GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF OCHA S ANNUAL PARTNER SURVEY 2012

Transcription

1 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 0 GLOBAL ANALYSIS OF OCHA S ANNUAL PARTNER SURVEY 2012 PARTNERS SAY OCHA IS PERFORMING WELL

2 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 1 Analysis of OCHA's Partner Survey 2012 PARTNERS SAY OCHA IS PERFORMING WELL Introduction In 2012, OCHA initiated its first partner survey. It was designed to measure key stakeholders opinions of the performance of OCHA s 24 country offices. The survey asked approximately 4,500 partners from Governments, UN agencies, international organizations, NGOs, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, the military, Humanitarian Pooled Fund Advisory Board members and donors what they thought of OCHA s performance in the following areas: 1) Humanitarian Coordination Leadership 2) Programme Cycle Management and Information Product Support 3) Pooled Fund Management 4) Humanitarian Access 5) Strategic Advocacy The results will give OCHA feedback on its strengths and weaknesses so that it can improve the quality of its work and enhance its transparency with partners. Figure 1: Overall satisfaction scores by key performance area (on a scale from 0 to 10) Figure 2: Response rates by OCHA Country Office Country Office Response rate (per cent) Eritrea 67% Yemen 57% Ethiopia 53% Chad 51% Niger 50% South Sudan 50% Myanmar 49% opt 46% Sudan 44% Indonesia 43% Pakistan 43% Mali 42% Syria 39% Information on humanitarian access Humanitarian coordination leadership Programme cycle management & information product support Pooled fund management CAR 37% Côte d'ivoire 36% Philippines 35% Zimbabwe 35% Sri Lanka 34% Somalia 31% Strategic advocacy Afghanistan 30% Colombia 30% About 1,500 partners responded for a response rate of 33 per cent. International and national NGOs and Red Cross/Red Crescent partners had a response rate of 54.1 per cent; UN agencies and international organizations 27.4 per cent; and donors 4.5 per cent. More than half of the respondents have been an OCHA partner in-country for more than two years. DRC 27% Haiti 20% Kenya 18%

3 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 2 General Findings OCHA country offices are performing well, according to OCHA partners. Twenty-one out of 24 country offices are at least two thirds of the way to a perfect score for their performance on a scale of one to 10. Figure 3: Overall satisfaction with OCHA's performance by partner type (on a scale from 0 to 10) Partners feel that OCHA s high-priority operations are performing well, i.e. Yemen, South Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Pakistan. OCHA is performing best in informing partners on humanitarian access and coordinating humanitarian leadership. Partners believe that strategic communications and advocacy could be improved. Military 7.4 Figure 4: Overall rating of country offices performance on key performance indicators (on a scale from 0 to 10) Government Overall s Information on access constraints OCHA Support to humanitarian leadership Satisfaction with HC/HCT 7.2 UN + Intl orgs 7 Management of HPC 7 NGOs+ Red C 6.8 Facilitation of CERF 7 Donors IM/Reporting products support HPC 6.8 Management of CB PFs 6.6 Strategic advocacy Figure 5: Overall ranking of country offices on all key performance indicators country offices 12 country offices below average above average Average OCHA country offices ranked in ascending order (on a scale from 0 to 10) principled humanitarian action

4 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 3 Humanitarian Coordination Leadership A key pillar of OCHA's mandate is to coordinate effective and principled humanitarian action in support of national and international actors. Partners are satisfied with OCHA's efforts to support humanitarian leadership, particularly at the HC/HCT level. The effectiveness of country office efforts to support humanitarian leaders is seen as best at the HC/HCT level. It decreases at the national inter-cluster level and at the sub-national inter-cluster level. Twelve out of OCHA's 24 country offices received very high satisfaction ratings from partners for their efforts to support HCs/HCTs. Less than a quarter of those surveyed see OCHA as fully effective in supporting humanitarian leadership at the sub-national intercluster level. Figure 6: How effective are OCHA's efforts in-country to support humanitarian leadership at each level? (per cent of all respondents) Sub-national inter-cluster level 24% 37% 12% 5% 23% Effective Somewhat effective National Inter-cluster level 31% 40% 9% 3% 17% Somewhat ineffective Ineffective HC/HCT 43% 36% 6% 2% 13% Overall, 33.9 per cent of OCHA s closest partners are satisfied with the humanitarian leadership that the HC and HCT provide in their respective countries. A total of 41.4 per cent are somewhat satisfied, and 14.4 per cent say they are somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied. On average, current humanitarian leadership (HCs and HCTs) receives a satisfaction score of 7.2 out of 10. In many countries, the effectiveness of OCHA's efforts to support humanitarian leadership at the HC and HCT level and partners satisfaction with the performance of HC/HCTs diverges. This highlights that while partners may appreciate OCHA's efforts to support humanitarian leadership, other factors influence their satisfaction with humanitarian leadership in the form of HCs/HCTs. Partners are satisfied with OCHA's inclusion of host Governments in the cluster system. However, it is interesting to note that they are much more satisfied with OCHA's efforts to include Governments in the humanitarian cluster system than they are with efforts to form technical partnerships with Governments (see Figure 6 below). They are least satisfied with efforts to prepare for the handover of humanitarian coordination to Governments. Figure 7: How satisfied are partners with OCHA's efforts in working with Government partners? (per cent of all partners) Prepare for handover of humanitarian coordination to Governments Form technical partnerships with Governments 15% 26% 30% 33% 17% 8% 14% 5% 29% 22% Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Dissatisfied Include Governments in cluster system 32% 33% 12% 6% 18%

