Comparative review of the Desk function [AR2004-160-01] fileed its analysis on a sample of four...

UNITED NATIONS

UNITED NATIONS

Office of Internal

Office of Internal

Oversight Services

Oversight Services

UNHCR Audit S

ervice

UNHCR Audit S

ervice

Comparative review

Comparative review

of th

e Desk function

of th

e Desk function

Assignment AR/2004/160/01

FinalAudit re

port R

05/R007

30 May 2005

Auditors:

Eleanor Burns

Anita Hirsch

Doremieke Kruithof

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n2

�From Octo

ber 2

004 to

January

2005, O

IOS co

nducted

a comparativ

e review

of th

e Desk

functio

n. T

he D

esks act as a

liaison betw

een UNHCR Field

and Head

quarters an

d are in

volved in

most o

f UNHCR’s in

ternal m

echanism

s and

processes. T

he p

rimary

goal o

f the rev

iew was to

understan

d th

e exten

t of th

e Desk

s’roles an

d resp

onsib

ilities and th

e ratio

nale b

ehind th

e differen

t structu

res, as well as to

analy

sethe D

esks’operatio

nal p

rocesses. F

rom in

itial interv

iews w

ith all H

eads o

f Desk

, OIO

S later fo

cused

its analy

sis on a sam

ple o

f four d

esks (D

esk 2 fo

r Europe, D

esk

1 fo

r Asia an

d Pacific, D

esk 4 Afghanistan

, and Desk

for E

ast and Horn of A

frica) consid

ered to

be rep

resentativ

e of

both th

e operatio

ns1and protectio

n activ

ities of U

NHCR.

�OIO

S fo

und th

at the ro

les and fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esks n

eeded to

be m

ore clearly

establish

ed: clearer stan

dard

s for th

e differen

t structu

res, more p

recisely stated

missio

ns, h

ence ro

les and resp

onsib

ilities, and m

easurab

le perfo

rmance

objectiv

es.

�OIO

S’rev

iew of th

e Desk

s’input in

some in

ternal p

rocesses su

ch as th

e resources allo

cation process n

oted

that th

ese need

to be rev

ised an

d sim

plified

.

�The fo

llowing th

ree charts su

mmarise O

IOS’observ

ations an

d reco

mmendatio

ns o

r opportu

nities fo

r improvem

ent,

which

are furth

er develo

ped in

the rep

ort itself. O

IOS voluntarily

left some o

f the o

pportu

nities o

f improvem

ent

identified

in th

e form

of o

bserv

ations (sh

own in

green

in th

e charts) an

d did not tu

rn th

em in

to co

ncrete

recommendatio

ns. It w

as felt that, as th

ey were m

ore m

edium to

long-term

objectiv

es or ap

plying to

UNHCR as a

whole, O

IOS’stan

dard

follo

w-up proced

ures o

n th

e implem

entatio

n of reco

mmendatio

ns d

id not ap

ply.

1 Throughout th

e report, th

e term ‘o

peratio

ns’refers to

all aspects o

f country

operatio

ns ex

cluding protectio

n activ

ities.

0. Comparative review of th

e Desk function

0. Comparative review of th

e Desk function

Executive summary

Executive summary

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n3

Observations

Observations

Recommendations

Recommendations

More effective and efficient DesksThere are u

nclear ro

les

and resp

onsib

ilities

resultin

g in

possib

le duplicatio

n

of fu

nctio

ns

Desk

staff did not alw

ays

have th

e necessary

skills

and knowled

ge to

be effectiv

e

from th

e outset

The p

ositio

n of th

e Senior

Legal A

dviso

r is not clear

and overlap

s Protectio

n

Operatio

ns S

upport S

ection (D

IP)

responsib

ilities

There is n

o clear co

rrelation

betw

een workload in

dicato

rs and

the stru

cture an

d size

of th

e Desk

StructureReview

job descrip

tions

Reco

nsid

er relevancy

of fu

nctio

ns

Organize sp

ecific training

Clarify

role an

d rep

ortin

g

lines o

f the S

enior L

egal A

dviso

r

Estab

lish stan

dard

s/benchmark

s

for ‘stab

le state’Desk

s

Estab

lish stan

dard

s/benchmark

s

For ‘ex

ceptio

nal state’

Desk

s

RECOMMENDATION 1R 2R 3

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n4

Observations

Observations

More effective and efficient DesksDesk

staff protested

at the larg

e

number o

f initiativ

es, which

required

their atten

tion lead

ing to

an unfocused

strategy

Support: o

verflo

w

of in

form

ation

UNHCR’sheav

y rep

ortin

g

requirem

ents are

not alw

ays ju

stified or

properly

used

MSRP im

pact

not fu

lly tak

en in

to acco

unt

Role and responsibility

Reduce n

umber o

f reports

Merg

e specialists an

d general

reports fo

r integ

rated

presen

tation of o

peratio

ns

Desk

s are involved in

processes w

here th

e added

valu

e is limited

, resultin

g in

essential fu

nctio

ns b

eing

neglected

Clarify

responsib

ilities in th

e area

of p

rocurem

ent, staffin

g

& donor relatio

ns

Revise p

lanning/program

ming

and m

onito

ring processes

Allo

w fo

r more fo

cus o

n strateg

y,

analy

sis and ev

aluatio

n/co

ntro

l

Custo

mise

reports fo

r offices/co

untries

Recommendations

Recommendations

R 4R 5

Prio

ritiseinitiativ

es

Develo

p guidelin

es and ways to

filter

inform

ation an

d id

entify

prio

rities

Sim

plify

and deleg

ate furth

er

Adapt to

the D

esks’need

s

and processes

Amend proced

ures

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n5

Specific

Measu

rable

Achiev

able

Relev

ant

Tim

e-bound

Observations

Observations

More effective and efficient Desks

Objectiv

es were n

ot su

fficiently

specified

to en

able

perfo

rmance m

easurem

ent

Assessing performance

Develo

p SMARTperfo

rmance

objectiv

es and related

indicato

rs

Monito

r perfo

rmance

The F

ield’s p

erceptio

n of th

e

Desk

is mixed

Recommendations

Recommendations

R 6Then

Update C

hapter 2

of th

e UNHCR M

anual

R 7

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n6

Page

1. IN

TRODUCTION

7

2. AUDIT OBJECTIVES

8

3. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

9

4. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. S

tructu

re and staff

4.1.1. ‘S

tandard

’Desk

s’

4.1.2. S

tructu

re and workload of a D

esk in

a ‘stable state’

4.1.3. S

tructu

re and workload of a D

esk in

an ‘ex

ceptio

nal state’

4.1.4. E

xperien

ce of D

esk staff

4.1.5. S

kills o

f Desk

staff

4.1.6. P

ositio

n of L

egal A

dviser v

is a vis th

e Desk

s

4.1.7. R

ecommendatio

ns

4.2. R

ole an

d resp

onsib

ilities of th

e Desk

s

4.2.1. S

trategy

4.2.2. S

upport

4.2.3. D

onor relatio

ns

4.2.4. R

eportin

g

4.2.5. P

rogram

me activ

ities

4.2.6. R

ecommendatio

ns

4.3. A

ssessing th

e perfo

rmance o

f the D

esks

4.3.1. M

ission -objectiv

es of th

e Desk

s

4.3.2. F

ield ‘C

lient’satisfactio

n

4.3.3. R

ecommendatio

ns

4.4. C

onclu

sion

1011

27

46

52

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

55

Table of content

Table of content

0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n7

�From Octo

ber 2

004 to

February

2005, O

IOS co

nducted

a comparativ

erev

iew of th

e UNHCR Desk

functio

n. T

he au

dit

was co

nducted

in acco

rdance w

ith th

e Intern

ational S

tandard

s forthe P

rofessio

nal P

ractice of In

ternal A

uditin

g.

�OIO

S rev

iewed th

e activities o

f all Desk

s and co

nducted

an in

-depth rev

iew of D

esk 2 fo

r Europe, D

esk 1 fo

r Asia an

d

Pacific, D

esk 4 Afghanistan

, and th

e Desk

for E

ast and Horn of A

frica.

�As o

utlin

ed in

the U

NHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

, Organizatio

nal S

tructu

re and Resp

onsib

ilities, the D

esks are “in

volved in

operatio

nal strateg

ic plan

ning, political an

alysis, d

isseminatio

n of in

form

ation an

d co

ordinatio

n, an

d program

me su

pport

functio

ns in

cluding m

onito

ring, staffin

g, fin

ance, p

rocurem

ent an

d ad

ministratio

n.”With

such a b

road defin

ition of th

eir

functio

ns, th

e role o

f the B

ureau

x an

d th

e Desk

s is a central o

ne fo

r the d

elivery

of U

NHCR field

activities.

�Prev

ious rev

iews o

f the D

esk fu

nctio

n were carried

out in

1994 an

d 1999, b

ut th

e recommendatio

ns w

ere not fu

lly

implem

ented

, and in

some cases w

ere found not to

be p

ractical.

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n8

The m

ain objectiv

es of th

e audit w

ere to:

�Understan

d how th

e Desk

s operate an

d to

determ

ine w

hat th

e main

functio

ns o

f the D

esks are, th

rough co

llating an

d

summarizin

g th

e differen

ces betw

een th

e Desk

s in term

s of stru

cture, reso

urces an

d workflo

w processes.

�Evalu

ate the w

orkflo

w processes to

determ

ine w

heth

er adequate g

uidance an

d proced

ures are in

place an

d to

ensure

the effectiv

eness an

d efficien

cy of in

ternal co

ntro

ls.

�Assess th

e perfo

rmance o

f the D

esk fu

nctio

n an

d hence, its ad

ded

valu

e; review

the m

anagem

ent to

ols av

ailable to

measu

re perfo

rmance an

d th

e Desk

s’im

pact o

n field

activities.

2. Audit objectives

2. Audit objectives

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n9

�OIO

S in

terview

ed all th

e Head

s of D

esk to

obtain

an understan

ding of th

e functio

n of th

e Desk

s and to

identify

sim

ilarities and differen

ces in th

eir perceiv

ed ro

les and resp

onsib

ilities.

�Four D

esks w

ere selected fo

r an in

-depth rev

iew. T

wo “p

rotectio

n-orien

ted”Desk

s: Desk

2 in

the B

ureau

for E

urope,

and Desk

1 in

the B

ureau

for A

sia and th

e Pacific an

d tw

o “o

peratio

ns 1

-orien

ted”Desk

s: Afghanistan

in th

e Bureau

for C

ASWANAME an

d East an

d Horn of A

frica in th

e Bureau

for A

frica.

�Most staff m

embers w

ithin th

ese four D

esks w

ere interv

iewed in

cluding th

e Senior L

egal A

dvisers (S

LAs) an

d Senior

Reso

urce M

anagers, w

heth

er (structu

rally) p

laced with

in or o

utsid

e the D

esks to

understan

d th

eir specific

responsib

ilities and th

e detailed

work processes. A

t the A

fghanistan

Desk

, due to

a request fro

m th

e Head

of D

esk, th

e interv

iews w

ere limited

to th

e Head

, the S

enior D

esk Officer an

dthe S

enior R

esource M

anager.

�OIO

S fo

cused

, although not ex

clusiv

ely, on th

e processes lin

ked to

the fo

llowing to

pics: p

lanning, p

rogram

ming an

d

monito

ring.

�OIO

S rev

iewed th

e four D

esks’project files to

understan

d th

e type o

f documents an

d co

rrespondence m

aintain

ed on

file, as well as to

determ

ine th

e effectiveness o

f the D

esks’oversig

ht an

d ev

aluatio

n of field

activities.

�OIO

S rev

iewed pertin

entstaff m

embers’

perso

nnel files to

determ

ine w

heth

er staff assigned to

a Desk

functio

n had

the n

ecessary qualificatio

ns an

d ex

perien

ce.

�OIO

S in

terview

ed certain

field staff recen

tly reassig

ned to

Head

quarters, an

d sen

t questio

nnaires to

the 2

6 field

offices fallin

g under th

e purview

of o

ur fo

ur sam

ple D

esks fo

r feedback

on th

e Desk

s’perfo

rmance. O

IOS an

alysed

and su

mmarized

the an

swers o

f the 1

9 offices (7

3 per cen

t) that rep

lied. In

view

of th

e on-going Head

quarter R

eview

and EPAU’s rev

iew of th

e Desk

functio

n, O

IOS did not rev

iew or assess th

e Desk

s’perfo

rmance to

ward

s their

‘Head

quarters C

lients’. T

he rev

iew was lim

ited to

an assessm

ent o

f the relatio

nship ofthe D

esks w

ith th

e Field

.

1 Throughout th

e report, th

e term ‘o

peratio

ns’refers to

all aspects o

f country

operatio

ns ex

cluding protectio

n activ

ities.

