Support provided by the GNC to
National Coordination Platforms
An Evaluation
With focus on the GNC Rapid Response Team
(& support provided by the GNC-Coordination Team)
Mija-tesse Ververs
GNC Annual Meeting 17-18 March 2015
Overview
• Introduction of RRT (brief)
• Methodology of evaluation
• Results
• Recommendations
• Part 1 RRT
• Part 2 GNC-CT support
Overview
Part 1 RRT
• Introduction of RRT (brief)
• Methodology of evaluation
• Results
• Recommendations
Part 2 GNC-CT support
Overview
Part 1 RRT
• Introduction of RRT (brief)
• Methodology of evaluation
• Results
• Recommendations
Part 2 GNC-CT support
Introduction
In the GNC Strategic Plan 2014-2016 Pillar 3:
• To ensure that the GNC collectively addresses issues of surge capacity
and operational support
• To support country surge capacity, i.e. identification of Cluster
Coordinators, Deputy Cluster Coordinators, IMO;
• To ensure that the GNC collectively addresses issues of surge capacity
and operational support;
• To manage the Rapid Response Team (and actively fundraises for this);
• To engage with Standby Partners to advocate for nutrition coordination
and information management surge staff;
• To manage the GNC roster, Nutrition Cluster Coordinators and
Information Managers Officers (identification, updating of the roster
with HR), for NiE technical specialists and related administrative
systems
UNICEF as CLA - RRT
• Since 2012, UNICEF as a CLA expanding RRT system
• Currently each UNICEF led cluster has a number of
RRTs.
The purpose of the RRT :
to increase the capacity of the GNC to support
cluster coordination and information management
functions
through rapidly deployable (surge) NCC and
Information Management Officers’ technical capacity
• RRT = partnership between the GNC/CLA and four GNC
partners.
Action Against Hunger—USA/UK,
International Medical Corps (IMC),
Save the Children—United Kingdom
World Vision - Canada
• Funds for the RRT raised by CLA and passed down
through funding agreements in the form of Programme
Cooperation Agreements (PCAs)
• Financial support from ECHO and DFID.
• The 4 host agencies (HA) responsible for recruitment
and management of RRT personnel incl. facilitating
deployment related administrative issues.
Context - RRT
• 2012-2013
• 2013-2014
•
•
•
•
•
: 1 RRT NCC
: RRT expanded to 5 RRT members
(3 NCC, 2 IMO)
Deployment within 72 hrs
Up to 8 weeks with max. 12 weeks, if needed
50% Deployment field – 50 non-field: 25% GNC 25% HA
Work GNC: deliverables agreed in work plan
Work HA: various
• During deployment field - facilitate and support NC
coordination processes at national and sub-national
levels as per IASC 6 core cluster functions
(Support service delivery; Inform HC/HCT’s strategic decision making; Plan and develop strategy; Monitor and
evaluate performance; Build capacity in preparedness and contingency planning; Advocacy).
• The RRT members can be deployed for:
• A declared L3 emergency
• A rapid onset emergency or rapid deterioration of preexisting situation
• The threat of forecast of L2 or L3 emergency
• An unpredictable and sudden loss of CC/IM capacity in an
established cluster
• To strengthen underperforming CC/IM platforms in an
established cluster.
Management RRT
• Global level: GNC-CT and HA
• National level: remotely by the above + line
supervisor UNICEF/CLA
(RRT member in UNICEF Country Office)
• Steering Committee (GNC-CT and HAs) decides on
deployment
• Target: 80% of deployment requests filled
Evaluation – Sep-Dec 2014
Methodology
Leah Richardson & Mija Ververs
Qualitative Evaluation using select OECD-DAC criteria –
Key-informants interviews and desk review
Key Informants:
 Previous and present RRT members (5/6)
 GNC-CT
 Strategic Advisory Group (SAG)
 RRT hosting agencies
 other Global Clusters
 Donors
 Relevant UNICEF staff including in-country supervisors for RRT missions.
to assess, systematically and objectively, the relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, connectedness, coverage and sustainability
Results on RRT Support
to National Platforms
Results on deployment time
• 2012/2013 the first GNC RRT member deployed 5 times in 1
year in 4 countries.
