Mutual accountability in partnerships
What mutual accountability means between funders, intermediaries and local NGOs: the Principles of Partnership, practical tools, and a simple two-way review.
Short answer
Mutual accountability means each partner answers to the others, not only the weaker side to the stronger. Both sides share information openly, keep commitments, give feedback and act on it. A practical start is to write both sides' commitments in the agreement, share budgets and decisions, and hold a short two-way review every few months.
Key points
- Accountability runs both ways: funder to partner, and partner to funder.
- The Principles of Partnership give five simple tests: equality, transparency, results, responsibility, complementarity.
- Write commitments for both sides into the agreement.
- Hold regular two-way reviews and record what changes.
- Constructive dissent is part of respect, not a threat to the partnership.
What is mutual accountability?
In many partnerships, the local NGO reports to the intermediary, and the intermediary reports to the donor. Mutual accountability adds the reverse direction. Each partner explains what it promised, what it did and what it will change. Our article on what makes an equitable partnership describes the wider idea.
The Core Humanitarian Standard, a quality and accountability standard used by many agencies, says organisations should regularly assess the quality and effectiveness of the relationship between partners and take corrective action when needed. It also asks for partnerships based on equitable decision making and resource sharing.
What are the Principles of Partnership?
In 2007 the Global Humanitarian Platform, which brings UN and non-UN organisations together, endorsed five principles for partnership. They are a simple checklist for any relationship.
| Principle | In plain words | A question to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Equality | Mutual respect, whatever the size and power. Constructive dissent is allowed. | Can we disagree openly and safely? |
| Transparency | Early consultation and early sharing of information, including financial information. | Do we both see budgets, decisions and changes in time? |
| Result-oriented approach | Action based on real capability and operational capacity. | Are plans realistic for our capacity? |
| Responsibility | Commit only when you have the means to deliver, and prevent abuse. | Do we keep our promises? |
| Complementarity | Build on each other's strengths. Local capacity is a main asset. | Does the plan use local knowledge? |
An ODI Humanitarian Exchange issue on partnerships notes that these principles remain a common point of reference, but that implementing them is still a challenge in practice. Use them as a conversation guide, not a legal test.
How can you make accountability two-way in practice?
Follow these five steps.
- Write both sides' commitments. Add a section on the intermediary's duties: payment dates, response times for approvals, overhead rate, support offered and communication. Our article on what to include in a partnership agreement lists clauses.
- Share information openly. Share the budget, the donor conditions that affect you, and decisions that change your work. Ask your partner to do the same about its constraints.
- Set a review rhythm. Hold a 60-minute review every three or six months with one agenda: what is working, what is not, what we will change.
- Use a short feedback form. Ask both sides to score communication, payments, decisions and respect, and add comments. Anonymous input can help if trust is low.
- Record and follow up. Write down agreed changes with an owner and date, and check them at the next review. See issue logs and action trackers for small teams.
What should a two-way review ask?
Local partner to funder or intermediary:
- Were payments on time?
- Were approvals fast and clear?
- Did you consult us before changes?
- Was support useful and chosen with us?
Funder or intermediary to local partner:
- Were reports on time and accurate?
- Did you tell us early about problems?
- Did you follow the agreed procedures?
- What do you need from us to deliver better?
Keep the tone factual. Both sides should be able to say "we did not meet this commitment."
What does accountability to communities add?
Partnerships exist for the people they serve. The Red Cross and Red Crescent guide on community engagement notes that open communication, listening and acting on what people say builds trust. Mutual accountability between partners should include a shared way to receive and act on community feedback. See accountability to affected populations in daily work.
What are common traps?
- Words without mechanisms. Saying "we are partners" without review dates or feedback channels changes nothing.
- Feedback with no response. If nothing changes, people stop giving feedback.
- Fear of speaking up. If a local partner fears losing funding, it will stay silent. The funder must make dissent safe, as the principle of equality says.
- One-off reviews. A single review at the end is too late to fix problems.
Start small. Pick one commitment from each side, such as payment within an agreed number of days and reports within an agreed number of days, and track both for three months. Share the results openly. This gives both sides evidence, and it shows that accountability is not a test the local partner must pass alone. Over time, add more commitments as trust grows. If you work through an intermediary, ask whether the donor also welcomes feedback on how the chain works, so that problems at the top of the chain can be heard too. Record every agreement in writing and keep the records in a shared folder.
How EMPO can help
EMPO is a trusted training and consultancy provider and one of Myanmar's leading names in practical NGO training, with 1,200+ people trained and 15 partner organisations. Our Yangon-based team works in English and Burmese, online and in person across Myanmar, and covers topics including accountability to affected populations and organisational development. See our services or contact us.
Sources
- Principles of Partnership: a statement of commitment — Global Humanitarian Platform, 2007
- Humanitarian Exchange 50: partnerships in humanitarian action — Humanitarian Practice Network, ODI, 2011
- Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability — CHS Alliance, Groupe URD and Sphere, 2024
- A Red Cross Red Crescent guide to community engagement and accountability — IFRC, 2021
Questions people ask
How is mutual accountability different from reporting?
Reporting usually runs one way, from the local partner to the funder. Mutual accountability also asks the funder or intermediary to report on its own commitments, such as payment dates, decisions and support.
What if the stronger partner ignores feedback?
Record the issue, raise it with a senior person, and use the review clause in your agreement. Raise recurring problems through a network or with the donor if there is a channel.
Do small local NGOs have the power to hold partners to account?
Power is unequal, but you can still ask for written commitments, keep records and use shared review meetings. A network of partners can raise common issues together.