Cluster Performance Monitoring

Cluster Coordination
Performance Monitoring
• 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:
Support service delivery
Inform the HC/HCT's strategic decision-making
Strategy development
Monitor and evaluate performance
Capacity building in preparedness and contingency planning.
+++++ 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
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
• 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
Role of government
Commitment to follow-up
• Output I: Agreement on implementation and
Step 2: The Survey
Three online questionnaires:
Cluster Description Report (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
• ICC: Review of Reports/Action Plans to identify
common weaknesses to be addressed
• HCT: Presentation of Reports/Action Plans and
discussion of support requirements
• 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
South Sudan
Overview of key achievements, issues
and challenges by core area from all 5
Core area 1: Supporting service
Overall rating: Good
What is working well…
• In general, partners happy
with how service delivery is
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
• 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
• Poor attendance of mtgs by
gov and tech staff in field
based agencies
Core area 2: Informing strategic
decision making of HC/HCT
Overall rating: Borderline Unsatisfactory
What is working well…..(to
partly address this core
• Some needs assessments
• Some cross cutting issues
analysed (gender, age)
• Prioritization of activities
not grounded in strong
• 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
Core area 3: Planning and strategy
Overall rating: wide range good to unsatisfactory
What is working well….
• Overall good application
and adherence to existing
standards and guidelines
• Strategic plan developed
• Need to clarify funding
requirements, prioritization
and cluster contributions to
humanitarian funding
• No deactivation or phaseout strategy
• Limited strategic planning at
sub-national level
• Limited sub-national
consultation on response
Core area 4: Advocacy
Overall rating: wide range good to weak
What is working well….
• Some satisfied with
advocacy discussions and
• Advocacy around milk
code received unified
• Issues requiring advocacy
are not discussed
comprehensively within
the cluster or proactively
taken forward when
• Unclear if advocacy issues
get raised to HCT, limited
• Advocacy has not been
adequately addressed by
the cluster
Core area 5: Monitoring and reporting
Overall rating: wide range good to satisfactory
• Systems for regular partner reports
are in place (with different level of
• Some information regularly shared
• Country bulletins produced
• 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
• Lessons learned not documented and
used for programming
Core area 6: Contingency
Overall rating: satisfactory
• Partners felt involved in • Limited partner involvement
in risk assessment and
planning and risk
• Contingency planning
scenarios done by OCHA with
no consultation of cluster
• No national contingency plan
for nutrition
• Preparedness plans exist but
are outdated
Accountability to affected populations
Overall rating: satisfactory
• Most partners have
mechanisms for this
• Cluster role in this unclear
• No review done of cluster
accountability to affected
• Most partners have some
but no standard mechanisms
and limited mechanisms for
response to complaints
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
• 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
• 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?
– Partners
• If it is not in the workplan, where should it go? And who takes it forward

similar documents