1. Support provided by the GNC to National Coordination Platforms An Evaluation With focus on the GNC Rapid Response Team (& support provided by the GNC-Coordination Team) Mija-tesse Ververs GNC Annual Meeting 17-18 March 2015

2. Overview Introduction of RRT (brief) Methodology of evaluation Results Recommendations Part 1 RRT Part 2 GNC-CT support

3. Overview Part 1 RRT Introduction of RRT (brief) Methodology of evaluation Results Recommendations Part 2 GNC-CT support

4. Overview Part 1 RRT Introduction of RRT (brief) Methodology of evaluation Results Recommendations Part 2 GNC-CT support

5. Introduction In the GNC Strategic Plan 2014-2016 Pillar 3: To ensure that the GNC collectively addresses issues of surge capacity and operational support To support country surge capacity, i.e. identification of Cluster Coordinators, Deputy Cluster Coordinators, IMO; To ensure that the GNC collectively addresses issues of surge capacity and operational support; To manage the Rapid Response Team (and actively fundraises for this); To engage with Standby Partners to advocate for nutrition coordination and information management surge staff; To manage the GNC roster, Nutrition Cluster Coordinators and Information Managers Officers (identification, updating of the roster with HR), for NiE technical specialists and related administrative systems

6. UNICEF as CLA - RRT Since 2012, UNICEF as a CLA expanding RRT system Currently each UNICEF led cluster has a number of RRTs. The purpose of the RRT : to increase the capacity of the GNC to support cluster coordination and information management functions through rapidly deployable (surge) NCC and Information Management Officers’ technical capacity

7. RRT = partnership between the GNC/CLA and four GNC partners. Action Against Hunger—USA/UK, International Medical Corps (IMC), Save the Children—United Kingdom World Vision - Canada Funds for the RRT raised by CLA and passed down through funding agreements in the form of Programme Cooperation Agreements (PCAs) Financial support from ECHO and DFID. The 4 host agencies (HA) responsible for recruitment and management of RRT personnel incl. facilitating deployment related administrative issues.

8. Context - RRT 2012-2013: 1 RRT NCC 2013-2014: RRT expanded to 5 RRT members (3 NCC, 2 IMO) Deployment within 72 hrs Up to 8 weeks with max. 12 weeks, if needed 50% Deployment field – 50 non-field: 25% GNC 25% HA Work GNC: deliverables agreed in work plan Work HA: various

9. During deployment field - facilitate and support NC coordination processes at national and sub-national levels as per IASC 6 core cluster functions (Support service delivery; Inform HC/HCT’s strategic decision making; Plan and develop strategy; Monitor and evaluate performance; Build capacity in preparedness and contingency planning; Advocacy). The RRT members can be deployed for: A declared L3 emergency A rapid onset emergency or rapid deterioration of pre- existing situation The threat of forecast of L2 or L3 emergency An unpredictable and sudden loss of CC/IM capacity in an established cluster To strengthen underperforming CC/IM platforms in an established cluster.

10. Management RRT Global level: GNC-CT and HA National level: remotely by the above + line supervisor UNICEF/CLA (RRT member in UNICEF Country Office) Steering Committee (GNC-CT and HAs) decides on deployment Target: 80% of deployment requests filled

11. Evaluation – Sep-Dec 2014

12. Methodology Leah Richardson & Mija Ververs Qualitative Evaluation using select OECD-DAC criteria – Key-informants interviews and desk review Key Informants:  Previous and present RRT members (5/6)  GNC-CT  Strategic Advisory Group (SAG)  RRT hosting agencies  other Global Clusters  Donors  Relevant UNICEF staff including in-country supervisors for RRT missions.

14. to assess, systematically and objectively, the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, connectedness, coverage and sustainability

15. Results on RRT Support to National Platforms

16. Results on deployment time 2012/2013 the first GNC RRT member deployed 5 times in 1 year in 4 countries. June 2013 – Sept 2014 the 5 RRT members were deployed a total of 17 times in 7 countries (see graph)

17. Time allocated Real deployment time 43% (below targeted 50%) Pre- and post deployment added then 55%... HA 18.5% (below targeted 25%) GNC 26.4% (slightly above targeted 25%)

18. Findings - Relevance GNC RRT system = relevant, appropriate and essential; And….closely aligned with needs on the ground. Its flexibility is part of its success. Need to better respect + protect allocated time utilization -to have a better duty of care for the RRT members -to respect the commitment and engagement of HA.

