Develop a Simplified IMEP and Results Framework low cost (recommend CO – Monitoring unit) Within the first 2 weeks the CO is likely to produce a CO This is outside the scope of the Humanitarian PM toolkit and the format and guide is contained in the The Results Framework expands on the Sudden Onset Response plan and includes both high and low frequency indicators. Challenges and Solutions Preparedness / First Week Potential Challenges Possible Solutions Where Challenges not addressed Accountabilities for Early decision (Dep Rep) on CO Monitoring section says its Humanitarian PM not clear who should lead based on CO Programme section responsibility - monitoring capacity Programme sections don’t have time/capacity/existing high frequency monitoring mechanisms. Humanitarian PM does not happen Poor quality SitRep adverse effect on – resource mobilization. Assessing existing CO Assess as part of Suitable / appropriate elements of monitoring mechanisms preparedness and during 1st existing CO monitoring not utilized for does not happen / takes week after decision to Humanitarian PM too long implement Humanitarian PM Resourcing Resourcing (human and Insufficient CO monitoring capacity financial) considered in Insufficient funds for Field monitoring appeal and in country plan visits (through 3rd party organization) Poor quality SitRep adverse effect on – resource mobilization. Sit Reps Early decision (Dep Rep) on Various staff write SitReps, lack of No-one to write who should lead for report continuity in format and content. writing with sufficient capacity Poor quality SitRep adverse effect on – and links to monitoring, resource mobilization. programmes and Emergency Officer SitReps Establish framework for CO unable to report beyond inputs and Format does not include Humanitarian PM cluster/sector information where programme performance Early decision (Dep Rep) to country cluster/sector lead agency. tables adopt SitRep version with Mixing of UNICEF and cluster/sector programme performance progress. tables Poor quality SitRep adverse effect on – resource mobilization. External criticism Week 2-3 Assess UNICEF progress in country cluster/sector coordination where UNICEF country cluster/sector lead agency (Recommend led by CO Monitoring unit) After start of sector working groups / cluster: Can be carried out periodically through interviews/discussion with UNICEF cluster/sector coordinator/focal point. Where sector working groups / clusters have been operational for some time : Utilise one of the more in depth cluster / sector coordination tools (e.g. Q-SAC developed by APSSC)
Develop a Simplified IMEP and Results Framework – low cost (recommend CO Monitoring unit) Within the first 2 weeks the CO is likely to produce a CO This is outside the scope of the Humanitarian PM toolkit and the format and guide is contained in the The Results Framework expands on the Sudden Onset Response plan and includes both high and low frequency indicators. Challenges and Solutions Preparedness / First Week Potential Challenges Possible Solutions Where Challenges not addressed Accountabilities for Humanitarian PM not clear Early decision (Dep Rep) on who should lead based on CO monitoring capacity CO Monitoring section says its Programme section responsibility - Programme sections don’t have time/capacity/existing high frequency monitoring mechanisms. Humanitarian PM does not happen Poor quality SitRep – adverse effect on resource mobilization. Assessing existing CO monitoring mechanisms does not happen / takes too long Assess as part of preparedness and during 1st week after decision to implement Humanitarian PM Suitable / appropriate elements of existing CO monitoring not utilized for Humanitarian PM Resourcing Resourcing (human and financial) considered in appeal and in country plan Insufficient CO monitoring capacity Insufficient funds for Field monitoring visits (through 3rd party organization) Poor quality SitRep – adverse effect on resource mobilization. Sit Reps No-one to write Early decision (Dep Rep) on who should lead for report writing with sufficient capacity and links to monitoring, programmes and Emergency Officer Various staff write SitReps, lack of continuity in format and content. Poor quality SitRep – adverse effect on resource mobilization. SitReps Format does not include programme performance tables Establish framework for Humanitarian PM Early decision (Dep Rep) to adopt SitRep version with programme performance tables CO unable to report beyond inputs and cluster/sector information where country cluster/sector lead agency. Mixing of UNICEF and cluster/sector progress. Poor quality SitRep – adverse effect on resource mobilization. External criticism Week 2-3 Assess UNICEF progress in country cluster/sector coordination where UNICEF country cluster/sector lead agency (Recommend led by CO Monitoring unit) After start of sector working groups / cluster: Can be carried out periodically through interviews/discussion with UNICEF cluster/sector coordinator/focal point. Where sector working groups / clusters have been operational for some time : Utilise one of the more in depth cluster / sector coordination tools (e.g. Q-SAC developed by APSSC)
Steps%20to%20Strengthen%20CO%20Humanitarian%20PM%2001June2011.docx