3. Audit scope and methodology

3. Audit scope and methodology

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n10

4. Audit F

indings and

4. Audit F

indings and

Recommendations

Recommendations

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n11

4.1. Structure and staff


UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n12

Size

Experien

ce

/ skills

Organisatio

nal

chart

Positio

ns

Workload

Mission

FunctionsProcesses



Our an

alysis o

f the stru

cture o

f the D

esks

comprised

an an

alysis o

f the:

�Organigram

mes

and staffin

g tab

les of th

e

Desk

;

�Size an

d reso

urces o

f the D

esks;

�Experien

ce and sk

ills of th

e staff; and

�Differen

t positio

ns in

the D

esks an

d th

eir

tasks;

In relatio

n to

the:

�Missio

n of th

e Desk

s;

�Functio

ns o

f its staff;

�Processes it is in

volved in

; and

�Workload.

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n13

�There are v

arious D

esks’stru

ctures in

place in

UNHCR.

�OIO

S’referen

ce points fo

r the D

esks’stru

ctures in

the B

ureau

xwere o

utlin

ed in

the U

NHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

. It states:

�For th

e Bureau

for A

sia and Pacific, D

esks are lead

“by a H

ead an

d su

pported

by a S

enior L

egal O

fficer, two

Desk

Officers, o

ne P

rogram

meAssistan

t and a S

ecretary”.

�The D

esks fo

r the O

peratio

ns fo

r the S

udan Situ

ation are co

mposed

of a H

ead of D

esk, “a S

enior D

esk Officer,

a Desk

Officer, P

rogram

meAssistan

ts and other su

pportin

g staff.”

�UNHCR M

anual C

hapter 2

does n

ot d

etail the stru

cture o

f a ‘standard

’Desk

, nor d

oes it p

rovide a ty

pical

organigram

mein other B

ureau

x.

�From an

analy

sis of th

e organigram

mes an

d staffin

g tab

les provided to

OIO

S, it ap

pears th

at the m

ost co

mmon

structu

re consists o

f a:

�Head

of D

esk -P-5

�(Senior) D

esk Officer -

P-4/P-3

�(Senior) P

rogram

meAssistan

t -G-7/G-6

�Secretary

.

�For C

ASWANAME, th

is general stru

cture w

as found in

two Desk

s (Desk

1 an

d Desk

2 &

3). H

owever, th

e Afghan

Desk

and th

e Iraq Support U

nit d

iffered:

�The A

fghan Desk

had a S

enior R

esource M

anager in

stead of a seco

nd Desk

Officer;

�The Iraq

Support U

nit h

ad a ‘C

oordinato

r’instead

of a H

ead of D

esk, a S

enior L

egal O

fficer, a Senior S

upply

Officer, an

Administrativ

e Assistan

t and tw

o Secretaries.



UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n14

�The D

esks w

ithin th

e Bureau

for A

frica had th

e above stan

dard

structu

re, though th

e number o

f Desk

Officers an

d

Program

me A

ssistants v

aried fro

m one D

esk to

the o

ther. T

he C

oted’Iv

oire an

d Liberia U

nit w

as of a ‘lig

hter’

structu

re.

�The E

uropean

Desk

s are similar to

that o

f the B

ureau

of th

e Americas, an

d co

nsisted

of D

esks h

eaded by a S

enior

Desk

Officer, assisted

by a P

rogram

me A

ssistant, an

d a D

esk Officer in

a few cases. (A

Secretary

and Program

me

Assistan

t were sh

ared.)

�The A

sia Bureau

has recen

tly m

oved to

a similar set-u

p as E

urope an

d th

e Americas. S

pecific to

the A

sia and Pacific

Bureau

, however, th

e Senior L

egal A

dviso

r is integ

rated in

the D

esk.

�OIO

S ap

preciates th

at it is often

difficu

lt to co

mpare B

ureau

x due to

the d

ifferent n

ature o

f operatio

ns. F

rom OIO

S’

review

however, an

d our in

terview

s with

Desk

staff, it appears th

at there w

as an overlap

in th

e functio

ns o

f the H

ead

of D

esk an

d th

e Senior D

esk Officer. It w

as suggested

on sev

eraloccasio

ns th

at these tw

o fu

nctio

ns b

e merg

ed to

avoid an

additio

nal lay

er of b

ureau

cracy. T

he In

specto

r General also

recommended th

is type o

f merg

er in 1999.

�OIO

S’rev

iew of th

e job descrip

tions o

f Head

of D

esk an

d Senior D

esk Officer n

oted

that th

ey have sim

ilar resp

onsib

ilities, apart fro

m th

e coach

ing of staff an

d en

surin

g a sm

ooth co

mmunicatio

n flo

w with

in th

e Desk

.

�In OIO

S’opinion, fro

m th

e inform

ation receiv

ed th

ere is a need

to rev

iew th

e staffing stru

cture o

f the D

esk to

determ

ine w

heth

er it is optim

al to have b

oth a H

ead of D

esk an

d a S

enior D

esk Officer. F

or larg

er and m

ore

complicated

operatio

ns, th

e Senior D

esk Officer co

uld be at th

e P-5 lev

el, and fo

r smaller an

d m

ore stab

le operatio

ns

the p

ositio

n would stay

at the P

-4 lev

el. If it is determ

ined th

at, in m

ost cases, n

either p

ositio

ns are req

uired

, the

merg

ing of th

ese functio

ns w

ould sim

plify

the D

esk stru

cture, an

d possib

ly in

crease the reactiv

ity an

d efficien

cy of

the D

esks’to resp

ond to

the field

.

�OIO

S also

noted

that D

esk Officers o

ften perfo

rm very

similar fu

nctio

ns to

Senior D

esk Officers, an

d th

e Head

s of

Desk

in assig

ning resp

onsib

ilities did not alw

ays tak

e this ‘sen

iority

’into acco

unt.



4.1.1.

4.1.1. ‘ ‘Standard Desks

Standard Desks’ ’

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n15

�In its an

alysis, O

IOS ack

nowled

ged th

e existen

ce of th

e notio

n of ‘stab

le state’and ‘ex

ceptio

nal state’

Desk

s as

develo

ped by th

e 1994 W

orking group.

�Stab

le state refers to lim

ited in

volvem

ent o

f the D

esks in

the F

ield, as th

e Field

is mostly

in co

ntro

l of th

e

implem

entatio

n of its p

rogram

mes.

�Excep

tional state refers to

situatio

ns w

here th

e dem

ands o

f the F

ield an

d th

e operatio

n are su

ch th

at the stab

le

state arrangem

ents can

not ad

equately

respond to

these n

eeds.

�OIO

S selected

indicato

rs and co

mpared

and an

alysed

the o

nes w

hich

should be rep

resentativ

e of th

e workload of th

e

Desk

s, as follo

ws:

�Number o

f countries;

�Number o

f Field

Offices;

�Number o

f Perso

ns o

f concern

;

�2004 rev

ised budget allo

cations;

�Number o

f Letters o

f Instru

ction (L

OIs);

�Number o

f Head

quarters p

osts; an

d

�Ratio

of estim

ated staff co

sts (based

on Stan

dard

Salary

Costs) o

n to

tal budget (in

per cen

t).

�In resp

onse to

the co

mmen

ts received on th

e dra

ft report, O

IOS co

nfirm

s that th

e above list o

f indica

tors w

as n

ot

mea

nt to

be co

mpreh

ensive o

r exhaustive. U

NHCR co

rrectly men

tioned

that a

n analysis o

f the n

umber o

f sub-pro

jects

and amount o

f pro

curem

ent co

uld gainfully co

mplem

ent O

IOS’analysis.



4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a

4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a ‘ ‘stable state

stable state’ ’

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n16

Table 1

: Comparativ

e data o

n th

e UNHCR Desk

s’workload

Desk 1

21

26.7

245,278

17

21

6

3.0%

Desk 2

11

25.9

604,156

69

6

3.0%

Desk 1

11

4.2

251,890

912

2

5.9%

Desk 2

11

4.1

1,096,455

89

2

6.1%

Desk 3

910.2

120,089

710

3

2.4%

Desk 4

717.0

1,914,708

410

2

1.5%

Desk 5

13

32.7

962,616

618

3

1.3%

Desk 1

11

5.0

25,776

20

72

4.6%

Desk 2

8

11.5

221,038

12

84

4.3%

Staffing vs

budget 2004 (%)

Asia

and

Pacific

EuropeAmeric

as

CASWANAME

Desk

Total number of

staff

Persons of

concern

Field offices

Projects (LOIs)

2004 budget

(millio

n USD)

Countries

Desk 1

22

48.7

2,196,193

716

6

1.6%

Desk 2 & 3

22

15.2

873,802

18

17

6

5.1%

Desk 4 - A

fghanistan

10

74.0

740,839

15

6

1.1%

Iraq

474.7

162,727

13

8

1.6%

Liberia & Cote d'Ivoire

737.0

580,613

210

5

1.5%

West Afric

a30

42.0

430,185

11

19

6

1.8%

Southern Afric

a21

34.1

539,155

917

7

2.2%

East and Horn

34

66.9

1,190,077

725

7

1.3%

Central Afric

a GL

46

64.5

1,078,984

832

7

2.1%

AfricaCASWANA

ME





stable state’ ’

A-The ratio

was calcu

lated based

on OIO

S’calcu

lation of staffin

g co

sts (UNHCR stan

dard

salary scale p

er grad

e) on th

e 2004 budget.

A

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n17

1

10

100

1,000

10,000R

BAC 1

Europe 1

Europe 2

Europe 4S

udan & Chad

Europe 5

Europe 3

RBAC 2

Liberia & Cote d'Ivoire

RBAP 1

RBAP 2

CASWANAME 1

CASWANAME2&3

AfghanistanWest Africa

Southern AfricaEast and H

orn

Central Africa and the G

reat Lakes

Iraq

Taking th

e follo

wing in

dicato

rs:

•�2004 budget (in

millio

n USD)

•�Perso

ns o

f concern

(in th

ousan

ds)

again

st the −

total n

umber o

f staff, the fo

llowing ch

art shows th

e differen

t pattern

s.





stable state’ ’

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n18

�OIO

S fo

und so

me tren

ds in

the d

istributio

n of reso

urces, b

ut also

some ex

ceptio

ns.

�The relatio

n betw

een th

e staffing lev

els and th

e budget seem

ed to

be b

ased on th

e follo

wing allo

cation fo

rmula: tw

o staff

mem

bers fo

r budgets b

elow US$ 10 m

illion; (ab

out) 6

staff mem

bers fo

r budgets b

etween

US$ 25 an

d US$ 35 m

illion, an

d

7 staff m

embers fo

r budgets o

ver U

S$ 60 m

illion. H

owever w

e noted

the fo

llowing:

�Europe D

esks 4

(two perso

ns fo

r a budget o

f US$ 17 m

illion) an

d 5 (th

ree perso

ns fo

r a budget o

f US$ 33 m

illion).

�The S

outhern

Africa O

peratio

ns D

esk, w

ith a b

udget o

f US$ 34 m

illion has 7

staff, compared

to th

e Central A

frica

Desk

(US$ 65 m

illion an

d 7 staff m

embers) an

d East an

d Horn of A

frica Desk

(US$ 67 m

illion an

d 7 staff m

embers).

�Europe D

esk 5 has a b

udget sim

ilar to th

at of th

e Southern

Africa O

peratio

ns an

d m

ore p

ersons o

f concern

yet, th

eir

staffing co

nsists o

f respectiv

ely 3 an

d 7 staff m

embers.

�OIO

S fo

und th

at with

in th

e Bureau

x th

e total co

st of staff p

er Desk

was co

rrelated to

the to

tal budget. M

ost D

esks h

ad

staffing co

sts represen

ting ab

out 1

.5 to

3 per cen

t of th

eir budget. T

here are n

otab

le excep

tions, as D

esks 1

and 2 of th

e

Europe B

ureau

amounted

to 6 per cen

t.

�When co

mparin

g th

ese ratios to

the n

ature o

f the activ

ities and th

e type o

f support p

rovided, it ap

pears th

at regions

involving protectio

n an

d lo

bbying ten

d to

have h

igher ratio

s as they req

uire m

ore p

olicy

monito

ring an

d guidance at th

e

Head

quarters lev

el.

�Operatio

nal D

esks fo

cus m

ore o

n th

e provisio

n of g

oods an

d serv

ices to th

e field, th

us req

uire m

ore fin

ancial th

an staff

input.

�OIO

S understan

ds th

e need

for flex

ibility

in th

e Desk

s’stru

cture, as n

ot all o

peratio

ns an

d reg

ions h

ave th

e same n

eeds.

