Refugee-led organisations: towards community-based accountability mechanisms

Refugee-led organisations (RLOs) have gained recognition as significant players in the local and global refugee response system. Refugees have long relied on each other for support, creating both formal associations and informal networks to meet their basic needs. However, it has taken the humanitarian sector some time to recognise the value of RLOs. The Covid-19 crisis demonstrated the importance of RLOs as they stepped up to provide crucial assistance to their fellow refugees at a time when humanitarian agencies were unable to operate at their usual capacity. RLOs and refugee-led networks are also increasingly participating in decision-making spaces and advocating for greater power and resources to be transferred to them.

In this context, some RLOs have been successful in accessing donor humanitarian funding and have formed formal partnerships within the humanitarian ecosystem. For many RLOs, transitioning from smaller community-based networks to more formal structures is likely to present significant challenges. RLO leaders are already navigating dilemmas between kinship-based accountability to their beneficiaries and more rigid accountability requirements to their donors and partners.

Accountability has been a key focus of the humanitarian sector since the 1990s, and has received renewed attention in the context of the localisation turn. However, there has been little discussion on how RLOs practise accountability and who RLOs are accountable to. As more humanitarian organisations and donors engage with RLOs, this article provides recommendations to humanitarian actors and donors on how to engage with RLOs while preserving RLOs’ autonomy and added value. Drawing from previous experiences in East Africa, this study urges the humanitarian sector to prioritise systems for community accountability rather than placing undue emphasis on donor accountability, in order to achieve better outcomes for affected communities. This article builds upon findings and expands recommendations from the study conducted by a team of refugee researchers supported by LERRN and the Refugee-Led Research Hub (RLRH): Getachew, A., Gitahi, M., Kara, A., Ramazani, U. (2022). ‘Refugee-led organisations in East Africa: community perceptions in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Tanzania.’ Refugee-Led Research Series, Research Report (1), September 2022 (https://refugeeledresearch.org/).

Kinship-based accountability: RLOs’ accountability to the communities they serve

Recent research conducted by a team of refugee researchers in East Africa, supported by the Local Engagement Refugee Response Network (LERRN) and the Refugee-Led Research Hub, finds that RLOs have several advantages compared to their international counterparts, especially in terms of community-level trust, access and local embeddedness. As a result, beneficiaries of RLOs often report more positive experiences: RLOs treated them with greater dignity and respect, had a deeper understanding of their needs, and provided better-suited services in a more equitable and consistent manner (Box 1).

Box 1: Better-suited RLO services
RLO services are more adapted to their needs and are detail-oriented because they know the community better. Beneficiaries noted that RLOs involve them in problem identification before proceeding to provide support: ‘[The RLO] comes to the ground and if they identify a problem then they support us’ (RLO beneficiary, Nakivale). While some RLOs provide services that are similar to aid organisations, others might cover the same sectors using more localised approaches (e.g. traditional discussions for psychosocial support in Bidi Bidi by the Together We Can women’s group). In some instances, RLOs provide services that communities consider important but that are not considered key priorities among aid organisations, such as cultural preservation (e.g. Adungu Malembe music group in Bidi Bidi, which educates and entertains the community through traditional music).     

Likewise, RLOs, like other locally based movements, have a significant advantage in terms of accountability to the communities they serve (Box 2). In East Africa, beneficiaries of RLOs and residents of the communities where they operate generally agreed that RLOs were more accountable to communities in comparison to other organisations because of their accessibility. Refugees mentioned that they were able to give direct feedback to RLOs on their activities. RLOs were also perceived to be more transparent. Many cited instances where RLOs clearly communicated their inability to provide assistance in a particular situation, while international organisations provided ambiguous information. Better access to RLO leaders also helped build trust: due to the direct access that beneficiaries have to RLO leaders within their communities, beneficiaries often said they trusted RLOs more than aid international organisations.

Box 2: RLOs’ community accountability
RLOs are more accountable to communities because beneficiaries feel able to give them direct feedback on activities. RLOs are also more likely to communicate clearly, particularly if they cannot help in a given instance, unlike non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international NGOs (INGO) which might not deliver a clear message. For example, in Uganda:

“[The RLO] is successful because it attends to everyone without partiality. They may not have the resources to satisfy everyone but at least they will receive you and explain to you regardless of who you are (refugee community member, Kampala).”

RLOs that access resources and implement activities as per their set objectives tend to be more successful and have a longer lifespan in their communities. As research shows, ‘In instances where an RLO misappropriated funds, they face rejection and in some cases are even forced to stop operating in the community.^’

Why accountability matters

In East Africa, few organisations have managed to receive donor funding. When they do receive funding, it is generally small in scale, tied to a specific project designed by other humanitarian stakeholders, or received through an international organisation that acts as an intermediary.

