Client-Responsive Programming Framework
IRC’s Approach to Accountable Programming
Annexes
Beta Version, December 2016
Annex 1: Complete List of People Consulted about Client
Responsiveness during the Development of this Framework
The authors would like to thank the following for their invaluable contributions to the content of
the Framework, and the feedback which many of them gave on drafts:
IRC Staff Reviewers
Jonathan Beloe
Henrik Boejen
Sheree Bennett
Laia Blanch
Emma Child
Patrice Comoe Boa
Alyoscia D'Onofrio
Daniela De Franco
Geoffroy Grolleaux
Giorgio Faedo
Michelle Gayer
Anne Godard
Marie France Guimond
Ongagwa Gwambaye
Kieran Harris
Alice Hawkes
Lily Jiang
Jeff Kalalu
Noemie Koudier
Sergio Kristensen
Patricia Kroell
Christof Kurz
Guillaume Labreque
Tzvetomira Laub
Oliver Lough
Helene Maire
Jacqueline Manning
Andrew Meaux
Matias Meier
Tobias Metzner
Abukar Mohamud
Kate Mojer
Mark Montague
Liam Morgan
Bobi Morris
Claire MtGillem
Shuna Keen
Melissa Mulligan
Maclean Natugasha
Gergey Pasztor
Ellen Patterson
Erica Pilcher
Stefanie Plant
Vanessa Ortiz
Wale Osofisan
Khusbu Patel
Jason Phillips
Pasteur Ruberintwari
Zeina Shuhaibar
Sanj Srikanthan
Kimberly Smith
Julie Taft
Nicole Walden
Martha Williams
Mina Zingarello
External Reviewers
Nik Rilkoff, Danish Church Aid
Carla Benham, World Vision UK
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Annex 2: IRC’s Commitment to Client Responsiveness
Client responsiveness is important to the IRC for many reasons. We believe that:

…by soliciting feedback from our clients on the relevance, quality, and timeliness of our
services, we will be better able to ensure that our services are effective in achieving the
outcomes we and they seek to achieve. (Effectiveness)

… people affected by crises understand their own needs, preferences, resources,
capabilities, and opportunities better than we do. If we listen to aid-affected populations,
we will use the resources we steward more wisely. (Efficiency)

…by asking our clients about their perspectives and priorities during post-crisis recovery,
we help preserve their sense of self-esteem and sense of agency enabling them to
engage and to take control of their lives and futures (Empowerment).

…if we routinely ask our clients about their perspectives, priorities, and expectations and
demonstrate that we are listening and responding to them, then clients will gain trust and
understanding of IRC and our work. (Trust)

… aligning our programming with the voiced preferences, aspirations, and expectations
of our clients is the right thing to do. (Ethical)

