Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) Self-Check

Accountability to affected populations is still largely informal or missing, which leaves communities exposed and your programme non-compliant with the CHS and IASC commitments. Begin with the basics that keep people safe: tell communities aid is free and abuse can be reported, set up at least one safe and confidential feedback channel, and agree a PSEA referral pathway. Treat the critical items as non-negotiable before scaling delivery.

9 critical item(s) still unchecked

Information sharing & transparency

• Communities know who we are, what we are doing, for how long, who is eligible, and what they are entitled to receive for free.
• We have clearly told people that all our assistance is free of charge and that no one should ever ask them for money, favours, or sex in exchange for aid.critical
• Information is shared in the local language and dialect, and in formats that reach people who cannot read (verbal briefings, pictures, community radio, audio).
• We use channels people actually trust and access here — community leaders, religious figures, women's groups, notice boards, Facebook/Viber/Telegram, or face-to-face meetings — not just one written notice.
• Selection and targeting criteria are explained openly so communities understand why some households are included and others are not.
• Information reaches people before and during activities, including any changes, delays, or pipeline breaks, so they are not left guessing.

Participation & inclusion

• Affected people — women, men, youth, and elders — were consulted in assessment and design, and their priorities visibly shaped what we deliver.
• We make deliberate effort to include people who are usually left out — people with disabilities, older people, women heads of household, ethnic and religious minorities, IDPs, LGBTIQ+ people, and the very poor.critical
• We have identified and reduced barriers to participation (distance, cost, timing, childcare, language, mobility, safety, social stigma) rather than assuming everyone can simply attend.
• Communities have a real say in decisions that affect them (what, where, when, and how aid is delivered) — not just token consultation after decisions are made.
• Women and at-risk groups can participate and speak safely, including through separate or female-led spaces where mixed settings would silence them.
• We build on and strengthen local capacities and community structures instead of bypassing or undermining them.

Complaints & feedback mechanisms (CFM)

• A functioning complaints and feedback mechanism exists for this project, and communities helped choose the channels they prefer.critical
• People can give feedback through more than one channel (e.g. a hotline, suggestion box, help desk, focal point, or in person) so no single barrier shuts anyone out.
• Communities actually know the mechanism exists, what it is for, how to use it, and that complaining will not reduce their assistance or put them at risk.
• Channels are accessible to people who cannot read, do not have a phone, or speak a minority language, and are usable by women, children, and people with disabilities.
• There is a separate, confidential pathway for sensitive and serious complaints (abuse, exploitation, fraud, protection risks) that is not handled through the general suggestion box.critical
• Feedback is logged, categorised, and reviewed regularly by someone with authority to act, not left to pile up unread.

Safe & accessible channels and data

• Complaints are recorded and stored confidentially, and only staff with a genuine need can see who said what.critical
• People can raise concerns anonymously if they wish, and we have measures to protect anyone who complains from retaliation.
• Channels are designed for the local conflict and access context — they do not expose people to surveillance, checkpoints, armed actors, or community backlash by using them.
• Personal data is collected only as needed, with informed consent, and handled under a data-protection / do-no-harm approach — especially names linked to abuse or protection cases.critical
• Field staff and volunteers know how to receive feedback respectfully and exactly where to refer a sensitive complaint without investigating it themselves.

PSEA links

• Any report of sexual exploitation or abuse from our CFM is routed immediately and confidentially to the designated PSEA focal point through an agreed referral pathway.critical
• We can connect survivors to safe, survivor-centred support (medical, psychosocial, protection) and know the local referral options.critical
• All staff, volunteers, and partners have signed a code of conduct and been briefed on PSEA standards and zero tolerance for abuse.
• Everyone — including community members — knows it is mandatory to report SEA concerns and exactly how to do so, including against our own staff or partners.
• Partner and sub-grantee feedback and PSEA arrangements are checked, and reports flowing up to lead agencies, the cluster, or the fund are not blocked at our level.

Closing the loop & acting on feedback

• People who give feedback or complain receive a response, and we tell communities what we did about the issues they raised.critical
• We have agreed time frames for acknowledging and resolving feedback, and we track whether we are actually meeting them.
• Feedback and complaints visibly change how we work — we have adjusted activities, targeting, timing, or behaviour because of what communities told us.
• We analyse feedback trends to spot recurring problems and emerging protection risks, and escalate them to management, clusters, or partners as needed.
• We can show evidence (logs, minutes, reports) that the loop is closing, so accountability is demonstrable to communities and donors — not just claimed.