Accountable For What Participation Education Essay

Published: 2021-06-30 11:10:04
essay essay

Category: Education

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
Defining the beneficiaries' populations is the first step in accountability practices. All project interventions will have ripple effects beyond the project target group, so in order to understand the current state of accountability to beneficiaries, a large and diverse group of beneficiaries who will be affected by any interventions must be defined.
Table (1):
Respondents answer about Accountability to whom, which beneficiaries are we targeting?
No
Question
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Answer
Do you establish a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to include gender issues?
24
4.00
1.02
Often*
Do you establish a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to include issues connected with ethnicity?
24
2.46
1.22
Never*
Do you establish a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources in connection with religion?
24
2.5
1.02
Sometimes*
Do you establish a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to assess vulnerability?
24
3.92
1.1
Often*
Do you periodically update beneficiaries with new information during the project?
24
4.25
0.9
Often*
Do you try to maintain a gender balance in the composition of the project team?
24
4.25
0.79
Often*
Do you include fair and practical representation of all subgroups in the local target population?
24
4.04
0.81
Often*
All Statement of the field
24
3.71
0.46
Often*
* 1 don’t know, 2  Never, 3  sometimes, 4  often, 5  always
Defining the beneficiaries' populations with mean score (3.71); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
5.1.1 Data Analysis:
Respondents answer about establishing a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to include gender issues. Respondents answer that they often establish a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to include gender issues, with mean score (4.00); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Respondents answer about establishing a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to include issues connected with ethnicity. Results mentioned that the study sample never establishes a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to include issues connected with ethnicity, with mean score (2.46); which corresponding to never in answers scale.
Respondents answer about establishing a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources in connection with religion.
Study sample answered they sometimes establishes a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources in connection with religion, with mean score (2.5); which corresponding to sometimes in answers scale.
Respondents answer about establishing a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to assess vulnerability.
Study sample answered that they often establishes a basic profile of the population from both primary and secondary sources to assess vulnerability, with mean score (3.92); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Respondents answer about periodically update beneficiaries with new information during the project. Results indicate that the respondents often periodically update beneficiaries with new information during the project, with mean score (4.25); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Respondents answer about trying to maintain a gender balance in the composition of the project team.
Results indicate that the respondents often try to maintain a gender balance in the composition of the project team, with mean score (4.25); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Respondents answer about include fair and practical representation of all subgroups in the local target population.
Respondents answer that they often include fair and practical representation of all subgroups in the local target population, with mean score (4.04); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
5.1.2 Commentary
Respondents reported that teams try to include fair and practical representation of all subgroups in the local target population " often". Shows a clear majority making strong efforts to include a fair and practical representation of the local population.. In specific projects, it may not be possible or desirable to include an even representation of all groups in the community – for example if the project has a focus on local government, some of the most vulnerable groups may not be targeted and information on how the project affects them may not be collected. It may be more important to consider this latter percentage for this reason. No one reported that they "never" try to include a fair representation of all groups. This is not surprising since equal opportunity to benefit from aid delivery is a general humanitarian and human rights principle
Women and girls are a particularly vulnerable group, often left out of the formal economy and other social structures. They also account for approximately half of any community, making them a significant group of beneficiaries in any project. When asked about maintaining a gender balance, respondents reported that they do so often; slightly more reported often maintaining a gender balance . Many of the barriers about working with women in conservative cultures as challenges to maintaining an equitable gender balance.
Internal Gender Assessment majority of respondents reported "often" collecting gender disaggregated data. The slightly higher rate of respondents stating they "often" collect gender data could be a function of the small rate of response to the accountability survey, or other systematic error.
Reporting doing so because of donor requirements with significantly fewer reporting because country leadership requires it or because program implementers think it is important even if it isn’t required.
