Hapinternational.org

2011 Annual Report for HAP

ORGANISATION: LUTHERAN WORLD SERVICE INDIA TRUST
Introductory comments (history of accountability work in the organisation, HAP membership, accountability framework etc):

Lutheran World Service India Trust (LWSIT) became a full member of HAP in May 2011. At the organizational level, there was a
grievance redressal committee to address staff related issues. At the projects, there was no proactive actions to address issues related
to project staff or implementation of program in the field. In the history of LWSIT, efforts were made in 2011 to set up organizational
level grievance redressal mechanism in all the sixteen field units. Further, project units took necessary steps to set up complaints
response mechanism at community level where projects are operational. Taking stock of the situation in the community, it was learned
that traditionally there were grievance cells like “Gram Adalat” (village court) to deal with social, economic and environmental issues.
But for humanitarian response and development efforts in disaster prone and socially as well as economically backward communities,
the need for proactive complaints response mechanism has emerged. In this regard, LWSIT is very positive and believe in
transparency and accountability towards its work which should be known to partner communities and provide space to make
complaints, feedback or suggestions.
The HAP benchmark and baseline analysis conducted in 2011 at LWSIT’s STEER-Urban sites for Church of Sweden is a learning
experience for LWSIT and will help in the organization’s internalizing of HAP standards in its plans of work in the future.
1. Establishing and delivering on commitments
Develop the accountability framework The reference point is practiced at the organizational level but yet to produce a Accountability Action Plans and implement accountability and transparency focussed to priority groups to serve better including other stakeholders. 2. Staff competency
All the staff of LWSIT understand Staff code of conduct set out by LWSIT is the code of conduct and their being practiced by all the employees irrespective of their place of posting and Performance appraisal used for positions held. During review meetings at every employee of LWSIT to national office and field unit level, intensive understand the skill, knowledge, discussions on staff code of conduct were inducing discipline and sort out problems particularly at program operational level. 3. Sharing information
Share organizational identity with Since the predecessor of LWSIT i.e., LWSI partner communities and other has served the people in various parts of national, India for more than 36 years, it got very provincial and local government good credibility, which enabled access to communities and other stakeholders easier Share planned activities with to interact and share information about this people of partner communities, organization. other and Activity plans were shared with partner communities in a most transparent manner identify and in all the development projects. themselves to people and share Communities were involved in program its vision, mission, goal and planning. objectives Make clear management roles 2011, activity plans were shared with people including cost of materials and sources of Involve staff in decision making funding. continuous Challenges were faced in terms of coverage of right holders since needs were more and 4. Participation
Involvement of right holders in Affirmative actions were taken to involve Intensify the process of involvement of right holders in the planning process. In the Seeking community opinion in aftermath of flood devastation In 2011, project design, finalization of LWSIT made joint assessment involving activity and fixing of criteria for community stakeholders to identify the priority needs Provision to receive feedback before assisting them. Similarly, while designing of program, the affected people Being sensitive to the local were consulted before finalizing the works. culture and the responsibility of For example, when LWSIT planned to extend support for shelter to the families accurate affected by the devastating flood, the concerned families were consulted and the design of the house and details of budget were shared with them. In most of the partner discussions were held to know their feedback if they would like to improve the quality of works provided by LWSIT. 5. Handling complaints
LWSIT set up the complaints Complaints response mechanism has been its developed at all levels by provision of employees to articulate well and clearly national office and all the 16 field complaint boxes starting from community/ inform and lodge complaints if situation Gram Panchayat level (grass root level local Complaints making procedures self-government body), project unit and are placed by putting complaints national office to invite complaints if any box both at project unit and from the right holders and LWSIT staff community level with whom pertaining to program, abuse of power, sexual exploitation, corruption/fraud, etc. Some suggestions/requests were noticed at assistance. While partner communities were requested for more coverage to support the
6. Learning and continual improvement
HAP There are several areas where LWSIT has practice both at organizational (though not in published document form) and used vividly both at organizational and document to learn effectively During 2011, representatives from Church including monitoring, evaluation of Sweden & HAP International visited LWSIT project areas and national office to understand the use of HAP benchmarks and Sweden. As shared by them, there are room Case study/example: Good practice in accountability and quality management
In regard to quality management of program, community was very much active and understood the value of information sharing,
participation and part of decision making process. At project unit level, management committee is formed to handle issues related to
procurement, planning and implementation, monitoring and for dealing with complaints if any from the right holders towards program
quality, coverage of target groups and deliverables. Staff in the field level was advised to give due importance and dignity to partner
communities and general community members and to respect the local culture. For any reason, the committed works are not done by
the project, sufficient information were shared by the project staff with partner communities transparently to avoid any
misunderstanding or misconception.
Plans with regard to HAP services: baseline analysis or certification?
In 2011, Church of Sweden visited one of the LWSIT project (STEER Urban, Bhubaneswar Unit) and National Office, Kolkata to
conduct baseline analysis on HAP standard and benchmarks which would be useful for them for further actions. During their visit,
community level meeting and discussion as well as perceptions from project staff were drawn to understand the level of information
being shared and reached to them. This exercise was very much useful for LWSIT to understand the progress on HAP benchmarks.
Progress/highlights from programme sites (if not covered elsewhere in report):
As far as setting up of complaints response mechanism is concerned, there are few instances being reported from the field. The
agriculture seeds supported to partner communities by project were questioned by people in regard to the variety and quality of seeds
assisted to them. They brought up this issue to their community level CRM committee followed by feedback shared with project staff.
This feedback was seriously taken by the project level management committee-cum-CRM committee and necessary actions were
taken by altering the variety of seeds which was acceptable to them. Later this example was shared with other partner communities for
their information and necessary action in future.
Summary and any other comments:
HAP accountability frameworks and all the 6 benchmarks set out are extremely good to ensure in the improvement of program quality,
enhancing staff competency and giving opportunities to the right holders to be part of program in an affirmative way. Conscious efforts
are made by the management of LWSIT and its employees to serve the identified right holders and selected communities in a dignified
way. These benchmarks are really good which has given space to listen to the people and provide due importance to them and own
the program. Right holders are now demanding their due rights from different actors including government agencies and other
stakeholders those are part of the project implementation. HAP benchmarks can be used as instrument for effective management at
the organizational level, ultimately this will lead to high quality program delivery.

Source: http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/2011%20Accountability%20Report%20-%20LWSIT.pdf