1 Security Management in Humanitarian Agencies Rising attacks on humanitarian aid workers and increased targeting of aid agencies have led many humanitarian agencies to rethink and reorganize management systems within and between their respective organisations. The following report aims to study the overall, general trends and practices in management across humanitarian agencies. It is based on data gathered through an online survey disseminated to NGO personnel on the EISF (European Inter agency Security Forum) and Interaction s SAG (Security Advisory Group) mailing lists. Provided here is an initial snapshot of the results of the survey. Objective To explore the various approaches to management in humanitarian aid agencies and to shed some light on the recent trends in management of by NGOs involved in humanitarian aid work at the headquarters and field level. Methodology The findings presented here are taken from a survey conducted between March 25th and May 25th 2009 online through the web based survey application Survey Monkey. During this time 64 NGO personnel responded to two online questionnaires designed for headquarters based and field based staff separately. Sample Group: The links to the questionnaires were forwarded to NGO personnel through the EISF (European Inter agency Security Forum) and Interaction s SAG (Security Advisory Group) mailing lists. Overall 64 responses were received out of which 40 respondents (62.5%) were headquarter based staff and 24 (37.5%) were field based staff. 29 June 2009 About the Study The study was carried out Shayan Mujawar, a Security Analyst Intern at the International Medical Corps (IMC), who is pursuing a Masters degree in Conflict Analysis and Peace Building from the Institute of Political Sciences, Lille, France. The information obtained through the surveys will be used for a research paper that is part of her coursework. The study was supported by the Global Security Department of the International Medical Corps. Survey Design: Separate surveys were designed for headquarters and field based staff. The respondents were asked questions related to the different posts in their organisation, budget, training received, how incidents are reported and a general inquiry into the lines of responsibility and communication within their organisations. The questionnaire for headquarters based staff consisted of 13 multiple choice questions and 5 open ended questions. The questionnaire administered to field based staff consisted of 9 multiple choice questions and 3 open ended
2 questions. The respondents were given the option to skip questions. The participants responded to the questionnaires anonymously. Limitations of the survey: It is important to note that the findings here are representative of certain niches of the educated, English speaking humanitarian aid worker community. Since the survey allowed respondents to skip questions some incomplete responses were received, but as data was analyzed separately for each area under study, incomplete responses were also included in the analysis. In spite of the flaws in the methodology, the survey results can be considered a fairly reliable overview of the recent developments and different approaches in safety and management in humanitarian organizations. The survey focussed on 6 key areas: 1) Management Structures in the Organisation Department responsible for management Security posts in the organisation at the Headquarters and Field level 2) Budget and Expenditure Annual revenue of organisations Security Budget Main areas of related expenditure at the Headquarters and Field level Areas requiring further investment 3) Security Knowledge Base and Documentation Incident tracking and dissemination of policies and guidelines Key Areas under study: 1. Management Structures 2. Budget 3. Security Training 4. Security Knowledge Base and Documentation 5. Lines of Communication 6. Inter Agency Collaboration 4) Security Training Security/Hostile environment training provided to staff prior to field deployment In house/external courses training for national staff 5) Lines of Communication Incident reporting Confidence in headquarters Field visits by senior personnel 6) Scope for Inter Agency Collaboration Main areas where collaboration is possible
3 Survey Results and Analysis Study Sample Group Gender distribution of participants: A majority of the respondents are male 52 (81.25%). The number of female respondents is 12 (18.75%). Location of participants: Out of 64 respondents 40 (62.5%) were headquarters based staff and 24 (37.4%) were field based staff. The headquarter staff were based in the USA and different European countries whereas the field level staff were posted mainly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. As mentioned earlier the links to the questionnaires were disseminated through the EISF (European Interagency Security Forum) and Interaction SAG (Security Advisory Group) mailing lists to NGO personnel. Hence, the findings here are representative of a certain cross section of staff from humanitarian organisations. Gender distribution of participants: Male: 52 (81.25%) Female: 12 (18.75%) Fig. 1: Location of all respondents Fig.2: Location of field staff Headquartersbased staff, 62.50% Field based staff, 37.40% Other, 1 Europe, 1 Latin America, 4 1) Management Structures in the Organisation Security Management structures vary across the spectrum of aid agencies. Headquarter based staff were asked where expertise is presently located within their organizations and where according to them expertise should be ideally situated. Around one third (35%) of the respondents replied that their organizations have a specialized department handling and risk mitigation and the rest replied that expertise was located in other departments and that it was folded in with other functions such as the Operations Department (24%), Executive Office/Administration (17.24%) and the International Group (10.34%) among others. Asia, 11 Africa, 7 Overall 64 responses were received out of which 40 respondents (62.5%) were headquarterbased staff and 24 (37.5%) were fieldbased staff.
