EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE PROTECTION STANDBY CAPACITY PROJECT (March 2007)

Management Response Matrix

Updated June 2009

No.

/

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

/ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND
ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE TAKEN
(If the recommendation is agreed, proposed actions are listed in this column in order of priority/sequence) / Responsible Branch /Unit /

Time frame

Expected [mm/yy]/ Ongoing /
Implemented [mm/yy] /
Not applicable /

Status -

Implemented /

Partially Implemented/ Not Implemented / Not Applicable

A. General Recommendations
1 / The team endorses the original rationale for the PROCAP initiative and recommends its continuation. However, it should not be used as a substitute for building protection capacity within agencies. /
  • Criteria and minimum conditions revised and finalised with the Steering Committee. In new reporting formats, SPOs inform on arrangements for sustainability in mid-term and end of mission reports/debriefings; Institutional capacity issues being addressed through newly established PCWG Taskforce on Protection Staffing. UN Agencies have confirmed on-going measures to increase/support institutional capacity.
/ PSU lead, with SC / Expected by [month/year]
or /

Implemented

2 / The team recommends that deployments can be made to the HC’s office, or to OCHA, to undertake strategic, policy development roles which are of benefit to an inter-agency response.
In situations where the HC determines that additional protection capacity is required to support the inter-agency protection response, the team recommends that an HC can request an SPO deployment to a protection mandated agency or to the Cluster Lead to ensure the fulfillment of the strategic coordination role. /
  • Revised revised criteria and minimum conditions; included option of deploying to OCHA/HC (and this has been used in Myanmar, Ethiopia and Haiti in 2008). Information on ProCap has been shared with HC/OCHA resulting in increased knowledge/understanding of the roster role, use and mechanism.
/ PSU lead, with SC / Ongoing
or /

Implemented

3 / The team believes that it should potentially be open to DPKO to request a PROCAP deployment where this would be of strategic value. /
  • Deployments to DPKO missions being undertaken (Afghanistan, East Timor, DRC). Modalities with NRC have been established (LoU) to facilitate such deployments. Other potential deployments have been discussed with identified focal points in UNFPA, IOM.
/ PSU
NRC (on current MOU status with DPKO and other international organisations) / Implemented [month/year]
or /

Implemented

4 / The team recommends that the PSU ensures greater synergies with the Protection Cluster,
Including the facility to recommend deployments to one or two ongoing major humanitarian crises or contexts where the cluster approach will be adopted which would benefit from additional capacity,
Including multiple deployments /
  • Increased synergies established through: regular ProCap participation in relevant PCWG meetings and taskforces; shared agency representation (same personnel) in PCWG/ProCap SC; PCWG observer status on ProCap SC; PCWG participation in ProCap Technical Workshops; ProCap participation in discussion on PCWG priorities and increased influence on deployment decisions (inc for Natural Disaster emergencies).
/ PSU lead, with SC / Not Applicable /

Implemented

B. Regarding the ‘strategic’ purpose of PROCAP
5 / Senior-level leadership roles should be re-asserted as the central pillar of PROCAP; /
  • Criteria and minimum conditions revised; updated request for deployment form (as above)
/

Implemented

6 / Mid-level (design and implementation) roles should be also recognised as ‘strategic’ and deployment should be allowed to fulfill such roles, when specific conditions are in place; /
  • as 5 above. In addition, ProCap proposed a ‘mid-level’ expansion of the roster in order to deploy and mentor personnel alongside the Core Team. Donor funding was not available for this.
/

Implemented

7 / Purely operational, staff-substitution or ‘bridging’ roles in times of recruitment difficulties or delays should not normally be undertaken by PROCAP. Such deployments should only be considered where a clear strategic purpose can be proven and there is administrative staff in place to support the SPO. /
  • as 5 above
/

