Acceptance Toolkit FINAL for PRINT With Notes

8/3/2019 Acceptance Toolkit FINAL for PRINT With Notes

1/42

A practical guide to understanding, assessing, and strengthening your organizationsacceptance approach to NGO security management

The Acceptance Toolkit


2/42

By

Larissa Fast

Christopher FinucaneFaith FreemanMichael ONeillElizabeth Rowley

The project team would like to give a special thanks to ChristopherFinucane, who adapted and expanded on earlier versions of thisToolkit in order to produce a document that is both thorough anduser-friendly for NGO field and headquarters-based staff.

This Toolkit is one of a series of materials produced as part of theCollaborative Learning Approach to NGO Security ManagementProject. This report is made possible by the generous support ofthe American people through the Office of Foreign DisasterAssistance (OFDA) at the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Savethe Children and do not necessarily reflect the view of USAID orthe United States Government.

For more information on the Collaborative Learning Approach toNGO Security Management Project, visit:http://acceptanceresearch.org.

2011 by Save the Children Federation, Inc.

This Toolkit is available free of charge for non-profit or relief anddevelopment organizations for use in strengthening their securitymanagement. For-profit companies seeking to reproduce thesematerials in any form for profit, or non-profit organizations usingthese materials for an event or training with a fee, must contact theproject team to seek permission for use of these materials. Anynon-profit or for-profit organization or company seeking toreproduce these materials must notify the project staff [email protected].

Cover photos by Jim Arbogast, Michael ONeill and ElizabethRowley

Washington, D.C.
http://acceptanceresearch.org/http://acceptanceresearch.org/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://acceptanceresearch.org/


3/42

CONTENTS

1. Introduction and Purpose 1

2. Understanding the Conceptual Basis of Acceptance 43. Three Key Parts of an Acceptance Approach 7

4. Assessment Processes and Tools 8

4.1 Assessment Tools 9

Tool 1: Overall Organizational Approach 9to Acceptance

Tool 2: Program Management 13Tool 3: Human Resources Management 15Tool 4: Implementing Across the Organization 18

Tool 5: Training 20Tool 6: Communications 22Tool 7: Relationships 24Tool 8: Degree of Acceptance 28Tool 9: Effectiveness of Acceptance 30

4.2 Focus Group Discussion Tools 31

Tool 10: Community Members Directly Affected 32by Programs

Tool 11: Local NGOs and Community-Based 35Organizations (CBOs)

5. Analyzing the Data 37

6. Strengthening Acceptance 38

Figures:

(1) Implementing Acceptance 2(2) The Acceptance Continuum 6


4/42

Although many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) eithersubscribe to acceptance as a security management approach or simply

espouse acceptance as a critical part of their mission and work, littleevidence exists regarding how they actively implement an acceptanceapproach. In order for an organization to develop an effectiveacceptance approach to security management, the staff and organizationas a whole must understand what acceptance is and what it entails.

Organizations should create policies, procedures, and tools to addressthree main areas of an acceptance approach. These include:

1. Gaining and maintaining acceptance.2. Assessing and monitoring the presence and degree of

acceptance.3. Determining the effectiveness of acceptance.

This Toolkit is designed to help NGO staff understand, assess, andstrengthen their organizations acceptance approach to securitymanagement.

An acceptance approach is dynamic and can be hard-won or quicklylost; for that reason it requires active outreach and planning as well as

monitoring. If organizations do not employ methods to assess whetherthey are accepted, they have no way to determine if their actions aregaining acceptance. Similarly, assessment of specific actions NGO staffare taking is necessary in order to promote an acceptance approach

within their organization, to determine if an acceptance approach isbenefiting staff security, and, ultimately to verify if it is an effectivesecurity management approach.

This Toolkit was developed and designed primarily for NGO securitymanagers at all organizational levels (headquarters, regional, and field)and is useful as a tool for NGO staff more generally (country directors,program managers, finance and administration staff, logisticians, etc.).

The Toolkit aims to help users better understand acceptance as asecurity management approach and provides tools for users to assesstheir own organizations approach to acceptance, as well as identify gapsand areas for improvement. The Toolkit can be used to conduct abaseline assessment of your organizations acceptance approach,including how the organization understands acceptance, what it does toimplement an acceptance approach, how it determines whether it hasgained acceptance, and whether acceptance is an effective securitymanagement approach. By providing a framework to systematicallyexamine an organizations approach to acceptance, the Toolkit enablesusers to identify gaps and areas for further development, thus helping to

strengthen acceptance as a security management approach.

1. Introduction and Purpose


5/42

Acceptance Toolkit | 2

Figure 1: Implementing Acceptance


6/42


Figure 1 depicts an illustrative model of a series of components andcorresponding actions an organization should consider when assessingand implementing acceptance as part of its security managementapproach. The ideal process (indicated by arrows) shows that outputsfrom one component inform inputs to the next component (stepping

through boxes 1 to 4). In practice these steps may be completedconcurrently rather than sequentially. In order to ensure a consistentapproach is applied to gaining and maintaining acceptance and to reducethe risk of inaccurate information being communicated to stakeholders,it is important that components 1-4 are addressed prior to engaging withexternal actors.

The level of an organizations acceptance and its presence and activitiesmay be fleeting, but it is also dynamic and responsive to changes incontext. Thus, trying to assess acceptance with a checklist of activities ora defined set of output indicators could be detrimental as this may create

a false sense of having gained acceptance (i.e., if one checks all theboxes, one has gained acceptance). Organizations cannot presume tohave gained acceptance simply by the completion of certain activitiesand/or the assessment of specified indicators (with positive results),much in the same way that acceptance cannot be consideredsynonymous with good programming or consent only from abeneficiary community.The indicators presented in this Toolkit areintended to provide a baseline from which to make contextualizeddecisions about acceptance.


7/42


The concept of acceptance can be traced to the founding anddevelopment of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Gaining consent from warring parties (a forerunner of acceptance) was

a critical condition for gaining access to victims of war in order toprovide assistance. Many multi-mandate and humanitarian organizationssubscribe primarily to an acceptance approach to security managementbecause it aligns with their values, mission, and mandates, and it is seenas allowing NGOs to deliver programs to vulnerable populations incomplex and insecure environments.

