Humanitarian Accountability Team Lessons ... - HAP International

World Vision Lanka Tsunami Response 

Humanitarian Accountability Team Lessons Learned: Perspectives 

from Communities and Staff 

Qualitative Analysis Report 

September 2007 

By: 

Alexandra Levaditis, Humanitarian Accountability Manager 

World Vision Lanka Tsunami Response Team

Glossary Of Acronyms 

CAG 

CBO 

DME 

EOP 

FGD 

GS 

HAT 

INGO 

LCP 

LTRT 

NGO 

WV 

Community Action Group (often used interchangeably with CBO for LTRT supported 

community organizations at housing sites) 

Community Based Organization 

Design, Monitoring & Evaluation 

End-of-Program or Project 

Focus Group Discussion 

Grama Sevaka (local village-level government authority) 

Humanitarian Accountability Team 

International Non-Governmental Organization 

Local Capacities for Peace 

Lanka Tsunami Response Team 

Non-Governmental Organization 

World Vision

World Vision LTRT: Humanitarian Accountability Team 

Lessons Learned Analysis Report 

Page 3/26 

Acknowledgements 

I would like to thank all staff that served with the Humanitarian Accountability Team since its inception 

for their tireless efforts to ensure the LTRT program was accountable to those we served. Their 

contribution will be remembered by the families whose lives they touched. 

A big thank you to the following teams that facilitated the community focus group discussions: 

Kalutara team – Mavis Kuruwitage, Viraj Wahalatantri and myself 

Batticaloa team – Jo-Hannah Lavey, Rebecca Owen, Diluksion Francis and Jaya Rathamohan 

Jaffna team – Goldan Gomara and V. Kathiramalai 

….And the participants of the staff focus group discussion and interviews: 

Romesh Fernando, Viraj Wahalatantri, Mavis Kuruwitage, Bandara Hurikaduwa, Lakshman Perera, 

Josephine Pillai, Diluksion Francis, Gowry, V. Kathiramalai, Rebecca Owen and Kevin Mackey. 

A special note of appreciation to Sajilu Kamwendo, DME Manager for his support in the development 

and analysis of survey tools, the facilitation of the staff focus group discussion and key informant 

interviews and review and editing of this report and to Nishan Dissanayake for serving as the Recorder. 

A final word of thanks to all the Community Mobilizers who served as the first point of contact for 

communities and whose efforts often went unnoticed. 

Alexandra Levaditis 

Manager, Humanitarian Accountability Team 

World Vision Lanka Tsunami Response



Page 4/26 

Table of Contents 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................................... 2 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 3 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 3 

1.1 COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS.........................................................................................................3 

1.2 STAFF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS .......................................................3 

2. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 3 

3. COMMUNITY FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS .................................................................. 3 

3.1 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................3 

3.2 SURVEY FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................................................3 

4. STAFF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS............. 3 

4.1 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................3 

4.2 SURVEY FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................................................3 

5. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... 3 

APPENDIX 1: QUANTITATIVE DATA..................................................................................... 3 

APPENDIX 2: FGD GUIDELINES-COMMUNITIES........ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 

APPENDIX 3: FGD GUIDELINES-STAFF ........................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.



Page 5/26 

1. Executive Summary 

1.1 Community Focus Group Discussions 

During September 2007, the Humanitarian Accountability Team (HAT) conducted 10 focus group 

discussions (FGDs) in three operational districts to evaluate the impact of its activities. The qualitative 

survey was based on FGDs with permanent housing recipients, using structured discussion guides that 

explored four major themes: 

1. Application of skills and knowledge acquired through training 

2. Forms of information sharing and consultation 

3. Viability and effectiveness of community organizations 

4. Improved relations in community 

The following key points emerged from the analysis: 

1. There was evidence in all districts that the skills acquired through trainings are being used by 

community members. 

2. HAT trainings were recognized as well-organized and executed. 

3. Other trainings aimed at livelihoods especially but also other topics such as health, whether 

conducted by World Vision or other organizations, were often easier to recall than HAT 

trainings. 

4. Different levels of understanding within the community made application of some trainings, 

especially LCP, more difficult. 

5. Communities, including vulnerable groups, felt they were adequately consulted by World Vision. 

6. Community meetings were the preferred mode of sharing and receiving information. 

7. Community Action Groups (or CBOs) have been formed at all sites with varying degrees of 

success to date. Some CAGs were found to be proactive and enjoyed community support, 

others were taking initial steps at leadership with mixed support while one CAG had been 

disbanded. 

8. Where communities are less familiar with each other, community organizations are struggling 

more to define and undertake their role. 

9. World Vision played a vital role in representing community interests to government and other 

stakeholders, building trust especially between communities and Stakeholder Representatives. 

This confidence must shift to CAGs if they are to take over long-term management of sites. 

10. Additional support was requested to increase the likelihood of the long-term viability of 

Community Action Groups. 

11. Relations amongst community members had improved in all cases from the time that families 

first moved into their new homes. Peacebuilding activities contributed to this by bringing people 

together and providing them with the opportunity to get to know each other and establish 

relationships. 

12. The level of positive impact the CAG was perceived to have on improving relations ran parallel 

to people’s perception of the capacity of the CAG generally. 

13. Community infrastructure played an important role for many by providing the space to meet.



Page 6/26 

14. Proximity of living space was raised in Jaffna and Batticaloa as having both positive and negative 

consequences on community relations. Interestingly, where the community was living in 

attached townhouses in Kalutara, space was not mentioned except in the context of the impact 

of the community hall. 

