Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:02:46.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Review of Nongovernmental Organizations’ Security Policies for Humanitarian Programs in War, Conflict, and Postconflict Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2013

Elizabeth Rowley ,
Lauren Burns  and
Gilbert Burnham
Elizabeth Rowley*
Affiliation:
The authors are with the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Lauren Burns
Affiliation:
The authors are with the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Gilbert Burnham
Affiliation:
The authors are with the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Elizabeth Rowley, Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (e-mail erowley@jhsph.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To identify the most and least commonly cited security management messages that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are communicating to their field staff, to determine the types of documentation that NGOs most often use to communicate key security messages, and to distinguish the points of commonality and divergence across organizations in the content of key security messages.

Methods

The authors undertook a systematic review of available security policies, manuals, and training materials from 20 international humanitarian NGOs using the InterAction Minimum Operating Security Standards as the basis for a review framework.

Results

The most commonly cited standards include analytical security issues such as threat and risk assessment processes and guidance on acceptance, protection, and deterrence approaches. Among the least commonly cited standards were considering security threats to national staff during staffing decision processes, incorporating security awareness into job descriptions, and ensuring that national staff security issues are addressed in trainings. NGO staff receive security-related messages through multiple document types, but only 12 of the 20 organizations have a distinct security policy document. Points of convergence across organizations in the content of commonly cited standards were found in many areas, but differences in security risk and threat assessment guidance may undermine communication between aid workers about changes in local security environments.

Conclusions

Although the humanitarian community has experienced significant progress in the development of practical staff security guidance during the past 10 years, gaps remain that can hinder efforts to garner needed resources, clarify security responsibilities, and ensure that the distinct needs of national staff are recognized and addressed. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;7:241-250)

Keywords

humanitarianinternationalsecuritystaffpolicies
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 241 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Sheik, M, Gutierrez, MI, Bolton, P, Spiegel, P, Thieren, M, Burnham, G. Deaths among humanitarian workers. BMJ. 2000;321(7254):166-168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Rowley, EA, Crape, BL, Burnham, GM. Violence-related mortality and morbidity of humanitarian workers. Am J Disaster Med. 2008;3(1):39-45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Stoddard, A, Harmer, A, Haver, K. Providing Aid in Insecure Environments: Trends in Policy and Operations. Humanitarian Policy Group Report 23. London: Overseas Development Group; 2006.Google Scholar
4.Bollettino, V. Understanding the security management practices of humanitarian organizations. Disasters. 2008;32(2):263-279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Stoddard, A, Harmer, A, DiDomenico, V. Providing Aid in Insecure Environments: 2009 Update. Humanitarian Policy Group Policy Brief 34. London: Overseas Development Group; 2009.Google Scholar
6.Van Brabant, K. Security training: where are we now? Forced Migration Rev. 1999;4:7-10.Google Scholar
7.European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office. Report on Security of Humanitarian Personnel: Standards and Practices for the Security of Humanitarian Personnel and Advocacy for Humanitarian Space. Brussels: ECHO; 2004:3.Google Scholar
8.Van Brabant, K. Cool ground for aid providers: towards better security management in aid agencies. Disasters. 1998;22(2):109-125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.InterAction. Minimum Operating Security Standards. May 2006. http://www.eisf.eu/resources/library/IA_MOSS_1.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010.Google Scholar
10. InterAction. Suggested Guidance for Implementing InterAction's Minimum Operating Security Standards. June 2006. http://www.interaction.org/sites/default/files/MOSS_Implementation_May_2006.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2010.Google Scholar
11.InterAction. The Security of National Staff: Essential Steps 2002. Washington, D.C.: Interaction; 2002.Google Scholar
12.Van Brabant, K. Operational Security Management in Violent Environments: A Field Manual for Aid Agencies. Good Practice Review 8. London: Humanitarian Practice Network/Overseas Development Institute; 2000:58.Google Scholar
13.O'Neill, M. Acceptance: an approach to security as if people mattered. Monday Dev. January/February 2008;26:22-24.Google Scholar
14.Buchanan, C, Muggah, R. No Relief: Surveying the Effects of Gun Violence on Humanitarian and Development Personnel. Geneva: The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and The Small Arms Survey; 2005.Google Scholar
15.Fast, L, Wiest, D. Security Perceptions Survey Final Report. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; 2007.Google Scholar
16.International Medical Corps. Security Management in Humanitarian Agencies. Santa Monica, CA: International Medical Corps; 2009.Google Scholar
17.Stoddard, A, Harmer, A, DiDomenico, V. The Use of Private Security Providers and Services in Humanitarian Operations. Humanitarian Policy Group Report 27. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2009.Google Scholar
18.Macpherson, B, Persaud, C, Sheehan, N. Experienced advice crucial in response to kidnappings. Monday Dev. March 2008;26:22-24.Google Scholar