18 . MOPAN 2017-18 ASSESSMENTS . UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST l Online survey: The survey was conducted among partners in the five field areas (the Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank including East Jerusalem) and yielded 42 responses. The survey was designed to gather both perception data and an understanding of practice from a diverse set of well-informed partners of UNRWA (see Annex 3). l Interviews and consultations: The team conducted interviews and consultations with 89 staff members in May 2018, at UNRWA headquarters in Amman, East Jerusalem and Gaza and at field office headquarters in Amman, Beirut, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Supplementary calls were made to the field office in Damascus. An information call to discuss key findings was held with the Institutional Lead representatives from Denmark and Switzerland during the final stages of drafting. Limitations UNRWA has a clear and very challenging mandate; strategic and operational management takes place in a resourceconstrained and politically charged context. To assess and interpret the performance of the Agency through the MOPAN lens of organisational and development effectiveness, it is necessary to appreciate over which factors UNRWA management has full, partial or no control and to nuance management principles such as prioritisation, efficiency, etc. This MOPAN assessment was conducted during a challenging period for UNRWA. Significant resource constraints have compelled the Agency to adjust priorities, put some intended organisational actions on hold and put off planned activities. As part of the assessment, interviews were conducted with staff in headquarters and all five field offices (remotely, in Syria) to gain an appreciation of the diverse conditions across which UNRWA works and as determined by the refugee population it serves. MOPAN reviewed a range of additional documents, although there was limited examination of field-level documentation. The formal evaluation evidence available to assess UNRWA’s performance in terms of results (KPIs 9-12) was limited in both scope and quality. Independent evaluations of individual projects and thematic areas were considered, but there were no programmatic-level evaluations to draw from. The assessment drew heavily on management results reports (including detailed annual reviews of results) provided by the Agency and on internally-generated results data, held within UNRWA’s comprehensive results based monitoring system. No independent evaluations were available from the assessment period of UNRWA’s strategic plan or organisational architecture, the progress of its reforms, or its normative role to provide a wider view of the effectiveness, efficiency or sustainability of UNRWA’s results. Both quantitative and qualitative information from the partner survey was analysed and used where this expanded, supported or substantively challenged other evidence sources. Qualitative comments from the partner survey, while informative, were predictably quite individualistic and not amenable to broader extrapolation. Despite these limitations, application of the MOPAN framework to the body of available evidence allowed for a robust assessment. Visits to the field offices provided a depth and richness to the evidence that have informed the analysis and highlighted UNRWA’s adaptive way of working across diverse operating conditions and contexts. In the interests of brevity, the assessment of performance (including Annex 1) takes a macro perspective on the organisation.