM) is sector and society at large a formalized mechanism to give victims and • g ive victims a voice witnesses of misconduct by an organization a • constitute an early warning mechanism to chance to report cases, and for organizations uncover hidden patterns to deal with these complaints in a structured • h elp create trust and protect the organizati- manner. Complaints are an expression of dis- on’s reputation satisfaction or discontent about misconduct. • help NGOs to save money by detecting mi- sappropriation of funds and inefficient sys- • T ypes of complaints: A CM can receive both tems operational complaints (e.g. about programs, quality of work, donor registration, project Design of a Complaint Mechanism participant selection) and serious complaints (corruption, nepotism, misuse of funds, phy- • C hoose type and core design of CM: sical/psychological/sexual abuse) -- D epending on the needs and structure of your organization, choose a CM design • A ccessibility: A CM should be designed in that is centralized (CM at headquarters) such a way that it can be used by everyone or decentralized (multiple levels: CM at (employees, volunteers, project participants, headquarters as well as at regional/country partners or anyone else who has observed level) misconduct by the organization) -- A centralized CM is established by headquarters. In a decentralized CM, the • Essential qualities: Your CM needs to be local partner organizations are responsible characterized by the following essential qua- for setting up their own mechanisms. lities: safety, confidentiality, transparency, -- R eceivers of the complaints can be internal accessibility, quality, verifiability, timeliness, (Complaints Officer/Department) and/or assistance to those reporting, documentation external (e.g. ombudsperson)

• A ssign staff: Choose to create a full-time, • Identify barriers: 4|5 part-time and/or pro bono position for hand- -- C onsider allowing for anonymous comp- ling the complaints. If necessary, consider laints pooling resources with other organizations -- Address barriers due to gender/ethnicity/ for this purpose. religion/language -- O ffer complainant protection • C reate entry-points: Ensure the CM has multiple entry-points, e.g. complaint boxes, • B e aware of malicious complaints: phone line, email address, office hours of -- P rotect your organization from malicious Complaints Officer. Make sure that the entry- complaints by including a zero-tolerance points are adapted to the needs of end-users policy toward them. (e.g. for literate and illiterate) -- Recognize malicious complaints, which are usually non-specific and not documented, • Create ownership: Create commitment by and contain angry language discussing the CM with the wider organiza- tion. Include senior management right from • C ommunicate about your CM: Communi- the start to ensure its full support cate clearly the existence of the CM, its pur- pose and its functioning both internally (e.g. • Work on organizational culture: Help fos- through regular staff trainings, website, pos- ter an open-minded organizational culture ters, flyers, appraisal meetings) and external- that is self-critical and open to feedback and ly (e.g. public meetings, presentations, news- improvement paper, radio etc.) • C reate trust: • E ngage your partner organizations: Make -- E nsure confidentiality sure your partner organizations are fully com- -- C hoose a trusted person with the right qua- mitted to the CM. In a centralized CM, their lifications to handle complaints main task will be to spread awareness about -- Implement policies consistently its existence and functioning. In a decentra- lized CM, your partner organizations are res- Establishing an Effective Complaint ponsible for setting up their own mechanism Mechanism and communicating its functioning. • A ssign resources: Ensure that the necessary • C reate a policy: Enshrine the complaint me- resources (human, financial etc.) are availab- chanism and the complaint handling proce- le, including in the long run dure in the CM guidelines and policy with links to other relevant documents. All emplo- • Customize your CM: Discuss the planned yees should sign an acknowledgment of the CM with end-users in countries to get their policy and be trained in the procedure. feedback and adapt the CM to their needs (incl. identifying access, barriers etc.)

Process of Handling • Forward complaint to higher authority: Complaints – Step by Step Any serious complaint is to be forwarded to a higher authority by the complaints officer. Step 1: Receiving a Complaint Often this is a complaints handling commit- • R egister complaint: Register the complaint tee. in a standardized, written form (e.g. comp- • E stablish investigation team: An investiga- laint form) tion team is established ad-hoc, composed of • A cknowledge receipt: Send the complainant staff with expertise relevant to the case. a written acknowledgement of the complaint • Identify type of complaint: Identify if it is • Decide on investigative methodology: For an operational or serious complaint corruption cases, external and social audits • Identify threats: If necessary, provide pro- can be useful tools. tection for the complainant, e.g. against phy- -- E xternal audits: Investigative external au- sical threats, retaliation, etc. dits are called forensic audits. Please note • D ecide whether to conduct an investigati- that not all auditing companies are quali- on: Decide whether to investigate based on fied to conduct forensic audits. If corruption desk research. Is there enough evidence to is suspected, it is recommended to proceed resolve the case and do the benefits outweigh with the investigation without providing the costs? prior notification to the entity/person(s) • Schedule your process: Have defined time being investigated. limits for each step of the process so the pro- -- Social audits: Social audits create full cess is transparent and the complainant feels transparency by giving the target group in- s/he is safe and being taken seriously formation about project finances (and other relevant aspects), thus empowering com- Step 2: Investigating a complaint munities to take on a watchdog function. Operational complaints are usually handled th- rough desk research. A decision to investigate Step 3: Decision Making, is taken only if a complaint is qualified as “seri- Sanctions & Appeal ous” (as opposed to “operational”). Possible sanctions should be transparent, wi- dely communicated and proportionate. They

can range from a warning to a relocation or a • D ocument the process: All steps of the com- demotion to a lower job. In severe cases, it can plaint procedure should be documented in mean the loss of a job. If a partner organiz- writing, providing as much detail as possible. ation is concerned, results can include tempo- This is important for the systematic analysis rary or complete termination of cooperation, a of cases. demand of repayment or a contractual penalty. Sanctions also act as a deterrent for future per- Step 4: Systematic Analysis, petrators. In the event of a criminal offense, the Reporting and Improvements case must be referred to law enforcement. A CM also has a learning purpose. Through the • T aking a decision: systematic analysis of all cases structural mal- functions can be detected and addressed thus, -- The decision should be made by an entity leading to improved practices and processes wi- other than the one conducting the inves- thin an organization. tigation. This designated higher authority • A nalyze the cases: The systematic analysis takes a final decision based on the written recommendation of the investigation team. of written records can reveal structural mal- functions in the organization. Once detected, -- The same procedure applies for a possible these can be addressed through new (or revi- discontinuation of an investigation. Here sed) guidelines, policies or processes. as well, the investigation team will make a • Publish annual complaints report: It is a good recommendation while a higher authority practice to produce an annual complaints will take the decision on whether to discon- report, containing information on all cases tinue the investigation. received and dealt with. By openly communi- cating the results, the organization shows its • Inform complainant/subject of complaint: proactive stance toward fighting misconduct. Both the complainant and the subject of the • Assess your CM: The CM should be evalua- complaint should be informed immediately ted regularly (e.g. every three years) to iden- of the result. tify shortcomings and challenges that should be tackled in order to improve the mechanism • Allow for appeal: The complainant as well as the subject of the complaint have the right to make an appeal in writing, providing a justification and within a given time frame. 6|7

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Community of Cooperation of Bread for all & its partner organizations for making this Practitioner’s Guide possible. Special thanks to the organizations that have played a pioneering role in having established, maintained and continuously improved their complaint mechanisms. Many of them helped us, through interviews, to get detailed insights into the functioning and reality of their mechanisms. Their stories are the key element in making this A Practitioner’s Guide ins- tead of merely a theoretical study. Thank you also to any other organization which offered valuable additional insights through interviews. A special thank you to every victim or witness of misconduct or abuse within or by an organisation who shared their stories in informal conversations. They took the time to explain how a complaint mechanism would have helped in their personal cir- cumstances; this allowed for the Guide to be adapted to real needs.

Abbreviations and Acronyms A G k E T I Arbeitsgruppe Kirchliche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit von Transparency International Deutschland e.V. ACR Annual Complaints Report BFM Beneficiary Feedback Mechanism BSO Building Safer Organisations CINI Child In Need Institute CM Complaint Mechanism CoC Code of Conduct CRM Complaints & Response Mechanism D C A DanChurchAid DFID UK Department for International Development DRC Danish Refugee Council DWS Department for World Service DZI Deutsches Zentralinstitut für Soziale Fragen F P Focal Point GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit HAP Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International ICVA International Council of Voluntary Agencies LWF Lutheran World Federation NGO Non-governmental organization SEA Sexual Exploitation and Abuse T F Task Force 8|9 T I Transparency International

Contents Introduction 3 Executive Summary 4 What is a Complaint Mechanism? 4 Reasons for and Benefits of a Complaint Mechanism 4 Design of a Complaint Mechanism 4 Establishing an Effective Complaint Mechanism 5 Process of Handling Complaints – Step by Step 6 Acknowledgements 8 Abbreviations and Acronyms 9 The Increasing Demand for NGO Accountability 13 Research Methodology of the Guide 14 I. Complaint Mechanism – Definition and Scope 15 1. What Is a Complaint Mechanism? 15 a. What Is a Complaint 16 b. Types of Complaints 17 c. Who Can File a Complaint 18 d. Reasons for and Benefits of a Complaint Mechanism 18 2. Basic Design of Complaint Mechanisms 22 a. Centralized vs Decentralized Complaint Mechanism 22 b. T ypes of Receivers: Internal 24 Complaints Officer vs External Ombudsperson 25 c. Types of Entry Points 27 3. Essential Qualities of a Complaint Mechanism

II. Establishing and Implementing an 29 Effective Complaint Mechanism 1. Commit to the Process 31 a. Open-minded Organizational Culture 32 b. Resources 33 2. Let End-Users Decide and Be Aware of the Cultural Context 33 3. E nable and Encourage End-Users to Use 36 the Complaint Mechanism a. Create Trust 36 b. Identify Barriers and Solutions to Overcome Them 38 4. Protection from Malicious Complaints 41 5. Communication 41 a. Internal Communication 42 b. External Communication 43 6. Engage your Partner Organizations 43 7. Finalize Guidelines and Policy 44 III. Receiving a Complaint 45 1. Give the Complainant a Formal Confirmation 45 2. Decide What Type of Complaint It Is 46 3. Identify Risks and Provide Protection (“Whistle-blower Protection“) 47 4. Decide Whether to Investigate 48 5. Have Defined Time Limits 51 IV. Investigation 52 10 | 11 1. Appointing the Investigation Team 52 2. Investigation Process Regarding Corruption Cases 54 a. External Audit 54 a. Social audit 56

