UNDP’s Strategic Plan 2014-17 The Integrated Results and Resources Framework and Country Office Support Initiative Executive Board Informal – January 27th 2014 Judith Karl Director, Operations Support Group UNDP Executive Office Contents Transition to the new Strategic Plan • Country-level self-assessment of alignment to the new SP • Linking results and resources to the new IRRF’s outcomes and outputs • Setting baselines and targets • Country Office Support Initiative (COSI) • Next steps Programme Transition to the new Strategic Plan: Key Executive Board Decisions: UNDP Strategic Plan: 2014-2017 Changing with the World UNDP will populate the IRRF with indicators, baselines, milestones and targets in time for the June 2014 Board Setting Baselines and Targets ROAR 2013 ABP and IWPs 2014 Linking results and resources CO Self- Assessment of SP Alignment Country Office Self- Assessment of Alignment Alignment issue Targeting Change at scake Voice and participation Building resilience SS&TC Readiness for change Capacities to implement SP RBA RBAP RBAS RBEC Challenges: • Target female-headed households; and support LIC national systems to disaggregate data for better targeting of extreme poor • Better inclusion of women and youth in economic decisionmaking processes • Systematic use of SS&T cooperation across the portfolio • Increase awareness/knowledge of staff in new areas of UNDP support (ex: extractive industries, sustainable economies) • Increase CO capacities for data collection & analysis RBLAC UNDP Linking Results with Resources SP Outcome 1: Inclusive & sustainable growth & development CP Outcome 1 Country Programme • • • • Output 1.1 …….. Output 1.5 Project 1-Output 1 Project 1-Output 2 Project 2-Output 1 … SP Outcome 2: Stronger Democratic Governance to meet citizen expectations CP Outcome 2 • Project 1-Output 1 • Project 2-Output 1 • … Output 2.1 ….. Output 2.5 … Regional Programme RP Outcome 1 • • • • Project 1-Output 1 Project 1-Output 2 Project 2-Output 1 …. … Global Programme Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Output 3.1 Output 3.2 ….. Output 3.6 … GP Outcome 1 • Project 1-Outout 1 • Project 1-Output 2 • …… Management • • • • …… SP Outcome 3. Institutions enabled to deliver universal access to basic services Project 1-Output 1 Project 2 –output 1 Project 2- Output 2 …….. Outcome 7: Thought leadership Output 7.1 …….. Output 7.7 Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Result Area 1 …….. Result Area 9 Linking Results and Resources (1) • The linking exercise enables UNDP to see our current “footprint” across the priorities of the SP. • A Quality Assurance process is being conducted to analyze the footprint, ensure it captures a robust picture of the organisation’s expected results, compare it with resource projections presented in the September 2013 IRRF (based on 2012 expenditure), and understand sparsely linked outputs • This will help UNDP inter alia to identify where we need to focus or increase advisory support services, invest in knowledge management, and/or address duplications and redundancies in the IRRF. Linking Results and Resources (2) • Initial findings from the exercise show that linking results and resources is not an exact science – choices are being made about which output and outcome to link to across an integrated, multi-dimensional framework. • The multi-dimensionality of the new plan means that there will be trade-offs in terms of outcome/output choices. Understanding how these trade-offs affect the emerging results to resources picture will be critical to decision making. • Through the QA process UNDP is exploring these issues alongside the alignment selfassessment, including: analyzing the “unlinked” results, and differences between resource projections as per the approved IRRF against current resources linked. • Current emerging trends show that some rebalancing may be required between output choices in order to better reflect the intended results (e.g. a concentration on Output 1.1. is being reviewed to see whether some results actually relate more to early recovery settings, Outcome 6, and others). Baseline and Target Setting: towards a Populated IRRF Translate IRRF indicators into data specifications Develop methodological notes for indicators System development Training, technical support, data analysis and quality assurance Link country results with the SP results Identify indicators to report on the results Populated IRRF For EB June Session Setting Indicator baselines and targets Roles and responsibilities are being defined across Country Offices, Regional Bureaus and Service Centers, Bureaus and HQ units to ensure that IRRF data collection, analysis, support and QA is institutionalized but also grounded in the SP’s aim to deliver