1. UNEG SO3 Working Group on Gender Equality & Human Rights
Sabrina Evangelista, UN Women & Sabas Monroy, OHCHR
The UN-SWAP constitutes the first accountability framework for gender mainstreaming in the UN system. In Resolution E/RES/2014/12 the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) requests the United Nations system, including its agencies, funds and programmes, within their respective organizational mandates, to continue working collaboratively to enhance and accelerate gender mainstreaming within the United Nations system, including by fully implementing the UN-SWAP.

2. Key Achievements
UN-SWAP: 2 reports on Reporting Cycle; webinars
Developed and piloted guidance on Peer Learning Exchange for UN- SWAP EPI (OHCHR, DPI, UNESCO & UNEP)
Brief “In Focus” UNEG Praxis Gender Equality & Human Rights launched
Webinar on “What can we learn from evaluations of corporate gender mainstreaming”

3. 46 Entities reported the UN-SWAP EPI was applicable in 2015
Not Applicable
CAAC, DGACM, DM, OAJ, ODA, OHLRLLS, OLA, Ombudsman, OSAA, UNFCCC, UNISDR, United Nations Global Compact, UNOG, UNON, UNOPS, UNSSC, UNU and WMO
11 (24%)
Entities had an external review
External companies:
IFAD, ILO, UNDP, UNICEF, UN Women, UNEP, UNFPA and WFP
Peer Learning Exchange:
DPI, OHCHR, UNEP, UNESCO
64 entities reported on the UN SWAP – but 18 reported that the Evaluation Indicator was not applicable – this is typically used when there is no evaluation unit or evaluations conducted by the entity.
UNEG developed and endorsed guidance and a scorecard for reporting on the UN-SWAP EPI – the unit of analysis is the evaluation report.
65% (N=30/46) of reporting entities used the UNEG scorecard; those entities that did not use the scorecard based their assessment on miscellaneous criteria – for example whether the entity had a gender equality policy
 This was only slight improvement from 2014 when only 28 entities used the scorecard
Although DESA submitted a scorecard, it was not in compliance with the Technical Guidance as it was not based on evaluation reports.
(GEF is not an official reporting entity)
Not applicable: CAAC, DGACM, DM, OAJ, ODA, OHLRLLS, OLA, Ombudsman, OSAA, UNFCCC, UNISDR, United Nations Global Compact, UNOG, UNON, UNOPS, UNSSC, UNU and WMO.

4. Figure 1. Aggregate Evaluation Performance Indicator Rating, 2015 Reporting Cycle (N=46)
It is important to keep in mind the analysis just presented and the limitations with comparability when looking at the aggregate results (which includes both entities that did use the UNEG Scorecard and those that did not), as the aggregate masks within category differences in reporting. However, because the aggregate scores are submitted to ECOSOC, these are presented in this report. When we look at the results across all entities that reported the indicator is applicable (N=46), just over half of UN entities (N=25, 54%) are meeting or exceeding the requirements for the EPI. However, there are still almost half (N= 21, 46%) that are only approaching or missing requirements. It is important to note that of those entities that are “meeting” requirements, almost half (see section a above) of them did not use the UNEG scorecard and thus are basing their assessment on different factors than the majority of other entities.
Almost half of those (About 43%) entities that scored “meets” requirements did not use the UNEG Scorecard.
The aggregate does not include GEF, as it is not an official reporting entity and the aggregate score is reported to ECOSOC.
The Annual Secretary General’s report on Gender Mainstreaming in the UN system only looks at the aggregate UN-SWAP indicator results and not within indicator differences.
DPKO/DFS and UNODC/UNOV submit only one report but it counts double for all UN-SWAP performance indicators.