19. Findings - Relevance Confusion among host agencies as to whether the 25% allocated ‘HA’ time of the RRT was to be used for -support capacity building on the cluster approach within the HAs or -whether the time was to be used for nutritional technical support within the HA. Note: The PCAs with each HA specified HA time to be used for cluster related capacity building initiatives. Physical location of RRT in 50% non-deployment time need not to be defined ….as outputs often clearly defined Unpredictability of deployments: negative impact on fulfilling work plan activities for both the GNC and for the HA.

20. Findings - Relevance ToRs often based on generic ToR and had to be redefined in field – took valuable time of RRT RRT members spent considerable time arranging and clarifying internal reporting and accountability mechanisms (sometimes RRT NCC still obliged to report to those responsible for UNICEF programmatic areas as opposed to the recommended senior management). Surge capacity to be extended to nutritional technical surge (e.g. assessments, IYCF, CMAM). No consensus on modality.

21. Findings – Relevance actual deployment in relation to deployment criteria RRT used primarily as kick- starters for L3 emergency where the NC had just been activated and as gap fillers where UNICEF as CLA had not yet identified adequate staff. All RRT deployments aligned to deployment criteria but NO defined prioritisation of deployment criteria.

22. Findings - Relevance NO tools to help the Steering Committee (SC) members evaluate a deployment request either within the specific context or in relation to ongoing or potential deployments. However, most concerned L3… SC had limited information by which to evaluate requests for RRT deployments beyond request form (as filled in by UNICEF’s COs) and accompanying ToRs (mostly generic) -> making it difficult to adequately determine the relevance of the request. All requests were approved…(in 2 nd period)

23. Findings - Relevance Some key informants questioned appropriateness to use for RRT when -sudden loss of NC coordination/IM or strengthening -underperforming national coordination platforms …It is UNICEF’s responsibility to solve this within its mandate as a CLA… …RRT system should not have been (ab)used for an underperforming CLA... (6x deployments to South Sudan) …UNICEF should have deployed from its own programme staff (regional or CO) after several consecutive deployments of RRT

24. Effectiveness Analysis of Surge Response RRT mechanism effective and timely – but 72 hrs??????? ± 2 days from request for RRT to the decision taken by the SC to deploy a RRT member and another 11 days until arrival (visas…) a division of opinion among stakeholders: -IM support to be provided through alternative mechanisms such as by standby partners thereby alleviating the cost/administration of having a standing IM RRT -essential every cluster coordinator deployed with an information officer immediately (as a ‘couple’).

25. Effectiveness Improved Coordination of the Emergency Response RRT system contributed to overall better coordination of the emergency response because RRT members put coordination systems in place. RRT members sometimes provided gap-filling that could have been provided through alternative means. UNICEF’s recruitment – inadequate; RRT system made it worse ….?.....!.. Inducing more complacency Why was it so difficult to find ‘normal’ NCC/IMOs for Pakistan, Somalia (in NBO) and Sudan?

26. Effectiveness Partner Participation in the Cluster GNC partners managed the RRT system: a positive effect on the GNC’s global credibility as an emergency response support service that focused on the improvement of the overall response..... and not something driven by UNICEF. Everybody agreed: partnership based on RRT system worked effectively with good collaboration between the GNC-CT and the HAs. Recruitment and retention of rapid response personnel: significant challenge for majority of HAs.

27. A few words on retention/recruitment Nature of the job with frequent and long deployments, without predictability (‘holiday planning impossible’) Nature of the expertise: NiE – not that many available…. Emergency: everybody looking for the same profile competing with each other between and within agencies Fishing from the same pond …..often empty…

28. Efficiency Majority of stakeholders indicated that current system with UNICEF obtaining funding for RRT and passing it through via PCAs was not the most efficient funding mechanism 14% of the total project budget for the RRT system is absorbed in administrative costs. (7% HA + 7% UNICEF)

29. Efficiency On the other hand, placement of the RRT members within HA partners is in fact a cost-saving measure in terms of the overall economic burden of the GNC RRT system: USD 249,000 – 288,000 (incl.40,000 for travel) if placed within the UN system as compared to USD 170,000 when placed with NGO partners (incl. costs of 3 deployments of 8 weeks).

30. Coherence/Connectedness The role of regional offices related to CLA responsibilities remains unclear and COs are not always adequately supported in their coordination needs..NCCs could come from Regional or CO and use RRT for its purpose….

