An Inter-Sector working group ensuring technical coherency and consistency across all ... Technical Working Group (CBI-T
Inter-Agency Coordination Turkey
South-East Turkey Coordination Performance Monitoring Survey
At the end of December 2016, the Inter-Sector Working Group (ISWG) in the South-East of Turkey conducted an anonymous on-line survey to: • Provide sector participants a chance to express their views on inter-agency and sector coordination; • Assess current performance of inter-agency and sector coordination, with a focus on effectiveness of service delivery; • Collect suggestions on how coordination and participation could be improved; and • Set a baseline against which progress on improvements to coordination can be measured over time. The target respondents were participants on the different sector working groups in the South-East. The survey included quantitative and qualitative questions, weaving together three elements of coordination: • Sector Coordination: objective and actions • Leadership and representation: including attitudes and behaviors • Meeting management • Overall South-East Inter-Agency coordination. All answers, comments and feedback provided by survey respondents address only South-East level coordination, covering the period January-December 2016.
Background to the Inter-Agency Coordination Structure in the South-East of Turkey (SET) In line with the Refugee Coordination Model (RCM), the 3RP the country-wide inter-agency coordination structures and systems, the inter-agency coordination structure in the south-east of Turkey supports the provision of protection and assistance to some 1.6 million refugees living across 10 provinces and mainly in urban and rural areas. The IA Coordination structure in the South-East is composed of: • A South-East Inter-Agency Task Force providing regional level operational and strategic direction; • An Inter-Sector working group ensuring technical coherency and consistency across all sectors and areas of interventions; • Nine Sectors and Sub-Sectors/Working Groups including in Protection, Child Protection, Health, MHPSS, Food Security, Basic Needs, Education and Livelihoods; and; • A Cash-Based Interventions Technical Working Group (CBI-TWG) providing cross-cutting technical support and guidance on cash-based interventions. SYRIA TASK FORCE (ANKARA) SOUTH EAST INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE UNHCR PARTICIPANTS: Head of offices, selected NGOs and donors Inter Sector Coordination UNHCR PARTICIPANTS: sector leads, technical advisors
CBI TWG
BASIC NEEDS
UNHCR & WFP CARE Technical Advisor
UNHCR & WFP
ESSN TF WHO & TRC
EDUCATION
FOOD SECURITY
HEALTH
UNHCR & UNICEF WFP and technical WHO and advisor technical advisor WINTERIZATION TF UNHCR & IOM
MHPSS WHO, IMC
LIVELIHOODS
PROTECTION
UNDP
UNHCR and technical advisor CHILD PROTECTION UNHCR & UNICEF
SGBV UNHCR UNFPA
Section I. Who Responded? Forty-three people completed the survey, most (32) based in Gaziantep. Respondents were working with international NGOs (20), national NGOs (14), UN agencies (8), and an embassy (1). Nearly all respondents were active members of working groups, and all sectors were represented.
Number of respondents by organization type
Number of respondents by duty station
20
32 14 8 5
3
1
1
1
Sanliurfa
Hatay
Ankara
Kilis
Istanbul
1 International NGO
National NGO
UN Agency
Other
Gaziantep
Number of survey respondents by the sector they are most active in 14
13
4
4
Education Protection Cash-based MHPSS Intervention
3
Health
2
Food security
1 Basic Needs
1
1
0
Child Inter Sector Livelihoods protection
0 SGBV
Section II. Sector Objectives and Actions Section II asked how effective sector working groups had been in meeting basic coordination objectives and to what extent participants found these actions useful. The objective and actions of a sector working group are to: 1) Establish and maintain coordination mechanisms; 2) Develop and manage response plans; 3) Develop, promote and apply standards, guidelines and good practices; 4) Manage information to support decision making; 5) Ensure emergency preparedness, including contingency planning if necessary; 6) Advocate on behalf of affected populations and group members; and 7) Ensure accountability to affected populations (APP), including communication with communities (CwC). The majority of respondents said that sector working groups only partially fulfilled their objectives and that sector working groups reportedly had not established or only partially established basic working group coordination mechanisms, such as sector strategies, work plans, and monitoring and evaluation tools.