by being more client responsive, we contribute to the IRC’s Code of Conduct and
institutional goals (such as the IRC 2020 objectives around responsiveness,
effectiveness, empowerment, and gender equality) and become more competitive.
(Institutional strengthening)
Client responsiveness fits into several of the IRC’s existing internal commitments:
The IRC Way:
 Integrity: “we work to build the trust of the communities in which we work.”
 Service: “IRC encourages self-reliance and supports the rights of people to fully participate in the
decisions that affect their lives.”
 Accountability: “We are accountable and transparent.”
Existing Emergency Unit commitments:
 Accountability Statement: “A commitment to a paradigm in which crisis-affected populations are fully
understood to be the reason our unit exists, and their needs and aspirations are always what is most
important to us.”
 Program quality statement: “We are committed to ensuring that constant improvements are planned
for, implemented, monitored, and evaluated throughout the entire life of our programs.”
IRC 2020 Strategic Plan:
“We will make our work more responsive to the aspirations of the clients and communities we serve.”
IRC European Strategy: Transparency:
 “IRC in Europe will build an evidence base to show that being client responsive makes a difference to
the impact of our programmes (and that it also offers better VFM (value for money) than not doing so).”
 “We place … client responsiveness ... at the centre of everything that we do”
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Where client responsiveness fits into IRC’s existing external commitments:
Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct:
“Ways shall be found to involve program beneficiaries in the management of relief aid. Disaster
response assistance should never be imposed on beneficiaries.”
Sphere Humanitarian Charter:
“We acknowledge that our fundamental accountability must be to those we assist.”
Core Humanitarian Standards:
“Communities and people affected by crisis:
…Receive assistance appropriate and relevant to their needs;
…Are not negatively affected [by assistance];
…Have access to information and participate in decisions that affect them;
…Have access to safe and responsive mechanisms to handle complaints.”
The Inclusion Charter:
“We will systematically engage with all affected people, including the most marginalized, to
deliver meaningful participation and consultation to ensure that their views are reflected in all
aspects of the response including assessment, design, delivery, and monitoring and evaluation.”
Inter-Agency Standing Committee Commitments & Policies:
“Accountability to affected populations is an active commitment to use power responsibly by taking
account of, giving account to, and being held to account by the people humanitarian organizations seeks
to assist.”
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Annex 3: Select Areas Where Client Responsiveness and
Other IRC Practices and Priorities Complement Each Other
Outcomes & Evidence Framework (OEF)
How OEF supports client responsiveness
How client responsiveness supports OEF
OEF helps contextualize, balance, and triangulate client
perspectives.
Client perspectives helps contextualize,
balance, and triangulate evidence from the
OEF and provide new insights.
Adaptive Management (ADAPT)
How ADAPT supports client responsiveness
How client responsiveness supports ADAPT
Adaptive management provides the flexibility to change Client perspectives better inform our
programming based on client feedback.
understanding of our performance in real-time.
Protection Mainstreaming
How Protection Mainstreaming supports client
How client responsiveness supports
responsiveness
Protection Mainstreaming
Protection mainstreaming relies on risk analysis based
Client responsiveness provides a channel for
on client consultations. Holding those consultations and communicating barriers to access and threats to
responding to risks helps to create safe conditions of
safety and dignity, including sexual exploitation
trust and dignity where clients feel empowered to
and abuse (SEA), corruption, code of conduct
engage with the IRC.
violations, etc.
Measurement / Monitoring for Action
How Measurement supports client responsiveness
How client responsiveness supports
Measurement
Information from clients which is captured to verify
Client perspectives captured on a broader range
project delivery and progress complements client
of topics than the project results chain can help
perspectives collected on a broader range of topics not with making sense of project monitoring data,
directly related to the results chain. Data from other
better inform mid-course corrections and exit
sources captured for project monitoring also helps to
evaluations.
contextualize, balance, and triangulate client
perspectives.
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
EPRU Accountability & Feedback Protocol
How EPRU protocol supports client responsiveness How client responsiveness supports EPRU
protocol
EPRU has developed a set of tools and protocols that
Ongoing client responsiveness before
can inform how other units at the IRC implement client
emergencies can provide a foundation for
feedback channels.
emergency teams’ accountability strategies.
Context Analysis & Conflict Sensitivity (CA/CS)
How CA/CS supports client responsiveness
How client responsiveness supports CA/CS
Quality context and conflict analysis helps us better
Client perspectives better inform our
understand who our clients are and how to engage
understanding of the shifting contexts of
them. Context analysis also helps to contextualize client disasters and crises.
perspectives.
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Annex 4 – Assessment and Prioritisation Tools
See accompanying Client Responsive Programming Actions and Enablers Assessment Tool.
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Annex 5 – Common Barriers to Participation in Feedback
Mechanisms
Feedback channels need to be selected, established, and managed in ways that provide meaningful
and safe access for all clients. Barriers to accessing feedback channels are highly context-dependent
and will require a thorough context analysis. Some common barriers to participation in a feedback
mechanism are as follows:














