ANNEX 1 . 113 MI 11.2: Implementation and results assessed as having been achieved on time (given the context, in the case of humanitarian programming) Score MI rating Satisfactory MI score 2.5 MI 11.2 Analysis Source document Four evaluations discuss the timeliness of UNRWA’s implementation and results. • Three evaluations (E-Health Evaluation, Evaluation of UNRWA Engaging Youth Project, and The Evaluation of Replacing Rented Schools at Jabal Al Taj) highlight delays in rollout due to a lack of available funds and delays as a result of operational challenges. • The Evaluation of the Transition to E-Cards, reports that the shift from food parcels to cash has introduced improvements in timeliness and easier access. 66, 142, 133, 89 Examples of delays affecting results were found in evaluation documentation that included delays in hiring new staff which were linked to the low achievements of the related target, delays in the implementation of a joint procurement-health programme initiative were reported to have led to stock out phase of some essential items and due to conflict (Syria and Gaza). MI 11.2 Evidence confidence High confidence KPI 12: Sustainability of results KPI score Given the temporary mandate of UNRWA and the nature and scale of its service work this KPI is judged to be Not Applicable’ for a performance assessment of UNRWA. Notwithstanding, some narrative (unscored) is provided here and in some of the MIs relating to limited and partial evaluation material. There are a few evaluations at the project scale that consider sustainability in terms of the likelihood of project related outcomes sustaining beyond the funding lifespan. These raise issues in regard to: community and host country ownership, institutionalization of projects, and financial sustainability. These evaluations find missed opportunities to ensure sustainability of project initiatives through partnerships with other organisations (e.g. CBOs), and limited involvement of beneficiaries, and host countries’ governments to sustain the benefits of the project. Funding shortfalls are also cited as a constraining factor for the sustainability of results. MI 12.1: Benefits assessed as continuing or likely to continue after project or program completion or there are effective measures to link the humanitarian relief operations to recovery, resilience and, eventually, to longer-term developmental results Score MI rating N/A MI score N/A MI 12.1 Analysis Source document The limited scope of available evaluations suggest that UNRWA’s programming is not generally set up to explicitly deliver medium-term or long-term results. This is consistent with its temporary mandate and its strategic outcomes (MTS 2016-21). That said, there are some examples of programming and 9, 61, 63, 66, 77, 89, specific project initiatives that supports access to other CBOs and to livelihoods training which may be 133, 141, 142 designed to be more directly supportive of lasting results. Six evaluations provide evidence about the extent that UNRWA’s projects’ outcomes are likely to support longer-term results.