36 . MOPAN 2017-18 ASSESSMENTS . UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY FOR PALESTINE REFUGEES IN THE NEAR EAST headquarters departments to produce evaluation plans as well as a medium-term plan aligned with the MTS that identifies evaluation work that needs to be undertaken. UNRWA’s current medium-term evaluation plan (for centralised evaluations) is aligned with the MTS, and an annual work plan for evaluations is included as part of the DIOS annual plan. Formal evaluation appears to be a significant casualty of the current funding crisis. The centralised evaluation plan, although prioritised, is not funded. Nor have a number of planned strategic evaluations for the 2015-18 period been undertaken due to funding constraints. An UNRWA organisational directive states the intention to ensure DIOS has the necessary budget and staffing resources to adequately maintain independence and objectivity. However, UNRWA’s overall financial difficulties have directly affected the evaluation budget. Resources available for centralised evaluation are inadequate, amounting to just 0.1% of the UNRWA programme budget, compared to an average of 0.3% of the budgets of other UN agencies. In early 2018, 0% of the funding needed for the prioritised evaluations was available; in 2017, only 10% of the needed funding was available. The lack of available resources for evaluation limits the evaluation function’s work and makes evaluation activities – on a piecemeal basis – largely dependent on donor funding. Decentralised evaluations are being planned and undertaken by UNRWA at field level, although this activity is somewhat “projectised” rather than strategic. Budgets for evaluations are generally included at donor request in project budgets and/or agreements, rather than being built into the field office’s overall strategy for learning and accountability. Field offices prepare evaluation plans that are shared with headquarters but, as is the case with centralised evaluations, a number of these do not go ahead due to scarcity of funds or the prioritisation of delivering services over evaluation. The programme budget allocates no funds for evaluation at field office level. This limits the independent selection of evaluation subjects and the extent to which a strategic approach to evaluation across the organisation can be applied. UNRWA has quality assurance systems in place to monitor evaluation quality throughout the evaluation cycle. These systems indicate where quality assurance is necessary and describe roles and responsibilities at each stage of the cycle. At centralised and decentralised levels, the quality of evaluations is supported by DIOS oversight. However, no evidence is available as to whether the quality of evaluations has improved over time, as UNRWA has lacked the resources to undertake any meta-synthesis of evaluations to determine evaluation quality since the 2015 UN Evaluations Group Peer Review. Despite the weaknesses noted in UNRWA’s evaluation system and coverage, there is evidence that UNRWA programme and planning teams are thinking evaluatively, underpinned by the use of data from the resultsbased monitoring system. The Agency has practices that demonstrate strong information management, with reflection on lessons learned as part of the development of strategic and operational plans. Programme-wide, midyear and annual results reviews take place, organised by strategic outcome, with all fields and departments present. Correctives measures are also identified in dialogue with communities and applied as necessary to programmes. All centralised and decentralised evaluation reports are required to be publicly available on UNRWA’s website, although sharing of information between field offices is at times opportunistic and dependent on individuals, rather than systematic.