Overall, to what extent does the sector working group fulfil the objectives and actions of a sector working group? All Sectors 2%
Yes, fulfil
7%
68%
Terms of Reference that adequately reflects the sector
35%
Operational work-plan
35%
Capacity building plan 16%
Don’t know
Basic information management systems
Respondents
By Sector Working Group
1
1
2
47%
42%
51%
44%
21%
7%
12% 7%
12%12%
19% 9%
30% 9%
28%
28%
37%
40%
28% 19%
5%
14%
Yes
No
Partially
Don’t know
10
8 1
35%
67%
Basic Monitoring & Evaluation 14% mechanisms
4
3 1
21%
Does not fulfil
Accountability to Affected population and CwC Plan
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
58%
Operational sector strategy
Basic SOPs, referrals, standards and guiding documents
Partially
23%
Does your working group have...?
2
3
1
1 3
2
Has your sector used information on program activities and partners’ geographical presence to analyse capacity and complementarity (gaps and overlaps). Has that information influenced your agency’s decision-making? 26% Yes and it has been helpful to identify risks, needs, gaps and capacities but not to develop an action plan.
26% We have not done it. 23% Yes and it has been helpful to develop a joint-action plan. 19% Yes but it has not been helpful (no risks, needs, gaps and capacities identified and no action plan developed).
7% Other
Do you feel the sector working group has contributed in identifying operational needs and in promoting actions to address them?
5%
35%
Yes, it has identified and promoted action Identified needs but did not promote 60%
Has not identified or promoted action
How would you assess the overall quality (effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness) of this sector working group in delivering services and addressing the protection and assistance needs of refugees? Excellent
2% 5% 12%
33%
Above average 49%
Average Below average Poor
What should we do to improve the overall quality (effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness) of the sectors/ working group in delivering services and addressing the protection and assistance needs of refugees? •
Promote and facilitate joint assessments to identify gaps, address the needs and ensure evidence-based decision making; Integrate and tailor sector specific inter-agency capacity building plans and activities; Shift from coordination as information sharing and processes, to operational, action-oriented coordination including through joint-operational planning, activities and initiatives; Increase members; participation and accountability through day to day operational coordination particularly at the point of delivery (i.e. provincial level); Strengthen engagement of national actors, particularly national and local NGOs and authorities; Reduce language barriers by providing, as much as possible, Arabic and Turkish translation; Invest in sector coordination and leadership through more full-time, dedicated coordinators. Promote out-of-meeting information sharing, including through monthly sector reports, dashboard, yammer and other basic tools…
• • • • • • •
Section III. Coordinator Attitudes and Behavior Overall, how satisfied are you with your sector working group leadership?
93% of respondents
know who their sector working group coordinator and/or coordinators are.
Are the roles and responsibilities of the sector coordinator(s) clear to you?
56%
No 12%
51% of respondents
14%
said the roles and responsibilities of their technical advisor are not clear.
Very satisfied
14%
12%
Satisfied
Yes
Partially 30%
5%
58%
Neither Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied nor dissatisfied
How would you rate your coordinator’s skills? Seeking and openness to suggestions, criticism and regular consultation
Build on diverse group skills and levels of expertise by delegating tasks and activities
Partnership, transparency, inclusiveness and sharing
Facilitating collective planning and decision-making
Problem analysis, strategic thinking and identification of options
5% 9%
7%
21%
23%
14%
18%
9%
Good
9% 12%
Average
16%
7%
7%
21%
21%
26% 37%
42%
42%
40%
19%
21%
21%
Excellent
9%
Fair
44%
Poor
Groups with a UN sector coordinator and a UN sector co-coordinator: Has this co-coordination arrangement improved the efficiency of the sector? Basic Needs (1)
All respondents (43)
Cash -based Interventions (4) 1
7% 2%
2 1
1
16%
42%
Child Protection (1)
33%
Education (14)
Food Security (2)
Groups with an NGO technical advisor: are the roles and responsibilities of the NGO Technical Advisor clear?
1
7
4
1
1
Health (3) 1 2
16%
33%
2
1
Protection (13) 1
2
51%
5
MPHSS (4)
2
2
5
Yes
Partially
No
Don’t know
Made it worse
What can we do to improve the sector leadership? • • • • • • • •
Invest in building relationship with sector members, including through one-o-meetings and peer to peer visits; Consolidate the sector by identifying core group members and lead/promote smaller, action oriented groups; Promote transparency, neutrality and collaboration through active listing and open information sharing; Support sector members to overcome operationally challenges; Ask for feedbacks; Strengthen coordination at the national level and leave more space for sub-national and provincial level coordination, but ensure collaboration between the two; Increase inclusiveness and transparency in the decision-making process – promote group over single agency decision-making; Strengthen linkages with other sectors.
