Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring

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

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: Support service delivery Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making Strategy development Monitor and evaluate performance Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning. 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 Support from Global Clusters and OCHA: Facilitation support can be provided by the secretariats of the Global Clusters and OCHA-HQ. Technical support to implement the CPM questionnaires is provided by those Clusters who has the survey tool and OCHA provides technical support to those clusters who do not have the survey tool. In protracted crises, the CPM should be implemented on an annual basis, but clusters decide when to implement it. If several of the core functions have been registered as weak, requiring more frequent monitoring and follow-up on improvement actions, it is recommended that the CPM is implemented on a more regular basis. Experience shows that it is difficult to implement the CPM in a context where clusters have simultaneous commitments (e.g. the Strategic Planning Process, donor visits etc.) or the cluster architecture is in transition.

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

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

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

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 Coordination of the CPM: Preference is that all clusters carry out the CPM exercise at the same time. If there is not agreement by the HC/HCT and/or clusters to carry out CPM across all clusters, individual (or small groups of clusters) are free to implement CPM on their own, with support of their Global Cluster. If the country cluster expresses interest in implementing the CPM to the global cluster, the global cluster should (i) encourage the country cluster to speak to the other clusters and the OCHA Office to encourage multi-cluster participation and (ii) inform OCHA, which then will inform the relevant OCHA Office. If interest is expressed to OCHA-HQ, OCHA shall (i) inform global clusters, which will follow-up with country clusters and support their decision-making and (ii) contact the Country Office, which then can advocate for a multi-cluster approach.

CCPM process

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

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 Important: To share the right link with the right people – i.e. do not share the link for the cluster coordinator with cluster partners and don’t share links between clusters. Not to insert sensitive information in the comment boxes, as these automatically will be part of the Preliminary Coordination Performance Report. In principal these comments are to be taken out, but better to be safe than sorry.

CCPM report Background information (if asked): In the report, there is a column labeled ‘performance status’. Each core function gets a score (the median) based on the calculation of responses to the questionnaires. The score is classified into a 4-category scale of performance status: Green = Strong (> 0.75) Yellow = Satisfactory (0.51-0.75 ) Orange = Unsatisfactory (0.26-0.50) Red = Weak (≤ 0.25)  The scoring for each question assists in identifying those function that require improvement and additional support.

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

Step 4: Follow-up & Monitoring 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 It is recommended to the stock taking of the progress at the cluster meetings are recorded in the minutes from the meeting.

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

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

Core area 1: Supporting service delivery Overall rating: Good 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 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 Supporting service delivery Cluster management structure is in place: CT, Sub-national clusters/TWGs (if needed), SAG, TWGs, Task forces (if needed), including clear ToRs; Cluster, SAG, TWG meetings are organised: agenda, minutes, action points prepared and shared; 3 or 4 Ws is developed, regularly maintained and analysed: who is doing what, where, when, contact list for all partners, donors, Gov’t; Partners’ capacity mapping conducted, analysed and shared; Cluster inputs for Situation Reports and Humanitarian dashboards are provided in timely manner.

Core area 2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT Overall rating: Borderline Unsatisfactory 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 Informing strategic decision-making of the HC/HCT for the humanitarian response Nutrition Assessments/Surveys Plan is in place; Gender-, age-sensitive Nutrition Assessments/Surveys tools and methodologies agreed; Nutrition Assessments/Surveys Database is in place and regularly updated; Cluster inputs for HNO/Situation Analysis are timely submitted to OCHA/Inter-Cluster Working Group; Cluster Priority Matrix for response is developed, analysed and regularly updated

Core area 3: Planning and strategy development Overall rating: wide range good to unsatisfactory 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 Planning and strategy development Cluster strategic priorities, objectives and plans, including activities and indicators are in place, are in line with SRP’s strategic priorities and take into account cross-cutting issues and inter-cluster linkages; National standards and guidelines are agreed upon and available, including determination of the NiE packages; Cluster response plans are prioritized and costed, projects are vetted and submitted to UN OCHA OPS;

Core area 4: Advocacy Overall rating: wide range good to weak 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 What is working well…. Some satisfied with advocacy discussions and results Advocacy around milk code received unified support Planning and strategy development Cluster strategic priorities, objectives and plans, including activities and indicators are in place, are in line with SRP’s strategic priorities and take into account cross-cutting issues and inter-cluster linkages; National standards and guidelines are agreed upon and available, including determination of the NiE packages; Cluster response plans are prioritized and costed, projects are vetted and submitted to UN OCHA OPS; Advocacy Advocacy concerns, including funding on behalf of the cluster are identified and communicated to the CLA and HCT and broader humanitarian community/affected population; Cluster bulletins are regularly produced Cluster websites are in place and regularly maintained. Monitoring and reporting Monitoring framework based on SRP is in place and agreed upon by all cluster partners; Monitoring tools are in place, agreed upon by partners and used by all partners for reporting; Monitoring database is established, data analysed, regularly maintained and shared with partners, donors, HCT, OCHA; Cluster performance monitoring exercises are conducted regularly (once a year), action plans are developed, agreed, implemented and followed-up; Field monitoring visits are regularly conducted Contingency planning/preparedness/capacity building Contingency/preparedness plans (activities, roles, responsibilities) are in place; Capacity development plan based on capacity mapping is in place and regularly updated. Partners to support capacity building are identified, activities monitored.

