5. Have Defined Time Limits Action Time Allotment For both the complainant as well as Complaint Received Incident should be reported soo- the person(s) under investigation, fi- nest but can be brought up within xed maximum time frames for each 6 months of incident step of the complaint and investigati- on process should be openly commu- Acknowledgement of Complaint Within 2 days nicated. Time limits make a complaint Received mechanism more transparent and com- prehensible. This goes hand in hand Resolution of Operational Com- Decision within 7 days with continuous communication with plaints the complainant and the subject of the investigation. The complainant feels For Complaints needing further Actual investigation ideally in 7 safer and taken seriously if (s)he is in- investigation days though may vary depending formed about when to expect a reply, on the nature and complexity of a decision etc. For the person(s) under complaint. investigation on the other hand, time Maximum 21 days limits are important for avoiding the uncertainty of a never-ending investi- Inform Geneva Secretariat of Soonest information is known, gation. serious complaints and reflected in the Management Many organizations seek to resolve a monthly report complaint within 30 working days of receipt. Table 5 illustrates LWF’s list of Resolution of a complaint under- Maximum 30 days of receipt of the time allotment for the specific ac- going investigation complaint tions of a complaint mechanism: Appeal process Within 30 days of decision Table 5: Time Allotment of Specific Actions of the Complaint Process46 Other organizations state that they pre- fer not to use time limits. The Danish Refugee Council, for example, argues that restrictive time limits are “artificial and unwise because you need to give the case the time it needs to be solved.”47 A Practitioners Guide’s recommendation is to define realistic time frames but to allow for a (fixed) extension period for particularly challenging cases. 50 | 51
IV. Investigation Graphic from Diakonia, Policy on Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p.16 In this part of A Practitioner’s Guide, we 1. Appointing the focus on challenges and best practices Investigation Team in implementing the investigation pro- cess, without elaborating upon every Regarding the investigation, a wide step of this process range of possible designs exists, and the type of investigation can be adapted to Best Practices: Investigation: the needs of the organization. Never- theless, strong similarities among the • A dapt the investigation team to each specific case different investigation processes can • Q ualities of an Investigation team: be identified. The Complaint Officer(s) a) Contextual knowledge check(s) the veracity of the complaint b) G ender balanced and considers whether it is an operatio- c) E xperts with skills and knowledge nal or a serious complaint. In the latter case, the complaint is forwarded to a regarding the case higher authority, e.g. an ad-hoc com- d) Trustworthy plaint handling committee, composed of senior management and the person(s) • A void conflict of interest: The person conducting receiving the complaints. This commit- an investigation should never be the same indivi- tee recommends the necessary steps to dual making decisions for action on a complaint be taken. In some organizations, this committee decides on its own, while in (Diakonia (2012) Complaints and Response Mechanism, p. 13) other organizations it makes recommen- dations to a higher authority (e.g. the • Examine consistently board of the organization). 48 D RC, “Procedure of Processing of Code of Con- duct reports,” p.3 (Retrieved 7 April 2016).
In serious cases that cannot be resolved Practical Experiences: through simple desk research, an inves- tigation is necessary. The investigation „Classical example: Five years ago something happened in team is established ad-hoc, as is the a region with poor infrastructure. Now there is no one there complaints handling committee. The anymore who knows about the project back then. There is composition of the investigation team no documentation about the project anymore. In this case, is adapted to the needs of each case. it is not worth doing an external audit.“ The DRC Guidelines note: The members of the investigation team (Sonja Grolig, Kindermissionswerk “Die Sternsinger”, interviewed 19 might be appointed by the head of the November 2015) department. They can be experienced staff, junior managers or others, with As forensic audits are quite expensive, Diakonia recom- skills and knowledge relevant to the fol- mends “not to investigate more than you need (and) better lowing three task force (TF) pools: to ask the money back instead of making a lot of forensic a) Human Resource dealing with ha- audits. Sometimes it is important to know what happened rassment, sexual, physical and verbal but not all the time.” abuse, exploitation, safety and health, discrimination and nepotism (Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 November 2015) b) Finance dealing with the falsification of records and authorisations, financial “Answers to these questions will determine whether an fraud investigation is justified. If so, the investigation procedures c) Administration dealing with conflicts should be put in place. The decision is taken by the res- of interest, disclosure of information and ponsible manager. If, during the investigation, it is deter- disloyal behaviour, disregard of laws and mined that there is no basis for proceeding, the investigati- standards, abuse of resources and assets, on should be closed. All persons who know about the case procurement, logistics, vehicles, theft, should be informed of its closure.” corruption. (Diakonia, Complaints and Response Mechanism, p.16) For a specific case the relevant TF pool appoints a two-person investigation TF role is to spar and assist. The TF will only among themselves. While the two TF include persons without responsibility or members are jointly responsible for the other interest in the matter(s) raised.48 TF’s work, one member is appointed The process of investigation and san- head of the TF, while the other member’s ctioning cannot be undertaken by the project manager who oversees or has responsibility for the complainant or the person who is the subject of the complaint. Instead, the investigation team should have an unbiased perspec- 52 | 53
