Envisioning what could be:
A nationally owned, collective and open feedback mechanism - One part of a new approach.
This document proposes a scalable, cost-effective model that leverages trusted local civil society actors and the proven Talk to Loop platform to provide independent, accessible, and context-sensitive feedback and reporting channels which will result in open real time data. A decentralised open model to support accountability to communities. This aligns with the IASC Reset Agenda, SCHR humanitarian reset themes, and the Grand Bargain Working Groups reform priorities.
Current approaches to feedback, safe reporting and accountability are not working adequately and are resulting in a lack of trust from communities to humanitarian actors, a significant under reporting of Sexual Abuse, Exploitation and Harrassment and inefficiencies in effective Aid delivery.
Communities prefer face to face feedback where possible and accessible. Organisations implementing should invest in these where they are operational.
Communities report not trusting feedback mechanisms run by those who deliver Aid due to real concerns about retribution as a result of reporting. An independent accessible channel for sensitive and non-sensitive feedback should compliment face to face reporting.
In the DRC, after a PSEA working group-led assessment, communities clearly stated that they wanted access to an independent feedback mechanism to safely report concerns.
The CEA task force in Somalia has established an Aggregator tool, where feedback and safe reporting across the largest UN and INGO feedback mechanisms (15+) is aggregated and reported collectively every quarter. For Q1 of 2025, 124 of the 217 sensitive reports came through Loop. In addition, Loop was the only mechanism which received reports of SEA in Somalia, after PSEA Coordinated radio announcements which adverea number of other Agency level channels as well. This pattern highlights the effectiveness of independent feedback channels when available.
Local and national organisations often have to use multiple feedback and reporting channels as part of consortium or upstream partner requirements. Often the resulting feedback goes through the upstream partner first before the local partner is able to engage. This removes the ability for the local partner to ensure ongoing, trusted relationships with their own communities. It also removes their ownership and direct responsibility for feedback and safe reporting.
All actors need to have access to direct feedback, safe reporting and reliable data, regardless of their size or funding pipelines. Access and funding for a tool to ensure ongoing remote engagement, that meets global best practice and donor requirements for due diligence, will support smaller organisations capacity, accountability and compliment face to face work.
Many local, national and INGOs do not have consistent funding to invest in reliable and accessible feedback and safe reporting channels. A survey in the DRC suggested that less than 60% had access to both at any one time.
While some organisations state that they have to implement multiple different channels for different partners and projects, resulting in confusion for staff, and communities alike.
Organisations have reported that in some partnerships they do not receive feedback directly about their outreach, as it goes through their upstream partners first.
There should be a ‘no closed door’ policy - where any feedback, coming through any channel, will find its way safely to the appropriate actor to respond and reply.
Communities tell us that reporting fraud or abuse can be a life or death decision due to possible negative repercussions of the information getting to the wrong people. Earned trust is critical.
Talk to Loop's specialists time is invested in finding the appropriate person in an organisation to safely respond to sensitive reports. Identifying where to report a case of misconduct, sexual exploitation or gender based violence is complex for anyone.
Response rates from organisations back to communities tends to be low, and there is little reliable reporting or accountability to communities or donors on the effectiveness of feedback channels. This is true for open feedback as well as sensitive reporting - including fraud, abuse etc.
Talk to Loop has an average response rate to open/ non sensitive feedback across different actors ranging between 15% and 34%. While responsiveness to sensitive reporting on Talk to Loop was only 50%, even with escalation protocols in place. No one else is independently measuring this data.
Talk to Loop has seen a 100% improvement in responsiveness to sensitive reporting when their responsiveness could be seen by the management/ donor.
One proven approach, which builds on years of collective work and learning, including failings of the existing system, is a network of national civil society organisations in different countries use Loop. For example Raagsan, a women led third party monitoring Somali organisation. The national host organisations integrate the Loop approach to provide a collective, remote, realtime, and accessible feedback and safe reporting channel which has coverage nationally. It would be available in local languages and dialects, for communities in each major humanitarian context.
The channels would be context and community appropriate, including for illiterate, non digitally connected communities and minority language speakers. Loop’s Interactive Voice Response and Reply (IVRR), among other channels, could be available for this purpose. User centred design and close partnerships with a variety of actors in each country would be critical in ongoing design work to continue to reduce barriers to providing feedback.
The local vetted actor, would host the Talk to Loop technology and specialist staff, to adapt and run the platform nationally. Talk to Loop, the Dutch registered charity, would evolve, train and make available the technology and specialist approaches for each country. They would provide training, audits and quality assurance. National actors already providing robust channels (eg: Awaaz) could integrate and align data points.
Resulting non Personally Identifiable Information would be openly available for all to use in reports and decision making, across the NEXUS. This locally owned but global taxonomy and approach would provide information to complement and support independent actors further surveys, evaluations and deeper analysis (Third Party Monitors, Reach, GTS, etc). Any organisation could invite communities to feedback using the collective mechanism as a complimentary channel: saving funds, building awareness and keeping people safe.
