EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE PROTECTION STANDBY CAPACITY PROJECT (March 2007)
Management Response Matrix
Updated June 2009
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
A. General Recommendations
1
2
The team endorses the original rationale for the
PROCAP initiative and recommends its continuation.
However, it should not be used as a substitute for
building protection capacity within agencies.
The team recommends that deployments can be made
to the HC’s office, or to OCHA, to undertake strategic,
policy development roles which are of benefit to an
inter-agency response.
o
Criteria and minimum conditions revised and finalised
with the Steering Committee. In new reporting formats,
SPOs inform on arrangements for sustainability in midterm and end of mission reports/debriefings; Institutional
capacity issues being addressed through newly
established PCWG Taskforce on Protection Staffing. UN
Agencies have confirmed on-going measures to
increase/support institutional capacity.
PSU lead, with
SC
o
Revised revised criteria and minimum conditions;
included option of deploying to OCHA/HC (and this has
been used in Myanmar, Ethiopia and Haiti in 2008).
Information on ProCap has been shared with HC/OCHA
resulting in increased knowledge/understanding of the
roster role, use and mechanism.
PSU lead, with
SC
o
Deployments to DPKO missions being undertaken
(Afghanistan, East Timor, DRC). Modalities with NRC
have been established (LoU) to facilitate such
deployments. Other potential deployments have been
In situations where the HC determines that additional
protection capacity is required to support the interagency protection response, the team recommends
that an HC can request an SPO deployment to a
protection mandated agency or to the Cluster Lead to
ensure the fulfillment of the strategic coordination role.
3
The team believes that it should potentially be open to
DPKO to request a PROCAP deployment where this
would be of strategic value.
PSU
NRC (on current
MOU status with
DPKO and other
Expected by
[month/year]
or
Implemented
Ongoing
or
Implemented
Implemented
[month/year]
or
Implemented
1
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
4
The team recommends that the PSU ensures greater
synergies with the Protection Cluster,
o
Including the facility to recommend deployments to one
or two ongoing major humanitarian crises or contexts
where the cluster approach will be adopted which
would benefit from additional capacity,
Including multiple deployments
discussed with identified focal points in UNFPA, IOM.
international
organisations)
Increased synergies established through: regular ProCap
participation in relevant PCWG meetings and taskforces;
shared agency representation (same personnel) in
PCWG/ProCap SC; PCWG observer status on ProCap
SC; PCWG participation in ProCap Technical Workshops;
ProCap participation in discussion on PCWG priorities
and increased influence on deployment decisions (inc for
Natural Disaster emergencies).
PSU lead, with
SC
Not Applicable
Implemented
B. Regarding the ‘strategic’ purpose of PROCAP
5
Senior-level leadership roles should be re-asserted as
the central pillar of PROCAP;
o
Criteria and minimum conditions revised; updated request
for deployment form (as above)
6
Mid-level (design and implementation) roles should be
also recognised as ‘strategic’ and deployment should
be allowed to fulfill such roles, when specific conditions
are in place;
o
as 5 above. In addition, ProCap proposed a ‘mid-level’
expansion of the roster in order to deploy and mentor
personnel alongside the Core Team. Donor funding was
not available for this.
7
Purely operational, staff-substitution or ‘bridging’ roles
in times of recruitment difficulties or delays should not
normally be undertaken by PROCAP. Such
deployments should only be considered where a clear
strategic purpose can be proven and there is
administrative staff in place to support the SPO.
o
as 5 above
Implemented
Implemented
Implemented
C. Regarding the duration of deployment
8
Initial deployments of up to nine months should be
o
Finalised revised criteria completed, with greater detail on
PSU, with SC
Implemented
2
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
allowed to all contexts, with a mid-term review which
endorses the inter-agency strategic impact of the
deployment. Extension to twelve months should be
possible upon evidence that a credible recruitment
process has been set in motion for replacement of the
SPO;
9
Where there is a gap in deployment, the SPO should
be brought to Geneva to support the work of the
Protection Cluster or one of the mandated protection
agencies.
procedures for longer deployments. Administrative,
logistic and cost implications of longer deployments have
been reviewed and found slightly cheaper. Some
contractual changes (on DSA) are now being
implemented to reflect longer deployment times. SPOs
have been formally notified.
o
ProCap SPOs have performed some Geneva-based
tasks for the Protection Cluster during down-time (work
on IDP Handbook, revision of HR in Natural Disasters
Guidelines). Some down-time activity also undertaken
from home-base (as significantly cheaper than Geneva
DSA). MOU allows deployment to agencies only in
Geneva, but not to Secretariat and this has been taken
into consideration. ProCap continues to liaise with
PCWG lead on upcoming activities that would benefit
from SPO support (including home-based work).
NRC
NRC
NRC
Implemented
PSU
NRC
.D. Regarding prioritizing and increasing deployment requests
10
A mechanism for prioritisation should be agreed by the
Steering Committee and the minimum criteria
expanded. Senior-level strategic work at a national or
multi-regional level and support to the roll-out of the
cluster should be given priority.
Mid-level (design and implementation) deployments for
work at sub-national level should be the next priority
and operational roles considered only as a last resort.
Minimum conditions for deployment should include
supervision by the Representative or the Head of
Protection of the requesting agency, or the
Humanitarian Coordinator.