1.2 Staff Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews 

During September 2007, the LTRT DME unit conducted a focus group discussion with HAT field staff to 

contribute to the evaluation of HAT activities and also structure. The qualitative survey used a semistructured 

discussion guide and two key informant interviews that explored four major themes: 

1. Application of skills and knowledge acquired through training, 

2. Forms of information sharing and consultation 

3. Improved relations in community 

4. Organizational staff support 

The following key points emerged from the analysis: 

1. Community accountability training, Local Capacities for Peace TOT and Advocacy training were 

viewed as the three most beneficial trainings HAT field staff received to help them work with 

communities. 

2. HAT training methods were innovative and interactive which was helpful in encouraging 

participation and learning. 

3. Similar to the views presented by communities, HAT field staff agreed that community meetings 

were the most effective way of community consultation and information sharing. 

4. HAT activities contributed to improving relations between community members. 

5. Staff found the HAT reporting structure supportive of their activities. However, they were 

sometimes overwhelmed by multiple requests from different HAT Colombo staff.



Page 7/26 

2. Introduction 

The unprecedented humanitarian response to the tsunami in Sri Lanka required a high degree of 

coordination with other agencies, government and most importantly recipient communities. This posed 

a challenge to many agencies which was highlighted in a wide-scale evaluation of the Sri Lanka tsunami 

response conducted by the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition. 

“The lack of accountability to aid recipients is an acknowledged weakness of the international relief system. The 

recipients surveyed for the TEC studies reported that they were not adequately consulted. Furthermore, the 

studies found that there were large information gaps between agencies and the communities they were serving.” 1 

The size and complexity of the program necessitated a far greater awareness of community issues/needs 

and greater engagement with communities if its deliverables were to be responsive, appropriate and 

timely. The Humanitarian Accountability Team (HAT) was established by the Lanka Tsunami Response 

Team (LTRT) in May 2005 to promote program accountability and integrate Do No Harm principles by 

providing the human resources and tools for effective community engagement, advocacy and 

coordination with I/NGOs and government. The team was made operational through both Colombobased 

technical advisors and implementing field staff. 

While the activities of HAT were largely intertwined with other program sectors, in FY2007 HAT 

established itself as an independent program sector (Civil Society) with an independent set of activities 

that were self-directed and focused on strengthening the knowledge and capacity of communities 

towards self-reliance, ensuring a responsible withdrawal from communities and the sustainability of 

program inputs. HAT activities largely fell within three main components: 

1. Community Engagement/Accountability 

2. Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding 

3. Liaison and Advocacy 

HAT was the first team of its kind within World Vision International. This report seeks to evaluate the 

impact of HAT activities, learn from successes and lessons and provide guidance to those starting to 

implement accountability both within Sri Lanka and outside. It highlights the findings of focus group 

discussions (FGDs) with permanent housing beneficiaries in Kalutara, Batticaloa and Jaffna. These 

beneficiaries were targeted for this study as participants in the full range of HAT activities who would 

have the ability to best assess them. The report also separately highlights findings from a FGD held with 

HAT field staff and two key informant interviews focusing on similar issues in addition to the team’s 

organizational structure. 

Government and inter-agency coordination, a key function of HAT, was not explored in this survey for 

two reasons: 1) A separate quantitative survey was conducted earlier in the year exclusively on the 

effectiveness of LTRT coordination efforts; and 2) While coordination was aimed at assisting and 

supporting beneficiary communities, activities were not focused directly on them. 2 

1 

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC): Initial Findings, p.10. 

2 

To receive a copy of the findings of this survey, please e-mail Alexandra Levaditis at Alexandra_Levaditis@wvi.org or Sajilu Kamwendo at 

Sajilu_Kamwendo@wvi.org.

Table 1: HAT Logframe 

Project Goal Outcomes Outputs Activities 

Foster and 

promote 

community 

sustainability by 

integrating 

accountability to 

stakeholders 

Tsunami-affected 

communities are active in 

determining their own 

future through engagement 

and local community 

institution strengthening 

Beneficiary needs identified and 

acted upon 

Community-Based Organizations 

(CBOs) and other community 

structures established or 

strengthened 

Beneficiary selection and verification 

Community consultation (including targeting of gender and disabilities) 

Disseminate operational exit plans and develop/support district strategies 

Community engagement training and coaching 

Resource material development (including best practice) 

Peace strengthened in local 

communities through 

conflict sensitivity 

Do No Harm principles applied to 

reduce tensions and support 

connectors in local communities 

Conflict sensitivity assessments 

Conflict sensitivity training for WV staff and selected stakeholders 

Support implementation of agreed assessment recommendations 

Targeted peacebuilding that 

supports Local Capacities for 

Peace (LCP)/Do No Harm 

Pilot child/youth peace activities 

Develop networks with agencies engaged in conflict sensitive activities 

Alliances with inter-agency 

and government 

stakeholders are fostered to 

promote accountability to 

communities 

Partnerships established to better 

meet the needs of communities 

Targeted advocacy initiatives 

Coordination and participate in inter-agency forums/networking 

Develop coordination materials (DIS, etc) 

UN OCHA (HIC) mapping project 

Liaise with government and local authorities 

Develop advocacy strategy (key issues) and document best practice 

Advocacy campaigns including research 

Advocacy training and coaching

Table 2: Housing Beneficiaries 

District 

Number of Houses Constructed by LTRT* 

Ampara 354 

Batticaloa 269 

Galle 110 

Hambantota 110 

Jaffna 121 

Kalutara 173 

Matara 157 

Mullaitivu 500 

Trincomalee 100 

Total 1894 

*As of September 2007. Additional houses are newly under construction in Trincomalee district which are not 

reflected here.



