Who gets heard? Gender, safety, and inclusion in humanitarian feedback systems

Feedback and complaints are one of the five Inter-Agency Standing Committee commitments to accountability to affected populations (AAP). Through this, humanitarian actors communicate, receive, process, respond and learn – in a two-way process with the community.

As the humanitarian sector advances the ‘reset’ agenda prioritising efficiency and localisation, AAP has never been more important. In reviewing efficiencies, it  is useful to understand who uses these systems and how their engagement affects outcomes.

At Action Against Hunger Somalia, our call centre data reveals a consistent pattern: women engage far more than men. Between January and October 2024, for example, 671 calls were made by women, compared to 342 by men. 

In a patriarchal country like Somalia, this trend was both exciting and intriguing. Rather than treating this as a simple gender difference, we launched a study that asked the question: what does this pattern reveal about how feedback systems function in practice?

Typical profile of the callers

This analysis draws on interviews with 105 callers (66 women and 39 men) who used our toll-free line (to a multilingual, women-operated call centre) between January and March 2025 and gave consent to participate. 

Respondents were predominantly:

• women (62%);
• living in internally displaced camps (81%);
• without formal education (69%);
• heads of household (84%);
• aged between 24 to 39 (69%).

These characteristics are central to understanding participation with feedback systems.

Women’s voice depends on the channel

A striking contrast emerges when comparing different feedback modalities. While women account for the majority of call centre users − as shown in Figure 1 below − they are significantly less visible in community meetings. Of the 41% of respondents who reported never speaking up in community meetings, 86% are women. This suggests that participation is not simply about willingness. Women’s higher engagement may not be a matter of being more vocal, but of having access to channels where it is safe and acceptable to speak. Private, one-on-one communication particularly with women and multilingual operators, appears to reduce social and cultural barriers that may limit women’s participation in public forums. With a 73% repeat usage, phones appeared both safe and accessible for the women interviewed. Thankfully in Somalia, mobile phone ownership among women is on par with men, largely because the economy runs on mobile money transactions.

Figure 1: Gender and feedback channel preference 

Proximity to need is gendered and influences feedback

Calls are often triggered by immediate pressures: hunger, water scarcity, or gaps in assistance. Across interviews with both women and men, women were consistently described as those managing day-to-day household needs, food, healthcare, childcare, and basic services. What appears as higher participation is, in reality, a reflection of gendered responsibility for managing household risk.

As one woman explained, 

‘Because the child is crying and asking for something to eat, that’s why I called.’

Women are more likely to engage not simply because they are more communicative, but because they are first responders to crisis at household level.

Beyond complaints: feedback systems as frontline access points

Although feedback mechanisms are often designed to collect complaints or assess service satisfaction, the data suggests they play a broader role. Our data shows that communities use the call centre to request assistance, express appreciation for assistance received, and complain (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Category of feedback 

On requests for assistance, the top three priorities, based on 2024 data, included cash assistance (57%) followed by water and hygiene kits (30%), and finally health and nutrition (9%). 

From this, feedback systems are functioning not just as accountability tools, but an early warning and trigger system, increasing usage as early entry points into assistance, rather than simply channels for retrospective feedback. By receiving calls that come in to solely acknowledge receipt of assistance, as shown in Figure 2, the feedback mechanisms act as a proxy for accountability. From the organisation side, as calls come through, there is an opportunity for real-time information sharing with affected people, especially where they seek clarification or express concerns regarding routine or operational things such as delays in finalising processes. For cash assistance, for example, mass messages are sent to the final programme participants on the amounts and number of cash transfers they should expect.

Conversely, as an early-warning system, spikes in requests for assistance could demonstrate a deteriorating humanitarian condition within a specific community. Such information is shared within clusters and corroborated with a needs assessment, potentially resulting in targeted assistance. In 2025, for example, Action Against Hunger call centre data showed a 264% increase in requests for assistance between the first quarter and the last quarter of the year, correlating with the progression of the prolonged drought in the country that culminated in a national drought declaration in November 2025. 

Feedback and change in outcomes

Ultimately, feedback should improve outcomes for the communities served. In August 2024, multiple calls were received from affected people in a particular community that relied on water trucking, complaining of salty water. The water supplier was contacted and agreed to compensate the community. From this learning, the organisation now incorporates the recommended source of water (identified in consultation with the community) into the water-trucking contracts. Another example is from the cash-assistance process. Following registration, some programme participants often expected immediate cash transfers; when this did not occur, it led to complaints and inquiries. Apart from providing an explanation during calls to the call centre, as described above, we revised our processes to include sensitisation during the registration on the additional steps undertaken before actual transfers are made, such as verification, including an estimate of timelines expected. Over time, we noticed a reduction in this particular type of feedback, specifically an 84% decrease between 2024 and 2025.

Inclusion and its limits

The design of the call centre, toll-free access, multilingual support and women operators appear to have significantly lowered barriers for women and demonstrates that inclusion is not automatic, it is designed. However, we found that men engaged less.

Men’s lower engagement with the feedback system was linked to their gender roles. Men were frequently reported to be:

• engaged in livelihood activities outside the home;
• less involved in day-to-day household service interactions;
• shaped by norms that may discourage formal help-seeking.

While call centres appear to successfully address barriers to women’s participation, they may simultaneously overlook how men engage with feedback systems. As is expected, they engaged more in public meetings. From this analysis, it was not possible to know if and how their limited representation in feedback systems may affect the overall humanitarian outcomes for the communities. 

Implications for the humanitarian reset

The humanitarian reset emphasises efficiency, localisation and accountability. These findings offer several implications:

Efficiency. Invest in systems that are used. High uptake and repeat engagement suggest that well-designed call centres can provide a cost-effective, high-impact channel for community engagement.

Localisation. Centre those closest to need. Women’s central role in feedback systems reflects their position at the frontline of household-level response. Designing systems that amplify their voices strengthens locally grounded decision-making.

Inclusion. Move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches. Different groups engage differently. Systems that enable participation for one group may not work for another.

Conclusion

The question is not simply why women call more than men. It is what their participation reveals about how feedback systems function and who they are designed to reach. In Somalia, women’s high engagement reflects not greater willingness, but greater alignment between system design and their realities, of responsibility, vulnerability, and constrained voice in public spaces. Women’s engagement with feedback systems also improves effectiveness in humanitarian response. As the sector seeks to strengthen accountability in an era of constrained resources, the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms will depend not just on their existence, but on whose voices are amplified the most. 

Sarah Amulo is the Associate Director Business Development with Action Against Hunger in Somalia. Having overseen delivery of humanitarian programmes in seven countries in Africa, she finds joy in using the programme-design experience as both a means and an end to organisational learning, demonstrating programme responsiveness and effectiveness. 

Ahmed Assayr Gelle is the MEAL Coordinator with Action Against Hunger in Somalia, with over eight years of experience in humanitarian and development programmes, strengthening MEAL systems to support evidence-based decision making. Ahmed is passionate about using data to drive meaningful change and seeing real impact for the communities targeted.

Abdihalin Abdifatah Reshid is the Community Contact Center Manager at Action Against Hunger. He leads community engagement and accountability efforts, overseeing feedback and complaints mechanisms, strengthening two-way communication with communities, and ensuring programmes are responsive, inclusive, and aligned with the needs and priorities of affected populations.

Rehema Bashir Haji is the Action Against Hunger Somalia Head of Food Security and Livelihoods. With an unmatched passion for food security and empowerment, especially among women, Rehema has 15 years’ experience designing and overseeing impactful and adaptive livelihood programs in Somalia and Kenya.