For those organizations adopting an acceptance approach to securitymanagement, defining and conceptualizing acceptance has provenchallenging. This Toolkit proposes the following definition ofacceptance: Acceptance is founded on effective relationships and

cultivating and maintaining consent from beneficiaries, localauthorities, belligerents, and other stakeholders. This, in turn, is ameans of reducing or removing potential threats in order to access

vulnerable populations and undertake programme activities1.Given the dynamic nature of the contexts in which aid agencies operate,acceptance must be continually sought, constantly monitored, andsystematically maintained over time. Conceptualizing acceptance in this

way involves thinking aboutwho andwhat.

WhoThe who of acceptance can be divided into three different questions:

who gives consent, who is accepted, and who works to gainacceptance? First, who gives consent, is of critical importance. At abasic level, acceptance must include at least some degree of tacit consentfrom those who can obstruct program activities or cause harm to NGOpersonnel and beneficiaries.

Second, asking who is accepted has to do with the transferability ofacceptance. Is acceptance limited to a specific staff person or aparticular group of staff members? At what point does the acceptancegained by an individual transfer to the organization the individual

represents? Organizations must consider whether consent transfersfrom one level (i.e., the individual) to another (i.e., the organization).

The third question relates to who within the organization works to gainacceptance. Those charged with security management cannot be the

only ones involved in gaining acceptance. Because they are in directcontact with local communities and other stakeholders, program andfield staffare key players in gaining and maintaining acceptance.However, all staff (across each of the organizations departments)contribute to the degree to which an organization is accepted.

WhatThe what of acceptance is directly tied to two interconnected issues:how an organization conceptualizes acceptance, and what deliberateactions an organization takes to gain consent from stakeholders.

Acceptance requiresproactive engagement in activities and actions

to gain and maintain consent from stakeholders, taking into accountthe degrees of acceptance and the dynamic nature of consent.

Imag e and Percept ionDepending on who is giving consent and how your presence andprograms are perceived, your organization may find itself along acontinuum from no acceptance at all, through tolerance, to fullacceptance. The image and perceptions portrayed by an organization arecentral to acceptance and are affected by a variety of factors, includingglobal dynamics and whether an organization and its staff successfullyimplement the components of an acceptance approach at multiple

organizational levels. For instance, the image of an organization relatesdirectly to its relationships, communications, and programming.Perceptions are also influenced by staff behavior and composition.Figure 2 illustrates the continuum between full acceptance and noacceptance (being rejected or targeted). It indicates examples of thedifferent ways an organization or its staff may be perceived and the risksand appropriate actions related to the level of acceptance.

How an organization operates in the fieldwhere its offices are located,the types of vehicles staff drive, and how wealthy the organization

2. Understanding the ConceptualBasis of Acceptance


8/42


appears compared to the local populationplays an important role inshaping perceptions of that organization.2

In sum, gaining and maintaining acceptance is not only predicated onthe values, principles, programs, and relationships an organization

exhibits in the field, but also by a much broader range of variables thataffect local perceptions of the organization. To understand this complexrelationship, organizations and their staff need to better understand howoperational choices, program design and outcomes, and global dynamicsinfluence the perceptions of local communities and other stakeholders,and how these, in turn, affect the security of their staff and operations.

An organization adopting an acceptance approach engages in a numberof actions to gain acceptance. It may reach out to a variety ofconstituents and educate the community, as well as other stakeholders,about what the organization seeks to do and why. Through these

activities, an organization should gain some degree of acceptance. Animportant part of an acceptance approach is monitoring whether andhow staff at all levels are working to gain acceptance and ensuring thatstaff understand what acceptance is and why it is important.


9/42


Figure 2: Acceptance Continuum 3


10/42


As mentioned previously, three key parts of an acceptance approachmust be considered. These are:

1. Applying an acceptance approach.2. Assessing and monitoring the presence and degree of

acceptance.3. Determining the effectiveness of acceptance.

Applying an Acceptance Approach to Security Management

Once an organization subscribes to acceptance as an element of theirsecurity management approach, how does it apply acceptance inpractice? Many areas of organizational operation influence acceptance.

We identify several key and cross-cutting components of acceptancebelow and explain why they are critical for effectively applying anacceptance approach to security management.

The key components of acceptance are principles and mission;stakeholder and context analysis; relationships and networking;programming; negotiating access; and communications. Each of these isexplained with the corresponding assessment tool below.

Cross-Cutting Components of AcceptanceIn addition to key components, we have identified two components ofacceptance with a uniquely cross-cutting nature: (1) staffing (discussed inthe human resources assessment tool below), and (2) image andperceptions (discussed in section two above). As with the keycomponents, each cross-cutting component is examined with acorresponding assessment tool below.

Assessing and Monitoring the Presence and Degree of Acceptance

Acceptance is, by nature, a dynamic concept, influenced by decisionsand actions taken throughout an organization. Many key components of

acceptance are interdependent. It is critical that organizations notassume they have gained acceptance but develop tools to assess andmonitor whether they are accepted in a given context, by whom, andhow this changes over time in a dynamic context.

Determining the Effectiveness of Acceptance

Many NGO staff not only assume they are accepted but often believeacceptance is effective; meaning, they believe it is working to reducerisks to staff and programs. It is important to realize there may beenvironments limiting an organizations ability to gain acceptance fromkey stakeholders, and/or that acceptance will translate into improvedsecurity. In some contexts, high levels of gang violence or disorganizedrebel groups may threaten staff security, making it difficult or impossibleto gain sufficient acceptance from all necessary stakeholders. But evenin such cases of limited acceptance, stakeholders who do accept the

organization may share critical information about the context. In other words, while acceptance may not prove to be effective in acriminalized environment, it may still offer important security benefits.

3. Three Key Parts of an

Acceptance Approach


11/42


The previous section outlined the components of acceptance, and now,we will focus on preparation for and assessment of acceptance in your

organization. The following tools can be used to gather and analyzeinformation regarding how your organization applies an acceptanceapproach to security management and to identify areas needingimprovement.

This Kit provides several tools that can be used in whole or part foracceptance assessment; however it is up to you to determine which toolsapply to specific tasks. The more you utilize the tools included here, themore proficient you will become. We encourage you to modify the

Toolkit to reflect organizational values and the contexts in which youoperate.