Page 10/26 

3. Community Focus Group Discussions 

3.1 Methodology 

3.1.1.Survey tool 

The qualitative survey utilized a structured focus group discussion (FGD) guide 3 , based on four themes: 

1) Application of skills and knowledge acquired through HAT training; 2) Forms of information sharing 

and consultation; 3) Viability and effectiveness of community organizations; and 4) Improved relations in 

the community. These themes were selected as representative of core HAT activities with communities 

(see Logframe in Table 1). 

3.1.2 Survey description 

Three teams were deployed to conduct focus group discussions with community members according to 

pre-developed scripts and reporting forms. Each team was assigned to a district based on familiarity 

with that district and selected sites. The number of team members varied slightly from district to 

district based on availability of staff. All teams consisted of LTRT staff (mostly HAT staff) – no external 

staff or consultants were used. 

Batticaloa – 2 facilitators (1 for 2 focus groups), 1 interpreter/observer, 1 note taker 

Kalutara – 1 facilitator, 1 interpreter/observer, 1 note taker 

Jaffna – 1 facilitator, 1 note taker (no interpreter required) 

Focus group participants consisted exclusively of World Vision housing beneficiaries as they were the 

target of the majority of HAT’s activities from the inception of the department. 

Separate focus group discussions were held with men and women. In one case in Kalutara, a mixed 

focus group discussion was held due to the small number of participants available (only 11 households at 

that site). A focus group discussion was held with youth in Jaffna because many of HAT’s activities at 

that site were implemented through the Youth Association or designed to strengthen the association. 

Focus group discussions were not, unfortunately held with children due to serious time constraints in 

developing the survey tool and completing the evaluation process. 

Data collection and field-level analysis took place from 19 – 25 September 2007. 

3.1.3 Data collection 

The target group selected to participate in data collection consisted exclusively of beneficiaries of World 

Vision LTRT reconstructed permanent houses. The reason for this narrow focus was that the range of 

activities reflected in the HAT logframe were concentrated on this group of beneficiaries throughout the 

program. 

FGD participants were then randomly selected from among World Vision LTRT permanent housing 

beneficiaries using systematic interval sampling. The sampling frame was restricted to WV LTRT 

permanent shelter beneficiaries for several reasons: 

• The range of HAT activities could only be reflected at housing sites where there was resettlement 

of beneficiaries to new locations from where they previously resided pre-tsunami. In locations 

3 

See Appendix Two for a copy of the discussion guide.



Page 11/26 

where World Vision reconstructed houses on beneficiary’s own land, activities such as CBO 

strengthening and peacebuilding was generally not undertaken under the assumption that preexisting 

institutions and relationships would be resumed. 

• Because of the contextual diversity of Sri Lanka across the three operating zones (especially in 

relation to the conflict), it was important that each zone be represented. 

• Where a district was selected for data collection, all housing sites within that district participated in 

focus group discussions. The exception to this was Batticaloa where only two of three sites were 

surveyed. The third site was not included because of time restrictions on data collection. 

Table 3: FGD Selection 

Zone District Housing Sites FGDs Held Rationale for Selection 

South 

Kalutara 

Sub-Total South 

East 

Batticaloa 

Sub-Total East 

Dhahami Pura* 

Athukorala 

Gama** 

Paliyadithona 

Kaluwankerny 

2 (men, women) 

1 (mixed men & 

women 

3 FGDs 



4 FGDs 

North Jaffna Potpathy 2 (men, women) 

Sub-Total North 

1 (youth) 

3 FGDs 

Total 

10 FGDs 

*Also known as Kontheru Parangiya Watta (KPW) 

**Also known as Monk’s Land 

Kalutara is one of four districts in the South. 

This is the only district to trial the community 

complaints/feedback mechanism for a significant 

period of time. This district was selected in the 

South to assess the impact of this mechanism 

(although it was not specifically probed). 

Batticaloa was selected from the three eastern 

districts because it is the only eastern district 

where there are resettlement sites as of Sept 07. 

Construction in Trincomalee and Ampara were 

on beneficiary’s own land. 

Jaffna was selected from the two northern 

districts because the Mullaitivu program was 

closed early in 2007. Data collection would also 

not have been possible in LTTE-controlled areas. 

Within each site selected for data collection, effort was made to restrict the number of participants to 

fifteen. To select participants, Community Mobilizers were asked to divide the total number of houses 

on the site by 15 (total number of participants) and then invite every fifteenth household. 

3.1.4 Data consolidation 

Note takers recorded responses and significant issues or themes raised directly into the script where 

space was provided for responses. Responses were then analyzed using analysis worksheets and 

reporting forms. The entire FGD facilitation team for the district participated in the analysis of data 

from that district, increasing the accuracy of the analysis. Secondary analysis was conducted in Colombo 

by three of the facilitators and the DM&E Manager. 4 

4 

The Kalutara facilitator and two Batticaloa facilitators participated in this. The Jaffna facilitator could not return to Colombo to participate.



Page 12/26 

3.2 Survey Findings 

3.2.1 Application of skills and knowledge acquired through (HAT) training 

There was evidence in all districts that the skills acquired through trainings are being used by 

community members. 

A range of advocacy initiatives have been undertaken by communities where training was provided, 

including 5 : 

- Coordinating with government to solve garbage problem 

- Receiving identification cards that were lost during 

tsunami 

- Approaching local government (GS) on land rights issues 

- Petitioning government for bus service 

Youth in Jaffna indicated that trainings helped them manage 

the shelter site. 

