Guidelines

UNICEF Programme Cooperation Agreements and Small Scale Funding Agreements with Civil Society Organisations

UNICEF New YorkDecember, 2009

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................................ii

1. Introduction and Overview of Changes.........................................................................1

2. Background and Context................................................................................................5

3. Accountabilities..............................................................................................................6

4. Mapping Potential Partners and Capacity Assessment..................................................7

5. Formalizing Partnerships with CSOs.............................................................................9

6. Characteristics of Programme Cooperation Agreements and Required Documentation10

7. Characteristics of Small Scale Funding Agreements and Required Documentation...13

8. Applicability of the PCA and SSFA for Capacity Development.................................15

9. Budget Policy Framework and Different Types of Costs............................................16

10. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation of Agreements................................................18

11. Phase-Out Strategies and Termination of Agreements................................................20

Attachment 1. Programme Cooperation Agreements (with Annexes)23

Attachment 2. Small Scale Funding Agreement36

Attachment 3: Guiding Principles for Partnerships with CSOs37

Attachment 4. Simplified Financial Management Assessment Checklist39

Attachment 5. Sample Checklist for Assessing CSO Capacity and Integrity46

Attachment 6: Sample Terms of Reference. Programme Cooperation Agreement Review Committee…………………………………………………………………………………... 47

Attachment 7: Description of a Generalized Workflow for PCA and SSFA Preparation, Approval and Launch of Cooperation Country Office51

Attachment 8. Checklist for Small-Scale Funding Agreement54

ABBREVIATIONS

BCA Basic Cooperation AgreementCAG Cash Assistance to GovernmentCBO Community-based OrganisationCCC Core Commitments for Children in EmergenciesCEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against WomenCO Country OfficeCMT Country Management TeamCP Country Programme of Cooperation or Country ProgrammeCPD Country Programme DocumentCPAP Country Programme Action PlanCPMP Country Programme Management PlanCRC Convention on the Rights of the ChildCRC Contract Review CommitteeCSO Civil Society OrganisationCSP Civil Society PartnershipsDCT Direct Cash TransfersDFAM Division of Financial and Administrative ManagementPP Policy and Practice (UNICEF HQ)DPSC Direct Programme Support CostsEPRP Emergency Preparedness and Response PlanFACE Funding Authorization and Certificate of ExpenditureHACT Harmonised Approach to Cash TransferHQ HeadquartersIFI International Finance InstitutionsIHL International Humanitarian LawIR Intermediate ResultIPC Indirect Programme CostsJWP Joint workplanMDG Millennium Development GoalsM&E Monitoring and EvaluationMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMTSP Medium Term Strategic PlanMTR Mid-Term ReviewNGO Non-governmental OrganisationOECD - DAC Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – Development Assistance CommitteeOR Other ResourcesPCA Programme Cooperation AgreementsPCARC PCA Review CommitteePCR Programme component resultPPPM Programme Policy and Procedure ManualPRO Programme InstructionProMS Programme Manager SystemRD Regional DirectorRO Regional OfficeRR Regular ResourcesSD Supply Division (UNICEF Copenhagen)SITAN Situation Assessment and AnalysisSSA Special Services AgreementSSFA Small Scale Funding AgreementsSWAp Sector-wide approach TOR Terms of ReferenceTCPR Triennial Comprehensive Policy ReviewUNCT United Nations Country TeamUNDAF UN Development Assistance FrameworkUNDAF - AP United Nations Development Assistance Framework Action Plan

P a g e | ii

UNDG United Nations Development Group

P a g e | iii

1. Introduction and Overview of Changes

This guideline on UNICEF’s Programme Cooperation Agreements (PCAs) and Small Scale Funding Agreements (SSFAs) with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) updates and supersedes previous instructions and guidelines on UNICEF cooperation with civil society partners namely: CF/EXD/1996-001, CF/EXD/2001-013, CF/EXD/IC/2002-002, CF/EXD/2005-008 and CF/EXD/2001-13.

These revised guidelines help, in part, to meet UNICEF’s commitment to develop stronger partnerships with CSOs, as articulated in the Strategic Framework for Partnerships and Collaborative Relationships approved by the Executive Board in June 2009.

These guidelines cover the use of revised formats for PCAs as a legal instrument for partnership agreements with CSOs by country offices. Revised formats for use by Regional and Headquarter offices will be issued subsequently.

Introduction

UNICEF’s collaborative relationships with civil society organizations – including international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based groups, youth associations and others - continue to extend the reach and effectiveness of UNICEF-assisted cooperation across all areas of its Medium Term Strategic Plan (MTSP) and in different operating contexts.

National and community-based CSOs bring an in-depth knowledge of the local context to partnerships, helping to navigate access to different, and often marginalised population groups, making mobilisation of political and popular support for positive behaviour change possible and appropriate. Working together, UNICEF and CSOs benefit from a better understanding of emerging trends, lessons learned and opportunities for improved practice. In many country contexts, UNICEF-CSO partnerships and collaborative relationships are contributing to the long-term sustainability of child-focused programmes and policy reforms.

Partnerships and collaborative relationships are a central feature of UNICEF's efforts to achieve greater results for the rights of children and women through Country Programmes of Cooperation and humanitarian action, based on its Core Commitments to Children in Emergencies. They are anchored in both the legal platform of the Country Programmes approved by the UNICEF Executive Board and agreed with national authorities through the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP), as well as the legal mandate that serves as the basis for UNICEF’s work in humanitarian crises.

UNICEF has a wide range of partnerships and collaborative relationships in development work and humanitarian action, including those with: other UN agencies; NGOs; international and regional organizations; stand-by partners; private sector and corporate foundations; research institutes; peacekeepers; and donors. Capacity development of partners is frequently an important component and objective of these partnerships.

These revised internal guidelines will help to meet UNICEF’s commitment to develop stronger partnerships with CSOs at all levels, as articulated in the Strategic Framework for

P a g e | 1

Partnerships and Collaborative Relationships approved by the Executive Board in June 2009.

UNICEF currently has the following instruments which operationalise partnership relationships with CSOs:

i. Memorandum of Understanding. Collaborations that are broadly focused on the joint pursuit of identified common goals using each partner’s existing resources, without the transfer of resources from one partner to the other, will normally be governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). MOUs are agreements in which the parties confirm that they share a common understanding in working towards shared goals. MOUs are well suited to broadly define strategic alliances between UNICEF and a CSO or network, declaring agreement on intent, areas of common interest, spheres of co-operation and operational engagements. An example might be a document in which four NGOs “resolve to work together on girls’ education”, each with defined goals or an agreement where both parties commit themselves to undertake advocacy activities against child abuse, or to exchange information.

An office should only conclude an MOU with a CSO when UNICEF does not intend to transfer funds or supplies directly to the organisation. Where an MOU already exists, and where it is later decided to transfer funds to the CSO, additional Agreements will need to be concluded as a basis for this. Global MOUs with CSOs do not represent pre-qualification/certification for relationships at country level, nor do they do substitute for requirements for capacity assessments at country level.

ii. Programme Cooperation Agreement. Engagements that focus on the collaborative implementation of a jointly-developed programme or set of humanitarian interventions, within the framework of a UNICEF Programme of Cooperation or UNICEF-supported humanitarian response, will be governed by a Programme Cooperation Agreement. In such collaborations, UNICEF will provide support to the civil society partner strengthening its participation in the implementation of the programme, through the transfer of supplies and equipment, or cash, to the partner. Having identified a partnership as being suitable for the Programme Cooperation Agreement modality, UNICEF will then identify which of the two available agreements (Attachment 1) is appropriate for the particular partnership – based on criteria of the nature, duration, and complexity of the partnership and the amount of UNICEF resources being provided to the civil society partner.

