Somali Nutrition Cluster
Mainstreaming Accountability to
Affected Population (AAP)
Global Nutrition Cluster Annual Meeting
19th October, 2016
Amman, Jordan
Outline
Background and Rationale for AAP
Cluster Lead development process/integration
Roll out process
Big step forward: one integrated online
platform (ONA)
Challenges
Background & rationale
Global AAP framework inspired CCT to lead country
adaptation & implementation
Difficult operational environment (access and insecurity)
Strengthen people centred approach using
rationalization plan exercise
Country level workshop & step by step plan (with
agreement of all partners)
AAP Implementing Task Force (TF) established (Dec 2015)
Cluster Lead Development
process/integration
TF (3international, 2 national agencies) lead on
adaptation of materials and guidance
development
Guidance and ideas for practice from global
framework
Local lessons/experiences laid core foundation
(WFP)
Training (n=4) of all cluster partners (Hargeisa,
Bosaso, Mogadishu and Nairobi)
TF members supported the cluster lead training;
UNICEF covers costs
Cluster Lead development process/
integration
Three levels of AAP frameworks
Agreed upon by partner
Implement whenever and wherever possible
Level 1: Large scale: WFP
Level 2: Medium scale: Save the Children
International (SCI); aim for all
Level 3: Mandatory: minimum package all cluster
partners
1. Large Scale: WFP - Mkormeer system
Enabled by mobile phone communication
Bulk SMS
Two-way SMS
(Pollit)
Interactive
Voice
Response
(Complaints)
Mobile
Field Data
Collection
ONA platform
Interactive
Voice
Response
(Surveys)
Beneficiary
Questions,
Complaints and
Hotline Call Center
(SUGAR CRM)
and M&E data
collection through
live calls
Flow chart of the feedback and complaints
mechanism - mKormer
2. Medium Scale: SCI – MEAL/an online
platform (ONA)
Mainly online and a few sites
Random checks: performance indicators
Implemented by programme staff
(routine M&E)
Model for basic approach for one
integrated online platform planned by
cluster
3. Mandatory Minimum: all partners
All partners must develop AAP framework
Minimum packages include exit interview
(satisfaction) & community conversation (all stages).
‘Enforced’ through SHF funding mechanism, some
voluntary
Comprehensive in-terms of participation of affected
population in whole cycle of the emergency response
plan and implementation.
Rollout: consultations and capacity building support
All nutrition services (iMAM, micronutrient,
IYCN/MCHN)
Big Step forward: One integrated online
platform (ONA)
•Comprehensive online platform
https://ona.io/home/
•Supported by UNICEF, WFP and DFID
•Involves:
• Geotagging of service sites
• Assessment of service delivery facilities
• Integrated AAP framework linking with beneficiary and
facilities
• Complaints and feedback mechanism via SMS
•Planning, Reporting and AAP components
•Integrated part of M&E, aid IMAM scale up
ONA: Geotagging project
• Objective:
• Validate, consolidate and strengthen existing capacity of
emergency nutrition units
• Emergency preparedness towards resilient and sustainable
development
• Focus: Inform comprehensive IMAM service scale up plans
• Includes: Online platform (ONA-based) for reporting, M&E
includes AAP
• Period: Six months (August 2016 to Jan 2017)
• Funding: UNICEF & WFP
• Development: Forcier and ONA consultancy
• Management: Project advisory board (SAG, DfID).
ONA: Cluster activity
• Geo-mapping of all nutrition service delivery units in Somalia,
capacity assessment and creation of contact database (confidential)
for each facility (community and facility managers).
Phase I: Field work & validation (Forcier)
Inception report (methods) & final
technical report
Base-maps highlighting relevant
findings from on-the-ground facility
assessments
Datasets of functional nutrition
Two presentations to advisory
facilities, functional facility
committee
assessment (including GPS), and local
facility contacts
Phase II – Finalisation (ONA)
Final database of all facilities, facility
assessment results
Visualise mapping results
Planned Use/Approach
• Online reporting (also offline, via SMS)
• Facility performance indicators for each facility
• Discrete phone call follow up with beneficiaries
• Request complaint details, performance related issues
• Generate response actions, populate in tracking
matrix/database
• Short staff phone surveys (working days/facility hours)
• Mass/bulk SMS on confirmed key events
• Feedback through reminders
Key engagement point: facility manager or on-site point of contact (POC)
Major complaint: absence of staff and/or service, abuse, clan mariginalization
No partner action: local cluster focal point joint monitoring mission and facility
visit to confirm functionality and determine appropriate action.
Challenges to date
•Reluctance to be ‘directed’ by cluster or to share
potentially sensitive information
•Requires additional resources: Level 1 requires
considerable capacity, Level 2 draws on programme
staff time
•Funding via SHF provides leverage, but relatively
small proportion of programmes funded this way
(33%).
•Inadequate feedback and complaints mechanism:
limited response action & difficulty of verification
Conclusions & questions
• How should AAP requirements/packages be adapted in
different contexts? What are the considerations?
• How should feedback to AAP and response be
monitored/complaints & feedback mechanism improved?
• Should sharing of data be compulsory and with whom?
• Is it appropriate that AAP framework is mandatory as
part of proposal criteria for CHF? Should this be applied
to other types of funding and if so, how to get other
donor buy-in?
• Is there a need to standardise questions to beneficiaries to
allow inter-progamme comparison? If so, by whom? How
to incorporate into Sphere?