V. Decisions, Sanctions and Appeal 57 1. Decision Making 57 2. Sanctions 57 3. Appeal 58 4. Written Documentation 58 VI. Systematic Analysis, Reporting and Improvements 59 1. Systemic Analysis for Improvement 59 a. Systematic Analysis 59 b. A dapting Existing - and Introducing New - Systems 61 and Guidelines 2. Annual Complaints Report 62 3. Evaluation and Improvement of the Complaint Mechanism 64 Conclusion 65 Annex 66 Annex 1: Joint Complaint Mechanism - Lutheran 66 World Federation, Save the Children & World Vision Annex 2: Diakonia’s Flowchart for Handling 67 Serious Complaints Annex 3: Case Study – Child in Need Institute’s 68 Beneficiary Feedback Mechanisms, Kolkata, India Annex 4: Case Study – DanChurchAid: Establishing a Complaint Mechanism through an Anti-Corruption Program 70 Annex 5: Feedback Box Form by World Vision 72 Interviews 74

The Increasing Demand for NGO force the Code of Conduct or anti-corruption 12 | 13 Accountability clauses and to discover structural malfunctions of an organization. The mechanism is part of Throughout recent decades, NGOs have de- a larger set of measures to achieve more ac- veloped an increasingly important role in so- countability and transparency, and it improves cial and environmental service provision and the overall credibility of the organization in the advocacy worldwide in a wide range of do- long term. Furthermore, an improved reputati- mains. Traditionally, NGOs are not well regu- on increases trust and may have a positive im- lated in many countries, leaving them more at pact on funding. liberty and less controlled in their operations. The purpose of this paper is to help organiza- In light of the lack of direct legal and public tions and institutions interested in establishing oversight and accountability, severe discrepan- a complaint mechanism to understand how cies, inconsistencies and even scandals have best to develop and run it to make it success- occurred involving NGO management, finances ful. The research and interviews have focused and operations. Examples include excessive sa- on non-governmental and faith-based organiz- laries of senior staff, high administrative costs, ations active in international development co- misappropriation of funding, corruption and a operation, which are the principal target group general lack of transparency, e.g. due to a lack of this Practitioner’s Guide. It is both for small of reporting about activities. To avoid scandals grassroots organizations as well as large interna- and to become more transparent and accounta- tional ones, active in developing and developed ble, many NGOs are increasingly striving to put countries alike. The best practices described in systems and mechanisms in place that improve this manual, however, can also be adapted to their governance, integrity and transparency. the needs of other types of institutions, organi- Measures are diverse, ranging from new poli- zations and companies who want to establish a cies on gifts, travelling and hospitality to imple- complaint mechanism. The manual is not about menting a code of conduct or an anti-corrupti- presenting a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead on policy. However, it is not sufficient simply to it provides various practitioners’ perspectives adopt and improve new policies, systems and of existing complaint mechanisms in order to procedures. It is necessary to find a way to en- show best practices, challenges and solutions, sure commitment to them and to enforce them from the design to the implementation and im- in case of non-compliance. provement of such a mechanism. For an organization committed to maintaining The first part is designed to create a common high standards of ethical and legal conduct understanding of the concept by defining what within the organization and in all its projects, a complaint mechanism is, for whom it is me- programs and business relations, a complaint ant and why it is important to have one. Subse- mechanism is an important tool. It allows all quently, the different types of complaint mecha- stakeholders - employees, project participants, nisms are outlined as well as the most important donors and so forth - to report abuse of power, factors to make it a success. fraud, corruption and sexual exploitation, for The second part illustrates the factors that go example, as well as problems regarding the or- into establishing an effective complaint mecha- ganization’s functionality. Thus, the complaint nism. We elucidate the best practices by analy- mechanism is an important instrument to en-

zing challenges other organizations have faced nisms function and how complaints are recei- and concluding with the lessons learned th- ved and handled. Throughout this process, the rough tackling the problems. Emphasis is thus organizations with the most effective complaint put on case studies and practical experiences. mechanisms and detailed documentation about Subsequently, we present and refer to theoreti- them were identified. cal considerations underlying the whole process As a second step, interviews were conducted from design to implementation. with five NGOs: DanChurchAid, Danish Re- The third part describes the steps for receiving fugee Council, Diakonia, Kindermissionswerk and investigating complaints, making decisions “Die Sternsinger” and Lutheran World Federati- and introducing lessons learned into project on. This is not an exhaustive list of NGOs with improvement as well as evaluating, monito- complaint mechanisms, but rather those that ring and developing the complaint mechanism. were available for interviews and that stand These topics are explained following the same out both for having experience with establis- structure as that of the previous parts. The last hing and maintaining a complaint mechanism section presents the Guide’s conclusions. and having sufficient documentation that is pu- blicly accessible. Their experience provided deep Research Methodology of the Guide insights into the practical challenges encounte- red in designing, implementing and improving As a first step in preparing A Practitioner’s Guide, complaint mechanisms and form the basis of this desk research about complaint mechanisms and Guide. Additionally, the task force of Transparen- whistle-blower protection in a range of domains cy International for Ecclesiastical Development was conducted, examining the private, public Cooperation and the campaign Report the Abuse as well as civil society sectors. The desk rese- were interviewed for additional input. The ana- arch revealed that many larger companies and lysis of the interviews of these organizations led banks use complaint mechanisms, partly due to the formulation of the best practices and re- to legal pressure. In the public sector in many commendations on how to deal with challenges developed countries, complaint mechanisms are that are presented in detail in this Practitioner’s also becoming increasingly common. With a clo- Guide, complemented by the documents of the ser look at the civil society sector, on the other organizations. Throughout the text, Recommen- hand – specifically NGOs – another image emer- ded Sources boxes allow the reader to go more ges: only a very limited number of organizations into depth on the different aspects of establishing have established complaint mechanisms. and maintaining a complaint mechanism. Following the wider literature review, an in- As an additional step throughout the course of depth, qualitative analysis of the documents of the research, many informal discussions were approximately 20 NGOs was conducted based held with victims and witnesses of abuse, cor- on their experience with complaint mechanis- ruption or unfair treatment by organizations and ms. Among those documents were, for example, institutions who did not have the chance to re- complaint mechanism policies and procedures, port their cases at the time of the incident. Their Codes of Conduct, anti-corruption-clauses, com- feedback helped to adapt A Practitioner’s Gui- plementary guidelines and complaint reports. de, taking into consideration the needs of those The documents were compared to uncover si- whom a complaint mechanism intends to serve. milarities and differences in the way the mecha-

I. Complaint Mechanism – Definition and Scope 1. What Is a Complaint Mechanism? person or anonymously by calling a complaint hotline, through a complaint email, by approa- In non-governmental organisations, various ching an ombudsperson, by voicing the comp- situations occur out of which complaints can laint in a public meeting etc. The complaint is emerge: Project mismanagement, corruption, then processed by (a) Complaint Officer(s) in a misuse of funds, nepotism as well as psycho- formalized manner. logical, physical and sexual abuse. These inci- Complaint mechanisms are used in various dents leave victims or witnesses of wrongdoing ways. In the context of organisations and ins- with the question of how to voice their com- titutions, some only target severe cases of mis- plaints and organisations with the question of conduct, such as corruption or misappropriati- how to receive and handle them. A complaint on of funds. Others include suggestions on how mechanism offers a solution by giving victims operations should be improved, e.g. by partici- and witnesses a chance to report a case through pants in projects or by employees. Due to the a formal and safe channel and for organisations variety of cases dealt with and the different na- to deal with complaints in a formalized manner. ture of organisations, mechanisms differ from The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership organisation to organisation. (HAP)2 defines a complaint mechanism as fol- Both in the literature as well as in practice, a lows: “An effective complaint mechanism promo- wide range of terminology is used to describe a tes accountability as communities and employees complaint mechanism: Terms include “feedback are better able to report abuse and access additio- mechanism”, “whistle-blowing program”4, “com- nal protection through deterrence.”3 A complaint plaints and response mechanism”, “reporting me- mechanism can function through different ways chanism”, etc. It is advisable to keep the name and channels: A complaint by (a) victim(s) or of the complaint mechanism as neutral as pos- (a) witness(es) of misconduct can be made in sible, e.g. Reporting Mechanism. 14 | 15 2 H umanitarian Accountability Partnership NGO Accountability: Politics, Principles and Management: http://reliefweb.int/sites/ International (HAP International), a mul- Innovations Earthscan, London. p. 39. ISBN reliefweb.int/files/resources/0753C21D42F- ti-agency initiative founded in 2003, was 1844073688. FEAA4C125727C0053B0D0-HAP%20-%20 the first international self-regulatory body of CrossRoads‘ Global Hands. http://www. Coordination%20-Jan2007.pdf (Retrieved 25 the humanitarian sector working to improve globalhand.org/en/browse/guidelines/7/ October 2016) the accountability of humanitarian action to global_issues/organisation/23481 (Retrieved people. In 2005, HAP International merged 30/10/2016) 4 W histle-blower = “A person who informs on with People In Aid and is now known as the a person or organization engaged in illicit CHS Alliance. 3 H AP (2007): 2007 HAP Standard in Hu- activity”. Oxford Dictionary. https://en.oxford- manitarian Accountability and Quality dictionaries.com/definition/us/whistle-blo- Jordan, Lisa and van Tuijl, Peter (2006): wer (Retrieved 20/08/2016)

