UNDP Jobs - 61936- Consultant - Assessment of UNDP Alignment to the S

Consultant - Assessment of UNDP Alignment to the Strategic Plan 2014-2017 (2 positions)

Location :

New York, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Type of Contract :

Individual Contract

Starting Date :

15-Dec-2015

Application Deadline :

04-Dec-15 (Midnight New York, USA)

Post Level :

International Consultant

Duration of Initial Contract :

11 weeks

Languages Required :

English

Expected Duration of Assignment :

11 weeks

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence. UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.

Background

In September 2013, UNDP Executive Board approved a new strategic plan for the period 2014-2017. Besides articulating UNDP focus and expected development results, for the first time, the plan proposed an ambitious agenda to improve the overall quality of UNDP programming. Country programmes have different life-cycles than the strategic plan, thus in 2014, rather than waiting the progressive roll out of new country programmes under the aegis of the new Plan, UNDP launched the alignment initiative to incorporate the Plan into ongoing and upcoming programmes, projects, and management approaches. Alignment was not pursued for the sake of the current strategic plan only, but rather to secure focused and higher quality programmes that deliver better results.

Programme alignment was elaborated in a methodology (see Handbook - Part 1 - Guide to Concepts and Handbook - Part 2 - Methodology), through the definition of three groups of parameters:

Thematic alignment parameters – the three areas of development work in the SP, with a special focus on new or emerging issues, particularly sustainable production technologies, access to modern energy services (especially renewables) and energy efficiency, natural resource management, extractive industries, urbanisation, citizen security, social protection, and risk management for resilience.
Design parameters - targeting, issues-based approach, scalability, sustainability, voice and participation and South-South and triangular cooperation (SSC/TrC).

Operational or management parameters - evidence-based approaches (in-depth use of data, policy research and analysis), application of theories of change, portfolio management, enhanced monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and risk management.

By mid-2015, all regional bureaux and close to 100% of country offices have been trained in the alignment methodology. The alignment parameters have also been integrated in tools and guidelines for programme and project quality assurance, as well as in the new approach to the assessment of development results. The approach aimed at being pragmatic, understanding that the required change might be absorbed gradually or in phases based on a diversity of country offices’ capacities and country contexts, but showing progressive uptake.

In 2015-2016, UNDP will conduct a Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the 2014-2017 strategic plan to adjust implementation, help capture innovations that work and sustain and scale-up successful approaches. Upon the request of the Executive Board, the MTR will include an assessment of results achieved, cost-effectiveness, evaluations, comparative advantages and progress made in achieving the vision of the strategic plan, including efforts to enhance programme quality as captured in the alignment parameters.

Duties and Responsibilities

Scope

The junior consultant will be coordinated by a senior consultant who works under the supervision of the Executive Office Corporate Strategy and Governance Group. She/he is requested to contribute to a preliminary assessment of both efforts to align to the new SP and their effects on programme quality, to understand if they are progressing at the right pace and yielding intended changes. The findings will inform the MTR to determine to which extent alignment efforts have produced behavioural change and uptake of new methodologies to deliver on the SP. Key questions that need to be addressed to inform the MTR analysis, include:

Based on the actual and changing country demand, how well has UNDP been able to embed commitments stated in the SP into its country programmes? Analysis of organizational up-take of (a) new, high-demand areas of technical expertise (e.g., services for integrated risk management, etc.); and (b) integration of new and emerging areas into new and on-going programmes;
What are the qualitative shifts, if any, in the design of new programmes and projects (assessed against alignment ‘design’ parameters)?
What are the qualitative shifts, if any, in the management of programmes and projects (assessed against alignment ‘operational’ parameters)?
Are those changes helpful to improve our engagement with national counterparts, donors, and other UNDG agencies?

