1. Accountability Research
Myanmar case study
Discussion on interim findings with Save the Children in Myanmar
Andy Featherstone, 19 March 2013

2. Accountability research – why?
 The purpose of the research is to collect evidence of the
impact of accountability mechanisms on programme quality
 There is an assumption that the introduction of accountability
mechanisms leads to more effective projects but little
evidence exists (Ref. synthesis paper developed from
evidence submitted by the HAP peer learning group)
 We understand effective projects to be those that are
relevant, effective, efficient and sustainable in line with the
DAC Criteria.
 Research question - In what ways does an effective
accountability mechanism which provides information to
affected communities, facilitates their participation in
programme design and implementation and offers a means for
communities to feedback and/or complain contribute to the
quality of a humanitarian or development programme.

3. Accountability research – how?

4. The approach
 A methodology was developed which mixed quantitative
and qualitative participatory tools and was used
consistently throughout the research
 Scorecards and opinion ranking exercises were used to
describe accountability mechanisms and as entry points
to wider discussions about their contribution to project
quality
 All of the exercises were translated into the Myanmar
language and the discussions were facilitated
 Each community meeting lasted between 1.5 – 2.5 hours

5. Itinerary
Date Activity
Day 1  Travel from Yangon to Mandalay
 Travel from Mandalay to Meiktila
 Orientation and meeting with SCI staff
Day 2  Field Visit to Lat Pan Khar Kough (Meiktila)
 3 x group consultations
Day 3  Field Visit to Yae Cho (Meiktila)
 3 x group coonsultations
Day 4  Field Visit to Nat Gyi Kone (Meiktila)
 3 x group consultations
Day 5  Travel from Meiktila to Kyaukpadaung
 Field Visit to Zay Kone (Kyaukpadaung)
 3 x group consultations
Day 6  Field Visit to Yone (Kyaukpadaung)
 2 x group consultation
Day 7  Return to Yangon

6. Programme profile
 Non-formal education, child
protection and early childhood
care and development
programmes
 Within the breadth of the
programme, a participatory
approach exists for CBO problem
identification, targeting and
selection
 Formal complaints response
mechanism (CRM) in 3 villages;
additional informal mechanisms
across all villages
 SCI programme for between 2- and
7-years

7. Participation
Total men = 63
Total women = 75
Total boys = 44
Total girls = 47
Total participants = 229
Discussions were held in mixed groups of 10-25
people. 3 meetings were held in each village
each day (women, men, children). Results of
the methods were disaggregated by gender.
There was a bias towards the inclusion of
children‟s group & CBO members. Non-members
were omitted from most of the meetings

8. Lessons about the methodology
 The methodology worked well with all groups (esp.
children) and engagement was good across each of the
communities
 Strong facilitation (as opposed to translation alone) was
key to getting good results
 The methods used produced quantitative data but
qualitative follow-up discussions were of greatest value
to the research
 The children‟s meetings went extremely well and often
revealed a level of understanding about the research
topic that was equal to if not greater than the adults

9. FUNCTIONING OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM
Findings – Accountability I
 Accountability to project participants was
routinely considered strong across all villages
(including counterfactuals)
 Informal mechanisms (particularly face-to-
face) often favoured over formal CRM
mechanism for complaints.
 “We prefer face-to-face meetings as this avoids
misunderstandings and when we can‟t use this method we will
use the phone”
 Feedback from Save the Children generally
takes between 1-2 days and 1-2 weeks
depending on the mechanism used

10. FUNCTIONING OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM
Findings – Accountability II
 Participation felt to be strong particularly
amongst active CBO members and children‟s
groups
 The rich („not interested‟) and extremely
poor („no time‟) were considered to be those
who had least access to/involvement in
information, participation and feedback.
Those who couldn‟t attend village meetings
(elderly, disabled and „outliers‟) also tended
to miss out
 “Those who have the most insecure livelihoods cannot
participate in the programme as they do not have time to
attend the meetings and get involved”

11. Accountability in Action

12. CONTRIBUTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROJECT QUALITY
Relevance
 Relevance: Fairly consistent feedback about
participation strengthening the relevance of
the project (targeting and project selection)
 “If we weren‟t involved [in the implementation] the project
could not be successful as it wouldn‟t meet children‟s needs”
 “This is „our‟ project because we can decide what our
priorities are. SC discusses these with us and we decide”
 “We can request what we need as we have a good relationship
and are an equal partner. This makes the project more
relevant to our needs”
 “If children cannot point out mistakes or activities that aren‟t
relevant then interest would be low as it would feel wrong and
children wouldn‟t want to waste their time”

13. CONTRIBUTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROJECT QUALITY
Effectiveness & Sustainability
 Effectiveness & sustainability: Provision of
information promotes knowledge of the
programme and participation in it;
participation and ability to feedback ensure
that community voice is heard and promotes
ownership and trust
 “The decision-making process is important as it brings
ownership of the people which will continue beyond the
project lifespan”
 “People were initially nervous of sending their children to the
training…but we were reassured by the information we
received from Save the Children which helped us to trust
them”

14. CONTRIBUTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROJECT QUALITY
Efficiency
 Efficiency: Much less evidence of contribution
than for other DAC criteria. The best example
came from the Save the Children area office;
 “We formed a training task force after the village complained
that they were overloaded as they had received 3 different
trainings on the same subject. This led to the creation of a
single training programme. This has saved time and increased
efficiency”

15. CONTRIBUTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROJECT QUALITY
Impact
 Impact: Some good examples that go beyond
project-based outcomes
 “[As a community] we used to make decisions in a top-down way;
participation was very new but it has been welcome. We did not
know how to decide together so this is a lesson which we have
learnt together. We have found that it reduces conflict.”
 The village has a children‟s health system which we contribute to
in case of emergency but we often make poor decisions. After
seeing how the SC programme worked we decided to have a formal
decision-making process so there was transparency in how we
made our decisions. This is a lesson we learnt from Save the
Children (paraphrased)
 “In this monestary there is an annual ceremony where money is
given to the monks. Previously we didn‟t know how this was used
but starting in 2009 we agreed to keep account of the money and
keep a record of the balance [in the same way as for SCI projects]”

16. Issues for the research
 Despite the lack of a formal CRM no significant difference
was found in people‟s perceptions of SCI‟s accountability
to them – largely as a result of the strong relationship
which exists (face-to-face contact was preferred)
 Implications for the use of the HAP benchmark for longer-
term programming – a mature relationship based on strong
participation may be more important than access to
formal feedback mechanisms
 Both the case studies (Kenya & Myanmar) were selected in
part because of the strong accountability to project
participants. This has yielded good results
 The counterfactuals have worked less well. There would
be value in commissioning a case study where
participation is weak and/or where the accountability
mechanisms are poor (humanitarian case study?)

17. Questions & discussion