A cautionary tale of community engagement from northeast Nigeria

Why would a humanitarian initiative such as a safe space for women and girls be successful for the first two weeks and then experience a sharp decline in attendance? This article highlights the need to engage with the community in order to dispel rumours and create programmes that benefit communities in crisis.

The background

In 2019, Jireh Doo Foundation (JDF), a women-led national non-governmental organisation based in Nigeria, received $199,998.19 from the Nigeria Humanitarian Fund to implement a protection intervention in the Tungushe community of the Konduga Local Government Area of Borno state in northeast Nigeria. The project ran for a period of 10 months, from 1 December 2018 to 30 September 2019.

The project activities included provision of psychosocial support (PSS) to women and girls who are vulnerable to and/or are survivors of gender-based violence (GBV), through a Women and Girls Safe Space (WGSS) A Women and Girls Safe Space is a designated environment or facility created to provide a secure and supportive atmosphere for women and girls who may have experienced gender-based violence, discrimination, or other forms of hardship. These safe spaces aim to offer physical and emotional protection, fostering a sense of security and empowerment for women and girls. . Other activities included both group and individual counselling, games, informal education, story-telling, songs, henna painting and knitting.

The project was well designed and run by an experienced and knowledgeable all-woman team. The WGSS structure was a semi-open shelter, surrounded by a wire mesh fence, with dried grass used as a screen both against the sun and passers-by.

The WGSS was designed to hold 50 women at a time. Over the first week of the WGSS activities, about 70 women and girls participated, so many that the space could not contain everyone at the same time. This high turnout was due to the community volunteers who had sensitised the women and girls regarding the WGSS, and the participants who had informed other women and girls about the place.

The women enjoyed the skills being taught in the centre, including soap making, pasta making, tailoring, baking, knitting, and cap making. There were also fun games and activities (dancing and cultural songs/chants). The fact that men and boys were not allowed within the safe space, to the extent that even the security guards were women, made the women and girls feel safe and relaxed withing the WGSS.

The challenge

Not even two weeks after activities commenced in the WGSS, there was a sharp decrease in the number of women and girls coming to the space. Over the next few days, attendance became so low that the space was almost abandoned.

The JDF team then sought to find a reason for the sudden turnaround of events. They learned that a rumour was circulating within the community that the space was being used as a place where women were being pimped out to rich men. As a result, all the men in the community forbade their wives and daughters from going to the WGSS. Since no man had ever been in the space, even when the women insisted the rumour was not true, the men did not believe them. In this society, a man’s word far outweighs that of any woman.

What went wrong?

Despite JDF believing it had carried out all the necessary groundwork and community engagement prior to opening the WGSS, the circulation of this rumour made it quite obvious that it had missed something.

At the beginning of the project, JDF staff held a community entry meeting with the community stakeholders (traditional leaders, religious leaders and community leaders) – who, suffice it to say, were almost 100% men – to inform them of the project. Although the community was not directly involved in the design of the project (save for the needs assessment that was carried out), they were happy for the women and girls in their community to be beneficiaries of the intervention.

Next, the team then held a meeting with the women and girls to tell them about project activities in more detail. The meeting was well attended by the women and girls in the community. JDF informed them about the project, why it was brought to their community (high rate of GBV) and the opportunities in the WGSS (skill acquisition and PSS). Because the project was centred around women and girls, men and boys were not written into the project and its activities, hence there were no plans to engage or involve them beyond the initial community entry meeting. As there was little to no consultation with men and boys, and all of the project activities – including skills training, grants and PSS – were tailored for women and girls, it is not surprising that the men felt left out.

Remediation

Once the causes of the setback were understood, the JDF team held internal discussions on possible solutions and came up with the following action points:

• Suspend the activities of the WGSS temporarily and close it down – This was to stop the circulation of the rumour and send a message to the community that JDF was sensitive to their concerns.
• Organise a fresh community engagement with community men, women, boys and girls and all relevant stakeholders – This was to have more coverage and present a more detailed breakdown of what the project entails. The first target was the community, and traditional and religious leaders.
• Listen to community stakeholders’ perspectives on the project – After JDF explained the project in more detail, leaving no grey areas, it was JDF’s turn to listen to the feedback from the stakeholders. From the feedback, one key issue that emerged was the fact that the men felt totally cut off from the project. The men felt they should have had a part to play in activities that affected their wives, daughters and sisters.
• Apologise to the community for a poor community entry and engagement process, which gave room for false rumours to spread – It was necessary to apologise to the community, and let the community understand that the organisation could and had erred and therefore had come to seek the forgiveness of the community, because it could not achieve anything without their support.
• Explain the project objectives and activities in more detail, with particular emphasis on the WGSS and why it was restricted to only women and girls.
• Secure community buy-in and then reopen the WGSS.