Implemented

C. Regarding the duration of deployment
8 / Initial deployments of up to nine months should be allowed to all contexts, with a mid-term review which endorses the inter-agency strategic impact of the deployment. Extension to twelve months should be possible upon evidence that a credible recruitment process has been set in motion for replacement of the SPO; /
  • Finalised revised criteria completed, with greater detail on procedures for longer deployments. Administrative, logistic and cost implications of longer deployments have been reviewed and found slightly cheaper. Some contractual changes (on DSA) are now being implemented to reflect longer deployment times. SPOs have been formally notified.
/ PSU, with SC
NRC
NRC /

Implemented

9 / Where there is a gap in deployment, the SPO should be brought to Geneva to support the work of the Protection Cluster or one of the mandated protection agencies. /
  • ProCap SPOs have performed some Geneva-based tasks for the Protection Cluster during down-time (work on IDP Handbook, revision of HR in Natural Disasters Guidelines). Some down-time activity also undertaken from home-base (as significantly cheaper than Geneva DSA). MOU allows deployment to agencies only in Geneva, but not to Secretariat and this has been taken into consideration. ProCap continues to liaise with PCWG lead on upcoming activities that would benefit from SPO support (including home-based work).
/ NRC
PSU
NRC /

Implemented

.D. Regarding prioritizing and increasing deployment requests
10 / A mechanism for prioritisation should be agreed by the Steering Committee and the minimum criteria expanded. Senior-level strategic work at a national or multi-regional level and support to the roll-out of the cluster should be given priority.
Mid-level (design and implementation) deployments for work at sub-national level should be the next priority and operational roles considered only as a last resort.
Minimum conditions for deployment should include supervision by the Representative or the Head of Protection of the requesting agency, or the Humanitarian Coordinator. /
  • The ‘appropriate’ supervisor has debated by the SC and consensus reached that this is context specific, but should be either the Rep or the most senior protection person at the duty station (the issue being that the SPO should not be going over the head of the head of sub-office if they are based regionally within a country). An increasing number of deployments in the last six months have been to the HC, where there has been a direct reporting line as per the recommendation.
  • Prioritisation was clarified in the revision of the Criteria and Minimum Conditions. A 'new case' for prioritisation has been for sudden onset natural disaster response (in an emergency situation) in relation to long-running complex emergency. In 2008, this led to a priorisation by the Committee of a request for Haiti (for the Humanitarian Coordinator), over Chad (for UNHCR).
/

Implemented

11 / The PSU and the Steering Committee should increase promotion of PROCAP and communication of its purpose.
Regular emails should be circulated by the participating agencies highlighting the initiative.
PSU should increase contact with field-level Protection Working Groups to promote its use.
Examples of the types of roles and tasks undertaken to date should be provided. /
  • Marketing plan produced; ProCap leaflet updated and circulated (as brochure . . .), new guidelines on use being updated (2009), letter to field on new deployments developed and now used (although can be more systematic),
  • liaison with PCWG through the Protection Cluster Support Cell (now has observer status on the Steering Committee to ensure these views taken into account); update on current roles/tasks prepared for donor reports and summary matrix also prepared in 2008 (and being updated now for Strategic Review).
  • Standardised 'public' report format developed for SPO reports and now routinely shared with the SC members and in hardcopy during briefings (debriefing session invitation list reviewed and expanded to include increased number (Geneva-based) PCWG members). Reports also shared with PCWG support cell.
/ Draft by PSU for comment/suggestions by SC.
As above.
PSU
Draft from PSU.
Report format from PSU. /

Implemented

E. On the issue of recruiting and supporting SPOs
12 / The bar on UN staff members taking leave of absence to work as an SPO should be lifted.
This is should be limited to one year only, with approval from the individual’s supervisor and should be undertaken on a secondment basis. /
  • No restriction has ever applied to SLWOP from agencies. Agency-specific guidelines already in place. One UNHCR staff member already with ProCap during SLWOP.
/ PSU /

Implemented

13 / NRC should elaborate a head-hunting policy for approval by the Steering Committee.
Head hunting should then be actively pursued by NRC and the other agencies engaged in PROCAP; /
  • Recruitment strategy prepared by NRC, including head-hunting element. Increased awareness of ProCap and word of mouth has increased the ‘pool’ of potential candidates significantly in 2008.
/ NRC, with PSU comments /