tive in relation to the case. Furthermo- Recommended Sources: re, the persons responsible for investi- gating should not report to their direct • C HS Alliance, Guidelines for Investiga- management but to a higher instance tions (2015) such as the board, which also decides when a case is finished. This guaran- • A ct Alliance, Complaints Handling tees a certain independence as well as and Investigation Guidelines (2010), the engagement of the board in risk ma- p.18-22 nagement. It offers the board a chance to be involved in the practical work of • L WF, Complaints Mechanism Policy the organization and receive insights and Procedures (2010), Appendix 6 into the weaknesses of the organization LWF/DWS Investigation Guidelines, that need to be addressed. p.26-35 The investigation team should be 2. Investigation Process able to conduct the investigation in a Regarding Corruption Cases thorough manner and to demonstrate clearly a zero-tolerance stance against In cases of suspected corruption, the misconduct. Regarding the specific way investigation process may require dif- to investigate, there are many different ferent types of tools and strategies. In options of developing an investigation the following section, two examples of plan, including how to gather evidence useful tools – namely, external and so- and conduct interviews as well as the cial audits are described. contents of the final report and the fol- low-up. Sources containing detailed in- a. External Audit formation and guidelines on these mat- ters can be found in the Recommended An external audit is the auditing of the Sources box. financial statements of an organization or institution by an entity independent of the subject of the audit. One of the primary aims of the external audit is not only to check finances but to send a clear signal against corruption and for transparency among partners. Even in 49 T o identify a good audit organisation, experien- ced NGOs can be approached for recommen- dations.
„How much time and resources can Practical Experience 1: External Auditing in one afford [time, money] and how Case of Suspicion of Corruption in a Partner much is the donor willing to pay Organization: for audits? Comprehensive audits covering all programs are simply not If a complaint reaches the mechanism about misconduct affordable” of a partner, the organization can decide to request an (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19) external forensic audit. The audit must be accepted by the executive board. The External Audit Office receives any the absence of a direct complaint, it is documentation available. To be able to check the books beneficial for an organization to con- of the partner without arousing suspicion, the organization duct audits among randomly selec- informs the partner that it is simply conducting a random ted long-term partners who receive audit. Project funding is withheld until the audit is done. large sums. If a partner continually If the audit proves the existence of faked documents and turns down or postpones an external receipts, misappropriation of funds or other misconduct, audit for various reasons, it should be the result is sent to the board with recommendations on a warning sign for the organization, how to sanction the organization. No further money is sent which can temporarily suspend pay- until ments until the audit is undertaken. a. T he money is paid back b. The recommendations by the external audit office are A good audit office should have a so- lid reputation for doing reliable work, implemented by the partner be able to conduct the specific audit needed (e.g. forensic audit) and know Sternsinger is in charge of reinforcing the ban on dona- the specific needs of an NGO.49 The tions and for warning other NGOs by transmitting informa- external audit office should be chan- tion to their anti-corruption network. ged regularly (e.g. every three years) (Sonja Grolig, Kindermissionswerk “Die Sternsinger” interviewed 19 November 2015) Practical Experience 2: Diakonia – Problems with an Audit Partner “For many years they have been the auditors for our part- ners and wrote the audit reports. But they did not conduct any investigation. They gave us an audit certificate that was not correct. In other words, they did not do the work and were just sitting in the office. We have learnt from this expe- rience. Now, the partners change the auditors from time to time and Diakonia needs to be involved and assesses the new auditors from the beginning.” (Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27/11/15) 54 | 55
Recommended Source: to be able to question the organiza- tion directly about it and to demand • C entre for Good Governance, Social Audit: A accountability. This type of audit has Toolkit – A Guide for Performance Improvement long been supported and demanded and Outcome Measurement (2005) by Transparency International.51 Only a few NGOs systematically undertake to avoid nepotism. As it can be difficult social audits. Among churches, hardly to identify a good audit company, their any audits from below are underta- work should be checked regularly. The ken. cost of an external audit depends on One of the major problems of social the financial amount in question and audits is that only the partner in the the documents available at the part- country has direct access to the target ner organization. Usually, it is higher group. Therefore, a foreign donor is than an internal audit,50 because the dependent on the willingness of the external auditors examine the docu- partner to undertake a social audit. mentation on the ground and conduct The cost of the social audit, on the interviews. Costs can be reduced by other hand, often has to be covered partnering with other donor organi- by the organization’s headquarters, zations that have the same partner to especially if there is no local budget conduct a collective external audit. for it. Furthermore, the effectiveness Upon finalization of the external audit, depends on conditions in the country the partner receives the results and has (e.g. fear of criticizing openly) and a chance to explain any shortcomings. the target group: if people are illitera- te, a neutral person is needed to read a. Social audit all relevant documentation and exp- lain financial statements in addition In a social audit (also called ”audit to facilitate the meeting. For an orga- from below“, ”public audit“ etc.), the nization, it can be difficult to commu- target group of projects and programs nicate its complex expenses to project is informed of how the money is used participants. 50 U p to 20-30% higher, according to an estimate 52 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and by the task force of Transparency International Response Mechanism, p.14. for Ecclesiastical Development Cooperation. Regarding the time needed, the task force estimates that it takes 4-6 weeks from the assig- nment of the mission until the result. 51 C entre for Good Governance, Social Audit: A Toolkit – A Guide for Performance Improvement and Outcome Measurement (2005), available at http://gateway.transparency.org/tools/de- tail/384 (Retrieved 20 November 2015).