OIO

S would however ex

pect a clearer co

rrelation betw

een workload

indicato

rs and staffin

g lev

els. Taking th

is into

consid

eration, in

OIO

S’view

, UNHCR sh

ould id

entify

logical an

d ratio

nal m

inim

um stan

dard

s and a fram

ework based

on

represen

tative in

dicato

rs, yet at th

e same tim

e enablin

g ad

aptatio

n to

the sp

ecific need

s of th

e Desk

s.





stable state’ ’

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n19

�Over tim

e, the S

outh Eastern

Europe O

peratio

n provides a g

ood ex

ample o

f progressiv

ely decreasin

g workload with

a sig

nifican

t decrease in

the n

umber o

f staff of th

e Desk

(from 13to 3 in

the co

urse o

f one y

ear).

�The Iraq

Support U

nit, o

n th

e other h

and, seem

s heav

ily staffed

compared

to th

e 2003 budget lev

el, and so

me

positio

ns n

eed to

be ju

stified, fo

r exam

ple th

e Senior S

upply Officer. P

rocurem

ent in

the M

iddle E

ast region in

2003

amounted

to US$ 16.8 m

illion* as co

mpared

to th

e South W

est Asia

Region (A

fghanistan

), which

reached US$ 42.5

millio

n* in

2002, w

ithout a d

edicated

Supply Officer p

ositio

ned in

the D

esk.

�OIO

S ap

preciates th

e significan

t differen

ce betw

een th

e operatio

ns, b

ut th

e differen

ces betw

een th

e types o

f staff req

uired

was n

ot v

ery clear.

�The A

fghanistan

Desk

has

a Senior R

esource M

anager p

ositio

n. T

he fu

nctio

nal o

verlap

with

the S

enior D

esk Officer

was m

entio

ned to

OIO

S. A

s most o

f the reso

urces d

erive in

itiallyfro

m Special B

udget (S

B), th

e monito

ring an

d

reportin

g workload it in

duced

may have ju

stified th

e positio

n in

the D

esk. H

owever th

e positio

n was ex

tended well

after the o

peratio

n was fu

lly fu

nded under th

e Annual B

udget (A

B), w

hich

probably in

creased th

e overlap

of th

e rem

aining fu

nctio

ns o

f the S

enior R

esource M

anager an

d th

e Senior D

esk Officer. U

NHCR sta

ted th

at o

pera

tional

modalities/ p

rogra

mme su

pport fu

nctio

ns u

nder A

B rem

ain th

e sameas in

SB.

�The D

esks fo

r the S

pecial O

peratio

ns in

Sudan have a S

enior R

esource M

anager.

�The Iraq

Support U

nit, alth

ough it h

ad a U

S$ 74 m

illion Special B

udget in

2004, did not h

ave a S

enior R

esource

Manager, b

ut in

stead a F

inance/P

roject C

ontro

l Officer. W

heth

er the d

ecision to

modify

the ad

ministrativ

e support

(from Senior R

esource M

anager to

Project C

ontro

l Officer) w

ithin

the Iraq

Support U

nit resu

lted fro

m lesso

ns learn

ed

from th

e Afghanistan

Desk

was n

ot clear.

�The B

urea

u of C

ASWANAME did not a

gree th

at th

e Iraq and Afghan D

esks should be a

ssessed usin

g th

e same

para

meters in

regard

to th

e creatio

n of a

Pro

ject Co-ord

inatorpost in

stead of a

n Sen

ior R

esource M

anager. S

ince

the Ira

q and Afghan opera

tions w

ere very differen

t in sco

pe a

nd vo

lume, a

nd any lesso

ns lea

rned

would have to

be

clearly q

ualified

.



4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an

4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an ‘ ‘exceptional state

exceptional state’ ’

* Per F

MIS

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n20

�The U

NHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

states that d

urin

g larg

e-scale, complex

emerg

encies w

here th

e curren

t capacity

of a

Bureau

is exceed

ed, a S

pecial O

peratio

ns U

nit m

ay be created

either w

ithin, or as a sep

arate entity

to, a B

ureau

. Such

Special O

peratio

ns w

ill have a C

oordinato

r or R

egional C

oordinato

r reportin

g to

the B

ureau

Directo

r or d

irectly to

the

High Commissio

ner in

the case o

f a separate o

rganizatio

nal en

tity, or o

ther sen

ior m

anager as d

esignated

by th

e High

Commissio

ner.

�OIO

S noted

that S

pecial U

nit/D

esk stru

ctures h

ave b

een created

for o

peratio

ns in

South Eastern

Europe, Iraq

and th

e Sudan Situ

ation.

�While O

IOS ap

preciates th

e need

for U

NHCR to

be ab

le to react q

uick

ly to

new

situatio

ns an

d be flex

ible to

change,

it was stated

to OIO

S th

at the d

ecision to

create new

Desk

s’stru

ctures an

d tak

e the resp

onsib

ilities out o

f the

‘traditio

nal’

Desk

were n

ot alw

ays tran

sparen

t nor w

as the n

eed to

establish

Special U

nits/D

esks clear. If th

e ‘trad

itional’

structu

re was n

ot effectiv

e, or w

as deem

ed not to

be th

e ideal so

lutio

n fo

r an em

erging em

ergency, an

evalu

ation sh

ould have b

een done to

determ

ine th

e reasons w

hy an

d to

draw

lessons learn

ed fo

r future situ

ations.

�In so

me cases, in

the p

ast, it appears th

at availab

le resources an

d donors’

interests h

ave in

fluenced

the size o

f a Special U

nit m

ore th

an objectiv

e workload pattern

s. In its rep

ly to th

e dra

ft Rep

ort, U

NHCR co

ncu

rred th

at th

e donor-d

rivenness

of so

me S

pecia

l Budgets a

pplies to

emerg

ency D

esks as w

ell.

�OIO

S noted

that w

hile th

e Handbook fo

r Emerg

encies p

rovides u

seful g

uidance o

n a v

ariety of activ

ities such as

procurem

ent, staffin

g lev

els, superv

ision, etc., clear stan

dard

s/criteria still need

to be d

evelo

ped fo

r the estab

lishment

of a S

pecial U

nit/D

esk to

support th

ese emerg

encies fro

m a H

eadquarter p

erspectiv

e.

�The n

eed to

establish

criteria for th

e creation of an

‘Emerg

ency Desk

’was activ

ely discu

ssed at th

e Evalu

ation Policy

and Analy

sis Unit (E

PAU) R

eference G

roup (co

mprisin

g (S

enior) D

esk Officers, P

rogram

meAssistan

ts and staff

mem

bers fro

m other U

NHCR Units su

ch as th

e Divisio

n of F

inancial

and Support M

anagem

ent, th

e Emerg

ency an

d

Secu

rity Serv

ice, the D

ivisio

n of H

uman Reso

urces M

anagem

ent an

dthe M

SRP im

plem

entatio

n team

)in February

2005. T

here w

as a consen

sus th

at a policy

should be d

evelo

ped ofwhat an

Emerg

ency Desk

should co

mprise

inclu

ding its stru

cture an

d th

e staffing ex

pertise req

uired

, which

would be d

ependent o

n th

e estimated

size of th

e em

ergency an

d th

e poten

tial risks asso

ciated with

it.

�OIO

S also

understan

ds th

at work has alread

y begun in

the d

evelo

pment o

f such a p

olicy

.



4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an

4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an ‘ ‘exceptional state

exceptional state’ ’

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n21

�Desk

positio

ns req

uire a th

orough knowled

ge an

d understan

ding ofthe m

ain processes o

f UNHCR with

regard

to

plan

ning, program

ming an

d rep

ortin

g, as w

ell as an understan

dingof all th

e other U

nits in

teracting with

the

Desk

/Field

such as th

e Operatio

ns R

eview

Board

(ORB) an

d th

e Divisio

n of E

xtern

al Relatio

ns (D

ER) fo

r dealin

g

with

donors, etc.

�OIO

S’rev

iew of p

ersonnel reco

rds co

nclu

ded th

at, in general, D

esk staff h

ad th

e necessary

skills an

d ex

perien

ce as

required

by th

e job descrip

tion.

�The av

erage len

gth of relev

ant ex

perien

ce varied

from nearly

19 years fo

r Head

s of D

esk, an

d 14 to

16 years

for S

enior D

esk Officers an

d Desk

Officers resp

ectively

. Field

experien

ce was fo

und to

be q

uite ex

tensiv

e with

an av

erage o

f 9, 6 an

d 14 years resp

ectively

.

�OIO

S noted

, however, th

at what co

uld be in

terpreted

as increased

responsib

ility fo

r the S

enior D

esk Officer in

the

Bureau

for E

urope (p

erform

ing so

me o

f the fu

nctio

ns o

f a Head

ofDesk

in other B

ureau

x) d

id not tran

slate into a

higher ex

perien

ce requirem

ent, th

ough th

e incumbent’s p

rotectio

n back

ground was tak

en in

to acco

unt w

here th

is

positio

n was reg

arded to

be a m

ore a p

rotectio

n orien

ted post.



4.1.4. Experience of Desk staff

4.1.4. Experience of Desk staff

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n22

�While staff h

ad th

e experien

ce and years o

f service req

uired

forDesk

positio

ns, p

er the jo

b descrip

tions, th

ey did not

always h

ave th

e necessary

skills to

be fu

lly effectiv

e from th

e outset.

�Staff recen

tly reassig

ned fro

m th

e field m

entio

ned th

at (Senior)Desk

Officers ten

ded to

lack practical ex

perien

ce and

understan

ding of sy

stems an

d proced

ures (M

SRP, IP

R Project M

anagem

ent S

ystem

s, ORB, dealin

g with

donors), an

d

some (S

enior) D

esk Officers in

terview

ed ag

reed th

at they did notcome to

the p

ositio

n with

adequate k

nowled

ge o

f

the w

orkings o

f Head

quarters.

�OIO

S was in

form

ed th

at Program

meAssistan

ts often

had to

provide o

n-th

e-job train

ing to

new

Desk

staff (in one case

estimated

at 20 to

30 per cen

t of th

eir time), w

hich

may not b

e an efficien

t use o

f a Program

meAssistan

t’s time.

�Furth

er, OIO

S noted

that D

esk staff d

id not alw

ays h

ave a so

und understan

ding of th

e geograp

hical area th

ey co

vered

,

as staff could be assig

ned to

a Desk

regard

less of th

eir prio

r knowled

ge o

f the co

untries to

be co

vered

.

�OIO

S noted

that so

lid knowled

ge o

f Head

quarters sy

stems an

d proced

ures is n

ot a req

uirem

ent fo

r the ap

pointm

ent at

a positio

n in

the D

esk, n

either w

as there a n

eed to

have ex

perien

ce in th

e geograp

hical area to

be co

vered

. Moreo

ver,

on assig

nment to

a Desk

, there are n

o stan

dard

orien

tation m

eetings, d

etailed briefin

gs o

r training of D

esk staff, to

enhance th

eir skills an

d knowled

ge.

�OIO

S ap

preciates th

at with

UNHCR’srotatio

nal p

olicy

it is not p

ossib

le to assig

n to

Desk

s staff with

all the relev

ant

skills an

d knowled

ge o

f the w

orking en

viro

nment. H

owever, th

ese issues sh

ould be ad

dressed

by UNHCR to

ensure

satisfactory Desk

perfo

rmance an

d m

ore efficien

t managem

ent o

f Desk

s.

�The issu

e of th

e lack of p

ertinent train

ing was also

raised in

the 1

994 W

orking Group.



4.1.5. Skills of Desk staff


UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n23

�To en

sure ad

equate k

nowled

ge o

f field activ

ities, field m

issionsshould be an

essential p

art of all D

esk staff’s

activities. O

IOS fo

und th

at in general trav

el undertak

en was in

sufficien

t, and so

me D

esk staff h

ad never v

isited so

me

of th

e countries u

nder th

eir responsib

ility at all. M

ost D

esk staff ag

reed th

at there sh

ould be a m

inim

um of tw

o field

visits p

er year to

enable th

em to

fully

appreciate sig

nifican

t country

program

mes an

d th

e associated

field co

nstrain

ts.

Not all D

esk staff m

anaged to

achiev

e this b

ear minim

um.

�OIO

S ap

preciates th

at there are so

metim

es conflictin

g prio

ritiesand budgetary

constrain

ts. Noneth

eless, this sh

ould

be an

importan

t functio

n of th

e Desk

that sh

ould not b

e overlo

oked.

�In resp

onse to

OIO

S’questio

nnaire to

field offices, 7

4 per cen

t consid

ered field

visits b

y Desk

staff essential to

understan

d field

operatio

ns.

�Acco

rding to

one F

ield Office, th

e effectiveness an

d ad

ded valu

eof th

e Desk

s was d

irectly related

to field

visits.

Others m

entio

ned th

e usefu

lness o

f visits, esp

ecially in

the p

eriod of th

e Country

Operatio

ns P

lan (C

OP) p

reparatio

n.

In particu

lar, the p

ractice of th

e Afghanistan

Desk

to organize w

orking groups w

ith th

e differen

t stakeholders to

prep

are the C

OP an

d to

provide sy

stematic feed

back

thereafter can

be h

ighlig

hted

as a valu

able o

ne.