higher quality programmes through better project planning, design, monitoring and evaluation, underpinned by stronger results-based management (RBM). IRRF Baseline and Targeting Setting (Issues and Challenges) • Indicator selection: COs may find the output relevant but not the indicator; or find 2 sets of indicators relevant (in different outputs), and that may confuse our results picture. • Indicator relevance: we expect the baseline and targeting setting process to identify some indicators that are not relevant to COs, so adapting indicators will be an on-going process. • Data disaggregation: the IRRF specifies many levels of data disaggregation. Corporate systems will require sex disaggregation and will leave other levels (e.g. geographic and population groups) to country-by-country availability. • Setting baselines: to the extent possible, baselines will be set according to results to date (as of December 31st 2013). • Setting targets: targets will be aggregated from COs according to their programme cycles, many of which are not on the same timeline as the SP • Rationalizing existing CPD indicators: work will continue with COs to simplify country programme document indicators, to adjust to the new SP IRRF and to simplify those CPD indicators that are not being actively used Evidence base UNDP reporting will be based on evidence from the SP IRRF results architecture + ROAR: a combination of independent and self-reported data Monitoring: • There will more robust and time sensitive data collection for performance management and decision-making • Based on updated qualitative and quantitative data sources and analysis using more robust and innovative methodologies • Aggregatable results for learning/knowledge management and results reporting • Challenge of obtaining robust data from independent sources will continue at country level and should see incremental improvements Decentralized and independent evaluations • Will provide an independent view of UNDP’s relevance and sustainability of results • Promotes lessons learning/sharing Peer Review Group Feedback (5th Round) Common issues and feedback: • Data disaggregation is possible on a country by country basis; but at a corporate level only sex disaggregation has been made mandatory by some peers complemented by gender sensitive indicators • Targeting: for outcome indicators peers generally agreed that it may only be possible to set direction of travel rather than specific targets and/or to distinguish between “Progress on” versus “Progress Towards” targets; all targets may need adjustment when circumstances shift significantly. • Aggregation: Peers recommended a minimum threshold for indicator monitoring to make aggregation meaningful (e.g. 10 countries/projects at minimum must monitor the indicator for aggregation to be meaningful) • Balancing “organizational” and country specific indicators: peers recommended that key corporate indicators and country/project specific indicators are needed; and programmes act as the “bridge” between corporate and project level data • Organizational benchmarks or standards for staffing and resourcing M&E capacity: no generic standard – references to improved RBM guidelines, training and “sufficient” specialist staff in HQ as well as a separate professional, evaluation function; one has invested in statistics/results staff in larger COs. COSI: Country Office Support Initiative • The SP has a commitment to: establish a sustainable RBM support mechanism to work with country offices over the next two years. Regional Bureaux will play a critical role in overseeing all programme delivery and performance. • Internal Regional Roadmaps to Strengthen RBM have been in place since July 2013 which set out steps to improve leadership, resourcing, roles and responsibilities, use of evidence and data; learning and communications. • The Global Programme and RPDs have specific commitments on staffing and financial resources for programme development, monitoring, evaluation and communication of results (on average, RPDs have allocated 5-10% of regular resources) • Complete redesign of programme and project quality assurance with clear standards, new review mechanisms (starting with the new CPDs for the June and Sept EBs); and a renewed focus under the Structural Review on end-to-end programme management with a strong focus on performance monitoring and evaluation. Next Steps • Submission of the populated IRRF with indicators, baselines, milestones and targets in time for the June 2014 Board. • End-April – submission of 2014 Annual Report for the June 2014 Board: we invite the views / expectations of Board Members on the content of the 2014 AR given that it reflects performance under the previous SP but sets the stage for the new SP.