V. Decisions, Sanctions and Appeal Graphic from Diakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p. 16 1. Decision Making 2. Sanctions Based on the investigation report, con- Depending on the severity of the findings, clusions and recommendations are the consequences can be handled inter- made that form the basis for the fi- nally in the organization or externally nal decision. The person investigating through legislative sanctions. Possible should never be the same individual sanctions should be transparent and fair taking decisions for action on a comp- (proportional to the misconduct) as well laint52. Disciplinary decisions are taken as widely known and understood within by regional management (RM) or seni- the organization and among its external or management (SM), never by anyone partners. Consequences can range from involved in the investigation. The same an official warning and a note in the per- practice is applied for decisions regar- sonal work file to relocation to another ding the end of an investigation and department or demotion to a lower job. the analysis of the lessons learned. This procedure helps to avoid conflicts of in- Practical Experience: Sternsinger – terest by diversifying decision making. Corruption in a Partner Organization: Immediately after a decision is made, the complainant should be informed of In the case of corruption in a partner organization or mi- the result. sappropriation of funding, the strategy of Sternsinger is to temporarily suspend payments to the partner until it has complied with the following conditions: 56 | 57 • R epayment of money • F ulfilling the conditions of the External Audit Office In this way, Sternsinger demonstrates zero tolerance to- ward corruption while giving the partner a second chance. This can prevent the organization’s losing every partner engaged in corruption in the long term. (Sonja Grolig, Kindermissionswerk “Die Sternsinger” interviewed 19 November 2015)
In severe cases, it can mean the loss of a “If the Complainant or the Subject of the job and expulsion from the organization. Complaint is not satisfied on the resolu- In the case of a partner organization, the tion of the complaint, he/she may lodge sanction can be a temporary or comple- an appeal within 30 days upon receipt of te cessation of cooperation, a demand of the decision. The LWF Representative and repayment or a contractual penalty. In the Complaints Handling Committee shall the case of repetition, the sanction can analyse the reasons given and any other become more severe. Sanctions and the new evidences to make a decision whether communication thereof act as a clear si- or not to conduct a new investigation. The gnal that an organization does not tole- appeal shall be considered only once.”53 rate any form of corruption and miscon- duct, and thus serve as a deterrent. 4. Written Documentation In case of suspicion or detection of a cri- minal offense under the law of the coun- Throughout the complaint procedure, try in which the activity was conducted, all steps should be documented in wri- the staff of the complaint mechanism is ting, in as detailed a manner as possible. obliged to refer the case immediately to The documentation, including the final the law enforcement agents in the coun- report and all annexes, must be saved try. External legal consequences can in- in a secured file with access limited to clude a financial penalty or a prison sen- designated people. This procedure is im- tence. portant for several reasons. The establis- hment of a complaint mechanism entails 3. Appeal the risk of court cases, for example, of persons who were sanctioned due to a As in a court system, every person who breach of the CoC. In these cases, de- is found guilty through an investigation tailed documentation must be at hand procedure has the right to file an appe- and good communication in place. The al against the decision. The appeal must files are also important for systematic be made in writing, provide justification analysis and eventual structural impro- and be lodged within a time frame spe- vement of the organization. cified by the organization. For all of the organizations interviewed, an appeal can be made only once. 53 L WF, Complaints Mechanism Policy and Proce- dure, p. 13 (Retrieved 24 April 2016). 54 E wa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 Novem- ber 2015
VI. Systematic Analysis, Reporting and Improvements 1. Systemic Analysis record in written form. This way, com- for Improvement plaints can be analyzed systematically and used for institutional improvement As Diakonia emphasizes, “One of the by detecting structural malfunctions. main purposes for establishing a CRM Through the systematic analysis of a [complaint and response mechanism] complaint, we can find answers to the is to learn and [to] improve an organiz- following questions: ation.”54 To realize the potential of the • H ow did the problem emerge? complaint mechanism as a tool for le- • W hat weaknesses in my organization arning and improvement, it is essential to analyze the cases dealt with: What led to the problem? were the origins of a complaint? Was • H ow should guidelines/policies be it handled well? How can similar cases be avoided in the future? Knowledge adapted or which new instruments can be gained from each complaint to and strategies are needed to avoid improve the organization’s operations. similar cases in the future? The more cases detected, the more sys- • How should new instruments against tematic approaches can be developed. misconduct be best communicated? The lessons learned can feed conti- nuously into project improvement and Best Practices of Systematic Analysis for making anti-corruption activities more Improvement: successful. • All lessons learned drawn from the investigation a. Systematic Analysis reports are communicated to management and implemented in the organization With this purpose in mind, all comp- laints received – whether they lead to • Keep a record investigation or not – should be kept on • C reate systematic statistics and analysis of lessons learned about the complaint mechanism 5608 | 59 • Adapt Guidelines • Draw up a black list of organizations to which donations are suspended due to involvement in corruption cases