• June 2013 – Sept 2014 the 5 RRT members were deployed a
total of 17 times in 7 countries (see graph)
Time allocated
• Real deployment time 43% (below targeted 50%)
• Pre- and post deployment added then 55%...
• HA 18.5% (below targeted 25%)
• GNC 26.4% (slightly above targeted 25%)
Findings - Relevance
• GNC RRT system = relevant, appropriate and
essential;
And….closely aligned with needs on the ground.
• Its flexibility is part of its success.
• Need to better respect + protect allocated time
utilization
- to have a better duty of care for the RRT members
- to respect the commitment and engagement of HA.
Findings - Relevance
• Confusion among host agencies as to whether the 25% allocated ‘HA’
time of the RRT was to be used for
- support capacity building on the cluster approach within the HAs
or
- whether the time was to be used for nutritional technical support within
the HA.
Note: The PCAs with each HA specified HA time to be used for cluster
related capacity building initiatives.
• Physical location of RRT in 50% non-deployment time need not to be
defined ….as outputs often clearly defined
• Unpredictability of deployments: negative impact on fulfilling work plan
activities for both the GNC and for the HA.
Findings - Relevance
• ToRs often based on generic ToR and had to be
redefined in field – took valuable time of RRT
• RRT members spent considerable time arranging and
clarifying internal reporting and accountability
mechanisms (sometimes RRT NCC still obliged to
report to those responsible for UNICEF programmatic
areas as opposed to the recommended senior
management).
• Surge capacity to be extended to nutritional technical
surge (e.g. assessments, IYCF, CMAM). No consensus
on modality.
Findings – Relevance
actual deployment in relation to deployment criteria
• RRT used primarily as kickstarters for L3 emergency
Deployment by Emergencies
where the NC had just been
May 2012-Sep 2014 n=22
activated
and
• as gap fillers where UNICEF as
CLA had not yet identified
adequate staff.
• All RRT deployments aligned
to deployment criteria but NO
defined prioritisation of
deployment criteria.
36%
64%
L2 emergency or other
L3 emergency
Findings - Relevance
• NO tools to help the Steering Committee (SC) members
evaluate a deployment request either within the specific
context or in relation to ongoing or potential deployments.
• However, most concerned L3…
• SC had limited information by which to evaluate requests for
RRT deployments beyond
request form (as filled in by UNICEF’s COs) and accompanying
ToRs (mostly generic)
-> making it difficult to adequately determine the relevance of
the request. All requests were approved…(in 2nd period)
Findings - Relevance
• Some key informants questioned appropriateness to use
for RRT when
- sudden loss of NC coordination/IM or strengthening
- underperforming national coordination platforms
…It is UNICEF’s responsibility to solve this within its mandate as a
CLA…
…RRT system should not have been (ab)used for an underperforming
CLA... (6x deployments to South Sudan)
…UNICEF should have deployed from its own programme staff
(regional or CO) after several consecutive deployments of RRT
Effectiveness
Analysis of Surge Response
• RRT mechanism effective and timely – but 72 hrs???????
± 2 days from request for RRT to the decision taken by the
SC to deploy a RRT member and another 11 days until
arrival (visas…)
• a division of opinion among stakeholders:
- IM support to be provided through alternative
mechanisms such as by standby partners thereby
alleviating the cost/administration of having a standing IM
RRT
- essential every cluster coordinator deployed with an
information officer immediately (as a ‘couple’).
Effectiveness
Improved Coordination of the Emergency Response
• RRT system contributed to overall better coordination of
the emergency response because RRT members put
coordination systems in place.
• RRT members sometimes provided gap-filling that could
have been provided through alternative means.
• UNICEF’s recruitment – inadequate; RRT system made it
worse ….?.....!.. Inducing more complacency
• Why was it so difficult to find ‘normal’ NCC/IMOs for
Pakistan, Somalia (in NBO) and Sudan?