a. What Is a Complaint of Conduct (CoC; see best practice box), other policies or commitments Before establishing a complaint mecha- by the staff itself or staff from partner nism, it is of key importance to define organizations what characterizes a complaint. This • P oor quality of the program forms the basis for defining which cases • Physical, psychological or sexual ab- fall under the scope of the mechanism. use by staff member 6 The organisation Diakonia describes a complaint as, “[…] a formal expressi- In addition to defining what a complaint  on of dissatisfaction or discontent, and/ is, it is of great value to define what it or misconduct, about someone or so- is not. General inquiries and requests mething”.5  Examples can include, for information for example do not fall • Misbehaviour by an organisation’s under the definition of a complaint.7 Most organizations, including the ones staff member or partner interviewed for this Practitioner’s Gui- • Breaches of the organization’s Code de, also exclude complaints regarding internal staff employment conditions.8  Best Practice: Establishing a Code of General feedback also does not fall un- Conduct as a Basis for the Complaint der complaint mechanisms. Diakonia Mechanism defines feedback as follows: “Feedback is any positive or negative in- The basis of a good complaint mechanism is a formal statement of opinion about so- clearly formulated and complete Code of Conduct. meone or something – an opinion shared A Code of Conduct is a written document which ex- for information but not with the inten- presses an organization’s expectations towards em- tion of lodging a formal complaint. A ployees to protect the organisation and to inform complaint requires a response whereas the employees. A CoC is signed by each employee feedback does not.” 9 who thus bind themselves to comply with it. If an This indicates an important aspect of a employee breaches the Code of Conduct, a comp- complaint mechanism: Unlike a mecha- laint can be filed via the mechanism about him/her. nism merely designed to receive feed- back, a complaint mechanism needs to give a response to a complaint filed by a complainant.10 5 D iakonia (2012): Complaints and Response Mecha- laints_Mechanism_Policy_0.pdf (Retrieved 24/04/16) 11 F or example: Lutheran World Federation, Comp- nism. Including Incident Reporting for Employees, p. laints Mechanism Policy and Procedure, 2010, p. 7, https://www.diakonia.se/globalassets/blocks-ihl- 9 Diakonia (2012): Complaints and Response Mecha- 5-6, available at https://www.lutheranworld.org/ site/ihl-file-list/call-for-proposal-attachments-2016/ nism. Including Incident Reporting for Employees, p. sites/default/files/DWS-Complaints_Mechanism_ diakonia-complaints-response-mechanism.pdf 16, https://www.diakonia.se/globalassets/blocks-ihl- Policy_0.pdf (Retrieved 24 April 2016) or Diakonia, (Retrieved 15/07/15) site/ihl-file-list/call-for-proposal-attachments-2016/ Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response diakonia-complaints-response-mechanism.pdf Mechanism, p. 11-12 (Retrieved 19 October 2015) 6 I bid., p.8, 11-12 (Retrieved 19/1015) 12 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and 7 I bid., p.8 10 S ome organisations still opt to call it a «feedback Response Mechanism, p. 11 (Retrieved 19 October mechanism» as the term «complaint» can be percei- 2015) 8 L utheran World Federation (2010): Complaints Me- ved as too strong but will include complaints and chanism. Policy and Procedures, p. 7-8, https://www. give a response to cases. (see Annex 3: Case Study 13 I bid, p.12. lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/DWS-Comp- Child in Need Institute)

b. Types of Complaints ploitation or abuse of persons (chil- dren or adults)13  To define more specifically which ty- Examples: pes of complaints can be made or cases Corruption, Fraud & financial issues reported through a complaint mecha- • C orruption: A health worker re- nism, most organizations11 distinguish quests money or presents from pati- between two types: ents in exchange for treatment • Operational complaints • N epotism: A manager selects his • Serious complaints cousin for a job though he is unqua- lified. Operational complaints are mostly • M isuse of funds and/or property: related to projects and programs, e.g. An employee observes her colleague the project management, the quality of using the organisation’s car many work, donor registration, or “staff inci- times for private purposes. The car dents related to accidents, disease or se- and its maintenance costs are paid curity threats ”. 12 through project money meant to Examples are manifold: help those in need. • a former donor complains about not Physical, psychological and sexual having been deleted from the fund- abuse and exploitation raising data base yet • A n aid worker in a refugee camp re- • a community member complains about not being selected to be in- quests sexual favours from a young volved in a project in spite of his fa- girl in exchange for food. mily’s need for support As can be seen in Table 1, at Dan- A serious complaint is related to a bre- ChurchAid, serious (“sensitive”) comp- ach of the Code of Conduct of an orga- laints are outnumbered by operational nization. In general, serious complaints complaints which typically compose can be divided into two categories: the main part of all incoming comp- • C orruption, fraud and financial is- laints, an experience shared by most of sues and the organizations interviewed. • physical, psychological, sexual ex- Practical example: 2012 2013 2014 2015 (Excerpt from Dan Church Aid 16 | 17 DanChurchAid (2015): Complaints Report 2015, DanChurchAid reports that most Operational complaints 79 52 57 40 p.4. For this report and more the complaints received are examples and how the organiz- operational. Among these, most Operational complaints 8 8 15 15 ation dealt with complaints, see are about fundraising complaints, DCA Complaints Reports 2009- e.g. that a person was not deleted Total of complaints 87 60 72 55 2015 as well as their Corruption from the donor list as „requested“. Reports 2004-2010. https:// Complaints are made both about www.danchurchaid.org/about- their activities in Denmark as well us/quality-assurance/complaints as internationally. (Retrieved 25/10/2016))

echa c. Who Can File a Complaint d. Reasons for and Benefits of a Complaint Mechanism Who can file a complaint? The answer to this is very easy: anyone should be The reasons for establishing and the allowed to file a complaint through the benefits of having a complaint mecha- mechanism. This includes people direc- nism are manifold. All stakeholders tly involved with the organization as – leadership, employees, donors and well as any outsiders - the organizati- project beneficiaries alike – can bene- on’s employees, short-term employees, fit from its existence. A complaint me- board members, management, volun- chanism is a unique tool that allows teers, project participants14 as well as victims and witnesses of misconduct suppliers and partners or anyone else to have their voices heard, and allows in contact with, or influenced by, the organizations to detect misconduct, en- organization and anyone who has ob- force policies and improve operations served wrongdoing by an organizati- and thus the efficiency and the impact on. For the purposes of A Practitioner’s of the organization. Guide, people who use the mechanism are called end-users. Complaints can I. NGOs Living up also be made by a group of people or to Their Responsibility on behalf of another person. The latter constitutes a special case, e.g. when a To understand who benefits from ha- victim fears reprisal from filing a com- ving a complaint mechanism and how, plaint and therefore entrusts another it is important to understand to whom person to speak on his/her behalf (see NGOs have a responsibility: Chapter II 3b I. Allow for anonymous • Donors and the government: NGOs complaints). are the intermediary between the people who need help and the do- nors who want to help by donating money and who trust NGOs in their expertise to provide the best help possible. NGOs are thus responsib- le for using the money in the most efficient way possible to ensure the greatest benefits. 14 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p.7 (Retrieved 19 October 2015).

a • Project participants: As the inter- II. Giving Victims a Voice mediary between donors and bene- ficiaries, responsible for developing Victims have a right to be heard. The programs and projects that best help most important reason for having a the people in need, NGOs have a re- complaint mechanism is to give victims sponsibility to beneficiaries to act in and witnesses of misconduct tools to their best interests. access this right. In many cases where a complaint mechanism is absent, the- • The organization itself: NGOs have re is no possibility to report in a safe dedicated their work to a social, en- manner. Through a complaint mecha- vironmental and/or spiritual purpo- nism, this gap is filled: an open ear in se. Organizations have a responsi- a safe and formalized setting is offered bility to work continuously toward to victims and witnesses and their pro- fulfilling these aims and to live up to blems are taken seriously and handled their own values in their daily ope- professionally. The opportunity to com- rations. plain brings real meaning to the rights contained in the Code of Conduct and • The NGO sector: NGOs are part of statutes of an organization. Dealing the wider aid and social sector, and/ with the complaint can challenge the or spiritual sector, and are general- status quo, improve the situation, and ly highly regarded for their intrinsic potentially prevent similar cases from mission to help others. A scandal in happening in the future. one NGO can easily harm the reputa- tion of other associated organiza- Arguments for Complaint Mechanisms tions and even the entire sector. Th- rough a complaint mechanism, NGOs • Help to uncover patterns in misuse of power contribute to living up to their res- • early warning mechanism ponsibility toward their stakeholders. • Enforcement mechanism for other accountability measures 181 | 19 • Improfe reputation and overall credibility of the organization • Improve work atmosphere • Identify structural malfunction of your organization.

echa III. Early Warning tablishment of a complaint mechanism Mechanism and is a chance to detect these, to enforce Improving Operations existing policies and procedures and thus to improve the system as a who- In Table 2, one can see that tips by ob- le. A complaint mechanism thus also servers of misconduct (e.g. by filing a functions as an early warning mecha- complaint through a formalized me- nism. The systematic analysis of the chanism) are the most effective way to complaints enables an organization to discover cases of occupational fraud.15 uncover structural malfunctions and The misconduct pointed out through patterns of misuse, and in some cases these tips demonstrates weaknesses in problems that have appeared consis- the system of the organization. The es- tently for years in many projects. This analysis helps to: Tip 16% 42.2% • Identify how the problem emerged Management Review 14.6% 43.3% and which weaknesses of the organi- Internal Audit 15.4% 40.2% zation enabled the problem to occur; By Accident • Adapt and improve guidelines and 14% 2014 policies and decide which new inst- Account Reconciliation 14.4% 2012 ruments to develop; Document Examination 13.9% 2010 • Explain the reasoning behind and benefits of these guidelines and inst- External Audit 6.8% ruments to the employees. 7.0% IV. Creating Trust 8.3% In the long term, the establishment of 6.6% new systems and minimization of ca- 4.8% ses of misconduct improves trust not 6.1% only by outside actors but also within 4.2% 4.1% 5.2% 3.0% 3.3% 4.6% ”Report to the Nations on occupational Fraud and Abuse – 2014 Global Fraud Study”, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Table 2: Initial Detection of Occupational Fraud 15 E xcerpt from Figure 11: Initial Detection of Occupational Fraud, in Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse – 2014 Global Fraud Study, 2014, p.19, available at http:// www.acfe.com/rttn-download-2014.aspx (Re- trieved 20 October 2016).