Core area 5: Monitoring and reporting Overall rating: wide range good to satisfactory 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 Planning and strategy development Cluster strategic priorities, objectives and plans, including activities and indicators are in place, are in line with SRP’s strategic priorities and take into account cross-cutting issues and inter-cluster linkages; National standards and guidelines are agreed upon and available, including determination of the NiE packages; Cluster response plans are prioritized and costed, projects are vetted and submitted to UN OCHA OPS; Advocacy Advocacy concerns, including funding on behalf of the cluster are identified and communicated to the CLA and HCT and broader humanitarian community/affected population; Cluster bulletins are regularly produced Cluster websites are in place and regularly maintained. Monitoring and reporting Monitoring framework based on SRP is in place and agreed upon by all cluster partners; Monitoring tools are in place, agreed upon by partners and used by all partners for reporting; Monitoring database is established, data analysed, regularly maintained and shared with partners, donors, HCT, OCHA; Cluster performance monitoring exercises are conducted regularly (once a year), action plans are developed, agreed, implemented and followed-up; Field monitoring visits are regularly conducted Contingency planning/preparedness/capacity building Contingency/preparedness plans (activities, roles, responsibilities) are in place; Capacity development plan based on capacity mapping is in place and regularly updated. Partners to support capacity building are identified, activities monitored.

Core area 6: Contingency planning/preparedness Overall rating: satisfactory 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 Achievements Partners felt involved in planning and risk assessments Planning and strategy development Cluster strategic priorities, objectives and plans, including activities and indicators are in place, are in line with SRP’s strategic priorities and take into account cross-cutting issues and inter-cluster linkages; National standards and guidelines are agreed upon and available, including determination of the NiE packages; Cluster response plans are prioritized and costed, projects are vetted and submitted to UN OCHA OPS; Advocacy Advocacy concerns, including funding on behalf of the cluster are identified and communicated to the CLA and HCT and broader humanitarian community/affected population; Cluster bulletins are regularly produced Cluster websites are in place and regularly maintained. Monitoring and reporting Monitoring framework based on SRP is in place and agreed upon by all cluster partners; Monitoring tools are in place, agreed upon by partners and used by all partners for reporting; Monitoring database is established, data analysed, regularly maintained and shared with partners, donors, HCT, OCHA; Cluster performance monitoring exercises are conducted regularly (once a year), action plans are developed, agreed, implemented and followed-up; Field monitoring visits are regularly conducted Contingency planning/preparedness/capacity building Contingency/preparedness plans (activities, roles, responsibilities) are in place; Capacity development plan based on capacity mapping is in place and regularly updated. Partners to support capacity building are identified, activities monitored.

Accountability to affected populations Overall rating: satisfactory 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 Planning and strategy development Cluster strategic priorities, objectives and plans, including activities and indicators are in place, are in line with SRP’s strategic priorities and take into account cross-cutting issues and inter-cluster linkages; National standards and guidelines are agreed upon and available, including determination of the NiE packages; Cluster response plans are prioritized and costed, projects are vetted and submitted to UN OCHA OPS; Advocacy Advocacy concerns, including funding on behalf of the cluster are identified and communicated to the CLA and HCT and broader humanitarian community/affected population; Cluster bulletins are regularly produced Cluster websites are in place and regularly maintained. Monitoring and reporting Monitoring framework based on SRP is in place and agreed upon by all cluster partners; Monitoring tools are in place, agreed upon by partners and used by all partners for reporting; Monitoring database is established, data analysed, regularly maintained and shared with partners, donors, HCT, OCHA; Cluster performance monitoring exercises are conducted regularly (once a year), action plans are developed, agreed, implemented and followed-up; Field monitoring visits are regularly conducted Contingency planning/preparedness/capacity building Contingency/preparedness plans (activities, roles, responsibilities) are in place; Capacity development plan based on capacity mapping is in place and regularly updated. Partners to support capacity building are identified, activities monitored.

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

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

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

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 Handouts: -Country summary with CCPM summary tables -Print out expected outputs under each functional area Facilitators: SAG members + Ayadil + Jackie Report back on ppt slides: -key issues and constraints -What GNC-CT can do to support further? -What can partners do to support further?