Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring. Overview What is CCPM? CCPM process Experience from 5 Nutrition clusters – Process- what worked, what worked.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring. Overview What is CCPM? CCPM process Experience from 5 Nutrition clusters – Process- what worked, what worked."— Presentation transcript:

1 Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring

2 Overview What is CCPM? CCPM process Experience from 5 Nutrition clusters – Process- what worked, what worked less well – Compiled results from 5 nutrition cluster CCPM’s Next steps for CCPMs

3 What is the CCPM? Arose out of the Transformative Agenda, to improve accountability Self-assessment of cluster performance against the 6 core cluster functions and Accountability to Affected populations: 1.Support service delivery 2.Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making 3.Strategy development 4.Monitor and evaluate performance 5.Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning. 6.Advocacy +++++ section on Accountability to Affected Populations Country led process, supported by Global Clusters and OCHA The CPM can be applied by both clusters and sectors Implemented since 2013

4 Why monitor cluster performance? Ensure efficient and effective coordination Take stock of what functional areas work well and what areas need improvement Raise awareness of support needed from the HC/HCT, cluster lead agencies, global clusters or cluster partners Opportunity for self-reflection Strengthening transparency and partnership within the cluster Show the added value and justify the costs of coordination

5 The CCPM does not … Monitor response (service delivery) Evaluate individual partners or coordinators Evaluate if/when clusters should be deactivated, merged etc. (review of the cluster architecture) Exclude usage of other tools with the same purpose

6 When to implement the CCPM? Protracted crises: Annually, but clusters decide when to implement it New emergencies: 3-6 months after the onset and once every year thereafter. If several core functions have been registered as weak

7 Who is involved? Country clusters: coordinator and partners Global Clusters: Technical and facilitation support OCHA-HQ: Technical and facilitation support upon request UNICEF/CLA –Geneva: Technical and facilitation support upon request for all UNICEF lead clusters OCHA-FO: coordinate across clusters (ICC) and ensure engagement of HC/HCT

8 CCPM process

9 Step 1: Planning HCT decision on CCPM timeframe and participation Inter-cluster Coordination Group discussion to clarify –Purpose –Timing –Role of government –Commitment to follow-up Output I: Agreement on implementation and timeframe

10 Step 2: The Survey Three online questionnaires: Cluster Description Report (Cluster Coordinator) Coordination Performance Questionnaire (Cluster Coordinator) Coordination Performance Questionnaire (Cluster partners) –Responses are anonymous –Survey results only shared externally after the cluster has contextualised it. Output II: The survey results are weighted and compiled into a report

11 CCPM report

12 Step 3: Cluster analysis and action planning Review/amend the Cluster Description Report Explain/contextualize findings Identify actions for improvement, timeframe and entity responsible for follow-up Pinpoint support requirements Note: Clusters can request the secretariat of the global clusters or OCHA-HQ for facilitation support Output III: Final CCPM and Action Plan –Shared with the HC/HCT and Global Cluster and, if applicable, the national authorities

13 Step 4: Follow-up & Monitoring Follow-up: ICC: Review of Reports/Action Plans to identify common weaknesses to be addressed systematically. HCT: Presentation of Reports/Action Plans and discussion of support requirements Monitoring: Take stock of progress at monthly cluster meetings Quarterly progress reporting to the HCT Output IV: Quarterly reports to HCT

14 Nutrition Clusters that have completed CCPM Philippines South Sudan Somalia Chad Afghanistan

15 Overview of key achievements, issues and challenges by core area from all 5 CCPM

16 Core area 1: Supporting service delivery Challenges Information flow between MoH and Nutrition Cluster, national and sub-national level and from Cluster team to partners is weak Cluster approach and core function not well understood by some partners Poor attendance of mtgs by gov and tech staff in field based agencies What is working well… In general, partners happy with how service delivery is going – Reg mtgs are held – Partners list updated regularly – Websites developed – IM reporting tools available and used – Capacity mapping completed – Systems to avoid duplications in place Overall rating: Good

17 Core area 2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT What is working well…..(to partly address this core area) Some needs assessments done Some cross cutting issues analysed (gender, age) Challenges Prioritization of activities not grounded in strong analysis Gap analysis and prioritization of needs jointly with partners and other clusters is weak Analysis of some cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS and disability) weak Overall rating: Borderline Unsatisfactory

18 Core area 3: Planning and strategy development What is working well…. Overall good application and adherence to existing standards and guidelines Strategic plan developed Challenges Need to clarify funding requirements, prioritization and cluster contributions to humanitarian funding considerations No deactivation or phase- out strategy Limited strategic planning at sub-national level Limited sub-national consultation on response plan Overall rating: wide range good to unsatisfactory

19 Core area 4: Advocacy What is working well…. Some satisfied with advocacy discussions and results Advocacy around milk code received unified support Challenges Issues requiring advocacy are not discussed comprehensively within the cluster or proactively taken forward when identified Unclear if advocacy issues get raised to HCT, limited feedback Advocacy has not been adequately addressed by the cluster Overall rating: wide range good to weak

20 Core area 5: Monitoring and reporting Achievements Systems for regular partner reports are in place (with different level of satisfaction) Some information regularly shared Country bulletins produced Challenges Insufficient reporting back to partners on progress Field monitoring is infrequent Unclear mechanisms for sharing reports with WFP, UNICEF and the Cluster- leads to duplication and gaps Quality of partner reports Timeliness of report submission Limited consideration of partner reports in cluster reporting, publication of cluster bulletins and monitoring Lessons learned not documented and used for programming Overall rating: wide range good to satisfactory

21 Core area 6: Contingency planning/preparedness Achievements Partners felt involved in planning and risk assessments Challenges Limited partner involvement in risk assessment and analysis Contingency planning scenarios done by OCHA with no consultation of cluster No national contingency plan for nutrition Preparedness plans exist but are outdated Overall rating: satisfactory

22 Accountability to affected populations Achievements Most partners have organizational mechanisms for this Challenges Cluster role in this unclear No review done of cluster accountability to affected populations Most partners have some but no standard mechanisms and limited mechanisms for response to complaints Overall rating: satisfactory

23 Feedback on the process CCPM guidance sufficient Support from Geneva good Acceptance of the CCPM process at the country level - more so if cluster is engaged in discussions around the process/timing so as not perceived as imposed by someone else

24 Learning from this process Strong understanding of exercise is required by all partners before exercise and good facilitation for review Number of respondents/organization - guidance says 1 per organization but more would be useful Language very UN focused and questions clearer in English than French A need for more flexible questionnaire Engagement from donors, OCHA and cluster, throughout the process is required - not dominated by any one. Need to develop separate donor section for questionnaire. Sub-national cluster input would add value Sub-national cluster questionnaire requires adjustments

25 CCPMs next steps CCPMs are country driven and planned GNC-CT encourages country clusters to conduct CCPMs and is here to support with the process – Review reports – Advocacy – Surge support to facilitate CCPM discussions

26 Group work Divide into 6 groups- each representing one core function area of the cluster SAG members will chair each group Select a rapporteur for the group Read through the country context sheets with CCPM matrix Review expected outputs under each functional area Using powerpoint develop 3 slides to answer the following questions – What are other issues/constraints to effective coordination based on group’s experience around this specific functional area? – Who takes these issues forward and how? In the workplan? or roles? – GNC-CT – SAG – Partners If it is not in the workplan, where should it go? And who takes it forward

Download ppt "Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring. Overview What is CCPM? CCPM process Experience from 5 Nutrition clusters – Process- what worked, what worked."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google