Relief Service Non-Governmental Organisations’ (NGOs) Beneficiary Accountability Policies and Strategies: More Accountancy but Less Accountability: Experiences from the Cross-case Analysis of the Uganda Red Cross Society (URCS) and the Lutheran World Fed

Abstract

This article on the NGÔ beneficiary accountability policies and strategies aims to assess the existence and implementation of beneficiary accountability policies and strategies for Relief Service NGOs in Uganda, focusing on their accountancy rather than accountability slant. It is based on a qualitative cross-case assessment of two Relief Service NGOs – Uganda Red Cross Society (URCS) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), aimed at assessing the policies for accountability in place and their implementation in the case NGOs. The study was undertaken through a review of documents and interviews with purposively sampled staff and beneficiaries of the two NGOs.  It underscores the accountancy rather than accountability nature of NGO policies and implementation strategies. It posits that NGOs are interested and willing to be accountable to their beneficiaries for their activities supported by policy provisions, guidelines, and implementation strategies. However, the incentivised and competitive NGO-sector environment today and the relative powerlessness of NGOs in the grand scheme of social power relations do not allow them to engage in long-term accountability engagements with beneficiaries beyond managing the behaviour of their staff. Instead, NGOs are inevitably dominated by the demands to supply reports and related information necessary for donor accountancy. NGO accountability prioritises accountancy, that is, the needs and interests of “upward” stakeholders - donors and governments and relegates accountability - the needs and interests of “downward” stakeholders, especially beneficiaries. NGOs constantly adapt their programs and accountability activities as donor conditions change to provide accountancy-related progress, financial, monitoring, and evaluation reports; and implement extractive participation and feedback receipt activities to maintain positive donor relationships necessary to win, extend, and retain project contracts critical for their expansion and survival agendas. The nature of NGO accountability, therefore, is monologic rather than dialogic, delivering more accountability to donors while doing little accountability - empowering beneficiaries to have “voice” and “choice” on NGO programs. This disjuncture between the aims of NGO accountability and practice will continue unless NGOs provide more information about their projects, missions, and values to beneficiaries and other stakeholders to solidify accountability; avoid committing too much to donor performance and accountancy demands in project contracts; and become honest in reporting challenges or even failures in project reports.