Closing Feedback Loops: Ensuring Accountability to Affected Rohingya and Host Communities in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh.

Summary

Since August 2017 an estimated 750,000 Rohingyas fled from Myanmar into Coxs Bazaar district of Bangladesh to escape extreme persecution and violence. Along with previous settlements, this became the largest humanitarian crisis of refugees in recent times. To meet information needs of, and accountability commitments to, both Rohingya and host communities, UNICEF and partners - BITA and ACLAB have launched a comprehensive feedback system that entails feedback loops and follow-up actions at multiple levels. Twenty Information Feedback Centers (IFCs) have been established as one-stop shops for information-provision, dialogue and referrals to services as a part of this system. IFCs receive and respond to community queries, feedback and complaints (QFC), and promote practices for community health and social wellbeing. Each IFC is managed by three Information Service-Providers (ISPs) who are trained on rapid feedback provision, inter-personal communication, demonstration of key life-saving messages/behaviors, service referrals, dissemination of IEC materials, and Open Data Kit (ODK) application. QFCs are recorded in logbooks, digitalized anonymously through the ODK system and responded to everyday. Aggregated data is available publicly and disseminated among institutional partners and at sector/system-level to identify trends in community needs, grievances and improve services. Total CFQs received until September 2019 are 122,418, of which 93% have been resolved at the camp-level itself. Additional methods and approaches such as IFC/community accountability study (CAS) and triangulation of third-party assessments are being used to ensure feedback loops are complete and the system is responsive across levels.

Background/Objectives

A study in early 2018 in Rohingya camps found that only 16% women and 25% men were aware of accountability mechanisms (GTS 2018), highlighting the need for expansion and promotion of feedback mechanisms, improvement in coordination at multiple levels of the response to establish referral and feedback pathways for individual case-based complaints, and meta-analysis of data feeds to inform response-wide interventions and advocacy. This presentation while describing how feedback is received and responded to across multiple levels, highlights a specific IFC-focused community accountability study was conducted in the camps to ensure broader accountability of feedback system.

Description of Intervention and/or Methods/Design

To meet AAP commitments comprehensively, multiple levels of feedback and response are built in the feedback-system at individual, community/camp, institutional and system levels. Individual or family-level QFCs received by IFCs/ISPs are responded to immediately through information provision, or through referrals to services where they are typically further resolved. Digitalised data is shared routinely with key partner institutions/sectors on persistent service gaps or problematic trends, and in some cases escalated to inter-sector level depending on type of QFC (e.g. PSEA). Amongst all sectors, health has the highest with 64,977 CFQs reported. To ensure the system itself is relevant and effective, CAS was conducted. IFCs, categorised into 3 types basis number of CFQs received and logged between April and May 2019 were used to randomly select 50 male (34%) and female (66%) informants of different age-groups, who were interviewed in six camps to assess usefulness of IFCs and satisfaction levels.

Results/Lessons Learned

So far, 93% of the total 122,418 QFCs logged through the IFCs have been resolved at the camp-level. Findings from the IFC/CAS show that 94% of sampled community-members logging QFCs had their issues satisfactorily resolved, and that at least 38 had their issues resolved within 30 days, indicating both responsiveness and relevance of the system. Despite limitations of context, sample size, partner-capacity gaps, the study shows IFCs as important in assisting illiterate Rohingya/ host communities with little knowledge of humanitarian response, in understanding which services are available, and where and how to access them. It also highlights gaps and challenges in the overall mechanism and provides directions on how to improve follow-up actions. Triangulated with AAP data collected by other agencies, there is need for stronger positioning and promotion of IFCs among community-members as well as decision-makers, as an important service of humanitarian response.

Discussion/Implications for the Field

Ensuring accountability to affected populations during humanitarian crises requires multi-level feedback loops to ensure the system is relevant, effective and responsive. While the feedback process itself establishes and reinforces needs-based, two-way culturally-appropriate dialogue between affected communities and humanitarian responders, digitalised data gathered through trends in QFCs and referrals as well as community-accountability studies underpin evidence-based advocacy that put the voices of the affected populations in the foreground of the humanitarian response and the program design.

Abstract submitted by:

Aarunima  Bhatnagar UNICEF

Mohammad  Alamgir UNICEF

Asm Jamal Uddin

Rashidul Hassan

Sanne Bergh