4.1.4. Skills of Desk staff – –

Field missions

Field missions

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n24

�The p

ositio

n of th

e Senior L

egal A

dvisers v

aries from Bureau

to Bureau

:

�In th

e Bureau

for A

sia and Pacific, th

ey fo

rm part o

f the D

esk,

�In th

e Europe B

ureau

, they are in

tegrated

in a sep

arate Policy

Unit, an

d

�In th

e Africa an

d CASWANAME Bureau

x, th

ey are in

a separate L

egal A

dvice U

nit.

�In OIO

S’opinion, each

of th

ese structu

res have th

eir own ad

vantag

es. Senior L

egal A

dvisers assig

ned to

the D

esk

develo

p stro

ng operatio

ns k

nowled

ge an

d benefit fro

m clo

se coordinatio

n with

the D

esk Officers. S

eparate L

egal

Units allo

w Senior L

egal A

dvisers to

closely

interact w

ith co

lleagues (d

irect legal feed

back

) and provide clearer

reportin

g lin

es. They guaran

tee consisten

cy of p

olicies th

roughout th

e region an

d co

mplem

entary

expertise p

rovided

by sev

eral Senior L

egal A

dvisers.

�The p

ositio

n of th

e Legal A

dviser h

owever n

eeds fu

rther clarificatio

n. D

esk Officers seek

the in

put o

f Legal A

dvisers

only when th

ey co

nsid

er it necessary

, whereas th

e Legal A

dvisers, in

order to

do th

eir job properly

, should be

involved in

, or at least h

ave an

overall v

iew of all th

e issues th

at may have leg

al implicatio

ns.

�Legal A

dvisers w

ere not alw

ays co

nsulted

on th

e COP, w

hich

is contrary

to IO

M/FOM/020/2004 on Param

eters and

Proced

ures fo

r review

of 2

005 Country

Operatio

ns P

lans an

d Head

quarters P

lans, w

hich

prev

ents a co

nsisten

t

Protectio

n an

d Operatio

ns ap

proach

.

�Some co

ncern

s were also

raised as to

the su

perv

ision of th

e Legal A

dvisers b

y th

e Directo

r of th

e Bureau

, consid

ering

the latter’s n

on-leg

al back

ground th

at does n

ot alw

ays allo

w fo

r proper ev

aluatio

n of leg

al perfo

rmance. A

second

reportin

g lin

e is created de fa

ctoas th

e Legal A

dviser o

btain

s the n

ecessary leg

al guidance fro

m th

e Departm

ent o

f

Intern

ational P

rotectio

n (D

IP).



4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser

4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser visvisa a visvisthe Desks

the Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n25

�Another co

ncern

rests with

the o

verlap

of th

e functio

n of th

e Legal A

dvisers in

the B

ureau

x an

d th

at of th

e Protectio

n

Operatio

ns S

upport S

ection (P

OS). F

ollo

wing UNHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

, both are resp

onsib

le for p

roviding ad

vice

and su

pport to

field operatio

ns an

d m

ainstream

ing policies an

d stan

dard

s. As b

oth have a g

eograp

hical resp

onsib

ility,

the risk

of d

uplicatio

n of w

ork is h

igh. L

egal/P

rotectio

n Officers in

the B

ureau

x co

nfirm

ed th

at their term

s of

reference co

incid

e with

those o

f POS. F

rom th

is persp

ective, O

IOS is in

accord with

the B

oard

of A

udito

rs’

recommendatio

n th

at “UNHCR rev

iew th

e terms o

f reference an

d proced

ures o

f the P

rotectio

n Operatio

ns S

upport

Sectio

n, w

ith a v

iew to

streamlin

e and optim

ise the relatio

ns w

ith th

e Bureau

x an

d th

e support p

rovided to

protectio

n

field operatio

ns”. U

NHCR ag

reed, w

ithin its 2

005 restru

cturin

g effo

rt, to rev

iew th

e terms o

f reference an

d

proced

ures o

f the P

OS.



4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser

4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser visvisa a visvisthe Desks

the Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n26

Recommendation 1:

The U

NHCR Departm

ent o

f Operatio

ns, in

order to

streamlin

e and ratio

nalize th

e Desk

s’stru

cture an

d its reso

urces, sh

ould

develo

p a stan

dard

Desk

structu

re for ‘stab

le state’operatio

ns, th

rough:

�Review

ing th

e functio

ns an

d jo

b descrip

tions o

f the D

esks w

ith reg

ard to

their co

heren

ce and relev

ance, an

d elim

inate th

e duplicatio

n of fu

nctio

ns b

etween

a Head

of D

esk an

d a S

enior D

esk Officer;

�Estab

lishing guidelin

es for th

e staffing reso

urces allo

cated to

each Desk

, taking in

to acco

unt rep

resentativ

e workload

indicato

rs (such as n

umber o

f countries, n

umber o

f Field

Offices, n

umber o

f perso

ns o

f concern

, budget allo

cations,

number o

f Letters o

f Instru

ction, number o

f Head

quarters p

osts an

d ratio

of estim

ated staff co

sts on to

tal budget) an

d

consid

ering each

Desk

’s resources alo

ng th

ese guidelin

es;

�Clarify

ing th

e role an

d rep

ortin

g lin

es of S

enior L

egal A

dvisers

(Rec. 0

1).

Recommendation 2:

The U

NHCR Departm

ent o

f Operatio

ns sh

ould determ

ine criteria fo

restab

lishing Special U

nits o

r Emerg

ency Desk

s, and

develo

p stan

dard

s related to

the actu

al workload fo

r the allo

cation of h

uman reso

urces an

d ex

pertise (su

pply m

anagem

ent,

administratio

n an

d teleco

mmunicatio

ns) if it is d

etermined th

at such ex

pertise is b

etter placed

in th

e Desk

rather th

an rem

aining

with

in th

e functio

nal U

nits at H

eadquarters (R

ec. 02).

Recommendation 3:

The U

NHCR Departm

ent o

f Operatio

ns in

cooperatio

n with

the D

ivisio

n of H

uman Reso

urces M

anagem

ent (S

taff Develo

pment

Sectio

n) sh

ould develo

p stan

dard

orien

tation train

ing program

mes fo

r new

Head

s of D

esk an

d (S

enior) D

esk Officers w

ith a v

iew

to en

hance th

e perfo

rmance o

f the D

esks. It sh

ould in

clude th

e functio

ns o

f Units at H

eadquarters, th

e processes in

volving th

e Desk

s, their resp

onsib

ilities, as well as th

e Desk

s’functio

ns, p

rogram

ming sy

stems an

d proced

ures fro

m a H

eadquarters

persp

ective.T

he train

ing co

uld be m

odule-b

ased with

staff selecting to

pics w

here th

ey need

to en

hance th

eir knowled

ge (R

ec. 03).

In resp

onse to

the d

raft rep

ort, U

NHCR sta

ted th

at w

ith a clea

r job descrip

tion and keep

ing in

mind how universa

l Desk O

fficers’kn

owled

ge a

nd skills h

ave to

be, D

esk Officers sh

ould be a

ble to

enhance th

eir knowled

ge in

the a

reas w

here th

ey need

it with

the

variety o

f learn

ing pro

gra

mmes

alrea

dy existin

g. O

IOS believ

es however th

at consisten

t and co

mpreh

ensiv

e trainingis n

ot

always b

est achiev

ed by rely

ing on in

dividual ju

dgment.



4.1.7. Recommendations


UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n27

4.2. Roles and responsibilitie

s

4.2. Roles and responsibilitie

s

of th

e Desks

of th

e Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n28

�OIO

S co

uld not fin

d a clear an

d co

nsisten

t descrip

tion of th

e functio

ns an

d ro

le of th

e Desk

other th

an th

at already

referred to

in th

e UNHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

(which

was v

ery lim

ited), an

d in

Desk

staff’s job descrip

tions.

�The 1

994 rev

iew co

nclu

ded th

at the D

esk was co

nfro

nted

with

“unclear d

elineatio

n of resp

onsib

ilities, […] d

iffering

and co

nflictin

g in

terpretatio

n of th

e role o

f the D

esk […

], confusio

n over th

e exten

t to which

the D

esk or B

ureau

should tak

e on fu

nctio

nal ro

les […], an

d disag

reement o

ver th

e exten

t of D

esk in

volvem

ent […

]”;

�The 1

999 rev

iew called

for a clarificatio

n of th

e future ro

les of th

e Desk

. Appropriate actio

n was n

ot tak

en, an

d in

OIO

S’opinion th

e roles an

d resp

onsib

ilities have still to

be clarified

.

�In try

ing to

assess the cu

rrent situ

ation, O

IOS rev

iewed all av

ailable relev

ant d

ocumentatio

n, m

anuals an

d

instru

ctions, an

d so

licited th

e view

s of th

e Desk

s and th

e Field

on th

e roles o

f the D

esk.

�Build

ing upon:

�Conclu

sions o

f the 1

994 W

orking Group;

�Findings o

f the 1

999 rev

iew; an

d

�Curren

t job descrip

tions o

f Desk

positio

ns;

�OIO

S id

entified

the fo

llowing m

ain fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esk fo

r furth

er analy

sis:

�Strateg

y;

�Support;

�Donor relatio

ns;

�Reportin

g; an

d

�Program

me-related

activities (p

lanning, program

ming, im

plem

entin

g an

d m

onito

ring)

4.2. Role and responsibilitie

s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n29


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

Integ

rated overv

iew

of all asp

ects of U

NHCR

operatio

ns in

one g

eograp

hical area

Represen

tation of U

NHCR

concern

s for th

e country

/

sub reg

ion in

ternally

Represen

tation of U

NHCR

concern

s for th

e country

/

sub reg

ion ex

ternally

Institu

tional m

emory an

d co

ntin

uity

at HQ fo

r political an

d protectio

n

related issu

es and durab

le solutio

n

achiev

ements,

complem

entary

to th

e Field

Functio

nal ro

le in m

onito

ring,

contro

lling an

d other task

s

Assistan

ce in th

e form

ulatio

n

of p

olicies an

d operatio

nal strateg

ies

for th

e region

Dissem

inatio

n of in

form

ation

Coordinatio

n, liaiso

n

and ad

vocacy

role at H

Q

Legal ad

vice an

d protectio

n

Tech

nical/P

rogram

me

Managem

ent issu

es

Emerg

encies

1994 Working Group

1999 Review

Strateg

y

Support, D

onor relatio

ns, R

eportin

g

Program

meactiv

ities

Serv

e as focal p

oint

Analy

seinform

ation, rep

orts

to ad

dress n

eeds

Ensure o

bjectiv

es, workplan

s,

project d

escriptio

ns reflect th

e

prio

rities/strategy an

d guaran

tee

best u

se of reso

urces

Promote co

ordinatio

n,

communicatio

n an

d

sharin

g of b

est practices

Estab

lish an

d m

aintain

contact

with

Missio

ns, N

GOs, U

N Agencies

Make su

re advice/g

uidance is

provided to

address o

peratio

nal/

legal g

aps

Ensure F

ield offices p

rovide

inform

ation an

d dissem

inate

intern

ally an

d ex

ternally

Coordinate th

e prep

aration of th

e

Desk

’s submissio

n to

Pre-O

RB/ORB

Exam

ine field

requests (b

udget,

requirem

ents, staffin

g)

and ex

pedite th

rough reso

urce

managem

ent m

echanism

s

Monito

r implem

entatio

n

Prep

are special ap

peals, u

pdates,

Reports, b

riefing notes

2004 Job Descrip

tions

SLA

ESS

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n30

�Some o

f the fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esks, as id

entified

in 1994 an

d 1999, h

ave b

een rep

ositio

ned in

the B

ureau

(rather th

an

the D

esk). F

or ex

ample in

accordance w

ith UNHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

:

�In term

s of p

olicy

develo

pment an

d research

, “the B

ureau

Directo

r takes th

e lead ro

le for h

is/her reg

ion as a

whole in

accordance w

ith th

e HC, D

HC an

d AHC, th

e Represen

tatives/C

hiefs an

d su

pport serv

ices at Head

quarters […

]”.

�SRMsare

responsib

le for assistin

g th

e Directo

rs of th

e Bureau

x“in

strategic an

d operatio

ns p

lanning,

coordinate p

rogram

ming, an

d su

pport o

ffices in th

e Field

in m

onito

ring an

d reallo

cating reso

urces in

response

to new

develo

pments an

d ch

anging circu

mstan

ces”.

�Legal ad

vice

is in th

e purview

of th

e Senior L

egal A

dviso

r, and only under th

e Desk

’s responsib

ility in

the

Bureau

for A

sia and Pacific.