To achieve the above action points, the organisation delegated senior officers of the organisation to meet with the community. Having senior officers attend was important, so that the community would understand that the organisation took their concerns seriously and that all feedback would be taken back to headquarters.

After all the steps above were successfully carried out, the organisation asked the men, led by traditional and religious leaders, to tour the WGSS, after which the religious leaders officially commissioned the WGSS and prayed over it.

Following these changes, the safe space reopened and was always full to capacity – not only with women and girls from the community, but also from neighbouring communities coming in for activities. The men encouraged their wives and daughters to be part of and engage in the safe space activities.

Lessons for future humanitarian programmes

Currently, most humanitarian organisations are in such a hurry to implement projects that they forget that one of the key measurements for a successful project is its sustainability, and sustainability is to a large extent a product of community acceptance, buy-in and ownership. Community engagement is crucial for fostering acceptance, buy-in and ownership of any initiative or project within a community, as effectively involving and collaborating with community members ensures that the project aligns with their needs, values and aspirations.

Most organisations, like JDF in 2019, carry out community entry and engagement meetings, but these are often treated as ‘tick box’ exercises and are not seen as critical to project success. The fact that community engagement is often delegated to junior and field staff supports this conclusion. It is quite understandable that senior staff and leadership cannot always be around during community engagement activities, but it is important that they are part of the community entry meeting (the very first community engagement), after which field staff could continue with the process.

Also, in most cases, community engagement meetings are merely information-sharing forums during which organisations come to communities to tell them about a planned project or initiative, not to consult them or involve them in a participatory way. They are not interested in hearing what the community feels about the project or the perspectives of the people it has come to serve, nor are they interested in working with the community from the beginning to design and develop the project and make modifications based on feedback, because this will waste a lot of valuable time. But without this type of consultation, the time is usually still wasted in corrective actions.

A lot of organisations practise what we call ‘Corrective Transparency’. This is transparency that does not start at the onset of the project, but rather kicks in when issues arise and need to be resolved, thereby limiting community engagement to sharing information and responding to issues.

Instead, organisations should practise ‘Foundational Transparency’, in which transparency begins with project design, every programmatic detail is spelt out to the community (i.e., selection criteria, duration, frequency, etc.), there is healthy consultation and two-way communication between the implementer and the targeted community, and both sides understand each other clearly and jointly address challenges and concerns as they emerge. In this type of transparency, trust is built from the beginning, and aid workers and communities are partners in project design and implementation. When this is achieved, the community takes ownership of the project and is able to speak for the organisation even in its absence. This increases the likelihood that project objectives will be achieved and sustained by the community(ies) involved. By contrast, when organisations fail to engage communities effectively, they spend more time and resources fixing issues that could have been avoided.

The innovation: the COBAFS model

The issue of the WGSS was settled, but the organisation learned a valuable lesson: When community entries and engagements are not effectively carried out, in a consultative and not just an information-sharing way, the consequences could be damaging, to the point of causing the failure of an entire project.

Hence JDF made it a priority to have robust and effective community entry and engagement processes, led by senior officers of the organisation in all project locations. In doing so, JDF has seen more community ownership of projects, with projects outliving the project cycle and communities taking the lead on innovations.

It is from this experience and the remediation process that the current JDF Community-Based Accountability and Feedback System (COBAFS) model built its foundation. Understanding that effective community engagement is not a one-off activity but a continuous exercise that must happen across all stages of project implementation, JDF incorporated its experience into the model.

COBAFS is an innovative approach developed by JDF for enhancing accountability to affected persons (AAP) in humanitarian and development projects across Nigerian North East communities. The model brings together all the necessary components of effective community engagement and accountability to affected population approaches. It looks first at the traditional structures in the community and how humanitarian organisations can build on them. This helps to ensure that humanitarian systems for engagement with the community are rooted in a familiar and acceptable system and do not operate in parallel. The model treats communities as partners in aid delivery and not just as recipients of aid. It also ensures that community engagement is community driven and that all stakeholders are well represented without discrimination. This is because, for a project to be truly community owned, every member of the community must feel represented in the community engagement process, including men, women, boys, girls, the elderly, pregnant and nursing women, persons with disabilities, religious and traditional leaders, and minority groups, especially those suffering from discrimination.