a the organization. Furthermore, it al- VI.Protecting and lows an organization to send a strong Enhancing the Organizati- signal of zero tolerance. The complaint on’s Reputation mechanism acts as a deterrent against potential future misconduct. (For more The discovery of misconduct or cor- information on this topic, see Chapter ruption within an organization, e.g. V. Systematic Analysis, Reporting & Im- by the media, can harm its reputation provements) and future operations. A complaint me- chanism is a great opportunity for an V. Financial Benefit organization to take a proactive stance against corruption by offering a chan- The argument that a complaint mecha- nel within the organization to report nism can bring a financial benefit might wrongdoing. The mechanism allows sound contradictory to those who fear the organization to deal with corrupti- the cost of establishing one. The NGO on and other incidents by itself and/or sector is under constant pressure to with the help of a third-party service, keep administrative costs as low as and to demonstrate a willingness to ac- possible. However, even if the mecha- tively investigate cases of wrongdoing. nism can increase administration costs This way, cases can be dealt with inter- initially, the benefit it brings might well nally before reaching the public eye. It outweigh its costs over time: organi- enables organizations to control how zations lose a significant amount of they deal with wrongdoers and how money through corruption, nepotism they communicate information to the and other misconduct. By establishing public. A complaint mechanism thus a system through which misappropria- enhances an organization’s overall re- tion of funds and similar cases can be putation. discovered, weak spots are identified and the misuse and loss of money di- minished. 20 | 21

echa 2. Basic Design of main differences, advantages as well as Complaint Mechanisms disadvantages of all types will be exp- lained, and the different entry points Throughout the research for A Practi- highlighted. tioner’s Guide, a number of different complaint mechanisms were identified a. Centralized vs Decentrali- that can be classified as centralized and zed Complaint Mechanism decentralized. Both are characterized by a variety of entry points. The kind To understand which type of comp- of mechanism to be chosen depends on laint mechanism to choose and how to the type and structure of an organizati- design it, it is necessary to look at the on, its needs and the resources availa- operational structure of an organizati- ble. To make your decision easier, the on. At one end of the spectrum of how to design a complaint mechanism lies Practical Experience : Danish Refugee the centralized system. In a centrali- Council - Decentralized System zed system, there is only one level of complaint mechanism, and it is located “Sometimes we have to accept that we cannot set at the headquarters. The number of up the mechanism in the way we would like to, people responsible for handling a com- but rather in the way that reflects the resources plaint is restricted (e.g. one to three we have. We have a decentralized system. Serious persons as focal points, depending complaints are investigated locally and only if this is on the size of the organization). The- not possible there will be an investigation through se people have the responsibility for the head office. If we had more resources, we pre- checking the veracity and the type of ferred to apply a central system at the head quarter, the complaint and deciding about the because this supports consistency.” next steps. The centralized option has been chosen by DanChurchAid, which (Niels Bentzen, DRC, interviewed 3 November 2015) has a rather open policy: its partner or- ganizations are not obliged to establish their own mechanism but are officially free to use DCA’s mechanism. This al- lows small partner organizations with limited resources to offer a complaint 16 M ichelle Keun-Rasmussen, DCA, interviewed 12 August 2015. 17 S onja Grolig, Kindermissionswerk “Die Sternsin- ger”, interviewed 19 November 2015. 18 N atascha Linn Felix, DCA, interviewed 8 Decem- ber 2015.

a mechanism in a cost-effective way.16 structure of your organization as well (For more information on DCA’s imple- as your resources. Table 3 below gives mentation of its complaint mechanism an overview of the advantages and di- with partners, see the case study on it sadvantages of each system: in Annex 4.) At the other end of the spectrum lies Advantages Disadvantages the decentralized system. In this sys- tem, the complaint mechanism consists Centralized · Centralization of all comp- · A lot of responsibility for a few of more than one level. In practice, System laints:17 allows for an overview people. If these persons are this can mean that in addition to a de- and systematic analysis of all corrupt, the whole mechanism partment or person responsible for the complaints is not functioning mechanism at headquarters level, a si- · D istance from target commu- milar department or person is also res- · Supports consistency nity: ponsible at the regional and/or country - in terms of implementation of - L imited accessibility for level. This structure, which is used by the whole mechanism toward the Danish Refugee Council, is premi- the staff communities, e.g. not having sed on the principle of closest proximi- - in terms of how the comp- access to internet ty. Thus, a case should be brought at laints are received and inves- - P eople might not trust a me- the local level first. Only in rare cases tigated etc., thus consistency chanism located far away should the case be filed directly at, or toward the end-users forwarded to, the headquarters com- plaint person(s). Examples of this in- Decentrali- · A local access point, e.g. · Difficulty of local quality as- clude when the complainant does not zed System through an ombudsperson in surance by headquarters trust the national complaint level and the country, makes the mecha- feels more comfortable approaching nism more accessible in cont- · Potentially incomplete over- the headquarters about the matter, or rast to a centralized system view of all local complaints when the ombudsperson him-/herself · Regional representatives have mechanisms at the national level is the subject of the a better understanding of local - limits possibility of systematic complaint. communication channels and analysis As in most aspects of the complaint dispute- settling traditions. mechanism, which type of mechanism · Target communities might · Inconsistent system: e.g. you choose depends on the needs and trust a person whom they different conditions to conduct know directly more than a an investigation, to suspend mechanism far away a payment and for how much time · A person might know the ombudsperson too well and might not report due to perso- nal relationship · R isk that a complaint is hand- led operationally, although it is a serious complaint (a familiar problem reported by DCA)18 Table 3: Advantages & Disadvantages of Centralized and Decentralized Complaint Mechanisms 22 | 23

echa b. Types of Receivers: plaints Officer(s) is/are an indepen- Internal Complaints Officer vs dent entity within the organization and External Ombudsperson in a position to hold anyone, even seni- or management, accountable Complaints are usually handled cen- In contrast to an internal entity, an ex- trally by either a designated person, ternal entity, such as an ombudsperson group of people or department (her- (see Best Practice and Practical Experi- einafter “Complaints Officer(s)”). This ence boxes), is independent from the entity can be located internally within organization. Thus, the person is not the organization or externally. A major dependent on professional or personal advantage of an internal entity is that relations and can investigate without the person(s) responsible have a good being influenced, even in cases invol- understanding of the organizational ving senior management. Some comp- culture and procedures and are close lainants might trust an external entity enough to examine what has happe- more due to this independence, especi- ned. However, being part of the organi- ally in cases of serious complaints whe- zation, the Complaint Officer(s) might re they might be in danger. also be biased due to professional and Neither an internal nor an external en- personal connections with others. It is tity has to handle complaints full-time; thus important to ensure that the Com- this depends on the size and needs of an organization. In most organizations, Best Practice: Ombudsperson complaints will occur not daily but only occasionally. The complaint officer’s An ombudsperson is a person usually appointed by position can thus be a limited manda- a government/organization/ institution but with a si- te (e.g. a 10% position, or 4 hours per gnificant degree of independence, who is charged week) or an additional responsibility of with representing the interests of the public/stake- an existent position. Smaller organiz- holders by investigating and addressing complaints ations or those with limited resources of misconduct, maladministration or a violation of can even enter a pro-bono agreement rights. with a lawyer or consultant, or pool their resources with other organiza- 19 R ecommendation from Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 November 2015.

Practical Experience: complaining via an email address, a The Ombudsperson of the confidential phone number, a comp- German Red Cross laint letter box, an online platform or public audits to a face-to-face mee- The German Red Cross was one of tings. Ideally, an organization will the first non-profit organizations to decide to offer different entry points implement an ombuds position in for its complaint mechanism, e.g. by 2008. As an external, independent combining channels that can be used person of trust, the ombudsperson anonymously with others that involve receives complaints from employees directly approaching a designated per- both from headquarters as well as son. Complainants who feel unsafe or abroad, e.g. about corruption or unable to disclose information through misconduct. He investigates cases one channel (e.g. due to a lack of trust and thus fulfils a preventive function in the chosen ombudsperson or the as well. inability to make a written complaint due to illiteracy) can choose a different tions to hire on a limited-mandate ba- entry point. Which channel is used also sis19. Annex 1 provides an example of depends on the type of complaint (see a joint complaint mechanism shared by practical experience box below and An- LWF, Save the Children and World Vi- nex 1: Joint complaint mechanism for sion. examples of combining different entry points and how these are processed). c. Types of Entry Points It is important to make sure there is Independent of whether the complaint Best Practices of Entry points mechanism is handled by an internal or external entity or a combination • Designated focal points, chosen by the community based thereof, the entity can be approached on being trustworthy through different entry points. Entry points describe the channels through • Multiple ‘entry points’ for lodging complaints, catering to which a person can file a complaint. the most at-risk in the population, including methods that Examples are multiple, ranging from can be used by people who cannot read or write • C learly explained roles for all the parties to the complaint 24 | 25 • C lear rules regarding disclosure of information about the complaint • S afe spaces for witnesses who may be in danger as a result of the complaint • P rocedures for making complaints by proxy (i.e. that allow one person to complain for another) and/or that allow people to make anonymous complaints

echa Best Practices for Complaint external ombudsperson or otherwise Mechanisms in Communities trusted person. These people, if appro- ached, act as intermediary entry points • W ell-known and trusted community focal points and forward the complaint confidenti- such as protection officers and health workers; ally to the official mechanism. Therefo- re, all employees, volunteers etc. need • Youth focus groups in community centres and to be trained in the complaint policy schools; and should understand themselves to be part of the complaint mechanism. • F ree phone lines in ‘safe’ locations that can be As LWF puts it: accessed by all people; “All staff should respond positively to any complaints made to them and feel confi- • C omplaints boxes positioned in safe, confidential dent to do so. Senior management should and accessible locations; ensure an atmosphere of trust, confiden- ce and value orientation for this purpose. • E mail address (…) Staff needs to know what the steps are regarding dealing with complaints, (Diakonia, Guidelines: Complaints and Response Mechanism. who the specific focal point person is and Including Incident Reporting, 2012, p.11) the corresponding timelines to deal with complaints.”21 also a range of recipients to whom a complainant can report or disclose in- formation safely and thus complain in- directly, ranging from a supervisor to an officially designated confidant,20 an 20 A confidant is an individual (e.g. employee or volunteer) chosen by the project participants or employees themselves based on his/her trustworthiness who can be approached about complaints or problems. 21 L utheran World Federation, Complaints Mecha- nism Policy and Procedure, 2010, p.9, available at https://www.lutheranworld.org/sites/default/ files/DWS-Complaints_Mechanism_Policy_0.pdf (Retrieved 24 April 2016).