Hence, it is important to analyze not -- Anonymous? only the lessons learned, but also: -- M alicious? • Who files complaints? • H ow many complaints have been • What entry points are used? proven to be valid? • W hat types of complaints are made? The following practical experiences -- E xternal or internal? By which present two examples illustrating the group of stakeholders? detection of weak points through syste- matic analysis: -- Serious or operational? Practical Experience 1: Practical Experience 2: Channel for External vs Internal Complaints Complaints, Danish Refugee Council According to the task force of Transparency “Stakeholders mostly make complaints th- International for Ecclesiastical Development rough personal meetings, by telephone and Cooperation, an imbalance between the rate in written forms, e.g. letters in feedback boxes. of external and internal complaints points to However, when using feedback boxes you potential weaknesses. External complaints are need to consider that many people do not like made, for example, by people from partner to use them for serious complaints, because organizations who have insights into finan- people prefer to tell about a serious complaint cial structures. Internal complaints, on the to somebody trusted and not an anonymous other hand, arise from the revision of finan- box.” ce reports, project visits, and annual audits. If the rate of external complaints is high, it (Niels Bentzen, DRC, interviewed 3 November 2015) demonstrates that the anti-corruption network is functioning well and that sensitization and Practical Experience 3: Comparing engagement against corruption have increa- Complaints per Country with sed among partners. However, it also hints the Transparency International at the fact that the internal control system Corruption-Index might not be satisfactory. Hence it should be desirable to have more internal than external Sternsinger lists how many cases exist in each complaints. country in which it has projects. This number is then compared to the Transparency Internati- (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 November 2015) onal (TI) Corruption Index. If corruption is very prevalent in a country, but there are only a According to DanChurchAid, corruption cases limited number of complaints, it is an indicati- are detected primarily through functioning on that the mechanism does not work well in internal procedures, control mechanisms, the country yet. To formulate a proper statistic, evaluations and revisions. If external comp- the number of projects in each country should laints dominate, this indicates that the organiz- be integrated into the calculation. ation in question needs to improve its internal control system to better detect breaches of (Sonja Grolig, Kindermissionswerk “Die Sternsinger”, the Code of Conduct. interviewed 19/11/15) (DCA, interviewed 12 August 2015 and 8 December 2015)
The following lessons can be learned Practical Experience: Sternsinger – Corrupti- from these examples: on in a Partner Organization: • First, a high number of external Through an analysis of the cases of mismanagement and complaints might be an indicator of corruption of different NGOs, AGkE TI found that most of a well-functioning network, but also them were related to construction projects, e.g. building of an inadequate/insufficient inter- of schools. In these cases, a contractor would often agree nal control system to build a school for a certain amount of money, yet finish • Second, by analyzing the channels only part of the work for this amount and ask for more through which complaints are filed money. The organization was then faced with the decision over time, one can identify which either to comply and pay more or to stop the construction channels are most effective for which altogether. type of complaint or stakeholder • Third, if there are only a few comp- This example illustrates why construction corruption is laints from (a) project(s) in a coun- so expensive. It is quite costly not only due to the bribery try with a high corruption index, the payment, but also (and especially) due to its consequen- complaint mechanism is likely not ces. The lack of building inspection means a decrease in functioning sufficiently there. construction quality and an increase in construction costs as the work is not controlled regularly and problems early b. Adapting Existing - and discovered. Thereby, a building might have to be renova- Introducing New - Systems ted sooner than usual, which results in even more costs. and Guidelines Solution: All these follow-up costs, which are even higher Once weaknesses are detected, and or- than the original cost of the bribery, were avoided through ganization can consider how to over- a systematic analysis of the complaints. In this case the come them by adapting existing guide- analysis revealed the high incidence of construction cor- lines and introducing new systems and ruption and led to the employment of an external consul- policies. Below, you will find a practical tant to oversee professionally every construction project. example of a very successful impro- This provided an easy, low-budget measure that saved a vement in efficiency due to the adapta- significant amount of donor money. It is therefore not only tion of guidelines. important to have a CM, but also to reflect on the cases, provide statistics, and have a constructive exchange with beneficiaries, employees and external persons in order to find the best way to solve the problem. (Sonja Grolig, AGkE TI, interviewed 19 November 2015) 60 | 61