When carrying out an acceptance assessment, you will be seekinginformation from others as well as asking questions of yourself. Thetools contained here will help you assess your knowledge as you workthrough the guiding questions. It may not be possible to obtain answersfor every question; in such cases the tool helps identify the informationgaps, prompting the assessor to seek further information.

Tool 1: Overall Organizational Approach to AcceptanceTool 2: Program ManagementTool 3: Human Resources Management

Tool 4: Implementing Acceptance across theOrganizationTool 5: TrainingTool 6: CommunicationsTool 7: RelationshipsTool 8: Assessing the Degree of AcceptanceTool 9: Effectiveness of Acceptance

4. Assessment Process and Tools


12/42


4.1 Assessment Tools

Tool 1:Overall Acceptance Approach:Part ADocument Review

Organizational documents contain essential information about thepolicies and procedures an organization has in place. In addition, whenan organization is seeking to improve or change policies, that change isoften first made within organizational documents and then implementedaccordingly. Reviewing your organizations documents can provide

important insight into how your organization considers and implementsacceptance.

Please note: this template (and the ones that follow) are designed as an

electronic form to record assessment outcomes and key actions.Remember to consider the impact your documented assessment mayhave if read by a third party; this is particularly important ifdocumenting names and relationships of individuals or groups. You willalso need to be mindful of privacy, data protection laws, and regulationsrelevant to your operating context.

Topic and Guiding

Questions

Source of Information and

References

Indicators Assessment Action Items

Document Review

How does yourorganization defineand communicateacceptance?

Security managementdocumentation

Security policy, manual, orguidelines

Standard operating procedures(SOPs)

Safety and security managementplan

Safety and security field handbook Security updates or situation

reports

Safety and security riskassessments Security audit reports Incident reportsProgram-related documentation

Organizational mission statement Program/project documents Program/project proposals and

plans (different sectors)

Explicit reference to acceptance-related actionsand guidance

Examples and case studies to contextualizepolicy positions

Clear policy statements regarding theorganizational position on acceptance as asecurity management approach

Logical processes for documenting andcommunicating acceptance-related actions andguidance

Risk assessments, including analysis of threatsand vulnerabilities that may be treated by

acceptance measures Explicit reference to lessons learned and how

the organization has adapted acceptance actionsand decisions

After completingthe assessment,are you able toidentify andconfidentlydescribe how theorganizationdefines andcommunicatesacceptance as anactive securitymanagementapproach?

Across allfunctionaldepartmentpolicies andprocedures?


13/42


Proposal and budgeting guidanceand templates

Program assessments/evaluations Assessment tools/reports Needs assessment documents Monitoring and evaluationdocuments Internal guidance on donor

relations

Context analysis reports Actor/stakeholder mappingInternal and ExternalCommunications

Media reports (local andinternational)

Local media coverage(newspapers, radio and TVtranscripts)

Press statements Communications policy/strategy Website content Annual report Translated documents Formal MOU Letters of support or affirmation

of the organizations work

Human Resources Management HR policies Code of conduct Staffing policies HR core competencies Job descriptions Performance evaluation form Orientation/induction materials Training materials


14/42


Tool 1: Overall Acceptance Approach:

Part BAssess the Overall Approach

Principles and Miss ionAn organizations principles, mission, and valuesas well as how these

are perceivedare central to applying an acceptance approach tosecurity management. Values must be consistently demonstrated inpractice and not simply stated. Organizations must clearly articulate andconsistently apply their guiding principles and values, recognize howthese shape their mission and programming, and consider how thesemight, in turn, affect their acceptance in a given location.

Stakeholder and Context Analys isThe objective of stakeholder analysis is to accurately identify and analyzethe motives, attitudes, capabilities, and relationships of actors who mightinfluence programmatic success; including those who might obstruct orharm programs and staff. An organizations stakeholder and context

analyses will later prove critical to identifying how programs (e.g., typeof program and those it serves), presence (e.g., hiring of staff,office/housing rental, wages), and activities (e.g., assistance, capacity-building) will affect different stakeholders and how they, in turn, mightreact. Stakeholder and context analyses are critical to determining theappropriate parties needed to engage in dialogue and negotiation inorder to enhance staff security.

Topic and GuidingQuestions

Source of Information &References


Overall OrganizationalOverall Approach toAcceptance

How does your organization

define acceptance and what arethe key components ofacceptance?

What policies, guidelines,or other documentationrelated to acceptancedoes your organization

have in place? Do you think your staff

think about andunderstand acceptance inthe same way?

Can you provideexamples of how youknow whether staffunderstand acceptance asa security management

Security policy, manualor guidelines Standard operating

procedures (SOPs)

Safety and securitymanagement plan

Safety and security fieldhandbook

Security updates orsituation reports

Safety and security riskassessments

Security audit reports Incident reports Key interviews Focus group discussions Staff surveys

Explicit reference to acceptance-related actionsand guidance Examples and case studies to contextualize policy

positions

Clear policy statements regarding theorganizational position on acceptance as a securitymanagement approach

Logical processes for documenting andcommunicating acceptance-related actions andguidance

Formal mechanisms involving national andinternational staff regarding information sharing,

threat and risk analysis, as well as mitigationresponse.

Explicit reference to lessons learned and how theorganization has adapted acceptance actions anddecisions

A clear definition of acceptance and what it meanswithin your organization

Consistent understanding of acceptance acrossthe organizations workforce

A systematic approach to analysing threats and

After completingthe assessment,are you able tounderstand andconfidentlydescribe how theorganizationdefines andappliesacceptance as anactive securitymanagement

approach?


15/42


approach?

How does your organizationassess the local security

environment?

Does your organizationreceive securityinformation from otheractors in the NGOcommunity?

If so, who provides thesecurity information?

Does information sharedacross organizationsinclude information aboutacceptance and/or access?