a Practical Experience: CARE Internati- • C omplaint telephone numbers (displayed cle- onal in Cambodia – Offering Different arly on VIBs): One was CARE’s, the other was of Entry Points the Government District Committee for Disaster Management counterpart staff. In order to increase accountability in its Disaster Preparedness Action Planning Project (DPAP) in The three entry points ensured that if community Prey Veng Province, Cambodia, a working group members felt uncomfortable or unable (e.g. illite- of CARE developed a Complaint Mechanism that rate) to use one route for feedback, they had other was presented for comment and approval to all options to choose from. The different entry points stakeholders, especially beneficiaries. Workshops also made anonymous complaints possible. and presentations were conducted until the me- chanism comprising a combination of the follo-  wing three entry points was agreed upon: Complaint Box • Committees for Addressing Complaints (CAC), attached to Village to be established at various levels of the pro- Information Board ject. The six members came from district and community levels and two beneficiaries were included. The CAC were tasked not only with receiving and processing complaints but also with providing a channel for receiving verbal complaints and feedback. • Complaint Boxes attached to the Village Infor- mation Boards (VIBs, see photo): A member of the Village Complaint Committee was tasked with keeping the key and opening the box weekly. CARE International in Cambodia – Complaints Mechanism Case Study. Presented at HAPI Complaints Mechanism Workshop, 4-5 April, 2006, Denmark. http://www.chsalliance.org/files/files/Resources/Tools-and-guidance/care-cambodia-comp- laints-mechanism-case-study.pdf (Retrieved 24 November 2016 3. Essential Qualities of a is often written in the Code of Conduct Complaint Mechanism of the organization. The most import- ant features for a good complaint me- To establish a well-functioning comp- chanism are the same in almost every complaint mechanism policy studied laint mechanism, it is crucial to state the aim of the mechanism clearly. This 26 | 27

echa Safety considers potential dangers and risks Accessibility allows the mechanism to be used by to all parties and incorporates ways to as many people as possible from as prevent injury and harm many groups as possible in places where the organisation is operational. Confidentiality restricts access to and dissemina- Communities should be supported to tion of information, requiring that set up their own complaints procedu- information is available only to a res, and must be enabled to complain limited number of authorized people when problems arise. (generally the Senior Management of the organisation) for the purpose of Quality should be accurate, and have a clear concluding necessary investigations. sequence of events. Transparency staff and persons of the affected Verifiability to ensure that the information is relia- community know it exists, and pos- ble. sess sufficient information on how to access it. People of concern should Timeliness of reporting, and related follow-­up be able to speak to member staff measures, must be ensured. regularly about the operation of the complaint mechanism and know who Assistance to should be a part of the complaints in the organization is responsible for handling complaints and communica- those reporting mechanism, to deal with possible ting outcomes. psychosocial, medical and other needs. Documentation The importance of objective, reliable documentation is critical. Table 4: Essential Qualities of a Complaint Mechanism22 for the purposes of this Guide. These long-term running of a complaint me- are the following, summarized in Table chanism. The difficulties you might 4 by Act Alliance: face in the implementation process, These factors are a good guideline for and how to deal with them, are the to- making your mechanism a success. The pic of the next chapter, Establishing and real challenge, however, lies in achie- Implementing an Effective Complaint ving them in the implementation and Mechanism. 22 A ct Alliance, Complaints Handling and Investi- 23 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints gation Guidelines, 2010, p.5, available at http:// and Response Mechanism, p.2 (Retrieved 5 actalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ February 2016). Complaints-and-Investigation-Guide- lines-July-2010-1.pdf (Retrieved 8 April 2015). 24 Act Alliance, Complaints Handling, p.1 (Retrie- ved 8 April 2015).

a II. Establishing and Implementing an Effective Complaint Mechanism Graphic from Diakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p. 16 No Need to Reinvent Our focus in this chapter is on the ad- the Wheel! vice of complaint mechanism practiti- oners and their organizations who we When establishing a complaint mecha- consulted with. Recommendations are nism, there is no need to reinvent the included to avoid problems organiza- wheel! Many organizations with com- tions experienced as well as solutions plaint mechanisms originally consulted for challenges you might face. Mo- with other organizations that already reover, practical experiences and case had CMs and then modelled their me- studies included offer best practices to chanisms accordingly. Diakonia, for learn from. (For more information, see example, states that its mechanism is Recommended Sources box as well as based on that of Act Alliance.23 Act Al- Graphic 1.) liance,for its part, modelled its mecha- nism on that of HAP.24 28 | 29

Recommended Sources: Graphic 1: 12 Steps of Complaints Handling25 • Diakonia, Policy for Diakonia‘s Complaints and Graphic 1 by Diakonia provides a use- Response Mechanism (2012) ful, 12-step summary of the important points of the complaint mechanism • International Council of Voluntary Agencies process. It describes the process from (ICVA), Building Safer Organisations Guidelines the establishment of the mechanism (2007) to the handling of complaints to the evaluation of the mechanism, which • Act Alliance, Complaints Handling and Investigati- will be treated in the chapters below. on Guidelines (2010) • LWF, Complaints Mechanism. Policy and Procedu- re (2010) 25 D iakonia, Guidelines: Complaints and Response Mechanism, p.6. (unpublished, approved on 09.08.2012)

1. Commit to the Process Practical Experience: Changing Perspective Takes Time The idea for a complaint mechanism can emerge out of a simple discussion Ten years ago, Transparency International published a by motivated colleagues, arise from ca- paper discussing corruption in Catholic institutions. The as- ses of mismanagement in the absence sumption that “we are Catholic institutions/organizations, of a mechanism to handle them, or be therefore we are honest” was opposed to the notion that initiated by senior management due to there is as much corruption in religious organizations as in legal or societal pressure or for other secular NGOs. The aim of the study was to increase peo- reasons. Once the idea takes hold, the ple’s awareness of corruption and misbehavior. It initiated process gets under way when there is extensive discussion, which culminated in the conferen- full commitment within the organizati- ce “Mut zur Transparenz” (“courage for transparency”) in on. For this to happen, it is important to Bad Boll, Germany, on corruption in church development broaden the discussion to the wider or- cooperation. Today, many religious organizations are ganization. There should be a general proud to be part of the Transparency International working consensus within the organization on group on Ecclesiastical Development Cooperation. Moreo- the purpose and objectives of the com- ver, they honor the strength of those who fought against plaint mechanism. Basic prerequisites criticism ten years ago for an open-minded organizational include support by (senior) manage- culture. ment and having appropriate resour- ces, both human and financial. In this (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19/11/15) initial stage, potential risks and dan- gers should be identified and strategies as well as who will train and commu- to handle them should be developed. It nicate about the mechanism internally is also at this stage that roles and res- as well as externally. To fully commit to ponsibilities must be defined. This in- the process, both an open-minded or- cludes decisions on who will receive, ganizational culture as well as human handle and investigate the complaints and financial resources are crucial. 3101 | 31

Recommended Source: power. A self-critical management that values integrity highly and can questi- • D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia‘s Complaints and on its own organizational structures is Response Mechanism (2012), pp. 5-6 and 12-13, part of an open-minded organizational provides a detailed list of human resources and culture. Moreover, an important cha- steps needed to implement the complaint mecha- racteristic of this integrity is a willing- nism policy and precise description of tasks of the ness to communicate weaknesses open- country, regional, and head office level ly or learn from mistakes. This integrity increases the trust stakeholders and a. Open-minded employees need to use the mechanism. Organizational Culture Senior management’s attitude toward corruption and misconduct is crucial Organizations often mention external for the success and effectiveness of the reasons for the implementation of a mechanism. complaint mechanism. These include, for example, the desire to be transpa- Recommended Source: rent and accountable to donors, sta- keholders, employees and the public. • C heckpoints for Managers,” in Act Only a few organizations referred to Alliance, Complaints Handling and internal reasons for setting up a mecha- Investigation Guidelines (2010), pp. nism. Those internal reasons can inclu- 27-29 de, among others, management’s desire to fight against corruption or misuse of power in their own organization. Ho- wever, this presumes an awareness of the potential for corruption or abuse of

b. Resources 2. Let End-Users Decide and Be Aware of the Cultural In addition to organizational culture, Context another key element for the establis- hment of a complaint mechanism is A basic challenge many organizations resources. NGOs are under constant encounter is that there is no “one size pressure to keep their administrative fits all” solution to creating a complaint costs as low as possible. A complaint mechanism. Rather, the mechanism mechanism brings additional costs. The must be adapted to the needs of the organization thus needs to communica- “end-users.” te and justify, both internally and ex- “What will help people of concern report ternally, why a mechanism is important abuse in one environment may not help and how the mechanism can improve people of concern in another environ- its operations, protect its finances and ment. This is because barriers to repor- deliver high-quality projects. ting vary greatly from place to place de- Among the resources that need to be pending on factors such as the nature of considered are human resources: eit- the humanitarian crisis, how people are her a position should be created, or a vulnerable and local social norms, inclu- percentage of an existing position de- ding gender norms. It is therefore essen- dicated to the receiving and handling tial that organisations develop policies of the complaints, or a person should in consultation with people of concern as be hired pro bono. Additionally, at dif- well as staff. Policies used in a number ferent points, other departments will of environments should be flexible and need to contribute human resources, require staff to investigate local circum- e.g. for a person to become part of the stances before and during implementati- investigation process for a limited time on.” 26 frame. Financial resources are needed Regardless of whether you choose to to develop training and training ma- establish a centralized or decentrali- terial. Financial resources will also be zed system, make sure the mechanism needed not only to establish a comp- is discussed not only at headquarters laint mechanism but to sustain it. The but with end-users in each country. To long-term success and credibility of a establish a well-functioning complaint mechanism are at risk if funds to run it mechanism, it is essential to integrate are insufficient. 32 | 33 26 I nternational Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), Building Safer Organisations Guidelines. Receiving and investigating allegations of abuse and exploitation by humanitarian workers (2007), p. 8, available at http://www.chsalliance. org/files/files/Resources/Tools-and-guidance/ bso-guidelines.pdf (Retrieved 21 March 2017).