2. Annual Complaints Report Graphic from Diakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p. 16 The annual complaints report (ACR) is riously by openly communicating the a summary document of the cases the results of your efforts to fight corrupti- organization received and dealt with on. The ACR offers an opportunity to throughout the year. In the report, an- analyze systematically the cases dealt onymized cases are published, leaving with throughout the year. The syste- out any information about the complai- matic statistics represent an important nant or the accused. The main purpose step toward increased efficiency. And of the report should be to highlight les- the ACR represents an important tool sons learned and how to improve both of communication toward all stakehol- organizational structures and the com- ders - potential offenders and potential plaint mechanism itself.55 A good re- victims, but also donors and the public. port therefore mentions the complaint, It acts both as encouragement as well the course of action taken and the de- as a deterrent: the report is a platform cision made as well as learning points to track success stories, thus motivating from the case. Very good examples of other people to use the mechanism for ACR are provided by Diakonia and DCA their complaints. Additionally, “an an- (see Recommended Sources box). nual report is a matter of explaining to a The publication of an ACR demonstra- potential offender/committer that there tes that you are taking the problems is a mechanism that functioned. Thus, it of corruption and misuse of power se- allows you to deter any staff or third per- 55 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p. 15 56 N iels Bentzen, DRC, interviewed 3 November 2015.
“Each year an annual report is every interviewee of organizations wi- done with a short summary of each thout reports lamented this fact, and at- complaint, what we did, and what tributed it to a lack of financial and per- we learned. No names of persons or sonnel resources. As one anonymous partners are specified in the report” practitioner explained, “This [lack] (Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 reflects two dimensions: First, that the November 2015.) organization puts the main effort in building the complaint mechanism. Se- sons from potential misconduct, because condly, that the management does not they see on the paper that misconduct fully understand the importance of re- will be prosecuted”.56 porting about the mechanism.” Despite many good arguments for an- nual reports and the relatively small Recommended Sources: Examples amount of resources needed, not many of Complaint Reports: organizations with a complaint mecha- nism develop or publish ACRs. In fact, • Diakonia: Short and very concise reports can be found on Diakonia’s Complaints, Incidents and Feedback Page • DanChurchAid: Detailed reports with excellent systematic analysis of causes can be found on DCA’s Complaints Page 62 | 63
3. Evaluation and Impro- Practical Experiences 1: vement of the Complaint Opportunities to evaluate Mechanism the complaint mechanism, Danish Refugee Council Systematic analysis of the complaint mechanism can help identify errors and “Misconduct demonstrates errors or weaknesses in the system. In order to weaknesses in the system. Whenever an adapt CM to the needs of the people and investigator detects such a weakness, it the organization, complaint mechanisms will not be noted in the report itself but it should be evaluated regularly, for instan- will be noted in a second advisory report, ce every three years. It is up to the orga- which then will be sent to the manage- nization to designate the persons respon- ment, without disclosing any confidential sible for monitoring the CM. These can details about the complaint itself. General be regional or senior management (as management then decides about syste- practiced by the Danish Refugee Coun- matic improvements.” cil57 or Diakonia)58 or the person recei- ving the complaints in coordination with (Niels Bentzen, DRC, interviewed 3 November 2015) the country program focal point persons (as practiced by LWF).59 The complaint Practical Experience 2: Results mechanism can be monitored through of a Monitoring and Evaluation liaison with staff at all levels. This may Process (Diakonia) include local initiatives with staff in charge of handling the mechanism (for 1. P roblem: complaint mechanism do- instance the complaints handling com- cuments (e.g. guidelines) are too long mittee, focal persons etc.), exploring in and thus not read by staff detail how resolved complaints were > Solution: Less detailed documents handled to identify any possible lessons, improvements to complaints handling or 2. Problem: staff does not use mechanism suggestions for changes in practice, as due to lack of communication about it well as good practice examples. The box > Solution: more information on the below provides two practical examples web about the mechanism to make it of the process of evaluating the comp- easier to use it laint mechanism as well as the results of one of the evaluations: 3. P roblem: focused on corruption cases but forgot to inform donors about them > Solution: report to donors or donor agencies immediately on suspicion of corruption (Ewa Widén, Diakonia, interviewed 27 November 2015) 57 D anish Refugee Council, “Procedure of Proces- sing of Code of Conduct reports,” p.5, (Retrie- ved 7 April 2016). 58 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Response Mechanism, p. 15 (Retrieved 5 February 2016). 59 L WF, Complaints Mechanism Policy and Proce- dure, p. 18 (Retrieved 24 April 2016).
