Search

Critics have long questioned the push for professionalised and performance‐driven accountability in the humanitarian sector, yet the matter is largely treated as a 'back office' issue of standards, guidelines, and processes. Scant attention is paid to the accountability demands experienced by early responders to disasters. Set in the contested climate of the emergency response to the earthquake in Nepal on 25 April 2015, and drawing on interviews with 15 early responders, this paper reveals three forms of accountability demands: (i) accountability as compliance; (ii) accountability as the object of government regulation; and (iii) accountability as public opposition and interrogation. Beyond the performance‐centric, non‐governmental organisation‐driven understanding of accountability, early responders to the earthquake experienced multidirectional accountability demands, not only from donors and beneficiaries, but also from the national government and wider public. Engaging with public criticism is a significant feature of early responders' responsibility that warrants further consideration by the humanitarian community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We utilised a comparative ethnographic approach to study the implementation of a community mobilisation intervention addressing HIV risk among female sex workers (FSWs) in India, as implemented first by an non-governmental organisation and after oversight of the intervention was transitioned to the government. We demonstrate that the work of peer outreach workers changed from Social Change Agents within a community-led structural intervention (CLSI) to Peer Educators within a targeted intervention (TI). In the CLSI approach, built on the assumption that FSW risk for HIV is rooted in power inequality and structural vulnerability, peer outreach workers mobilised their peers through community-based organisations to address underlying conditions of inequality and vulnerability. In contrast, the TI approach, which views FSW risk as a function of limited knowledge and barriers to services, addressed peers' access to information and health services. Analysis of changes in the function of peer outreach workers reveals critical differences of which we discuss four: assumptions about conditions that produce HIV risk; degree of emphasis placed on collective mobilising and building collective power; extent to which community mobilisation and HIV prevention goals are linked; and the intervention's use of peer input. We discuss the implications of these findings for HIV prevention programming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recent theorisation has pushed stigma research in new directions, arguing for a need to challenge the unequal power relations that impact groups most at risk for HIV-related stigma rather than locate stigma in the individual. Such a conceptualisation resonates with the growing emphasis on structural interventions for HIV prevention that attempt to alter the social context of risk. Methods The paper predominantly relies on longitudinal interviews conducted three times over a 2-year period with sex workers with varying degrees of involvement with the non-governmental organisation (NGO) and community-based organisation. Results Recognising that stigma is socially constructed and structurally reproduced, the NGO helped mobilise marginalised and hitherto scattered female sex workers to form community-based organisations to challenge their disadvantaged status in society. The authors show how stigma alleviation strategies presented a contradiction: emboldening one group of female sex workers to self-identify as sex workers while making others reluctant to access the intervention-run clinic. Conclusion The paper builds on a growing body of research that acknowledges the struggles in implementing structural interventions, particularly for NGOs working in regions with a diverse population of sex workers with varying needs. The authors argue that intervention goals of reducing stigma and increasing the use of sexually transmitted infection services do not have to conflict and, in fact, must go hand-in-hand for an implementation to be considered a structural intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]