4 However a majority of them (70%) felt that a specialized department was best suited to managing effectively. The respondents who replied that other departments besides the department would be most appropriate in tending to management were inclined to choose the department that was already presently handling within their respective organisations. Fig. 3: Department responsible for management Skipped question: 10 Answered question: 29 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 34.50% 24.14% 17.24% 10.34% 13.79% 35% of the participants organisations have a department or unit 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Security/Safety Department Operations Executive Office/Administration International Group/Division Other Fig. 4: Department ideally suited to manage Skipped question: 11 Answered question: 28 100.00% 90.00% 67.90% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Security Unit 39.30% Operations Department Emergency or Disaster Response Department 7.10% 7.10% General Management 10.71% Other Almost 70% of the participants feel that a specialized department would be ideally suited to manage.
5 Fig 5: Security Posts Headquarter based staff were asked about the various posts in their organisations to see how many organizations have permanent full time and part time posts at the Headquarter and field level. Around half of the organizations who participated in the survey have full time Headquarter level and Field level advisors and officers. One third of the organizations also have part time field level consultants. Security Posts in the Organization 50% of the organizations surveyed have full time Headquarter and Field based advisors/officers 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 46.70% 10% 53.30% 33.30% 16.70% Around 30% also have parttime field based consultants 10.00% 0.00% HQ level fulltime advisor/officer HQ level parttime time Field level full consultant advisor/officer Field level part time consultant No staff that they are aware of Furthermore taking a look at the job titles of the respondents, it can be seen that 66.67% of the HQ based respondents have the term or safety in their official job titles. 72.72% of the field based respondents have the term or safety in their official job titles. 2) Security Budget Questions related to the annual revenue and budget of the organization were asked to headquarter based staff only. Again the amount apportioned for management varied considerably across the NGOs who participated in the survey. The annual revenue of the organisations ranges from 450,000 USD to 1billion USD and the budget allocated at the headquarters ranges from 15,000 USD to 2 million USD. Around 50% of the organisations annual revenue lies between 10 million USD and 1 billion USD and around 30% (6/21) of the organizations budget ranges from 0.1 to 1.0% of the annual revenue.
6 Fig. 6: Annual Revenue of Organization Skipped question: 10 Answered question: 29 Don't know over I billion 100million 1 billion $ 1 1 12 The annual revenue of the organisations ranges from 450,000 USD to 1billion USD 11 100million $ 10 0 10 million $ 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Security Budget Skipped question: 18 Answered question: 21 Don't know Over 2% 1 2% 0.10 1.0% 0.05 0.10% 0 0.05% 2 2 3 4 4 6 The budget at the headquarters ranges from 15,000 USD to 2 million USD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fig.: Security Expenditure: Skipped question: 14 Answered question: 25 Headquarter level staff were asked what the major areas were towards which expenditure was allocated at the Headquarter level. The five major areas that emerged were: Security training, salaries of personnel, and communication equipment, research, consultancies and documentation and site protection. Field level staff were also asked about the major areas of expenditure and their responses were almost identical to those provided by the headquarter level staff except that the proportion allocated for site protection was slightly higher. 5 Major Areas of expenditure 1. Security Training 2. Salaries 3.Communicati on Equipment 4. Research, Consultancies & Documentation 5. Site Protection
7 100% 90% 80% 76% 80% 70% 60% 50% 36% 40% 28% 24% 30% 20% 16% 20% 4% 10% 0% Communication Equipment Security Equipment Security Training Salaries of staff Security related research and documentation Site Protection Insurance Armoured vehicles Private armed/unarmed protection 12% 3) Security Knowledge Base and Documentation Different questions related to the dissemination and availability of related documentation were asked to the headquarters and field based staff members. Security Policy and Guidelines Headquarters: Skipped question: 12 Answered question: 28 The Headquarters staff were asked whether their organizations have a written policy statement. They were also asked whether national staff were involved in the formulation of plans and guidelines and whether these SOPs were reviewed by the Headquarters. Out of those that replied (28) 100% of them said that their organizations have a written policy statement. Furthermore, the policy statement had been drafted by senior persons in their organisations. In 85% of the organizations national staff are involved in the formulation of guidelines and plans and these plans are reviewed by the headquarters. Most organizations have a written policy statement. All the respondents replied that national staff are involved in the redaction of the SOPs.
