Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring

1. Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring

2. Overview • What is CCPM? • CCPM process • Experience from 5 Nutrition clusters • Process- what worked, what worked less well • Compiled results from 5 nutrition cluster CCPM’s • Next steps for CCPMs

3. What is the CCPM? • Arose out of the Transformative Agenda, to improve accountability • Self-assessment of cluster performance against the 6 core cluster functions and Accountability to Affected populations: • Support service delivery • Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making • Strategy development • Monitor and evaluate performance • Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning. • Advocacy +++++ section on Accountability to Affected Populations • Country led process, supported by Global Clusters and OCHA • The CPM can be applied by both clusters and sectors • Implemented since 2013

4. Why monitor cluster performance? • 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

5. The CCPM does not … • Monitor response (service delivery) • 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

6. When to implement the CCPM? • Protracted crises: Annually, but clusters decide when to implement it • New emergencies: 3-6 months after the onset and once every year thereafter. • If several core functions have been registered as weak

7. Who is involved? • Country clusters: coordinator and partners • Global Clusters: Technical and facilitation support • OCHA-HQ: Technical and facilitation support upon request • UNICEF/CLA –Geneva: Technical and facilitation support upon request for all UNICEF lead clusters • OCHA-FO: coordinate across clusters (ICC) and ensure engagement of HC/HCT

8. CCPM process

9. Step 1: Planning • HCT decision on CCPM timeframe and participation • Inter-cluster Coordination Group discussion to clarify • Purpose • Timing • Role of government • Commitment to follow-up • Output I: Agreement on implementation and timeframe

10. Step 2: The Survey Three online questionnaires: • Cluster Description Report (Cluster Coordinator) • Coordination Performance Questionnaire (Cluster Coordinator) • Coordination Performance Questionnaire (Cluster partners) • Responses are anonymous • Survey results only shared externally after the cluster has contextualised it. • Output II: The survey results are weighted and compiled into a report

11. CCPM report

12. Step 3: Cluster analysis and action planning • Review/amend the Cluster Description Report • Explain/contextualize findings • Identify actions for improvement, timeframe and entity responsible for follow-up • Pinpoint support requirements • Note: Clusters can request the secretariat of the global clusters or OCHA-HQ for facilitation support • Output III: Final CCPM and Action Plan • Shared with the HC/HCT and Global Cluster and, if applicable, the national authorities

13. Step 4: Follow-up & Monitoring Follow-up: • ICC: Review of Reports/Action Plans to identify common weaknesses to be addressed systematically. • HCT: Presentation of Reports/Action Plans and discussion of support requirements Monitoring: • Take stock of progress at monthly cluster meetings • Quarterly progress reporting to the HCT Output IV: Quarterly reports to HCT

14. Nutrition Clusters that have completed CCPM • Philippines • South Sudan • Somalia • Chad • Afghanistan

15. Overview of key achievements, issues and challenges by core area from all 5 CCPM

16. Core area 1: Supporting service delivery Overall rating: Good Challenges • Information flow between MoH and Nutrition Cluster, national and sub-national level and from Cluster team to partners is weak • Cluster approach and core function not well understood by some partners • Poor attendance of mtgs by govand tech staff in field based agencies What is working well… • In general, partners happy with how service delivery is going • Regmtgs are held • Partners list updated regularly • Websites developed • IM reporting tools available and used • Capacity mapping completed • Systems to avoid duplications in place

17. Core area 2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT Overall rating:Borderline Unsatisfactory What is working well…..(to partly address this core area) • Some needs assessments done • Some cross cutting issues analysed (gender, age) Challenges • Prioritization of activities not grounded in strong analysis • Gap analysis and prioritization of needs jointly with partners and other clusters is weak • Analysis of some cross cutting issues (HIV/AIDS and disability) weak

18. Core area 3: Planning and strategy development Overall rating:wide rangegoodto unsatisfactory What is working well…. • Overall good application and adherence to existing standards and guidelines • Strategic plan developed Challenges • Need to clarify funding requirements, prioritization and cluster contributions to humanitarian funding considerations • No deactivation or phase-out strategy • Limited strategic planning at sub-national level • Limited sub-national consultation on response plan

19. Core area 4: Advocacy Overall rating:wide rangegoodtoweak What is working well…. • Some satisfied with advocacy discussions and results • Advocacy around milk code received unified support Challenges • Issues requiring advocacy are not discussed comprehensively within the cluster or proactively taken forward when identified • Unclear if advocacy issues get raised to HCT, limited feedback • Advocacy has not been adequately addressed by the cluster

20. Core area 5: Monitoring and reporting Overall rating:wide rangegoodtosatisfactory Achievements • Systems for regular partner reports are in place (with different level of satisfaction) • Some information regularly shared • Country bulletins produced Challenges • Insufficient reporting back to partners on progress • Field monitoring is infrequent • Unclear mechanisms for sharing reports with WFP, UNICEF and the Cluster- leads to duplication and gaps • Quality of partner reports • Timeliness of report submission • Limited consideration of partner reports in cluster reporting, publication of cluster bulletins and monitoring • Lessons learned not documented and used for programming

21. Core area 6: Contingency planning/preparedness Overall rating:satisfactory Achievements • Partners felt involved in planning and risk assessments Challenges • Limited partner involvement in risk assessment and analysis • Contingency planning scenarios done by OCHA with no consultation of cluster • No national contingency plan for nutrition • Preparedness plans exist but are outdated

22. Accountability to affected populations Overall rating:satisfactory Achievements • Most partners have organizational mechanisms for this Challenges • Cluster role in this unclear • No review done of cluster accountability to affected populations • Most partners have some but no standard mechanisms and limited mechanisms for response to complaints

23. Feedback on the process • CCPM guidance sufficient • Support from Geneva good • Acceptance of the CCPM process at the country level - more so if cluster is engaged in discussions around the process/timing so as not perceived as imposed by someone else

24. Learning from this process • Strong understanding of exercise is required by all partners before exercise and good facilitation for review • Number of respondents/organization - guidance says 1 per organization but more would be useful • Language very UN focused and questions clearer in English than French • A need for more flexible questionnaire • Engagement from donors, OCHA and cluster, throughout the process is required - not dominated by any one. • Need to develop separate donor section for questionnaire. • Sub-national cluster input would add value • Sub-national cluster questionnaire requires adjustments

25. CCPMs next steps • CCPMs are country driven and planned • GNC-CT encourages country clusters to conduct CCPMs and is here to support with the process • Review reports • Advocacy • Surge support to facilitate CCPM discussions

26. Group work • Divide into 6 groups- each representing one core function area of the cluster • SAG members will chair each group • Select a rapporteur for the group • Read through the country context sheets with CCPM matrix • Review expected outputs under each functional area • Using powerpoint develop 3 slides to answer the following questions • What are other issues/constraints to effective coordination based on group’s experience around this specific functional area? • Who takes these issues forward and how? • In the workplan? or roles? • GNC-CT • SAG • Partners • If it is not in the workplan, where should it go? And who takes it forward