Leadership training was used to facilitate the operation of a 

women’s society in Batticaloa. 

Community members participate in 

advocacy training. 

Training participants were able to share Local Capacities for Peace (LCP) concepts with other 

community members and training was noted as a good way to maintain good relations with 

neighbors. 

Participant Quotes: 

“I am now in a women’s society. I learned how to discuss things with members of the society, take 

decisions and how to lead members.” Woman – Batticaloa 

“After the training, we had more confidence to coordinate with the Pradeshiya Saba. The garbage 

problem was there always but it was only after we went to the training that we wrote a letter.” Man - 

Kalutara 

“After the training we were able to better understand our neighbors and how to deal with them. We 

maintain a good relationship.” Woman – Kalutara 

“We will be able to study the tension in our shelter site using the LCP tool.” Youth - Jaffna 

HAT trainings were recognized as well-organized and executed. 

Training venue was an important consideration for participants in the North and East due to access 

restrictions, security and other considerations. HAT staff considered these factors and sought to 

enable communities to participate through appropriate venue selection. 

In Batticaloa, residential trainings were preferred as participants indicated they could concentrate 

better. While not raised by participants, residential training was purposely planned by the 

Stakeholder Representative there because of the insecure environment within which participants 

5 

Advocacy training was not conducted in Jaffna due to travel restrictions as a result of the conflict.



Page 13/26 

were living. 6 She felt it was important to remove them from a location where killings and 

kidnappings occurred on a daily basis to a location where they could relax and focus on learning. 

In all districts, trainings were recognized as well organized and facilitated. 


“The training is dependent on the resource person…I am satisfied with each training given by World 

Vision.” Woman – Batticaloa 

“The venue was selected after discussing it with us so as to suit our convenience and safety.” Youth - 

Jaffna 

“We were not able to participate in some trainings arranged by other NGOs because of the difficulties 

in access.” Youth - Jaffna 

Other trainings aimed at livelihoods especially but also other topics such as health, whether 

conducted by World Vision or other organizations, were often easier to recall than HAT 

trainings. 

When asked about World Vision trainings, participants in all districts usually first recalled trainings 

around livelihoods and secondly other topics such as health. 

Facilitators often had to prompt participants, asking specifically about individual trainings, to receive 

feedback on HAT trainings. 

Different levels of understanding within the community made application of some trainings, 

especially LCP, more difficult. 

HAT trainings were not provided to all members of a given community. 

In Kalutara and Jaffna, participants indicated that women attended trainings more than men. 

In Kalutara, the application of LCP training to the broader community was difficult because those 

that did not attend the training did not understand the new skills/knowledge that were being applied. 


“When I tried to apply the training, it caused more conflict. If everyone on the site gets the training, it 

would be more useful.” Man - Kalutara 

6 

The Stakeholder Representative was the HAT field representative in each district and served as the community’s focal point with World 

Vision. S/he was responsible for coordinating World Vision activities with beneficiaries and often with local government and other I/NGOs.



Page 14/26 

3.2.2 Forms of information sharing and consultation 

Communities, including vulnerable groups, felt they were adequately consulted by World Vision. 

Community notice board in Kalutara 

contains key information about World 

Vision activity on the site. 

Forms of Information Sharing and Consultation 

Picture cards 

Calendar 

Information sheets 

Video 

Community meetings/Focus Group Discussions 

Individual meetings 

Other 

Communities across all districts felt they were able 

to provide feedback to World Vision whenever they 

wanted. 

Stakeholder Representatives and Community 

Mobilizers were universally cited by communities as those with which they primarily coordinated. 

In Jaffna, construction staff and Child Protection staff were also identified as World Vision staff that 

were keen to hear the community’s thoughts. 

Strong appreciation and affection was expressed for Stakeholder Representatives. When 

communities spoke of World Vision, they often evoked individual staff, especially Stakeholder 

Representatives and Community Mobilizers. One group of women in Kalutara asked that the 

Stakeholder Representative come to visit them, at least annually, even after the program closes. 

They said they would invite him to their Christmas celebrations. 

Communities could not easily identify the vulnerable groups in their communities. Only with 

difficulty and prompting from facilitators were some vulnerabilities identified, such as elderly female 

headed households or families with people with disabilities. Once vulnerabilities were outlined, 

there was generally agreement that vulnerable groups were also adequately consulted. 

Women were viewed as being consulted more than men but this was not viewed negatively. Men 

often had to go out to sea for fishing or work as day laborers, making it more difficult for them to 

participate. One man whose wife had died in the tsunami joked that even his wife was consulted. 

In Batticaloa, one group of women indicated they were reluctant to raise complaints. 


“The fireplace of the kitchen was changed for my convenience. I‘m sick and can’t stand to cook. World 

Vision changed the plan after consulting me.” Woman - Jaffna 

“Before the construction of houses, the house details were explained to us and the plans and sketches 

were shown to us. We were able to understand the details.” Woman - Jaffna 

“In World Vision we discuss all problems and other things with Aunty [Stakeholder Representative]. 

She is our leader. We all are coming under her responsibility.” Man – Batticaloa



Page 15/26 

“Viraj [Stakeholder Representative] was with us since the beginning when we were in the temporary 

shelters.” Woman – Kalutara 

“There was no need to put complaints in the box because Viraj and Geethika [Community Mobilizer] 

were always here. Most of the time, they were here so we did not need to talk to anyone else.” 

Woman – Kalutara. 

