1
A joint initiative between InterAction and UNHCR’s Implementing Partner
Management Service (IPMS), with support from ICVA.
Authored by: Dhabie Brown for InterAction Published: March 29, 2019
3
Regarding project inception, 37% of NGO partners reported that they had at tleast one Project Partnership Agreements that was not signed on time, with nearly half reporting the delays took 1-3 months to resolve. Negotiations over the budget, UNHCR delayed consideration of proposals, and joint changes after proposal submission were the leading causes for delay. Yet despite these challenges, there was still a 9% increase in PPAs signed on time as compared to 2017. Additionally, the majority of NGO and UNHCR respondents reported participating in formal joint monitoring, review, or evaluation of their projects and agreed that it was a valuable experience. Finally, as UNHCR has initiated a process to update the ‘Operations Management Handbook For UNHCR Partners’ first published in 2003, this year’s survey asked respondents to reflect on their use of the current version. While a high proportion of NGO (49%) and UNHCR (66%) respondents said that they ‘seldom’ or ‘never’ consult the handbook, many noted throughout their comments that this undertaking, if done jointly, could strengthen partnership for years to come.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4
Country Office82%
Sub-Office10%
Field Office
3%
Regional Office
5%
INGOHQ Office
15%
INGO Country/Field
Office25%
National NGO60%
Int'l NGO40%
5
Assessment of Overall UNHCR-NGO Partnership Partner relationships were assessed by asking NGO respondents to rate their office’s partnership with UNHCR in the field and by asking UNHCR respondents to rate the state of local NGO/CBO and INGO partnerships with UNHCR in the respondent’s country of operation.
0
20
40
60
80
100
CoordinationMeetings
One-on-OneConsultations
JointMonitoring
Visits
FormalCountry
OperationsPlanning
Very useful Moderately useful Somewhat useful Not useful
0
10
20
30
40
50
JointMonitoring
Visits
One-on-OneConsultations
CoordinationMeetings
FormalCountry
OperationsPlanning
Very Useful Moderately Useful Somewhat Useful Not Useful
8%
12%
21%
28%
31%
5%
25%
14%
22%
34%
The Americas/Caribbean
Europe
Middle East and North Africa
Asia/Pacific Islands
Africa
UNHCR NGO Partners
6
some elaborated that the consultation was cursory without real influence over the strategy:
26%44%
6% 9% 2% 14%
Our input was wellreflected within the
COP
Our input wassomewhat reflected
within the COP
Our input was notreflected within the
COP
The final COP was notshared
The final COP wasshared but I have not
reviewed it
I do not know
Perceived Influence of NGO Partners' COP Inputs
7
17% 10% 8% 5% 11%
51%
UNHCR proactivelyprovided clear
reasoning
UNHCR provided clearreasoning only atpartner's request
Partner requestedfeedback/ Response
was unclear
Partner requestedfeedback/ No
response
Partner didn't requestfeedback from UNHCR
I don't know
8
0%
20%
40%
60%
>2months
1-2months
2 wks-1month
< than 2weeks
UNHCR
NGO
0%
20%
40%
60%
>2months
1-2months
2 wks-1month
< than 2weeks
UNHCR
NGO
14%
72%
6% 3% 5%
Always Posts EOI Calls onthe Partner Portal
Always Posts Calls on thePartner Portal + Other
Distribution Means
Sometimes Posts Calls onthe Partner Portal
Does Not Post Calls onPartner Portal but Plan to
in 2019
Does Not Post Calls onPartner Portal, No Plans to
Do So
9
23%
51%
18%8%
26%
49%
14% 11%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Significantly Moderately Not at all I do notknow
UNHCR
NGO
NGO Partner 1: “The Portal has made a significant improvement especially in the communication on the calls for expressions of interest since the Portal can be consulted at any time.”
NGO Partner 2: “Calls for expression of interest are fast updated, and easily accessed on a timely basis.”
2018:
96% 2017:
86%
11
NGO partner did not participate
25%
I don't know14%
Involving NGOs and UNHCR
23%
Involving NGOs only38%
NGO partner participated
61%
Involving NNGOs only52%
Involving NNGOs and INGOs27%
Involving INGOs only4%
UNHCR did not participate
12%
I don't know5% UNHCR
participated83%
UNHCR Staff 1: “Local and smaller NGOs struggle with excessive UNHCR requirements which can be in reporting or monitoring or even participation in various FGDs, assessments, surveys, etc. Bigger NGOs have more capacities but at the same time they are more costly.”
UNHCR Staff 2: “They have the expertise to deliver the service but lack administrative capacity for reporting requirements.” UNHCR Staff 3: “Staff turnover in NGO partners and identification of qualified staff are major problems. These issue are even more worrisome for local NGOs as their salary scales are low and in most instances far below the salary scales of INGOs. Many qualified national staff strive to secure jobs in an INGO, UN or an Embassy making it even more difficult for NNGOs to attract qualified staff.”
