One UN monitoring and evaluation

WHAT?

Development results  One Plan results a. One Plan > principles b. HPPMG > operationalization of M&R system, including roles, responsibilities and reporting formats c.

One Plan Database using VietInfo > situation monitoring d. UNEG Evaluation > independent evaluation of results HOW?

Reform process  UN Reform process / One UN / DaO a. Results Framework for the Reform Process (TNTF) b. UNEG Evaluation > independent evaluation of process

One Plan M & R + E

 Results-based Monitoring and Reporting system by UNCT + GoV to inform decision making (i.e.

streamlined, timely, collecting information once and with clear accountabilities)  Independent and impartial Evaluation by UNEG

Principles

1. Who wants what and when?

2. Do things once 3. Almost everything delivered in projects, so don’t replicate their M&R systems 4. Don’t blur accountabilities between projects (agency reporting systems) and PCGs 5. Take a RBM, not M&E approach 6. Management by exception. Focus on identifying what is going right and what wrong.

Annual Review process

Sequence of AR (mostly built on aggregation): 1. Project performance, short report by agency + IP 2. Annual Review by PGC. Short report by PCG conveners 3. Annual One Plan Review by One Plan Steering Committee 4. Annual One Plan report prepared by RCO 5. Annual OPF report prepared by AA

Reporting and Planning Timeline

Draft Reports Meetings Final product One Plan Annual OP 2 Draft Report (by March 1) Annual OP 2 Review Meeting (by March 15) Annual OP 2 Report finalized (by March 31) PCG Annual Report PCG draft (by Nov 30) Draft PCG AWP Project Agency Draft Annual Project Performance Reports (by Nov 1) Annual PCG Review meetings (by Dec 30) PCG Annual Report finalized (by Jan 30) Final PCG AWP

Project Performance

1. Are we on track to deliver agreed outputs? (will we deliver on time?) 2. If off track, what will the UN agency and IP do about it (clear accountability)?

3. Are the outputs still relevant? (our risks and assumptions) 4. Expenditure/budget on an annual basis (did we plan properly and deliver?) Set up simple ‘traffic lights’ system for each project.

Annual Project Performance Report

Programme Coordination Groups

1.

2.

3.

4.

Progress against outcomes (drawn from One Plan database using VietInfo). Not UN contribution, but situation analysis as relates to OP results Performance of projects (report on aggregate performance in a simple traffic light system) Any big shifts in risks or assumptions and implications in the programmatic area PCGs to review own Action Plan internally with regards to joint programming performance (e.g. advocacy, policy provision, reduction in transaction costs, identification of comparative advantage, etc.) 11 PCG reviews and short reports

PCG Annual Work Plan

PCG AWP has

two components

:

1.

Annual activity plan (AAP)

is an overview of the activities of the Participating UN Organizations in delivering the Outputs of the OP.

   Must contain just sufficient detail to enable joint planning of activities , identification of synergies between relevant activities and to eliminate duplications.

work plan and will be updated periodically.

The PCG AAP is a living

Should guide agency specific activity planning in order to maximize potential synergies among activities. Where agency-specific AWPs or Project Documents for 2009 have already been prepared, these will be incorporated into the PCG AAP and potential collaboration identified.

Will be developed through a joint planning and prioritizing process that involves appropriate government partners. The PCG AAPs will be the basis for all future agency-specific planning processes.

2.

Common action plan (CAP)

is developed by PCG members and focuses on common / joint activities related to advocacy policy, research and UN normative work. Undertaking this work will draw on the technical expertise available within the PCG, and may go beyond the resourced activities that are listed in agency work plans or project documents.

Annual PCG Report

PCG Annual Work Plan

PCG Annual Work Plan (AWP) OP Output PCG TEE Expected Result Budget ID Project / Activity title UN Agency Implementing Partner Budgeted Funding Secured TBR Type of intervention Partners Target population Geographic location Q1 Q2 Timeframe Q3 Q4 Regular (Core) OR secured OR unsecured OPF secured OPF requested TOTAL Reference to OP output / expected result Reference to individual agency Who implements?

Funding Other info about the intervention Where Timeframe for implementation Budget

One Plan

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Situation report from One Plan database using VietInfo for each of the five OP Outcomes – Implications for outcome achievement?

Aggregate project performance analysis at level of the five OP Outcomes and the OP Identify areas in projects where performance not acceptable and what will do about it. Good practices and lessons learned.

UN non-project support – leadership, advocacy, etc.

Discuss OPF performance Annual OP Report + OPF report

Annual One Plan Report

One Plan Database – using VietInfo

One Plan database

1. OP db purpose is to monitor the situation in Viet Nam as it relates to the OP at Outcome level for all 23 programmatic clusters 2. OP db will provide PCGs with an overview of the situation for strategic programming purposes 3. Not to be confused with Monitoring and Reporting System of OP, which requires PCGs to report on performance of projects and results against PCGs individual Action Plans

OP db principles

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Use of available indicators from existing systems Keep number of indicators to a minimum Indicators at Outcome level Relevant to the Outcome in question Nationally owned, whenever possible Avoid subjective judgment or agency-driven need for indicators Specific in quantity, quality Clear metadata (definition of the indicator) 9.

Data must be available 10. Availability of base line data 11. Disaggregation preferred

OP db sources

1. Viet Nam Development Database (VDD) 2. National Statistical Indicator System (NSIS) 3. Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) 4. UNGASS Declaration of Commitment (DOC) 5. Other sources?

Results Framework for the Reform Process

1. Agreed at last TNTF 2. To start reporting against RF in December 2008