“I see Viraj even in my dreams.” Woman – Kalutara 

“Mostly the women were consulted by World Vision while we are out fishing. We are not complaining 

– this worked for our community.” Man – Batticaloa 

“If we complain then we are uncertain if we will get solutions and we are afraid to complain because of 

other community members.” Woman – Batticaloa 

Community meetings were the preferred mode of sharing and receiving information. 

Community meetings were preferred to all other forms of information sharing and consultation. 

Picture cards were the second preferred form of information sharing. Cards were often used 

during community meetings as a visual aid to share information more clearly. 

Table 4: Forms of Information Sharing – Ranking of Preferences 

Rank Tools Number of 

Times Ranked 1 

1 Community meetings/Focus 

Group Discussions 

Number of 


Number of 


Overall 

Score* 

53 29 21 238 

2 Picture cards 31 20 23 156 

3 Individual meetings 14 28 16 114 

4 Information sheets 13 21 32 113 

5 Video** 16 16 24 104 

6 Calendar** 14 28 16 36 

7 Other 3 4 2 19 

* Rank 1 = 3 points, Rank 2 = 2 points, and Rank 3 = 1 point. 

**Not used as a vehicle for information sharing in Jaffna due to access restrictions. 


“Common and individual construction-related issues are discussed at these meetings. This is useful. All 

of us became aware of each other’s concerns and grievances also.” Woman - Jaffna 

“Community meetings are a convenient way of sharing information but everyone needs to participate.” 

Man – Kalutara 

“If we have any problem, we discussed it in a group and the group’s representatives inform and discuss 

them with WV staff.” Woman – Batticaloa



Page 16/26 

3.2.3 Viability and effectiveness of community organisations 

Community Action Groups (or CBOs) have been formed at all sites with varying degrees of 

success to date. Some CAGs were found to be proactive and enjoyed community support, others 

were taking initial steps at leadership with mixed support while one CAG had been disbanded. 

Participants knew the names of their CAG office bearers. 

The majority of participants took part in the selection of 

office bearers, especially in Batticaloa where a formal 

community election process was held. 

At all sites, CAGs were undertaking varying degrees of 

leadership within the community. Even where the CAG 

had been disbanded, one of the office bearers had 

undertaken advocacy for bus service on behalf of the 

community. 

At one site in Kalutara, the CAG President was clearly 

recognized by all participants as the community’s leader 

and the CAG as the vehicle for resolving site issues. He 

was contacted to resolve site issues and has taken a 

proactive role in addressing them through advocacy and 

other efforts. 

Community members in Batticaloa 

elect new leaders of their 

Community Action Group. 

In Batticaloa, CAGs primarily resolve domestic disputes within the community rather than managing 

site issues. While not precisely their intent, this does demonstrate leadership capacity within the 

CAGs which can be channeled to tackling more community-based issues. At one site, the CAG 

President holds regular meetings and maintains links with the Kovil temple to organize shramadana. 7 

The Youth Association in Jaffna has been taking a leadership role in the community, although a new 

group has been formed recently for specific site maintenance issues. 


“We are in touch with the President of the CBO and he attends to our complaints.” Woman – Jaffna 

“The President has played the main role in dealing with the bus issue in the village.” Mixed – Kalutara 

“We respect the Executive Committee even though most of the committee members are youths”. 

Woman - Jaffna 

“Through the CBO, we have consulted World Vision and asked for our common needs. We have 

submitted 7 needs and 6 have been completed by World Vision.” Man – Kalutara 

“If people are shouting at our neighbour’s house, we inform the CAG and they discuss things with our 

neighbours and solve the problem.” Woman – Batticaloa 

“If we have a problem, the CAG conducts meetings and stops people from throwing stones and stealing 

solar panels.” Woman – Batticaloa 

7 Shramadana is a traditional Sri Lankan form of voluntary community or public works. Within LTRT, shramadana was often used for debris 

clearing, digging drainage for housing sites, etc.



Page 17/26 

Where communities are less familiar with each other, community organizations are struggling 

more to define and undertake their role. 

In Kalutara, the CBO established at one site had ceased functioning. The reason expressed by 

participants was lack of interest/initiative by community members and isolation from other 

neighbors as the site has limited access. There are only eleven families on this site. However, by the 

end of the FGD, participants said they would reach out to the neighboring community in order to 

re-start a CAG that covers a greater area. 

In Batticaloa, some participants indicated that the CBO was not proactive in managing site issues. 

Batticaloa was the last district where families moved into newly constructed houses. 

Men in one community in Batticaloa felt that the CBO did not represent their interests. 

In one site in Kalutara and in Jaffna where communities have lived together for almost one year or 

more (either in their new houses or temporary shelters on the site), there is a greater willingness to 

work together through the CBO to resolve site issues. 


“When we have electricity problems, the President should meet us to analyse the problem and inform 

the particular authorities…If our President came and asked us to discuss issues with the relevant 

authorities, I am ready to go.” Man – Batticaloa 

“We are all members of this committee and we need to assist this CBO if any help is needed.” Man - 

Jaffna 

World Vision played a vital role in representing community interests to government and other 

stakeholders, building trust especially between communities and Stakeholder Representatives. 

This confidence must shift to CAGs if they are to take over long-term management of sites. 

Communities expressed concern and sadness that World Vision would soon be departing. 

In one site in Kalutara (where there is strong CAG leadership), participants understood that it was 

now their responsibility to manage their own issues. 

In Batticaloa, where CAGs are newer and need further strengthening, communities continue to rely 

heavily on World Vision to solve their problems. Participants demonstrated greater confidence in 

World Vision than in the CAG. This may also be compounded by feelings of helplessness in the face 

of the conflict and increased lawlessness in the East. 


