Prioritising people’s experiences of security and justice

The latest assessment of UK development assistance for security and justice will no doubt make for uncomfortable reading for those in government working on these issues. However, as Shelagh Daley and Will Bennett say, it makes the welcome case for a shift away from conventional approaches focused on institution building in ‘fragile’ states, towards context-specific programmes that operate more meaningfully at multiple levels to help provide a path to security and justice for all.

Following on from a recent critical report on the UK Department for International Development (DFID)’s effectiveness in fragile states, the latest assessment from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) focuses on security and justice. These are crucial areas of work, given high priority by people in many of those fragile states, and indeed across the world. DFID was right to recognise many years ago that specialising on improving people’s security and justice in ‘fragile’ states had the potential to break cycles of conflict and provide a platform for development. Few would argue with the validity of this assumption, however as ICAI notes, the way in which security and justice programmes have been designed has not been contextual, creative, sensitive or realistic enough. While DFID’s early leadership and continued commitment to improving security and justice should be commended, this report marks an important opportunity to learn, improve and refocus the UK’s efforts on improving people’s broader experiences of security and justice, rather than merely supporting institutional reforms in the hope that improvements will trickle down.

To maximise this opportunity the recommendations in this report need to be taken seriously. ICAI’s analysis offers a welcome evidence base to support the overhaul of approaches that at best do not work, and at worst do harm, and build on areas that have started to show results. DFID has a chance to use this evidence and promote more thoughtful approaches to security and justice that include technical institutional reforms where appropriate, but go far beyond this limited scope and ambition and get at the heart of addressing people’s day-to-day needs.

Admittedly the inherently political nature of security and justice work means this is not an easy task. Acknowledging the problem of vested interests and questionable political will to reform security and justice services by local elites is crucial for results. It reinforces the need to carry out conflict assessments that account for the interests and motivations of all relevant actors, including perceived allies, when deciding where and how to invest in reform. Institutional capacity building that fails to clearly reinforce people’s wider needs, including those of the most marginalised, risks reinforcing positions of power that are not conducive to peace and development.

Therefore DFID’s pattern of limited contextual analysis and reliance on standard types of interventions, instead of tailored programmes designed to meet specific challenges, is a deeply concerning finding. For example, ICAI notes a repeated emphasis on model police stations without evidence that this programming resulted in improved perceptions of security by local populations. The report reserves its praise for the programmes more able to remain context-specific, agile and geared towards solving people’s complex security and justice challenges. In particular, these included community-level projects, where encouraging signs of progress had been made in providing access to justice for women and girls.

However, the barriers to supporting local initiatives are also highlighted – in particular the inability of smaller organisations to access and manage the large pots of funds increasingly favoured by DFID, which a limited number of large private sector contractors tend to be awarded. DFID should therefore include smaller, more flexible funds focused at local non-governmental organisations alongside medium- and large-scale pots of funding as part of a more balanced donor approach.

This balance is important. It takes a whole range of efforts to increase people’s perceptions of security and justice and there is no clear consensus on what that range should include, or at what scale, and for how long. As such, ICAI’s recommendation to DFID to continue to invest in research and evidence in an ever-evolving field of practice is a welcome one. Saferworld has been working to compile some of the existing practice and evidence from our own programming, including through the production of our Community Security handbook, and look forward to continued testing and development of the assumptions behind what we do.

ICAI’s report, while critical of DFID’s record, makes it clear that a strategic focus on security and justice in the UK’s development work remains entirely correct. And if it helps the wider sector shift away, once and for all, from interventions solely geared towards institutional reforms rather than peoples’ diverse security and justice needs, then it will be a very useful report indeed.

Shelagh Daley is Saferworld's UK Advocacy Coordinator and Will Bennett is one of our Conflict and Security Advisers.

Find out more about Saferworld's work on security and justice.

“While DFID’s early leadership and continued commitment to improving security and justice should be commended, a report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact marks an important opportunity to learn, improve and refocus the UK’s efforts on improving people’s broader experiences of security and justice, rather than merely supporting institutional reforms in the hope that improvements will trickle down.”

Saferworld