00:00:00 Introduction and agenda

Welcome, everyone, to today's session. We will focus on the Feedback, Complaint and Response Mechanism (FCRM). We will analyze what the FCRM is and why it is important for various reasons, including program quality, accountability, protection, and safeguarding.

Then, we will dive into how we can design appropriate Feedback, Complaint and Response Mechanisms using a step-by-step approach. In the third part of today's session, we will see how technology—specifically providing an example using ActivityInfo—can facilitate data collection and enable the real-time use of information.

00:01:06 What is the Feedback, Complaint and Response Mechanism?

Before starting with a definition and the reasons why this is important, we want to mention that the setting for this webinar is associated with The State of the Humanitarian System 2022, published by ALNAP. This report provides information on the current status of the humanitarian system. It notes that consultation, participation, and feedback are strongly linked to recipients' perceptions regarding the relevance, effectiveness, and dignity of aid.

While we have made significant improvements in how we use information in the past decades, information coming from FCRMs is not yet fully used to influence decision-making. The recent COVID-19 pandemic provided a challenging context where many communications had to move to a remote or online setting. Face-to-face communication was substituted by other means, making the information management of the FCRM more challenging.

So, what is the Feedback, Complaint and Response Mechanism? In a clear phrase, it is the mechanism that enables an organization to request feedback from beneficiaries and respond in a timely manner. It is also known as the Feedback Complaint Mechanism or Feedback Mechanism.

For today's session, we will focus primarily on non-sensitive feedback. Feedback received by this mechanism can be both sensitive and non-sensitive. Sensitive feedback includes violations of conduct, exploitation, and abuse. These are handled by different processes inside the organization, often governed by specific policies like safeguarding. Today, we will focus on non-sensitive feedback and how we can use technology to record and analyze it.

00:04:50 Why is the FCRM important?

First, it addresses program relevance and quality. It is a crucial part of increasing relevance and improving the quality of the program. Being active listeners to beneficiaries, requesting feedback, and acting back in time generates information that can be used in decision-making. Addressing feedback in a timely manner acts as a vehicle for program improvement, allowing programs to become more targeted, adaptive, and relevant to the context.

The second reason is accountability. Via this mechanism, we enable two-way communication between organizations and beneficiaries. This means people can use this mechanism to claim their rights and responsibilities. By maintaining an open communication line, organizations demonstrate respect towards the beneficiary. Appropriate communication channels also balance power dynamics by enabling local input to be processed and incorporated into operations.

Third, we receive information critical for safe programming. This can include protection information and safeguarding concerns, which is critical to identify and address potential risks. It provides an open communication line to report allegations of abuse, corruption, or exploitation. This is crucial to ensure staff work in a way that promotes basic humanitarian principles, such as "do no harm."

00:08:51 Designing the mechanism: Sensitive vs. non-sensitive feedback

Let's look at how we can design a mechanism appropriate to the needs and context, and clarify the difference between sensitive and non-sensitive feedback.

Non-sensitive feedback broadly includes four categories:

Sensitive feedback is a different topic entirely. It typically includes allegations of misconduct, exploitation, abuse, and safety/security information. These cases usually require escalation to ethics committees, country representatives, or designated safeguarding focal points within 24 hours. Confidentiality must be ensured by removing personally identifiable information, and appropriate referrals for support must be made.

00:14:23 Steps to design an FCRM

There are four steps to designing such a mechanism:

00:16:11 Step 1: Design phase

In the design phase, we determine the scope. We must decide if the FCRM is led by implementing partners or the organization, and whether it is project-based or organization-wide.

Context analysis involves consulting with local communities and partners and reviewing existing data to determine population preferences, barriers to access, needs, and risks. Based on this, we select appropriate channels (e.g., helplines, boxes, community meetings). We must ensure face-to-face and anonymous communication options are available. We also need to allocate resources, including staff and budget.

Regarding the scope, options include:

When deciding, consider available staff, accessibility, data management integration, partner policies, and the maturity level of any consortium. Recommendations for channels include using a variety to address all needs and incorporating individual response channels (like helplines) alongside community response channels (like signboards).

00:21:29 Step 2: Start-up phase

In the start-up phase, we establish the selected channels and procedures. We write down the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), defining categories for sensitive and non-sensitive feedback, next steps, data management, and referral pathways.

We need to create an enabling environment. This includes five components:

00:25:43 Step 3: Implementation phase

During implementation, the most important aspect is to be open to requesting feedback and complaints. Staff training is vital so they understand that complaints are not negative but are feedback used to improve services.

We must respond timely using appropriate channels and escalate sensitive issues to focal points. Regarding data management, we must analyze FCRM data, monitor satisfaction levels, triangulate with other MEAL data, and implement checks on the mechanism's effectiveness (e.g., accessibility and trust).

00:27:43 Step 4: Close-out phase

In the close-out phase, we determine clear next steps for after the project ends. We must address sustainability and communicate the plan to relevant communities. Data protection principles apply to archiving data, and we should evaluate the mechanism to produce learning for future programming.

00:28:34 Operationalizing FCRM with ActivityInfo

Now, let's see how we can operationalize the FCRM using technology to facilitate data collection and real-time information use. In this example scenario, we have a project-based FCRM with implementing partners using a common system.

We designed a database in ActivityInfo. The first table includes beneficiary demographic information (age, gender). A second table records the feedback received. Key fields include the registration date (crucial for tracking timeliness), the partner reporting, and the channel used (e.g., helpline, help desk).

