DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF UNRWA PERFORMANCE. 35 Annual reviews are used to follow progress, document issues, generate action points, and triangulate data with other sources to support decision-making and inform annual and periodic planning processes. Poorly performing or off-track indicators are monitored, with remedial plans made as necessary. The increased availability and use of data are perceived to have contributed to improvements in programming and to have enabled the identification of areas for cost savings. Data from these reviews are then aggregated to form the annual operational report and reports to donors. Survey responses indicated that, among some donors, there is a perceived duplication of UNRWA results targets, indicators and baselines that constrains the effectiveness of donors’ communication with UNRWA on results and makes it difficult for some donors to establish predictable and confident tracking of UNRWA’s progress. UNRWA’s corporate-level strategies are based on a sound results-based management focus and logic and guide programatic and thematic planning, monitoring, and reporting. At a programmatic level, UNRWA has specific log frames and, in some cases, theories of change for its interventions, although the inclusion of a theory of change is not mandatory. UNRWA’s Gender Strategy, for example, is supported by a corresponding results framework that is aligned to the MTS and reported on annually. As a result of UNRWA’s education reform, the education programme incorporates policies and strategies in a systemic approach that includes monitoring and reporting through multiple levels of universal education indicators within the CMM. This approach applies to each of the five field offices and field-specific baselines and targets. A lack of capacity for monitoring all indicators limits the effectiveness of UNRWA’s results-based management. Field offices consider many indicators burdensome to collect, given their available staff resources. The current MTS also doubled the number of indicators that field offices should report on, but no additional staff capacity for monitoring has been added. In addition, GBV, child protection, and gender and protection indicators for individual cases were removed recently from reporting requirements because some fields of operations were unable to collect reliable and accurate data on these. It also is not yet possible to use the results-based monitoring system to undertake resultsbased budgeting, which requires indicators and reliable data at activity, output and outcome levels. Some remaining technical glitches in the results-based monitoring system also constrain its full utility. UNRWA faces broader contextual challenges around data collection. It can be challenging to gather reliable, timely data in contexts where UNRWA operates. The Syria crisis, for instance, rendered many UNRWA facilities inaccessible and displaced a large proportion of staff, severely impacting the field’s capacity to access and collect data throughout the country; moreover, in this context, it is challenging for UNRWA to obtain government approval for any kind of data collection exercise. KPI 8: The organisation applies evidence-based planning and programming. This KPI focuses on the evaluation function, its positioning within UNRWA structures, attention to quality, and accountability and putting learning into practice. Within the governance architecture of UNRWA, the evaluation function is structurally independent. The evaluation function is located within the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS), which fulfils its internal oversight role through independent and objective assurance (internal audit and inspection), advisory services, evaluation, and investigation. UNRWA’s evaluation policy was developed following a United Nations Evaluation Group Peer Review in 2015 of the Agency’s evaluation function. The UNRWA evaluation policy outlines the criteria for identifying what is to be evaluated; the processes for quality assurance, follow-up, dissemination and use of evaluations; and guidance on evaluation quality assurance. The policy also sets out DIOS’s role in co-ordinating with fields of operations and