SUPPORTED BY Human-Rights-Based Assessment Tool for Country-Level Grievance Mechanisms ASSESSMENT TOOL Acknowledgments This report is part of an effort to strengthen the right to remedy Ibragimoff, Leena Kemppainen, Michael Kent, Luiza Nora, and in World Bank operations and beyond by building the capacity of Elijah Abiodun Siakpere. World Bank staff, clients, and project-affected people, especially the vulnerable and marginalized, to implement effective The authors would also like to thank Laura Johnson for her grievance mechanisms so that they can improve service delivery, excellent editorial support. risk management, and development outcomes. The core team, led by Sanjay Agarwal and Saki Kumagai, comprised Harika Finally, the authors are grateful to the Human Rights, Inclusion Masud and Hélène Pfeil at the World Bank. and Empowerment Trust Fund (HRIETF) for supporting the activities under this initiative. The findings, interpretations, The lead author of the report is Hélène Pfeil, with invaluable and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of contributions from Sanjay Agarwal. Varalakshmi Vemuru the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the provided helpful and timely guidance throughout the process. World Bank, its affiliated organizations, or members of its Board Valuable inputs and comments were provided by Tamir of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. 1 Introduction Country-level (or central-level) grievance mechanisms (GMs) guaranteeing the principles of equality and nondiscrimination, are routinized nonjudicial, state-based grievance mechanisms participation, inclusion,3 and accountability as well as the rule administered by a branch or agency of the state or by an of law. The questions are aimed at helping public agencies independent body on a statutory or constitutional basis. self-assess their grievance handling processes, allowing for the Examples include national human rights institutions, such identification of core strengths and weaknesses. as Albania’s People’s Advocate and Armenia’s Human Rights Defender; ombud’s offices, such as Australia’s Commonwealth The specific objectives of the tool are: (1) to support institutions Ombudsman; and government-run complaints offices, such and organizations that are mandated to provide grievance as Malaysia’s Public Complaints Bureau, Morocco’s Chikaya uptake and resolution channels to the public conduct a rapid complaints and feedback platform, and Nigeria’s Public overview of their current processes; and (2) to help such Complaints Commission. Country-level grievance mechanisms 1 agencies detect areas that require reinforcing to improve the are key to fulfilling foundational principle 25 of the 2011 UN quality of their GMs. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which reads: It is expected that the findings of this assessment will be useful States must take appropriate steps to ensure … that when … in enhancing the GM. The responsible agency can decide if abuses occur within their territory and/or jurisdiction, those results are kept internal, made public, or revealed to donors. affected have access to effective remedy, [lest the state’s duty Ideally, respondents will be candid on their views concerning the to protect is] rendered weak or even meaningless. current functioning of the GM, including its shortcomings4. Through such GMs, people can raise complaints and seek to Possible incentives for public sector agencies to use this remedy their grievances. 2 tool include gaining a fuller understanding of what a well- functioning grievance redress mechanism looks like, getting The general purpose of the human-rights-based assessment tool clarity on the types of actionable steps that could be taken presented in this note is to capture how different country-level to improve current processes, and making the organization GMs operate and how they can serve complainants by providing eligible to receive support or capacity-building assistance from prompt, equitable, and effective grievance resolution while international development partners such as the World Bank. 1. For a more in-depth examination of country-level grievance mechanisms selected from across the globe, see the forthcoming Global Stock-Take of Country-Level Grievance Mechanisms (Masud and Agarwal 2022). 2. According to the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, a grievance is a “perceived injustice evoking an individual’s or a group’s sense of entitlement, which may be based on law, contract, explicit or implicit promises, customary practice, or general notions of fairness of aggrieved communities.” 3. An assessment tool to evaluate the extent to which project-level GMs foster the inclusion of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups has also been developed (See Pfeil and Agarwal, 2021). 