ANNEX 1 . 95 Results targets in the CMM were developed at the beginning of the 2016-2021 MTS for all indicators in collaboration with all Field offices to ensure ownership and common understanding. These appear evidence-based and there is a clear internal logic and flow between inputs, outputs and outcomes. Whilst exact resources allocated to the results-based monitoring system are not known, there are human resource gaps in terms of the agency’s ability to monitor everything required by the results-based monitoring system. There are many indicators which are perceived by field offices as burdensome to collect given available staff resources as the number of indicators for Field Offices to report on has doubled under the current MTS but there is no additional staff capacity for monitoring. The contexts in which UNRWA operates can also create a challenge in gathering reliable, timely data; the Syria crisis rendered many UNRWA facilities inaccessible and displaced a large proportion of staff, 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 23, 31, 33, 36, 70, 73, 85, 100, 102, 105 severely impacting on the Field’s capacity to access and collect data throughout the country and it is challenging for UNRWA to get government approval for any kind of data collection exercise. For protection, indicators for individual cases of GBV, child protection and gender were recently removed from reporting requirements as some fields were not able to collect reliable and accurate data on these. It is also not yet possible to use the system to undertake results-based budgeting and there are remain some technical glitches in the system which affect the systems’ usability. MI 7.1 Evidence confidence High confidence MI 7.2: Corporate strategies, including country strategies, based on a sound RBM focus and logic Score Overall MI Rating Highly satisfactory Overall MI score 3.4 Element 1: Organisation-wide plans and strategies include results frameworks 4 Element 2: Clear linkages exist between the different layers of the results framework, from project through to country and corporate level 4 Element 3: An annual report on performance is discussed with the governing bodies 4 Element 4: Corporate strategies are updated regularly 3 Element 5: The annual corporate reports show progress over time and notes areas of strong performance as well as deviations between planned and actual results MI 7.2 Analysis 2 Source document UNRWA’s corporate-level strategies are based on a sound RBM focus and logic and guide field office and programmatic/thematic planning, reporting and results management approaches. UNRWA’s MTS is supported by a ‘Common monitoring matrix’ (CMM) and corporate strategies are underpinned by results frameworks which are aligned in so far as possible to the MTS; for example, Field Office strategies, the Resource Mobilisation Strategy, the People Strategy and the GES are aligned to the same 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 31, time period as the MTS, and outcomes in Field Office Strategic Plans are aligned to those in the MTS 36, 37, 40, 44, 59, 60, UNRWA produces a series of six sets of annual reports each year which are presented to the appropriate 69, 76, 79 , 86, 92, 109, level of governance. These include: (i) Annual report from the Commissioner-General to the UN General 141, 142 Assembly; (ii) A harmonized result report to donors; (iii) Project-specific progress and/or final reports to donors; (iv) Annual reports on initiatives/activities that are funded from multiple sources including, by way of example, reform projects and emergency appeals; (v) Reporting to refugees on an annual basis for the use of resources and the achievement (or not) of results; (vi) Annual report of the Department of Internal Oversight Services. Whilst corporate strategies are not necessarily updated once they have commenced, their implementation is supported by annual operation plans which are regularly reviewed and reported on.