Joint Annual Reviews an overview Finn Schleimann, IHP+ Core Team IHP+ CHTM, Siem Reap, December 2014 Based on Joint Annual Health Sector Reviews: A Review of experience (2013) Joint Annual Health Sector Reviews: Why and how to organize them (2014)

Key Conclusions of Review All in favor of maintaining JAR JARs have different modalities based on country context and have evolved over time. JARs share common aspects: Part of annual M&E cycle; review last year’s work program; aim at improving next year’s work program; annual rather than multi-year strategic focus; become more inclusive over time. JARs strengthen policy dialogue, alignment, accountability, implementation, and internal resource allocation. JARs have the potential to improve plans, mobilize resources, and promote mutual accountability, and have done so in some countries. JARs are less succesful in: improving harmonization, setting new targets/indicators, and reducing transaction cost. 25/02/2019

Key Conclusions of Review Factors that determine a succesful JAR: Government leadership and local ownership Meaningful and wide participation Constructive climate and open policy dialogue Well designed performance assessment framework Timely, good quality & properly validated data data Capacity to perform strategic analysis Good preparation and organization of JAR JAR integrated in national planning cycle Keeping inputs, processes and outputs at a managerial level Sharing findings and recommendations with all levels & stakeholders SMART recommendations that are followed up and tracked 25/02/2019

Decisions & steps preparing a JAR Objective – e.g. last year’s performance, identify blockages, next years budget & plan, mutual accountability, reduce transactíon cost, or often a combination of two or more Scope – whole sector, or focused, or a combination Process, frequency & timing – including: who is responsible, once or twice a year, alternating normal and light Data & analytical input – e.g. decide on independent team, plan studies Detailed planning – timing of inputs, TORs for team & studies, selection of consultants, plan bmeeting itself, reporting etc 25/02/2019

Decisions & steps preparing a JAR Engagement of a wide range of stakeholders – central government (also outside MoH), decentralized level, autonomous institutions, elected bodies, private sector, civil society, professional associations, media. Outputs – e.g. report, aide-memoire (signed?) Follow-up – aide memoir/action plan with SMART recommendations and clear institutional responsibilities, process to monitor follow-up 25/02/2019

Some trade-offs & Challenges Thematic focus or not – or a combination Independent or internal review team Availability of data and other inputs Balancing inclusiveness and real dialogue Holding DPs to account Managing demand for additional reviews and project reporting – ensure it all fit together Use JAR findings in meaningful policy dialogue – e.g. length, timing and size of meetings Getting JAR findings and agreements into operational plans – especially at sub-national level – and ensure follow-up 25/02/2019

Summary of JAR process 25/02/2019