UNICEF Headquarters will also pursue discussions with selected CSO partners on the possibility of developing standard global agreements, including standard levels of allowable costs. These agreements would provide a framework for country-level PCAs with those individual partners. More information will be forthcoming during 2010 on this approach.

iii. Small Scale Funding Agreement. Engagements that are similar in scope to PCAs but do not have a value that exceeds USD 20,000 in terms of funding and/or the equivalent value of supplies as a single or cumulative set of transfers related to the partnership to an individual CSO in a calendar year. In addition, the total amount of a Country Office's Small Scale Funding Agreements (SSFA) cannot exceed 10 % of the

P a g e | 2

total programme budget within a year. The SSFA agreement template is found in Attachment 2.

Summary Types of Tools and Agreements

Type Main Purpose Other FeaturesMemorandum of Understanding

Articulate and agree on common goals and interests.

Involves no transfers of cash or supplies.

Programme Cooperation Agreement (2 forms of agreement: “light” and “more complex” - depending on the scale, nature, assessed level of risk and the complexity of the partnership).

Agreement to work for common goals, with share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits. The PCA is based on a Joint Work Plan and budget.

Resources may be transferred to the partner to assist it in carrying out its roles. The partner is uniquely positioned and has specific capacities or advantages to carry out its roles under the PCA.

Small Scale Funding Agreement

Limited support provided to a local/grassroots organization, or other CSOs, not to exceed US$ 20,000.

Flexible, with highly simplified planning format and reporting requirements.

The substance of this Guidance covers the use of Programme Cooperation Agreements and Small Scale Funding Agreements.

A Note on Special Services Agreements

Distinct from the above partnership agreements, relationships that involve the delivery of services to, or on behalf of, UNICEF, either at cost or at “cost plus” (for a service fee), continue to be governed by a contract for services (referred to in UNICEF as a “Special Services Agreement”). These constitute vendor relationships. The award of such contracts is anchored in the competitive tendering and procurement process and requires compliance with UNICEF’s regulations, rules, and procedures for the award of contracts. Special Service Agreements (SSAs) are legal and binding agreements between UNICEF and Consultants/Contractors used for engaging Consultants, Individual Contractors and Institutional/Corporate Contractors to perform services for UNICEF which are not readily available in the organization and which are expected to be strictly temporary, and possibly intermittent, in nature. Institutional SSAs are applicable when the CSO acts as a contractor for UNICEF. The CSO provides services or goods against payment upon satisfactory delivery. Consequently, a CSO to be contracted as a provider of services should be selected on a competitive basis through the process detailed in Financial Circular 19, Rev.3. Regulations apply which may require the examination of the selection process by the Contracts Review Committee (CRC). Payments to the CSO are made against satisfactory delivery of the product (or stages of completion). An evaluation of the performed services is required before final payment can be made.

The simultaneous use of a Programme Cooperation Agreement and the issuance of an SSA to the same CSO is discouraged, unless the two relationships are clearly distinguished and mutually understood to be entirely separate.

P a g e | 3

Overview of Changes

This Guideline for PCAs and SSFAs with CSOs reflects and incorporates a number of changes, based on the principles and considerations described below and in Attachment 3.Among other modifications, UNICEF is introducing the following key changes to the PCA and SSFA, both through these guidelines and the associated legal Agreements:

i. The principles and centrality of partnerships with CSOs are more clearly highlighted in achieving results for children and women;

ii. The capacity development of local institutions is integrated as a high priority strategic focus for cooperation and partnerships, wherever appropriate and agreed. This may involve capacity development objectives in a PCA to benefit the cooperating partner itself, or in favour of other, national/local organizations or groups;

iii. The duration of PCAs is no longer limited to two years. Any time period may be agreed, within the country programme cycle or emergency funding cycle. The length of a PCA should be appropriate to the objectives adopted and programme results to be mutually supported;

iv. In PCAs, a revised approach is taken to funding of both indirect programme costs and direct programme support costs for management and administration of the collaborative programme or activities, or humanitarian response:

- Where UNICEF is transferring funds to a partner to help it undertake its work under a Programme Cooperation Agreement. UNICEF will help to defray the partner’s indirect programme costs1 through a flat rate addition of 7% to the total amount of Cash Transfer (for programme costs and direct programme support costs) to be provided by UNICEF2.

- The partner will also be able to capture its identified direct programme costs attributable to management and administration of the programme3 up to a maximum of 25% of the total amount transferred by UNICEF (including the value of supplies; and net of the indirect programme charge), depending on justifiable local costs as assessed by the UNICEF Country Office and the partner. UNICEF may also agree to exceptions beyond this 25% cap in crisis or other extraordinary circumstances where costs (e.g. logistical, security) are extreme.

v. Responsibility for the internal review and recommendation of proposed Programme Cooperation Agreements will normally lie with a Programme Cooperation Agreement Review Committee established in each UNICEF Country Office, and no longer with the Contract Review Committee.

1 “Indirect programme costs” means the partner’s costs incurred in support of the collaborative programme that cannot be separately identified and traced unequivocally to the programme.2 Note: the flat rate addition of 7% will be implemented on a pilot basis under these Guidelines, and UNICEF will globally assess and review this provision after three years.3 “Direct programme support costs attributable to management and administration of the programme” are the costs to the partner of management and administration that can be identified as arising directly and unequivocally from the programme.

P a g e | 4

vi. Revised forms of Programme Cooperation Agreement are introduced, with a simplified format for different types of relationships, depending on the nature, duration, and complexity of the partnership and the amount of UNICEF resources being provided to the civil society partner.

vii. The existing Small Scale Funding Agreement may now be used for grants (cash plus value of supplies) of up to US$20,000. Such Agreements may constitute up to 10% of the total annual UNICEF programme budget.

viii. The Programme Cooperation Agreement for grants over US$20,000 has been replaced by two instruments: a Programme Cooperation Agreement for more complex collaborations with higher levels of risk (usually indicated by a total value of US$100,000 or more); and, a lighter version of the Programme Cooperation Agreement for simpler, shorter, lower-risk collaborations (usually indicated by a total value of up to US$100,000).

ix. Strategies for phasing out of Programme Cooperation Agreements and supporting sustained results are more strongly emphasized.

2. Background and Context

The aim of all UNICEF-assisted Country Programmes of Cooperation is to further the realisation of the rights of children and women. Human rights and child rights principles, noted in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other internationally-adopted legal instruments, guide programming in all sectors at all phases of the programme process. In situations of armed conflict, the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 provide the basis for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the protection of victims of international and non-international armed conflict.

The Basic Cooperation Agreement (BCA) provides a legal basis for UNICEF's presence and operations in a country, its programme cooperation, the procedures of programming, and UNICEF's right to observe all phases of the programme. National entities retain the main responsibilities for planning, formulating and managing the programmes funded by UNICEF.

The Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) is the key jointly- agreed document on programme cooperation for the duration of the approved Country Programme Document (CPD), thereby assuring national authorities’ ownership of the Programme of Cooperation and setting out clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities. Responsibilities for programme implementation can be given not only to government institutions, but also, with Government concurrence, to civil society and non-government actors. Overall responsibilities and funding of CSOs in programme implementation should be clearly spelled out in the CPAP signed by UNICEF and the Government. UNICEF, as a cooperation partner to governments rather than a donor, remains directly accountable to funding partners for reporting on the use of resources to support the components of an agreed CPAP.

While it is desirable to have a formal government request for assistance in emergency situations, UNICEF can act without this in a government-declared emergency, according to UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182 of December 1991. Furthermore, UNICEF partners are likely to include a wider range of non-governmental entities in humanitarian and recovery

P a g e | 5

situations than in stable environments, including international NGOs, national CSOs and a range of UN agencies.