Level of literacy among community members;
Cultural appropriateness of face-to-face communication between different gender groups;
Existing community structures, local power dynamics, the extent to which leaders represent
the community, and who are the “gatekeepers”;
Marginalization/exclusion which may impact the ability to give feedback or complaint;
Protection, confidentiality and privacy needs;
Risks that local people may encounter if they file a complaint;
Power dynamics between staff, partners and clients;
Level of acceptance of IRC staff and safety and security risks for staff;
Public mobility and participation in public meetings for different gender and age groups;
Access to mobile phones for different gender and age groups;
Communication channels suitable in urban vs. rural contexts;
Financial constraints when client travel is involved;
Appropriateness of the language used to communicate: both the language, dialect and tone;
Access for the disabled, elderly, and other groups with special needs
Resource:
Consider using the Protection Mainstreaming “Sector-Specific Guidance Notes” on identifying access barriers
for further examples. Context Analysis and Social Network Analysis may also assist in understanding these
dynamics
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Annex 6: Definitions and Key Concepts for Building Feedback
Channels
A Closed Feedback Loop: CDA-ALNAP Guidance defines: “A feedback
mechanism is seen as effective if, at minimum, it supports the collection,
acknowledgement, analysis and response to the feedback received, thus
forming a closed feedback loop. Where the feedback loop is left open,
the mechanism is not fully effective.”1
Feedback Channels: are specific methods or tools by which complaints and feedback are collected.
Methods can range from low-tech and traditional tools such as logbooks, suggestion/feedback boxes,
satisfaction surveys, and questionnaires to ICT-enhanced channels such as telephone hotlines, SMSbased feedback systems, and crowdsourcing platforms. Informal methods include community help
desks, community meetings, and feedback gathered in open-ended conversations during monitoring
visits
Complaints vs. Feedback: Feedback refers to non-sensitive issues, positive or negative, raised by
our clients. Feedback encompasses commendations, suggestions, and complaints about relevance
and quality of our services and projects or can be more open-ended in nature (i.e. suggestions of
other types of services and interventions). Sensitive complaints refer to allegations of sexual
exploitation and abuse (SEA), corruption, and staff misconduct etc.
Type I Feedback: CDA-ALNAP guidance describes this feedback as, “feedback concerning day-today implementation, often focused on the quality, type of assistance and users preference about the
assistance provided). This type of feedback can be relatively easy (less complex) to act on. This is
feedback that often calls for project level adjustments, mid-course modification such as ‘tweaking’ of
service delivered or changes to the project in the course of implementation.”
Type II feedback: CDA-ALNAP guidance describes this feedback as, “feedback that speaks to ‘bigpicture issues’. It often touches on issues beyond the scope of work or remit of a single agency, of a
single cluster, or even of the humanitarian community working in a certain context. It often touches on
strategic issues at the broader level of the humanitarian response and strategies taken to support
people’s and national government’s relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts. This is feedback
that may challenge the very premise of a program / or its relevance and context appropriateness. Often such
feedback also touches on intended and unintended impact of the program. It is more complex to act on as it
often requires input and coordination from different actors (local, internal, humanitarian, non-humanitarian).” It is
equally as important as Type I feedback but needs to be managed in a different way as it often requires
reflection and action beyond the day-to-day operations of field staff.
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Annex 7: Opportunities and Constraints Presented by your
Operating Environment
IRC does not operate in a vacuum. We can integrate the steps of the client responsiveness cycle
flawlessly into all of our programmatic, technical, and administrative processes, and still encounter
barriers to putting client responsiveness into action. This section will seek to acknowledge the barriers
that are beyond the IRC’s immediate control, and present opportunities for how other institutions and
agencies can help us to create an enabling environment for client responsiveness.
Donors – The IRC is of course accountable to our donors, as they provide the resources for us to
carry out our work across the globe. Donors can provide great incentives for innovation, or can create
significant barriers for change, based on how they prioritize and allocate funding. For instance, if we
are willing and able to make those changes but our donors are not, then it will be difficult to be
responsive and make the necessary changes to our projects. It is best to be up front with donors and
advocate for a certain degree of flexibility from the time we finalize our project designs.
Constraints




Short timelines to respond to Requests for
Proposals (RFPs) that don’t give the time
for consultations
RFPs are often prescriptive and don’t offer
room to respond to client perspectives in
our project designs
Grant agreements and modification
procedures don’t support easy mid-course
corrections
Concerns about negative client feedback
affect future funding opportunities
Opportunities



Many donors are beginning to understand
the benefits of accountability
Many donors now requiring client
responsiveness; this makes IRC competitive
Advances in donor support for adaptive
management practices
Constructive Steps: Many donors are now integrating client responsiveness and accountability into
their minimum standards. The IRC can work with donors at different levels to help create an enabling
environment:
 Awards Management Units in headquarters can advocate for donors to change the way they
conduct RFPs to allow more time for consultation and the flexibility for different perspectives.
They can also help us to learn how to use the donors’ own language to advocate for
responsiveness.
 Country Programme Teams can actively maintain a dialogue around client responsiveness
with local or regional donor representatives. Show them some of the feedback and
demonstrate how you put it into action. If local donor representatives are on your side, you
have a powerful advocate.
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
 M&E and Grants Compliance teams can help to demonstrate that client responsiveness has
a positive impact on program outcomes, and that ‘negative’ client feedback is not a sign of
failure, but actually presents great opportunities for course corrections.
National & Local Governments – The IRC is also accountable to national and local governments. If
governments truly operate as representatives of their people, then they should be ideal allies of client
responsive practices by international NGOs. However, in some countries governments may perceive
our client responsiveness efforts as a threat to their authority or reputation.
Constraints