31. Coherence/Connectedness The coherence of RRT support to national coordination negatively affected by the general lack of understanding of cluster approach at UNICEF CO. RRT tries to resist UNICEF programmatic tasks, lobbies of importance of CLA responsibilities within UNICEF…. RRT Retreat 2013 – similar findings, still problematic in 2014

32. Coverage Coverage of the RRT support was adequate Availability: requests for support was improved from 67 to 100% Geographic coverage: all regions except southern/central America received support Temporal coverage: average of 7 weeks per deployment (7/22 >8 wks)

33. Sustainability RRT was very effective during rapid response deployment however….. for sustainable results more focus needed on the time in-between the RRT deployment and the longer term HR solutions. And …there needs to be somebody to handover to! (sometimes it took months…) RRT Retreat 2013 ‘When CO requests RRTs they should have an ‘end-game ready’ for when the RRTs leaves’

34. Sustainability Retaining staff: suboptimal both in terms of duty of care for the RRT personnel and for efficiency/sustainability of RRT system. (1/3 – continued contract >1yr) Most RRT members: highly experienced and qualified resource - currently underused and could contribute more to capacity building initiatives.

35. Sustainability Many key informants felt that the funds used to cover double administrative costs as a result of the money passing through UNICEF could be better used in direct project costs and also from a strengthened partnership point of view there was the opinion that direct funding of NGOs would be preferable (as opposed to contracting through UNICEF). Report provides more detail on other RRT/Cluster models …. But GOLDEN standard yet to be defined….P34 report RRT members: not much on disaster preparedness during (non-)deployment; No clear consensus on how this concretely needed to be done (but consensus that it was needed…)

36. GNC-CT Support to National Platforms

37. Context Global Nutrition Cluster Coordination Team (GNC-CT) = GNC Coordinator + Deputy Coordinator. supports country clusters through remote support and in-country support visits to ensure effective coordination and IM functions.

38. Context Evaluation period: GNC-CT support to -8 countries with RRT deployment -Approx. 10 other countries with NCC without RRT

39. Context In evaluation: GNC-CT support to -8 countries with RRT deployment 6/8: CAR, South Sudan, Philippines, Pakistan, Chad, Somalia -Approx. 10 other countries with NCC without RRT 3/10: Afghanistan, Kenya and Ethiopia

40. Examples of support to national coordination platforms by GNC-CT a. Advisory support – sharing of information, annual meetings with specific date for NCC, IM, GNC-CT b. Raise finances for RRT team c. Direct support to clusters for recruitment of NCC on ad-hoc basis through tests and/or interviews (i.e. South Sudan and Somalia) d. CCPM every year with opening of survey, help presentation of results and plan of action. (5 completed and all requests supported) e. Regular NCC calls for information sharing and sharing GNC bulletin f. Sharing of Lessons Learned Documentation from Country Responses g. Involving NCC in trainings (2 regional and 5 country level) h. Developing 2hr orientation on cluster approach for partners i. Provision of checklist for induction of new NCC j. Assistance in surge k. Support in knowledge management l. Engagement with host partner ACF for development of country advocacy toolkit

41. Relevance the GNC-CT was found To provide relevant and appropriate support to national platforms To be very supportive and responsive, good at communication and played a crucial role providing information. There is a perceived weak communication link between the GNC-CT and the SAG members in relation to the RRT system and activities (e.g. movement, and results of RTT).

42. Effectiveness GNC-CT: improved coordination of the humanitarian response esp. through fundraising, partnership building/advocacy and support to national platforms. (inclusivity!) Effectiveness of the GNC-CT support to national coordination affected by management at country level and general lack of understanding at the national level of the CLA’s responsibilities with reference to national NCs. senior level GNC-CT deployments to support national platforms: very important for creating understanding and putting systems in place ….. however at a high price to the functioning of the GNC …core business…

43. Efficiency GNC-CT: efficiently mobilized resources at its disposal to fulfil its responsibilities to support countries as successfully as possible. Efficiency of GNC-CT to mobilize HR to support national platforms was affected by lack of functioning integrated UNICEF-wide strategy for surge capacity and for developing coordination staff ….. (CLARE Report 2013) NiE staff limited within UNICEF … redeployment of UNICEF staff to fulfil CC uncommon…

44. Coherence/Connectedness The GNC-CT is actively working towards improving the coherence of its work. A costed work plan and fundraising strategy = 2 new significant steps for collective GNC, providing a coherent structure which to move forward with.