Effectiveness
Partner Participation in the Cluster
• GNC partners managed the RRT system: a positive
effect on the GNC’s global credibility as an
emergency response support service that focused
on the improvement of the overall response
..... and not something driven by UNICEF.
• Everybody agreed: partnership based on RRT
system worked effectively with good collaboration
between the GNC-CT and the HAs.
• Recruitment and retention of rapid response
personnel: significant challenge for majority of
HAs.
A few words on retention/recruitment
• Nature of the job with frequent and long
deployments, without predictability (‘holiday planning
impossible’)
• Nature of the expertise: NiE – not that many
available….
• Emergency: everybody looking for the same profile
competing with each other between and within
agencies
Fishing from the same pond …..often empty…
Efficiency
Majority of stakeholders indicated that current system
with UNICEF obtaining funding for RRT and passing it
through via PCAs was not the most efficient funding
mechanism
14% of the total project budget for the RRT system is
absorbed in administrative costs. (7% HA + 7% UNICEF)
Efficiency
On the other hand, placement of the RRT members
within HA partners is in fact a cost-saving measure in
terms of the overall economic burden of the GNC RRT
system:
USD 249,000 – 288,000 (incl.40,000 for travel)
if placed within the UN system
as compared to
USD 170,000 when placed with NGO partners (incl. costs of
3 deployments of 8 weeks).
Coherence/Connectedness
The role of regional offices related to CLA
responsibilities remains unclear and COs are not always
adequately supported in their coordination needs
..NCCs could come from Regional or CO and use RRT for its
purpose….
Coherence/Connectedness
The coherence of RRT support to national coordination
negatively affected by the general lack of understanding
of cluster approach at UNICEF CO.
RRT tries to resist UNICEF programmatic tasks, lobbies
of importance of CLA responsibilities within UNICEF….
RRT Retreat 2013 – similar findings, still problematic in 2014
Coverage
• Coverage of the RRT
support was adequate
• Availability: requests for
support was improved
from 67 to 100%
• Geographic coverage: all
regions except
southern/central America
received support
• Temporal coverage:
average of 7 weeks per
deployment (7/22 >8 wks)
Deployment RRT per Country
(May 2012 - Sep 2014: 22 times)
TURKEY (FOR SYRIA)
2
MALI
1
MAURITANIA
1
SOUTH SUDAN
6
SOMALIA
3
PHILIPPINES
4
PAKISTAN
1
CHAD
3
CAR
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sustainability
RRT was very effective during rapid response
deployment
however….. for sustainable results more focus
needed on the time in-between the RRT
deployment and the longer term HR solutions.
And …there needs to be somebody to handover to!
(sometimes it took months…)
RRT Retreat 2013 ‘When CO requests RRTs they should have
an ‘end-game ready’ for when the RRTs leaves’
Sustainability
• Retaining staff: suboptimal both in terms of duty
of care for the RRT personnel and for
efficiency/sustainability of RRT system.
(1/3 – continued contract >1yr)
• Most RRT members: highly experienced and
qualified resource - currently underused and
could contribute more to capacity building
initiatives.
Sustainability
• Many key informants felt that the funds used to cover double
administrative costs as a result of the money passing through
UNICEF could be better used in direct project costs and also
from a strengthened partnership point of view there was the
opinion that direct funding of NGOs would be preferable (as
opposed to contracting through UNICEF).
• Report provides more detail on other RRT/Cluster models ….
But GOLDEN standard yet to be defined….P34 report
• RRT members: not much on disaster preparedness during
(non-)deployment;
No clear consensus on how this concretely needed
to be done (but consensus that it was needed…)
GNC-CT Support to
National Platforms
Context
Global Nutrition Cluster Coordination Team (GNC-CT)
= GNC Coordinator + Deputy Coordinator.
supports country clusters through remote support
and in-country support visits to ensure effective
coordination and IM functions.
