September 3, 2025 CVA

Designing Humanitarian Projects with AAP at the Core

Accountability covers many aspects within humanitarian action. As humanitarians, we are accountable to our donors; donors are accountable to taxpayers who are the source of funds that we bring to the affected population. And affected populations are the ones that we are all accountable to. Hence, Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) means recognizing that the people we aim to support are not passive beneficiaries, but rights-holders who deserve transparency, participation, and respect.

Over the years working on humanitarian assistance projects, I have seen that the outcomes are better, trust is stronger, and dignity is preserved, when accountability is prioritized from project design to implementation and exit. When AAP is neglected, projects stumble, communities lose trust, and protection risks grow.

In this post, I want to share why AAP is vital in every phase of a project, with lessons from Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA) programs in Türkiye after the February 2023 earthquakes.

What Does Accountability to Affected Populations Mean?

AAP is about using our power, which is significant, responsibly. At its core, it involves:

  • Participation: communities shape the design and decision-making.
  • Information sharing: clear and accessible updates on who is eligible, how assistance works, and when it will be delivered.
  • Feedback and complaints: safe and responsive mechanisms for people to voice concerns.
  • Respectful treatment: dignity, fairness, and safeguarding in every interaction.

These are the principles that should guide us throughout the humanitarian project cycle.

Starting Right: Designing with Communities, Not for Them

Humanitarian projects that skip community engagement often get it wrong.

I learned this early in my career when an aid delivery sparked tensions because the community had little or no idea how beneficiaries were selected. We had to deal with rumors, community’s resentment, and it took quite some time to repair the damage.

I believe that including additional questions in assessments have great value. So I prefer to ask first and act second. During MPCA assessments in Türkiye, we ask families whether they own smart phones, for example. The main reason for this question is that the SMS we send to old phones is cut if the SMS is longer than 160 characters. This means that assessed families will not fully receive the information we try to pass if they have an older phone. Sometimes it is hard to believe but not everyone has a smart phone even if it’s an old Android phone.

Sharing selection criteria openly is another very significant aspect. Today, I attended the Community of Practice MPCA Design Group meeting where Mercy Corps shared examples of complaints and feedback they received in Palestine. And you if you took a guess you were right, the complaints regarding the complexity of selection criteria took their place in the presentation. I see the same in our Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) reports and try to use simpler language. I share easy to understand FAQs with field teams as part of our MPCA SOP. With that, they can answer these questions with one voice that is easier on the ears. If you have not read my previous post about creating an SOP, here it is: How to Write a Cash Assistance SOP.

When people know why households are chosen, for example, those with children, elderly members, or single women, it reduces confusion and tension. This clarity builds trust before a single transfer goes out.

Accountability in Action: Building Two-Way Communication

When we do the implementation, AAP becomes a daily practice.

In our earthquake-response cash project, we were lucky to have an existing Community Feedback and Complaint Mechanism (CFCM) right from the start. Families received hotline numbers, help cards in Turkish and Arabic, and could even use suggestion boxes in certain areas such as temporary container sites. Every complaint and question was logged and followed up with privacy measures in place.

We also shared information proactively. SMS notifications told beneficiary families when and how to collect their cash, what papers (such as IDs) to bring with them, and a reminder that the registered head of household can only withdraw the assistance. Even those not selected received an SMS explaining their status and pointing them to other services. I think it is a good practice to prevent rumors and show respect.

Two-way communication made the biggest difference.

Community meetings became spaces where residents told us if we had missed vulnerable households, or if distribution points were too far. If you are a local actor or you are working with one, you benefit from having eyes and ears everywhere. Communities’ feedback helped us adjust quickly. For example, we investigated one family who did not collect their cash assistance and arranged transport support after the beneficiary noted that they could not travel to a bank branch due to a recent health issue. Without listening, we would never have caught this barrier.

And dignity matters. We trained staff on Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA), prioritized vulnerable groups in queues, and ensured safe, respectful interactions at every stage. Accountability is visible in how people experience our projects.

Ending Well: Accountability at Exit

Communities also deserve a clear and respectful closure.

When our cash assistance distribution ended, also continued collecting feedback during post-distribution monitoring. This allowed us to inform respondents regarding future projects, other existing assistance in their regions and to refer them to external services when needs are noted.

A transparent exit leaves behind trust, not confusion. Without it, people can feel abandoned or misled.

Useful Links:

Tags

AAP CVA

Leave a Comment

Share your thoughts

You Might Also Like

The Friday Humanitarian Scan #8
February 20, 2026
How to Write a Cash Assistance SOP
August 27, 2025
The Friday Humanitarian Scan #9
February 27, 2026
Back to Blog