We categorize the feedback (appreciation, information request, service request, non-sensitive complaint, out of scope). The form can include instructions for staff on how to handle specific categories. We also track the status of the feedback (open/closed) and the date it was closed to calculate responsiveness.

Additionally, we can link a satisfaction survey to the system. ActivityInfo allows for the generation of collection links that can be sent to beneficiaries via email, Viber, or other methods to collect non-anonymous or anonymous feedback.

00:37:59 Real-time use of information

ActivityInfo includes a "dashboard" feature that enables quantitative analysis to identify larger trends. We can analyze FCRM data by time, demographic characteristics, and category. We can also monitor satisfaction levels and response rates.

In the example, we created an internal report using dashboards to provide live information. This avoids manual reporting requests. We can visualize FCRM channels (to see where requests come from), the number of days taken to close requests, the volume of feedback per category, and satisfaction level results. This enables real-time use of evidence to make decisions adapted to the specific context.

00:40:49 Key takeaways

To summarize, here are key things to keep in mind:

00:42:05 Q&A session

Question: Could you highlight the key pillars or factors for the success of an FCRM?

Answer: Key factors include context analysis to ensure contextualization. Sustainability is also vital—deciding whether the system is partner-led or organization-led. Writing down SOPs gives gravity to the process compared to oral communication. Training and refreshers for staff are crucial, especially in contexts with high turnover. Finally, the use of technology is important for data protection; sensitive data should never be managed in Excel files.

Question: Is it possible to use the FCRM in market system development programming?

Answer: FCRM should exist regardless of the program type. It is about having an open communication line with the people we serve. It is an organizational-wide requirement for accountability, not specific to one type of program.

Question: How important is a robust FCRM to the overall well-being of the local community and public perception?

Answer: It is crucial. If beneficiaries cannot find you to provide feedback, they may lose trust in the organization and the service. This affects the overall implementation. Just as we expect to be able to contact our bank if there is an issue, beneficiaries need to be able to find us. A lack of communication channels negatively impacts perception.

Question: Are there tips for increasing public awareness and reporting levels in long-term development projects where reporting is low?

Answer: Low reporting can stem from the community not being informed or comfortable, or lacking access to technology. You can use radio broadcasts, messaging, or face-to-face meetings to inform them. Staff training is essential so they can explain the FCRM during service delivery. Another factor might be that the system doesn't provide the answers they want; if they don't get a reply, they stop communicating. You may need to re-validate your context analysis or use light monitoring techniques to ask beneficiaries directly why they aren't using the system.

Question: Beneficiaries sometimes report sensitive issues through the FCRM. These should have a different route. What are your suggestions?

Answer: Sensitive and non-sensitive feedback are two different buckets. Sensitive issues like sexual harassment require different steps than a service delay. Organizations are increasingly creating specific internal policies for safeguarding. Sensitive feedback is treated as an allegation requiring investigation. Confidentiality must be maintained to protect the reputations of both the beneficiary and the staff member. These cases usually involve a small group of people (e.g., HR, focal points) who conduct an investigation and determine next steps.

Question: Regarding context analysis, we need to incorporate gender, diversity, and inclusion.

Answer: That is a correct point. Consent is always involved. Gender, age groups, and vulnerability types play an important role in disaggregation and making informed decisions. Consulting with the community and local partners helps determine how the tool should look to accommodate these factors.

Question: How can we integrate FCRM in rural areas with limited network coverage and low technology literacy?

Answer: You can use face-to-face communication lines, such as help desks, drop-in visits, or community meetings. Lack of internet does not prohibit data collection; tools like ActivityInfo allow for offline work. You can collect information face-to-face and sync it later.

Question: How can you make an FCRM policy work in a community where staff violations or power exploitation are not considered major factors by the local community?

Answer: This is a matter of education regarding rights and responsibilities. While we respect the local context, certain actions have legal implications. You need to inform the community that they have the right to be treated with respect and that staff cannot ask for money for services. You can use visual aids, meetings, or community leaders to convey this information.

Question: Can ActivityInfo capture data from proactive channels like community meetings, and does it flag delayed responses?

Answer: Yes, ActivityInfo can capture feedback from community meetings using an appropriate form. Regarding flagging, while there isn't a specific color-coded icon feature, you can use calculations (as shown in the demo) to track the number of days a request has been open and filter data to identify delays.

Question: Would outsourcing the FCRM to a neutral party be better than internal management?

Answer: From experience, it is better to be internal. Non-sensitive feedback, like information or service requests, can only be answered appropriately by the people working on the ground. Outsourcing often leads to a lack of integration with programming areas and internal processes.

Question: What is your advice on managing human resources for an effective FCRM?

Answer: It depends on the scope and volume. High-volume helplines may need a separate team. However, the golden rule is to reduce the space between who receives the feedback and who solves it. You need to define in the SOPs who has the capacity and information to answer specific types of complaints. If a compliance officer cannot answer a programmatic question, they are not the right person to handle it.

Question: Can we acknowledge intangible mechanisms when working with partners who answer feedback daily in a participatory way?

Answer: You can still incorporate this. Daily feedback is essentially face-to-face feedback. You can streamline what is recorded based on the information you need to use. FCRM workshops can be used to increase partner capacity in monitoring, evaluation, and accountability. It is strongly recommended to formalize this as a tool.