Context
Evaluation period:
GNC-CT support to
- 8 countries with RRT deployment
- Approx. 10 other countries with NCC without RRT
Context
In evaluation:
GNC-CT support to
- 8 countries with RRT deployment
6/8: CAR, South Sudan, Philippines, Pakistan, Chad,
Somalia
- Approx. 10 other countries with NCC without RRT
3/10: Afghanistan, Kenya and Ethiopia
Examples of support to national
coordination platforms by GNC-CT
a. Advisory support – sharing of information, annual meetings with specific date for
NCC, IM, GNC-CT
b. Raise finances for RRT team
c. Direct support to clusters for recruitment of NCC on ad-hoc basis through tests
and/or interviews (i.e. South Sudan and Somalia)
d. CCPM every year with opening of survey, help presentation of results and plan of
action. (5 completed and all requests supported)
e. Regular NCC calls for information sharing and sharing GNC bulletin
f. Sharing of Lessons Learned Documentation from Country Responses
g. Involving NCC in trainings (2 regional and 5 country level)
h. Developing 2hr orientation on cluster approach for partners
i. Provision of checklist for induction of new NCC
j. Assistance in surge
k. Support in knowledge management
l. Engagement with host partner ACF for development of country advocacy toolkit
Relevance
the GNC-CT was found
• To provide relevant and appropriate support to
national platforms
• To be very supportive and responsive, good at
communication and played a crucial role providing
information.
There is a perceived weak communication link
between the GNC-CT and the SAG members in relation
to the RRT system and activities (e.g. movement, and
results of RTT).
Effectiveness
• GNC-CT: improved coordination of the humanitarian
response esp. through fundraising, partnership
building/advocacy and support to national platforms.
(inclusivity!)
• Effectiveness of the GNC-CT support to national coordination
affected by management at country level and general lack of
understanding at the national level of the CLA’s
responsibilities with reference to national NCs.
• senior level GNC-CT deployments to support national
platforms: very important for creating understanding and
putting systems in place …..
however at a high price to the functioning of the GNC
…core business…
Efficiency
• GNC-CT: efficiently mobilized resources at its disposal
to fulfil its responsibilities to support countries as
successfully as possible.
• Efficiency of GNC-CT to mobilize HR to support
national platforms was affected by lack of functioning
integrated UNICEF-wide strategy for surge capacity
and for developing coordination staff ….. (CLARE
Report 2013)
NiE staff limited within UNICEF …
redeployment of UNICEF staff to fulfil CC uncommon…
Coherence/Connectedness
• The GNC-CT is actively working towards improving
the coherence of its work.
A costed work plan and fundraising strategy = 2 new
significant steps for collective GNC, providing a
coherent structure which to move forward with.
Coverage
• GNC-CT improved in-country coverage of humanitarian
coordination needs through efforts to supply a
combination of RRT members, stand-by partner
deployments and GNC-CT in-country deployments and
visits -> ≥ half of cluster countries receiving direct
support for their coordination needs.
Approx. 30% of GNC-CT time spent on supporting L3 emergencies,
other emergencies receiving support on an ad-hoc basis
Sustainability
Deployment of GNC-CT to support national platforms resulted
in global duties being neglected (only 2 people….)
• Some key informants: UNICEF as CLA to explore deploying
other senior staff on occasion for cluster responsibilities in a
L3 emergency ….similarly as it is done for UNICEF
programmes.
-> expand the capacity of the Global Cluster Coordination Unit (GCCU)
If that team was strengthened they would be able to support the GNC
and other UNICEF led clusters in the IRRM deployments.
• And/or increase size of GNC-CT so as to minimize the effects
of deployment.
Need for balance between GNC-CT deployment and the essential
functioning of higher level activities at the global level
Recommendations
to improve the RRT System
1. Keep and protect the time division of a RRT
member at 50% for deployment and 50% for nondeployment (and 25%/25% for GNC/HA).
2. Collectively (re)define the boundaries of how the
allocated HA time is utilized.
- Time for technical nutritional work? Capacity
building on NC approach only or wider?
- And/or flexibility common work plan for HA: 5x
25% time of a person serving common goal
Recommendations
to improve the RRT System
3. Prioritize deployment criteria and develop
decision-making tools for use by the Steering
Committee.