The MTSP 2006-2013 acknowledges the crucial role of partnerships and collaborative relationships for realising children’s rights important to achieving internationally agreed development goals including the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and those contained in the Millennium Declaration . The Mid-Term Review of the MTSP in 2008 further highlighted the contribution of UNICEF’s longstanding engagement with NGOs, CBOs and many other civil society partners.

The General Assembly adopted the following resolution in response to the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR): “ that, with the agreement and consent of the host country, the United Nations development system should assist national Governments in creating an enabling environment in which the links and cooperation between national Governments, the United Nations development system, civil society, national non-governmental organizations and the private sector that are involved in development process are strengthened, including , as appropriate, during the United Nations Development Assistance Framework [UNDAF] preparation process, with a view to seeking new and innovative solutions to development problems in accordance with national policies and priorities;” 4

With its key principles –ownership, harmonisation, alignment and results, and mutual accountability- the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action is an important vehicle for greater transparency as a basis for policy dialogue and mutual accountability. The role of Civil Society in the development processes is actively sought. CSO participation in policy discussions is increasingly acknowledged by development partners as crucial, as is their role in scaling up innovative and cost effective approaches.

The UNICEF Core Commitments for Children (CCCs) in emergencies describe a set of programmatic and operational actions, procedures and inputs that UNICEF will deliver in the first weeks of an emergency and beyond the initial response. Given the increasing complexity and cost of emergency and humanitarian operations, Country Offices can only meet the CCCs by working closely with host governments and other partners including CSOs. The CCCs recognize that the most durable, effective and efficient results are obtained when undertaken on a collective basis and in partnership with others. Partnerships are essential during the preparedness, response and early recovery phases and in all programmatic areas for UNICEF to fulfil its obligations to children and women under the CCCs. Partnership agreements provide critical routes through which Country Offices can both channel resources to CSOs as well as to mobilize important contributions to promote the rights of children and women affected by crises.

3. Accountabilities

UNICEF exercises accountabilities to its Executive Board and funding partners through the development with Government and other partners of agreed work plans, setting out activities, inputs required and persons responsible. This is also done through annual programme (or UNDAF reviews, Mid-Term Reviews (MTR) and programme evaluations, carried out jointly with Governments, UN Country Teams (UNCT) and/or Humanitarian Coordinators, and

4 A/RES/62/208, General Assembly Resolution (2008) of 14 March, Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system.

P a g e | 6

other partners. Important components of this accountability to the Executive Board are the Executive Director’s Annual Report, which is a key element of the MTSP, reports on MTRs and major evaluations, and the summary of the results of past programme cooperation contained in new CPDs.

Accountabilities for UNICEF-assisted Country Programme and CCC-based humanitarian responses can be shared, not only with government institutions, but also with civil society and non-government actors. The roles and potential partnerships, including funding of CSOs, should be clearly spelled out in the CPAP signed by UNICEF and the Government. Whilst not all partnerships need be formalized or institutionalized, every partnership should have a framework of accountability.

Formal partnerships should be based on explicit, written agreements through which partners will jointly define their expected contributions, roles and responsibilities, based on an analysis of each partner’s core competencies, capacities and risks assumed, and mutually- agreed objectives, operational targets and budgeted activities, and monitoring, evaluation and reporting procedures.

Mutual accountability is a relationship based on the obligation to demonstrate that work has been conducted and contributions made in accordance with agreed principles, standards and plans that performance results have been reported clearly and accurately.5 Each partner takes responsibility for performance and contributions to agreed expected results. Mutual accountabilities require: reporting on overall performance of the collaborative arrangement, partner contributions, and what was learned; and, taking responsibility for the coordination and management structure, partner actions and strategies.

Risk assessment provides the means for effective identification and management of internal and external factors in the partnership that affect the achievement of planned results. Partners should minimize the risk that operational plans, programme documents, and budgets are procedurally delayed and should exercise feasibility to reformulate them during implementation and changing circumstances may require, consistent with overall rules and procedures that underpin organisational integrity and accountability for the use of resources.

4. Mapping Potential Partners and Capacity Assessment

The process of developing PCAs and SSFAs, following the identification of a programme need for this type of partnership to achieve an identified result, is initiated by mapping and assessing the capacity of potential partners. A systematic approach and appropriate tools should be used to map, assess and identify partners. Taking these steps will minimise the possibility of partnering with CSOs which lack adequate capacities and expertise for a particular purpose.

The ongoing Situation Analysis of Children and Women (SitAn) is an opportunity to conduct broad strategic assessments and identify partners. The SitAn process should help Country Offices develop a clear vision of the work of the potential partnerships and their purpose, opportunities, limitations and challenges, in relation to key goals for children and women and unrealised rights. Further, a strategic analysis of the comparative advantages of organisations on the ground and mapping of their strengths and weaknesses will facilitate the identification of appropriate partners.5 E/ICEF/2009/15 Report on the accountability system of UNICEF

P a g e | 7

Additionally, the EPRP process provides opportunity to take concrete steps towards formalizing agreements with humanitarian partners. Many countries have effectively prepared pre-certified cooperation agreements with CSOs that have expertise in specific sectors (e.g. re-unification of unaccompanied children, supplementary and therapeutic feeding, among others). These pre-certified agreements can be easily and quickly activated at the onset of humanitarian crises, gaining precious time for organising a response.

UNICEF offices should systematically collate basic information about CSOs as part of mapping exercises. This information of in-country CSOs and development institutions (International Finance Institutions - IFIs, bi-lateral, multilateral, NGO and CBO, private sector and private institutions) will assist in the analysis of factors that influence the success of a partnership, such as:

mandate, mission and areas of expertise results of past CSO interventions mandate and level of capabilities (economic, human, political, socio-cultural,

protective/security) degree of interests and child-focus/sensitivity.

Simultaneously, UNICEF should assess its own comparative advantages within the context of specific potential partnerships. This can be done by examining country-level strengths and weaknesses, in relation to UNICEF mandate and normative framework and the opportunities and threats in the country.

Potential new partnerships must be subject to a vetting process. For PCAs where transfer of UNICEF resources (funds, supplies) is involved, pre-assessment of the partner’s financial management capacity is mandatory. For PCAs that involve transfer of more than U$100,000, or in cases where the combined value of transfers together with other UN agencies is more than US$ 100,000 per year, a financial management capacity assessment is mandatory using the Framework for Cash Transfers to Implementing Partners (otherwise known as HACT) regardless of whether the UNCT and Government have adopted this Framework. For PCAs that are for less than US$100,000, Country Offices should use the simplified financial management assessment format provided in Attachment 4. Other features of the capacity and integrity of a potential partner should also be reviewed using the template provided in Attachment 5. If the partnership involves the management of supplies, an additional assessment of the in-country logistic capacity of the CSO is also recommended. A self-assessment by the CSO or peer assessment, using materials provided, perhaps facilitated by UNICEF or a third party as appropriate, should also be considered.

These assessments may not be necessary if the CSOs capacities have already been vetted and past performance analysed within a reasonable period of time by another UN agency or other established partner (Government, IFIs, bi-lateral funding agency, etc.). The Country Office should assemble the necessary documentation for inclusion into a country office data base. This will also provide a useful tool to manage reputational risk, identify areas for evaluation and establish clear audit trails.

Once the Office has identified a CSO to partner with, it must select the appropriate instrument to regulate the relationship between UNICEF and its partner for the particular set of shared goals and planned results. The selection of instrument will depend on the purpose,

P a g e | 8

nature, complexity and scale of the partnership. Such instruments clarify, for instance, how both parties are accountable for their contributions and actions. They facilitate transparency and establish mutual expectations. They set out how any potential conflict will be resolved.