The ‘appropriate’ supervisor has debated by the SC and
consensus reached that this is context specific, but
should be either the Rep or the most senior protection
person at the duty station (the issue being that the SPO
should not be going over the head of the head of suboffice if they are based regionally within a country). An
increasing number of deployments in the last six months
have been to the HC, where there has been a direct
reporting line as per the recommendation.
Prioritisation was clarified in the revision of the Criteria
and Minimum Conditions. A 'new case' for prioritisation
has been for sudden onset natural disaster response (in
an emergency situation) in relation to long-running
complex emergency. In 2008, this led to a priorisation by
the Committee of a request for Haiti (for the Humanitarian
Coordinator), over Chad (for UNHCR).
Implemented
3
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
11
The PSU and the Steering Committee should increase
promotion of PROCAP and communication of its
purpose.

Regular emails should be circulated by the participating
agencies highlighting the initiative.
PSU should increase contact with field-level Protection
Working Groups to promote its use.

Examples of the types of roles and tasks undertaken to
date should be provided.
Marketing plan produced; ProCap leaflet updated and
circulated (as brochure . . .), new guidelines on use being
updated (2009), letter to field on new deployments
developed and now used (although can be more
systematic),
liaison with PCWG through the Protection Cluster Support
Cell (now has observer status on the Steering Committee
to ensure these views taken into account); update on
current roles/tasks prepared for donor reports and
summary matrix also prepared in 2008 (and being
updated now for Strategic Review).
Draft by PSU for
comment/sugges
tions by SC.
Implemented
As above.
PSU
Draft from PSU.

Standardised 'public' report format developed for SPO
reports and now routinely shared with the SC members
and in hardcopy during briefings (debriefing session
invitation list reviewed and expanded to include increased
number (Geneva-based) PCWG members). Reports also
shared with PCWG support cell.
Report format
from PSU.
E. On the issue of recruiting and supporting SPOs
12
The bar on UN staff members taking leave of absence
to work as an SPO should be lifted.

No restriction has ever applied to SLWOP from agencies.
Agency-specific guidelines already in place. One UNHCR
staff member already with ProCap during SLWOP.
PSU
Implemented
o
Recruitment strategy prepared by NRC, including headhunting element. Increased awareness of ProCap and
word of mouth has increased the ‘pool’ of potential
candidates significantly in 2008.
NRC, with PSU
comments
Implemented
This is should be limited to one year only, with approval
from the individual’s supervisor and should be
undertaken on a secondment basis.
13
NRC should elaborate a head-hunting policy for
approval by the Steering Committee.
Head hunting should then be actively pursued by NRC
and the other agencies engaged in PROCAP;
4
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
14
The training facilities of the mandated agencies should
be made available to SPOs.
o
PSU liaised with SPOs on training priorities; SPOs have
participated in agency-specific training, such as UNHCR
WEM, and regular place-allocation on this training has
been achieved. SPOs also able to participate in other
agency-specific trainings if appropriate to their role/level
(including the PCWG Protection Coordination training).
Technical Workshops for SPOs (3 to date) include
training/information exchange on specific issues relevant
to protection in the field. ProCap has worked with the
Taskforce on Learning in development of the Protection
Coordination Training.
PSU with PCWG
Task Force on
Learning, SC
agencies.
SPOs
Implemented

New SPOs recruited with child protection expertise.
Further targeting agency-specific skills discussed with
OHCHR, UNICEF, and PCWG Focal Point agencies.
Donors did not approve proposed support role by ProCap
to PCWG AoRs.
Candidates from diverse backgrounds encouraged
through personal contacts; recruitment/advocacy mission
to Kenya/Uganda. Achieving diversity remains
challenging.
NRC
Implemented
NRC has an induction package/brief for all existing/new
SPOs, including financial arrangements. Technical
Workshops provide a further opportunity to address
issues on a regular basis. Financial disbursement has
always been possible (and actioned) through NRC offices
in country if required.
NRC
Implemented
PSU
Implemented
In addition, OCHA in collaboration with the Protection
Cluster Working Group, should develop a training
package targeted at PROCAP SPOs with a focus on
the strategic leadership and coordination of protection;
15
NRC should work with the human resource
departments of OHCHR and UNICEF to identify
individuals with strong human rights and child
protection backgrounds.
Efforts to expand the diversity on the roster should
continue, with NRC and OCHA working through their
country offices to identify suitable in-country
candidates;
16
A mechanism for payment of SPOs should be
established, perhaps through NRC if they have offices
in the country of deployment.


