ANNEX 1 . 99 No meta-synthesis of evaluations has taken place since the UNEG Peer Review due to funding constraints; although this was one of the recommendations in the Peer Review. DIOS uses a web-based tracking tool to follow up on the status of implementation of its recommendations under UNRWA’s results-based monitoring system. The tool allows tracking of the implementation status of oversight recommendations from initiation to closure and includes the outline of the actions as well as the responsibility and timeline. MI 8.1: A corporate independent evaluation function exists Score Overall MI Rating Satisfactory Overall MI score 2.43 Element 1: The evaluation function is independent from other management functions such as planning and managing development assistance (operational independence) Element 2: The Head of evaluation reports directly to the Governing Body of the organisation (Structural independence) 4 2 Element 3: The evaluation office has full discretion in deciding the evaluation programme 2 Element 4: A separate budget line (approved by the Governing Body) ensures budgetary independence 1 Element 5: The central evaluation programme is fully funded by core funds 1 Element 6: Evaluations are submitted directly for consideration at the appropriate level of decisionmaking pertaining to the subject of evaluation 4 Element 7: Evaluators are able to conduct their work throughout the evaluation without undue interference by those involved in implementing the unit of analysis being evaluated (Behavioural 3 independence) MI 8.1 Analysis Source document UNRWA’s corporate evaluation function is structurally independent as it is located within the Department of Internal Oversight Services (DIOS) which fulfils its internal oversight role of UNRWA’s work through independent and objective assurance (internal audit and inspection) and advisory services, evaluation and investigation. The DIOS Director reports to, and is directly accountable to, the Commissioner General. The 2015 UNEG Peer Review of UNRWA’s evaluation function found that whilst structural independence of the central evaluation function was satisfactory, the head of the evaluation division should be further enabled to engage in regular, direct dialogue with senior management, and donor representatives to ascertain their priorities and to update them on latest evaluation matters. UNRWA’s MTS includes a medium-term evaluation plan and DIOS co-ordinates with fields and headquarters departments to produce an annual plan to identify evaluation work that needs to be undertaken. The Evaluation Division in DIOS in theory has the lead in selecting intended evaluation subjects and in preparing the work plan, although the overall responsibility lies with the DIOS Director. However, due to funding constraints, not all intended corporate/central evaluations are carried out as planned and so this discretion in deciding the evaluation programme is not realised. The DIOS Annual workplan lists the intended evaluation activities (central and field) and details whether funding has been secured, whether an evaluation is prioritised and if an evaluation is not to take place, what alternative measures might be used to assess something (i.e. donor assessment, MOPAN, internal study). At a decentralised level, the selection of evaluations is ad hoc and to a large degree project and donor-driven (embedded in budgets at the outset of projects) which limits the independent selection of evaluation subjects. 4, 21, 53, 61, 63, 66, 73