Every HQAI audit involves talking with people receiving assistance. Not as a tick-box exercise, not through an interpreter with a questionnaire — but as a genuine, structured conversation designed to surface what programme monitoring rarely captures.
This post explains how our field interviews work, what we are listening for, and what we have learned from thousands of conversations in over 40 countries.
The Setup
Our auditors visit communities selected independently from the organisation's own programme records. We do not announce which communities we will visit in advance. We conduct interviews in the local language wherever possible, using auditors who either speak the language or work with a trusted community interpreter — not an organisation staff member.
We aim for diverse representation: women and men, older and younger people, people with disabilities, recent arrivals and long-term programme participants. A typical field visit involves 15–30 individual or small-group conversations across two to three sites.
What We Ask
We do not present people with a list of questions about programme quality — that framing puts words in their mouths. Instead, we open with: "Tell us about your experience with this programme." We follow the conversation.
We do probe on specific CHS areas. Do people know what they are entitled to receive, and why? Have they ever wanted to raise a concern or complaint, and if so, how did they do it? Did they receive a response? Do they feel safe in their interactions with staff?
We also ask what is missing — what would have made the most difference that the organisation did not provide. The gaps in people's answers are as revealing as the answers themselves.
What We Hear
Community members are frequently more generous in their assessments of organisations than the internal evidence suggests they have reason to be. They often appreciate the presence of an organisation even when its systems are weak. That generosity is itself a vulnerability — it can mask the absence of meaningful accountability mechanisms.
The most telling feedback is almost never about technical quality of services. It is about dignity. Were they treated with respect? Were they consulted before a programme changed? Were they told why some people received assistance and others did not? These questions cut to the heart of what accountability actually means.
What Changes as a Result
Organisations that take audit feedback seriously — and most do — report that the community interview findings are the most actionable part of the process. Unlike a document gap, which requires a new policy, a respect and dignity finding requires a culture shift. Harder. But more important.
We publish the findings from community interviews in our audit reports, attributed only to "community members" to protect individual privacy. That transparency matters — it means organisations cannot quietly file the feedback away.