Conclusion A Practitioner’s Guide has shown how best to for an operational complainant to know that 64 | 65 set up a complaint mechanism so that it can be the complaint will be taken seriously and res- an effective tool to identify misconduct in an ponded to according to a clear and transparent organization, give victims a voice and improve procedure, victims of serious complaints often operations. The Guide summarizes the most require more measures in order to trust the important best practices, lessons learned and mechanism. Victims of (sexual) abuse, for ex- challenges that might be encountered in order ample, might fear retaliation by the abuser and to enable organizations to develop well-functi- might require psychological and other assistan- oning complaint mechanisms. ce. Observers of corruption can feel threatened The practical examples have shown that large by the accused and might need whistle-blower international organizations and small grass- protection. Further research is required to ad- roots NGOs alike can establish CMs. What type apt mechanisms to serve these specific victim of mechanism an organization chooses – cent- groups and types of complaints, so that everyo- ralized or decentralized - and which type of re- ne feels comfortable in using the mechanisms. cipients and entry points depends on its needs A Practitioners’ Guide has demonstrated the as well as the resources available. The examples value of a complaint mechanism and what to of NGOs operating simple complaint mechanis- take into consideration to make it efficient and ms in countries with difficult conditions proved effective. When more organizations follow the that even with limited resources it is possible examples of the entities interviewed by creating to provide a mechanism to process complaints a complaint mechanism, misconduct can be systematically and to improve operations. challenged systematically. To confront cases of The key factor in making a complaint mecha- wrongdoing, corruption and abuse within the nism a success is establishing trust in it among not-for-profit sector and society more broadly, those who are supposed to use it. This can be it is vital for NGOs active in fighting miscon- realized only if the mechanism takes into ac- duct to build a network. NGOs with established count the needs of different types of victims complaint mechanisms and those aspiring to and witnesses of cases of misconduct. Therefo- do so, or in the process of establishing one, can re, A Practitioner’s Guide aimed at covering the share strategies and lessons learned to help one cases of a wide range of possible complaints, another improve operations. This will not only from operational to serious complaints such as help each organization individually; it will also corruption and abuse. It was not possible, ho- ensure that the whole NGO sector benefits, and wever, to examine in depth the needs of diffe- victims and witnesses of misconduct are accor- rent types of complainants. Whereas it suffices ded more justice.
Annex Annex 1: Joint Complaint implemented by the Lutheran World Fe- Mechanism by Lutheran deration, Save the Children and World World Federation, Save the Vision in 2010 in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Children and World Vision [For more information, see their Procedu- re for Joint Complaint and Response Me- The Joint Complaint & Response Me- chanism.]60 chanism, depicted in this graphic, was 60 T he Lutheran World Federation, Save the 61 D iakonia, Policy for Diakonia’s Complaints and Children and World Vision, “Procedure for Joint Response Mechanism, Annex 2, p.17. Complaint and Response Mechanism (JCRM),” 2010, available at http://www.google.ch/ur- l?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&- ved=0ahUKEwim-ozJkoPQAhVCOBQKHdP-Bv- kQFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alnap. org%2Fpool%2Ffiles%2Fa)-joint-crm-procedu- re-lwf-save-world-vision-example-sept-2010. doc&usg=AFQjCNGzEeCMbIrlfvcUkE7kJ- CI92htf0Q&sig2=6aNJLj7AyWpT-wEIVZKROg (Retrieved 30 October 2016).
