Humanitarian Accountability Epewg 200810

Defining standards for doing good: Examining NGO accountability Maryam Zarnegar Deloffre Department of Political Science George Washington University

Overall aims and research questions Examine how perceptions of NGO performance evolved in the humanitarian sector Interested in accountability ‘for what’ Investigate three ‘failures’ in international response: Biafra, Rwanda, Kosovo, to examine how these perceptions changed

Overall aims and research questions Investigate how perceptions of NGO performance shaped the development of transnational self-regulatory accountability institutions such as Sphere, HAP-I and the Quality Project Institutions vary in how they approach accountability Contestation regarding standards for humanitarian action

Overall aims and research questions Aim to clarify the benchmarks and standards used to assess NGO performance Aim to tease out what distinguishes the NGO sector from other sectors Aim to detail the dynamics of NGO governance

Presentation of findings to date  Data point 1: The rise of an accountability and evaluation culture shaped NGOs’ and others’ perceptions about NGO performance.  24 year period from 1969-1993 only 17 accountability institutions founded in humanitarian sector  13 year post-Rwanda period 59 accountability institutions founded  Rwanda is the watershed event that highlights shifts in expectations of NGOs

Presentation of findings to date Linked to changes in standards for humanitarian NGOs Shift from view of humanitarian aid as charity to more complex notions of aid with a regard for long-term impacts Discussions of the international responses to Rwanda and Kosovo highlight this shift

Presentation of findings to date Data point 2: NGO self-perceptions about their performance during the Rwanda crisis sparked increased attention to accountability

Presentation of findings to date NGO self-assessments: “Led to great soul-searching, absolutely gripping pain for years to try to work out what we can do collectively as international organizations to make sure that [the failures] did not happen again.” “Guilt was a big factor…NGOs took on all of that guilt, guilt as members of the humanitarian community or the West—quality [of our response] could have been better but [we] did respond and stayed.”

Presentation of findings to date Data point 3: Of all the possible responses to failures, accountability emerges as the solution to problems in the NGO sector NGOs pursue accountability institutions collectively for the first time NGOs focus on issues of accountability over other issues such as capacity building, coordination and access

Presentation of findings to date Data point 4: Debates about accountability and standards for humanitarian action reflect conflicting notions of the role of NGOs as service providers versus moral leaders in international society

Implications and Next Steps Provide further understanding of the role of NGOs as moral leaders. Clarify “accountability for what”—this will allow NGOs to further improve the quality of humanitarian assistance. Streamline accountability programs Deduce appropriate benchmarks for performance

Implications and Next Steps  Inform the on-going design of accountability institutions  Clarify core concepts and principles of humanitarian action  Increase dialogue among competing groups

Implications and Next Steps Next steps: Potential follow-up presentation at the next Roundtable or InterAction annual meeting “Explaining the emergence of accountability clubs in the humanitarian sector: the role of context and shifting standards.” In: Nonprofit Accountability Clubs: Voluntary Regulation of Nonprofit and Nongovernmental Organizations. Mary Kay Gugerty & Aseem Prakash (eds.) Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.