close

Se connecter

Se connecter avec OpenID

Cluster Performance Monitoring

IntégréTéléchargement
Cluster Coordination
Performance Monitoring
GNC Annual Meeting
Nairobi, Kenya
13-15 October 2015
Overview
• What is CCPM?
• Experiences from Nutrition cluster’s CCPM
– Process- what worked, what worked less well
– Compiled results from recent nutrition cluster
CCPM’s
• Work in groups to discuss support needed
from the GNC collective
What is the CCPM?
• Arose out of the Transformative Agenda, to improve accountability
• Self-assessment of cluster performance against the six core cluster
functions and Accountability to Affected populations:
1.
Support service delivery
2.
Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making
3.
Strategy development
4.
Monitor and evaluate performance
5.
Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning.
6.
Advocacy
+++++ section on Accountability to Affected Populations
• Country-led process, supported by Global Clusters and OCHA
• The CCPM can be applied by both clusters and sectors
• Implemented since 2013
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-led
clusters/AoRs
• OCHA-FO: coordinate across clusters (ICC) and
ensure engagement of HC/HCT
CCPM report (sample excerpt)
Progress of Nutrition Clusters’ CCPM
from Sep 2014 to Sep 2015
Completed – report validated and action plan agreed by partners (3):
• Ethiopia (Jan 2015)
• South Sudan (May 2015)
• Afghanistan (June 2015)
Online phase of CCPM completed – partners and CT completed online questionnaire (4):
• CAR (report is validated but action plan not finalised yet)
• Mali (report is not validated and action plan is not finalised yet)
• Sudan (report is validated and action plan not finalised yet)
• Yemen (Dec 2014, final report is not yet finalised)
Online phase of CCPM is on-going – partners and CT answering online questionnaire (4):
• Nepal
● Somalia
• Nigeria
● Chad
Planned (3):
• S. Turkey for N. Syria
● Yemen
• DRC
Overview of key achievements,
issues and challenges by core area
from the finalized CCPMs
Core Function 1: Supporting service delivery
1.1. Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic
priorities
1.2. Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery
Overall rating: Good.
What works well:
• In general, partners happy
with how service delivery is
supported:
– Regular cluster meetings held
– Partners list updated regularly
– Websites developed and
bulletins issued regularly
– IM reporting tools available
and used
– Capacity mapping completed
– Systems to avoid duplications
in place
Remaining challenges:
• Information flow between
MoH and Nutrition Cluster,
national and sub-national
level and from Cluster team
to partners is weak (ALL)
• Poor attendance of
meetings and participation
in TWiGs by the Gov’t and
tech staff in field based
agencies (AFG, SSD)
Core Function 2: Informing strategic decision making of
HC/HCT
2.1 Needs assessment and gap analysis (across other sectors and within the sector)
2.2 Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication, and
cross-cutting issues.
2.3 Prioritization, grounded in response analysis
Overall rating: Satisfactory/Good.
What works well:
Remaining challenges:
• In general, Nutrition
• Linkages with other
assessments/surveys
clusters/sectors (AFG, ETH);
conducted regularly, results • Capacity of partners on the
validated and shared with
ground to quickly mobilise
partners to inform response
teams for assessments
priorities;
(AFG);
• Tools exist and agreed by all • Lack of uniform reporting of
partners
assessments between
various regions (AFG);
• Timing for assessment
results’ validation (SSD)
Core Function 3: Planning and Strategy Development
3.1 Develop sectoral plans, objectives and indicators directly supporting realization of
the HC/HCT strategic priorities
3.2 Application and adherence to existing standards and guidelines
3.3 Clarify funding requirements, prioritization, and cluster contributions to HC’s overall
humanitarian funding considerations
Overall rating: Satisfactory to Good.
What works well:
• In general, SRPs/HRPs and
sectoral plans are
developed in consultation
with partners;
• National guidelines are
generally available but
some require update (ETH).
Remaining challenges:
• Consultation with subnational level partners (ALL);
• Short timelines hamper
inclusiveness of consultations
(ALL);
• Weak reflection of intercluster linkages and crosscutting issues – age, HIV (ALL);
• Lack of proper and joint
monitoring of the
implementation of SRP (SSD).
Core Function 4: Advocacy
4.1 Identify advocacy concerns to contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action
4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and the affected
population
Overall rating: From Weak to Satisfactory
What works well:
• In general, concerns for
advocacy (evidencebased) identified in
consultation with
partners;
• Plans to draft strategy
(AFG)
Remaining challenges:
• Lack of clear picture in
terms of what to do (SSD,
ETH);
• Limited experience and
lessons learned to draw
upon (AFG);
• Various understanding of
advocacy amongst
partners (ETH) and some
Gov’t concerns (ETH)
Core Function 5: Monitoring and Reporting
5.1 Monitoring and reporting the implementation of the cluster strategy and results;
recommending corrective action where necessary
Overall rating: More Satisfactory than Good.
What works well:
• In general, tools for
monitoring are place and
agreed by all partners;
• Clusters databases
updated and monitoring
results shared on a
regular basis to inform
response planning
• Use of modern
technology for monitoring
and reporting
Remaining challenges:
• Timeliness, quality and
completeness of reporting
by partners (ALL);
• Monitoring on sub-national
level (quality of
programmes vs
coordination);
• Capacity of partners to
follow monitoring report
formats (AFG)
• Security hampers
monitoring efforts
Core Function 6: Contingency Planning and Preparedness
6.1 Contingency planning/preparedness for recurrent disasters whenever feasible
and relevant.
Overall rating: More Satisfactory but also Weak (1)
What works well:
• In general, partners have
their own plans;
• Consultations take place
at the cluster level;
Remaining challenges:
• Plans are fragmented and
not aligned within the
cluster and inter-cluster
(SSD);
• Funding for preparedness
and contingency is a
challenge (AFG);
• Lack of overall cluster
plan due to delays of
templates from OCHA
Accountability to Affected Population
Disaster-affected people conduct or actively participate in regular meetings on how to
organize and implement the response; agencies have investigated and, as appropriate,
acted upon feedback received about the assistance provided.
Overall rating: Satisfactory
What works well:
• Agencies have their
own AAP mechanisms
• Partners aware of IASC
AAP guidelines and
minimum commitments
and started to
mainstream
Remaining challenges:
• Community
engagement in
assessments, planning
and monitoring remains
a challenge (ETH, AFG)
• Most partners have no
or limited mechanisms
for feedback and
response to complaints
Feedback on the process
• CCPM guidance sufficient
• Support from Geneva (GNC-CT and GCCU) good
• Acceptance of the CCPM process at the country level
- more so if cluster partners are engaged in
discussions around the process/timing so as not
perceived as imposed by someone else
• How to reflect sub-national coordination and involve
sub-national partners (timing, language, etc)in the
CCPM process?
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
cluster function
• Select a chair and the rapporteur for the group
• Using PowerPoint develop 2 slides to answer the
following questions:
– What are the issues/constraints to effective
coordination around the specific core function
assigned to your group?
– What are ways to address the challenges, focusing on
how the GNC as a collective (GNC-CT and global level
partners) could support addressing them.
Auteur
Document
Catégorie
Uncategorized
Affichages
4
Taille du fichier
205 KB
Étiquettes
1/--Pages
signaler