Annex 2: Diakonia’s akonia takes at different levels to handle Flowchart for Handling serious complaints when they originate Serious Complaints from a country program. 61 The flowchart outlines the main steps Di- CR = Country Representative 66 | 67 HO = Head Office RM = Regional Management
Annex 3: Case Study – Child health services – then played a critical in Need Institute’s Benefici- role in raising community awareness. ary Feedback Mechanisms, Kolkata, India Collecting and responding to feedback All stakeholders – mothers, community [The information in this case study comes members, government officials and he- from the “Beneficiary Feedback Mecha- alth service providers - were involved nism Case Study: India”, one of eight pilot in designing the feedback mechanism. studies compiled by World Vision and its Together they decided which issues partners]62 could be reported on and through which methods and formats feedback could Background be made. They decided to provide fee- Between 2014 and 2016, several NGOs dback through group meetings, one-on- were supported by the UK Department one monitoring visits and suggestion for International Development (DFID) boxes. The community also agreed on to pilot Beneficiary Feedback Mechanis- indicators on which they would provide ms (BFMs)63 in their maternal and child feedback regarding health centers and health projects. One of the participants other services. was Child in Need Institute (CINI), a local NGO supporting children, ado- During group meetings, mothers gathe- lescents and women in disadvantaged red in small groups to fill out a pictorial areas of India. The BFM was piloted in form indicating whether they were hap- CINI’s urban Maternal and Child Health py with aspects of the services, suppor- Nutrition Project in Kolkata. ted by written comments from literate mothers. The Change Agents collected Raising community awareness the feedback and forwarded it to Ward CINI shared information about the BFM Supervisors (CINI employees). During with the relevant stakeholders (commu- one-on-one visits further feedback nity members, local government mem- was collected. Similar pictorial forms to bers, maternal and child care providers, those used for group meetings were de- etc.). CINI’s volunteer Change Agents veloped for the suggestion boxes and – community members themselves re- distributed to families through the Ch- sponsible for connecting mothers with 62 W orld Vision UK, together with the International lable at http://cdn.worldvision.org.uk/fi- NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC), les/9714/6056/3426/CINI_India1.pdf (Retrieved CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, and 30 October 2016). The Social Impact Lab Foundation (SIMLab), were contracted by the UK Department for .63 T he definition of an effective feedback me- International Development (DFID) to manage a chanism by the pilot studies was as follows: “A pilot designing, monitoring and implementing feedback mechanism is seen as effective if, at different approaches to beneficiary feedback minimum, it supports the collection, ack- mechanisms (2013-2016). nowledgement, analysis and response to the Child in Need Institute, “Beneficiary Feedback feedback received, thus forming a closed feed- Mechanism Case Study: India,” 2016, avai- back loop. Where the feedback is left open, the mechanism is not fully effective”. Ibid, p.2.
“As a result of the BFM the mothers Changes as a result of have learnt to demand as they have beneficiary feedback a clear knowledge of the kind and Through the feedback received, CINI how much service they should get”. was better able to adapt its program- ming and advocacy approach by having CINI, Ward Supervisor a better understanding of women’s expe- riences and lives and what barriers they “I would hesitate earlier, would be face. Some could be implemented direc- afraid…what will I say, why should I tly whereas others required advocacy to say it? But when we came to know the local government. about the BFM, that we should tell, that this is our right, it raised our Results and Lessons learned confidence and my voice”. • Initially little feedback was given as Mother, Kolkata the concept was new. Through repe- ated sensitization by change agents, ange Agents, to be used when needed. Ward Supervisors and the Commu- The boxes were emptied once a month nity Feedback Officer more feedback by Ward Supervisors, who forwarded all was provided; feedback forms to the Community Fee- • F eedback that could be responded dback Officer (CFO). All feedback was to quickly showing quick results en- registered, followed by analysis and ac- couraged women to provide more tion: the CFO consolidated issues that feedback (through practical experi- needed follow-up. He then sent these ence, it was easier for them to un- to the Ward or met directly with service derstand the methods and purpose); providers for feedback that was relevant • D ue to illiteracy, it was essential to to them. The CFO also monitored ac- use Change Agents who spoke the tions taken in response to feedback and different languages of the area; recorded them until the case was closed. • Consistent format between the sug- Decisions and progress were commu- gestion box and meetings made the nicated back to the community during complaints system easier for Chan- meetings and individually through a ge Agents to administer and for the Ward Supervisor or Change Agent. community to understand; 68 | 69
• Increased buy-in and ownership was in the process by CINI only when nee- achieved through community-desi- ded. The ownership and responsibility gned and -led approaches; for sustainability would thus be with the team and not CINI. • Women said that by hearing feed- back during meetings they realized Annex 4: Case Study – their own problems were not indi- DanChurchAid: Establishing vidual but common ones shared by a Complaint Mechanism others and became motivated to take through an Anti-Corruption action; Program • An end of pilot survey showed that [The information for this case study co- almost 85% of respondents were mes from an interview with Natascha aware of the feedback system; Linn Felix, Learning and Anti-Corrupti- on Advisor at Dan Church Aid, as well • W omen were empowered (e.g. the as the organization’s Complaints Report Change volunteers). Some women 2014.] 64 started organizing a women’s group that met weekly to discuss the feed- To better integrate the complaint me- back issues. The group then took ac- chanism into the organizational culture tion, e.g. by successfully mobilizing at DanChurchAid, Natascha Linn Felix a community rally to keep the area designed and implemented an An- cleaner. ti-Corruption Program over the course of two years. This program was desi- Moving forward gned to raise awareness about the CM As CINI worries about the level of sus- and possible breaches of the Code of tainability of the BFMs, the organizati- Conduct at all levels of the organiza- on would like to see sustainability built tion, including stakeholders and part- directly into the design of future BFMs. ners at the country level as well as staff In practice this would mean a core team members and management at the Head from the start, including community re- Office. To take the cultural context into presentatives and different stakeholders. account, Ms. Linn Felix established two This team would be responsible for im- plementation, opening the suggestion box and responding to issues, supported 64 D an Church Aid, Complaints Report 2014, p. 13 and passim, available at https:// www.danchurchaid.org/content/down- load/146380/2107069/version/1/file/DCA+- Complaint+Report+2014.pdf. (Retrieved 24 April 16), and Natascha Linn Felix, DCA, interviewed 8 December 2015.