�“In

conjunctio

n with

the S

enior R

esource M

anagers, th

e Desk

s in each

Bureau

are also in

volved in

operatio

nal

strategic p

lanning, political an

alysis, d

isseminatio

n of in

form

ation an

d co

ordinatio

n, an

d program

me su

pport

functio

ns in

cluding m

onito

ring, staffin

g, fin

ance, p

rocurem

ent an

d ad

ministratio

n.”

�OIO

S fo

und th

at Desk

staff are sometim

es focal p

oints fo

r the d

evelo

pments o

f one o

r several in

itiatives o

r projects

(Intern

ally Disp

laced Populatio

ns, G

ender an

d Age, F

undraisin

g).This m

eans th

at they have to

attend related

meetin

gs, d

isseminate th

e inform

ation in

the B

ureau

and ad

vise th

e Field

and others in

the D

esk/Bureau

on th

e topic.

They also

have th

e responsib

ility to

relay all in

itiatives to

the F

ield to

ensure th

eir proper im

plem

entatio

n.

�Most o

f the D

esk staff in

terview

ed ad

mitted

that d

ue to

their su

pport fu

nctio

ns, in

form

ation overlo

ad an

d daily

‘em

ergencies’

there w

as not m

uch tim

e left for strateg

ic plan

ning an

d directio

n. T

he 1

994 rev

iew co

nfirm

ed th

is and

reported

in th

is regard

that “so

me fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esks w

ere neglected

, nam

ely co

ntin

gency an

d fo

rward

plan

ning

and fo

rmulatio

n of strateg

ies at the su

b-reg

ional an

d reg

ional lev

els”.

�Also

a strong statem

ent w

as put fo

rward

whereb

y th

e Desk

s resented

the scatterin

g of reso

urces am

ong so

many

initiativ

es.


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.1. Strategy

4.2.1. Strategy

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n31

�Consid

ering th

e number o

f initiativ

es, in OIO

S’view

the m

ultip

licity of p

riorities resu

lts in ad

ditio

nal w

orkload,

which

can distract th

e Desk

s from th

eir core su

pport fu

nctio

ns. D

esk staff in

dicated

that th

eir involvem

ent in

such

activities w

as time-co

nsuming an

d in

ferred th

at it was n

ot alw

ays clear w

hat th

eir responsib

ilities were, n

or d

id th

ey

always h

ave th

e expertise o

r resources to

assist field operatio

ns in

these m

atters.

�Noneth

eless, Desk

staff are in m

any cases in

an opportu

ne p

ositio

n as th

ey have a u

nique ‘b

ird’s ey

e’view

of co

untry

operatio

ns w

ithin a certain

region. D

esks, th

erefore, can

add valu

e if they provide p

roper an

alysis o

f what is

implem

ented

in neig

hbourin

gcountries an

d assist in

exchanging best p

ractices. This co

uld ach

ieve m

ore sy

nerg

y an

d

consisten

cy in

the su

b-reg

ion. S

taff in th

e field co

nfirm

ed th

ey would welco

me su

ch an

approach

.

�In OIO

S’view

the in

volvem

ent o

f Desk

staff in strateg

y need

s to be fu

rther clarified

to en

sure a co

heren

t approach

and a b

etter understan

ding of w

hat th

eir roles an

d resp

onsib

ilities are in th

is area.


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.1. Strategy

4.2.1. Strategy

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n32

�The m

ajority

of H

eads o

f Desk

interv

iewed saw

their m

ain ro

le asone o

f support. T

he 2

005 EPAU Referen

ce Group

on th

e Desk

conclu

ded th

at the o

rientatio

n an

d fo

cus o

f the D

esks w

as toward

s the F

ield, m

eaning th

at there w

as little,

if any, ro

om fo

r the D

esk fu

nctio

n to

service H

eadquarters.

�Replies to

OIO

S’questio

nnaire co

nfirm

ed th

is understan

ding, an

d field

offices h

ighlig

hted

the co

ordinatin

g an

d

liaising fu

nctio

n of th

e Desk

s as the m

ain one (7

2 per cen

t), essentially

relating to

budget an

d reso

urces (6

1 per cen

t).

They reg

retted th

e lack of sy

stematic feed

back

and practical ad

vice (6

7 per cen

t) and would welco

me m

ore su

pport in

the areas o

f operatio

ns an

d program

mes (6

8 per cen

t), protectio

n(47 per cen

t) and policy

or g

lobal in

itiatives (4

2 per

cent).

�The U

NHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

identifies th

e prim

ary ro

le of th

e Bureau

Directo

rs as “advisin

g an

d assistin

g th

e

High Commissio

ner an

d Assistan

t High Commissio

ner in

the fo

rmulatio

n of p

olicy

and directin

g th

eir develo

pment

and promulgatio

n”. O

n th

e prim

ary ro

le of th

e Desk

s, the M

anual is n

ot clear. T

heim

pressio

n was w

idely

shared

among Desk

staff that th

eir focus w

as progressiv

ely sh

ifting to

“feed-in

the H

eadquarters’

mach

inery

”rath

er than

truly su

pportin

g th

e Field

.

�OIO

S fo

und it d

ifficult to

measu

re the effectiv

eness o

f the D

esks’role in

their su

pport fu

nctio

n, as m

ost o

f it was

provided via E

-mail. A

lthough th

is meth

od of co

mmunicatio

n is v

ery efficien

t and practical, in

dicato

rs of th

e Desk

s’

support fu

nctio

n perfo

rmance are ‘h

idden’and hence n

ot easily

measu

rable.

�OIO

S id

entified

that E

-mail w

as beco

ming a p

roblem

for D

esks, p

articularly

those su

pportin

g an

emerg

ency

operatio

n. T

here is in

form

ation overlo

ad, an

d it w

as mentio

ned th

at in so

me cases read

ing an

d an

swerin

g E-m

ails was

a full-tim

e job. C

onsid

ering th

e volume o

f inform

ation, so

me sy

stem need

s to be in

troduced

to en

able D

esk staff to

prio

ritise requests an

d work co

mmitm

ents.


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.2. Support

4.2.2. Support

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n33

Donor relatio

ns

�The ex

tent o

f the D

esks’involvem

ent in

fundraisin

g activ

ities and donor relatio

ns is m

ainly left to

the D

esks’

discretio

n. S

ome staff stated

to be h

eavily

involved (D

esk 2 fo

rthe A

mericas); so

me in

dicated

their p

articipatio

n in

donor m

eetings, in

cluding acco

mpanying DER on m

ission an

d one D

esk m

entio

ned th

at they were h

eavily

involved

from a m

arketin

g asp

ect and had to

‘sell’their o

peratio

ns to

donors. O

thers rely

entirely

on DER, an

d ju

st provided

the n

ecessary raw

inform

ation as in

put.

�OIO

S noted

that in

all cases Desk

s were ex

pected

to provide a

d hoc in

form

ation as an

d when req

uired

for d

onor

related purposes. H

owever, as u

p-to

-date in

form

ation was n

ot alw

ays at h

and, su

ch req

uests w

ere norm

ally re-d

irected

to th

e Field

.

�The E

PAU Referen

ce Group co

nfirm

ed th

at, although staff at H

eadquarters receiv

ed m

any pertin

ent rep

orts o

n field

activities su

ch as th

e Situ

ation Reports (S

itReps), it w

as not alw

ays easy

to fin

d th

e inform

ation th

ey req

uired

and

they often

had to

revert to

the F

ield fo

r up-to

-date in

form

ation. T

his w

as seen as a d

rain on both th

e Desk

s’and Field

staff resources.


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.3. Donor re

lations

4.2.3. Donor re

lations

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n34

�All D

esks m

entio

ned th

e increasin

gly

overw

helm

ing rep

ortin

g task

s, both stan

dard

and ad

hoc. In

this reg

ard, th

e Field

and th

e Desk

s’opinion

concur. T

he rep

ortin

g resp

onsib

ility rests m

ainly

with

the F

ield.

�Reportin

g req

uirem

ents w

ere found to

be v

ery

dem

anding -

OIO

S th

erefore d

ecided to

furth

er

analy

sethe 2

004 stan

dard

reportin

greq

uirem

ents.

�It w

as establish

ed th

at there w

ere 17 rep

orts, w

hich

need

ed to

be su

bmitted

, most o

f them

due in

Septem

ber, w

ith at least o

ne sp

ecific reportin

g

requirem

ent each

month. It is ap

preciated

, however,

that th

eir complex

ity varies an

d th

at they are n

ot

always d

ealt with

by th

e same p

erson.

�The g

raph does n

ot tak

e into acco

unt th

e ad-hoc

reports req

uested

, for w

hich

Desk

s either h

ave to

draft o

r significan

tly co

ntrib

ute to

.

�OIO

S noted

that a recen

t inventory of rep

orts w

as

made, w

hich

inclu

ded all in

ternal rep

orts to

UNHCR, m

entio

ns sp

ecific donor su

bmissio

ns an

d

reports, in

put fo

r reports to

the G

eneral A

ssembly,

Notes fo

r the F

ile or A

udit rep

lies.

�OIO

S has b

een m

ade aw

are that a w

orking group

has b

een estab

lished to

review

UNHCR’srep

ortin

g

requirem

ents an

d id

entify

those w

ho ad

d valu

e.


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.4. Reportin

g4.2.4. Reportin

g

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

8/3: re

ceive country

chapter of 2003 Global

reportfor re

view and

transmission on 15/3

26/3: re

ceive country

operations plansfor

2005 for re

view and

consolidation up to 19/4

20/6: re

ceive final

country operations

plansfor 2005

25/6: draft in

put fo

r 2005

Annual Programme

Budget

1/9: re

ceive draft c

ountry

chapter fo

r 2005 Global

Appealfor re

view,

editing and tra

nsmission

on 8/9

Sept-15/10: clearance of

field drafts for 2005 plans in

Consolidated Appeal

Process

29/2: copy of 2003

Annual Protection

Reports -prior lia

ison

with the Desk

29/2: re

ceive 2003

country report fo

r

review, consolidation of

views and fin

alization

18/8: re

ceive Annual

Programme Interim

Reportand identify

where follow-up action is

needed

27/8: submit to

Budget

proposed revised

allocations based on

Annual Programme

Interim

Report13-24/9: consultation on

budgetary tra

nsfers

between appropriations,

submission of fin

al ta

bles

and results

26/4-7/5: Pre ORB meetings

31/1: copy of 2003 Annual

Statistical Reports and

Resettlement statistics Report

5/11: re

ceive Detailed

Project Submissionsfor

2005 for issuance of ABOD

LOIs

31

29826

26720

25

18

27

24

13

155

End

198 1

Quarterly Statistical

Reports and

Resettlement Statistics

Reports


Reports and


Reports


Reports and


Reports

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

8/3: re

ceive country

chapter of 2003 Global

reportfor re

view and

transmission on 15/3

26/3: re

ceive country

operations plansfor

2005 for re

view and

consolidation up to 19/4

20/6: re

ceive final

country operations

plansfor 2005

25/6: draft in

put fo

r 2005

Annual Programme

Budget

1/9: re

ceive draft c

ountry

chapter fo

r 2005 Global

Appealfor re

view,

editing and tra

nsmission

on 8/9

Sept-15/10: clearance of

field drafts for 2005 plans in

Consolidated Appeal

Process

29/2: copy of 2003

Annual Protection

Reports -prior lia

ison

with the Desk

29/2: re

ceive 2003

country report fo

r

review, consolidation of

views and fin

alization

18/8: re

ceive Annual

Programme Interim

Reportand identify

where follow-up action is

needed

27/8: submit to

Budget

proposed revised

allocations based on

Annual Programme

Interim

Report13-24/9: consultation on

budgetary tra

nsfers

between appropriations,

submission of fin

al ta

bles

and results

26/4-7/5: Pre ORB meetings







5/11: re

ceive Detailed

Project Submissionsfor

2005 for issuance of ABOD

LOIs

31

29826

26720

25

18

27

24

13

155

End

198 1


Reports and


Reports


Reports and


Reports


Reports and


Reports

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n35

�The resp

onsib

ility fo

r the an

nual rep

ortin

g req

uirem

ents as listed

in th

e prev

ious p

age m

ainly lies w

ith th

e Field

. It is notew

orth

y to

mentio

n th

at the rep

ortin

g req

uirem

ents are sim

ilar for all D

esks an

d all F

ield Offices, irresp

ective o

f size, staffin

g lev

els, perso

ns o

f concern

, budget an

d/or d

ynam

ics in th

e field. T

he D

esks’input o

n th

e reports b

y th

e field

was p

erceived as lim

ited (6

7 per cen

t of th

e respondents).

�The E

PAU Referen

ce Group highlig

hted

that D

esks staff d

id not ag

ree on what th

eir responsib

ilities with

regard

to

reportin

g were. S

ome in

dicated

that co

nsid

erable tim

e was sp

ent in

editin

g an

d clarify

ing issu

es documented

in th

e rep

ort fo

r which

the F

ield sh

ould be resp

onsib

le, others w

elcomed th

e review

process an

d perceiv

ed it as o

ne o

f their

valu

able co

ntrib

utio

ns to

Field

activities.