Practical Experience: Diakonia – • Types of complaints Workshops to Spread Awareness in • Barriers to lodging complaints Partner Countries • Access and the ways to submit a Diakonia organized workshops with representatives complaint of each country. The representatives looked at the guidelines and provided input on the contextual By including people in the design pro- perspective. Furthermore, six peer countries helped cess, you let end-users decide what is one another to set up their systems. best, which helps create ownership of “(…) the representatives gave workshops for their the mechanism. Moreover, by partici- colleagues and came up with ideas about how to pating in the process, people are made set up a complaint system in their country. “ aware of the mechanism and how to (Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 November 2015) use it in the future. An inclusive design process typically includes awareness the mechanism into existing structures discussions, for example at team mee- and adapt it to the needs of end-users. tings, as well as end-user information You need to understand the context in sessions. If more input is needed, small which you work. The best way to achie- task groups can be formed and manda- ve this is to have discussions with repre- ted to assist in designing the mecha- sentative groups of potential end-users nism. Internal end-users such as staff to debate the requirements and details should also be reminded regularly of of the complaint mechanism. Explore standards of conduct, complaint proce- with stakeholders questions about: dures and early-warning signs during • T raditional systems for lodging com- their service. 27 Based on the feedback from end-users, you will be able to de- plaints locally sign and establish the mechanism. 27 F or more information see Diakonia, Guidelines: Complaints and Response Mechanism, p.9-10 (Retrieved 5 February 2016).

Practical Example: Tearfund in on boxes, 15 of which were deemed relevant for Northern Kenya – Suggestion Boxes Tearfund’s work. Most focused on the beneficiary and Beneficiary Reference Groups selection process and the recruitment process of agricultural workers. The staff and the BRGs felt In the framework of its project work in Northern the suggestion boxes were instrumental in getting Kenya, the organization Tearfund established feedback from the community that would not Beneficiary Reference Groups (BRGs) to ensure have been voiced in other ways. queries, complaints and feedback from the com- munities could be received and processed. The HAP & Tearfund, “Tearfund North Kenya Programme: Sugge- Beneficiary Accountability Officer had identified stion boxes for community feedback,” 2007, available at http:// the need for an alternative channel for written www.alnap.org/resource/10535 (Retrieved 25 November (and if needed anonymous) feedback and comp- 2015) laints. Therefore, Tearfund discussed the idea of For a more detailed example of a feedback mechanism, see setting up complaint boxes in each community Annex 3: Case Study – Child in Need Institute’s Beneficiary with the BRGs. They decided to call it “suggestion Feedback Mechanisms, Kolkata, India. boxes” as “complaint” was seen as too negative and could keep people from filing complaints due to fear of losing the aid of Tearfund. As a re- sult of the process, five boxes were established in the areas where Tearfund operated. The location of the box was chosen by the area chief together with the BRGs, based on factors such as access, security for users, etc. A descriptive summary was placed next to it and awareness raised within the community. Box 1 shows the complaint handling process. The total cost for the five boxes was 80 USD (16 USD each) in addition to the staff time needed to sensitize the BRGs and the commit- tees. Within three months, Tearfund received 16 (mostly anonymous) complaints via the suggesti- 34 | 35

3. Enable and Encourage a. Create Trust End-Users to Use the Comp- laint Mechanism To ensure that the complaint mecha- nism is used, trust is one of the most Potential complainants need to have important factors. However, this can easy and safe access to the mechanism. also be one of the weakest points of a This is especially important for disad- complaint mechanism. vantaged groups such as women, ethnic “Complainants – whether they are per- minorities, the illiterate, the elderly or sons of concern or staff members – will young people. Many do not know their not come forward unless they trust that rights and entitlements. For this rea- the allegation will be taken seriously and son, awareness must be raised among that they will be protected from reprisals. end-users and their needs closely exa- Managers must create a culture and re- mined to determine how to enable and lated systems that promote trust among encourage them best to use the comp- the host country, international/national laint mechanism. A key element is the staff and beneficiaries and in doing so creation of trust in the mechanism. mitigate factors which may deter indivi- duals from making complaints.” 28 “One of the constraints is to make sure that people Establishing trust is a long-term process really understand their entitlements.” and depends very much on the organi- (Olivier Beucher, director of DRC’s programmes in Le- zational culture regarding misconduct. banon and Syria.) Therefore, the management, those di- rectly responsible for the complaint “They often don’t know about their rights because mechanism and the wider organizati- we don’t tell them.” on all need to work together. Manage- (Maria Kiani, senior accountability adviser at HAP about ment has an enormous responsibility the importance of accountability in the field. Both to create trust and encourage staff to quotations from IRIN news, “Put Accountability into support the complaint mechanism. Se- Practice,” 4 December 2012. http://www.irinnews.org/fr/ nior management support is therefore node/252206 (Retrieved 27 October 2016) one of the most important enablers of the effective implementation of a com- plaint mechanism. Crucially, this sup- 28 I CVA, Building Safer Organisations Handbook. Training materials on receiving and investiga- ting allegations of abuse and exploitation by humani- tarian workers, p. 76-77 (Retrieved 25 April 2016). For more examples, see Diakonia, Guidelines: Complaints and Response Mechanism. Annex 3: Questions and issues to keep in mind when establishing CRM, p. 28-29

port should not simply be lip service Best Practices: Characteristics & Qualifica- 11 | 37 but should be backed up both political- tions of the Complaints Officer(s) ly and through support measures such as budget allocation and enforcement 1. Professional qualifications in financial as well as legal of accountability. Management should fields (e.g. external/internal auditing, keeping track of clearly and continuously state its ba- financial movements), solid understanding of organizati- cking for the mechanism, for example onal structure. For example, at LWF, the Quality Assuran- by using case studies of how it has be- ce and Accountability Focal Point is “a mixture between nefitted the organization or other enti- internal auditor and benchmarking quality manager.” ties. Ultimately, management also has the responsibility to ensure confidenti- (Dr. Petra Feil, LWF, interviewed 30 July 2015.) ality of a complaint mechanism, which should protect the complainant, the 2. T rustworthy, neutral person with a certain independence subject of the complaint until proven from management, able to establish a good rapport with guilty and other witnesses. Policies people (Niels Bentzen, DRC, interviewed 3 November 2015.) must be developed, enforcement car- ried out and an organizational culture 3. M otivated person, eager to enforce the CoC and en- open to learning fostered. Employees couraging others to lodge complaints should understand that the purpose of the complaint mechanism is organizati- (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 November 2015.) onal learning and that it is a safety net to raise awareness and address sensiti- 4. C onsistent, always bringing an investigation to a close ve issues. They should feel comfortable (“Nothing is worse for the morale of the employees and handling complaints. Another central partner organization than to cancel a case without giving factor for the creation of trust is the orientation how to better act/react” person responsible for the complaint mechanism. The box below, based on (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 November 2015.) interviews, presents the most import- ant qualities of the person handling 5. Ability to give strategical advice to complainant, complaints: knowledge of how to deal with the situation and of how the system works, ability to communicate clearly (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 November 2015.) 6. C ourage to fight corruption and abuse of power even of management, but only if there is a chance of success. (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 November 2015.) 7. Intercultural experience, knowledge of foreign languages 36 | 37

b. Identify Barriers and I. Allow for Anonymous Solutions to Overcome Them Complaints There are many barriers to reporting: In some cases, a victim or witness of for example, the fear of retaliation or misconduct may choose to remain an- cultural norms that consider it unac- onymous when filing a complaint to ceptable to challenge authority. Other protect his/her identity and to avoid barriers include the fear of losing a job, negative repercussions.30 Among orga- status, prospects or a source of income nizations with a complaint mechanism, by filing a complaint, but also a simple anonymous complaints are the subject lack of knowledge about the complaint of some controversy. Organizations like mechanisms.29 When planning and es- Diakonia or Kindermissionswerk “Die tablishing a complaint mechanism, you Sternsinger”, which have extensive ex- need to consider barriers that might pre- perience receiving complaints, state vent people from using the mechanism that it is essential to accept anonymous and find solutions for overcoming them. complaints if a complaint mechanism is Here are a few examples of possible to be taken seriously.31 The Danish Re- obstacles and how to manage them: fugee Council (DRC) has been accept- ing anonymous complaints for several Best Practice: years, after having not done so. DRC explains that many people who would At the organization Report The Abuse, cases of like to complain are in a dangerous si- sexual abuse in the humanitarian and development tuation. Only the possibility of anony- sector can be reported anonymously through an mity encourages them to complain.32 online form. While completely anonymous reports Nevertheless, all interviewees also ad- can already be filed, in the coming months additi- mit that it is more difficult to verify the onal measures are being put into place to provide content of an anonymous complaint. more security for abuse survivors, as well as allo- However, it is not impossible to inves- wing for reports to be completed offline for uploa- tigate one. Trust needs to be created ding at a later time. with the anonymous complainant to es- (Megan Nobert, Report the Abuse, interviewed tablish more contacts and to obtain the 24 October 2016) needed information. In some cases, the person ends up revealing his/her iden- tity because (s)he understands how im- 29 F or more examples, see Diakonia, Guidelines: 32 N iels Bentzen, DRC, interviewed 3 November 35 D r. Petra Feil, LWF, interviewed 30 July 2015. Complaints and Reporting Mechanism, p. 28 2015 30 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints 33 D r. Petra Feil, LWF, interviewed 30 July 2015. and Response Mechanism, p. 9 (Retrieved 19 Natascha Linn Felix, DCA, interviewed 8 Decem- October 2015). ber 2015. 31 E wa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 Novem- 34 N atascha Linn Felix, DCA, interviewed ber 2015. Sonja Grolig, Kindermissionswerk 8 December 2015 “Die Sternsinger”, interviewed 19 November 2015.

