Evidence on implementation of Joint Needs Assessments (JNA) and Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) by humanitarian organisations

There is little evidence on the effects of Joint Needs Assessments (JNAs) and Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) on humanitarian organisations’ behaviour and humanitarian outcomes. JNAs are needs assessments undertaken jointly by humanitarian agencies and organisations to prevent duplication of effort, improve co-ordination and ensure a more independent report of needs. AAP designates a number of methods to either communicate to affected populations, gather feedback, use their feedback in programming or involve them in decision-making on programmes (or a combination of these). Reports have made a number of conclusions about the best ways of implementing feedback mechanisms in different contexts, including which technologies to use, how to ensure representative feedback, and how to include it in decision-making (Price, 2018). Case studies have pointed to ways in which individual feedback mechanisms have led to programme changes in the field, such as changing rations. They have also suggested ways in which AAP might be implemented in humanitarian organisations. The review has been unable to find evaluations of the effects of JNAs on humanitarian outcomes and organisational behaviour. Several case studies point to some barriers and enablers to JNA implementation. Synthesis reports suggest that implementation of JNAs has been limited by structural barriers in the humanitarian system (Derzsi-Horvath, Steets, & Ruppert, 2017).