Author: UNICEF Learning for Peace
Year: 2015
Agency: UNICEF
Full Citation: UNICEF Learning For Peace. (2015). Evaluation of UNICEF’s peacebuilding, education, and advocacy programme (PBEA). (Evaluation Summary). (n.p): Author
Overview: The aim of the programme Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy (2012-2015) was to strengthen resilience, social cohesion and human security in 14 countries recovering from conflict or at risk of falling into conflict (p. 4). This report focuses on the outcome evaluation, the purpose of which was to systematically assess the extent to which UNICEF has achieved PBEA programme outcomes and made identifiable contributions to peacebuilding, social cohesion and/or resilience at the individual, community, institutional and/or systems levels. (p. 7).
Methodology: A review of documents from all 14 PBEA implementing country offices was conducted. The review also included documents on PBEA activities conducted by the Education Section, as well as activities supported by PBEA collaborating units at Headquarters and Regional Offices. Working with UNICEF country staff and implementing partners through an “outcome harvesting” exercise the evaluation identified changes that have occurred as a result of PBEA inputs, and articulated them as ‘results statements’. Complementary data collection stage comprised field visits to three PBEA implementing countries (Burundi, Pakistan and South Sudan). Key informant interviews were conducted with UNICEF staff, partners in country offices, regional offices and the global level. In all, 285 informants contributed documents and information to the evaluation. [F]ive evaluation criteria were used, namely: Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness,  Efficiency, Scalability. (p. 8)
Findings:
  1. PBEA has, by and large, achieved substantial results in each of the five PBEA outcome areas and is following the most promising practices for peacebuilding programming. However, a number of important lessons were learned about programming choices that are required for UNICEF to increase the likelihood of achieving sustainable results in peacebuilding.
  2. PBEA has demonstrated that the choice of using a social service such as education for delivering peacebuilding results is the right one, even though some of the necessary building blocks are yet to be put in place.
  3. PBEA’s emphasis on conflict analysis based programming was the right approach and leads to responsive context specific programmes that can contribute to peacebuilding.
  4. UNICEF is well-positioned to engage in peacebuilding work based on its mandate and institutional strengths. However, the organisation needs to navigate sensitivities, identify entry points, focus resources on high risk environments to achieve scale and emphasise the primacy of context specific programming.
  5. Programme implementation partnerships, including new partners, have enabled UNICEF to increase its reach and access and deliver peacebuilding results. High level advocacy partnerships and management of implementing partners for better knowledge exchange across organisations are required.
  6. PBEA demonstrated that conflict-sensitive and/or peacebuilding programming that attempts to address drivers of conflict requires strong leadership support to enable cross-sectoral collaboration, and ultimately mainstreaming of peacebuilding solutions.
  7. PBEA programme management has developed well to support accountability and learning and to mobilise support of multiple sectors. Adjustments to allow more flexibility for country offices to focus on local needs and increased capacity for backstopping in regional offices improved performance. Dedicated programme staff with peacebuilding expertise significantly improve country office programme management.
  8. The PBEA resource allocation process was, by and large reasonable, transparent, and communicated clearly. However, utilisation and management of funding was not as efficient as it should have been, mostly due to the fact that donor accountability and accountability for funding decisions was at the global level, while accountability for results was decentralised. (pp. 12-19)
0 Comments

Leave a reply

©2019 ECCN. All rights reserved. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account