Client feedback often highlights failures in
state services that the IRC cannot address
in the long-term, which reflects negatively
on the government’s image
Some governments see accountability as
threatening and may constrain our ability
to engage meaningfully with clients.
Some governments may block action taken
in response to client feedback
Opportunities


If governments are seen as advocating for
community priorities to NGOs, that is
positive for their image.
The IRC can model accountability by being
more responsive to government partners’
feedback
Constructive steps:
 Country Programme Teams can build positive relationships with national and local
governments, explaining the IRC’s rationale for collecting and using client perspectives in
support of effective assistance to people affected by crises. Country management may
consider sharing aggregated, non-identifiable client perspectives with government
representatives to work collectively with them in identifying solutions to those needs that we
cannot single-handedly respond to. If working with government actors as partners, we can
collect their perspectives as part of our commitment to being responsive to those we serve and
to those that we’re working with. By actively collecting and using their perspectives in our
programming and modelling responsive partnership, we can create support for client
responsiveness with government partners
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Local Implementing Partners – In many countries, the IRC works with local implementing partners.
As the primary interface with our clients, how our local partners understand and carry out client
responsive practices has a significant impact on how client voices are heard by the IRC as well as
how clients perceive the IRC’s responsiveness to their needs.
Constraints



Staff lack of capacity for data management
and qualitative analysis
Perverse incentives: may see negative
feedback as threatening to future funding
Lack of gender or other identity needs
among many local partners may preclude
the full participation of women or other
marginalized groups in voicing their
opinions.
Opportunities




Local partners often have better access to
clients and may know how to engage more
meaningfully
Local partners may best understand the
barriers to client participation, and thus
may be able to find better, more creative
solutions for soliciting client feedback
The IRC can strengthen partners’ capacities
for responsiveness, accountability, and
protection
Good responsiveness practices can build
trust in local civil society
Humanitarian Peers – We are often not the only humanitarian agency functioning in a given crisis.
How our peers engage with affected populations affects how our clients may perceive us, and how we
collaborate and coordinate can increase or decrease how effective we can be at addressing client
priorities.
Constraints



If other actors have collected feedback and
not closed the loop in the past, clients may
be reluctant to share their perspectives
with us
Other partners may not be receptive to
receiving negative feedback about
themselves
Lack of coordination mechanisms to
aggregate feedback ensure unified
responses to clients
Opportunities



If clients prioritize something the IRC can’t
provide them, we can refer them to the
agency who can
If clients prioritize something that no
partner can do, agencies can come
together to advocate for solutions
Possibilities for identifying broader trends
across projects and agencies
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org
Clients – We can never forget that clients have agency and can also themselves create barriers to or
can enable client responsiveness. Not everyone will see the value in taking time to provide their
perspectives in how the IRC is carrying out its work. However, the aspirations, expectations, and
opinions of our clients also provide the driving force behind any responsiveness initiative; if clients
want their voices to be heard, whether or not the IRC is ready to listen, they will make their voices
heard.
Constraints



Certain members of the community may act
as ‘gatekeepers’ and prevent diverse voices
from reaching us
Certain cultures see complaining as
ungrateful and are unlikely to provide
negative feedback
Certain clients may fear reprisal or end of
services, despite reassurances from IRC
Opportunities



Provides clients with an actual channel for
engagement and influence over services
that impact their lives
Clients will learn more about how
humanitarian programs work, and what
they can and cannot do
May provide an experience of ‘democracy’
in societies where governments are not
responsive
Constructive steps: Many donors are now integrating client responsiveness and accountability into
their minimum standards:
 Lead by example: if the IRC models the behavior we wish to see – if we share information
with our humanitarian peers, listen to our implementing partners, and communicate honestly
with our clients – we can build trust and facilitate reciprocal behavior.
 Understand local power dynamics: the more that you understand local power dynamics, the
better you can put checks and balances in place to prevent gatekeepers.
 Explaining how feedback works: take extra time to explain to clients and partners that
feedback will not be perceived as ungrateful and it will not jeopardize services. Explain how it
is one element among many that the IRC has to take into account, which also sets
expectations and provides clarity on some of the constraints that we face.
This product has been funded by the UK Department for
International Development.
The IRC would like to thank the UK Government for their
generous support to the IRC/DFID Strategic Grant, Making the
Case, Making the Difference: Strengthening Innovation and
Effectiveness in Humanitarian Assistance.
From Harm to Home | Rescue.org