Transparency is another important component of accountability, which means conducting operations in a way that is open to inspection and feedback from beneficiaries. Respondents reported that teams establish basic profiles of the population from primary and secondary sources in a transparent manner most consistently for 1) gender, 2) vulnerability, and 3) ethnicity (based on percentages of respondents that they "often" do this). Political affiliation and religion were most likely to "sometime" be used in creating a profile of the community. As one survey respondent stated, they never ask beneficiaries for ethnicity, religion and political affiliation, because most of INGOs are non religion nongovernmental organization. They just want secure and just productive community."
Beneficiaries are a constantly changing group, part of the complexity of measuring accountability to beneficiaries. respondents report that beneficiary information is often updated and analyzed periodically by teams.
Question (2): 12+24+25+26
Share Information with beneficiaries’ One of the goals of this survey was to gauge how accountable respondents currently believe they are to the population they serve. Sharing information with beneficiaries is one important aspect of accountability.
Table (34):
Respondents answer about Share Information with beneficiaries
Question
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Answer
How much do you provide explanations to beneficiaries when there are changes to program activities?
24
4.00
1.06
Often*
How much are beneficiaries provided with full information about the project in order to assist their participation?
24
4.12
0.74
Often*
How much is beneficiaries’ feedback taken into account to inform your organization about progress, based on chosen indicators?
24
3.71
1.08
Often*
How much is beneficiary feedback used by your organization’s team to respond to emergent problems in a timely manner?
24
4.29
0.55
Often*
All Statement of the field
24
4.21
0.59
Often*
* 1 don’t know, 2  Never, 3  sometimes, 4  often, 5  always
Accountable how? Sharing Information with beneficiaries, with mean score (4.21); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Data Analysis:
Respondents answer that they often providing explanations to their beneficiaries when there are changes to program activities, with mean score (4.00); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Respondents answer that their organization often providing their beneficiaries with full information about the project in order to assist their participation, with mean score (4.12); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Respondents answer that their organization often taken into account their beneficiaries’ feedback to inform their organization about progress, based on chosen indicators, with mean score (3.71); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Current table results mentioned that the study sample often used beneficiary feedback by their organization’s team to respond to emergent problems in a timely manner, with mean score (4.29); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Commentary:
One of the goals of this survey was to gauge how accountable respondents currently believe they are to the populations they serve. Sharing information with beneficiaries is one important aspect of accountability which is why one survey question specifically addresses this. In general respondents feel that they are making "strong efforts" to share information with beneficiaries. A majority of respondents believe they are making "adequate" efforts" to share program information with beneficiaries. When disaggregating the data by national staff, a slightly higher percentage of respondents report that they make strong efforts to share information with beneficiaries.
One way to interpret these results is that a majority, are content with the amount of information currently being shared with beneficiaries during INGOs projects .
Question (35): 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12
Accountable for what, Participation and the INGOs choose to include beneficiaries is a component of accountability to beneficiaries. What actions that the INGOs carry out could relate to accountability to beneficiaries?
Table (35):
Respondents answer about Accountable for what, Participation
No
Question
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Answer
Before starting a project, do you engage with your target community and introduce your organization to them?
24
4.46
0.72
Often*
Do you involve target communities in assessing the need for the projects your organization proposes?
24
4.33
0.76
Often*
Do you introduce your organization to target communities before the design phase of a project starts?
24
4.33
0.7
Often*
Do you meet with communities during the assessment and design phases to clarify your organization’s source of funding and what’s involved with it?
24
4.33
0.76
Often*
During the assessment and design phase, do you meet with target communities to clarify why & how they were selected?
24
4.33
0.7
Often*
During the design phase, do you meet with target communities to clarify the part they will play in program implementation?
24
3.92
0.97
Often*
When creating beneficiaries’ selection criteria, does your team include input and inclusive participation from community representatives and community leaders?
24
4.00
1.02
Often*
When creating beneficiaries' selection criteria, do you specifically include input and inclusive participation from the most vulnerable groups in the target community?