Practical Experience: complain through a third person. This is any person the complainant trusts. The task force of Transparency (S)he acts as an intermediary who International for Ecclesiastical De- transmits information about the case. velopment Cooperation supports the One difficulty of this procedure is that option of an anonymous complaint: the information can potentially be fal- “If we imagine the cultural, legal and sified.35 social context of other countries and if we put ourselves in the position of a II. Gender, Ethnicity, person working for an NGO [..,], who Religion, Language fears mobbing, suspension or even personal threat once his/her name is Potential complainants might be he- given to his/her employer, it seems sitant to use a complaint mechanism quite understandable to file an anony- that is not adapted to their individual mous complaint.” needs. A female victim of abuse, for ex- (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 ample, might feel uncomfortable repor- November 2015) ting the case to a male ombudsperson. A victim who faced unfair treatment portant it is for the investigation. based on his/her ethnicity or religion Some organizations, such as Dan- might not dare to file a complaint to a ChurchAid or the Lutheran World Fe- confidant of the same ethnicity or re- deration, do not accept anonymous ligion as the subject of the complaint. complaints because they believe it ma- In designing the complaint mechanism, kes the investigation more difficult and these factors thus need to be taken into malicious complaints easier.33 Moreo- consideration, e.g. by having trust- ver, it can be argued that anonymous worthy people of both genders and dif- complaints represent “false protection ferent ethnic or religious backgrounds because often there are only a few people available. Language is another compo- who could have known this information. nent that should be taken into conside- So people might think they are anony- ration. The organization should clearly mous but in reality people know who indicate in which languages complaints could have filed the complaint.”34 Ins- can be received and, for other langu- tead, DCA and LWF offer the option to ages, should arrange for a translator 38 | 39

who is bound by a confidentiality clau- Recommended Sources: se. If resources do not allow, choose a person of the gender/ethnicity/religi- • D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia‘s Com- on/language etc. that most end-users plaints and Response Mechanism will feel the most comfortable with. (2012) III. Fear of Repercussions • International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), Building Safer Orga- A victim r a witness might abstain from nisations Guidelines (2007) reporting due to fear of repercussions (losing a position or advantages, physi- • L WF, Complaints Mechanism. Policy cal threats etc.). The mechanism must and Procedure (2010) ensure that complainant protection is in place. For more information on this matter, see Chapter III.3 Identify Risks and Provide Protection (“Whistle-blower Protection”).

4. Protection from Malicious Best Practices: How to Detect Potential 11 | 41 Complaints Malicious Complaints any oranizations are concerned about According to Sonja Grolig of the task force of Transparency the potential misuse of a complaint me- International for Ecclesiastical Development Cooperation chanism motivated by personal or poli- (AGkE TI), a serious complaint usually provides specific, tical agendas. An employee could, for specified and documented facts. The clearer the complaint example, use the mechanism as a tool statement is, the more probable it is that it is a genuine to advance his/her political interests complaint. or to denounce an innocent colleague by fabricating a story about him/her. The characteristics of a malicious complaint are: With this risk in mind, several organiz- a. U nspecific phrasing of the misuse/act and/or general ations have included in their guidelines a zero-tolerance policy regarding mali- allegations cious complaints. Diakonia emphasizes b. Use of personal, angered and less factual expressions that complaints are generally approa- c. Existence of controversial complaints, meaning people ched in good faith, but if it turns out that the complaint is malicious or false, make anonymous allegations against one another investigations are immediately stop- ped. Disciplinary action can be taken (Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 November 2015) against the person filing the malicious complaint. It is important to include Possible actions/solutions: this aspect in the complaints guidelines In cases of potentially malicious complaints, the AGkE TI as it sends a strong signal and acts as a suggests that basic investigation, e.g. a phone call, often deterrent to prevent misuse. suffices to solve the case. AGkE TI also states that it is easy to differentiate serious from malicious complaints thanks to 5. Communication systematic registration and a bit of experience. Communication is one of the most im- (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, Interviewed 19/11/1 portant aspects of creating an efficient complaint mechanism. However, it is only a matter of setting it up, but also also one of the most underestimated of communicating its existence to all and neglected parts. Creating an ef- stakeholders. It is necessary to com- fective complaints mechanism is not municate clearly a) what a complaint mechanism is as well as its purpose, and b) how it can be used. For this rea- son, information about the mechanism should be easily visible, accessible and frequently communicated. 40 | 41

“Each country team needs to find out the best way Best practices: Communication to communicate with the partners and stakeholders. to Stakeholders Setting up the process requires work, but once you have it going on it is not that time-consuming “Make sure people of concern are aware anymore.” of their rights and the mechanisms to enforce them. A mechanism will only (Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 November 2015) be effective if people of concern know their rights and how they can enforce a. Internal Communication them. Organizations will communicate these messages most effectively if they Internal communication means the consider: communication that takes place on all levels within the organization, from • Their audience/s – what is the gender, management to employees and vo- age, physical ability, language, level lunteers. These stakeholders are both of literacy and ethnicity of the target potential complainants as well as the population? subject of a complaint and thus of key importance. Examples of internal com- • The available communication tool/s – munication are: is it better to advertise through pos- • Staff trainings: Upon introduction of ters, dramas, focus groups, local action and/or community groups? the mechanism, annual training for new employees as well as regular re- • T he core message – what does the fresher courses target population really need to know? • Information as part of a welcome package to new employees • The budget – how can they reach the • Website: Link “complaint mecha- widest cross-section of the community nism” directly on the organization’s within budgetary constraints?” home page, e.g. next to “contact us” button (ICVA, Building Safer Organisations • P osters and flyers in central office Guidelines, p.9) rooms indicating complaint mecha- nism website, phone number and email address

• B riefing on the mechanism at the an- Best Practices: Setting Up a Decentralized nual employee appraisal interview Mechanism with Partners and the annual staff assembly or information session • D iscuss the complaint mechanism with the team of each country b. External Communication • Each country decides how to set up, implement and run It is important also to promote the com- the mechanism plaint mechanism externally. Examples are public meetings and presenta- • Fixed time frame: e.g. within two years partner offices tions, newspapers, radio, theatre, need to set up their mechanism etc. The research for this Practitioner’s Guide identified several organizations • R egular partners meeting to exchange and discuss diffi- with a complaint mechanism but that culties, success stories, solutions challenges experienced, have no information on their websi- and to ensure the quality of each complaint mechanism. te or other communication channels about it. This lack of external commu- es. In this case, representatives of the nication limits the target groups that regional office need to be involved in can use and benefit from the mecha- the process and have the task of ensu- nism. If, however, the CM is made vi- ring the visibility and accessibility of sible and easily accessible to anyone, the mechanism.36 The extent of invol- people who are not part of the organiz- vement depends on the type of mecha- ation but who witness misconduct can nism chosen. In a centralized system, file a complaint. partners need to be involved in com- municating the existence of a mecha- 6. Engage your nism to stakeholders and how to use Partner Organizations it. In this case, the headquarters can simply give a time frame within which One challenge can be the geographical the local trainings have to take place as distance to the end-users. Often, di- well as provide informational material rect communication between the head to assist partners. office and the beneficiaries is difficult In a decentralized system, the obli- because the organization operates th- gations of partners are more complex. rough local partners as intermediari- They are responsible for establishing 42 | 43 36 I nternational Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA), Building Safer Organisations Guidelines. Receiving and investigating allegations of abuse and exploitation by humanitarian workers (2007) (Retrieved 21 March 2017).

and running their own complaint me- guidelines and policy. The guidelines chanism as well as communicating it to set the overall framework of how to their stakeholders. There are different handle complaints within the organi- ways for the headquarters to handle zation. It should be compulsory rea- this. The most common is to ask every ding for staff and can be the basis of member or partner organization to in- trainings on how to use the complaint stall a mechanism in a specific period mechanism. Acknowledgement of the of time, but to give them the freedom policy should be signed by each emplo- to choose between the one proposed yee. The policy should be formulated in by headquarters or to create their own a clear and concise manner and entail adapted version. For the latter case, links to other relevant documents. This headquarters may opt to define mini- serves end-users who want to inform mum standards that the local mecha- themselves further, e.g. on the rules on nism must fulfil. sexual abuse or the investigation gui- delines.37 7. Finalize Guidelines and Policy All aspects of the complaint mechanism and the handling procedure need to be detailed in the complaint mechanism 37 A very good example of a policy combining these best practice characteristics is LWF’s Complaints Mechanism Policy and Procedure

III. Receiving a Complaint Graphic from Diakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p. 16 In this part, we will examine the diffe- registered in a standardized way (e.g. rent steps that follow from receiving a in a complaint form; see Annex 5 for an complaint and discuss the best practices example). In addition, a letter of ack- to make your complaint mechanism ef- nowledgement should be sent to the ficient. As in the previous sections, A complainant. The letter should inform Practitioner’s Guide focuses on practical the complainant that the organization experiences and best practices. We will or the ombudsperson has received the briefly present the theory and provide complaint and should summarize the links to further literature (see Recom- steps that will be taken next. mended Sources Box). The schematic diagram below illustrates the main Best Practice: steps associated with receiving a com- plaint. 1. Give the Complainant a “Acknowledgement Letter states Formal Confirmation • When and how the LWF/DWS received the complaint • Who in LWF/DWS is responsible for acting on the comp- The person responsible for receiving the complaint has a duty to respond laint adequately to the complainant. First, • Who the complainant should contact regarding ques- independent of whether the complaint was received verbally or in a written tions or feedback” manner, it should be written down and (LWF, Complaints Mechanism. Policy and Procedure, p.12) 44 | 45