“If we have any problem, we directly go to Josephine [Stakeholder Representative]. We do not depend 

on the CAG.” Man – Batticaloa 

“If Josephine can’t do it, we can’t do it.” Man - Batticaloa



Page 18/26 

Additional support was requested to increase the likelihood of the long-term viability of 

Community Action Groups. 

Additional support requested by CAGs 

Training for office bearers 

Training for other community members to enhance 

their ability to participate in CAG activities 

Additional community support 

Financial support and assets 

All groups expressed the need for continued 

support in order to build capacity of CAGs and 

communities at large to manage their own issues 

long-term. This ranged from training to financial 

support. 

In Jaffna, where a CBO for site management is 

newly formed, there was consensus that physical 

and financial support and advising were needed. 

Where there was confidence in the CAG 

President in Kalutara, participants requested training for other office bearers to raise their capacity 

to contribute to the successful management of the CAG. 

In one site in Kalutra, the CAG President indicated that the capacity of community members needs 

to be improved in order to increase their participation. 


“Existing office bearers are capable...Others need training in managing the CBO and holding 

responsibilities.” Man – Kalutara 

“They need help financially… now they are spending from their own pocket.” Woman – Batticaloa 

3.2.4 Improved Relations in the community 

Relations amongst community members had improved in all cases from the time that families 

first moved into their new homes. 8 Peacebuilding activities contributed to this by bringing 

people together and providing them with the opportunity to get to know each other and 

establish relationships. 

In all locations except Jaffna, families moving into new 

houses did not know any or knew only some of their new 

neighbors. In Jaffna, most residents of the housing site 

are related or have been living in the village for a long 

time. Relations were, therefore, already good. 

Communities most often cited events, such as festivals, 

sports activities or public works as key milestones in the 

development of community relations. 

The sharing of food with neighbors was viewed as a key 

indicator of good relations. 

In Jaffna, several tree planting events were conducted 

jointly with the neighboring village. Previously, people 

from the two villages had minimal contact. These events 

Peacebuilding events provide an 

opportunity for communities to get to 

know each other and have fun 

together. 

8 

In Jaffna, houses were still being completed at the time of these focus group discussions. Many families had not yet moved into their new 

houses, although were living in temporary accommodation on the site.



Page 19/26 

helped initiate good relations. 

Shared construction work contributed to improving relations. 

relationships between the few villagers whose relationship was poor. 

In Jaffna, this helped build 


“We are now in the tsunami houses for the last 15 months and we have not had any significant 

problems. Our relationship has not changed until now.” Woman - Jaffna 

“When last week we had the tsunami scare, we went to the seaside and worked together to get fishing 

boats inside.” Man – Batticaloa 

“If one robber is coming to one house, all the people help to catch him.” Man - Batticaloa 

“Before this tree planting had taken place, we did not have any contacts with Kudattanai people. Now 

we have a good friendship with them.” Youth – Jaffna 

“We came together for shramadana when WV conducted the sports meet and the opening ceremony of 

the houses.” Man - Batticaloa 

“Sometimes when we are cooking, we are short of coconut so we borrow even half a coconut from our 

neighbor.” Woman – Kalutara 

“Before if we cook rice and cannot afford to cook curry, our children are hungry. But, now if they are 

hungry, our neighbour’s family provides us with curry.” Woman – Batticaloa 

The level of positive impact the CAG was perceived to have on improving relations ran parallel 

to people’s perception of the capacity of the CAG generally. In Kalutara, participants felt 

shared activities and opportunities to meet and work together through the CAG had a very 

positive impact while in Batticaloa, the CAG was not seen to contribute to improved relations. 

Participants in Kalutara credited the CAG with contributing to building positive relations amongst 

community members by taking a proactive role in organizing community events, such as the New 

Year’s festival and Buddhist festival. Likewise, regular meetings brought people together. 

Positive examples of the role played by the youth association in Jaffna were the tree planting event 

with the neighboring village. It was recognized that the CAG must play a major role in the future to 

resolve problems - which were anticipated. 

The CAG was not identified as playing a positive role in improved relationships in Batticaloa. 

Rather, participants believed World Vision-organized events and infrastructure were the reason. 


“The Bukthigee [Buddhist hymn] was song by Catholic children. [at a Buddhist festival organized by 

CAG]” Woman – Kalutara 

“We are on one corner of the site and others are on the other corner of the site. The community hall 

and community meetings helped us to get to know people from different blocks. Before we only knew 

people next to us.” Woman – Kalutara



Page 20/26 

Community infrastructure played an important role for many by providing the space to meet. 

The construction of community halls or Child Friendly Spaces (CFS) at most housing sites was 

viewed as a positive contribution to improving relations. Construction of a community hall was still 

being completed in Jaffna by another agency. A community hall was not constructed in one site in 

Kalutara with only eleven families due to limited space and potential users. 

In Batticaloa, in addition to halls and CFS’, participants cited roads, health clinics, houses and 

playgrounds as community infrastructure that helped bring people together. 


“Before the community hall, we had our meetings under a tree. When the sun was out, we had to hide 

from the sun and keep moving our chairs so we couldn’t think about what was being said. Even in the 

rain, we met outside.” Woman – Kalutara 

“Mostly we get together in the CFS building.” Woman – Batticaloa 

“WV conducted a sports meet. At that time we got together. If we had a better playground, our 

neighbor villages and our youth and children could play together.” Man - Batticaloa 

Proximity of living space was raised in Jaffna and Batticaloa as having both positive and negative 

consequences on community relations. Interestingly, where the community was living in 

attached townhouses in Kalutara, space was not mentioned except in the context of the impact 

of the community hall. 