12
18%
15%
22%
25%
32%
44%
24%
80%
27%
36%
38%
47%
52%
67%
68%
97%
Twinning and mentoring
Assistance with fundraisingstrategy
Assistance with operationalstrategy
Piloting projects with localNGOs/CBOs
Assistance with programmaticstrategy
Provision of training materials
Financial resources for gaps inlocal capacity
Training, coaching, transfer ofknowledge
UNCR
NGOs
48%38%
10% 11% 11%16%
8%
By phasing outand/or reducing the
funds provided tointernational NGOs
By reducing directUNHCR
implementation ofprograms
By reducing UNHCRadministrative costs
By equally reducingfunding for INGOsand direct UNHCRimplementation
Other Not currentlyworking towards
this commitment incountry program
I do not know
13
0%
3%
7%
4%
86%
I don't know
No, we did not engage in anyproject monitoring, review, or
evaluation
No, but we engaged in informaljoint monitoring, review, or
evaluation
Yes, but it was not a valuableexperience
Yes, and it was a valuableexperience
10%
3%
3%
6%
7%
71%
I don't know
No, eventhough we knew that itwas required in the PPA
No, we did not know it wasrequired in the PPA
No, but we engaged in informaljoint monitoring, review, or…
Yes, but it was not a valuableexperience
Yes, and it was a valuableexperience
14
Yes37%
No53%
I don't know10%
36% 47% 17%
< 1 month 1-3 months > 3 months
All PPAs signed 29%
> half PPAs signed20%
< half PPAs signed
14%
No PPAs signed37%
15
.
Yes, before the
project began41%
Yes, but after the project began
6%
No, and project
start was delayed
9%
No, but UNHCR
let usimplement/backsign
27%
I don't know17%
N
All included a
signed LOMI17%
> half included a
signed LOMI
8%
< hlaf included a
signed LOMI10%
None included a
signed LOMI61%
I don't know
4%
16
Always fully involved
51%
Insufficiently (time issues)
22%
Insufficiently (access issues)
10%
Not involved
7%
I don't know11%
18%
31%
42%
9%
21%
45%
29%
5%
Never
Seldom
Often
Always
UNHCR NGOs
NGO Partner 1: “For instance [we do this by having a] crisis affected committee fully involved in project.” NGO Partner 2: “Persons of Concern are mostly involved via the evaluation processes.” NGO Partner 3: “Resettlement-related projects tend to have limited ability to do this.” NGO Partner 4: “Unfortunately experts and planning staff at both sides (NGOs and UNHCR) [treat affected populations] as non-competent individuals. Also, the planning process is transformed into a very sophisticated and hard to understand system, it becomes a untouchable even for NGO staff.”
17
9%
20%22%
14%
21%
14%
7%
13%17%
24%
36%
3%
100% 75% 50% 25% Under25%
I don'tknow
NNGOs INGOs
UNHCR Staff 1: “It is absolutely outdated and cannot be applied in the current environment. Use of this guidance would be confusing both for UNHCR staff and partners.” UNHCR Staff 2: “The Partnership Handbook is the most useful reference material previously developed. It was used extensively from 2004- 2009 prior to the launched of FOCUS... Since 2013 until now, Guidance Notes issued by IPMS were extensively used.” UNHCR Staff 3: An updated version of the Operation Management Handbook for UNHCR's Partners is vital as absence of the manual has created a ‘reference vacuum’ when dealing with partners. In addition, revival of the handbook would help both partners and UNHCR staff to have common understanding/interpretation of available policies and guidelines, which in turn will contribute in improving partnership management.” NGO Partner 1: “[We] seldom refer to it now, but did a lot in the past. After 15 years of use, we have almost memorized portions of the current version!” NGO Partner 2: “It needs to be updated, and provide more clear guidance, some context specific. It is difficult to gain answers for specific questions from the[{UNHCR] country office or Geneva.” NGO Partner 3: “The handbook is too long and unnecessary. All info about UNHCR and its activities can be found on the website already. A 2-3 page chart with current national projects, link to websites and contact list would be more handy if people wanted to reach out to someone specific.”
18
20%
44%
19% 12% 5%
35% 34%
15% 13%3%
Very likely SomewhatLikely
Unlikely Very unlikely I don't know
NNGOs INGOs
3%
25%
47%
26%
0%
Very Likely SomewhatLikely
Unlikely Very Unlikely I don't know
48%
36%
11%
4%
1%
23%
49%
21%
6%
1%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
I don't knowNNGOs INGOs
21%
66%
10%
1%
0%
18%
59%
14%
3%
7%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
I don't know NNGOs INGOs
19
.
22%
64%
8%
3%
0%
16%
60%
14%
3%
7%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
I don't know NNGOs INGOs
50%
40%
7%
2%
1%
28%
45%
20%
6%
1%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
I don't know NNGOs INGOs
19%
62%
11%7%
17%
62%
8%3%
14%
71%
13%
3%
39%43%
14%
4%
41%46%
10%
3%
39%
46%
12%
3%
Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor
2018 2017 2016
UNHCR NGO
20
80%
14%5%
70%
30%
0%
63%
35%
2%
66%
27%
5%
65%
27%
5%
60%
33%
4%
Improved The same Worsened Improved The same Worsened Improved The same Worsened
2018 2017 2016
UNHCR NGO
38%
42%
14%
5%
0%
0%
37%
29%
27%
4%
1%
2%
Significantly improved
Somewhat improved
Neither improved norworsened
Somewhat worsened
Significantly worsened
I do not know UNHCR NGOs