different procedures for the two orga- Country Level: focal points nizational levels. Twelve people working for DCA around the world were trained by Ms Felix to Head Office Level be Focal Points (FPs) for complaint During the first year, Ms Felix developed mechanisms in their regions. These 12 an e-learning course of one hour that had been appointed by their respecti- every employee had to undertake, as ve managers based on their personal did every new staff person within three qualities (e.g. trusted by others). The months of his/her appointment. She training consisted of a one-hour e-lear- also gave trainings to colleagues and ning course and 12 specialized, more partners and began a newsletter on detailed online training sessions about anti-corruption. This included success the policy, aspects of anti-corruption stories of people using the CM in the and the use of the complaint mecha- field. nism. Further, she organized a competition to The focal points’ task is to conduct trigger lively discussion about possible trainings for colleagues and partners breaches of the Code of Conduct and in their region to enable capacity buil- cases to be brought before the comp- ding on anti-corruption for all staff and laint mechanism. Each office came up stakeholders working on DCA projects with fictional cases of corruption or globally, and to encourage the imple- other forms of misuse of power. The mentation of the CM. For this purpo- most inventive case won the competi- se, a toolbox was developed during the tion. As Ms Felix put it, “The goal was first year of the program, including a to take a completely different approach Power Point presentation, a handout to talk about corruption, removed real and exercises that the focal points can cases where people feel bad for someone use for their trainings. The FPs must or something and make it into a social produce an annual update of the An- office event, the award was like a soci- ti-Corruption Action Plans incl. the to- al gathering for the office.” Events like pic of complaint mechanisms and ide- this help change the way corruption is ally mention any collaboration with an perceived. Act Alliance partner on corruption. 70 | 71
To better motivate the partner organiz- Result of the Anti-Corruption Program ation to participate in the program, the This program aims at changing the FPs try to involve partners as actively organization’s culture and attitude as possible. towards corruption. Though this is a long-term process, DCA reports a hig- Perception of the people her awareness about corruption in “In the field, people are more open and some countries and a slight increase in interested in having a workshop about complaints in 2015. corruption than in Denmark, at the head quarter, because [she assumes] that Den- Conclusion mark is known as the least corrupt coun- DCA has been able to establish a com- try. But once the workshop starts, it ta- plaint mechanism in every country in kes 10 minutes and everybody is talking which it is working. At the time of the about different experiences and starting interview conducted for A Practitioner’s to tell stories about corruption. So they Guide, Ms. Linn Felix hoped to train recognize actually that corruption is member organizations around the wor- everywhere.” (Natasha Linn Felix) ld to allow them to create their own complaint mechanisms, adapted to the Resources needed cultural context of each country. She During the first year, the Learning and also hoped to start a systematic collec- Anti-Corruption Advisor was a full-time tion and analysis of all reported cases position. The advisor had support to in order to increase organizational le- create the e-learning training. In the se- arning. The main challenge she cont- cond year, she needed 25% of her time inues to encounter relates to building (8-10 hours per week) to implement trust so that the system will be more the program. successful. 65 I sabella Jean with Francesca Bonino, ALNAP & CDA, “‘We are committed to you’ – World Vision’s experience with humanitarian feedback mechanisms in Darfur,”2012, Annex, p.37, avai- lable at http://www.alnap.org/resource/8851 (Retrieved 21 October 2016). 66 I bid.
Annex 5: Feedback Box Form nism, with information in both English by World Vision and Arabic. It is part of a case study by World Vision on a feedback mechanism This feedback box form by World Visi- for a food assistance program in South on65 is a good example of a form that Darfur.66 is easy to use for a complaint mecha- 72 | 73
Interviews Name Job Title Organisation Interview date Niels Bentzen Dr. Petra Feil Policy Advisor, Risk & Danish Refugee 3 November 2015 Governance Council Natascha Linn Felix Sonja Grolig Global Quality Assuran- Lutheran World Federa- 30 July 2015 ce and Accountability tion Michelle Keun-Ras- (QAA) and Planning, mussen Monitoring and Evalua- Megan Nobert ting (PME) Coordinator Ewa Widén Anti-Corruption and DanChurchAid 8 December 2015 Learning Advisor Leader Arbeitsgruppe Kirch- 19 November 2015 liche Entwicklungs- zusammenarbeit von Transparency Internati- onal Deutschland e.V. Controlling and Com- Kindermissionswerk 19 November 2015 pliance “Die Sternsinger” Founder, Director DanChurchAid 12 August 2015 Senior Organization Report the Abuse 24 October 2016 Secretary Diakonia 27 November 2015 Senior Organization Secretary
74 | 75
Search