F. In relation to Tier III
17
Continue to promote protection in roster providers who
do not yet provide protection people (as per DRC and
RedR Australia previously. This should include non-
o
Canadem now established as a ProCap partner. Linkage
between Mercy Malaysia and other roster actively sought.
SRSA has provided in-kind support to ProCap (for
5
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
funded rosters (such as RedR in the UK) that service
not only the UN agencies but also NGOs who are
increasingly demanding protection staff.
training). Protection module now included in induction
training for OCHA’s roster partners.
o
ProCap Standby Partner meetings used as a forum to
review roster efforts to address diversity and on-going
mentoring schemes. Mid-level deployments have been
encouraged and actioned in some countries in support
of/and to be mentored by ProCap SPOs (ie Afghanistan,
Uganda, Myanmar). Advocacy paper presented to
donors to highlight recruitment and roster development
concerns of Standby Partners.
o
OHCHR on-going internal discussions on use of gratis
personnel have clarified concerns and potential
modalities to address these. PSU has provided relevant
materials to OHCHR, including sample MoUs and SoPs.
Mechanism has been established for joint deployment of
personnel to OHCHR and an agency partner (LoU).
PSU/OHCHR/N
RC
Implemented
In particular, PROCAP should look towards rosters
which can bring human rights experience into the mix.
Diversity should primarily be promoted by addressing
limiting factors within rosters, not principally by seeking
new rosters from new areas.
18
Facilitate the signing of MoUs between roster providers
and the mandated agencies.
PSU
In particular PROCAP should work with OHCHR to
develop an appropriate standard MoU so that they are
able to benefit from this resource.
19
Bring the roster providers together so that they can
work with the protection cluster to identify core
competencies for protection officers. Encourage the
roster providers to recruit to these competencies when
selecting people for their rosters.
o
Core Competencies developed by ProCap (and basis for
ProCap training). Shared with Protection Cluster for
PCWG to facilitate further discussion will all actors
through the PCWG Taskforce on Protection Staffing.
Review of recruitment policy undertaken with Standby
Partners.
PSU / Partners
Implemented
20
Convene the roster providers to agree recruitment
procedures with the mandated agencies that allow the
mandated agencies to feel confident in the protection
profiles on the rosters.
o
On going discussion with rosters and agencies on their
needs and respective procedures. ProCap provides one
forum, but agencies themselves are now meeting with
roster partners on a regular basis. Partner meetings have
been scheduled, including roster managers/UN agencies
to focus on recruitment policy, and highlight potential
ways forward (including pre-approval systems – this was
not thought appropriate). IRC has been included in such
meetings. Advocacy continues to UN agencies on
PSU/UN roster
managers
Implemented
This may include a process of pre-approval as per
Surge.
6
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
relevance of indigenous field experience and to donors
for the resources for recruitment and administration of
larger rosters;
21
Convene the roster operators and mandated agencies
to agree on the training, potentially including PROCAP
training on core protection skills, required for each
deployment.
Where that training is agency specific (e.g. in human
rights monitoring), agree with the mandated agencies
what is required and help the rosters to secure the
necessary places on the training programmes of that
agency.
22
Convene the roster operators and mandated agencies
to develop a scheme of mentored deployments similar
to the arrangement that DRC currently has with WFP.
These deployments should be used to allow individuals
with substantial professional expertise to gain their first
field experience.
o
UN agency roster managers requested to indicate
specific skills/competencies required for field protection
deployments (inc. RSD, child protection, HR monitoring –
and refer to IASC identification of skills). Further
consultation with PCWG on skills requirements within
Taskforce on Protection Staffing. Details of training
courses available to PCWG members now collated in
PCWG matrix (Taskforce on Learning). ProCap is a key
member of this group.
o A number of mentored deployment schemes are now being
established and trialled. Results are shared with the
Standby Group.
Implemented
Implemented
o Presented a proposal on Mentoring Future Senior
Protection Officers to donors (at Annex 4 of the donor
report for April 2008) and discussed this with them during
the meeting. They had no objection to the proposal, but is
'subject to funding'. ProCap identified 2-3 likely
candidates, but have never been in a position to proceed.
G. With regards to current activities, the team recommend that:
23
