100 . MOPAN 2017-18 ASSESSMENTS . UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST The organisational directive which guarantees the independence of DIOS and the Evaluation Division states that it ensures the necessary resources in terms of budget and staff in DIOS to adequately maintain its independence and objectivity and there is a separate budget line for the evaluation division as part of DIOS. However, core funds available for institutional and strategic evaluation are greatly restricted given UNRWA’s current funding context, limiting the evaluation function’s budgetary independence and making it largely dependent on donor funding. Funding for strategic/institutional evaluations remains a challenge with several evaluations in the medium-term plan in the MTS not 4, 21, 53, 61, 63, 66, 73 having been completed as intended. There is currently one Evaluation staff member funded by the Programme Budget at a central level, and no programme budget funded evaluation staff at a field office level. The 2015 Review identified that behavioural independence and impartiality of evaluation staff and evaluators has been to a large extent upheld and that this is maintained using external consultants for agency-wide initiatives and a mixed team approach for sectoral initiatives. MI 8.1 Evidence confidence High confidence MI 8.2: Consistent, independent evaluation of results (coverage) Score Overall MI Rating Unsatisfactory Overall MI score 1.75 Element 1: An evaluation policy describes the principles to ensure coverage, quality and use of findings, including in decentralised evaluations 2 Element 2: The policy/an evaluation manual guides the implementation of the different categories of evaluations, such as strategic, thematic, corporate level evaluations, as well as decentralized 1 evaluations Element 3: A prioritized and funded evaluation plan covering the organisation’s planning and budgeting cycle is available Element 4: The annual evaluation plan presents a systematic and periodic coverage of the organisation’s Interventions, reflecting key priorities 2 2 Element 5: Evidence from sample countries demonstrate that the policy is being implemented N/E MI 8.2 Analysis Source document UNRWA has a recently developed evaluation policy (2016) which was developed following recommendations from the UNEG Peer Review of UNRWA’s evaluation function in 2015. The policy outlines the criteria which are to be used to identify what needs to be evaluated and outlines that a Medium-term Evaluation Plan will be developed to align with the MTS and that Annual Evaluation plans will also be developed. The policy sets out how UNRWA will identify what needs to be evaluated but provides no specific guidance on the implementation of the different categories of evaluation. The policy also outlines processes for evaluation follow-up, communication and use and sets out intended processes for evaluation quality but does not articulate criteria for coverage. UNRWA’s medium-term evaluation plan is included as an annex to the MTS and covers the same time period. These are set out according to the five-strategic objective, as well as a category for Management and operational effectiveness. The plan is not prioritised or funded and indicates that between 2015 and 2017, there were nine strategic evaluations planned; of these only three reports are available. UNRWA’s inability to fulfil the intentions outlined in the evaluation plan is attributed to a deprioritisation of evaluation given the organisation’s current financial constraints and systemic and periodic evaluation coverage of the organisation’s interventions does not appear to be taking place. 1, 4, 21, 53