45. Coverage GNC-CT improved in-country coverage of humanitarian coordination needs through efforts to supply a combination of RRT members, stand-by partner deployments and GNC-CT in-country deployments and visits -> ≥ half of cluster countries receiving direct support for their coordination needs. Approx. 30% of GNC-CT time spent on supporting L3 emergencies, other emergencies receiving support on an ad-hoc basis

46. Sustainability Deployment of GNC-CT to support national platforms resulted in global duties being neglected (only 2 people….) Some key informants: UNICEF as CLA to explore deploying other senior staff on occasion for cluster responsibilities in a L3 emergency ….similarly as it is done for UNICEF programmes. -> expand the capacity of the Global Cluster Coordination Unit (GCCU) If that team was strengthened they would be able to support the GNC and other UNICEF led clusters in the IRRM deployments. And/or increase size of GNC-CT so as to minimize the effects of deployment. Need for balance between GNC-CT deployment and the essential functioning of higher level activities at the global level

47. Recommendations to improve the RRT System 1.Keep and protect the time division of a RRT member at 50% for deployment and 50% for non- deployment (and 25%/25% for GNC/HA). 2.Collectively (re)define the boundaries of how the allocated HA time is utilized. -Time for technical nutritional work? Capacity building on NC approach only or wider? -And/or flexibility common work plan for HA: 5x 25% time of a person serving common goal

48. Recommendations to improve the RRT System 3. Prioritize deployment criteria and develop decision-making tools for use by the Steering Committee. 4. Develop emergency/deployment specific ToR prior to deployment with defined deliverables relevant to coordination activities and defined clear reporting lines.

49. Recommendations to improve the RRT System 5. Value the skills, capacity and intent of the RRT (limit GAP filling) 6. Improve sub-optimal RRT staff retention. e.g. - creating a career path for valuable RRT member within HA or broader GNC; -capitalise on the RRT experiences and give RRT more prominent place in GNC meetings and trainings -formalise and nurture more peer-to-peer contact amongst RRT members increasing mutual learning and sharing -formalise holiday time and accommodate that by ensuring a back-up plan in case of emergency.

50. Recommendations for GNC in support of national platforms Develop an operational support plan for the GNC-CT that engages national clusters in a systemic as opposed to ad- hoc manner. Ensure that the effects on the core business functions of the GNC are mitigated during the critical deployments of the GNC-CT. (e.g increase GNC-CT, GCCU, or…increase seniority of RRT to relieve deployment burden of GNC-CT). Develop surge support plan for coming years with clear and concrete assumptions on magnitude (numbers/duration) of emergency support required + nr of required RRT personnel.

51. Recommendations for GNC in support of national platforms Map IM surge needs of national coordination platforms and consider viability of alternative mechanisms for IMO deployment: - IMOs made interchangeable between clusters (pool of partially polyvalent IMOs) to improve availability and coverage. - And/or working more with Standby Partners to develop and provide IMOs on an ‘as needed basis’. Continue to explore ways in which national clusters can have improved access to technical rapid support (e.g. CMAM, IYCF and nutrition assessments). NGO partners to provide these? Or a ‘technical’ RRT?

52. Recommendations for GNC in support of national platforms Further explore alternative funding modalities for the RRT system e.g. direct funding to an NGO consortium instead through the CLA. -placement of RRT personnel within hosting NGO partners (significant cost saving measure) -reducing administrative costs through funding NGOs directly. -Consortium funding would ensure that fund distribution and reporting measures remain streamlined. Explore more recent experiences within the WASH cluster.

53. Recommendations for the CLA Reinforce deployment from regional or CO staff for support to national clusters and to fill extended capacity gaps. Define and strengthen the role of the regional offices in supporting national clusters. No regionalisation of RRT Increase awareness among UNICEF staff and management on the responsibilities of the CLA. Separating of UNICEF programme activities and cluster activities and well as reinforcing the neutrality of cluster work.

54. Recommendations for the CLA Continue working on previous recommendations that the CLA develops an integrated strategy for surge capacity and a UNICEF-wide effort for developing coordination staff in order to improve the range of HR available to respond to national coordination surge needs. (RRT, GNCT-CT, but also internal UNICEF, etc…) Improve recruitment practices with a special focus on shortening time in between RRT deployment and longer-term staff placement. Gains made by the RRT and sustainability of systems set up by the RRT member depend on a timely recruitment of staff to take over coordination responsibilities …

55. “The RRT is an invaluable resource and one we need to carry on with.” A SAG Member ‘RRT is an imperfect model but still a good one…’ A CLA staff member “ We need more meaningful and lasting system and stop being complementary. We as NGOs can deploy people quite fast, faster than the UN. If UNICEF is willing to accept their limitations…and acknowledge that UNICEF as CLA has problems providing cluster staff/services. Then we can make a system on behalf of UNICEF and on a more permanent base. ” A Host Agency for the RRT “ What is challenging is that we as RRT need to understand the context very quickly, and work 1000% to set up everything in a very short period and ensure sustainability.” A RRT member “Most RRT members are regarded as highly skilled staff with most up to date knowledge on cluster related issues because of their frequent exposure to both NC in-country and GNC.” The evaluation team