PROCAP continue to provide training in core protection
skills as per the existing course. Furthermore that
PROCAP builds a small cadre of ‘certified’ PROCAP
trainers who can be available to carry out training
sessions on the behalf of the rosters.
o ProCap liaised with SPHERE on their trainers certification
process and incorporated their lessons learned into
development of the training outreach strategy. Trainers’
obligations and cost-sharing has been discussed with
rosters. Additional ToT have now been trained and have
begun to co-train. An additional consultant has also been
recruited.
Implemented
7
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
24
PROCAP cease to investigate using the PROCAP
course as a certification process for protection officers.
The Steering Committee should feed the work carried
out to identify competencies for protection officers into
the similar process being developed under the
protection cluster.
25
PROCAP ceases to run a ‘live’ database of roster
members available for deployment.
o Discussion in Partner meeting on certification and potential
alternatives (i.e more formal assessment process) to give
‘value added’ feedback from ProCap training undertaken.
Certification has been discontinued and informal feedback
only continues.
Implemented
o ProCap work on competencies already fed into
development of PCWG CC’s. PSU/ProCap trainers
continue to engage with this process.
o Database, while established, was never run as a ‘Live’
database and this proposal has been discontinued. The
database continues as a reference tool only on personnel
trained by ProCap and a means of mapping this.
Implemented
o The model has been shared with other parties (eg OCHA
Surge Capacity, Emergency Response Roster, PCWG) for
their potential use.
26
PROCAP remodel the current website specifically to
provide information and support to roster operators and
information for agencies currently using or considering
the use of rosters based on the activities outlined
above.
The Steering Committee should consider offering the
work already carried out on developing a protection
resource bank and communities of practice to the
Protection Cluster for inclusion on its website, which is
understood to be under development.
27
IRC’s Surge project provides a good example of a costeffective recruitment regime. It is recommended that
ProCap promote these aspects of best practice with
the roster operators, in particular helping roster
members to access agency-specific training. However,
o Initiated follow-up meeting with PCWG on website linkage
for protection resource library (a resource for ProCap
trainnees). Link now exists between the two sites.
Resource library continues to be most used element of the
site (by Standby Partners and Trainees).
Implemented
o Maintained ProForum facilities for SPOs, SPEs and
Standby partner roster managers, details and resources for
ProCap training, and information on Standby Partner
mechanisms (plus links to dedicated sites) on ProCap
Online.
o
IRC attended Partner meeting and provided brief on
recruitment strategies and methodology. As IRC
recruits/deploys for one agency only (UNHCR) rather
than for multiple needs/agencies, not all methodologies
are appropriate.
Implemented
8
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
this should be supplemental to pre-deployment
training.
28
o
Finally the team recommends that OHCHR
begin to make use of the rosters available
as a tool through which they can bring
humanitarian expertise into their
organisation. In line with the
recommendations to PROCAP, the team
recommend that OHCHR decide what
additional support or training roster
members may require to be able to work
effectively within their organisation and on
this basis work with PROCAP to ensure it is
available.
o
On specific training, see 21 above.
o
See 18 and 21 above
Implemented
o
H. Regarding the current structure
29
30
The role of the Steering Committee should become
one of providing strategic leadership and support to
PROCAP, including deciding on priority countries for
interventions. Meetings should be reduced to once
every three months.
o
See 4 above.
o
The number of meetings has been reduced and roles and
responsibilities are more clearly defined. PSU is playing
an increased role.
o
o
Partially Accepted
o
SC still reviewing and approving deployments, although
process now quicker by email and PSU gives more
guidance.
The SC should cease to approve individual
SPO deployments, thought it should
continue to approve individual recruitments.
The agencies should consider who the most
appropriate people are to represent them on
this strategic agenda.
Implemented
Implemented
9
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
31
32
The PSU should provide a detailed report, including
financial breakdown, to the Steering Committee for
consideration at each (quarterly) meeting.
NGO representation on the Steering Committee should
be passed to the roster operators working with
PROCAP, who should then choose an individual to
represent them.