4. Notably on the few questions which are of a subjective nature, for example the assessment of the system’s speed and clarity of complaint resolution, or approach to customer service in section II. 1 1. INTRODUCTION The chief officer in charge of complaint handling at a given The tool is presented in five sections: institution/department and/or any other public sector official familiar with the GM (e.g., a communications or monitoring and 3 Section I: General Information about the Grievance evaluation specialist) should complete the questionnaire. This Mechanism collects basic information about the responding tool can also be used by third parties with no direct stake in agency and the environment in which its GM operates. operating the grievance mechanism, including World Bank staff, or for collaborative assessments.5 While the tool presented 3 Section II: GM Design and Communications examines here is intended primarily for assessing GMs targeting public the effectiveness of the provision of information about the service users, other types of agencies might find it useful by GM, its procedures, the user-centricity of grievance uptake customizing it to a particular context, which may imply revising, channels, the extent to which the needs of vulnerable groups adding, and deleting questions, as appropriate. are considered, and if confidentiality and anonymity for complainants are guaranteed. The tool is human-rights-based in the sense that it is intentionally focused on how the human rights principles and 3 Section III: Grievance Handling and Resolution looks at norms of equity, nondiscrimination, participation, transparency, the processes in place to acknowledge, log, categorize, and and accountability are considered in the operations of the GM, resolve grievances, and how well different enablers, such as including an examination of the extent to which the responsible a strong customer service culture, standardized processes, agency: interagency/interinstitutional cooperation, and capacity building serve the organization’s purpose. 3 Provides easy access for complainants and publicizes the 3 Section IV: Monitoring and Evaluation explores the mechanism (questions 1–5, 8–12); depth and systematic character of data collection about complainants’ satisfaction levels, user demographics, and 3 Has involved stakeholders in the design of the mechanism complaint resolution, as well as the extent to which these and explored their preferences (questions 6–7, 33); data are publicly communicated. 3 Offers everyone, including vulnerable or marginalized 3 Section V: GM Strengths and Areas for Improvement individuals and groups, the chance to use the GM to uphold invites a strategic reflection on the GM’s strengths and their rights (see questions 13–15); weaknesses, as well as opportunities for its improvement. Its unscored, open-ended questions are intended to encourage 3 Protects a complainant’s identity upon request (questions bigger picture reflection and to prompt a discussion on 16–20); further actions that can be taken in the future to bring the GM to the next level, possibly with external support. 3 Communicates about the process in a transparent manner (questions 21–25); and The questions in sections II to IV include a scoring system with a maximum possible score of 50 (section II = 19-point maximum, 3 Monitors key performance indicators to allow the mechanism section III = 24-point maximum, and section IV = 7-point to be a source of continuous learning (questions 52–58). maximum). The GM’s overall score and the section-by-section breakdown provide a snapshot of areas to address to improve its accessibility, quality, and efficiency.6 5. Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, which restricted opportunities to conduct in-person GM diagnostic missions, at the time of this writing, the self-assessment tool had not yet been field-tested. 6. The score should not be interpreted as a value judgment or a ranking by the World Bank. 2 2 Human-Rights-Based Assessment Tool for Country-Level GMs I. General Information about the Grievance Mechanism Country: Is there a dedicated budget to cover the functioning of the GM? o Yes o No Name of Organization: If yes, amount of the annual budget: Survey respondent(s): Is there a GM policy/framework and procedures for the Name(s): responsible agency? Job title(s): o Yes o No Email address(es) Annual volume of complaints received and handled by Agency responsible for the GM: responsible agency: o Ombud’s office o Human rights institution/commission Are there dedicated staff assigned to work specifically on o Ministry-, agency-, or departmental-level GM complaint handling? o Country-wide GM platform that receives and processes o Yes o No grievances from the public If yes, provide details (e.g., number of staff, staff capacity o Anticorruption agency allocated to complaint handling responsibilities, and o Other: administrative levels): What is the legal framework under which the responsible agency operates in terms of grievance management? 3 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS II. GM Design and Communications A. Effective provision of information 1. How is the existence of the GM and its procedures o Television spots communicated to potential users? (Select all that apply.) o An online video o Website o Online infographics Social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and o  o A downloadable manual that explains necessary steps YouTube) A frequently-asked-questions section on the responsible o  o Display boards, posters, banners, or billboards agency’s website o Magazine or newspaper advertisements o An online click-through presentation o Radio Number of communication channels Score o Television 0 0 o Printed brochures and/or flyers 1 0.25 2–3 0.5 Public meetings (e.g., roundtable discussions and o  4–5 0.75 seminars) 6 or more 1 o Local leaders Nongovernmental organization and/or civil society o  3. How would you evaluate the quality of information provided partners by the GM to users? o Events (e.g., road shows and community theater) o Poor [0] o SMS/text, including WhatsApp message o Below average [0.25] o Public criers o Average [0.5] o Other: o Above average [0.75] Number of communication channels Score o Excellent [1] 0 0 1 0.25 4. How would you evaluate the level of effectiveness of the 2–3 0.5 GM’s information delivery? 