5. Figure 2. Number of entities per reporting category and type of review (N = 31)
It is important to examine differences, if any, between those entities that used the scorecard with an internal review vs. those that had an external perspective.
As the overall UN-SWAP was built as a self-assessment tool, it is important to note that the Evaluation Indicator is the only category that advocates for an external assessment because external assessments are deemed to be more objective than internal/self-assessments. All other categories of the UN-SWAP are assessed internally. There are definite pros to having an internal assessment, particularly in the early years of UN-SWAP implementation,
Out of the 31 entities that used the UNEG scorecard, those with internal reviews were about 4 times more likely than those with an external perspective to score exceeds or meeting requirements.
When we look at only those entities that used the UNEG Scorecard we can see that those with internal review are more likely to score meets or exceeds.
 The only major difference between in reporting 2014 and 2015 was that there were more entities in the exceeds category
2014 = 28 entities used UNEG scorecard
Exceeds = 1
Meeting = 12 entities
Approaches = 13
Missing = 3
2015 = 31
Exceeds = 4
Missing = 2

6. Table 1. Disaggregated results for UN entities using the UNEG Scorecard (N=31)
# Reports 
Rating ↓
1-2 Reports
3-5 Reports
6-10 Reports
11-15 Reports
21 or more reports
Exceeds
UNRWA
OHCHR^
OIOS
ESCWA
Meets
DSS
OCHA
UNCDF
ESCAP
ITC
WHO
WIPO
ECLAC
UNFPA*
FAO
IFAD**
WFP**
Approaches
DPI^
UN Habitat
UNV
GEF1
IOM
UNCTAD
UNESCO^ UNODC
UNOV
UNDP**
ILO**
UN Women**
UNICEF**
Missing
ECE
UNEP^**
^Participated in PLE
**External Review
1GEF is included in this table and section, but not in the overall aggregate figures reported in the report, as they are not an official reporting entity to the UN-SWAP in 2015
An important point is that there are also differences in the types and quantity of reports assessed. Many of those externally reviewed who scored “approaches” have decentralized evaluation functions, whereas the majority of those that scored “Meets/Exceeds” do not have a decentralized evaluation function. For example, UNDP, UN Women, UNICEF and UNESCO included evaluation reports from the decentralized function; and UN Women did not complete any corporate evaluation in 2015 and thus the score is entirely based on decentralized evaluations. On the other hand, IFAD and FAO (for example) only included corporate evaluations.
Additionally, given that the majority of the externally reviewed reports were looking at 21 or more reports, the higher quantity of reports may also provide more robustness to the assessment and may reflect that those entities have more resources to be able to carry out such an external review.

7. Projections show that 100% compliance with the evaluation indicator will not be met until 2033
The UN Women Coordination Division calculated projections for each of the UN-SWAP indicators based on the average annual per cent change in rating from (See Annex 2 for the detailed list of ratings for 2014 and 2015 when the same UNEG criteria were applied). When all reporting entities are included in the calculation the results are stark: compliance with the evaluation indicator will not be met until 2033; this figure includes those entities that reported the EPI was “not applicable” and thus may not currently have an evaluation function. However, even when we exclude those entities, compliance is still far off: 2022 (7 years from today).
This figure was calculated based on extrapolation of the average annual percentage change; also please note that due to rounding some estimates are actually slightly past the years shown.
The number excluding N/A may be more realistic, as the number reporting N/A is a relatively static proportion of reporting entities since those that do not have an evaluation function will not typically change reporting status.

8. UN-SWAP is under revision in 2016
SWAP/2.0 will align the HQ mechanism and the UNCT Scorecard and focus on gender equality development results
Consultations on possible changes currently underway through June 2016 – then pilot and finalization toward end of 2016
Does UNEG want to propose a revision to the indicator?

9. Potential option for revising Evaluation Indicator
EPI Reporting Categories
ORIGINAL
OPTION 1
Exceeds
5ei. Meets the UNEG gender-related norms and standards and
5eii. Demonstrates effective use of the UNEG guidance on evaluating from a human rights and gender equality perspective
5ei. Meets the UNEG gender-related norms and standards and
Entity carries out a gender mainstreaming evaluation every three years
Meets
5d. Meets the UNEG gender-related norms and standards
Demonstrates use of the UNEG guidance on evaluating from a human rights and gender equality perspective in all stages of the evaluation

10. Work Plan 2016-2017 Review of UN SWAP reporting
Guidance note on Evaluation of Corporate Gender Equality Results
Brief “In Focus” UNEG Praxis Gender Equality & Human Rights
Webinars to facilitate exchange on good practice integrating human rights and gender equality in evaluation
Peer Learning Exchange support
UN-SWAP EPI webinar guidance and annual report