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

2

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%

10

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

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

21

:

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

·

22

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

23