How involved arenational staff in sharingand analysing securityinformation?

assessing risks that includes an assessment ofacceptance

Risk assessments include analysis of threats andvulnerabilities that may be treated by acceptancemeasures

Evidence of a two-way communication flow withother relevant actors regarding the sharing ofsafety and security information


16/42


Tool 2: Program Management

Acceptance is widely recognized as connected to good, effective, andresponsive programming that meets the needs of a community.Community participation, consultation, and local partnerships are often

key elements of effective programming. The ability of an organization tomeet peoples needs in a transparent and accountable way is often

critical to how the community perceives the organization. However,even if programs meet the needs of beneficiaries, they may adverselyaffect specific actors and/or change political, economic, and socialpower structures. Insofar as good programming is an essential

component of acceptance, acceptance cannot be assumed from goodprogramming alone.


Source of Informationand References


Program Management

How does acceptance as asecurity management approach

fit into program management inyour organization?

What values guide yourorganizationalprogramming?

In what way are theprinciples of acceptancepart of yourorganizations approachto programming?

Does your organizationconduct context analysisfor programs orprojects?

What elements doesyour context analysisinclude? (i.e.,stakeholder analysis,relationshipsbetween/amongstakeholders, powerrelations, overlap of localvalues and organizationalpriorities and values,

Organizational missionstatement

Program/projectdocuments

Program/projectproposals and plans(different sectors)

Proposal and budgetingguidance and templates

Programassessments/evaluations

Assessment tools/ reports Needs assessment

documents

Monitoring and evaluationdocuments

Internal guidance ondonor relations

Context analysis reports Actor/stakeholder

mapping

Key interviews Focus group discussions

Explicit reference and consideration ofacceptance in program plans, needs assessments,etc.

Communicated context analysis reports withexplicit reference to acceptance as a securitymanagement approach

Explicit reference and consideration toacceptance in program monitoring andevaluation tools

After completingthe assessmentare you able tounderstand andconfidentlydescribe how

program planning,implementation,and managementincludeacceptance-related actionsand decisions?


17/42


impact of programs onlocal power andeconomic structures)

How do monitoring andevaluation processes

include an assessment ofhow your organizationsacceptance affects staffsecurity?

Are there any other keyprogram design andmanagement functionsthat include acceptanceas a securitymanagement approach inyour organization?


18/42


Tool 3: Human Resources Management

StaffingOrganizational personnel play a central role in promoting or hinderingacceptance. Staffing decisions can affect acceptance in many ways. The

following areas of staffing in particular affect acceptance:

Staff skills and qualitiesStaffing decisions determine in large part whether staff have thenecessary qualities and skills to gain acceptance from stakeholders,including the ability to communicate effectively, negotiate, and buildrelationships. In addition to these skills, staff behavior and willingness torespect cultural norms can have a significant impact on an organizationsability to gain acceptance.

Staff composition

In some cases, staffing for acceptance might require balancing identity(e.g., nationality, region, religion, gender, age, social status, or ethnicbackground) with programmatic or professional competencies in ordergain or maintain acceptance. The composition of an organizations staff

and whether there is a defendable mix of personnel from differentsocial, ethnic, urban/rural, or religious groups may also affectperceptions of an organization, its values, and espoused principles.

Recruitment, firing, and compensation practices

Staffing decisions also affect perceptions of the organization throughthe ways in which local, national, regional, and international staff arehired, fired, and compensated. Discrepancies between international andnational staff salaries and the resource availability to people incommunities compared to that of the organization can be sources oftension and may be further exacerbated by a lack of transparency ofprocesses and decision-making.

Staff turnoverIn cases where acceptance is exclusively linked to an individual staffmember, the organization may lose stakeholder consent for its presence

and activities in the community when a staff member departs from anorganization. In addition, the organization loses local knowledge and therelationships developed by the staff member.


Source of Information &References


Human Resources

Management

In your view, what human

resource management functionsrelate to acceptance?(Clarification: functions suchas recruitment,orientation/induction,evaluation, disciplinaryprocedures, compensation,termination, etc.)

What acceptance-relatedskills and responsibilities

HR policies Code of conduct Staffing policies HR core competencies Job descriptions Performance evaluation

form

Orientation/inductionmaterials

Training materials Focus group discussions

Employment contracts,job descriptions, andterms of reference

Explicit reference and consideration toacceptance-related responsibilities in jobdescriptions

Explicit reference to safety and security inorientation briefings with clear and logical linksto acceptance considerations

Communicated processes for assessing andmanaging the security impact due to staffturnover

Where relevant, policies, and procedurescommunicate any safety and securitymanagement differences between staff (e.g.,local, national, regional, and international) withlogical reasoning for the differences

After completingthe assessment,are you able tounderstand and

confidentlydescribe howhuman resourcemanagementfunctions relateto acceptanceactions anddecisions?


19/42


does your organizationincorporate into jobdescriptions? Whatabout performanceevaluations? (Clarification:skills to gain acceptancesuch as negotiation,relationship building,stakeholder analysis, etc.)

What topics related tolocal culture, history, orcurrent issues does yourorganizations orientationinclude for new staff(expatriates inparticular)? Is there aconnection betweenorientation on thesetopics with acceptanceand staff security?

Does your organization have acode of conduct for staff?

If so, what guidance isincluded about dress,showing respect in thelocal culture, behaviour,and socialization?

Is there a link madebetween the guidanceoffered and expected staffbehaviour with directrelevance to acceptancewithin a security context?

How to do you monitorcompliance with the codeof conduct? Whatenforcement mechanismsexist, if any?

documents

Context analysis reports Key interviews with

human resource managers

Key interview with safetyand security managersand/or staff with thesespecific responsibilities)


20/42


How, if at all, does the rate ofstaff turnover at yourorganization affect staffsecurity? How does your

organization manage this?

Explain how, if at all, yourorganizational security policiesand procedures differ for

national and international staff.


21/42


Tool 4: Implementing Acceptance across the Organization

In seeking to gain acceptance, organizations need to consider variousways to systematically integrate an acceptance approach as part of goodprogramming and effective security management. On the one hand,

good programming that involves communities in respectful,participatory dialogue and meets their needs in an accountable andtransparent manner enhances an organizations relationship with keystakeholders. These stakeholders, in turn, prioritize the security of

organizational staff and assets (if for no other reason than to continue toreap program benefits). On the other hand, an effective securitymanagement approach that engages many of the same stakeholders in amanner enabling organizations and their staff to access communities inneed contributes significantly to successful program delivery. In short,

implementing an acceptance approach for programming hasimplications for staff security and implementing acceptance for securityhas implications for programming.