Where relations among community members are already good, as in Jaffna, there was still concern 

that reduced living space and closer living quarters could cause some conflict between neighbors. 

On the other hand, improved relations in Batticaloa, were directly attributed to living closer 

together. 

Increased noise levels, were however, viewed as a negative consequence of living closer together in 

Batticaloa. 


“At night it is like a wedding house, when some people use alcohol and they disturb other people… 

because those houses are very close.” Man – Batticaloa

4. Staff Focus Group Discussion and Key Informant Interviews 

4.1 Methodology 

4.1.1.Survey tool 

The qualitative survey utilized a semi-structured focus group discussion (FGD) guide 9 , based on four 

themes, complementing the community focus group discussions: 1) Application of skills and knowledge 

acquired through training; 2) Forms of information sharing and consultation; 3) Improved relations in the 

community; and 4) Organizational staff support. 

4.1.2 Survey description 

A team conducted one focus group discussion and two key informant interviews with HAT field staff 

who had gathered at one location. The facilitation team consisted of the LTRT DM&E Manager as the 

facilitator and the DM&E Officer as the recorder/note taker. 

Data collection and analysis took place on 17 September 2007. 

4.1.3 Data collection 

The target group selected to participate in data collection consisted exclusively of HAT field staff in 

order to maintain as close a focus on direct community impact as possible. Not all HAT staff were 

invited or able to attend the FGD. However, every effort was made to include staff who had the full 

range of field activities representative of HAT, worked for HAT during key stages of the program and 

represented all geographic zones where the program operated. 

A separate FGD was not held with HAT Colombo staff nor, generally, were HAT Colombo staff invited 

to participate in this FGD. While a separate discussion with Colombo staff would have provided an 

additional perspective to this report, time did not permit. Additionally, it was felt that allowing 

Colombo staff (including their technical manager) to participate in the discussion could have negatively 

influenced the openness with which field staff felt they could express themselves. A couple HAT 

Colombo staff did participate in the focus group discussion/key informant interviews but they had 

previously held field-based positions with HAT. Their participation was primarily to contribute to 

questions around field implementation and they did not have a direct supervisory relationship with other 

participants. 

The FGD included a total of 9 participants. Two staff participated in the key informant interviews. 

4.1.4 Data consolidation 

The note taker recorded responses and significant issues or themes raised. Responses were then 

analyzed using analysis worksheets and reporting forms. 

9 

See Appendix Three for a copy of the discussion guide.



Page 22/26 

4.2 Survey Findings 

4.2.1 Application of skills and knowledge acquired through training 

Community accountability training, Local Capacities for Peace TOT and Advocacy training were 

viewed as the three most beneficial trainings HAT field staff received to help them work with 

communities. 

Staff underwent a number of trainings. In addition to accountability, LCP TOT and Advocacy 

trainings, these included CBO development, workplan training, LEAP, MSTC, Transition/PACT and 

Project Management. 

Training was applied in a number of areas that included community/beneficiary selection, FY 07 

planning and program transition processes. Workplan training was viewed as useful in budgeting and 

setting targets and timelines. 

HAT staff were able to train other WV staff, other I/NGO staff and Community Based Organization 

representatives in LCP. 

HAT Lessons Learned process also presented an opportunity for reflection and teamwork. 

Asking the government departments to include tenants and extended families in the shelter 

beneficiary list was cited as an example where training knowledge was applied. 

Assessment of staff knowledge before and after training to ascertain a change in knowledge levels is 

good practice. 

HAT training methods were innovative and interactive which was helpful in encouraging 

participation and learning. 

Training methods assisted staff to communicate with communities and children easily. Most of the 

facilitators were also viewed as competent. 

Most of the trainings used diverse methodologies and group work, including good use of case 

studies in LCP trainings. World Vision training manuals are also well developed and effective in staff 

training. 


“I was a nun before I joined WV and got rigid training on dealing with children.” 

“I used 3D animations for community consultation training but there was no sound. It is good if we can 

have sound as well.” 

“We asked the government to consider tenants and extended families in the shelter beneficiary lists.”



Page 23/26 

4.2.2 Forms of information sharing and consultation 

Similar to the views presented by communities, HAT field staff agreed that community meetings 

were the most effective way of community consultation and information sharing. 

Community meetings/focus group discussions were ranked as the most effective way of community 

consultation and information sharing. Focus group discussions and picture cards were ranked as the 

second and third most effective community consultation forms respectively. 

The community consultations were viewed as flexible and inclusive of every community member. 

HAT field staff always ensured that there was gender balance even though some felt that women 

were more likely to have an interest in or attend/participate in community meetings. People with 

disabilities were also given priority during community engagement activities. 

Separating participants by gender/age was one of the ways to ensure that vulnerable groups were 

consulted. Vulnerable groups included female-headed households and disabled people. 

During HAT consultations, children’s input was given equal measure. 

Communities surrounding beneficiary communities were consulted to minimize conflict between 

beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. 

The FY07 planning process which used a community ranking system to prioritize activities was very 

useful and resulted in a shift in staff mindset. 

There is concern that community leadership will “pack up” once LTRT leaves the communities. 

In general, there were a lot of consultation with communities by all NGOs but there was little 

follow-up on commitments. NGOs need to be more responsive/transparent with communities and 

manage people’s expectations. 


“There were lots of meetings with other NGOs as well. Therefore, communities were fed up with 

meetings.” 