4–5 0.75 o Poor [0] 6 or more 1 o Below average [0.25] 2. Have the following communication tools been developed, o Average [0.5] adopted, and/or applied to help the public make use of the o Above average [0.75] GM? (Select all that apply.) o Excellent [1] o Display boards, posters, banners, and/or billboards o Printed brochures and/or flyers o Radio spots 4 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS B. User-centric uptake channels 5. What uptake channels are available for users to provide 8. How would you evaluate the ease/difficulty for users to feedback or file a complaint? (Select all that apply.) submit grievances? Verbally/in-person (e.g., at a physical facility, to a GRM o  o Very difficult [0] focal point, or to a grievance committee) o Somewhat difficult [0.25] o By letter (mail) o Easy [0.5] o Phone/call center (hotline) o Very easy [0.75] o Email address o Extremely easy [1] Online form o  9. Can users submit grievances online? Website address: o Tablet/smartphone application o Yes o No [unscored] o Social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) If no, skip to question 13. If yes, answer questions 10–12. o SMS/text, including WhatsApp message 10. How would you evaluate the performance of the GM’s online o Grievance boxes interface in terms of ease of navigation, presentation, and o Other: clarity? Number of uptake channels Score o Poor [0] 0–1 0 o Below average [0.25] 2–3 0.25 o Average [0.5] 4 0.5 o Above average [0.75] 5–6 0.75 7 or more 1 o Excellent [1] 11. How easy is it to upload materials on the online interface? 6. Have you asked users what access channels they prefer using? o Very difficult [0] o Somewhat difficult [0.25] o Yes [1] o No [0] o Easy [0.5] If yes, elaborate: o Very easy [0.75] 7. Have users been involved in the design of the grievance o Extremely easy [1] mechanism? 12. How well does the online interface function in terms of o Yes [1] o No [0] providing instructions and support? If yes, elaborate: o Poor [0] o Below average [0.25] o Average [0.5] o Above average [0.75] o Excellent [1] 5 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS C. Protection of vulnerable individuals and groups 13. Has the GM been tailored to the needs of vulnerable groups 14. During the set-up phase of the agency’s GM, were in the following ways? (Select all that apply.) marginalized or vulnerable groups asked about their By providing documentation in Braille/sign language/ o  preferences regarding its design (e.g., what channels they captioned videos? [.25] prefer for submitting their grievances)? By simplifying documents (e.g., conveying content in plain o  o Yes [1] o No [0] language, easy to understand for the public) or providing If yes, how and with whom were these consultations visuals/pictures for users with low literacy levels? [.25] conducted (e.g., discussions with specific focus groups, By translating documents into all languages relevant o  individual interviews, and consultations with organizations to your target audience (for example, other national representing marginalized groups) and what actions were languages and English for foreigners) or providing taken to accommodate expressed preferences? interpretation options? [.25] By adapting GM processes to the requirements of specific o  15. Has accessibility testing ever been conducted to assess groups (e.g., offering a woman the option of interacting how easily users with specific needs (e.g., people with with a female interlocutor; ensuring that the physical disabilities) are able to submit grievances? reception offices for grievances are accessible to people with mobility restrictions; and proposing dedicated o Yes [1] o No [0] channels for refugees, internally displaced persons, If yes, elaborate: indigenous peoples, and others)? [.25] D. Confidentiality and anonymity 16. Is a complainant obliged to provide an official identification If yes, provide details: number when submitting feedback or a grievance? 19. Are clear guarantees of confidentiality provided to all o Yes [1] o No [0] people submitting complaints? In other words, are users If yes, provide details (e.g., the legal framework that informed if and why their personal data are being collected, requires it): who will have access to their case, and so on? 17. Is it possible to submit a grievance to the GM anonymously? o Yes [1] o No [0] o Yes [1] o No [0] If yes, provide details: If yes, provide details on how such submissions are handled: 20. Is there a clear policy and sanctioning system in place to prevent the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive 18. Are there specific procedures for handling complaints information? confidentially (for example, for allegations of sexual o Yes [1] o No [0] exploitation, abuse, or harassment)? If yes, provide details: o Yes [1] o No [0] Overall score for section II: /19 points 6 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS III. Complaint Handling and Resolution A. Acknowledgment of receipt of complaints 21. Does the user receive automatic confirmation of the 24. Does the confirmation of grievance submission include submission of their complaint? information about who the complainant can contact to o Yes [1] o No [0] follow-up or receive status updates about the resolution of their grievance? 22. Is the receipt of the complaint systematically acknowledged o Yes [1] o No [0] in writing? o Yes [1] o No [0] 25. Do users receive systematic status updates on the progress of their complaints? 