Methodology

The research project will be applied to a sample of COs only. The number is expected to be 20 at the maximum.
Elements to consider in selecting the sample include: a) Different typologies: by programme size; MICs and LDCs; crisis and stable countries; etc., and b) Stage of the programme cycle: both recently approved and on-going country programmes

A control group should be established to isolate the effects of the alignment initiative (and its institutionalisation in corporate initiative such as the programme and project quality assurance). Thus, the in-depth assessment could focus on two types of COs:

Country offices that have demonstrated a considerable up-take of the alignment initiatives (max 12 COs): they have participated in the alignment training and/or hosted a dedicated alignment mission; they prepared and monitored an alignment action plan; they volunteered for the project QA (possibly from the initial pilot in January 2015); and/or they developed a new country programme document that was quality assured by the HQ PAC;
A control group of country offices (max 6 COs) which: did not take part in any alignment training or have not followed up (e.g. didn’t even prepare a road-map); have not participated in the project quality assurance initiative; are in the middle of their programme cycle and believe adjustment will be too onerous at this point.

Selected country offices will be involved in the assessment either through on-line consultations and video-conferencing, and/or, exceptionally, country missions. They will need help from UNDP HQ in participating effectively in the study without any disruption to on-going activities.

Key principles to define the methodology include:

Consistently apply the criteria developed under programme and project quality assurance initiatives to all country office typologies to ensure comparability against the organisation’s standards;
Explore in depth and rely as much as possible upon existing internal datasets, especially available evaluation and audit findings, country office annual monitoring and reporting, and the newly launched programme and project quality assurance initiatives;
Apply technical approaches and methods that are peer reviewed and meet social science research standards, including triangulating through a combination of self-reported/assessed, ‘independent’ and perception data;
Define the results of alignment in terms of both gains in process as well as changes in the characteristics of programmes, projects and offices, thus, conceptually distinct from the development results reported against the SP Integrated Results and Resources Framework (IRRF), albeit enabling them.

The kind of change expected is summarized below and will be further refined through the implementation of the research. The task will be to identify direct and/or proxy measures covering the spectrum, for example, from levels of awareness, process and structural changes, resource allocation choices, changes in internal capacities to shifts in the quality of programme and project documentation as well as monitoring, risk management and reporting.

Thematic Alignment

Alignment to SP areas of work. The expected change is that country programmes are focused on clear priority areas consistent with areas of work identified in the SP;
New and emerging areas. The expected change is that country offices are increasingly engaging in the identified new and emerging areas.

Design Alignment

Targeting. The expected change is that country programmes have clearly identified target groups and mechanisms in place to monitor that UNDP’s interventions actually benefit them;
Issues-based approach. The expected change is that country programmes and projects adopt multi-disciplinary and integrated approaches;
Scale and scaling-up. The expected change is that country programmes and projects include considerations on scale and scalability of proposed interventions;
Sustainability. The expected change is that country programmes and projects include considerations on sustainability and exit strategies;
Voice and participation. The expected change is that the perspectives of the identified target groups are effectively embedded in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of UNDP interventions;
South-South and triangular cooperation. The expected change is that country offices increasingly explore South-South and triangular cooperation opportunities to deliver development results.

Operational Alignment

Evidence-based approaches. The expected change is that country offices systematically refer to robust evidence in their programme and project formulation, management, monitoring and reporting, including by investing in collecting additional evidence if necessary;
Theories of change. The expected change is that new country programmes, and increasingly projects, are based on explicit and sound theories of change;
Portfolio-based management. The expected change is that UNDP projects are implemented in an integrated manner, seeking opportunities for synergies to enhance results, rather than according to thematic clusters;
Enhanced monitoring and evaluation. The expected change is that UNDP country offices have boosted their M&E efforts, including improved results frameworks, timely and rigorous monitoring, adequate follow-up to evaluation recommendations, etc.;
Risk management. The expected change is that UNDP country offices have improved their approach to risk identification and mitigation.