“This written acknowledgement is im- case as possible, i.e. where it comes portant for reasons of accountability and from. Thus, it needs to be forwarded transparency. It shows the complainant to the responsible staff, e.g. the project that the allegation is taken seriously and manager. Often, these cases can be re- it gives her/him the information he/she solved through a simple desk investiga- needs to ensure that the LWF/DWS [De- tion. partment for World Service] is respon- For a serious complaint however, the ding properly. If an investigation follows, steps are more complex. It is recom- this provides a record that the LWF/DWS mended to use the principle of the next has received the complaint and has given higher person: if the complaint is about initial indications on how it has hand- the person’s line manager, it should be led the situation in the initial stage. […] forwarded to the next higher manage- The acknowledgement letter should be in ment level. In general, serious com- writing, concise and clear. If the complai- plaints are addressed by regional or nant does not want a letter, or the LWF/ senior management at the head office. DWS believes that such may put the com- This measure ensures consistency in plainant or others at risk, it is possible to how the complaint is handled. confirm receipt orally.” Serious complaints should be investi- gated if enough evidence is available. LWF/DWS, Complaints Mechanism. Policy and Safety risks should be identified and re- Procedure, p. 12 sponded to immediately (see Annex 2: Diakonia’s Flowchart for Handling Seri- 2. Decide What Type of ous Complaints.) Complaint It Is The next step is to identify what kind of complaint or incident it is in order to decide how to handle it (see also chap- ter I). For an operational complaint the best practice is the principle of the nearest person: Usually, the operational comp- laint should be handled as close to the 38 I CVA, Building Safer Organisations Guidelines (2007), p. 8 (Retrieved on 21 March 2017)

Practical Experience: Serious injury and harm. This will include en- Complaints suring confidentiality, offering physical protection when possible, and addressing “[…] For issues concerning money, the possibility of retaliation against wit- clear procedures to investigate exist, nesses.” 38 whereas the situation is much more Protecting complainants means having complex for a case of sexual exploita- rules and systems in place that ensure tion or abuse of power. We invariably people who point out wrongdoings do need a special procedure that inclu- not have to face negative consequences des the cultural background.” (e.g. losing their job or being discrimi- (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 No- nated against in the workplace). It also vember 2015) means protecting victims from cont- inuing to suffer from the abuse about When receiving complaints regarding which they filed the complaint and pro- sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), viding other help such as medical and special trained SEA investigators shall psychological assistance. be used. In this case, the BSO [Buil- The Building Safer Organisations Gui- ding Safer Organisations] Guidelines delines of the International Council of for receiving and investigating alle- Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) offer a good gations can provide further advice, as description of the process of conside- well as the HAP organization. ring risks: “At the initial contact, the investigator 3. Identify Risks and should find out whether the complainant Provide Protection or anyone else is immediately at risk. S/ (“Whistle-blower Protection“) he should then prioritise those risks and refer any security concerns to a compe- People who file a complaint can face tent colleague. certain risks. Those in charge of the Identifying risks means thinking broad- complaint mechanism should identify these risks, implement safeguards and „I received little support and no justice. My organization did ensure protection is provided. not provide me with medical care, psychological support, “A safe complaint mechanism will con- or any legal options (not that going to the police would sider potential dangers and risks to all have led to any sort of justice. PEP [Post-exposure prophyla- parties and incorporate ways to prevent xis] or emergency contraceptives were not made available. I had to seek out HIV and STI [sexually transmitted infections] testing and basic medical care on my own afterwards” 46 | 47 [Sexual Abuse] Survivor Testimony #9. https://reporttheabuse.org/survi- vor-testimony/ (Retrieved 30 November 2015)

Practical Experience: Complainant risks may not be so obvious e.g. sexual Protection : infections, psychological trauma and economic loss. All of these are harmful „A boy complains to a volunteer about having been and reduce a person’s quality of life and sexually abused by an educator. The volunteer pas- may inhibit her/his ability (or desire) to ses on the information to the person responsible for contribute to the investigation. the complaint mechanism.“ (Anonymous Source) After the investigators have identified the risks, they need to rank them by person, In the case of sexual or physical abuse, the threat type of danger and likelihood of those is often not a one-time occurrence but continuous. risks occurring i.e.: which risks are most The same applies in this case, where the threat is pressing for each person and, between not of a past nature but still present as the educator people, whose needs are most urgent? is still in the surroundings of the boy and the volun- (Generally, the complainant’s needs teer. A number of people are potentially in danger: come first because s/he is most vulner- The boy affected by the abuse, other children who able).” 39 can become and might already be victims of the Protection of the complainant is a pri- abuser, as well as the volunteer who passed on the ority. Threats should be taken seriously information. Here, the first action is to remove the and not underestimated. In some cases potential perpetrator from the victim and other the question might be how to get the in- potential victims. Sternsinger reports that in the formation and proof without revealing above-mentioned case, they decided to move the the identity of the informant because it volunteer to another home in another city. If he had could put him/her in danger. If this is remained in the place, the perpetrator might have not possible, the informant might have known who reported him and retaliated. to be taken off the case to protect him/ (S onja Grolig, Kindermissionswerk “Die Sternsinger”, her even if it harms the case. In some interviewed 19 November 2015) cases, the complainant might even choose to withdraw the complaint out ly about what has happened and could of fear or for other reasons. As Megan happen to everyone involved in the in- Nobert of the campaign Report The vestigation, including the survivor, the Abuse40 points out, we must be aware complainant, the witnesses and the SOC. that this situation might occur and not Some risks are physical and may be ob- put pressure on the complainant, but vious (e.g. pregnancy, injuries from at- tack by the SOC or relatives etc). Other 39 I bid., p.11. See also Diakonia, Guidelines: Com- 41 M egan Nobert, Report The Abuse, interviewed 43 T ransparency International, “Whistleblowing In plaints and Response Mechanism, p.5 24 October 2016 Europe. Legal Protections For Whistleblowers in the EU,” 2013, available at https://www. 40 R eport The Abuse is a campaign that aims at ad- 42 B enjamin Novak, “Hungarian NGOs launch joint transparency.de/fileadmin/pdfs/Themen/Hin- dressing the problem of sexual violence against whistleblower protection program”, The Buda- weisgebersysteme/EU_Whistleblower_Report_ humanitarian and development workers, e.g. by pest Beacon, 24 April 2015, available at http:// final_web.pdf (Retrieved 25 April 2016). gathering testimonies of survivors and witnes- budapestbeacon.com/featured-articles/hunga- ses of sexual violence within the humanitarian rian-ngos-launch-joint-whistleblower-protecti- and development community. See http://report- on-program/22256 (Retrieved 25 April 2016). theabuse.org/ (Retrieved 21 March 2017)

Recommended Sources: European Union, only four have ful- ly-fledged whistle-blower protection • U nited Nations Office on Drugs and laws. Sixteen have insufficient or par- Crime, The United Nations Conven- tial legislation and seven have none or tion against Corruption: Resource very limited legislation43. (See Recom- Guide on Good Practices in the Pro- mended Sources box for further infor- tection of Reporting Persons (2005) mation on whistle-blower protection.) • P aul Stephenson, What makes a good whistleblower law? (2014) accept their decisions and allow them 4. Decide Whether to change their minds later if this is to Investigate what they desire. It’s the key to a survi- vor-centred approach. 41 Upon receipt of a complaint, the re- Organizational efforts should be sup- sponsible person needs to decide ported at the state level: national le- whether to initiate an investigation. For gislation needs to ensure that it is this purpose, the following questions not a crime to report a crime. The law can be raised: should make clear that a person who • Does the complaint or incident rela- speaks up in the public interest cannot be subject to civil or criminal lawsuits te to a breach of Code of Conduct or for their disclosure.42 A whistle-blo- violation of any of the organization’s wing law certainly needs to take into policies and guidelines? account the legitimate reputational • Has the complaint been made in concerns of employers, but it must pri- good faith? The complaint or inci- marily offer real protection to whist- dent should be a genuine concern le-blowers who speak up about the risk of the complainant. It should not be of harm or wrongdoing in the public motivated by personal gain, personal interest. Unfortunately, national legis- interest or a grudge44 lation is not yet very advanced in this • Is there sufficient information and regard: of the 27 member states of the evidence to start an investigation? • H ow realistic is it to solve the case and to gain knowledge? • W ill the costs be higher than the be- nefits from the investigation (cost-be- 48 | 49

nefit analysis)? This question con- Recommended Sources: cerns corruption issues in particular. Indicators for the decision include: • A ct Alliance, Complaints Handling and -- A ge of Case: If a case is older than Investigation Guidelines (2010) 2-3 years, it is often not worth the • L WF, Complaints Mechanism. Policy effort of investigating due to lack and Procedure (2010) of evidence (no written documen- tation, staff turnover etc.). • International Council of Voluntary -- L ocation: If a project is in a seclu- Agencies (ICVA), Building Safer Orga- ded location, documentation is of- nisations Guidelines (2007) ten insufficient. -- V alue of misappropriated money or Best Practice: Open Book Policy bribe: If the amount is small, the cost of investigation can quickly Organizations often question how much informati- exceed the amount involved. 45 on they should put online, both regarding the effort and an overflow of information. In this context, To answer these questions and reach an openly communicated Open Book Policy can a decision regarding launching an in- help. It can be a simple statement on the website vestigation, the responsible person that says that the books of the organization can be conducts desk research. This means he accessed upon request from partners. or she looks into files, enters into infor- “Just open your books and show the partner the mal dialogue with possible informants, numbers. There are simple solutions once you have and so forth. In many cases, especially analyzed what the problem is about.” regarding operational complaints, the problem can be resolved at the stage of (Natascha Linn Felix, DCA, interviewed 8 December 2015) the desk research if there is good com- munication with the complainant. An open book policy can benefit the orga- nization (see Best Practice box). 44 S ee more in Chapter II.4 Best Practices: How to Detect Potential Malicious Complaints 45 S onja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19/ Novem- ber 2015. 46 L WF, Complaints Mechanism. Policy and Proce- dures, p. 14, (Retrieved 24 April 2016). 47 N iels Bentzen, DRC, interviewed 3 November 2015.