4. Develop emergency/deployment specific ToR prior
to deployment with defined deliverables relevant to
coordination activities and defined clear reporting
lines.
Recommendations
to improve the RRT System
5. Value the skills, capacity and intent of the RRT
(limit GAP filling)
6. Improve sub-optimal RRT staff retention.
e.g.
- creating a career path for valuable RRT member within HA or broader
GNC;
- capitalise on the RRT experiences and give RRT more prominent
place in GNC meetings and trainings
- formalise and nurture more peer-to-peer contact amongst RRT
members increasing mutual learning and sharing
- formalise holiday time and accommodate that by ensuring a back-up
plan in case of emergency.
Recommendations for GNC in support
of national platforms
• Develop an operational support plan for the GNC-CT that
engages national clusters in a systemic as opposed to adhoc manner.
• Ensure that the effects on the core business functions of
the GNC are mitigated during the critical deployments of
the GNC-CT.
(e.g increase GNC-CT, GCCU, or…increase seniority of RRT to relieve
deployment burden of GNC-CT) .
• Develop surge support plan for coming years with clear and
concrete assumptions on magnitude (numbers/duration) of
emergency support required
+ nr of required RRT personnel.
Recommendations for GNC in support
of national platforms
• Map IM surge needs of national coordination platforms and
consider viability of alternative mechanisms for IMO
deployment:
- IMOs made interchangeable between clusters (pool of partially
polyvalent IMOs) to improve availability and coverage.
- And/or working more with Standby Partners to develop and
provide IMOs on an ‘as needed basis’.
• Continue to explore ways in which national clusters can have
improved access to technical rapid support (e.g. CMAM,
IYCF and nutrition assessments).
NGO partners to provide these? Or a ‘technical’ RRT?
Recommendations for GNC in support
of national platforms
• Further explore alternative funding modalities for
the RRT system e.g. direct funding to an NGO
consortium instead through the CLA.
- placement of RRT personnel within hosting NGO partners
(significant cost saving measure)
- reducing administrative costs through funding NGOs
directly.
- Consortium funding would ensure that fund distribution
and reporting measures remain streamlined.
Explore more recent experiences within the WASH cluster.
Recommendations
for the CLA
• Reinforce deployment from regional or CO staff for
support to national clusters and to fill extended
capacity gaps.
• Define and strengthen the role of the regional offices in
supporting national clusters.
• No regionalisation of RRT
• Increase awareness among UNICEF staff and
management on the responsibilities of the CLA.
• Separating of UNICEF programme activities and cluster
activities and well as reinforcing the neutrality of cluster
work.
Recommendations
for the CLA
• Continue working on previous recommendations that the CLA
develops an integrated strategy for surge capacity and a
UNICEF-wide effort for developing coordination staff in order
to improve the range of HR available to respond to national
coordination surge needs.(RRT, GNCT-CT, but also internal UNICEF, etc…)
• Improve recruitment practices with a special focus on
shortening time in between RRT deployment and longer-term
staff placement.
Gains made by the RRT and sustainability of systems set up by the RRT
member depend on a timely recruitment of staff to take over
coordination responsibilities …
“What is challenging is
that we as RRT need to
understand the context
very quickly, and work
1000%
to
set
up
everything in a very short
period
and
ensure
sustainability.”
A RRT member
“The RRT is an
invaluable resource
and one we need to
carry on with.”
A SAG Member
“Most RRT members are regarded
as highly skilled staff with most up to
date knowledge on cluster related
issues because of their frequent
exposure to both NC in-country and
GNC.”
The evaluation team
‘RRT is an
imperfect model
but still a good
one…’
A CLA staff member
“We need more meaningful and lasting system and stop being
complementary. We as NGOs can deploy people quite fast, faster
than the UN. If UNICEF is willing to accept their limitations…and
acknowledge that UNICEF as CLA has problems providing cluster
staff/services. Then we can make a system on behalf of UNICEF
and on a more permanent base.”
A Host Agency for the RRT