5 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 4 Box 1: Partners think OCHA could improve coordination of humanitarian actors by: Sharing information beyond the national level, with greater inclusion of field-level actors, both NGOs and Governments. Simplifying planning and inter-sectoral discussion processes. Fielding appropriate OCHA staff, in terms of experience and numbers, to ensure effective coordination at all operational levels. Box 3: OCHA's civil-military coordination In humanitarian crises, humanitarian actors increasingly find themselves working alongside military actors, including, in some contexts, the UN or other peacekeepers. OCHA's efforts in humanitarian operations include helping to establish dialogue with military actors, including peacekeepers where relevant; facilitating appropriate interaction between military and humanitarian organizations; and establishing a coherent and consistent approach to the use of military assets to support relief operations. Box 2: Partners satisfied with emergency preparedness OCHA s preparedness activities aim to ensure a timely and effective emergency response. The activities include contingency planning, simulation exercises, risk assessments and early warning. Most partners are positive about OCHA s coordination of emergency preparedness: 67.5 per cent characterize OCHA as either fully or somewhat effective (see Figure 8). Figure 8: What partners say about OCHA s coordination of emergency preparedness (per cent of all partners) Effective Somewhat ineffective 29% 39% 10% Somewhat effective Ineffective 4% 48% Most OCHA partners (63 per cent) confirm that OCHA has facilitated inter-agency contingency planning in their countries. They see these processes as being of high quality and relevant to their organizations' planning and decision-making. As seen below, partners are more positive about OCHA's role in developing well-defined scenarios, but less so with its development of operational plans and simulation exercises. Figure 9: What partners say about the quality and relevance of OCHA s facilitation of contingency planning (per cent of all partners) Simulation exercises Relevance Quality About 20 per cent of partners did not know about OCHA's civil-military coordination efforts. Of the partners who responded, most were positive about OCHA's performance in establishing dialogue with military actors, but they were less positive about bringing a coherent and consistent approach to the use of military assets in humanitarian operations. There were suggestions in this regard: Several partners from different countries suggested that OCHA could be more open and transparent with partners about its dialogue with military actors. s asked for increased advocacy and engagement with military actors, including more training and outreach on conflict sensitivity, human rights protection, dialogue and negotiation skills, and humanitarian law. Some partners asked for a mapping of the strengths of civil and military actors, so that they might better complement each other. Figure 10: What partners say about OCHA s role in civilmilitary coordination (per cent of all partners) To a large extent To a small extent Establishing a coherent approach to use of military assets Facilitating interaction between military and humanitarian organisations 10% 21% 12% 26% To a moderate extent Not at all 19% 9% 20% 6% 41% 36% Operational plan 6.6 Playing a role in establishing dialogue 13% 29% 18% 5% 35% Well-defined scenarios principled humanitarian action

6 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 5 Programme Cycle Management and Information Product Support OCHA aims to optimize the performance of the various stages of coordinated humanitarian action. It does this by supporting inter-cluster coordination through coordinated needs assessments and analysis; by facilitating the development of a common strategy and prioritized response plans for informed fund allocation; and through regular progress reviews. OCHA country offices also provide partners with multiple information management (IM) and reporting products to support planning and decision-making. Positive partners Partners are quite satisfied with OCHA's management of the programme cycle, giving country offices an overall satisfaction rating of 7 out of 10. OCHA is perceived as being a stronger manager at the beginning of the humanitarian programme cycle. Partners are most satisfied with OCHA's role in ensuring that priority needs are reflected in the common response plan (70.3 per cent are satisfied or somewhat satisfied). Additionally, OCHA partners appreciate the coordination of joint needs assessments, with 68.6 per cent being satisfied or somewhat satisfied. Two thirds of respondents are either satisfied or somewhat satisfied with OCHA s provision of analysis to facilitate cluster decisionmaking and prioritization. Figure 11: How satisfied are you with OCHA's management of the following aspects of the humanitarian programme cycle? Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Dissatisfied Humanitarian programme monitoring 23% 38% 13% 6% 20% Ensuring that OCHA-managed funds are allocated in line with agreed priorities 28% 30% 9% 5% 27% Ensuring that the different needs of girls, boys, women and men are reflected in the common response plan 25% 37% 11% 4% 23% Ensuring priority needs are reflected in the common response plan 33% 37% 9% 3% 17% Providing analysis for cluster decision-making and prioritization 29% 37% 13% 4% 17% Coordinating joint needs assessments 33% 36% 11% 4% 16% Partners perceive that OCHA s weakest points are its ability to ensure that the funds it manages are allocated in line with agreed priorities, and its monitoring of the humanitarian programme cycle (for more analysis on OCHA s gender mainstreaming efforts, see the following box). principled humanitarian action