5. Formalizing Partnerships with CSOs

Informal collaborative arrangements remain a highly valued modality for engagement at all levels of UNICEF and, where appropriate, should be acknowledged and valued. Important results for children are often achieved through informal partnership arrangements. These can include: co-developing strategies in response to persistent challenges for realising children’s rights; facilitating the development of innovations for children by CSOs; or facilitating third party action by bringing different parties together to catalyse positive change.

UNICEF’s formal partnerships with CSOs at the country level must have either the explicit or generally understood agreement of the appropriate government counterpart. Many countries do not require CSOs to be officially registered in order to be able to receive funds from UNICEF.

The CPAP, as a binding agreement for government and UNICEF should contain explicit language recognising the expected role of CSOs as partners in the implementation of the Country Programme. The CPAP should also include a reference to potential small-scale funding agreements and PCAs with CSOs as part of the Country Programme. Such references may enhance the understanding of Government of the potential benefits of collaboration with civil society partners, and provide the formal basis for subsequent agreements. Where common UN operational documents and processes are employed, agreement should be reached within the UN team regarding the role of CSOs; and where relevant, the document replacing the agency-specific CPAP should refer to the strategic importance of partnering with CSO and on their potential roles. To the extent possible, it is desirable for the CSO to be aware of and engaged in the UNDAF and country programme development processes as a way to strengthen partnerships around common goals.

Regional and global programmatic partnerships with CSOs take place in the context of the MTSP in general, including the CCCs, and of the Inter-Country Programme approved by the Executive Board in particular (the latter covers the programme activities of UNICEF Regional Offices and HQ Divisions).

The pace and timing required for designing and preparing cooperation agreements together with CSOs may vary. It is important to allow sufficient time for consultations with community organisations and other stakeholders. Planning and preparation with CSOs can often be complex, considering the potential need for:

- translations and communication in local languages- briefing constituencies about programme activities- consulting key stakeholders and disseminating information

P a g e | 9

Representatives should ensure that the CPAP includes a clause explicitly stating that parts of the programme of cooperation will be carried out with the involvement of CSOs. It should, as appropriate, include statements supporting CSO capacity development, and on the importance of involving informal, community-based groups on issues relating to children’s and women’s rights. Specific NGOs/CBOs do not need to be mentioned. Chapter 6, Section 4 of the PPPM provides additional guidance on these aspects of the CPAP.

- generating programme design and identifying strategies and methodologies.

This process often requires resources of time, expertise and funding, representing an investment for better implementation of activities and inclusive and responsive partnerships. Not allowing adequate time may result in loss of trust, legitimacy and effectiveness in the long term. On the other hand, planning and negotiations should not be unduly drawn out, especially where rapid response is required. A maximum of 2 - 3 months is suggested for the preparation of Programme Cooperation Agreements and much less time in emergency situations or for preparing a Small Scale Funding Agreement.

6. Characteristics of Programme Cooperation Agreements and Required Documentation

The Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA), and also the Small Scale Funding Agreement (SSFA – see Section 7) are legally binding; are used to govern the transfer of financial or material resources to CSOs, and are used to prescribe financial, knowledge-based or material inputs by each partner into the common initiative. Standard legal instruments are essential to ensure accountability for the use of UNICEF resources.

A PCA is used when a CSO acts as an implementing and/or contributing partner and carries out mutually agreed activities, which are often - but not necessarily - part of a work plan agreed with government and other partners. The CSO participates in defining the expected results and strategies to be used. The CSO is typically selected on the basis of features such as its specific technical expertise, its mandate, the professional skills and integrity of the staff, its geographic reach, and/or its ability to represent, mobilise, reach and/or involve marginalized groups. The CSO fulfils a unique function, brings unique strengths to the PCA, and is not easily inter-changeable with another organisation.

Just as the CPAP establishes clear responsibilities and accountabilities for the cooperation between the Government and UNICEF, so does the PCA for the cooperation between a CSO and UNICEF. Its purpose is to clarify the roles of both UNICEF and the CSO; to facilitate the management of relationship between both; to manage and regulate the mutual contributions and risks assumed and/or transfer of resources; and to provide for the resolution of problems that may arise during implementation.

Meanwhile, in situations where these characteristics of working for a common purpose and sharing risks, responsibilities, resources and benefits are not present, PCAs are not used. Instead, SSAs (to formalize a contractual relationship)and MOUs (to formalize a relationship that doesn’t involve the transfer of financial resources) may be considered.

P a g e | 10

Characteristics of the PCA

Each partner brings strengths, comparative advantages and contributions to the pursuit of common goals and planned results. Each partner may assume risks and responsibilities in relation to the planned results. UNICEF transfers resources to the partner to assist it in undertaking its roles and responsibilities.

By referring to CRC and the CEDAW, the PCA clarifies that the cooperation is understood as an integral part of UNICEF’s human rights-based approach.

The PCA confirms that parties are not only accountable to their respective donors and stakeholders, but also to those whom they are intending to assist.

Required documentation

The documentation required to formalize a PCA with partners includes a PCA document and a Programme Document (which includes a narrative description of the programme, a joint workplan and a budget).

A PCA document is required, using one of the appropriate versions found in Attachment 1. These provide a “lighter” or a “more complex” version, depending on the scale, nature and complexity of the partnership and its objectives. The elements of these Agreements represent the minimum standard required to legalise the partnership.

As part of the decision regarding which of the two versions to use, the overall complexity and level of risk to UNICEF should be taken into account. For Agreements that have a value that exceed US$100,000, the “more complex” version of the PCA should be used. In general, for Agreements less that US$100,000 the “lighter” version can be used. However, the value of the resources to be transferred by UNICEF is only one factor in the overall assessment of risk. Where this value is less than US$100,000, the level of risk to UNICEF will tend to be lower, and this would indicate the selection of the “lighter” version of the PCA. However, based on the finding of the assessment and other factors, the office may opt to use the “more complex” version of PCA in order to manage the perceived level of risk even though the value of resource transfer is below US$100,000.

If a UNICEF office is expecting to enter into more than one PCA with a single partner, then the total value of all Agreements should be considered when selecting the version of the PCA to be used in each case, due to the heightened level of risk.

The PCA is finalized based on a Programme Document, which includes a joint workplan (JWP) and budget (see Attachment 1, Part A). These documents provide details on the expected results and their contributions to the overall outcomes to be achieved through the Country Programme towards national development priorities, or to the Humanitarian Response. They establish clear responsibilities and accountabilities for the cooperation among the partners.

The Programme Document (including the joint workplan and budget) should relate to the larger major activities and budget lines of the relevant UNICEF Workplan.

The process of preparing these documents, as well as the PCA itself, often requires important commitments of time, expertise and funding. It can be a capacity development exercise in its own right and represents a good investment for building trust and mutual understanding. The documentation should include a description of the expected result(s) of the collaboration, the strategies and actions required to achieve the result(s), a budget which clearly denotes the contributions of each organization and the timing for the main activities.

Unlike past practices, where a partner was often expected to submit a proposal to UNICEF for UNICEF’s consideration, the development of the Programme Document, including the JWP and budget, as the basis for the PCA, should be a joint one – a process that itself reflects the principles of partnership. The preparation may begin with a review of each organization’s capacities including the identification of the programmatic, managerial and organizational strengths and areas requiring further development using the materials provided. In light of these assessments and the result(s) to be achieved by the partnership, a

P a g e | 11

plan can then be developed to achieve these result(s) and may include efforts to further develop the capacity of the partner as well as to address the sustainability of results, after the formal conclusion of the partnership.

The development of Programme Document should bring together relevant staff members from each organization, and, where relevant, members of the affected communities and other stakeholders. Key constituencies should be briefed during the drafting process. This will help ensure ownership and facilitate the management of relationship. During the preparation phase, it is also advantageous to share and explain core values and conditions and discuss mechanisms and processes for funding, management of supplies, monitoring and reporting procedures, and establish coordination mechanisms. Special attention should be made on reaching a shared understanding on the components of the budget, especially related to the programme costs and the direct programme support costs. These are likely to be subject to negotiation.