23. Does the complaint submission confirmation include o Yes [1] o No [0] timeframes for the stages of the complaint-handling process? o Yes [1] o No [0] B. Recording and categorization of complaints 26. How are submitted complaints recorded? 28. Are there specific procedures in place to ensure that o Paper log or book [0.25] sensitive and urgent complaints are appropriately handled o Spreadsheet (e.g., Excel) [0.5] (e.g., an accelerated process, referral to another department, o Dedicated management information system (MIS) [1] or notification of higher management)? o Other: o Yes [1] o No [0] 27. When complaints are received, are they sorted into different categories? o Yes [1] o No [0] C. Resolution of complaints 29. How does the GM rank in terms of length of time between 30. How clear/straightforward is the grievance resolution the submission and resolution of a complaint? process? o Poor [0] o Poor [0] o Below average [0.25] o Below average [0.25] o Average [0.5] o Average [0.5] o Above average [0.75] o Above average [0.75] o Excellent [1] o Excellent [1] 7 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS 31. What are the service standards (in days)7 for the following 32. Is there a quality control system in place to confirm that stages of the complaint handling process? all grievances have been acknowledged and addressed and Acknowledgment of receipt: that any needed follow-up actions have been taken? Resolution (If times depend on type of complaint, provide a o Yes [1] o No [0] range): 33. Has the agency consulted with users to identify their Other, describe: (e.g., all calls to the hotline are answered definition of a timely complaint resolution? In other words, within 2 minutes): do the agency’s service standards reflect the public’s expectations? o Yes [1] o No [0] D. Approach to customer service 34. How well does the GM’s user-facing staff perform in terms 35. How well does the GM’s user-facing staff perform in terms of politeness and fairness? of knowledge/competence and helpfulness? o Poor [0] o Poor [0] o Below average [0.25] o Below average [0.25] o Average [0.5] o Average [0.5] o Above average [0.75] o Above average [0.75] o Excellent [1] o Excellent [1] E. Standardized processes 36. How would you evaluate the agency’s performance in terms 38. Is the agency testing the suitability and strength of its of paperless procedures? complaint resolution processes using mystery shopping,8 o Poor [0] usability testing,9 and/or unannounced spot checks? o Below average [0.25] o Yes [1] o No [0] o Average [0.5] If yes, elaborate: o Above average [0.75] 39. Are the following documents available? o Excellent [1] o A GM manual for users [0.25] 37. How would you evaluate the agency’s performance in terms Additional information: of streamlined internal processes? A GM manual for actors involved in the GM outlining o  o Poor [0] standard operating procedures for the GM [0.25] o Below average [0.25] Additional information: o Average [0.5] GM training materials [0.25] o  o Above average [0.75] Additional information: o Excellent [1] 7. Service standards are specific delivery targets or commitments established by an organization that it promises to honor when delivering a service. 8. Mystery shopping is a technique where trained individuals pretend to be potential customers or service users and report back on their experiences in a detailed and objective way. It differs from other research techniques in that evaluators do not declare themselves to the service provider during the interaction. 9. Usability testing involves small-scale (3–5 users) or large-scale (20–100 users) qualitative tests for service providers to observe users’ behavior and ability to complete tasks. It is commonly used to measure metrics such as error rate, number of clicks, and time spent as well as to collect general feedback on user experience. 8 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS A code of conduct for staff involved in complaint handling o  41. How is a complainant informed of the proposed resolution [0.25] of the grievance? Additional information: o Phone call 40. Which of the following relevant documents are available for o Letter handling sensitive complaints? o Email o SMS/text, including WhatsApp message Dedicated guidelines regarding confidentiality guarantees o  Verbally by GM focal point, grievance committee member, o  [0.25] or other grievance-handling staff Additional information: o Other: Safeguards and sanctions for the breach of confidentiality o  [0.25] 42. Can a complainant appeal if not satisfied with the proposed Additional information: resolution? Dedicated guidelines regarding the handling of o  o Yes [1] o No [0] anonymous complaints [0.25] If yes, elaborate and indicate the percentage (if available) Additional information: of complainants who appeal proposed resolutions or who take the matter to court: Dedicated training materials and procedures for o  allegations of gender-based violence, sexual exploitation and abuse, and sexual harassment [0.25] Additional information: F. Inter-agency/inter-institutional Cooperation 43. What entities does the responsible agency coordinate with 46. Does poor cooperation across institutions/organizations to resolve grievances? occasionally cause delays? o Yes [0] o No [0.25] Comments: 44. How do you evaluate the quality of cooperation between the agency and other involved entities? 