In summary, a collective feedback mechanism, which compliments organisation's own face to face feedback and other engagement processes, and sits outside of the existing centralised and top down system, challenges the existing power structure and status quo. Nationalising, making collective and establishing consistent data points for real time, ongoing remote feedback and safe reporting, will result in greater national capacity, improved reporting and more accessible open data to inform sector wide accountability. Using a network of local hosts and the Talk to Loop platform is cheaper, more sustainable, more collective and will elevate community data.
As per the SCHR Note on the humanitarian reset, the 6 key themes are outlined below in blue, followed by how the roll out of Talk to Loop helps to enable them (in italics):
1. The Reset must be more than Fletcher’s 10-point plan – Real change will be driven mostly by other processes, so policy must consider actions by INGOs, UN Agencies, donors, the Grand Bargain, refugee compacts, and the UN80 process if it is to meaningfully address steep funding cuts (30–50%).
2. Build Political Support – To rebuild meaningful scale, humanitarians must show the real human cost of recent donor policies and promote existing, affordable solutions to prevent mass suffering and death.
Data can already been seen on Loop in Somalia about the impact of the funding cuts on Gender Based Violence and requests for support.
3. Shift Power and Resources – Operational decision-making should be locally-led, while still valuing the role of large cross border resource transfers, major INGOs, the Red Cross, and UN agencies to meet large-scale needs.
Having national host organisations owning and implementing a national collective feedback mechanism will help to shift power and resources to a more sustainable, locally led and contextually relevant approach.
4. Open Data – Make much more humanitarian data public and usable for all stakeholders.
Streamlined data solutions are recommended, but it can't be more of the old approach, of a centralised, upwardly accountable system. A collective, open data source of feedback and responsiveness across time and countries will reduce the existing fragmentation and protectionist approaches to listening and responding to community voices. It will be more open, more accessible to all actors (national and international, across languages) in real time.
5. Cost Effective Shared Services – Avoid monopolies to encourage innovation and transparency in how shared services are sourced and used.
A feedback and safe reporting mechanism, owned and operated independently, in each country by a national, non operational civil society member, using the global, aligned infrastructure and expertise of Loop, will enable locally owned, sustainable approaches. Innovations about how to reduce barriers to reporting based on national specificities will be integrated on an ongoing basis into the Loop platform, based on user feedback, benefitting all other countries and stakeholders.
6. Plan for Exit – Incentivise earlier exit strategies whenever possible.
This lower cost, locally owned solution will be functioning before, during and after a crisis and establishes global best practice standards during the implementation and phase out period of international actors.
The Grand Bargain members recommendations for the system level changes required as a result of the funding cuts include the below recommendations in blue. The proposed open collective feedback mechanism could support as outlined below in italics:
Pilot new approaches and learn from them: draw on decades of evidence on what has worked well in community-led response
We would also add, including what has not and continues not to work.
Include representatives from crisis-affected communities and grassroots organisations in discussions on the future of aid.
Talk to Loop would suggest that local organisations should own and implement the feedback channel with which to engage, as appropriate to their culture and context, for ongoing community engagement. Talk to Loop could be one complimentary mechanism to listen to people's changing priorities.
Reorient (as far as possible) to demand-driven response: base needs assessment and response planning on data directly from frontline communities, building meaningful feedback loops and adapting in response.
Talk to Loop can provide the remote, permanent channel for feedback loops to exist. The system needs to monitor and incentivise responsiveness. Assessments would not be done through Loop as it is not representative but community driven. However ongoing data from communities through Loop does highlight sudden onset needs, including early warning signs for displacement, floods etc as well as other changing needs and impacts of Aid.
Launch a wholesale shift in power and resources to local actors: acknowledging that means international organisations will shrink and play a more supportive and effective intermediary role.
Including letting them own and implement the collective, remote feedback and safe reporting channel.
Better support community-driven and mutual aid efforts recognising the efficiencies this enables and the local knowledge.
100% agree. Community driven and owned approaches, using efficient, globally recognised input channels and open collective data. A trusted and accessible open feedback channel will highlight the real time experiences and knowledge of a wide range of communities and put into focus who is engaging and responding.
Better connect humanitarian and development responses to serve people’s long term aspirations and build resilience.
One feedback mechanism, based on what communities want to say, crosses arbitrary silos and the NEXUS. Feedback on Loop is about what is important to communities, at any time. We have seen feedback comes in at all hours of the day or night, from all types of people (disabled, survivors, young, elderly, rural, urban, minorities and representatives of larger groups), and is about elections, Aid, weather, displacement, Cash, government services, hospitals, environmental concerns, trafficking, fraud, abuse, etc.
Be bold: fundamental change to the system is needed.
‘If we always do what we have always done, we will always get what we have always got.’
.png)