�There w

as an overall feelin

g by Field

staff, and to

a lesser exten

t by Desk

staff, as to th

e relevance o

f some o

f the

reports. A

n ex

ample is th

e Sitrep

, which

is submitted

monthly, w

eekly or b

i-week

ly, d

epending on th

e emerg

ency

status o

f the F

ield. It w

as stated th

at the S

itrepswere h

ardly ev

er read, let alo

ne co

mmented

on.

�Though th

e focus o

f the v

arious rep

orts an

d th

eir audien

ce seem to

differ, it b

ecame clear d

urin

g th

e interv

iews w

ith

staff that m

any rep

ortin

g req

uirem

ents are d

ealt with

in a 'co

py-cu

t-paste' w

ay due to

the h

eavy dem

ands.

�Though certain

reports serv

e a clear and sp

ecific purpose (e.g

. Annual S

tatistical report, A

nnual P

rotectio

n Report),

importan

t issues co

uld be o

verlo

oked becau

se the D

esks lack

ed an

overall p

icture reg

arding th

e differen

t issues

discu

ssed in

the v

arious rep

orts.

�On th

e other h

and, th

e more g

eneral rep

orts (e.g

. Country

Operatio

ns P

lan (C

OP), G

lobal A

ppeal) o

ften lack

the d

etail and fo

cus o

f the sp

ecific ones. It h

as thus b

een su

ggested

that,

rather th

an having sev

eral reports reg

arding differen

t topics an

d m

ore g

eneral rep

orts co

verin

g general issu

es, there sh

ould be o

ne co

nsolid

ated rep

ort, th

at integ

rates all those issu

es of in

terest, so th

at poten

tial weak

nesses, n

eeds an

d co

nflicts can

be m

ore easily

identified

.

�The Jo

int In

spectio

n Unit su

ggested

in its R

eview

of th

e Managem

ent an

d Administratio

n of U

NHCR th

at “the

Execu

tive C

ommittee […

] consid

er modify

ing th

e budget cy

cle from an

nual to

bien

nial”

to elim

inate in

termediary

step

s of th

e program

ming process an

d brin

g atten

tion to

longer-term

goals. If im

plem

ented

, such a ch

ange sh

ould be

used

to allev

iate some o

f the p

rogram

ming an

d rep

ortin

g req

uirem

ents o

f stable o

peratio

ns an

d lo

ng-term

strategy

operatio

ns, an

d to

simplify

the C

ountry

Operatio

ns P

lan process an

alysed

belo

w.


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.4. Reportin

g4.2.4. Reportin

g

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n36

�An essen

tial functio

n of th

e Desk

s is their in

volvem

ent in

the an

nual

plan

ning process (related

to th

e COP prep

aration an

d pre-O

RB

process). O

IOS rev

iewed th

ese processes to

identify

variatio

ns in

the

implem

entatio

n of ap

plicab

le rules an

d in

structio

ns an

d documented

differen

ces betw

een th

e Desk

s selected as o

ur sam

ple.

�OIO

S’analy

sis determ

ined th

at the D

esks co

uld gain

in effectiv

eness

and efficien

cy if:

�Built-in

MSRP co

ntro

ls allowed fo

r alleviatin

g so

me o

f the

specific co

ntro

ls seen th

roughout th

e Spending Authority

and

LOI p

rocesses. A

s an illu

stration, th

ere are four lay

ers of

contro

ls perfo

rmed by Budget in

the L

OI p

rocess (h

ighlig

hted

in th

is chart), ev

en th

ough th

e project’s b

udget in

itially lo

aded

cannot b

e overrid

enby th

e Desk

s.

�Desk

s were n

ot in

volved in

every

step of th

e program

ming an

d

implem

entin

g processes, b

ut o

nly in

a few essen

tial steps

where th

ey can

contrib

ute su

bstan

tially to

that p

rocess, an

dwhere ad

ded-valu

e is evident.

�The re-d

irection of D

esks’effo

rts away fro

m th

e detailed

annual

plan

ning ex

ercise would sav

etim

e and allo

w th

em to

re-focus o

n

other issu

es such as strateg

y an

d policy

. This w

ould m

eet the F

ield’s

expectatio

ns (4

2 per cen

t of th

e field resp

ondents w

ould welco

me

more su

pport o

n policy

and/or g

lobal issu

es).

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

Pled

ging

conferen

ce

Draft L

OI

Project d

escr.

Project b

udget

Workplan

Actio

n sh

eet

Final L

OI

Signatu

re

MSRP

Spending

Authorizatio

n

Mem

oCreate

Spending au

th.

Journal

Budget p

osts

Prep

are LOI

Cover p

ages

and prin

t

Review

and prin

ts final

2 pages

Change B

udget

To C

urren

tin

FOBS

Project

submission

Prin

ts other

documents

Desk

Budget

Bureau

Approval

andload

Pled

ging

conferen

ce

Draft L

OI

Project d

escr.

Project b

udget

Workplan

Actio

n sh

eet

Final L

OI

Signatu

re

MSRP

Spending

Authorizatio

n

Mem

oCreate

Spending au

th.

Journal

Budget p

osts

Prep

are LOI

Cover p

ages

and prin

t

Review

and prin

ts final

2 pages

Change B

udget

To C

urren

tin

FOBS

Project

submission

Prin

ts other

documents

Desk

Budget

Bureau

Approval

andload

1

2

3

4

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n37

Plan

ning an

d program

ming

�OIO

S was u

nable to

quantify

the ad

ded-valu

e of th

e Desk

or o

f the v

arious H

eadquarter U

nits, reg

ardingthe C

OP an

d

Project S

ubmissio

ns, as in

termediate v

ersions o

f documents in

itially drafted

or co

mpleted

by th

e field were seld

om filed

and m

aintain

ed by th

e Desk

.

�Vario

us in

puts an

d reaso

ns b

ehind m

ajor ch

anges to

the p

lanning documents an

d/or m

anagem

ent d

ecisions to

make

changes w

ere not alw

ays p

roperly

documented

or sh

ared with

fieldoffices.

�The B

ureau

for A

frica initiated

a COP Review

Committee co

mprisin

g th

e two Deputy Directo

rs and th

e Senior

Reso

urce M

anager to

assess the q

uality

and provide in

put fo

r improvem

ent an

d en

hancem

ent o

f the su

bmissio

ns w

ith

the D

esk. T

he C

ommittee tak

es system

atic minutes, th

at are shared

with

all Desk

s. This p

ractice could be em

ulated

by

other B

ureau

x, as it k

eeps a reco

rd of w

hat ch

anges are n

ecessary an

d co

uld be u

sed as lesso

ns learn

ed fo

r future

submissio

ns.

�Consid

erable effo

rts are made to

prep

are the an

nual C

OP, but o

nce co

mpleted

, OIO

S was in

form

ed it w

as rarely used

as

a reference d

ocument, o

r as a baselin

e again

st which

levels o

f achiev

ements co

uld be m

easured

.

�In resp

onse to

the d

raft rep

ort, U

NHCR m

entio

ned

that every yea

r a co

mpreh

ensive

pro

gra

mmereview

takes p

lace a

t

Hea

dquarters. T

his yea

r, the resp

onsib

ility of review

ing and va

lidatin

g field

submissio

ns w

as p

assed

over to

the B

urea

u,

with

emphasis o

n Burea

u-field

intera

ction fo

r finalisin

gsu

bmissio

ns a

nd brin

ging th

em in

line w

ith global o

bjectives

and para

meters. A

lso, th

e COP pro

cess has b

een revised

for th

e 2006 su

bmissio

n and now co

ntains b

aselin

e, objectives,

targ

ets and budgets p

er sector th

at w

ill serve as m

onito

ring andrep

ortin

g to

ols.

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n38

Contro

ls and M

SRP

�The effect o

f MSRP on th

e role o

f the D

esks w

ill not b

e fully

compreh

ended until it is ro

lled-out to

the field

and

effectively

working in

that en

viro

nment. H

owever, ev

en at th

is early stag

e OIO

S noted

a few areas w

here p

roced

ures

and co

ntro

ls could be stream

lined.

�The B

udget S

ection is resp

onsib

le for en

tering th

e ORB budget in

MSRP an

d also

responsib

le for m

aking budgetary

changes to

the in

itial budget o

nce th

e COP is ap

proved, as w

ell as for th

e spending au

thority

levels. T

he B

udget

Sectio

n also

clears project b

udgets, o

nce u

ploaded by th

e Program

meAssistan

t, and co

nsolid

ated oblig

ation plan

s fro

m th

e Field

, befo

re the L

OIsand th

e amendments to

them

are issued. T

his is d

one fo

llowing clearan

ce by eith

er the H

ead of D

esk or th

e (Senior) D

esk Officer an

d th

e Senior R

esource M

anager.

�MSRP in

troduced

an ad

ditio

nal co

ntro

l: it rejects input o

r transactio

ns th

at differ fro

m budgets o

r data alread

y in

the

system

(e.g. n

ame o

f Implem

entin

g Partn

ers). Only th

e Budget an

dFinance S

ections can

enter th

e system

to overrid

e or am

end su

ch data.

�In OIO

S’view

, as MSRP offers stro

nger in

ternal co

ntro

ls, this sh

ould lead

to in

creased deleg

ation in

the

program

ming process.

�Overall, O

IOS is o

f the o

pinion th

at, in th

e change p

rocess asso

ciated with

MSRP, U

NHCR still n

eeds to

:

�Carefu

lly stu

dy th

e impact o

f MSRP on th

e processes an

d use its fu

ll poten

tial to sim

plify

proced

ures an

d

effectively

deleg

ate decisio

ns to

the B

ureau

, and th

e Field

; and

�Develo

p M

SRP in

view

of th

e specific req

uirem

ents o

f the D

esks in

the areas o

f project im

plem

entatio

n an

d

monito

ring, in

line w

ith th

e integ

rated natu

re of th

e ERP (E

nterp

rise Reso

urce P

lanning so

ftware).

�These step

s, wheth

er undertak

en now or after th

e roll-o

ut o

f MSRP to

the F

ield, fall in

to a m

edium-term

project fram

e that O

IOS will k

eep under rev

iew.

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n39

Project files

�Acco

rding to

the U

NHCR M

anual, C

hapter 4

, Sectio

n 7, “p

roject m

anagers (u

sually

Desk

s/Sectio

ns) at H

eadquarters

will m

aintain

their o

wn project file in

order to

monito

r and co

ntro

l the lev

el of ex

penditu

re again

st the ap

proved budget,

and to

ensure th

at the lev

el of ex

penditu

re does n

ot ex

ceed th

e authorized

oblig

ation lev

el. The p

roject file sh

ould

contain

copies o

f the relev

ant rep

orts receiv

ed fro

m th

e Field

Office”

�The p

roject reco

rds m

aintain

ed by th

e Desk

s were n

ot sy

stematically

the sam

e and in

many cases ap

peared

to be

incomplete o

r did not sy

stematically

main

tain what O

IOS saw

as key in

form

ation fo

r the m

onito

ring of p

rojects (e.g

.

SPMRs, b

udget v

ariance an

alysis, au

dit certificates). T

he ty

pe an

d quality

of th

e documentatio

n on file v

aried

significan

tly fro

m one D

esk to

another, fro

m scarce, to

general (S

PMRs) o

r specific (fact sh

eets and co

mmunicatio

n to

donors, m

inutes o

f the C

ommittee o

n Contracts)

�No m

atter what th

e detail o

f the in

form

ation in

the p

roject files m

aintain

ed by th

e Desk

s, it main

ly co

nsisted

of co

pies o

f

implem

entin

g in

struments.

�A rev

iew of th

e documents as w

ell as discu

ssions w

ith Desk

staffindicated

that th

e lack of in

form

ation av

ailable at th

e

Desk

level d

id not facilitate p

roper m

onito

ring. If p

roject m

onito

ring is d

etermined as o

ne o

f the m

ain fu

nctio

ns o

f the

Desk

, appropriate actio

n is req

uired

to develo

p proced

ures to

ensure p

roject m

onito

ring an

d ev

aluatio

n is effectiv

e.

�In resp

onse to

the d

raft rep

ort, U

NHCR sta

ted th

at th

e LOI d

elegates th

e authority fo

r implem

entatio

n to

the

Rep

resentative, a

nd it is h

im/her w

ho is resp

onsib

le for th

e delivery o

f planned

activities, a

nd effective m

onito

ring ca

n

only ta

ke place in

the field

.

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n40

Procurem

ent

�The D

esks’involvem

ent in

procurem

ent activ

ities is fairly lim

ited, but th

e responsib

ility of th

e Desk

versu

s that o

f the

Supply M

anagem

ent S

ervice (S

MS) is n

ot clear.