Implemented

14 / The training facilities of the mandated agencies should be made available to SPOs.
In addition, OCHA in collaboration with the Protection Cluster Working Group, should develop a training package targeted at PROCAP SPOs with a focus on the strategic leadership and coordination of protection; /
  • PSU liaised with SPOs on training priorities; SPOs have participated in agency-specific training, such as UNHCR WEM, and regular place-allocation on this training has been achieved. SPOs also able to participate in other agency-specific trainings if appropriate to their role/level (including the PCWG Protection Coordination training). Technical Workshops for SPOs (3 to date) include training/information exchange on specific issues relevant to protection in the field. ProCap has worked with the Taskforce on Learning in development of the Protection Coordination Training.
/ PSU with PCWG Task Force on Learning, SC agencies.
SPOs /

Implemented

15 / NRC should work with the human resource departments of OHCHR and UNICEF to identify individuals with strong human rights and child protection backgrounds.
Efforts to expand the diversity on the roster should continue, with NRC and OCHA working through their country offices to identify suitable in-country candidates; /
  • New SPOs recruited with child protection expertise. Further targeting agency-specific skills discussed with OHCHR, UNICEF, and PCWG Focal Point agencies. Donors did not approve proposed support role by ProCap to PCWG AoRs.
  • Candidates from diverse backgrounds encouraged through personal contacts; recruitment/advocacy mission to Kenya/Uganda. Achieving diversity remains challenging.
/ NRC /

Implemented

16 / A mechanism for payment of SPOs should be established, perhaps through NRC if they have offices in the country of deployment. /
  • NRC has an induction package/brief for all existing/new SPOs, including financial arrangements. Technical Workshops provide a further opportunity to address issues on a regular basis. Financial disbursement has always been possible (and actioned) through NRC offices in country if required.
/ NRC /

Implemented

F. In relation to Tier III
17 / Continue to promote protection in roster providers who do not yet provide protection people (as per DRC and RedR Australia previously. This should include non-funded rosters (such as RedR in the UK) that service not only the UN agencies but also NGOs who are increasingly demanding protection staff.
In particular, PROCAP should look towards rosters which can bring human rights experience into the mix. Diversity should primarily be promoted by addressing limiting factors within rosters, not principally by seeking new rosters from new areas. /
  • Canadem now established as a ProCap partner. Linkage between Mercy Malaysia and other roster actively sought. SRSA has provided in-kind support to ProCap (for training). Protection module now included in induction training for OCHA’s roster partners.
  • ProCap Standby Partner meetings used as a forum to review roster efforts to address diversity and on-going mentoring schemes. Mid-level deployments have been encouraged and actioned in some countries in support of/and to be mentored by ProCap SPOs (ie Afghanistan, Uganda, Myanmar). Advocacy paper presented to donors to highlight recruitment and roster development concerns of Standby Partners.
/ PSU
PSU /

Implemented

18 / Facilitate the signing of MoUs between roster providers and the mandated agencies.
In particular PROCAP should work with OHCHR to develop an appropriate standard MoU so that they are able to benefit from this resource. /
  • OHCHR on-going internal discussions on use of gratis personnel have clarified concerns and potential modalities to address these. PSU has provided relevant materials to OHCHR, including sample MoUs and SoPs. Mechanism has been established for joint deployment of personnel to OHCHR and an agency partner (LoU).
/ PSU/OHCHR/NRC /

Implemented

19 / Bring the roster providers together so that they can work with the protection cluster to identify core competencies for protection officers. Encourage the roster providers to recruit to these competencies when selecting people for their rosters. /
  • Core Competencies developed by ProCap (and basis for ProCap training). Shared with Protection Cluster for PCWG to facilitate further discussion will all actors through the PCWG Taskforce on Protection Staffing. Review of recruitment policy undertaken with Standby Partners.
/ PSU / Partners /