Still, with some RLOs now accessing donor funding and humanitarian partnerships, and as more RLOs are likely to receive funding due to growing interest, it is important to collectively think through issues of accountability. Accountability requires, at the very least, clear identification of the audience that RLOs are accountable to, as well as consequences for RLOs if they fail to deliver what they are supposed to. The issue of RLO accountability was brought up by several RLO leaders, beneficiaries and community members during consultations in Uganda and Kenya, where RLOs are more integrated into the humanitarian system and receive more funding compared to more restrictive policy contexts. Navigating upward accountability (from the organisation to donors) and downward accountability (organisation to beneficiaries) can create complex challenges for RLOs. The conceptualisation of upward and downward accountability can be found in: Hilhorst, D., Melis, S., Mena, R., and van Voorst, R. (2021) ‘Accountability in humanitarian action’ Refugee Survey Quarterly 40(4): 363–389 (https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdab015).

RLO accountability to donors

RLOs, like other humanitarian organisations, are expected to establish a working relationship with their donors. When RLOs receive direct funding, they become legally and financially accountable to their donors and must regularly disclose their spending and comply with the guidelines set by their donors. Typically, this is done in the form of audits, evaluations and reports. Donors are hesitant to provide direct funding to RLOs due to concerns that they may not meet their reporting requirements or international standards. RLO leaders often describe these standards as inadequate for the context in which they operate, citing issues such as registration, access to infrastructure, and limited capacity for activities beyond their primary focus on providing assistance. This can have direct consequences on RLOs’ ability to have a positive sustainable impact on their community: RLO leaders expressed concerns over the consequences of donor-imposed conditions and inadequate funding, as it may hinder their ability to maintain services that align with the priorities of their communities rather than the priorities of donors.

This issue is similar to the one faced by other local organisations that also struggle with navigating donor funding. There is growing evidence that current donor funding mechanisms can result in priority distortion, erode local ownership and leadership, and ultimately fail to deliver better outcomes for populations.

The nature of RLOs means that upward accountability goes beyond just donors. RLOs often receive funding through NGO and INGO intermediaries that act as donors and implement similar conditions. A few INGOs have sought to change the ways that RLOs are funded by providing direct, multi-year funding and more flexible requirements, such as the Resourcing Refugee Leadership Initiative (RRLI) fund, an RLO-to-RLO fund housed within Asylum Access.

RLO accountability to communities

Although RLOs are often considered to be more accountable due to their accessibility and proximity, it does not imply that they should not focus on enhancing their accountability, particularly as they expand and grow. As RLOs have more resources and make choices on how to allocate them, it is probable that there will be growing demands for accountability from the communities they serve. In Kenya and Uganda, a small number of community members have already expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of accountability of RLOs, and argued that RLOs only serve the self-interests of their leaders. Unless these perceptions are addressed, they could gradually erode the trust between RLOs and the communities they aim to serve.

Moreover, as the number of RLO beneficiaries increases, informal accountability mechanisms may prove insufficient. Many RLOs were originally formed to serve specific communities, such as special interest or ethnic groups, but have since expanded to serve a broader segment of the population, including refugees and the host community. In these cases, RLOs may not have the same level of kinship or close relationships with all beneficiaries.

Ways forward: centring community accountability

We recommend that RLOs, donors, and other actors of the humanitarian system work together towards a system of accountability that centres community accountability over donor-focused accountability.

• RLOs must demonstrate transparency and accountability in their operations to establish and maintain community trust. RLOs should set up systems for listening to suggestions, sharing their records, and receiving (and acting upon) feedback. This can be achieved through a mix of formal and informal mechanisms based on the nature of their activities and the communities they work with. For instance, RLOs could use social media, public consultations and events.
• RLOs often face a trade-off between allocating their time and resources towards conducting activities and engaging in community mechanisms versus meeting the reporting requirements of donors. If reporting demands are excessive, RLOs may be forced to prioritise reporting over their primary activities and community engagement. Donors and humanitarian organisations should engage RLOs to set up funding and reporting requirements that are adapted to RLOs’ ways of working and put the emphasis on community-based accountability mechanisms.
• Donors and humanitarian organisations should embed capacity-building activities in their engagement with RLOs. Cohere, for example, has already taken a step in this direction in East Africa by providing capacity-building sessions to RLOs, including training on reporting. Donors can further expand on this by directly providing training on existing projects and overseeing the implementation of such training. Such efforts not only improve the quality of reporting but also foster trust and collaboration between donors, humanitarian organisations and RLOs.
• Donors should support community-based monitoring mechanisms. RLOs, like any organisation, can face issues related to corruption and misuse of power. Rather than more traditional approaches to monitoring and evaluation, donors could support refugee-led monitoring groups to keep track of the progress of RLOs and raise potential flags to the donor. Participation in these groups should be funded and facilitated.
• Lastly, donors, humanitarian organisations and RLOs can work together to document their efforts in promoting community accountability mechanisms and changing ways of working. Sharing experiences and lessons learned through systematic documentation can be instrumental in promoting more equal partnerships and new solutions in the refugee response system.

Foni Joyce Vuni is a Lead Researcher at the RLRH.

Buhendwa Iragi is a Research Assistant at the RLRH.

Pauline Vidal is the Research Facilitator at the RLRH.