“We consulted surrounding communities as well. It is necessary to consult them to avoid conflicts.” 

4.2.3 Improved Relations in Community 

HAT activities contributed to improving relations between community members. 

Many positive changes in community relations were mentioned as a result of HAT activities. This 

included: promoting good sanitation practices in fishing communities; improving relations between 

fishermen and other community members; increasing knowledge about community member’s rights; 

advising the government to make adjustments in housing beneficiary lists to avoid possible conflicts 

due to caste problems, etc. 


“Some communities do not like fishing communities. Therefore we implemented programs that brought 

fishermen and their families into the village structure.” 

“In Kalutara, I advised the government to make some adjustments in the housing beneficiary list to avoid 

possible conflicts due to caste problems.”



Page 24/26 

“Gradually attendance at community consultation meetings increased. We managed to change their 

attitude” 

4.2.4 Organisational Staff Support 

Staff found the HAT reporting structure supportive of their activities. However, they were 

sometimes overwhelmed by multiple requests from different HAT Colombo staff. 

Field staff felt the most notable support received was encouragement and quick response by the 

HAT Team Leader and other Technical Advisors in providing advice or resolving issues. 

However, at times, Colombo staff had numerous demands usually through e-mails and this tended 

to overwhelm field staff. 

Other WV staff should be given further orientation in issues of humanitarian accountability. The 

lack of understanding of HAT at times led to HAT staff being led in a way that did not match its area 

of competence/expertise. This sometimes resulted in struggles between HAT staff and field 

managers. 

Though HAT was viewed as “annoying” by some, it brought a degree of neutrality in issues of 

beneficiary verification and selection. 

HAT played a crucial M&E role and most HAT field staff developed intimate relationships with 

beneficiaries. It could be viewed as the “face of the organization”. Organizational awareness of the 

importance of beneficiary feedback in LTRT can be directly attributed to HAT activities. 

To some extent, HAT managed shortcomings at the field level by handling beneficiary complaints. 

Staff experience and relationships with operations teams and management had a bearing on HAT’s 

effectiveness across districts. 

While there was coordination between WV and other agencies, this was not up to expected levels. 

Many WV field staff were reluctant to share information with other agencies. 

Staff performance was measured against the project log frame. 

Areas where HAT field staff feel they need further training or improvement include conflict 

resolution and project proposal writing. 


“Reporting to Colombo was very good, it removed communication barriers and promoted quick 

problem solving.” 

“Different persons handled different things in Colombo so we get a lot of e-mails. There should be a 

coordinator at Colombo level.”



Page 25/26 

5. Conclusion 

Survey findings reveal that HAT activities achieved the outcomes and goal laid out in the HAT 

logframe. Overall, HAT activities contributed to increased community capacity and participation, 

peace and increased community activism. There are variations across districts but evidence of 

continuous improvement exists. 

Communities that have lived together the longest are at more advanced stages of community 

organization. In the East, where communities are more fractured and where they have lived 

together for a shorter amount of time, organizational structures are still nascent but with a 

foundation for development. Resettlement of large numbers of people to new locations, often 

seemingly at random, posed a significant challenge to the long-term development and peaceful coexistence 

of these sites. No community structures generally existed on these sites. The gradual 

development of greater community cohesion over time has largely paralleled the increased capacity of 

newly formed Community Action Groups to represent their constituents. 

All communities demonstrated peaceful co-existence between neighbors, even in the face of 

external violence. In all cases, relations among community members improved or stayed the same 

where they were already strong. The organization of joint activities, festivals, shramadana and meetings 

most significantly contributed to this trend. 

Communities appreciated the role of Stakeholder Representatives, Community Mobilizers and 

other LTRT staff that consulted with them regularly on program progress. Even where there were 

challenges and delays in implementing activities, communities were able to identify World Vision staff 

that supported them and listened to them. All communities that participated in FGDs seemed to have a 

generally positive opinion of the organization. 

HAT staff reinforce the opinions of communities. In the three areas probed with staff that were 

similar to those probed with communities, staff agree with comments made by community members. 

Operations and other non-HAT staff should be given further orientation in issues of 

humanitarian accountability. The lack of understanding of HAT, at times, led to misunderstandings 

between HAT and non-HAT staff. Operations staff should especially be well trained on accountability 

and its role in program implementation.



Page 26/26 

Appendix 1: Quantitative Data 

Concept Area Question Positive 

Responses 

MEN 

Positive 

Responses 

WOMEN 

Positive 

Responses 

MIXED 

GROUP 

Positive 

Responses 

YOUTH 

TOTAL 

Positive 

Responses 

ALL 

TOTAL % 

Positive 

Responses 

ALL 

# of participants 52 61 9 12 134 100% 

1. Application of training 

# that received any previous WV 

training 

18 29 9 7 63 47% 

# that received LCP training 4 15 9 6 34 25% 

# that received LEADERSHIP 

training 

# that received ADVOCACY 

training 

3 11 9 7 30 22% 

4 31 8 0 43 32% 

2. Forms of information 

sharing and consultation 

# that felt they could provide 

feedback to WV staff when they 

wanted 

# that felt vulnerable groups were 

consulted 

41 41 8 3 93 69% 

31 33 9 5 78 58% 

# that felt women were consulted 48 55 9 7 119 89% 

3. Viability/ effectiveness 

of CBOs 

4. Improved relations in 

community 

# that participated in selection of 

CBO office bearers 

# that knew some of their 

neighbors when moving into new 

house 

43 44 N/A 2 89 66% 

47 50 0 12 109 81%

Humanitarian Accountability Team Lessons ... - HAP International

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?