24
4.25
0.68
Often*
How much do you involve beneficiaries in the initial assessment phase of the project?
24
4.00
1.02
Often*
How much do you involve beneficiaries during the design phase of the project?
24
3.54
0.98
Often*
How much do you involve beneficiaries during the monitoring and evaluation phase of the project?
24
3.96
1.08
Often*
How much do you provide explanations to beneficiaries when there are changes to program activities?
All statement of the field
24
4.01
0.72
Often*
* 1 don’t know, 2  Never, 3  sometimes, 4  often, 5  always
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- with mean score (4.01); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Accountable for what? Participation
As discussed in chapter three, participation and when the INGO chooses to include beneficiaries is a component of accountability to beneficiaries. What actions that the INGO carries out could relate to accountability to beneficiaries? Breaking down accountability in this way helps facilitate the discussion on measurement tools in the upcoming "accountable how?" section. The survey analyzed this aspect of accountability by asking which phases of the project cycle beneficiaries were likely to be involved in, when project information is shared with beneficiaries and when are they asked to participate in the selection criteria.
Participation in this section refers to beneficiary inclusion in various steps in the project cycle. Respondents reported that they are most likely to involve beneficiaries 1) during the implementation of activities, 2) the initial assessment, 3) the evaluation, and 4) the monitoring of the project. Beneficiaries are least likely to be involved in the design of the project.
Respondents are most likely to meet with beneficiaries to explain the kind of assistance INGOs can provide, who are they, and the roles the community plays in program implementation during the assessment and design phases. Sources of funding are least likely to be shared with beneficiaries during these phases. Percentages for sharing information about all of these subjects was above 50% when combining the "often" and "always" categories..
When input and inclusive participation is used to direct beneficiary selection, input is most likely to be sought from community leaders and community representatives before most vulnerable groups, although only by a small margin.
Lastly, 49% of respondents reported "always" informing beneficiaries about program changes. Only 2% reported that "never" share this information and 25% say they only "sometimes" discuss changes with beneficiaries. This question didn’t explain what specific type of program changes they were referring to, leaving some space for confusion in responses. The assumption in this analysis is that the question was interpreted to mean "major changes" in the program.
Question (36): 13+14+22+23+27+28+29+30+31+32+33
Accountable How الرجاء صياغة هذا حسب مفهومك للدراسة
Table (36):
Respondents answer about ?????? Accountable How???????? الصياغة أيضاً هنا
Question
Frequency
Mean
Std. Deviation
Answer
Do you hold formal meetings with beneficiaries to review progress and ask for their opinions about lessons learned?
24
3.92
0.93
Often*
Do you hold formal meetings with beneficiaries to complete all dealings at the end of a project?
24
3.96
0.81
Often*
How much are beneficiaries able from first contact to identify their own needs and priorities?
24
4.00
0.88
Often*
How much are beneficiaries’ need-priorities taken into account in program design and implementation?
24
4.29
0.86
Often*
How much is feedback information used for program improvement?
24
4.42
0.58
Often*
How much is feedback information used for identifying gaps in implementation of projects?
24
4.37
0.58
Often*
How much is feedback information used in identifying new needs arising during the project?
24
4.21
1.02
Often*
How much are formal feedback mechanisms established early on in projects?
24
3.92
0.88
Often*
How much is feedback information documented and made available to all staff working on a project?
24
4.00
0.98
Often*
How much is feedback information shared with other humanitarian actors, for coordination, to prevent duplication and to improve impact?
How much is critical information needing immediate action (sexual abuse, accusation of corruption, security risks, etc) acted upon in a timely manner?
24
3.25
1.15
Sometimes*
How much is feedback information used for program improvement?
All statement of the field
24
4.01
0.65
Often*
* 1 don’t know, 2  Never, 3  sometimes, 4  often, 5  always
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- with mean score (4.01); which corresponding to often in answers scale.
Accountable How?