The joint workplan, which is a component of the Programme Document (see Attachment 1 Part A), outlines the activities that will be undertaken in the context of the partnership, and identifies the time period, responsible partner and also identifies the budget for each activity. The activities outlined in the joint workplan are related to each of the expected results of the partnership, ensuring that the activities planned are sufficient to realize the expected results. Amendments to or extensions of agreements are possible under the standard provisions of the original agreement. Extensions of an agreement should only take place in cases where the programmatic focus and goals or coverage areas of the extended partnership are not substantially changed. If there is a substantial change in goals or focus, a new agreement should be developed. Once the CSO has undergone the first internal assessment process, additional agreements and budgets can be negotiated to cover subsequent collaborations with new and different goals without further assessments. However, when such additional agreements involve different technical areas, the CSO should be assessed for these new areas.

Budget

The budget, which is also a component of the PCA Programme Document along with the narrative and the joint workplan, details the required resources (financial, human, and material) and their costs. A budget should include specific headings that indicate distinct, yet relatively broad categories of expenditure using the suggested format available in Attachment, Part A. The extent to which CSOs and other partners will contribute to the total cost should be indicated. A narrative summary should be included to justify budget items that require explanation. Non-financial contributions (e.g. community mobilisation or local knowledge inputs by the CSO) are important and should also be described. All budgetary allocations must be within the policy framework of financial support to CSOs in Section 10 below, and all funds provided should advance the objectives of the UNICEF-assisted Country Programme.

The projected cost of any single input in the budget included in the PCA Programme Document that will be funded by UNICEF can be adjusted provided that (a) the variation is no more than twenty percent (20%); (b) the total amount of Direct Programme Support Costs does not exceed the amount approved by UNICEF (which can be up to one quarter of the total amount of the budget); and (c) the total budget included in the PCA Programme Document and the amount of Cash Transfer remain the same. However, exceptions should be

P a g e | 12

considered by the Head of Office and minuted for the record, where reasonable and appropriate based on changed circumstances.

Review and Approval of PCAs

As noted above, a CSO is identified for a partnership based on an assessment of the relevant competencies of the CSO to fulfil a unique function, adding value to the collaborative effort that could not easily be provided by any other organisations.

While the use of competitive bids and lowest costs is not appropriate for PCAs, both the programmatic and cost implications - including cost-effective options - should be taken explicitly into consideration when considering PCAs. A structured process to review these implications and approve the proposed Agreement is required.

All offices are required to establish a PCA Review Committee, which will be composed of senior/mid-level programme and operations staff, to review, consider and endorse proposed/draft PCAs. The PCA Review Committee (PCARC) will review and consider, among other things: whether the assessment of the CSO has been adequately carried out; whether its selection for this particular collaboration is justified, based on its ability to play its expected role in relation to the objectives; the assessed level of risk; the programmatic justification and design of the PCA; the cost/cost-effectiveness implications; the mutual accountability provisions; the budget proposal and the proposed PCA document and supporting documents themselves. The Committee may endorse a proposal on a provisional basis, pending completion of the required documentation, which should be addressed within a reasonable time period as stipulated by the Committee. In endorsing a PCA, the PCA Review Committee thereby recommends signature by the Head of Office or his/her delegate.

The PCA Review Committee will report to the CMT providing periodic summaries of the Agreements it has endorsed and those it has rejected or endorsed pending amendments. A ToR for the Committee should be developed and approved by the CMT. See Attachment for a sample TOR of the Committee. The Committee should consider establishing a work flow and checklist to help staff understand the process and identify internal responsibilities for each step in the review, approval and monitoring process. A generalized work flow found in Attachment 7 can be the basis for developing a more detailed and context-specific work flow appropriate for each country office.

Once the review process is complete, the draft Programme Document, including the joint workplan and budget, should also be finalized. The required non-financial contributions, such as technical assistance of UNICEF and other partners should be noted. The joint workplan should always include monitoring and evaluation activities. The level of required detail in the Programme Document varies according to the level of resources involved, the number of partners and the scale and complexity of the collaboration. A JWP is not required for Small Scale Funding Agreements.

7. Characteristics of Small Scale Funding Agreements and Required Documentation

A Small Scale Funding Agreements (SSFAs) are engagements that are similar to PCAs but have a value less than US$ 20,000 in terms of funding and/or the equivalent value of supplies as a single or cumulative set of transfers related to the partnership to an individual CSO in a

P a g e | 13

calendar year. In addition, the total amount of an Office's small scale CSO agreements cannot exceed 10 % of the total funded country programme budget within a year.

All SSFAs must be within the context of the relevant Workplans and contribute to their expected results. For instance one or more Workplan activities may refer to the CSO as implementing partner, indicating the amount to be covered by the SSFA up to US$ 20,000 in supplies or cash equivalent.

SSFAs are recommended to, approved and signed by the Head of Office, or by her/his designee for this purpose.

SSFAs are most effectively used either for providing support to community/grassroots organizations; or for simple, one-time transfers of resources to partners. They are designed to avoid costly administration and accounting procedures and to promote accountability and empowerment without sacrificing financial and legal accountability. These use a simple form of documentation and do not require an additional Programme Document or JWP.

Required documentation

For small-scale collaboration, a less detailed format or use of bullet points is sufficient for the agreement (Attachment 2). Literacy levels should be taken into account when preparing proposals in collaboration with local, grassroots CSOs.

A checklist can be used to determine whether a group/organisation is eligible for small-scale funding (Attachment 8). The main criteria are:

The organisation’s mission, focus and commitment to meet specific objectives should be in line with UNICEF's mandate and programmatic framework;

In the context of community development, the organisation follows a participatory approach, and shows that it is representative of and accountable to the communities or groups that it serves.

P a g e | 14

Small Scale Funding Agreements may serve three important purposes:

1. To facilitate a rights-based approach to programming by being able to better support partners to assist hard-to-reach and marginalized groups.

2. To flexibly meet the needs and help build the capacities of community groups, such as informal youth or women’s groups, who do not possess the managerial capacity to handle elaborate administrative and financial procedures.

3. To lower the transaction costs for UNICEF and CSOs, which otherwise would arise in a PCA, especially where these would be excessively high compared to the relatively modest amounts and simple, specific purposes involved.

Budget

The budget cannot exceed the equivalent of US$ 20,000 in a single calendar year. Budget lines may be included to support the development of the capacity of the CSO itself, where this is an objective of the Agreement.

Monitoring and reporting requirements

Reporting requirements under Small Scale Funding Agreements are relatively light. Short narrative reports, including basic financial reporting on implementation, results and lessons learned, would normally suffice.

The Office will decide on appropriate monitoring mechanisms, considering their needs and feasibility. The following might be done:

Field visits Review meetings with the organisation’s head and staff Meetings with children and families meant to receive services from the organization Graphic depictions such as drawings or photographs, if available.

8. Applicability of the PCA and SSFA for Capacity Development

Capacity is defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – Development Assistance Committee (OECD – DAC) as the ability of people, organisations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully. Capacity development is understood as the process whereby people, organisations and societies as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time. The United Nations Development Group (UNDG) has further broadened this definition to go beyond human resource development such that it now includes societal and organisational transformation and issues of national ownership, policy-level impacts, and sustainability.

UNICEF, with its access to a broad range of technical expertise, is a key partner for supporting capacity development efforts which are strategic for children’s and women’s rights. Countries have called upon UNICEF to further strengthen the capacity development dimension of the country programme process to better utilise various cooperation modalities, including sector-wide approaches. The critical need for capacity development and the contribution that partnership and collaborative relationships with CSOs can make are both considerable.

