1. 24 January 2018 Juba, Republic of South Sudan
South Sudan Nutrition Cluster Performance Monitoring (CCPM) Review Workshop: Preliminary results
24 January 2018
Juba, Republic of South Sudan
South Sudan
Nutrition Cluster

2. Objectives of South Sudan Nutrition CCPM
First CCPM took place in 2014
Regular CCPM exercises in 2015 and ;
Ensure efficient and effective coordination
Take stock of what functional areas work well and what areas need improvement
Raise awareness of support needed from the HC/HCT, cluster lead agencies, global clusters or cluster partners
Opportunity for self-reflection
Strengthening transparency and partnership within the cluster
Show the added value and justify the costs of coordination

3. Remember that CCPM DOES NOT…
Monitor response (service delivery by partners)
Evaluate individual partners or coordinators
Evaluate if/when clusters should be deactivated, merged etc. (Review of the cluster architecture)
Exclude usage of other tools with the same purpose

4. Process of South Sudan Nutrition CCPM
Step 1, Planning: November 2017
Step 2, On-line CCPM Survey: December January Preliminary report issued XX January and shared with all cluster partners
Step 3, Cluster analysis and action planning: CCPM Workshop and development of the Action Plan to improve performance – 24 January 2018
Step 4, Follow-up and Monitoring : Finalisation of the Action Plan, presentation to the HCT/Government, implementation of the Action Plan

5. South Sudan Nutrition CCPM 2017-2018: Response Rates
Partner Type
Number of responded partners
Total number of partners
Response Rate (%)
Donors 5
0.0%
International NGOs 20 28
71.4%
National Authority 1
100.0%
National NGOs 11 17
64.7%
ICRC/IFRC
UN Organizations 4
Total 36 56
64%

6. Scores and Colour Coding
Performance Status
> 75%
Good
51-75%
Satisfactory, needs minor improvement
26-50%
Unsatisfactory, needs major improvement
≤ 25%
Weak

7. 1. Supporting Service Delivery
IASC core functions
Indicative characteristics of functions
Score S. Sudan Cluster
2015
1.1 Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic priorities
Established, relevant coordination mechanism recognizing national systems, subnational and co-lead aspects; stakeholders participating regularly and effectively; cluster coordinator active in inter-cluster and related meetings.
Good
1.2 Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery
Cluster partner engagement in dynamic mapping of presence and capacity (4W); information sharing across clusters in line with joint Strategic Objectives.
Satisfactory

8. Indicative characteristics of functions
2. Informing strategic decision-making of the HC/HCT for the humanitarian response
IASC core functions
Indicative characteristics of functions
Score S. Sudan Cluster
2015
2.1 Preparing needs assessments and analysis of gaps (across and within Clusters, using information management tools as needed) to inform the setting of priorities
Use of assessment tools in accordance with agreed minimum standards, individual assessment/ survey results shared and/or carried out jointly as appropriate.
Satisfactory
Good
2.2 Identifying and finding solutions for (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication and cross-cutting issues.
Joint analysis for current and anticipated risks, needs, gaps and constraints; cross cutting issues addressed from outset.
2.3 Formulating priorities on the basis of analysis
Joint analysis supporting response planning and prioritization in short and medium term.

9. 3. Planning and strategy development
IASC core functions
Indicative characteristics of functions
Score S. Sudan Cluster
2015
3.1 Developing sectoral plans, objectives and indicators that directly support realization of the overall response’s strategic objectives
Strategic plan based on identified priorities, shows synergies with other sectors against strategic objectives, addresses cross cutting issues, incorporates exit strategy discussion and is developed jointly with partners. Plan is updated regularly and guides response.
Satisfactory
Good
3.2 Applying and adhering to common standards and guidelines
Use of existing national standards and guidelines where possible. Standards and guidance are agreed to, adhered to and reported against.
3.3 Clarifying funding requirements, helping to set priorities, and agreeing Cluster contributions to the HC’s overall humanitarian funding proposals
Funding requirements determined with partners, allocation under jointly agreed criteria and prioritization, status tracked and information shared.