Source of Information andReferences


Implementing Across the

Organization

In what ways do staff groupings

face different security risks (e.g.,gender, regional, national, sub-

national, international, job/role,etc.)?

How does your organizationaddress these differences withregard to an acceptanceapproach?

Explain how, if at all, yourorganizations security policies andprocedures differ for national andexpatriate staff.

How, if at all, do monitoring and

evaluation processes include areview of your organizationsacceptance in the field?

How do these processes assessthe impact this might have onstaff security?

Organizational policies,plans, and procedures

Safety and security policies,plans and proceduredocuments, MOUs, andgrant agreements with localimplementing partners

Key interviews with thesenior management teamsat head office, regional, andcountry offices

Key interviews withprogram managers andheads of departments

Key interview with safetyand security managers

and/or staff with thesespecific responsibilities

Where relevant, policies andprocedures communicate safety andsecurity management differencesbetween staff, with logical reasoningfor the differences

Ways in which differentdepartments or sectors share (orfail to share) acceptance-relatedinsights and observations

After completing theassessment, are youable to understand andconfidently describehow managementfunctions implementacceptance across theorganization?


22/42


Are there any key programdesign and managementfunctions that includeacceptance as a securitymanagement approach inyour organization?

In what ways do the departmentsand sections within yourorganization incorporateacceptance actions and decisionsin their usual business activities?

In what ways do the departmentsand sections within yourorganization communicate

regarding cooperation and/orcoordination of acceptance as a

security management approach?


23/42


Tool 5: Training

Building the capacity to manage safety and security risks will require acommitment by the organization to train its workforce. The trainingstrategy should be informed by an assessment of the required skills and

competencies required to fulfil the program objectives and take intoaccount staff members relevant experiences, knowledge, and previoustraining. Preparing staff to manage risks includes technical training (e.g.,first aid qualifications, driving skills, etc.) and soft skills such as

communications, negotiation, inter-personal relationship building, andleadership and management. Many opportunities to integrateacceptance-related skills and knowledge into training courses exist. Staffshould have access to relevant training opportunities and specific

training goals should form part of annual performance appraisals. Indoing this, training objectives can not only be planned for and budgeted,but the organization can also demonstrate their commitment toinvesting staff, potentially reducing staff turnover.




Training

In what ways, if at all, doesyour organization incorporate

acceptance-related skills andresponsibilities into stafftraining?

Does your organization providelocal language training? If so,

which staff qualify toparticipate?

How involved are non-seniorstaff in safety and securitydiscussions and training?

Are non-senior staff (includingcleaners, gardeners, etc.)sensitized to core values,principles, and acceptance?

Training, learning, anddevelopment strategies

Training course contentdocumentation

Safety and security plans,procedure documents,and local briefings

Internal training, learning,and development coursecontent

Key interviews with staffresponsible for training

Key interviews withcontracted externaltrainers

Key interviews with staffresponsible formanagement andsupervision of others

Focus group discussionswith (new) staffmembers

Discussion with non-senior staff on values,principles, and

Explicit reference to acceptance as a securitymanagement approach in all relevant trainingcourses and staff orientation/induction briefings

Specific details regarding how the organizationdefines and implements acceptance as a securitymanagement approach

Specific details regarding staff attitudes,behaviours, and responsibilities related tosupporting the organizations stated approach toimplementing acceptance


confidentlydescribe howtheorganizationsapproach to stafftraining, learning,and developmentrelate toacceptance?


24/42


understanding of safetyand security andacceptance


25/42


Tool 6: Communications

Communications from the acceptance perspective refers to the explicitand implicit messages an organization projects about itself, as well asstatements others may make about an organization. Whether official or

unofficial, informal or formal, an organizations communication aboutits mission, values, and activities should be clear and consistent. Theimpact messaging has on external perceptions of the organization issignificant, and these perceptions affect organizational acceptance andstaff security. All staff, including senior and junior staff, as well as

drivers, guards, or cleaners should understand and be able tocommunicate the goals and principles of the organization in concise andsimple terms. Public messages from the organization or critical

statements from outside sources can also affect how an organization isperceived,4 as can advocacy efforts on human rights or other issues.Organizations must consider the implicit and explicit messages of publicstatements and of silence; both may affect how organizations areperceived and, in turn, their level of security.

Topic and Guiding

Questions

Source of Information and

References


Communications

How does your organizationsexternal communication strategy

promote acceptance? What specific

communication methodsare used to educate thepublic about yourorganizational missionand programs?

How might thesemethods affect staffsecurity?

How does yourorganization ensure thatall staff (including drivers,guards, logisticians, etc.)are able to clearlycommunicate theorganizations mandate,mission, and values?

How does yourorganization monitorothers perceptions ofyour organization?

Media reports (local or international) Local media coverage (newspapers,

radio, and TV transcripts)

Press statements Communications policy/strategy Website content Annual report Translated documents Formal MOU Letters of support or affirmation of

the organizations work

Input to organizational feedbackmechanisms

Key interviews Focus group discussions

Documented internal and externalcommunications plans with clearand consistent key messages linkedto specific audiences, options fordelivering the key messages, andmethods for receiving feedbackfrom specific audiences


confidentlydescribe how theorganizationsinternal andexternalcommunicationsand mediastrategiespromote andsupportacceptance?


26/42


How do you determine whethercommunities can distinguish

your organization from others?

How does this affect thesecurity of your staff?

How do you determine whethercommunity members canidentify project funding sources(i.e., donors)?

How do you think thisaffects acceptance andstaff security?


27/42


Tool 7: Relationships

While positive relationships with beneficiary communities are necessaryto gain acceptance, a communitys capacity to protect an organizationsprograms or staff is often limited by the security realities they also face.

It is therefore advisable to identify and cultivate relationships with otheractors, especially those who have the power and influence to negativelyor positively affect an organizations security and programming.

Negot iat ing AccessAlthough negotiation skills are important, they are especially relevant toan organizations strategy for entering a new community, for gainingaccess to vulnerable populations, and for establishing good relationships

with numerous stakeholders. This is a broader conceptualization ofaccess than what is commonly referred to as humanitarian access, which relates to the ability of an organization to reach vulnerable

populations to provide emergency, life-saving assistance. Negotiatingaccess refers both to the need to negotiate for access to populations (as

in a short-term or emergency context), as well as negotiatingrelationships between NGOs and stakeholders (e.g., negotiating forentry and exit pertaining to longer-term development projects).