PCAs and SSFAs may both be used in part or whole to support the capacity development of strategically important CSOs, at national or local level, including in situations where the development of the civil society sector is an important programme strategy for strengthening capacity for the progressive realisation of children’s and women’s rights. A capacity gap analysis should be carried out to identify strengths and weaknesses of the organisation’s capacities as a basis for designing Agreements for this purpose.

Budget lines may be included in PCAs with one partner (for example, with an international or large national NGO) to help build the capacity of another partner or network of partners (e.g. a local government agency or a local CSO with which the NGO may have a relationship and a comparative advantage in supporting, including with complementary inputs of its own).

P a g e | 15

Direct programme support cost: costs attributable to the management and administration of the programme, that can be identified as arising directly and unequivocally from its implementation.

In addition to the direct transfer of funds, knowledge resources and supplies to CSOs, other strategies can be used for building the capacity of organisations or groups. These might include, for instance, internships, knowledge and technology transfer, participation in communities of practice, technical assistance in kind or from third party institutions, appreciative inquiry, training and mentoring.

9. Budget Policy Framework and Different Types of Costs

Important policy changes have been made affecting the framework for financial support to CSO partnerships.

Budget costs for collaboration with CSOs governing the use of PCAs are grouped into a) Direct Programme Support Costs (DPSCs); b) Indirect Programme Costs (IPCs); and c) Programme Costs.

a) The following characteristics for the provision of DPSCs, as defined in the text box, apply:

Direct Programme Support Costs to be supported by UNICEF must be clearly identified as such in the Budget.

The total of DPSC should not normally exceed a maximum of 25% of the total funds and value of supplies (net of indirect programme costs) provided to the CSO under the PCA.

Each UNICEF Office is responsible to clearly assess, together with the partner organisation, what is “reasonable” considering the local context and typical costs for administering local activities. As a guideline, up to 25% of the total budget to be transferred by UNICEF – including the value of supplies; and excluding indirect programme costs - is allowable for such costs. Normally, the amount will be less than the 25% limit.

The limit could exceptionally be exceeded depending on the justifiable costs in the proposed budget for the local context. In the exceptional cases, which will usually be crisis situations with very high logistics, access and/or security costs, the Representative must sign a written justification to be filed with the PCA for any percentage of DPSC above 25%.

Direct Programme Support Costs are management and administrative costs that directly support the project objectives and directly derive from implementation of the PCA. These may include:

- Travel for programme management and monitoring purposes;- Salaries and support costs of implementing personnel, technical assistance (possibly prorated);- CSO-owned vehicles and their maintenance if directly used to implement activities under the Agreement;- Office equipment used in direct support of the programme;- Costs connected with planning and management, such as (prorated) salaries and related costs for representation, planning, coordination and management;- Pro-rated support to management for time which directly contributes to the programme;

P a g e | 16

Indirect programme cost: the partner’s costs incurred in support of the collaborative programme that cannot be separately identified and traced unequivocally to the programme.

- In-country planning expenses;- Costs connected with the administrative support of the programme, including (prorated) financial management and information resources management;- Monitoring and evaluation costs6:- Costs of any planned Audit;- Other expenses incurred directly in support of the programme, including additional rentals of office space, office maintenance, utilities, telecommunications, office supplies.

DPSCs should be itemised in broad categories and included in the Programme Budget.

There is no restriction on the period in which DPSCs may be provided, within the above limitations and within the time limit of the overall PCA. In contrast to previous guidelines, this provision, if justified, may extend beyond two years, if the total period of the PCA itself exceeds this. However, PCAs and their budgets cannot be agreed for a period that goes beyond the life of the approved Country Programme or Humanitarian Response7.

Except for PCAs which are clearly and explicitly global, regional or multi-country in nature, DPSCs are intended to assist the CSO with its resource requirements to carry out activities within the country of assistance. The funds are not to be used for the operations or development of elements of the CSO that do not contribute to populations or institutions within the country of assistance.

b) The Indirect Programme Cost (IPC), as defined in the text box, is included in PCAs as a standard 7% addition to the (i.e. on top of the) Cash Transfer component (i.e. excluding supplies, equipment and other forms of in-kind support) of the agreed budget of Programme Costs and Direct Programme Support Costs, to support the partner organization’s general operations.

IPCs are not included in the budgets of Small Scale Funding Agreements.

c) Programme Costs

All other budget items fall under the category of Programme Costs. These are acceptable if they clearly contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the partnership and the expected results as established in the PCA. Only items that contribute to the achievement of these expected results may be supported by UNICEF.

Programme Costs are the costs of inputs, such as:

Cash for activities, such as workshops, training (venue rental, accommodation or logistics)

6 Monitoring of beneficiary populations, as distinct from the monitoring of programme activities, may be classified under “Programme Costs” rather than DPSCs. Evaluation may also be included in “Programme Costs” where knowledge generation using the evaluation is an objective of the Agreement itself. Where M&E are for programme management purposes, however, they should be counted as part of the support costs.7 An existing PCA that runs out at the end of the current Country Programme or Humanitarian Response cycle could be extended by mutual agreement once a new or extended cycle comes into effect.

P a g e | 17

Cost of supplies that directly assist beneficiaries or beneficiary institutions; Materials production and distribution; Costs of surveys, reviews, consultations and results-related evaluations; Technical assistance to support beneficiaries or beneficiary institutions Communication that directly supports the programme objectives.

Development of a Budget

The budget must be based on the agreed Programme Document and Joint Work Plan. The following three steps are essential to securing a clear rationale and justification for transferring UNICEF resources to a partner CSO.

1. All budget items and planned expenditures must contribute to the achievement of the results described in the Programme Document.

2. The budget items must be based on a clear description of activities that will be undertaken under the partnership.

3. All budget items must be assessed for their relevance to the implementation of the activities and the achievement of the planned results. Those which can be justified as essential to the achievement of the goals and planned results—whether categorized as Programme Costs or Programme Support Costs—may be supported.

Relevant national labour laws and the use of UNCT-approved local salary and entitlement scales will serve as the basis for preparing the budget for implementing personnel and technical assistance costs.

10. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation of Agreements

The basis for transfer of cash is the submission/approval of FACE form. The basis for the transfer of supplies is an approved request and delivery schedule as per the standard rules and regulations (see Paragraph 22 in the PCA Agreement for additional information).

For countries implementing HACT, the modality of payment selected should be based on the results of the assessment and overall analysis of risk as per the standard rules and regulations related to HACT. Offices are encouraged to consider opportunities to use “Reimbursement” and “Direct Payment” cash transfer modalities (as alternatives to “Direct Cash Transfer”), especially for well-funded CSOs.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are distinct, but integral parts of programme preparation and implementation. Adequate provisions for monitoring - and where appropriate to the nature and scale of the Agreement, also for evaluation - should be included in the Programme Document (including in the joint workplan and budget). Similar mechanisms can be applied to collaboration with CSOs under SSFAs.

The process of working with partners to design and carry out monitoring and evaluation activities can be an important capacity development exercise in its own right. Joint field visits, designed to monitor and supervise technical, financial and supply contributions of both partners strengthen the partnership and provide a basis for analysis and identification of

P a g e | 18

corrective action required and the role of each partner in these future actions. Joint actions, such as these, promote a shared stake in both the process and outcome of the partnership.

Monitoring

Monitoring is a process of tracking and measuring what is happening. This includes:

measuring progress in relation to the PCA and Programme Document (including joint workplan and budget) andalso the SSFA

measuring change in a set of conditions that the partnership aims to address (e.g. a change in social indicators, attitudes or practices).