47. Do technical problems/incompatibilities (such as the use o Poor [0] of multiple information technology systems) slow down o Below average [0.25] cooperation? o Average [0.5] o Yes [0] o No [0.25] o Above average [0.75] Comments: o Excellent [1] 48. Is there an interagency management information system 45. Do existing legislation, memoranda of understanding, that enables coherent data management and avoids and bilateral agreements adequately foster effective replication of data? cooperation? o Yes [0.25] o No [0] o Yes [0.25] o No [0] Comments: Comments: 9 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS G. Capacity building 49. Is there a adequate number of staff with sufficient capacity 51. Which of the following training opportunities would be tasked with grievance-handling responsibilities? useful for staff of the responsible agency? o Yes [1] o No [0] o Best practices in grievance redress Comments: 50. Do the staff involved in complaint handling have training opportunities? o Gender-sensitivity and nondiscrimination in complaint handling o Yes [1] o No [0] Comments: If yes, what types of training have been conducted (and when): o Using information technology to better handle complaints Comments: o Capturing and analyzing grievance data to improve internal processes Comments: Overall score for section III: /24 points IV. Monitoring and Evaluation A. Collection of data on complainants’ satisfaction levels 52. Is the agency capturing data on the satisfaction levels of o No [0] complainants? If yes, elaborate how (for example, a systematic user survey o Yes, systematically [1] being sent out after a grievance is resolved): o Yes, periodically [0.5] B. Demographic data collection 53. Beyond contact details, does the GM systematically collect o Geographic location and log demographic data on its users? (e.g., gender and o Disability geographic location)? o Employment status o Yes [1] o No [0] Belonging to a specific group (e.g., indigenous, linguistic, o  If yes, is it possible to sort the data according to the or ethnic minority) following categories? (Select all that apply.) o Other: o Age o Gender 10 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS C. Collection of statistical data related to complaint resolution 54. Is the agency collecting the following statistical data? Total number of received/resolved complaints (Include data for the previous calendar year, if available.) (resolution rate) Total number of complaints submitted by year/month o No [0] o Yes [0.2] o Yes [0.2] o No [0] Data: Data: Total number of complaints resolved within the stipulated Total number of complaints submitted by access channel timeframe o Yes [0.2] o No [0] o No [0] o Yes [0.2] Data: Data:  Average time required to resolve a grievance o No [0] o Yes [0.2] Data: D. Communications about complaints data 55. Is the responsible agency making the following data Average time to resolve a grievance publicly available (e.g., by publishing it online)? o No [0] o Yes [0.2] Total number of complaints submitted by year/month Comments: o No [0] o Yes [0.2] 56. Are the data presented well visually (e.g., with graphs, Comments: visuals, and/or infographics)? Total number of complaints submitted by access channel o No [0] o Yes [0.5] o No [0] o Yes [0.2] Comments: 57. Are the data included in an annual report? Total number of received/resolved complaints (i.e., o No [0] o Yes [0.5] resolution rate) 58. Are the data being analyzed and used to improve existing o No [0] o Yes [0.2] processes? Comments: o Yes [2] o No [0] Total number of complaints resolved within the stipulated If yes, elaborate: time frames o No [0] o Yes [0.2] Comments: Overall score for section IV: /7 points Total score: /50 points 11 2. HUMAN-RIGHTS-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR COUNTRY-LEVEL GMS V. GM Strengths and Areas for Improvement Questions in this final section are intended to encourage a big picture, strategic reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the GM, and opportunities to bring it to the next level, possibly with external support. A. Strengths 59. What are the GM’s current main strengths? B. Areas to improve 60. What are the main obstacles/bottlenecks that are currently impacting the proper functioning of the GM? 61. Which of the following would help make the GM more Improving standard operating procedures o  effective? Improving coordination and collaboration with other o  (Select all that apply.) government agencies to resolve complaints Additional and/or full-time human resources o  Adopting a management information system to help o  Additional budget resources o  process, escalate, and analyze data and to generate Training and technical assistance for staff managing the o  reports on the feedback GM at the central level Improving transparency/reducing corruption and nepotism o  Training and technical assistance for staff managing the o  o Other: GM at the subnational level C. Additional observations 62. Are there any additional comments, suggestions, questions, or concerns you would like to share? End of checklist. 12 References Masud, H., and S. Agarwal. 2022 (forthcoming). Global Stock-Take Pfeil, H., and S. Agarwal, 2021. Fostering the Inclusion of of Country-Level Grievance Mechanisms. Washington, DC: World Disadvantaged and Vulnerable Individuals or Groups in Project- Bank. Level Grievance Mechanisms. Washington, DC: World Bank. 13 SUPPORTED BY © 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 202-473-1000 | www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, World Bank Group, 1818 H Street, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax 202-522-2625; email: pubrights@worldbank.org.