UNICEF CSO Procedure – Overview of key revisions
Rationale
1. Address findings of recent UNICEF audits and inter-agency evaluations in relation to partners’
selection, assessment and management
2. Update legal agreements consistent with the evolving nature of partnerships with CSOs
3. Streamline the partnership development, review and reporting around results-based management
principles
4. Fast-track humanitarian response when working with CSOs
Overview
ᴥ Clarifies requirements for formalizing relationships with CSOs along both the contractual and
partnership streams
ᴥ Outlines steps for formalizing relationships with CSOs aligned to the partnership cycle, and
associated workflows and accountabilities for COs, RO and HQ
ᴥ Includes considerations and simplifications applicable to emergency/ humanitarian response
ᴥ Provides standard tools, templates and additional guidance for streamlining and operationalizing
each step of the partnership cycle
Key revisions
Topic/issue
2009 PCA Guidelines
2015 UNICEF CSO Procedure
Step 1: Identifying the CSO
Nature of the Mentions contractual and
relationship
partnerships streams as
options for formal
relationships with CSOs
CSO selection Mentions CSO mapping as
part of the situation analysis
and strategic planning
exercise
Clarifies when to use each of these modalities by providing:
 A decision tree for determining the nature of the relationship
 The list of services typically using contractual versus
partnership relationships. Exceptions require Rep.’s approval
Requires documentation of the CSO selection and provides
options and tools:
 Direct selection approach, used based on specific
considerations (known expertise; timing/ criticality of response;
innovative approach, local presence, etc.)
 Open selection approach, used to identify prospective partners
through a generic or specific Call for Expression of Interest.
Due diligence Indicates 4 types of
 Cores values and integrity must be undertaken prior to
assessment required:
entering into partnership1
 Core values and integrity
 Micro assessment undertaken before or after partnership is
 Financial management
finalized in line with HACT Procedure
 Programme management
 Other assessments (if any) undertaken as part of the CSO
 Logistics/procurement
selection process.
Step 2: Designing and formalizing the partnership
Legal
Provides 4 legal agreement
Key revisions include the following:
agreement
options for partnership with
 SSFA limit raised to $50,000, mainly intended for national
CSOs:
CSO; can be used in humanitarian response to transfer up to
 SSFA for partnerships up to $50,000 plus up to 3 months of supplies
$20,000/year
 PCA timeframe extended to the full duration of the country
 Light PCAs for partnerships
programme (or beyond if applicable2), to be used as “umbrella”
up to $100,000
legal agreement, accompanied by one or more programme
1
HQ in case of international CSO -when the CSO has offices in more than one country. Otherwise, the assessment is done by the CO based
on information provided by the CSO in the Partner Declaration and verification of the United Nations Security Council targeted sanctions lists.
2
I.e. in cases where the programme document attached to the PCA is funded from grants with an expiry date beyond the country programme
duration.
UNICEF CSO Procedure – Overview of key revisions
Topic/issue
Programme
document
2009 PCA Guidelines
2015 UNICEF CSO Procedure
 Complex PCA for
partnerships over $100,000
 MOUs for partnership with
no transfer of resources
Provides a template for
programme document, joint
work plan and budget and
standard report
documents defining the scope of the partnership (results; work
plan; budget)
MOU – out of the scope of the procedure, to be dealt separately
Streamlined programme document template, workplan and
budget and standard performance report:
 Simplified format that is a focused document on the results
framework
 Results-based workplan and budget integrated in 1 document
 Budget defined at activity (not input) level
 References scope and frequency of joint monitoring,
assurance and partnership review activities
Budgeting
Three categories of costs:
Two budget categories:
 Direct programme support  Programme Cost including a standard output for “Effective and
efficient programme management” (replaces direct programme
costs (up to 25% of the
PCA)
support costs and associated 25% cap.)
 Indirect programme costs
 HQ Support Cost (7%) payable to international CSOs upon
(flat 7% addition to the PCA reporting of actual expenditures (not as advance). Payment to
cash component)
national CSO at Rep.’s discretion
 Programme costs
Detailed guidance on budgeting, eligible expenses and other
financial/admin matters – currency, bank accounts, VAT, etc.
Internal review  Institutes a PCA Review
Streamlines role of the Partnership Review Committee (PRC):
process
Committee to review PCAs  Guidance on membership and template for the PRC review
and suggests offices setting and approval
benchmarks for entering
 Flexibility to fit the office/country context
into partnerships with CSOs  Defines an organizational benchmark of 30-45 days to
formalize partnership with CSO (emergency/ regular context)
Step 3: Implementation, monitoring and reporting
Partnership
Provides general guidance on Institutes standards related to the partnership management
management managing the partnership
process:
and review
following launch of the
 Benchmark of 10 working days for disbursing funds following
agreement
submission of properly filled FACE form
 Annual partnership review meeting for partnerships
>US$100,000
 Guidance & standards for programme document revisions &
PCA Amendment Form
Reporting
Three types of reports
Integrated & streamlined reporting with a focus on results:
required:
 Simplified template for regular reporting on results aligned to
 Programmatic reporting on
reporting with FACE form (quarterly)
a 6-month basis
 Any additional reporting requirements to be documented in the
 Annual certified statement
programme document
of expenditures
 FACE form
Emergency/
 Mentions contingency PCAs Provides specific guidance / tools to speed-up onset of
Humanitarian
and SSFAs as tools for
humanitarian response:
response
preparedness and early
 Development and activation process for contingency PCAs
start-up of emergency
 Simplified programme document & reporting for emergencies
response
 New role of SSFA for transferring up to $50,000 plus 3 months
of supplies for immediate distribution
Step 4: Programme and partnership conclusion
Concluding,
 Provides guidance on
Includes new guidance on:
suspending or
phasing out and termination  programme document activity closure;
terminating
of agreements
 partnership evaluation.