The purpose of monitoring is to provide information:

for short term decision-making to improve programme performance for accountability in terms of implementation according to the plan as an input to later evaluation and learning.

Monitoring takes place continuously and provides the basis for periodic reports. It is a quality control procedure for both the organisation and UNICEF, and facilitates organisational learning. Detailed guidance on monitoring mechanisms is provided in the PPP Manual.

Reporting

The schedule of programmatic and financial reporting requirements to UNICEF by partners under PCAs and SSFAs are defined by the terms of the Agreements. These will vary among Agreements depending on duration, scale and complexity. In general, however, PCAs require a financial report on a quarterly basis, and an in-depth analytical progress report on a six-monthly basis. SSFAs have very simple reporting requirements.

All partners must be adequately pre-assessed as having adequate controls. On the basis of this pre-assessment, the FACE form is used for reporting expenditures.

On the basis that adequate financial pre-assessment has been carried out, the CSO partner is not required to provide UNICEF with copies of receipts. However, the CSO should retain all original receipts for a period of four (4) years under CAG and five (5) years under HACT, available for future inspection by UNICEF or its agents, if required.

Evaluation and Audit

Evaluation attempts to determine as systematically and objectively as possible the programmatic merit or value of a programme or activities. It needs to achieve a balanced analysis, recognising bias and reconciling perspectives of all those interested in or affected. Not every PCA needs to be evaluated, but a well-designed evaluation is often a good investment in learning for the future. Evaluation plans should be agreed upon and outlined in the Programme Document and related costs included in the budget.

A PCA evaluation may be conducted internally by members (and stakeholders) of a CSO or in collaboration with UNICEF, or externally, by independent evaluators appointed in consultation with the CSO. A combination of the two is also possible. The use of client-

P a g e | 19

focused surveys in both PCAs and SSFAs is encouraged to obtain perceptions of the quality and appropriateness of the joint results as well as information on how the stakeholders view the functioning of the partnership. Feedback should always be provided to those assisting in the evaluation.

The broader impact on the programme environment of UNICEF’s cooperation with CSOs, and their strengthened capacity could be the subject of a separate evaluation.

Audit requirements are specified in the PCA format. The cost of planned audits should be included in the PCA budget, under Direct Programme Support Costs, including where the audit will be commissioned by UNICEF itself.

Reviews

Collaboration with CSOs, regardless of whether covered by a PCA or SSFA, should be assessed during annual reviews, and the Mid-Term Review of the Country Programme. Evaluations should be timed, where possible, to feed into the Mid Term Review. Such reviews may be undertaken together with CSO partners as a means of enhancing collaboration and partnerships.

The UNICEF Management Team, in conjunction with the PCA/SSFA Review Committee, should from time to time review the broad trends and statistics in the use of PCAs and SSFAs, and the common programmatic, partnership and operational issues arising.

Further guidance on the options and standards for both monitoring and evaluation is available in the Programme Policy and Procedure Manual (Chapter 5).

11. Phase-Out Strategies and Termination of Agreements

Sustaining the planned results

A PCA should include in the Programme Document, JWP and budget a series of activities which contribute to the sustaining of the planned results following the conclusion of the Agreement, and which would ultimately serve to strengthen any subsequent partnerships and improve the capacity of the government, communities or other stakeholders. Such actions, which may also be reflected in SSFAs, could include skills development, audits, client surveys, evaluations or reviews with an emphasis on lessons learned. These actions should be conducted using a participatory approach and serve to further strengthen the capacity of the partners, government or local organizations. All Agreements should clearly specify the agencies or organizations who will be responsible for maintaining assets, activities or results, as relevant, after the period of the Agreement has ended. The future capacity needs of these agencies should be considered.

Partnerships with international NGOs, in particular, should consider including provisions which transfer technology and skills, support the capacities of local governments and empower communities, leaving in place mechanisms to sustain the results of the partnership.

Breakdown of the letter and spirit of written agreements regulating the partnership

P a g e | 20

According to the UNICEF strategic framework for partnerships and collaborative relationships, UNICEF should discontinue its participation in a partnership if:

the alliance makes little or no progress towards achieving its mutual objectives the guiding principles are violated by one of the partners the operational guidelines are violated by one of the partners.

Partnerships and collaborative relations should establish at the outset of their work and as specified in a Joint Work Plan, a mechanism by which monitoring, supervision and reporting on progress towards mutually agreed goals and objectives can be jointly conducted. If in the course of implementation of the Joint Work Plan, there is convincing evidence of little or no progress towards achievement of the stated goals and objectives, corrective actions should be agreed upon and documented along with a timeline for their implementation and any necessary modifications to the budget. Responsibility for the corrective actions should be clearly assigned. Every effort should be made by all parties to render maximum support to ensure that the corrective actions are taken as effectively and efficiently as possible. If, despite the good faith efforts of the concerned parties, there is a failure to achieve the desired results, the partnership may be ended according to the procedures specified in the Agreement.

The legal Agreement governing the Partnerships contains language that refers to the guiding principles of the United Nations System in general and UNICEF in particular. These principles are non-negotiable and must be fully adhered to. In order to eliminate the potential for any misunderstandings of these principles, user-friendly materials explaining what it means to adhere to the guiding principles and the consequences for non-compliance may need to be made available and discussed before signing a PCA or SSFA. Ideally, each organization should support orientation and learning activities on these guiding principles among their staff. Should a partner be accused of a fundamental breach of a guiding principle, the partnership may be ended according to the procedures specified in the Agreement.

The most critical operational guidelines for a PCA or SSFA are specified in the legal Agreements governing the relationship among or between partners. With respect to UNICEF, the HACT framework for cash transfers and the relevant paragraphs of the Agreement dealing with supplies and equipment are among those of great importance. While it is the responsibility of each partner to adhere to the operational guidelines, it is the responsibility of UNICEF to provide sufficient clarity about them to encourage respect of the relevant clauses of the Agreement.

The HACT framework requires the practice of jointly developing and implementing an assurance and audit plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan. These plans, individually or jointly, spell out the provisions for field monitoring, the method for conducting spot checks of the financial management practices (including management of equipment or supplies) and the timing and purposes of audits and evaluations. The findings of these plans should be discussed during regular coordination meetings and formal reviews so that any weaknesses identified are quickly brought to the attention to the management of the relevant partner(s) and timely corrective action can be undertaken. Every effort must be made to work collaboratively to resolve differences and eliminate weaknesses. However, should major weaknesses continue without resolution, due to negligence or fraud, either of the partners may seek to terminate the agreement according to the procedures specified in the Agreement.

P a g e | 21

Attachment 1 of PCA Guidelines: Format for Programme Cooperation Agreements

Part A) “More Complex” Programme Cooperation Agreement

See Accompanying File

P a g e | 22

ANNEX 1 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner) Format of Programme Document (including Joint Workplan and Budget)

This Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) Programme Document, which includes the Joint Workplan and Budget, enables UNICEF and its CSO partner to jointly draft a harmonized, results focused plan with a minimum of documentation. The document should include the following sections:

1. Cover Page - one page2. Executive summary – one page (optional)3. Situation analysis – one to two pages4. Strategies including lessons learned and the proposed project– one page5. Results framework – one page6. Management and coordination arrangements –one page7. Fund management arrangements – one page8. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting –one page9. Workplans and budgets (as annexes) - two to three pages

A brief description of the expected content for each of these sections is provided below.

1. Cover Page (One page)

The cover page contains the expected result(s) of the cooperation, total estimated budget, funded and unfunded components, expected sources of funding, duration of the agreement and signatures of the NGO/CBO authorities(s).

2. Executive Summary (One page – optional)

The executive summary contains a comprehensive summary of all sections focusing on the significance and relevance of the cooperation, its contribution to UNICEF’s priorities and national plans, the results expected to be achieved, intended beneficiaries, and information about relevant donors and other partners.