Application of the methodology would rely on indicators from the following existing sources to try to gauge changes in the characteristics of programmes, projects and offices:

Self-reported sources

Project quality assurance (QA): available for about 20 countries from January 2015. Additional data from about 70 countries should become available in the second half of 2015;
Result Oriented Annual Reports (ROAR): The ROAR is available for all country offices since (year?). Some extrapolation can be made from 2014 reporting and eventually earlier ROARs. More precise questions will be integrated in the 2015 ROAR, which will be available in January 2016;
Integrated Annual Plan (IWP): the 2015 IWP demanded that all country offices included alignment among their priorities. The July 2015 monitoring should provide some insight on progress towards alignment, while end-of the year alignment will be integrated in the 2015 ROAR;
Atlas linking: the linking of project output to strategic plan outputs in Atlas is an indication of how country offices think they are contributing to the strategic plan thematic areas.

Not entirely self-reported sources

Programme quality assurance: applied to all new country programme documents (CPD) starting in 2014, with additional refinement in the methodology in 2015. The review could assess if elements of programme quality related alignment parameters have improved since the beginning of the strategic plan cycle, and eventually compare with CPDs approved in 2013.
ROAR quality assurance: the assessment can reveal the robustness of evidence used in country office self-reporting.
IRRF indicators: the ability of country offices to report results against strategic plan indicators can also help understand the actual thematic alignment of country projects
Partners’ surveys: although perceptions tend to shift slowly, triangulated with other data and disaggregated at the regional or country level, the survey could help understand if partners acknowledge improvements in the quality of UNDP’s approaches to deliver on its mandate.
Assessment of Development Results (ADR), evaluations, audits: recent independent assessments can also reveal changes in the quality of UNDP programmes.

Key Deliverables:

Collaborate with the senior consultant and other members of the team, under the guidance of the UNDP Executive Office, and in collaboration with the BPPS-DIG team and other Bureaux, especially Regional Breaux, as relevant, to deliver as ‘Assessment of Alignment to the Strategic Plan’ that would inform the Mid-Term Review of the strategic plan.

The Assessment will produce a set of reports as follows:

Research design with the following elements:

Description of the assessment methodology;
Key review questions;
Alignment metrics, showing what evidence will be collected;
Clear work plan for completion of the review.

A final analytical report (including an Executive Summary of 1-2 pages) presenting

Key findings, including issues, case studies, good practices, lessons learned;
Finalized alignment metrics (that UNDP will keep tracking);
Conclusions and recommendations;
Appendices: Charts, terms of reference, people interviewed, documents reviewed.

Timeline:

The research project is expected to be completed within 11 weeks and will include the following stages:

1 week: Preparation - Brieing from the ExO, agreenent on activities, timeframes, methodology;
3 weeks: Desk review - Relevant literature review and data analysis;
4 weeks: Country consultations - collection of additional evidence;
1 week: Elaboration of draft report;
1 week: Meetings and discussions with stakeholders at HQ - Presentation of preliminary findings to HQ staff (ExO, BPPS, RBx).

1 week: Submission of FInal Report to ExO

Duty station:

The consultancy will be home-based. UNDP will bear the costs of trips to NY for meetings with UNDP staff, if the consultant is not based in NY, and eventual trips to country offices, if considered necessary.

Competencies

Functional Competencies:

Knowledge of methodologies for content analysis of large bodies of qualitative information;
Demonstrated skilled knowledge of qualitative data analysis methodologies;
Demonstrated ability to prioritize and focus research questions to produce relevant and useful recommendations;
Objectivity and ability to analyse large multi-country datasets in short periods;
Ability to handle highly complex datasets and drive forward multiple work-streams;
Solid knowledge of UNDP’s mandate, policies and approaches;
Microsoft excel advanced skills.

Corporate Competencies:

Demonstrates integrity by modelling the UN’s values and ethical standards;
Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of UNDP, and partner organizations;
Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality and age sensitivity and adaptability;
Excellent understanding of international development issues and knowledge of the UN system

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

Master’s Degree, (a PhD would be an asset), in areas related to Statistics, Evaluation, Social Sciences, Economics or related field.

Experience:

Minimum of three years of relevant experience;
Practical training in survey and research analysis, or applied statistical data;
Analysis in social sciences an asset.

Language:

Fluent in English.