7 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 6 Box 4: Gender mainstreaming within OCHA country offices Partners were asked how well OCHA country offices mainstream age and gender analysis within the programme cycle, advocacy and overall protection efforts. In general, NGO and Red Cross/Red Crescent partners are more critical than other OCHA partners on this topic. Humanitarian coordination: 63.4 per cent of respondents rated OCHA country offices as somewhat effective or effective at ensuring that the needs of men, women, boys and girls are adequately addressed; 17.6 per cent stated that country offices are somewhat or fully ineffective. Humanitarian programme cycle: Partners are slightly less satisfied with OCHA's role in ensuring that the different needs of girls, boys, women and men are reflected in the country response plan than in other areas of its programme cycle management. They give a score of out of 10 in this area. IM and reporting products support the humanitarian programme cycle: There is room for improvement, as partners give OCHA's IM and reporting products out of 10 for identifying the prioritized and differentiated needs of girls, boys, women and men. Advocacy: OCHA received an average ranking, out of 10, for its efforts to highlight gaps in the access that women, men, girls and boys have to the services and assistance they need. How can OCHA improve? Partners across operations suggest that OCHA could increase gender disaggregation in needs analysis and address age and disability issues. Information Management and Reporting Partners rank all products as being of good quality and relevance. The top three most-relevant products to OCHA partners' planning and decision-making are the Situation Report, the Who Does What, Where (3W/4W) directories/maps and the Humanitarian Bulletin. Figure 12: Partner ratings of key information management and reporting products on quality and relevance Overall Relevance Field Key Messages Hum Snapshot Hum Dashboard Hum Bulletin Situation Reports Overall Common datasets 3W/4W Web platform Overall Quality Partners' assessments of OCHA s IM and reporting products do not vary a great deal by partner type. In terms of quality, donors most value the Humanitarian Snapshot (8 out of 10); in terms of relevance they most value the Situation Report. UN agencies and international organizations give their highest ratings for quality and relevance to the situation report, as do NGOs/Red Cross/Red Crescent members and Government counterparts. Partners working at the national level generally see OCHA IM and reporting products as slightly more relevant than those working at the sub-national level. OCHA donors give the highest ratings in terms of relevance of IM and reporting products to their planning and decisionmaking, but they also see the biggest gap between the quality and relevance of these products. Box 5: How partners think OCHA information and reporting products could be improved: Simplify the number of products and focus only on those that are essential. Prioritize OCHA s collection of information at the field level. Strengthen reporting between field-level humanitarian teams and the Humanitarian Country Team. Increase focus on communications with affected people, not only among humanitarian organizations. Increase focus on analysis rather than description. Increase reporting on results and impacts of humanitarian programmes. principled humanitarian action

8 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 7 Ensure documents are available in national languages. Pooled-Fund Management OCHA manages three types of pooled funds: the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) at the global level, and Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs) and Emergency Response Funds (ERFs) at the country level. These funds meet priority needs on the ground. Resource mobilization and management Partners who had never been part of a CERF application process were excluded from questions about OCHA s management of CERF funds. OCHA country offices in Chad, Côte d Ivoire, Eritrea, Mali, Niger, the Philippines and Sri Lanka were also excluded from this analysis as they do not have pooled funds, such as CHFs and ERFs. As seen in Figure 13 below, CERF management receives somewhat higher partner satisfaction ratings than country-based pooled-fund management. NGOs tend to be the least satisfied with OCHA s management of CERF and country-based pooled funds, and an analysis of partner comments and suggestions on OCHA's resource management suggests that national NGOs feel that resource allocation is not always transparent, fair or based strictly on technical merit. Figure 13: Partners overall satisfaction with CERF and country-based pooled-fund management by partner type CERF management Government UN + International organisations Military CB pooled fund management According to partners written comments, a main area of dissatisfaction with some country offices is that funds are not always allocated in a timely manner, in line with the needs in an emergency setting. Overall, partners were more satisfied with the availability of information on various pooled-fund processes, although they were less satisfied with country-based pooled funds than with CERF. It should be noted that there is a significant positive relationship between partners who have received CERF or country-based pooled-fund grants and their overall level of satisfaction with OCHA's fund management: those who have received grants from either fund are significantly more likely to express satisfaction with OCHA's management. Box 6: How partners think OCHA can improve its management of pooled funds Provide more information about the different funding resources available, especially for national NGOs. Include preparedness, and have funds available for foreseeable emergencies. Be more proactive in seeking out organizations with the right experience and knowledge to reach specific populations. Emphasize technical merit and de-politicize decision-making. Improve the transparency and timeliness of communications about the application process and the development of terms of reference for submissions. NGOs + RC Donors 6.7 s