Sadly, like most things of high value and importance, the implementation of this model alongside project implementation comes with additional cost, and as such is often seen as an optional activity rather than an essential process. Although, it is key to clarify that the additional cost on this model is only for the initial setup (hardware), and once this is covered, it costs very little to maintain the model across the life of the project.

How to implement the COBAFS model

COBAFS model consists of two primary components: the COBAFS Reporting Library and the COBAFS Feedback Committee (CoBAC).

Implementing the COBAFS model involves a structured approach that prioritises community engagement, transparency and collaboration. Here are the steps to successfully implement the COBAFS model:

1. Community entry and engagement:

• Establish rapport with the community through meetings and discussions and understand what elementary structures exist in the community for engagements and mediations.
• Identify and engage with community representatives, such as Bulama, Lawan and women leaders, etc.
• Conduct a survey to understand the community’s preferences for lodging complaints and providing feedback.

2. Formation of COBAFS reporting library:

• Set up a physical metal cabinet (project library) at an agreed safe location in the community.
• Erect an accountability board displaying organisation deliverables and timelines.
• Convert monthly reports into colourful, pictorial animations and charts, making them accessible to individuals with various educational backgrounds, including children.
• Distribute animated reports house-to-house and ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities (PWD).

3. COBAFS feedback committee (CoBAC) formation:

• Establish a 15-member CoBAC with sub-committees representing community/religious Leaders, men, women, PWDs, and youth.
• Distribute members uniformly across implementing locations.
• Conduct training sessions for CoBAC members on their roles and responsibilities.

4. Monthly project feedback and quality implementation review meetings:

• CoBAC organises monthly meetings in the presence of community stakeholders, implementing sectors, AAP/community engagement, accountability and localisation (CEAL) working group, government representatives, and other partners.
• Evaluate whether the organisation met its implementation timeline and grade project delivery as Poor, Satisfactory, or Good based on specific criteria (e.g., beneficiary selection, distribution, feedback loop).
• CoBAC writes the grade on the publicly accessible accountability board.

5. Feedback and review meetings:

• The COBAF implementer conducts feedback and review meetings with CoBAC and other community stakeholders.
• Discuss the reasons behind the assigned grades and strategise improvements, especially if a low grade is given.

6. Complaints and feedback collection:

• CoBAC, with support from independent sub-committees, monitors projects and collects complaints and feedback.
• Set up additional Community Relationship Mechanisms, such as suggestion boxes and toll-free lines, as agreed upon by the community.

7. Close-out workshop:

• CoBAC, with support from the implementer and AAP/CEAL working group , organises a close-out workshop at the end of the project cycle.
• Review the project, feedback meetings, and document learnings for future projects.

Budget considerations:

• Allocate budgets for an Accountability Officer and Assistant.
• Provide funds for metal file cabinets, an accountability board, toll-free lines, suggestion boxes, Information, Education and Communication materials (IECs), and pictorial monthly reports.
• Budget for training sessions, monthly feedback meetings, and the close-out workshop.

Continuous learning and adaptation:

• Regularly review and adapt the CoBAFS model based on feedback, challenges and lessons learned.
• Encourage continuous improvement in the accountability process.

By following these steps, organisations can effectively implement the COBAFS model, fostering accountability, transparency, and community involvement in project monitoring and evaluation.

Note: This model is flexible and implementation will depend on the identified elementary structures and most preferred feedback mechanisms. The model prioritises community engagement, transparency and inclusivity, ensuring that affected persons actively participate in monitoring and evaluating project implementation. The COBAFS model aims to empower communities and enhance the overall accountability and effectiveness of projects.

Conclusion

Effective community engagement is an essential component for the success of any project. This component should not be a ‘tick box’ exercise, but a deliberate and well-planned process, one that should be led by the organisation’s senior programme staff and management and continued by field staff, so that communities see how much the organisation values the process, and how quickly feedback translates into project adjustment.

Effective community engagement entails a transparent, timely and consultative approach to programming. It is not an entry activity but an activity that commences at entry phase and must be sustained throughout the project until the close-out phase.

Effective community engagement brings about community acceptance, buy-in and ownership of a project which in turn determines the sustainability of a project and, by extension, its success.

Organisations need to deliberately invest in community engagement by planning and budgeting for it from the design phase of a project, rather than leaving it as an afterthought.

It is very important that donor communities see and prioritise the need for effective community engagement and support any system that makes this possible.

Manu Samuel Seth is MEAL Manager at Jireh Doo Foundation (JDF) Nigeria.