�From OIO

S’interv

iews w

ith Desk

Officers an

d Program

meAssistan

ts, procurem

ent ap

peared

to be a seco

ndary

issue,

whereas th

e field staff co

nsid

ered it as an

essential to

pic fo

r the D

esk to

follo

w-up on an

d im

prove.

�The resp

onsib

ility to

follo

w-up on th

e status o

f Head

quarter p

rocurem

ent an

d to

keep

field offices u

pdated

on th

e

progress o

f the p

rocurem

ent p

ipelin

e was n

ot clear. S

ome D

esks d

o keep

field offices in

form

ed th

rough accessin

g

MSRP, others in

dicated

that th

ey th

ought th

is was S

MS' resp

onsib

ility.

�One resp

onsib

ility of th

e Desk

in th

e area of p

rocurem

ent is to

represen

t the field

at the C

ommittee o

n Contracts (C

oC)

meetin

gs.

�In an

intern

al mem

oran

dum, dated

29 Octo

ber 2

004, th

e Contro

llerhad rem

inded th

e Head

s of D

esk of th

eir

responsib

ility to

attend th

e CoCand not to

deleg

ate their resp

onsib

ility.

�In resp

onse so

me actio

n was tak

en by Head

s of D

esk, but it w

as limited

. OIO

S observ

ed fro

m th

e minutes o

f the

CoCfro

m Octo

ber to

Decem

ber 2

004 th

at only tw

o Head

s of D

esk, out o

f the six

Desk

s concern

ed, atten

ded one

Committee m

eeting in

Decem

ber.

�In resp

onse to

the d

raft rep

ort, U

NHCR felt th

at it w

ould have b

een usefu

l to cite

the n

umber o

f Sen

ior D

esk

Officer/D

esk Officers th

at a

ttended

the C

oC. O

IOS ap

preciates th

is comment, b

ut w

ould highlig

ht th

at the

concern

of th

e Contro

ller related to

the w

idesp

read practice o

f Head

s of D

esk to

deleg

ate attendance at th

e CoC to

other staff.

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n41

Monito

ring

�The D

esks h

ave a fu

nctio

n of m

onito

ring an

d oversig

ht th

at is not restricted

to budgetary

and fin

ancial m

onito

ring,

and, alth

ough im

plem

entatio

n is fu

lly deleg

ated to

the F

ield Represen

tatives, th

e Desk

s could m

ore effectiv

ely

follo

w-up on th

e deliv

ery of p

lanned activ

ities. The p

rocess an

alysis sh

owed th

at the D

esks h

ave little in

form

ation to

monito

r activities (as an

exam

ple, th

ey hard

ly ev

er receive th

e narrativ

e part o

f SPMRs).T

he D

esks ag

reed th

at they

could not ad

equately

assess progress o

r project im

plem

entatio

n. It w

as also m

entio

ned th

at the em

phasis at

Head

quarters lies p

urely

with

arbitratio

n of reso

urces’

allocatio

n an

d cash

flow m

anagem

ent, an

d th

at the q

uality

of

implem

entatio

n is n

o lo

nger m

onito

red at th

e Desk

level, b

ut left to

the field

.

�The fin

ancial m

onito

ring by th

e Desk

sraises q

uestio

ns as w

ell. The D

esks are n

ot th

e recipien

t of th

e Field

Monthly

Acco

unts, w

hich

are sent d

irectly by Field

Offices to

Finance. T

his co

mplete d

ichotomy of b

udget an

d ex

penditu

re

monito

ring im

pairs an

alysis an

d co

ntro

l of th

e inputs an

d outputs o

f program

mes. It is also

importan

t to ad

d th

at, with

the ro

llout o

f MSRP, th

e 2004 ex

penditu

re reports b

ecame o

nly av

ailable in

Septem

ber o

f the sam

e year.

�It is also

notew

orth

y th

at Special U

nits are m

ore an

d m

ore in

volved in

single b

eneficiary

situatio

ns co

verin

g sev

eral

countries (A

fghanistan

, Iraq) w

hile th

e financial rep

ortin

g co

ntin

ues to

be d

one at th

e country

level. T

he A

fghanistan

Desk

intro

duced

monthly situ

ation rep

orts, co

nsolid

ating sev

eralcountries’

expenditu

re manually

. Such a stan

dard

report h

as only now been

develo

ped in

MSRP.

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n42

Closure o

f projects

�MSRP lack

s the fu

nctio

nality

to facilitate p

roject clo

sure an

d to

track in

form

ation on Sub-Project A

greem

ents,

inclu

ding am

endments (S

upplem

entary

Agreem

ents), statu

s reports an

d au

dit certificatio

ns. T

o work aro

und th

is

problem

, some D

esks h

ave d

evelo

ped ad hocsystem

s (Excel) to

ensure th

at inform

ation on su

b-projects is k

ept u

p-to

-

date. A

lso, to

fill the g

ap, th

e Divisio

n of In

form

ation Serv

ices and Teleco

mmunicatio

ns (D

IST) d

evelo

ped a sep

arate

web-based

applicatio

n called

Project M

onito

ring System

(PMS). T

he so

ftware w

as availab

le from m

id-2004, but it is

not effectiv

ely used

. Users in

form

ed OIO

S th

at as the ap

plicatio

n has n

o lin

ks to

the M

SRP fin

ance m

odule th

e

closure ex

ercise has b

ecome m

ore co

mplex

. Project clo

sure th

erefore h

as beco

me an

area of co

ncern

. For ex

ample, 9

9

per cen

t of th

e 400 projects (2

,650 su

b-projects) in

itiated in

2003 were still o

pen at th

e end of 2

004. F

or 2

004, th

ere

were clo

se to 375 projects estab

lished an

d no strateg

y has b

een put in

place to

close th

ese projects.

�This issu

e has alread

y been

raised in

our rep

ort o

f MSRP Post-Im

plem

entatio

n.

�In resp

onse to

the d

raft rep

ort, U

NHCR m

entio

ned

that in

clusio

n of a

dea

dlin

e for su

bmissio

n of p

roject clo

sure

docu

men

ts in th

e IOM/F

OM on ‘rep

ortin

g, im

plem

entatio

n and planning’would pro

ve usefu

l. OIO

S co

nsid

ers the

inclu

sion of a d

eadlin

e to be o

f limited

effect, as long as th

e basic to

ols fo

r project clo

sure are m

issing or can

not b

e

used

effectively

.

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n43

Role o

f the S

enior R

esources M

anager in

the p

rocess

�As th

e Senior R

esource M

anagers p

lay an

essential ro

le in th

e plan

ning an

d program

ming process, O

IOS m

et them

to

understan

d how th

ey liaise w

ith th

e Desk

s in th

e overall p

rocess. W

hile th

eir particip

ation m

ainly relates to

the

allocatio

n of reso

urces an

d arb

itration th

ereof w

ithin th

e Bureau

, their term

s of referen

ce also provide fo

r

coordinatio

n an

d m

onito

ring. A

gain

, the m

onito

ring fu

nctio

n seem

s to be o

vertak

en by other task

s: for in

stance th

e

annual staff co

mpendium was felt as v

ery tim

e-consuming.

�The p

ositio

n of th

e Senior R

esource M

anagers is n

orm

ally outsid

ethe D

esk fu

nctio

n (ex

cept th

e Afghanistan

Desk

and th

e Sudan Desk

) and fo

rmally

placed

it outsid

e the sco

pe o

f our rev

iew. O

IOS wish

es to em

phasize th

at,

consid

ering th

at monito

ring an

d program

mecoordinatio

n fall u

nder th

e responsib

ility of th

e SRM, an

d th

attheir P

-5

positio

n places th

em as o

ne o

f the sen

ior/ex

perien

ced staff in

the B

ureau

, their fu

nctio

ns rep

resent a stro

ng safeg

uard

in th

e area of b

udget an

d fin

ance, if ex

ecuted

well.

Planning

Program

ming

Implemen

ting

Closing

Monitoring


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

4.2.5.

4.2.5. Programme

Programmeactivities

activities

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n44

�The ro

le and fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esk have ev

olved in

recent y

ears with

the creatio

n of L

egal U

nits an

d Administrativ

e Units

outsid

e the D

esks. In

additio

n, M

SRP will su

rely in

duce sig

nifican

t changes fo

r the D

esks ren

derin

g Head

quarters d

ata availab

le in th

e Field

and red

ucin

g th

e relevance o

f the D

esks fo

r channellin

ginform

ation to

and fro

m th

e Field

.

�OIO

S believ

es that th

e Desk

functio

n is essen

tial as it is complem

entary

to Field

operatio

ns, an

d hence m

uch m

ore th

an a

post b

ox, as so

me p

eople still p

erceive it. In

the an

alysis o

f their actu

al roles, n

oneth

eless, OIO

S feels th

at too m

uch tim

e of th

e Desk

s is devoted

to fu

nctio

ns th

at add little v

alue, an

d th

at the D

esks w

ould gain

relevance w

hen fo

cusin

g m

ore o

n

strategy an

d policy

.

�Until M

SRP is ro

lled-out to

the F

ield, th

e Desk

s need

to rem

ain in

volved in

technical/p

rogram

ming m

atters, but th

e im

pact M

SRP will h

ave o

n th

e Desk

functio

n (essen

tially visa v

isthe P

rogram

meAssistan

ts) can alread

y be an

ticipated

.

�It is w

orth

notin

g th

at 37 per cen

t of th

e field resp

ondents co

nsid

er the d

istributio

n of au

thority

and resp

onsib

ility, as w

ell as th

e functio

ns o

f the D

esks u

nclear.

�Particip

ants o

f the 2

005 EPAU workshop believ

ed th

at it was d

ifficult to

globally

defin

e the ro

les and resp

onsib

ilities of

the D

esk as activ

ities and fo

cus v

aried sig

nifican

tly betw

een Desk

s and were d

ependent b

oth on th

e operatio

ns an

d

sometim

es the p

ersonal p

reference o

f the D

esk staff. O

IOS highlig

hted

, however, th

at there sh

ould be ‘co

re functio

ns’

comparab

le to all D

esks an

d th

is could be th

e starting point.

�In th

e response to

the d

raft rep

ort, U

NHCR co

nfirm

ed th

at th

e difficu

lties experien

ced by th

e Desks in

effectively disch

arg

ing th

eir functio

n, a

nd co

ncu

rred w

ith th

e statem

ent 'O

IOS fo

und th

at th

e roles a

nd fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esks need

ed to

be m

ore clea

rly establish

ed: clea

rer standard

s for th

edifferen

t structu

res, more p

recisely stated

missio

ns,

hen

ce roles a

nd resp

onsib

ilities, and m

easu

rable p

erform

ance o

bjectives' .

�UNHCR felt, h

owever, th

at th

e review did not co

nfro

nt th

e wider m

anagem

ent issu

es that h

amper th

e effectiveness o

f the

Desks. N

amely a

lack o

f clarity o

n th

e level of a

uthority o

f the D

esks, which

often

places th

e Desks a

t a disa

dva

ntage

when

neg

otia

ting cru

cial elem

ents o

f the p

rogra

mme su

ch as sta

ffselectio

n/dep

loym

ent, p

rioritisa

tion of reso

urces,

implem

entatio

n of p

olicy p

riorities. O

IOS believ

es that th

is issue w

ould relate to

a wider assig

nmentof U

NHCR Units,

Serv

ices and processes. A

compreh

ensiv

e review

of all H

eadquarter p

rocesses w

ould better d

efine th

e role an

d

responsib

ility of th

e Desk

s, and determ

ine an

adequate lev

el of au

thority

for th

e Desk

s.


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n45


s of th

e Desks


s of th

e Desks



Recommendation 4:

The U

NHCR Departm

ent o

f Operatio

ns sh

ould red

uce th

e annual rep

ortin

g req

uirem

ents b

y co

nsid

ering th

e relevance an

d

usefu

lness o

f each rep

ort, an

d by:

�Merg

ing sp

ecialist and general rep

orts to

allow an

integ

rated understan

ding of U

NHCR operatio

ns; an

d

�Adaptin

g th

e requirem

ents to

the size, state (em

ergency, protracted

, stable) an

d reso

urces o

f the field

office (R

ec.

04).

Recommendation 5:

The U

NHCR Departm

ent o

f Operatio

ns, to

enable th

e Desk

s to fo

cuson m

ore essen

tial functio

ns (strateg

y, an

alysis,

evalu

ation an

d co

ntro

l), should rev

iew th

e role o

f the D

esks, clarify

ing th

e exten

t of th

e Desk

s’resp

onsib

ilities and

involvem

ent in

processes su

ch as p

rocurem

ent, staffin

g, donor relatio

ns, an

d th

e plan

ning, program

ming an

d m

onito

ring

processes (R

ec. 05).