9 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 8 Humanitarian Access Humanitarian access, as mandated by GA resolution 46/182, refers to humanitarian actors ability to reach people in need, and affected people s access to assistance and services. Partners were asked how satisfied they are with information and analysis on access constraints provided by country offices. Overall, partners were highly satisfied: only 3 per cent were dissatisfied, 9 per cent were somewhat dissatisfied, 36 per cent were somewhat satisfied and 29 per cent were satisfied. Figure 14: How satisfied are partners with information and analysis on access constraints provided by country offices? 23% Figure 15: Is OCHA playing an active role in overcoming access constraints? To a large extent 19% Dissatisfied Somewhat 3% dissatisfied 9% Only to a small extent 14% Satisfied 29% Not at all 2% Somewhat satisfied 36% To a moderate extent 37% However, when asked to what extent OCHA plays an active role in overcoming access constraints, stakeholders were slightly less favourable: 2 per cent said not at all, 14 per cent said only to a small extent, 37 per cent said to a moderate extent and 19 per cent said to a large extent. Partners recognized that OCHA country offices generally play an important role in providing opportunities for affected people to express problems or grievances with the humanitarian response. Box 7: How partners think OCHA's efforts to promote humanitarian access could be improved Provide quality baseline data and gap analysis that highlight the needs of the most vulnerable people who are not being reached. Be more proactive with Governments on humanitarian principles. Improve availability of reliable data from partners and the Government. Maintain regular contact with people who need help in remote areas who can themselves suggest the best access, response and prevention strategies. Engage all armed and un-armed actors. Create a role for civil-society organizations to ensure regular access monitoring. 28% principled humanitarian action

10 Strategic Advocacy Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 9 Part of OCHA's mission is to advocate for people in need to influence humanitarian policy, response and funding. Partners gave OCHA's advocacy work out of 10. They saw country offices as being most effective at raising the public profile of humanitarian crises, drawing attention to safety and security threats to humanitarian actors, developing a coherent and strategic communications strategy and mobilizing resources to meet the needs of the humanitarian response. Partners also found OCHA to be effective in other advocacy areas: negotiating humanitarian actors access to affected people and ensuring humanitarian actors greater accountability to affected people. OCHA was ranked lowest on its advocacy for transitioning from relief to development, receiving 5.3 out of 10. Figure 16: Effectiveness of OCHA's advocacy on broad humanitarian issues (on a scale from 0 to 10) Box 8: How partners think OCHA's advocacy could be improved Identify priority issues, formulate a specific advocacy strategy and regularly monitor its implementation. Be more dynamic in advocacy with donors to ensure humanitarian financing and awareness about the needs of the most vulnerable people. Ensure international visits to all OCHA country offices so that headquarters understands advocacy priorities. Lead national debates and dialogue on humanitarian action in complex situations and draft briefing documents. Ensure broader interaction, such as cluster meetings with donors. Raising public awareness of humanitarian crisis Drawing attention to security threats Coherent and strategic communications strategy Resource mobilisation Highlighting gaps in access by age and gender Overall Negotiating access Accountability to affected populations Transitioning from relief to development

11 Global Analysis of OCHA s Annual Partner Survey 10 General Conclusions Of the key results areas reviewed here, partners are most satisfied with OCHA's performance in supporting humanitarian leadership, particularly at the national level, and with OCHA's information on humanitarian access and access constraints. They are also satisfied, although somewhat less so, with OCHA's management of humanitarian funds and IM and reporting products as they support the programme cycle. It is worth noting that there is not one indicator or overall performance area for which partners were more dissatisfied than satisfied. Of interest are different perceptions between different partner types: in several key areas, UN, NGO and donor partners appear more critical of OCHA's performance, while Government and military partners are less critical. Use of Survey Results The survey results will be discussed internally and externally and then used to inform OCHA s strategic and operational planning. At headquarters, the results will inform OCHA s corporate planning and senior management actions to strengthen the weak areas in corporate performance. At the field level, detailed country reports will inform OCHA s performance review with country offices. They will also underpin strategic discussions between country offices and key partners on the context-specific achievements and challenges in-country.