Rather than a detailed report at quarterly meetings, a
monthly update/for action report is circulated email on the
various elements of the project (which SC members find
useful), and providing specific funding updates as
required both within these - and separately when there is
a need to discuss the budget.

A detailed donor report is prepared twice a year.
o
Review recommendation with Partners to establish
(?rotating) representation.
o
ICVA has retained its role on the SC and NRC remains
observer.
o
Some discussion of change of membership but deemed
appropriate to have PCWG represented instead.
Implemented
Partially
Implemented
I. Regarding the hosting of PROCAP
33
OCHA should continue to host PROCAP, but ensure
greater synergies with the Protection Cluster Working
Group.
If the hosting passes to a mandated agency, care
should be taken to preserve the inter-agency nature of
the project.
o
Synergies with Protection Cluster Working Group
established. In addition to structural link, the PCWG
engages in debriefing of SPOs and sharing of end of
mission reports; there is a shared resource library and a
link with Training Task Team,
o
Hosting arrangements were formally reviewed with the
Steering Committee (and subsequently discussed with
donors) in March 2008 and April/May 2009. On both
occasions, OCHA was reconfirmed as the most
appropriate host and able to preserve the inter-agency
nature of the project.
Implemented
L. Regarding the PROCAP Support Unit
34
The PROCAP support unit is an appropriate size to
deliver the type of project anticipated by the 2007
PROCAP strategy in the light of the recommendations
made by this evaluation.
o
PSU workplan/roles and responsibilities were further
developed based on consensus on Evaluation
recommendations above.
o
No HR professional recruited, but appropriate training in
Implemented
10
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
No.
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions
are listed in this column in order of
priority/sequence)
Respon
sible
Branch
/Unit
Time frame
Status -
Expected [mm/yy]/
Ongoing /
Implemented /
Partially Implemented/
Not Implemented / Not
Applicable
Implemented
[mm/yy] /
Not applicable
However, as a large part of the work of PROCAP is
human resource related, the evaluation team
recommends that the Steering Committee consider
appointing an experienced human resource
development professional into the team.
human resources found and given to member of PSU
team.
o
SPOs positively evaluated the HR support received from
NRC (this is their role in the MOU).
o
Support needs more extensively discussed/addressed
through the Technical Workshops since the Evaluation.
M. Regarding NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council)
35
NRC received unequivocal support from all those
interviewed during the course of the evaluation. The
team thus strongly endorses them continuing in their
role.
o
MOU with NRC to be maintained. Annual addendums put
in place. Current MOU valid to December 2009.
o
See 13 and 15 above.
Implemented
The team also supports NRC’s request for support
(financial and technical as well as through
introductions) from the Steering Committee to allow
them to build up a small headhunting capacity for the
SPOs.
Notes:

Total No. of Recommendation as formulated in the ProCap Evaluation (Final report – March 2007): 35

This MRM takes in account the work prepared by the ProCap Support Unit (OCHA Geneva), in particular the ProCap Evaluation Next
Steps & Action Plan (vo.3 circulated in April 2008).

According to the Evaluation final report, the grouping of the different recommendations read as follow:
A. General
B. Regarding the strategic purpose of the PROCAP
11
C. Regarding the duration of deployments
D. Regarding prioritizing and increasing deployments requests
E. On the issue of recruiting and supporting SPOs
F. In relation to Tier II
G. With regards to current activities
H. Regarding the current structure
I.
Regarding the hosting of PROCAP
J.
Regarding the PROCAP Support Unit
K. Regarding NRC
Acronyms
PSU
OCHA Protection Support Unit
SC
Steering Committee
NRC
Norwegian Refugee Council
PCWG
Protection Cluster Working Group
SPO
Senior Protection Officer
Note: The Pro Cap Support Unit (PSU) has taken the lead in following up with this evaluation, and formulated a Post Evaluation Action Plan, which
was updated in April 2007. This PSU Action Plan incorporates all the recommendations into work planning, and tracks progress against evaluation
recommendations. It was presented to PSU stakeholder donors in November 2007, and has been posted on the ESS website in Feb 2008. This
new Action Plan is linked to the original recommendations and will be used to track progress in the future. It will be updated by Belinda
Holdsworth, of the ProCap Support Unit (PSU) again in March 2008.
The Pro Cap Support Unit (PSU) has updated the Post Evaluation Action Plan again in April 2008. This PSU Action Plan incorporates all the
recommendations into work planning, and tracks progress against evaluation recommendations. It was presented to PSU stakeholder donors in
April 2008 and has been posted on the ESS website in Jan 2009. In the first quarter 2009, ProCap has been undertaking a Strategic Review of
the Project with all stakeholders. Recommendations from this Review will form the basis of workplanning and monitoring post-April 2009.
12
The MRM was last updated and considered closed in March 2009 and is also posted on the ESS website.
13