8 Field: Skipped question: 2 Answered question:22 The field level staff were asked whether manuals and guidelines were present in their respective field offices and if they were available in local languages for the national staff. All the respondents replied that copies of various documents were present in all their respective field sites but only half of them affirmed that SOPs were available in local languages. Two of the respondents replied that only some instances of the SOPs were translated. Some of the local languages in which SOPs were available are as follows: Russian, Bahasa Indonesia, Spanish, French, Arabic. Incident Reporting Headquarter based staff were asked whether their organizations have a formal incident reporting system in place and what parameters were taken into consideration in order to define a incident. Skipped question: 13 Answered question: 26 All field sites of organizations participating in the survey have guidelines, manuals and evacuation plans 50% of field sites have SOPs available in local languages In the process of setting up a formal incident reporting system No formal system Formal Incident Reporting System in place 3.80% 11.50% 84.60% Around 85% of the headquarter based participants replied that their organizations have a formal incident reporting system in place 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% Some of the important parameters taken into account to define an incident according to the respondents: Amount of Financial loss: 17 Level of Violence: 19 Degree of Damage Caused: 19 Impact/Potential Impact on operations, access to assisted populations: 5
9 4) Security Training Different questions regarding training were asked to staff based at the headquarters and the field. Security training was identified as one of the major areas of expenditure by the respondents. Field: Skipped question: 2 Answered question: 22 Field level staff were asked whether they have undergone any or hostile environment training. Almost all field staff (90%) have under gone training. 20 (90.9%) have undergone or hostile environment training 2 (9.1%) have not undergone any training Four of the field respondents have attended RedR training modules. Some of the other training courses attended by the respondents are: HDLC, OFDA sponsored, E&D, Caritas Schweiz and Norway Refugee Council courses in Uganda and Kenya, among others. Some replied that their previous career experience and backgrounds (military background, homicide detective, etc.) allowed them to acquire expertise. Security training policies at Headquarters Skipped question: 12 Answered question: 27 Staff based at the headquarters was asked whether they provide predeployment training to their non staff and where these training modules were developed. Out of the respondents who answered the question 11 (40%) replied that pre deployment training was always provided and 10 (37%) said that it was provided most of the time depending on the field site and context, and 4 (15%) replied that their organisations do not provide any training. Out of those who provided training to their employees, 10 (37%) respondents specified that these courses were developed in house and 4 (14.8%) said that external courses were provided to staff. 90% of field staff have undergone some or hostile environment training. Approximately 40% of the organisations surveyed provide inhouse predeployment courses to their staff. 5) Lines of Communication The lines of communication between the headquarters and the field depend largely on the type of management structures in the organization. Fieldbased participants were asked how incidents were reported in their organisations and who was primarily responsible at the field level to notify the headquarters about the occurrence of such incidents. Out of 24 respondents 38% (9) replied that the Security Focal Point was responsible for reporting incidents to the Headquarters directly while 21% (5) replied that the Security Officer at the site was responsible for conveying this
10 information. In some organisations the Security Focal Point informs the Country Director or Regional Coordinator who in turn reports to the HQ. Furthermore, 29.2% (7) respondents replied that the HQ was notified immediately after an incident has taken place and detailed reports are provided later. Regular updates are provided but this depends largely on the initiative and skills of the officer. The role of the Security Focal Point is becoming increasingly important in most of the organisations. A majority of the respondents in the survey said that the SFP was primarily responsible for conveying related information from the field to the headquarters. Rating of the Headquarters Awareness of Security Incidents Participants were also asked to rate the awareness of their Headquarters of incidents. The field level personnel are relatively more confident about the Headquarters awareness of most incidents when compared to the level of confidence of the headquarter itself. Needs Improvement, 