1. Sector Performance Monitoring
Response rate amongst partners
Partner type
Numbers partners responding (national / sub- national level)
Total number of partners
(based on last CDM)
Response rate
(at national level)
International NGOs 4 6
67%
National NGOs 2 0%
UN organizations 7
350%
National authority 1 3
33%
Donors
Others (Red Cross)
Total 12 13
92%
Comments
on response rate
Poor participation of national NGOs and National authorities
International NGOs have a good participation while a huge number of UN organisations
Other comments
Is there a high level of awareness amongst the responding community as to what accountability means and what respective agencies and the IASC have committed to with respect to AAP?
Is AAP evident in your staff job descriptions and are new staff being prepared, briefed and oriented about AAP?
Do you think the response is identifying and enhancing the capacities of affected communities and their government(s)?
Is the response being approached and monitored against a “Do No Harm” framework, to ensure that interventions are not exacerbating conflict or causing harm.

2. Sector Performance Monitoring Comments from Cluster Coordinators
Additional comments or information on cluster performance from national partners
Effective and timely Communication should be improved
The sector in general its doing its best in coordinating its activities but at times commitment from the state authority is weak in fulfilling their own responsibilities. Hence the need of informing state official more on humanitarian responses and compliance. The sector should be open to all information at all time which will definitely improve the sector coordination.
Comments from Cluster Coordinators
The cluster is doing good. However, more capacity advocacy on supporting PoCs is required and building the at local level so that they can support themselves. The communication between inter sector should be more strong so as to envision and plan activities properly.
Is there a high level of awareness amongst the responding community as to what accountability means and what respective agencies and the IASC have committed to with respect to AAP?
Is AAP evident in your staff job descriptions and are new staff being prepared, briefed and oriented about AAP?
Do you think the response is identifying and enhancing the capacities of affected communities and their government(s)?
Is the response being approached and monitored against a “Do No Harm” framework, to ensure that interventions are not exacerbating conflict or causing harm.

3. Sector Perfomance Monitoring
Core cluster functions
Performance status at national level (Partners)
Difference in perception partners vs. coordinators
Result= Partners – Coordinators
Constraints, unexpected circumstances, good practice
Follow-up action and support requirements
Deadline
Responsible for follow up
1. Supporting service delivery
Needs light Improvement (60%)
-15
Level of funding
Capacity of partners
2. Informing strategic decisionmaking
Needs light improvement (63%)
-12
Dissemination of new strategic orientation at sector meeting and trhough dissemination of strategy
3. Planning and implementing cluster strategies
Needs Major Improvement (56%)
-19
SAG meeting for sector orientations exists and is functionning
4. Monitoring and evaluating performance
Needs Major Improvement (54%)
-21
5. Building nat’l capacity in prep. and cont. planning
Inclusion of National NGOs in all sectors activities
Training of NNGOs
6. Supporting robust advocacy
Needs major Improvement (58%)
-17
Meeting with donors and advocacy trough NHF
7. Promoting accountability to affected populations
Needs Major Improvement (46%)
Dissemination of the community engagement
Is there a high level of awareness amongst the responding community as to what accountability means and what respective agencies and the IASC have committed to with respect to AAP?
Is AAP evident in your staff job descriptions and are new staff being prepared, briefed and oriented about AAP?
Do you think the response is identifying and enhancing the capacities of affected communities and their government(s)?
Is the response being approached and monitored against a “Do No Harm” framework, to ensure that interventions are not exacerbating conflict or causing harm.