Gaining acceptance invariably depends upon successful negotiations with diverse actors at many levels, from individuals to governments. These negotiations can be formal, such as negotiations with national,regional, or local governments to establish a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) for an organizations operations. Negotiations atother levels may be less formal and relate to gaining access to vulnerablepopulations; for instance, negotiating with armed actors at a checkpoint

while traveling to project sites, or with local officials at a port or airportto access relief supplies. NGO staff must be trained in specificcommunication and negotiation skills, including attention to tone, subtle

changes in demeanor, negotiating styles and social meanings to buildrelationships, and negotiating access effectively across cultural and otherboundaries.5




Relationships

How does your organizationdevelop relationships with

various stakeholders?

How does yourorganization identify theappropriate stakeholderswith whom relationshipsare important? Is there astated link betweenthese relationships,program success, andstaff security?

Is your organizations

Context analysis Stakeholder/actor

mapping

Key interviews Focus group discussions Program planning and

proposal documentation

Minutes/reports ofmeetings withstakeholders

Grant agreements withlocal implementingpartners

NGO security forums orlocal security networks

Inclusion of stakeholder and actor mapping inprogram planning and context analysis

Identified key actors and action points forengaging with them

Methods of soliciting and recording safety andsecurity information from both formal andinformal networks

Status of current relationships with the variouskey stakeholders against optimal stakeholdermapping

After completingthe assessment,are you able tounderstand andconfidently

describe how theorganizationdevelops andmaintainsrelationships withkey actors forthe purpose ofbuildingacceptance?


28/42


approach tocommunities, localleaders, and otherstakeholders direct,indirect, or throughintermediaries?

What culturalconsiderations does yourorganization make indeveloping relationshipswith communities, localleaders, and otherstakeholders?

How does your staffearn and show respect inthe local context?

How does yourorganization developrelationships withcommunities, localleaders, and otherstakeholders?

How does this affectaccess to vulnerablepopulations and staffsecurity?

From whom does yourorganization needacceptance?

How do your organizations

relationships with communities,local leaders, and other

stakeholders affect the securityof your staff?

What formal or informalnetworks does theorganization use toengage stakeholders and

and meetings


29/42


gather information? Doesthis include security-related information?

Do staff carry a letter ofendorsement or otherdocuments (from localleaders, officials, orothers) to verify havinggained acceptance?

What mechanisms doesyour organizationprovide for beneficiaryand non-beneficiaryfeedback? Does yourorganization report backabout actions taken inresponse to thefeedback?


30/42


Tool 8: Assessing the Degree of Acceptance

Attempts to assess or monitor whether an organization is accepted aredependent on first identifying from whom the organization needsacceptance. At a minimum, acceptance must include some degree of

tacit consent from those who can obstruct program activities or causeharm to NGO personnel and beneficiaries. Key actors who might givetheir consent (or confer their acceptance) for an organizations presenceand activities include host governments, local leaders, militant groups,

and the community at large. These key actors can be further brokendown into sub-groups. Local leaders can include local governmentofficials, religious authorities, and traditional leaders. In countries where

the host state does not embrace an organization or its activities, theorganization could face additional difficulties or be incapable of securingaccess to certain populations. Without permission from the host state tooperate, an organization lacks legal standing.




Degree of Acceptance

How has acceptance, or a lackof acceptance, affected yourorganizations access to

program areas andpopulations?

Have community members,local leaders, or otherstakeholders shared security-related information with yourorganization?

Context analysis Stakeholder/actor

mapping

Key interviews Focus group discussions Minutes/reports of

meetings withstakeholders

Grant agreements withlocal implementingpartners

NGO security forums orlocal security networksand meetings

Levels of participation in organizational events(e.g., atmosphere during meetings, whether localleaders are willingly involved, communitycontributions to projects)

Staff feel at ease in the community NGOs ability to carry out its work (e.g.,

continued access to program areas, communityleaders guarantee security or accompany/escortproject staff, community wishes to extend aproject)

Other communities seek to join projects, or acommunity approaches and negotiates with anorganization to continue a project

The community is willing to broker or mediate aconflict between NGO and other actors

Community members publicly commit to acceptresponsibility for staff safety

Any incidents of access to program areas beinghindered as well as any examples where accesshas improved

Evidence of local communities or otherstakeholders volunteering safety and securityinformation

Feedback from host and beneficiarycommunities informing the organizationsacceptance approach

After completingthe assessment,are you able tounderstand andconfidently

describe thedegree ofacceptance inyour givencontext?


31/42


Tool 9: Effectiveness of Acceptance

Many NGO staff not only assume they are accepted but often take forgranted that acceptance is effective; meaning, that it is working toreduce risks to staff and programs. It is important to recognize that

there may be environments that limit an organizations ability to gainacceptance from key stakeholders and/or that limited acceptance willtranslate into improved security. In some contexts, high levels of gang

violence or disorganized rebel groups may threaten staff security and

make it difficult or impossible to gain sufficient acceptance from allnecessary stakeholders. But even in cases of limited acceptance,stakeholders who do accept the organization may share critical

information about the context. In other words, while acceptance maynot prove to be effective in a criminalized environment, it may stilloffer important security benefits.




Effectiveness ofAcceptance

How do you determine the

effectiveness of acceptance? Does your organization

have specific indicatorsto determine theeffectiveness?

How does acceptance affectyour access to program areas?

Has your access beenhindered? By whom?Why do you think it washindered?

How has acceptance, or a lackof it, affected yourorganizations access toprogram areas andpopulations?