After selecting the beneficiaries and determining what activities INGOs are accountable for, the next step is to find the methods and tools to assess accountability. Most of the survey questions asked about opportunities for beneficiaries to participate in the project process through: formal meetings, identifying and prioritizing their needs, feedback systems, and other tools. After looking at each of these, the next step is to determine where and how effectively they are used.
Formal meetings: Formal meetings are most consistently used to say goodbye to beneficiaries (respondents report "often" doing this). While proper project close-out is an important step in accountability, beneficiaries should be heavily involved in the design and implementation phases as well. respondents meet formally with beneficiaries to review and ask their opinion about lessons learned. Respondents were equally likely to answer either "often" or "sometimes" holding formal meetings with beneficiaries to review and provide feedback about project results.
Identifying and prioritizing beneficiary needs: Survey respondents indicated that they "always" give beneficiaries the opportunity from first contact to identify and prioritize their needs of the time. 3% of respondents reported this "never" happens, and 24% said beneficiaries are "often" given the opportunity to identify and prioritize their needs. The percentages decrease when looking at how often this information is used. Only 39% of respondents reported that they "always" take into account beneficiary prioritization of needs for program design and implementation. The "never" category remained the same, but the "often" category increased to 31% and the "sometimes" category increased slightly to 23%. This seems to indicate that the prioritization of beneficiary needs is more likely to be understood, but slightly less likely to actually be incorporated into program design and implementation.
Feedback systems: Survey respondents are almost evenly split on how consistently they establish formal feedback mechanisms early on in a project, with 33% responding "often" and 32% responding "sometimes". Another 19% reported "always" setting up formal feedback systems and 8% reported "never" doing so. 39% of survey
results indicate that beneficiaries are regularly provided with information about the project in order to facilitate their participation and informed feedback. Below are a few selected quotes from survey respondents that further clarify this issue of feedback.
Survey respondents indicated that they "often" use feedback from community members to inform a project’s implementation (45%). Although possibly not a formal feedback mechanism (the question did not indicate formality), feedback as a reciprocal process between beneficiaries and INGO "often" used to respond to problems in a timely manner (47%). To a lesser extent, such feedback is "often" used to inform beneficiaries about progress based on indicators (35%). A reciprocal feedback process is "never" used to inform beneficiaries about progress based on indicators according to 16% of respondents (compared with only 1% of respondents for responding to problems in a timely manner). Feedback (again not indicated whether formal or informal mechanisms are used) is used most often to identify new needs (‘always" – 52% of respondents), identifying gaps ("always" - 49% of respondents) for program improvement ("always" – 47% of respondents), and in decision making (41% of respondents). Identifying gaps stands out as most frequently being used only sometimes, when compared with the other categories. All categories had similar numbers of respondents claiming they never use feedback in these ways (1-2% of respondents).
For 42% of respondents, this feedback is "always" documented and made available to all staff working on the project ("often" – 22%, "sometimes" - 24%). Seven percent of respondents claimed that this feedback is "never" documented or made available to all staff. Feedback is shared less often with other humanitarian actors ("always" – 23% of respondents, "often" – 30%, ""sometimes" – 33%, "never" 7%).
Critical information that requires immediate action (sexual abuse, accusation of corruption, security risk, etc.) is "always" acted upon in a timely manner according to 42% of respondents. Seven percent of respondents claimed that this information is never acted upon in a timely manner. While the frequency that this information is acted upon in a quick manner is low, often reporting is hindered by the sensitivity of the situation requiring more decision makers to be involved and the decision itself to be belabored in an effort to find the best response to the situation.
Hypothesis test:
Main Hypothesis: There is no a significant relationship at level (α= 0.05) between (Accountability to whom, which beneficiaries are we targeting?, And Accountable how? Sharing information with beneficiaries and Accountable for what? Participation) with accountability.
To test the hypotheses pearson correlation coefficient calculated
p-value
pearson correlation
0.008
0.531
Accountability to whom, Which beneficiaries are we targeting?
