Community Engagement & Accountability¶
Community Engagement & Accountability (CEA) is essential to help the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement build the acceptance and trust that is needed to deliver lifesaving work. One of the most effective ways of building this trust is to make sure that people can always engage with National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and to guarantee that National Societies will act based on their feedback and needs. Achieving this requires a systematic, consistent and high-quality approach to how we engage with and are accountable to communities.
Our goal is to work with National Societies on building trust, enhancing relevance and improving the quality of programmes by providing easy-to-use, safe and transparent digital tools for meaningful and scalable engagement with communities and simple processes for creating actionable insights. To give a few examples of the wide variety of our services: we offer workshops on developing CEA strategies, we facilitate the collection and analysis of community feedback data using easy-to-use tools and dashboards. Also, we give trainings on how to configure your own chatbot and we implement feedback mechanism together with you. For most use cases related to CEA, there is a digital component where we can offer a service for.
See more about Community Engagement and Accountability on our website, including the latest blog posts and case-studies.
Service Categories¶
There are four different categories where we place the CEA services in. Scroll to the bottom of this page to see an overview of the full list of services.
-
Everything about development a strategy for CEA practises within your national society.
-
Everything about information dissemination
-
Everything about data support
-
Everything about feedback mechanisms
Integration with other thematic areas¶
CEA in Cash and Voucher Assistance¶
Overlap: CEA and CVA share a common focus on direct engagement with communities. In CVA, where cash or vouchers are provided as aid, it is critical that the design and implementation of these programs are informed by community feedback. CEA ensures that beneficiaries’ needs, preferences, and concerns are considered, helping tailor cash interventions to the local context.
Differences: CVA programs are often more transactional in nature, focusing on delivering financial resources to individuals, whereas CEA is relational, emphasizing ongoing dialogue and accountability. While CVA aims at meeting immediate needs through economic means, CEA ensures that this process is transparent and that the cash or voucher system is accessible and fair for the most marginalized groups.
Integration: By embedding CEA practices within CVA programs, organizations can close the feedback loop—ensuring that recipients can voice their experiences and challenges with the assistance received. CEA’s feedback mechanisms also help organizations adapt and improve CVA systems in real time, ensuring a more responsive and accountable process.
See the full overview of Cash and Voucher Assistance services we offer.
CEA in Anticipatory Action¶
Overlap: Both CEA and Anticipatory Action emphasize the importance of engaging communities before crises occur. Anticipatory Action focuses on preparing communities for foreseeable risks through early warning systems and preventative measures. CEA enhances this by ensuring that communities actively participate in the planning and preparedness phases, giving feedback on what actions are most useful and appropriate for their specific needs.
Differences: While Anticipatory Action is proactive, aiming to prevent or mitigate the impact of predictable crises (such as floods or droughts), CEA is more of a continual process that incorporates community feedback into both proactive and reactive phases of humanitarian action. Anticipatory Action relies heavily on technical data and forecasting, while CEA ensures that the community’s lived experience and local knowledge inform how that data is used.
Integration: Incorporating CEA into Anticipatory Action ensures that the strategies and responses designed are not only based on technical predictions but are also aligned with the community’s capacities, needs, and preferences. This integration builds community trust and improves the effectiveness of anticipatory measures by making them more relevant, interpretable and acceptable.
See the full overview of Anticipatory Action services we offer.
CEA in Water and Landscape¶
Overlap: Water and landscape management programs, particularly in regions vulnerable to environmental degradation or water scarcity, share common goals with Community Engagement and Accountability (CEA). Both areas emphasize the importance of community participation and actively listening to concerns about access to water, land use, and environmental sustainability. CEA ensures that communities play a key role in decisions about water conservation, irrigation, and sustainable land practices. This participation aligns with tools like the Enhanced Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (eVCA), which facilitates community-driven assessments of risks and resilience, particularly in relation to water and land management.
Differences: Water and landscape management is primarily focused on technical and environmental solutions, including the physical management of natural resources. Experts often work on highly specialized problems such as watershed management, irrigation systems, and land restoration. CEA, in contrast, focuses on the social dimension, ensuring that the community's voice is incorporated into these technical solutions. The human element—understanding community priorities, needs, and values—is central to CEA, ensuring that technical interventions reflect the real concerns of those affected.
Integration: By incorporating CEA into water and landscape management, organizations can create inclusive platforms where communities and technical experts collaborate. CEA tools, such as participatory assessments and community meetings, ensure that management strategies are not only environmentally sound but also socially accepted and tailored to local contexts. The Road to Resilience framework, which builds on the eVCA, supports this integration by guiding communities through a process that identifies vulnerabilities and strengthens resilience in areas like water security and land use. Ultimately, CEA fosters community buy-in and ensures long-term sustainability by empowering people to take ownership of water and land management initiatives.
See the full overview of Water and Landscape services we offer.
CEA in Emergency Responses¶
Overlap: CEA and emergency response operations both prioritize engaging affected communities during crises. In emergency response, the need for rapid action is balanced with the need for accountability and transparency. CEA mechanisms, such as feedback systems and information dissemination channels, are vital in emergency contexts to ensure that aid is delivered effectively, and that communities are kept informed and have the opportunity to raise concerns.
Differences: Emergency response is often characterized by speed and scale, focusing on delivering immediate assistance such as food, shelter, and medical care. CEA, while present in emergencies, often functions at a slower pace, aiming to build relationships and trust. In crisis situations, this can pose a challenge as the urgency of response may not always allow for the full breadth of community engagement activities.
Integration: CEA can be integrated into emergency response by providing quick feedback loops that allow real-time adjustments to aid delivery. In addition, embedding CEA from the start ensures that communities understand what support is coming, and how they can access it, and have the means to express their needs or dissatisfaction. This helps avoid misunderstandings and misinformation thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the response by ensuring that aid is more closely aligned with the community’s most urgent needs.
See the full overview of Emergency Responses services we offer.