“How well does UNICEF carry out its CLA role and what should it do for the future? ”

1. Evaluation of UNICEF’s Cluster (co)Lead Agency Role “How well does UNICEF carry out its CLA role and what should it do for the future?” This is for UNICEF’s (co)leadership of 5 clusters/AoRs: WASH, Nutrition, Education, GBV and Child Protection Draft Findings July 2013 Preliminary Draft Findings – Not for Distribution

2. Preliminary Draft Findings – Not for Distribution What is UNICEF doing well What is UNICEF doing less well Overall: Summary of key findings • High perception of overall effectiveness; Increasingly robust cluster coordination services; strong country level partnership performance. • CLA role well integrated in broad policy level and improvements with consolidation of clusters in one unit. Broad match between UNICEF programme capacity and CLA role • Significant improvement in cluster surgecapacity (RRT, Stand-by partners) • Active participation in IASC and Transformative Agenda work • Strong perception of partners that cluster outcomes justify investment • Investment in CLA role not excessive • Some weakness in global partnership performacne and lack of clarity on coordination roles and responsibilities: internallyand externally with partners • Challenges in UNICEF representation of cluster members in HCTs • Fragmented HR approach and lack of coordination career path. Limited capacity development of staff. Double-hatting reduces effectiveness. • Lack of organisation-wide cluster policies and guidance • Clusters increasingly filling gaps beyond emergency coordination and much investment at field level in long-term sectoral coordination contexts. • Cross cluster collaboration insufficient

3. Nutrition Cluster: Survey Respondents 25 participants in global survey 80 participants in national survey

4. Preliminary Draft Findings – Not for Distribution What is UNICEF doing well What is UNICEF doing less well Nutrition cluster: Summary of findings • Amount and type of resource support to national clusters from the global cluster is less strong than for available tools and guidelines. • Inter-cluster collaboration is modest, globally and nationally. • UNICEF is not capitalising on its programming and technical capacity to support the outcomes of the cluster. • Perception of global partners of cluster performance and comparative advantage of UNICEF is less positive than national partners. • Improvements could be made to preparedness support provided by national clusters. • Cluster de-activiation procedures are weak or not applied. • UNICEF generally fulfills partnership principles in its leadership role and partners actively involved in the cluster. • For country partners there seem to be adequate tools and guidance. • Partners overwhelming feel the outcomes and objectives of the cluster justify their investments. • Partners feel support by the cluster to monitoring and assessment has helped to reach people and has improved programme coverage. • National partners feel cluster is effective at supporting needs assessment, advocacy, resource mobilisation (to lesser extent). • Country level coordination and IM staff for the most part have the right technical and coordination skills.