What is the difference between a GRMP and a grievance log?

The GRMP is the plan: it defines the tiers, who sits on each committee, the timeframes, the escalation triggers and the authority each tier has to approve a remedy. The grievance log is the register that records what actually happened against that plan. A project needs both — a plan with no register cannot be audited, and a register with no plan behind it has no defined response times to be measured against.

How many tiers should a GRM have?

Enough that a complaint can be resolved close to where it arose, and escalate automatically when it cannot be. Four is common on projects spanning village, sub-county, district and national/project levels — matching Uganda's local government structure — but the number matters less than that each tier has a defined, different authority. Two tiers that both just 'try to resolve it' is one tier with extra paperwork.

Does a GBV or SEA complaint ever go through the GRMP?

No. Every tier of the GRMP should be trained to recognise a disclosure of gender-based violence or sexual exploitation and divert it immediately to a separate, confidential channel — never to log, discuss or investigate it within the general mechanism. See the GBV/SEA action plan template for that channel.

Who has authority to approve a remedy at each tier?

This has to be explicit and financial, not just procedural — e.g. the sub-county tier can approve remedies up to a stated value, the district tier handles valuation disputes with technical input from the Chief Government Valuer, and the national/project tier can commit project funds and instruct contractors. Without a stated financial limit per tier, every remedy above a token value ends up escalated regardless of the tier structure.

What does a lender check first in a GRMP?

Whether escalation is automatic on timeout rather than dependent on the complainant re-filing, and whether the external route — an independent accountability mechanism, ombudsman or the courts — is disclosed at intake rather than buried in an annex nobody reads. Both are simple to state and commonly missing in practice.

CSVFree · no registration

Grievance Redress Management Plan (GRMP) Template

An 11-section structure for a multi-tier grievance redress mechanism — village, sub-county, district and national/project level — with escalation triggers, timeframes and the GBV/SEA exclusion built in.

11 sections · four escalation tiers · with the standard reference behind each

A plan is not the same document as the register

Most resettlement projects can produce a grievance log. Far fewer can produce the document that says why the log is structured the way it is — which tier a valuation dispute goes to, how many days a sub-county committee has before a complaint escalates automatically, and what authority the district tier has that the village tier does not.

Without that document, the tiers exist informally, escalation depends on a complainant knowing to ask again, and a reviewer has no basis to check whether the log reflects a designed mechanism or a series of ad hoc decisions written down after the fact.

Why village, sub-county, district and national are four different jobs

Village/parish. First contact, no fee, local language — most complaints should resolve here within days. This tier fails when the community was never told who sits on the committee or where to find them.
Sub-county. Delegated authority to approve remedies up to a stated value. This tier fails when escalation depends on the complainant re-filing rather than an automatic timeout.
District. Distinct technical authority — valuation review, contested eligibility, access to the Chief Government Valuer. This tier fails when it duplicates sub-county rather than bringing a capability the lower tier does not have.
National/project. The Project Implementation Unit, with authority to commit project funds and instruct contractors. This tier fails when it only ever sees complaints that skipped straight past district — meaning district was never functioning as a real tier at all.

One reference number, from Tier 1 to closure

The single most common finding in a GRM review is not a missing tier — it is that each tier keeps its own spreadsheet, and a complaint's Tier 1 intake record cannot be matched to its Tier 3 resolution without asking someone who remembers the case.

The fix is structural, not procedural: one grievance reference number is issued at intake and carried through every escalation, so the full history — who received it, what was tried at each tier, how long it took, and what was ultimately decided — is visible from a single query rather than reconstructed from four people's memories.

Questions

What is the difference between a GRMP and a grievance log?: The GRMP is the plan: it defines the tiers, who sits on each committee, the timeframes, the escalation triggers and the authority each tier has to approve a remedy. The grievance log is the register that records what actually happened against that plan. A project needs both — a plan with no register cannot be audited, and a register with no plan behind it has no defined response times to be measured against.
How many tiers should a GRM have?: Enough that a complaint can be resolved close to where it arose, and escalate automatically when it cannot be. Four is common on projects spanning village, sub-county, district and national/project levels — matching Uganda's local government structure — but the number matters less than that each tier has a defined, different authority. Two tiers that both just 'try to resolve it' is one tier with extra paperwork.
Does a GBV or SEA complaint ever go through the GRMP?: No. Every tier of the GRMP should be trained to recognise a disclosure of gender-based violence or sexual exploitation and divert it immediately to a separate, confidential channel — never to log, discuss or investigate it within the general mechanism. See the GBV/SEA action plan template for that channel.
Who has authority to approve a remedy at each tier?: This has to be explicit and financial, not just procedural — e.g. the sub-county tier can approve remedies up to a stated value, the district tier handles valuation disputes with technical input from the Chief Government Valuer, and the national/project tier can commit project funds and instruct contractors. Without a stated financial limit per tier, every remedy above a token value ends up escalated regardless of the tier structure.
What does a lender check first in a GRMP?: Whether escalation is automatic on timeout rather than dependent on the complainant re-filing, and whether the external route — an independent accountability mechanism, ombudsman or the courts — is disclosed at intake rather than buried in an annex nobody reads. Both are simple to state and commonly missing in practice.

Read before you use it

Practical guides

Technical research

What makes a grievance mechanism work: accessibility, escalation and the closure problem

All RAP templates →

The software behind this

SmartLARMS keeps this as a live record, not a spreadsheet

A template is a starting point. The version that survives a completion audit is one where every change is attributed to a person and a date, and where the numbers reconcile to what was actually paid.

Talk to us → olules@smartlarms.com