Revised PCPRs and GNOD: Potential impact on our work in Programme Quality Assessment An Initial Discussion Miguel Moreno, Ari Uotila, WVC

GNODs vs PCPRs The Global National Office Dashboard (GNOD) - assessment of a National Office’s progress towards achieving its core objectives. It is used as a performance monitoring tool. The Programme Capability and Performance Review (PCPR) - measures National Office’s performance and capability to deliver programming outcomes in 7 different areas (dimensions). Starting in FY14, the GNOD was adjusted to include additional areas and specific indicators so that ALL measurements for PCPR are now included in the GNOD (but not all measurement of GNOD are included in PCPR).

GNODs vs PCPRs PCPR & July 2014 GNOD DimensionIndicatorData Frequency Country ContextFragility IndexQ1 & Q3 Christian Commitment Leadership FormationQ1 Church RelationsQ1 Staff FormationQ1 Operational Effectiveness Security Risk ManagementQ1 & Q3 Security TrainingQ1 & Q3 People Capacity Staff Formation (CC) Voluntary TurnoverQ1 & Q3 Employee EngagementQ3 % Key Roles with SuccessorQ1 & Q3 % Performance Reviews CompletedQ1 Sponsorship Management Sponsorship Service Operations Index **Q1 & Q3 Registered Children MonitoredQ1 & Q3 Child Well-Being Child Protection and Child Safe Organization Practices **Q1 & Q3 Child Well-being Report QualityQ3 Funding Diversification Acquisition PipelineQ3 Grant Expenditure RateQ1 & Q3 Resource Diversification *Q1 Programme Quality Quality of Programme DesignsQ1 Progress in Relation to Programme ObjectivesQ1 Status of Baseline in ProgrammesQ1 Programme Effectiveness in Programme ImplementationQ1 Advocacy Local Level AdvocacyQ1 National Level AdvocacyQ1 Disaster ManagementDisaster Management CapabilityQ3 Financial Management Liquidity and CashQ1 & Q3 Internal Control, Audit and ComplianceQ1 & Q3 Spending and EfficiencyQ1 & Q3

Program Quality (PQ) Dimension DimensionIndicator Data Frequency Programme Quality 1.Quality of Programme Designs Q1 2.Progress in Relation to Programme Objectives Q1 3.Status of Baseline in Programmes Q1 4.Programme Effectiveness in Programme Implementation Q1

PCPR/GNOD on Programme Quality 1. Quality of Program Design (PDDs). For the January 2015 GNOD, this indicator will be based on all Q4 FY14 PDD reviews submitted by NOs to SOs. A new review format has been provided and PST SO members (as well as NOs) are required to use this new review tool to assess PDD Quality. Canada International Programs response: – [Period July-September/14] For ADP PDDs (Programme Design Documents), WVC will use both the existing WVC PDD checklist and the GC PDD checklist – Starting October/14, WVC IP will use a modified checklist combining both WVC and GC elements. GC data will be provided to GC for the PCPR/GNOD compliance purposes – Important to recognize that this is an interim measure based on LEAP2 PDDs. SOs need to be vigilant to ensure Fiduciary accountability as the partnership moves towards LEAP3.

PCPR/GNOD on Programme Quality 2. Progress in relation to program objectives. This indicator will be based on the NO review of Annual Reports. Sections of the LEAP review quality checklist have now become mandatory (it has been optional up to now). It is suggested the PST SOs conduct parallel reviews. NO rating level is average of ADP ratings. NO and PST SOs will need to agree. RO will recommend final overall rating. A WVC IP Response has not yet been formulated. The changes and now the delay in roll-out of Horizon3 brings arguable more unknowns than does this change. Questions from the WVC Quality Assurance team: – Should we incorporate the quality checklist into our current AR review template? – If so -which would increase considerable the length our review tool- what additional resources would we need to process the ARs in a reasonable timeframe? – What would be the format, process and synthesis of PST reviews of Annual Reports?

PCPR/GNOD on Programme Quality 3.Status of baselines. NOs will start reporting on % of programs with baselines. The means for this is that that baseline reports will be uploaded to Horizon. WVC has been capturing a similar indicator consistently for the past two years, with the difference that we gather data from annual and semi-annual reports (not Horizon) and look for evidence that baseline values have been incorporated into the ITTs at the project level. Completed baseline reports is not the same as baseline values completed in the ITTs. As it is now, our current indicator would complement what NOs will report on. We will need to wait for the template to be provided by GPET to the NOs to see if there is something for us to align. We will also need to wait to see the full operationalization of Horizon3 to see how the baseline I indicator monitoring will work in the revised PCPR/GNOD.

PCPR/GNOD on Programme Quality 4.Program Effectiveness in Program Implementation. This indicator will be measured by the NOs through self-reviews using a tool to assess their performance against the 13 PE Standards. NOs will then self-recommend their own average rating which will be later validated by the ROs. This indicator (among the 4 for PQ) is perhaps the more subjective. It could be argued if the ROs have the in-depth knowledge of the realities on the ground to be able to validate adequately – otherwise the objectivity of this indicator is in doubt. PST SO members are apparently not included in the assessment of this indicator.

PCPR/GNOD on Advocacy Dimension DimensionIndicator Data Freque ncy Advocacy Local Level AdvocacyQ1 National Level AdvocacyQ1

PCPR/GNOD on Advocacy Dimension 1. Local Level Indicator. For the January 2015 GNOD, this indicator is based on NO information about the % of ADPs where WV facilitates community advocacy (CVA, CPA, or any other). This will also be used for the Partnership Strategic Measure (PSM) metric. SOs should be able to triangulate this information with what is being reported in the ARs. For WVC - we might not need to collect anything different to what we are already collecting.

PCPR/GNOD on Advocacy Dimension 2. National Level Indicator. For the January 2015 GNOD, this indicator is based on a self- assessment questionnaire which is verified by the RO. Advocacy managers/coordinators at both levels are responsible and data (of assessment) will be stored at GC database (not available to SOs) Horizon 3 should make easier to demonstrate the links between planned advocacy and national strategy. PST SO members are apparently not included in the assessment of this indicator.