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n46

4.3. Assessing the performance

4.3. Assessing the performance

of th

e Desks

of th

e Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n47

Missio

n-objectiv

es

Activ

ities

Resu

lts

Field

Bureau

UNHCR HQ

Targ

et groups

satisfaction

Indicato

rs

4.3. Assessing the performance of th

e Desks


e Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n48

�With

a view

to assess th

e perfo

rmance o

f the D

esks, th

e missio

n or ro

le of th

e Desk

s first need

s to be co

nfirm

ed to

be

able to

determ

ine th

e objectiv

es that sh

ould be u

sed as p

erform

ance in

dicato

rs.

�In doing so

the d

ual ro

le of th

e Desk

, supportin

g both Head

quarters an

d th

e Field

, is importan

t, as it can im

ply th

at one clien

t reports satisfacto

ry resu

lts while th

e other d

oes n

ot.

�In th

e initial in

terview

s with

the H

eads o

f Desk

, as well as in

the rep

lies to our q

uestio

nnaire to

the F

ield, th

e Field

was id

entified

as the first an

d fo

remost clien

t of th

e Desk

. It should be n

oted

that d

ue to

the H

eadquarter R

eview

and

the w

ork by EPAU on th

e Desk

functio

n, O

IOS in

tentio

nally

limited

its scope to

the rev

iew of th

e Desk

s’perfo

rmance to

ward

s the ‘F

ield’clien

t.

�Based

on th

e availab

le inform

ation, it w

as difficu

lt for O

IOS to

assess the D

esk's in

put in

many processes, as m

ost

products are a co

mbinatio

n of th

e Field

’s and th

e Desk

s’input. T

he rep

lies from th

e Field

were v

ery valu

able in

this

regard

, highlig

htin

g th

eir (be it su

bjectiv

e) percep

tion of th

e Desk

s’input v

ersus th

eirs.

�As p

art of th

e annual p

lanning process, th

e Desk

s prep

are an an

nual "O

bjectiv

e Settin

g M

atrix", d

efining th

e outputs,

the k

ey in

dicato

rs, the assu

mptio

ns an

d co

nstrain

ts as well as th

e timefram

e for co

mpletio

n fo

r each ro

le or

responsib

ility of th

e Desk

. This ex

ercise in itself is a step

forw

ard in

assessing th

e perfo

rmance o

f the D

esks. W

e noted

however th

at, in prev

ious su

ch ex

ercises, the o

bjectiv

es as defin

ed by th

e Desk

s were:

�Not m

easurab

le,

�Not tim

e-bound, an

d

�Did not seem

to fit in

the d

ynam

ic multi-y

ear strategy of th

e Desk

.

�The o

bjectiv

es merely

listed th

e roles o

f the D

esk, w

hilst th

e indicato

rs consisted

of activ

ities to be p

erform

ed by th

e Desk

(e.g. “rev

isions p

rocessed

”, “budgets ap

proved”, etc.). In

assessing th

e perfo

rmance o

f the D

esk, in

dicato

rs need

to targ

et ouputs/resu

lts/impact, b

e measu

rable activ

ities and tim

e-bound, an

d allo

w co

mpariso

n an

d benchmark

ing

betw

een Desk

s or m

easure p

rogress o

ver a p

eriod of tim

e.


e Desks


e Desks

4.3.1. Mission

4.3.1. Mission – –objectives of the Desks

objectives of the Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n49

�Some B

ureau

x(Europe an

d Americas) d

evelo

ped a strateg

y to

identify

multi-y

ear objectiv

es. The fo

cus o

f this

strategy, however, is o

n th

e Field

and co

ncern

s undertak

ings an

dexpected

achiev

ements. It d

oes n

ot in

clude an

y

reference w

hatso

ever to

Head

quarter activ

ities. While O

IOS ag

rees that th

e Desk

s have a su

pport fu

nctio

n, w

hich

is

difficu

lt to ev

aluate, th

e absen

ce of an

y in

dicato

rs for activ

ities of th

e Desk

s may weak

en acco

untab

ility.

�Specific o

bjectiv

es and in

dicato

rs should be d

evelo

ped fo

r the D

esks to

be acco

untab

le per se, as h

as already been

done fo

r the F

ield.

�OIO

S refers to

the B

oard

of A

udito

rs’observ

ation th

at no guidelin

es exist fo

r plan

ning an

d program

ming at th

e

Head

quarters lev

el. More em

phasis sh

ould be p

ut in

the fu

ture o

nHead

quarters’

results b

ased rep

ortin

g, esp

ecially in

the co

ntex

t -as d

escribed in

the In

structio

n an

d Guidelin

es regard

ing rep

ortin

g in

2004, im

plem

entatio

n in

2005 an

d

plan

ning fo

r 2006 (IO

M/82/2004-FOM/86/2004) -

of a w

orsen

ing “g

lobal ratio

of ad

ministrativ

e cost (co

mprisin

g

both staff co

st and ad

ministrativ

e expenditu

res) over o

peratio

ns”

when th

e efficiency of th

e administrativ

e structu

re at

all levels sh

ould be d

emonstrated

.


e Desks


e Desks

4.3.1. Mission

4.3.1. Mission – –objectives of the Desks

objectives of the Desks

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n50

�The p

rocess in

which

the D

esks h

ave th

e most ad

ded valu

e, as per

the H

eads o

f Desk

and an

d th

e Field

Offices, is th

e COP an

d th

e ORB rev

iew. In

the ab

sence o

f interm

ediate d

ocuments, in

dicatin

g in

puts fro

m vario

us acto

rs in th

e COP process, it w

as impossib

le to ev

aluate th

e exten

t to which

the co

mments an

d ch

anges m

ade b

y th

e Desk

s added

valu

e to th

e fields su

bmissio

ns. T

he th

us seem

ingly lim

ited in

put o

f the D

esk reg

arding th

e reportin

g processes w

as confirm

ed by th

e Field

Offices resp

onses to

the q

uestio

nnaire: 6

3 per cen

t of th

e field offices rep

orted

limited

input o

f the D

esk in

their rep

orts.

�Another in

dicato

r often

mentio

ned by th

e Head

of D

esks w

as the F

ield's (clien

t) satisfaction. T

he resp

onses fro

m th

e Field

in th

is regard

are mixed: 5

8 per cen

t consid

er the D

esks' resp

onses to

their req

uests "accep

table" an

d 68 per cen

t indicate th

at their req

uests are "m

ostly

" handled

in a tim

ely an

d co

mpeten

t manner (th

e second larg

est bein

g

"sometim

es" with

21 per cen

t).

�Staff in

the F

ield often

mentio

ned th

eir feeling of iso

lation fro

m th

e rest of U

NHCR, an

d would welco

me in

creased

communicatio

n fro

m th

eir Desk

, inclu

ding feed

back

on what is im

plem

ented

elsewhere an

d/or o

n Head

quarters

develo

pments. M

ost co

mmunicatio

n betw

een Desk

s and th

e field tak

es place at th

e level o

f the H

ead of D

esk,

(Senior) D

esk Officer o

r Program

meAssistan

t. It was also

mentio

ned th

at the P

rogram

meAssistan

ts are in general

more av

ailable an

d/or k

nowled

geab

le and, w

ith reg

ard to

program

mematters, th

e Field

receives a m

ore ad

equate an

d

concrete resp

onse fro

m Program

meAssistan

ts than th

ey do fro

m Desk

Officers. T

his fu

rther stresses th

e key ro

le the

Program

meAssistan

ts play

in liaisin

g with

the F

ield.

�It h

as already been

mentio

ned th

at ‘interm

ediate’

reports an

d documents w

ere not fo

und in

project files, as, if ex

isting

at all, they are k

ept in

the fo

rm of E

-mail. In

the sam

e way th

e valu

e and tim

eliness o

f the D

esks’resp

onses to

the

Field

requests can

not b

e measu

red. C

onsid

ering th

e fact that th

e main

role o

f the D

esk is ack

nowled

ged to

be su

pport

to th

e Field

, and th

at most o

f the D

esks’tim

e in th

is regard

is spent o

n E-m

ail, it may be ap

propriate to

create an

efficient E

-mail m

anagem

ent an

d arch

iving (‘fo

lderin

g’) sy

stem, th

at could ease th

e task an

d en

able p

erform

ance

measu

rement in

this reg

ard. A

s this is a g

lobal U

NHCR wide p

roblem

, OIO

S will rev

iew th

is as part o

f the p

lanned

assignment o

f UNHCR’s electro

nic arch

iving Electro

nic D

ocument M

anagem

ent S

ystem

.


e Desks


e Desks

4.3.2. Field

4.3.2. Field ‘ ‘client

client’ ’satisfaction

satisfaction

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n51

Assessing the performance of th

e Desks

Assessing the performance of th

e Desks



Recommendation 6:

The U

NHCR Bureau

x sh

ould develo

p sp

ecific objectiv

es for th

e Desk

s, focussin

g on m

easurab

le outputs rep

resentativ

e of

the activ

ities of th

e Desk

, and sh

ould effectiv

ely m

onito

r these

outputs an

d ad

dress th

eir varian

ce (Rec. 0

6).

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n52

4.4. Conclusion

4.4. Conclusion

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n53

�Both staff at th

e Desk

s and in

the F

ield ag

ree that to

o m

uch tim

e is absorbed in

micro

-managing program

mes,

thereb

y in

part d

uplicatin

g Field

activities. F

ield an

d Desk

functio

ns sh

ould be co

mplem

entary

. Therefo

re, the h

eavy

involvem

ent o

f the D

esks in

program

meactiv

ities does n

ot seem

wholly

relevant. In

OIO

S’opinion, D

esk activ

ities

need

to be re-d

iverted

and co

ncen

trated on develo

ping strateg

ic guidance in

tegrated

at the reg

ional lev

el,

evalu

ation/co

ntro

l, contrib

utin

g to

the id

entificatio

n an

d dissem

inatio

n of g

ood practices as w

ell as to th

e

improvem

ent o

f program

mes. O

verall, th

e revised

roles an

d fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esks n

eed to

be d

efined in

a more

concrete m

anner.

�The D

esks sh

ould perfo

rm th

eir functio

ns w

ith ratio

nalised

and stan

dard

izedreso

urces. T

he relev

ance an

d th

e related

responsib

ilities of th

e vario

us p

ositio

ns in

the D

esk call fo

r furth

er consid

eration.

�The v

arious reco

mmendatio

ns o

f the rep

ort to

streamlin

e and ratio

nalise

the stru

cture o

f the D

esks, to

clarify an

d

revise th

eir missio

n an

d resp

onsib

ilities, once co

mpleted

, should lead

to a rev

ision of C

hapter 2

to reflect th

e changes

and fo

rmally

defin

e the D

esks.

Recommendation 7:

The U

NHCR Departm

ent o

f Operatio

ns, o

nce th

e structu

res, roles an

d resp

onsib

ilities of th

e Desk

s have b

een clearly

defin

ed an

d m

ade m

ore tran

sparen

t, should rev

ise the U

NHCR M

anual, C

hapter 2

to describ

e the D

esks’

structu

re in all B

ureau

x in

cluding em

ergency desk

s, and to

clearly outlin

e the ro

les and resp

onsib

ilities so th

at ‘clients’

of

the D

esks are ap

propriate in

form

ed (R

ec. 07).

4.4. Conclusion

4.4. Conclusion

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n54

Involvement of the Desks

Importan

ce

Procurem

ent

Support

Reportin

g

Plan

ning

COP/ORB

Strateg

yDonor relatio

ns

Monito

ring

Implem

entin

gSub/su

pl. ag

reements

Evalu

ation

Best p

ractice

Oversig

ht

Program

ming

LOI

Sim

plify

processes an

d

furth

er deleg

ate

Clarify

responsib

ilitiesIncrease fo

cus

Develo

p sk

ills and knowled

ge

Defin

e missio

ns an

d ‘clien

ts’

Reduce w

orkload

Develo

p in

tegrated

reportin

g

Change fo

cus

Substan

tiate input

�In th

e follo

wing ch

art, OIO

S tried

to su

mmarize step

s to be tak

en (d

eriving fro

m th

e observ

ations an

d

recommendatio

ns in

this rep

ort) to

balan

ce the fu

nctio

ns o

f the D

esk an

d to

create a tendency to

ward

s more

efficient su

pport an

d guidance.

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n55

�I w

ish to

express m

y ap

preciatio

n fo

r the assistan

ce and co

operatio

n ex

tended to

the au

dito

rs by th

e staff of U

NHCR.

Egbert C

. Kalten

bach

, Chief

UNHCR Audit S

ervice

Office o

f Intern

al Oversig

ht S

ervices

5. Acknowledgement

5. Acknowledgement

UNHCR Comparativ

e review of th

e Desk

functio

n56

�Questio

nnaire an

d an

alysis o

f responses to

OIO

S questio

nnaire to

the F

ield.

Annex

Annex

Comparative review of the Desk function [AR2004-160-01] fileed its analysis on a sample of four...

Documents

Transcript of Comparative review of the Desk function [AR2004-160-01] fileed its analysis on a sample of four...