Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring

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

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:

1. Support service delivery

2. Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making

3. Strategy development

4. Monitor and evaluate performance

5. Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning.

6. 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

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

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

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

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

CCPM process

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

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

CCPM report

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

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

Nutrition Clusters that have completed CCPM

• Philippines• South Sudan• Somalia• Chad• Afghanistan

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

Core area 1: Supporting service delivery

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 gov and tech staff in field based agencies

What is working well…• In general, partners happy

with how service delivery is going– Reg mtgs are held– Partners list updated

regularly– Websites developed – IM reporting tools available

and used– Capacity mapping completed– Systems to avoid duplications

in place

Overall rating: Good

Core area 2: Informing strategic decision making of HC/HCT

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

Overall rating: Borderline Unsatisfactory

Core area 3: Planning and strategy development

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

Overall rating: wide range good to unsatisfactory

Core area 4: Advocacy

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

Overall rating: wide range good to weak

Core area 5: Monitoring and reporting

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

Overall rating: wide range good to satisfactory

Core area 6: Contingency planning/preparedness

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

Overall rating: satisfactory

Accountability to affected populations

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

Overall rating: satisfactory

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

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

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

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