0.000
0.734
Accountable how? Sharing information with beneficiaries
0.000
0.782
Accountable for what? Participation:
0.000
0.926
Accountable how
The table show that There is significant correlation between Accountability to whom, Which beneficiaries are we targeting? And Accountable how? Sharing information with beneficiaries and Accountable for what? Participation: and Accountable how? With accountability
Hypothesis (1)
There are statistically significant relation at (α= 0.05) between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and sharing information with beneficiaries.
Simple linear regression test used to check the acceptance of this hypothesis, this test take following model:
Y = β0 + β1X + e
Table (?): Results of simple linear regression test between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and sharing information with beneficiaries.
Model Summary
Model
R correlation (β)
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Sig.
beneficiaries those NGOs targeting/ sharing information with beneficiaries
0.821
0.674
0.664
0.000
It evident from the current table that the value of the level of significance is (0.000); it is lower than significance level (α =0.05). This means that the current alternative hypothesis that says "there are statistically significant relation at (α= 0.05) between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and sharing information with beneficiaries" was accepted. R value (0.821) indicates that the correlation between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and sharing information with beneficiaries was high; which prove the acceptance of current alternative hypothesis.
Table (?): Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
0.321
0.685
6.021
0.275
sharing information with beneficiaries
0.863
0.034
0.821
1.874
0.000
Dependent Variable: beneficiaries those NGOs targeting
Independent variable: sharing information with beneficiaries
From table (?) we can write simple linear regression model:
Beneficiaries those NGOs targeting = 0.321 + 0.863 (sharing information with beneficiaries)
Hypothesis (2)
There are statistically significant relation at (α= 0.05) between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and accountable for what (participation).
Simple linear regression test used to check the acceptance of this hypothesis, this test take following model:
Y = β0 + β1X + e
Table (?): Results of simple linear regression test between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and accountable for what (participation).
Model Summary
Model
R correlation (β)
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Sig.
beneficiaries those NGOs targeting/ accountable for what (participation)
0.794
0.63
0.615
0.000
Current table results show that the value of the level of significance is (0.000); it is lower than significance level (α =0.05). This means that the current alternative hypothesis that says "there are statistically significant relation at (α= 0.05) between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and accountable for what (participation)" was accepted. R value (0.794) indicates that the correlation between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and accountable for what (participation) was high; these results prove the acceptance of current alternative hypothesis.
Table (?): Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
0.457
0.546
6.021
0.154
accountable for what (participation)
0.824
0.047
0.794
1.617
0.000
Dependent Variable: beneficiaries those NGOs targeting
Independent variable: sharing information with beneficiaries
From table (?) we can write simple linear regression model:
Beneficiaries those NGOs targeting = 0.457 + 0.824 (accountable for what (participation))
Hypothesis (3)
There are statistically significant relation at (α= 0.05) between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and how accountable.
Simple linear regression test used to check the acceptance of this hypothesis, this test take following model:
Y = β0 + β1X + e
Table (?): Results of simple linear regression test between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and how accountable.
Model Summary
Model
R correlation (β)
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Sig.
beneficiaries those NGOs targeting/ how accountable
0.838
0.702
0.691
0.000
It evident from the current table that the value of the level of significance is (0.000); which is lower than significance level (α =0.05). This means that the current alternative hypothesis that says "there are statistically significant relation at (α= 0.05) between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and how accountable" was accepted. R value (0.838) indicates that the correlation between beneficiaries those NGOs targeting and how accountable was high; thus results prove the acceptance of third alternative hypothesis.
Table (?): Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
0.246
0.446
5.006
0.287
accountable for what (participation)
0.894
0.031
0.838
1.917
0.000
Dependent Variable: beneficiaries those NGOs targeting
Independent variable: sharing information with beneficiaries
From table (?) we can write simple linear regression model:
Beneficiaries those NGOs targeting = 0.246 + 0.894 (how accountable)

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read