Implemented

20 / Convene the roster providers to agree recruitment procedures with the mandated agencies that allow the mandated agencies to feel confident in the protection profiles on the rosters.
This may include a process of pre-approval as per Surge. /
  • On going discussion with rosters and agencies on their needs and respective procedures. ProCap provides one forum, but agencies themselves are now meeting with roster partners on a regular basis. Partner meetings have been scheduled, including roster managers/UN agencies to focus on recruitment policy, and highlight potential ways forward (including pre-approval systems – this was not thought appropriate). IRC has been included in such meetings. Advocacy continues to UN agencies on relevance of indigenous field experience and to donors for the resources for recruitment and administration of larger rosters;
/ PSU/UN roster managers /

Implemented

21 / Convene the roster operators and mandated agencies to agree on the training, potentially including PROCAP training on core protection skills, required for each deployment.
Where that training is agency specific (e.g. in human rights monitoring), agree with the mandated agencies what is required and help the rosters to secure the necessary places on the training programmes of that agency. /
  • UN agency roster managers requested to indicate specific skills/competencies required for field protection deployments (inc. RSD, child protection, HR monitoring – and refer to IASC identification of skills). Further consultation with PCWG on skills requirements within Taskforce on Protection Staffing. Details of training courses available to PCWG members now collated in PCWG matrix (Taskforce on Learning). ProCap is a key member of this group.
/

Implemented

22 / Convene the roster operators and mandated agencies to develop a scheme of mentored deployments similar to the arrangement that DRC currently has with WFP. These deployments should be used to allow individuals with substantial professional expertise to gain their first field experience. /
  • A number of mentored deployment schemes are now being established and trialled. Results are shared with the Standby Group.
  • Presented a proposal on Mentoring Future Senior Protection Officers to donors (at Annex 4 of the donor report for April 2008) and discussed this with them during the meeting. They had no objection to the proposal, but is 'subject to funding'. ProCap identified 2-3 likely candidates, but have never been in a position to proceed.
/

Implemented

G. With regards to current activities, the team recommend that:
23 / PROCAP continue to provide training in core protection skills as per the existing course. Furthermore that PROCAP builds a small cadre of ‘certified’ PROCAP trainers who can be available to carry out training sessions on the behalf of the rosters. /
  • ProCap liaised with SPHERE on their trainers certification process and incorporated their lessons learned into development of the training outreach strategy. Trainers’ obligations and cost-sharing has been discussed with rosters. Additional ToT have now been trained and have begun to co-train. An additional consultant has also been recruited.
/

Implemented

24 / PROCAP cease to investigate using the PROCAP course as a certification process for protection officers.
The Steering Committee should feed the work carried out to identify competencies for protection officers into the similar process being developed under the protection cluster. /
  • Discussion in Partner meeting on certification and potential alternatives (i.e more formal assessment process) to give ‘value added’ feedback from ProCap training undertaken. Certification has been discontinued and informal feedback only continues.
  • ProCap work on competencies already fed into development of PCWG CC’s. PSU/ProCap trainers continue to engage with this process.
/

Implemented

25 / PROCAP ceases to run a ‘live’ database of roster members available for deployment. /
  • Database, while established, was never run as a ‘Live’ database and this proposal has been discontinued. The database continues as a reference tool only on personnel trained by ProCap and a means of mapping this.
  • The model has been shared with other parties (eg OCHA Surge Capacity, Emergency Response Roster, PCWG) for their potential use.
/

Implemented

26 / PROCAP remodel the current website specifically to provide information and support to roster operators and information for agencies currently using or considering the use of rosters based on the activities outlined above.
The Steering Committee should consider offering the work already carried out on developing a protection resource bank and communities of practice to the Protection Cluster for inclusion on its website, which is understood to be under development. /
  • Initiated follow-up meeting with PCWG on website linkage for protection resource library (a resource for ProCap trainnees). Link now exists between the two sites. Resource library continues to be most used element of the site (by Standby Partners and Trainees).
  • Maintained ProForum facilities for SPOs, SPEs and Standby partner roster managers, details and resources for ProCap training, and information on Standby Partner mechanisms (plus links to dedicated sites) on ProCap Online.
/

Implemented