Section IV. Meeting Management Are you given the opportunity to contribute to the setting of the agenda items?
Quite satisfied Satisfied
16%
Are there actions and decisions taken during the meeting?
Quite satisfied
35%
2% Satisfied
Not satisfied
33%
40% Not satisfied
I don’t attend
Have the meetings been helpful in helping you and other sector partners discuss needs, gaps and priorities and agree on next steps and way forward?
9%
2%
No meetings have been organized
40%
I don't attend
23%
Very useful
19%
Generally useful
49%
Somewhat useful
28%
Not useful
2%
Don't know
2%
How would you rate the meetings in terms of ...? Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
30%
7%
16%
42%
12%
2% 44%
Consultation
Participation of group members
7%
35%
5%
0%
Follow-up on action points
Day-to-day operational coordination
To what extent do the sector meetings achieve their expected outcomes?
9%
51%
16%
23%
2% 44%
37%
Quite satisfied
14%
28%
12%
42%
Satisfied
7%
12%
Not satisfied
I don't attend
2% Other
What can we do to improve the overall management, quality and effectiveness of the meetings? •
Make sure meetings are participatory and more open to debates and discussion – encourage group members’ discussion and promote their views and opinions; Better follow-up (especially on actions points)! Promote more structures meetings – with clear meetings objectives, outcomes and focused Lorem ipsum discussion; Better time keeping! More action oriented meeting – promote clear actions to address gaps and overcome challenges; More informal and bilateral discussion ahead of the meetings – especially before setting up the agenda; Organise task, action-oriented meetings with smaller groups – avoid overcrowded meetings; Prioritise issues for discussion and avoid overlaps with other working groups; Allocate one person per agency to attend the meeting – clarify membership; Share meeting minutes no later than one week after the meeting.
• • • • • • • • •
Section V. Overall What do you feel is the main advantage in being part of the inter-agency coordination mechanisms in the Southeast? Be able to fill in the gaps, address the needs and avoid overlaps and duplication
33%
Strengthen operational mechanisms to reduce duplication of service delivery
21% 19%
Share learning, best practices and experience Provide access to needs and gap analysis to inform prioritization Support the application of and adherence to standards, guidelines and policy developments
12% 7%
Promote individual agency visibility and mandate
5%
Other
5%
Do you think there is enough coordination between sectors?
16%
Yes 19%
To what extent do you think there is a good coordination between the national, the sub-national, and the province and vice versa? 51%
Partially
23%
21% 44%
14%
12%
Not at all
Large extent
No Don’t know
Moderate extent
Don’t Know
What can we do to improve coordination between the sectors? • • • • • • •
Consider organising events with the participation of different sectors’ members; Promote linkages, discussions and joint activities between sectors facing similar issues – ensure sector leads promote and facilitate through joint actions, meetings and events; Facilitate information-sharing between working group i.e. including by share meeting minutes, dashboard, discussion outcomes, reports etc… ; Improve multi-sector approach to referrals, service mapping and outreach; More inter-sector and sector to sector coordination – between the sector themselves and the coordinators; Designate representatives from other sectors – i.e. focal point system?; Sector specifics: i.e. MHPPSS-PRT (Including CP)-Health / WASH-Shelter / PRT mainstreaming / Education – CP etc..
What can we do to improve and enhance access to information – including type of information tools and products? • • • • • •
Move out of excel spreedsheets into more “visual friendly” information products; Already use Yammer for info-sharing….. someone one else moved out of Yammer – back to e-mails…. Establish appropriate, systematic information management systems where all different information can be collected and analysed – at the moment too many information but no systematic analysis…. Create an online system that can be update daily/weekly; Promote one-o-one out of meeting communication Have a common, minimum information package with information tools and products that can be shared widely on a regular basis.
What can we do to improve the inter-agency coordination in the South-East and in your location? • • • • • • • •
Ensure all agencies are included in the coordination mechanisms – particularly national and local actors; Share and update sector leads contact information and coordination structure; Continue to promote and strengthen sub-national level coordination separate from the national; Strengthen operational multi-sector referrals; Promote learning and sharing of best practice between different locations and areas of operation; Promote less meetings but more effective coordination - including through bi-lateral, peer to peer visits, joint activities/initiatives and actions and more quality, focused interventions; Strengthen operational coordination with local authorities and inter-sector coordination and collaboration; Promote more regular and open information sharing.