Have community members,local leaders, or otherstakeholders shared security-

Focus group discussions Context analysis reports Safety and security

analysis reports,

including riskassessments

Safety and securityincident reports (internaland from other NGOs)

Audit, monitoring, andevaluation reports

Key interviews withregional and countrydirectors

Staff survey

Evidence of community-based safety and securityinterventions or responses on behalf of yourorganization

Documented contextualised indicators tomeasure safety and security managementperformance, with specific inclusion ofacceptance-related indicators

Lack of incidents affecting an NGO Ability to access to program areas and

beneficiary populations

Community publicly commits to acceptingresponsibility for staff safety

Community members or other stakeholdersshare accurate security-related information withorganization

Community advocating on an organizationsbehalf

Organization staff and vehicles have freedom ofmovement (e.g., staff passed through a potentiallyhostile checkpoint because someone recognizedthe organization and/or advocated on theirbehalf)

An actor advocated on behalf of an organizationto a party posing a threat, in order to resolve ormitigate the threat


confidentlydescribe howeffectiveacceptance is as asecuritymanagementapproach in agiven context?


32/42


related information with yourorganization?

How, if ever, have community

members, local leaders, orothers intervened in security

situations in order to help orwarn your organization aboutpotential dangers?

Consider any recent securityincidents your organization hasexperienced. Did yourorganizations level ofacceptance play a role in theoccurrence or outcome ofthese?

Can you think of any potentialincident that was prevented oravoided because of your

organizations level ofacceptance?

Actors or parties posing a threat to theorganization have decided not to harm theorganization (e.g., release of an abducted staff,etc.)

The organization has maintained consistentaccess to communities and beneficiaries(especially when others may have beenrestricted)

Lack of Effectiveness

How do you determine a lack ofeffectiveness of acceptance?

The organization been hindered fromaccessing areas where it needs to go forprograms (i.e., freedom of access andmovement)

The organizations access has been hinderedfrequently (i.e., an isolated incident v. adeveloping trend)

The organization has suffered securityincidents (major or minor) and/or nearmisses

Security incidents are perceived to be relatedto a lack of acceptance

The organization has been asked to closeoperations

Specific actors have impeded the


33/42


organizations acceptance in a location

Tool 9 lists indicators intended to provide a baseline from which tomake contextual decisions regarding your organizations acceptanceapproach to security management. Remember that indicators are an aid

to help you describe and \measure levels of acceptance. You should notassume that acceptance is effective simply because some of theindicators are present. When conducting the assessment pay particularattention to the following limitations:

Does the organization consider what factors might impede anacceptance approach in a given context?

Has the organization decided that acceptance alone would notwork as a security management approach in a given context? Ifso, why did they decide this?

Has the organization decided that acceptance alone would workin a given context? If so, why did they decide this?


34/42


4.2 Focus Group Discussion Guides

The focus group discussion guides provided in the pages that follow aretailored to specific groups of people such as community members orlocal Community-Based Organization (CBO) staff. You can develop

your own focus group guides for different groups of people. Forexample, you may want to hold a focus group with community members

who are beneficiaries of your organizations programs as well ascommunities who are not beneficiaries. The same focus groupdiscussion guide may be used for both groups, but it is beneficial toconsider whether specific information, perspectives, or knowledge aremore necessary for either group.

Focus Group Tools List

The following tools are designed to help you obtain information about

how others understand and perceive NGOs, allowing you to assess howtheir views may impact your acceptance actions.

Tool 10: Guiding Questions for Focus Group Discussion:Community Members Directly Affected By Programsa) Knowledge of NGOsb)

Perceptions of NGOsc) Demonstrating and Earning Respect

Tool 11: Guiding Questions for Focus Group Discussion:Local NGOs and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)a) Interactions/relationships between local and international

organizationsb) Local organizations views about international organizations

acceptance by the community


35/42


Tool 10: Guiding Questions for Focus Group Discussion: Community

Members Directly Affected By Programs

Due to the contextual nature of these questions, Tools 10 and 11 do notcontain guiding indicators.

Topic and Guiding Questions Source of Information and

References

Focus Group

Responses

Assessment Action Items

Focus Group Discussion: Community membersdirectly affected by programs

Knowledge about NGOs in the area

Which NGOs work in your area?

Who are they? What do they do? How do you interact with these NGOs? Why do you think NGOs work in your

community?

Why do you think NGOs work with the peopleorgroups they work with?

Do some NGOs in your area experience more security

problems than others?

If yes, what do you think explains this?Perceptions of NGOs

How would you describe your relationship with NGOs?

Are these relationships generally positive ornegative? Why?

Is your relationship with some NGOs better thanwith others? Why?

How are your relationships with local NGOs andforeign NGOs different?

Can you give us examples of the ways in whichyour relationships with NGOs are negative? Are

Local media reporting Context analysis Needs assessments Specific focus groups community

beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, andother stakeholder groups

Interviewslocal government orsecurity officials, local leaders, andother stakeholders


36/42


positive?

How does the behaviour of an NGOs staff members

affect your views of that NGO?

Do you have different expectations for thebehaviour of national, regional, or internationalstaff?

How does the type of assistance and programs that an

NGO provides affect the way your community views the

NGO?

Does the assistance and programs they offermeet your needs?

How does your community view the international

organizations working in this area?

Is the general opinion positive, negative, ormixed? Why? Do community members view international

organizations differently, or do they view them allas the same?

Do community members distinguish between oneinternational organization and another? If so, inwhat ways?

Do you think community perceptions oforganizations differ according to whether or notan organization works in that specific community?

How do community relations with NGOs affectthe NGOs security?

What is the communitys responsibility to keep the NGO

staff safe?

What specifically have you done to keep NGOsand their staff safe?

In your opinion, how do messages about NGOs through

the local media affect community views about them? Do


37/42


these messages affect the NGOs security?

Demonstrating and Earning Respect

How does one earn and show respect in this community?

How do you know if someone is being respectfulor disrespectful to you?

Does how people earn or show respect varyamong different groups?

Does this depend on where the person is from?On their age, position, gender?

How does being respected or disrespected by NGO staffaffect your relationship with that NGO? With other NGOs?

Can you give us examples of how NGOs andtheir staff demonstrate respect?

Can you give us examples of how NGOs andtheir staff are not respectful?

How does whether NGOs earn respect affecttheir security?

How does whether NGOs show respect affecttheir security?


38/42


Tool 11: Guiding Questions for Focus Group Discussion:

Local NGOs and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)

Due to the contextual nature of these questions, Tools 10 and 11 do notcontain guiding indicators.

