Contents
Value Proposition
The National Society partners with communities as equal stakeholders—listening, communicating and acting on their priorities—so that people receive relevant, respectful and high‑quality humanitarian services and can shape the assistance they receive.
Purpose & Strategic Importance
Community engagement and accountability (CEA) is a way of working that recognises all community members as equal partners whose diverse needs, priorities and preferences guide everything the National Society does. When communities actively participate and their feedback is acted upon, programmes are more effective, sustainable and of higher quality. Engaging communities helps us understand context, improve programme design, build trust and acceptance, strengthen community ownership and resilience, and uphold our own commitments to transparency and accountability. Without meaningful engagement, aid risks being irrelevant, harmful or viewed with suspicion.
Scope
This capability encompasses institutionalising CEA across all programmes, operations and branches. It includes understanding and defining the community, integrating meaningful participation, open communication and feedback mechanisms into each stage of the programme and disaster response cycles. It covers institutionalising CEA through policies, strategies, leadership buy‑in, dedicated funding and training; establishing feedback and complaints mechanisms; and monitoring and adjusting programmes based on community input. It does not replace technical sector work (e.g., health, shelter) but ensures those activities are designed and delivered in partnership with communities. While CEA specialists may facilitate this work, accountability cannot be outsourced—it is the responsibility of all staff and volunteers.
Key Activities
Institutionalise Community Engagement and Accountability – Make CEA an organisational priority so that engaging and being accountable to communities becomes systematic and sustainable, no matter who is in post or which programme is running.
Engage and be Accountable to Communities for Programmes – Integrate CEA into the full programme cycle so that long‑term programmes reflect community priorities, adapt to feedback and build lasting partnerships.
Engage and be Accountable to Communities During Emergencies – Apply CEA principles swiftly and flexibly during crises so that emergency responses meet urgent needs, build trust and do no harm.
Results
Outputs: Community profiles and analysis; CEA policies and strategies; trained staff and volunteers; functional feedback mechanisms; participatory plans and budgets; regular communication materials; monitoring reports; Relevant, respectful and high‑quality humanitarian services.
Outcomes: Communities understand and influence programmes; trust and acceptance of the National Society increase; programmes meet diverse needs effectively; feedback informs continuous improvement.
Impact: Stronger community ownership and resilience; improved humanitarian outcomes; fulfilment of Movement commitments to accountability and participation.
Enabling Resources
People & Roles: Senior leadership champions; CEA focal points; programme staff; volunteers; communications and PMER (planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting) teams; community volunteers and representatives.
Competency Building: Training packages for leadership, staff and volunteers; mentoring and coaching to embed CEA practices.
Governance: CEA policies and strategies; integration of CEA into National Society statutes, job descriptions and performance reviews.
Data & Tools: Assessment and feedback tools; participatory planning guides; CEA monitoring and evaluation tools; digital communication platforms and hotline infrastructure.
Facilities & Funding: Dedicated budgets for CEA activities; accessible spaces for community meetings; equipment for communications (e.g., radio, mobile phones).
Examples & Innovative Practices
Kenya Red Cross Institutionalisation: Started with pilots and then scaled up CEA through training all staff and volunteers, establishing a national feedback system and integrating accountability into the strategic plan and job descriptions. This increased trust, improved programme impact and enhanced community ownership.
Italian Red Cross Perception Surveys: Partnered with Ground Truth Solutions to survey migrants’ perceptions, discussed findings with migrants and staff and made concrete service improvements, e.g., delivering asylum information in smaller doses.
Cameroon COVID‑19 Feedback Loop: Combined feedback from social media, hotline, volunteers and FGDs to adapt messaging and services, demonstrating how feedback can guide response actions.
Variations in Practice
Approaches differ by context, capacity and programme type. Large National Societies may have dedicated CEA departments and digital feedback platforms, while smaller societies rely on field volunteers and low‑tech mechanisms. Emergency operations require rapid, flexible engagement, whereas long‑term development programmes allow for deeper participatory processes. Societies operating in conflict or politically sensitive environments must emphasise neutral and safe channels for feedback.
Common Challenges
Viewing CEA as a separate programme or optional extra rather than a core commitment.
Lack of leadership buy‑in, funding or staff time to institutionalise CEA.
Inadequate capacity to manage feedback and act on it, leading to frustration and disengagement.
Difficulty reaching marginalised or at‑risk groups and ensuring their voices are heard.
Risk of tokenistic participation without real influence on decisions.
Data protection and confidentiality issues when collecting feedback.
Sustaining engagement and accountability across different programmes and after funding ends.
By embedding community engagement and accountability into the core of their work, National Societies can build trust, enhance programme quality and uphold the Movement’s humanitarian commitments, ensuring that the people we serve are true partners in humanitarian action.