10. 4. Monitoring and Evaluating Performance
IASC core functions
Indicative characteristics of functions
Score S. Sudan Cluster
2015
4.1 Monitoring and reporting on activities and needs
Formats for monitoring and reporting needs agreed upon and used by cluster partners
Reports shared by partners on humanitarian needs are taken into account in cluster reports
Formats for monitoring and reporting activities agreed upon and used by cluster partners
Reports shared by partners on their activities are taken into account in cluster reports
Good
4.2 Measuring progress against the Cluster strategy and agreed results
Progress reports or bulletins report using agreed indicators for monitoring humanitarian response
4.3 Recommending corrective action where necessary
Cluster bulletins and updates influence partners decisions
Cluster has used information to recommend corrective action

11. 5. Building national capacity in contingency planning/preparedness.
IASC core functions
Indicative characteristics of functions
Score S. Sudan Cluster
2015
5.1 National contingency plans identified, updated and shared
National contingency plans identified and shared
Satisfactory
Good
5.2 Cluster roles and responsibilities defined and understood
Role of the Cluster and partners are clearly defined and understood in the Contingency Plan
The Cluster has discussed how to strengthen response capacity in country
5.3 Early warning reports shared with partners
Early warning reports shared with partners

12. 6. Undertake robust advocacy
IASC core functions
Indicative characteristics of functions
Score S. Sudan Cluster
2015
4.1 Identify advocacy concerns to contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action
Concerns for advocacy identified with partners, including gaps, access, resource needs.
Satisfactory
Good
4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and the affected population
Common advocacy campaign agreed and delivered across partners.
Weak

13. Accountability to affected population
AAP
Indicative characteristics of functions
Score S. Sudan Cluster
2015
7.1 Mechanisms to consult and involve affected people in decision-making agreed upon and used by partners
Satisfactory
Good
7.2 Mechanisms to receive, investigate and act upon complaints on the assistance received agreed upon and used by partners
7.3 Key issues relating to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse have been raised and discussed

14. Next Steps for the CCPM 3. Cluster analysis and action planning
In a day meeting, the cluster will discuss and finalise the Cluster Description Report and Coordination Performance Report, and develop an Action Plan.
4. Follow-up and Monitoring
The Cluster will continually review the Final Coordination Performance Report and Action Plan.
The Coordination Performance Report and Action Plan will be presented to the HCT and global cluster, to identify support requirements.
The cluster will continue to monitor the implementation of its Action Plan at regular intervals.
5. Ideally, the cluster should report to the HCT on the progress every quarter.

15. QUESTIONS?

16. Group Work The team will divide into four working groups to:
Contextualize the findings of the Preliminary Coordination Performance Report (narrative comment boxes).
Identify actions for improvements for each of the six cluster functions + AAP.
On the basis of these discussions, a Final Cluster Description Report and Final Coordination Performance Report will be produced.
Groups:
WG1 – cluster functions 1 and 4
WG2 – cluster functions 2 and 3
WG3 – cluster functions 5 and 6
WG4 - AAP

17. Group work: each group should
Review the performance status of the function (color coded in green/yellow/orange/red, and the more detailed scoring of the various questions related to the function)
Identify what worked well for that function
Discuss possible constraints as well as support requirements for that function
Identify other issues relevant to cluster performance that were not included in the survey
Identify and prioritise any improvements for that function, add inputs from the plenary feedback
Summarise in a Word document

18. Plenary discussion Report back in plenary;
Seek feedback and endorsement on the recommendations from each of the working groups for each of the functions
Jointly agree on up to 3-5 priorities follow-up actions to improve performance of any weak core functions (prioritise recommendations, but at least address all functions that are below satisfactory performance).
Identify who is following up on each recommended improvement action and by when. It is important to allocate responsibilities at the meeting.
Identify opportunities, constraints and/or request support, if needed.