Topic and Guiding Questions Source of Information andReferences

Focus GroupResponses

Assessment Action Items

Focus Group Discussion: Local NGOs andCommunity-Based Organizations (CBOs)

Interactions/relationships between local andinternational organizations

How would you describe your organizations relationship

with the community where you work?

How do your organizations relationships withthe community affect your organizationssecurity?

How would you describe your relationship with

international organizations?

How do the local and international organizations interact

with one another in the areas where you work?

Can you give examples of times in which localNGOs and international organizations worked

well together? Are there challenges in the relationships between

local NGOs and international organizations? If so,what kinds of challenges?

Can you give examples of times in which localNGOs and international organizations did notwork well together?

In your opinion, how, if at all, have the actions orinactions of international organizations affectedthe security of your organization/other

Local media reporting Context analysis Needs assessments Specific focus groups community

beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries,local NGO staff, and otherstakeholder groups

Interviewslocal government orsecurity officials, local leaders, andother stakeholders


39/42


organizations?

Local organizations views about internationalorganizations acceptance by the community

How would you describe the way the community, local

leaders, and others view international organizations

working in this area?

Do community members view internationalorganizations differently from local organizations,or do they view them all in the same way?

Do community members distinguish between oneinternational organization and another? If so, inwhat ways?

Do you think community perceptions oforganizations differ according to whether or notan organization works in that specific community?

How do community relations with an NGO affectthat NGOs security?


40/42


The purpose of gathering and analyzing information is to determineyour organizations acceptance approach to security management and toidentify areas for improvement and lessons learned. It is helpful to begin

with areas in which the organization has demonstrated success and hasshown innovative approaches before presenting a gap analysis and areasfor improvement.

Whether presenting your findings at a meeting or writing a report, it isuseful to include quotes and examples from the original data in order toillustrate your points. Diagrams can also be helpful for illustratingrelationships and can provide a holistic view of your findings. Whatevermethod you choose to present your findings, it is critical for you todedicate sufficient time to analyzing the data you have collected, and tosharing your findings.

5. Analyzing the Data


41/42


Experience indicates that the degree of acceptance follows anacceptance continuum1 with directly targeted at one end (e.g., your

organization represents something we disagree with and we will nottolerate your activities here) to accepted at the other (e.g., we valuewhat you provide and want you to stay; therefore we will work to makesure you are safe and do all we can to ensure you dont leave). Yourorganization may fall at one or the other end, or anywhere in-between.

Acceptance is also context-dependent. While the community in onelocation may accept your organization, other actors may not accept theorganizations presence within the same context.

It is critical for organizations to have tools to verify their level ofacceptance and can monitor any changes over time. Determining whether your organization has achieved acceptance in a locationrequires seeking information from sources inside the organization (suchas program staff), as well as sources outside the organization (such ascommunity members and other non-beneficiary stakeholders). Toolsand methods to assess and monitor the presence and degree ofacceptance are interrelated and should build upon one another. Aftercompleting your acceptance assessment, you may notice the importanceof how the community perceives your organization and the impact ofthat upon staff security. As you consider your assessment findings, youmay decide to recommend that your organization develop a means toassess community perceptions.

As we have highlighted throughout this Toolkit, the guidance and toolsprovided here are not blueprints to be adopted exactly as they arepresented. Choose the tools relevant to the needs of your organization(identified in the assessment) and adapt them according to the context.

As you progress through the essential steps of assessing acceptance as asecurity management approach in your organization, gaps will likely be

identified and/or specific areas for improvement may be highlighted.

You will need to actively pursue solutions to address these gaps ifacceptance is to be effective and help reduce risks to staff and programs.In most cases, the actions required will be specific to the operating

context. However, below are listed some universal actions, key toeffectively integrating acceptance into the organizations missionobjectives.

Key Act ions to Strengthen Acceptance Work together with program staff to integrate security

management into program design, especially where commonactivities afford easy integration (i.e., assessments, stakeholderanalysis, participatory approaches, communications, entrystrategies, exit strategies, etc.).

Assess the current level of acceptance across your organizationand among key actors on a routine basis.

Engage with senior management and other relevant staff toassign responsibilities to address gaps identified by theassessment.

Engage with program management to assign responsibilitiesand develop a work plan to implement acceptance in allprogram areas.

Seek assistance from communications and media departmentsto develop internal and external communications plans.

Identify and create opportunities to engage key actors. Develop and maintain key relationships aimed at promoting

and supporting acceptance as a safety and security managementprocess.

6. Strengthening Acceptance


42/42


Notes

1Fast, L. & O'Neill, M. (2010). A closer look at acceptance. HumanitarianExchange Magazine, 47, 5-6.2 Slim, H. (2004, April). How we look: Hostile perceptions of humanitarian

action. Presentation to the Conference on Humanitarian Coordination.Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva, 6.3 C. Finucane, Adapted from Security Risk Management Training Module -

Acceptance & Perceptions, 2009.4 Humanitarian Practice Network. (2010). Operational security managementin violent environments. (Good Practice Review 8). Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, London, 62-63.5 For more on negotiating with armed actors or in a humanitariancontext, see: Toole, D. (2003). Humanitarian negotiation: Observations fromrecent experience. Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and ConflictResearch, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hpcr.org/pdfs/HumanitarianNegotiation_Toole.pdf;Mancini-Griffoli, D. & Picot, A. (2004) Humanitarian negotiation: Ahandbook for security access, assistance and protection for civilians in armed conflict.Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva; Glaser, M. P. (2005).Humanitarian engagement with non-state armed actors: The parametersof negotiated access. Humanitarian Network Paper, 51. OverseasDevelopment Institute, London; and McHugh, G., and M. Bessler(2006) Humanitarian negotiations with armed groups: A manual for practitioners.UN OCHA, New York, NY. Retrieved fromhttp://ochaonline.un.org/humanitariannegotiations/Documents/Manual.pdf.
http://www.hpcr.org/pdfs/HumanitarianNegotiation_Toole.pdfhttp://www.hpcr.org/pdfs/HumanitarianNegotiation_Toole.pdfhttp://www.hpcr.org/pdfs/HumanitarianNegotiation_Toole.pdf

Acceptance Toolkit FINAL for PRINT With Notes

Documents

Transcript of Acceptance Toolkit FINAL for PRINT With Notes