13% Field based staff's rating of Headquarters' awareness of incidents Very Good, 43.5% Headquarter's rating of its own awareness of incidents Don't Know, 3.40% Very Good, 37.90% The field level personnel are relatively more confident about the Headquarters awareness of most incidents when compared to the level of confidence of the headquarter itself. Good, 43.5% Needs Improvement, 34.50% Good, 24.10% Around one third (34.50%) of respondents based in the headquarters compared to one eighth (13%) of field based respondents feel that their headquarters awareness in incidents needs improvement. All three field based staff who responded thus are posted in Africa (Sudan, Somalia and Kenya respectively). The same respondents also felt that the arrangements at their field sites required improvement. Security Arrangements at the Field Sites and Frequency of Field Visits by Senior Security Staff Skipped question: 3 Answered question: 21 The field level staff were asked whether they were satisfied with the arrangements at their respective field sites and the number of
11 visits by senior persons at the field sites during the previous year. Two thirds of the field staff were satisfied with the arrangements at their field sites. Regarding the frequency of field site visits, one fourth of the field sites have not been visited at all during the year 2008. Number of field visits by Senior staff in the last year Don't know, 5.30% More than twice, 10.50% Twice, 21.10% Around one fourth (26.30%) of the field sites have not been visited at all by senior personnel during the course of 2008. Not been visited, 26.30% Once, 36.80% Rating of Security Arrangements at the Field Site Excellent Security Arrangements, 6% 30% of field staff feel that arrangements at their site require improvement Need Improvement, 29.40% Good Security Arrangements, 66.67% 6) Scope for Inter Agency Collaboration NGOs are acting collectively through various mechanisms at the field and headquarter level to support and strengthen and safety of their staff and assets which in turn enables them to effectively distribute aid to their beneficiaries. There are various areas where collaboration among NGOs is possible at the field and the headquarters level. There are several efforts and mechanisms that occur ranging from impromptu or informal exchanges of information, to more formal networks or consortiums established with a variety of goals, structures and capacities. Headquarter
12 based staff were asked to indicate the areas in which inter agency collaboration would benefit management the most. Around 97% of the respondents felt that Information sharing was an important area and around 75 % felt that Joint donor advocacy was also an important area. Skipped question: 11 Answered question: 29 96.30% Scope for Inter agency Collaboration 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 59.30% 74.10% 44.40% 59.30% 59.30% Around 96% of the participants feel that Information Sharing is an area where Inter Agency Collaboration would benefit Security. 0.00% Information Sharing Consultation Joint donor advocacy for increased funding Joint strategies Establishing standards for officer trainig and competencies Establishing minimum standards for national staff training Highlights Around 35% of the respondents said that their organisation currently has a specialized safety and department. Almost 70% of the respondents feel that a specialized department would be ideally suited to manage Security training and salaries of personnel are the two main areas towards which most expenditure is directed Almost all organizations surveyed have a written policy statement and all field sites have guidelines available A majority (85%) of the respondents agencies have a formal incident reporting system in place or are in the process of setting up such a system The field level staff are more confident about the headquarters awareness of incidents than the headquarters itself Information Sharing and Joint Donor Advocacy are seen as the most important Conclusion areas for NGO Security Collaboration \
13 The findings of this survey suggest that the area of NGO management is undergoing a considerable amount of professionalization with the creation of more related posts at the field and headquarters levels. More and more NGO professionals feel that a specialized department or unit or a specialist are required in humanitarian organisations to effectively address related issues. Furthermore, agencies are investing more in areas such as training, formal incident tracking, redaction of documents such as manuals, standard operating procedures and guidelines, and are also exploring various collective mechanisms between agencies to manage effectively. Acknowledgement Thanks are due to all the participants from the European Interagency Security Forum (EISF) and Security Advisory Group (SAG) of Interaction, who took time out to respond to the survey and share their valuable thoughts, experiences and opinions for this study. Thank You!