3. Situation Analysis (One to two pages)

This section provides a brief evidence-based causal analysis which may be obtained from the Situation Analysis of Children and Women, the national development framework or the relevant humanitarian action plan8. It outlines the economic, social, political, environmental and institutional context of the collaboration. It identifies the development or human rights challenges to be addressed; provides specific, current and disaggregated data on these challenges, key causal factors, and the interventions that are necessary and sufficient for the achievement of the planned results. This is to be supplemented with references to identified baselines (to be noted in the Project Monitoring Framework in Section 8), relevant recent research reports and/or reports and recommendations of field missions, assessments, evaluations, etc.

8 The cooperation should be referenced in the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) that may have been signed by UNICEF and the host government.

P a g e | 23

4. Strategies, including lessons learned and the proposed project (One page)

The subsections to be covered include:

Background/context: The intention of this sub-section is to describe how the cooperation will contribute through the Rolling Work Plans (RWP) to the achievement of the national development plans or priorities, Country Office priorities and international humanitarian obligations, among others. It should also identify other outputs and stakeholders contributing to the achievement of the results of the collaboration. It identifies other relevant stakeholders who may be directly involved in this project: UN organizations, government, other non-government institutions, and donor organizations active in the area.

Lessons Learned: This sub-section provides a summary of relevant lessons learned from experiences, opportunities and challenges which may support or constrain achievement of results. Statements of agreed lessons are particularly important where there is a significant departure from previous programmes or strategies. If relevant, this sub-section may also indicate how recommendations and observations of Human Rights treaty bodies to the respective State Party have been considered and used in the design of the CA.

Proposed Collaboration: This sub-section outlines the specific strategies adopted to achieve the expected results, taking into consideration the lessons learned. It focuses on how the strategies address the key causes of the problems which have been identified, and the role of the partner(s) involved in each phase. It includes details on the intended manner in which the cooperation should unfold in its various phases. It provides a brief description of the division of labor between the NGO/CBO and UNICEF, the added value of each to the expected results, and the NGO’s/CBO’s capacity to deliver agreed outputs. The proposed project strategy should confirm that the capacities necessary for the implementation were carefully considered and that the selected partner has the capacity to achieve the intended results (refer to the various assessments).

This section should also refer to prior assessments of key cross-cutting concerns such as: human rights; gender equality; the environmental issues that are relevant in this case and how the cooperation will address them; assessment of capacity gaps of key institutions and collaborating partners and the capacity development strategies that will be adopted. Depending on the subject covered, this section may also include other types of ex-ante analyses, for example themes such as education, health, water and sanitation.

Sustainability of results: State how the results will be sustained including relevant capacities being developed among duty bearers and rights holders and government institutions and communities.

5. Results Framework (One page)This section will contain a brief narrative and the results framework. The narrative should briefly outline the logic of the results chain. The outputs of the cooperation should directly contribute to the relevant programme results (i.e. outcomes, outputs, programme component results (PCR) or intermediate result(s) as appropriate). Proper justification should be provided, when any element of the cooperation falls outside the Country Programme’s results framework.

P a g e | 24

6. Management and Coordination Arrangements (One page)

This section elaborates the project planning and management responsibilities and commitments of NGO / CBO. Arrangements for monitoring, review, and coordination should be documented. Linkages to existing coordination mechanisms should also be specified.

7. Fund Management Arrangements (One page)

This section should specify the details of the agreed arrangement for transfer of cash to the NGO / CBO. Cash transfer modalities (e.g. direct cash transfers, reimbursement or direct payment) , the size and frequency of disbursements (generally on a quarterly basis). The scope and frequency of monitoring, reporting, assurance and audit activities will be agreed prior to programme implementation, taking into consideration the capacity of the NGO / CBO, which should be adjusted as a function of the results of the assessments, the related degrees of risk and corresponding mitigation measures including support for capacity development.

8. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (One page)

Monitoring: Describe the monitoring activities that the NGO / CBO will undertake (such as baseline collection, reviews or studies if necessary to measure effect/impact, field visits, evaluation etc.), the timing of such activities and their respective responsibilities.

Annual/regular reviews: State the arrangements and clear responsibilities for conducting regular reviews, including annual reviews where applicable. NB: Review of the collaboration may also form part of Annual Review process.

Evaluation: State the arrangements for, responsibility and timing of evaluation(s) of the collaboration. It should also state how the results of the evaluation(s) will be used by relevant stakeholders.

It should further state how the risks and assumptions will be managed to achieve the agreed results. These should at a minimum be reviewed at the annual/regular reviews and revised as appropriate.

Reporting: A reporting format should be agreed upon by both parties.

9. Work plans and budgets (Two or more pages)

Joint Work Plans (JWP) will detail the activities to be carried out within the PCA by each partner and include the inputs, timeframes and budget. The basis for all resource transfers to an NGO / CBO should be detailed in the work plans, and agreed upon between UNICEF and the NGO / CBO. The first JWP should be attached to the programme document.

In this Section, please also note non-financial, in-kind contributions, including supplies and technical assistance, that UNICEF will provide.

P a g e | 25

Joint WorkplanUNICEF (name of country) and name of CSO

Result* ActivitiesTimeframe (in

months)**

Responsible Partne

rBudget (US$)

0-6 7-12

13-

18

19-

24RR OR Tota

l

TOTAL* the appropriate level of the result should be used that is consistent with the country programme’s results structure. ** A different timeframe may also be used as appropriate (and not to exceed 2 years).

P a g e | 26

BUDGET*

Programme Cooperation Agreement Title: Title Period: Start and end dates of the Agreement

Programme CostsUS$ or local currency*

Total UNICEF Contribution

No. Items Unit Quantity Unit cost

Total budgete

d

Partner's contributio

n

UNICEF

Contribution

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

1st tranche

2nd tranche

3rd tranche

4th tranche

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10    

  Provide description of budget items as per allowable costs in Guidance       0.00  

-        

0.00

0.00

         0.00  

-        

         0.00  

-        

         0.00  

-        

  

     0.00  

-        

SubTotal 0.00 -

-

-

-

-

-

P a g e | 27

Direct Programme Support CostsTotal UNICEF Contribution

No. Items Unit Quantity Unit cost Total

budgetedPartner's

contribution

UNICEF

Contribution

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

1st tranche

2nd tranche

3rd tranche

4th tranche

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     10

  Provide description of budget items as per allowable costs in Guidance       0.00  

-        

         0.00  

-        

         0.00  

-        

SubTotal -

-

-

-

-

-

-

  Budget Summary          Total UNICEF Contribution

    Total budgete

d

Partner's contributio

n

UNICEF

Contribution

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

MM-MM YY

1st tranche

2nd tranche

3rd tranche

4th tranche

Programme Costs              Direct Programme Support Costs              SUB-TOTAL              Indirect Programme Costs (7% of the Cash Transfer component of the Sub-Total, added to Sub Total)   XXXXX           TOTAL BUDGET              * Indicate the currency of the budget. If multiple currencies (i.e. US$ and local currency), reflect the amounts for each currency separately, and provide the totals for each currency separately.

P a g e | 28

ANNEX 2 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

FACE form

Find the from at http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=255

P a g e | 29

ANNEX 3 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

UNICEF contract provisions

CHILD LABOUR. The vendor represents and warrants that neither it, nor any of its affiliates, nor any subsidiaries controlled by it, makes use of child labour in the manufacture, production, packaging, distribution, or sale of any product. The vendor agrees that this is a fundamental provision of this agreement that will entitle [Partner] to terminate this agreement immediately and without penalty.

MINES: The vendor represents and warrants that neither it, nor any of its affiliates, nor any subsidiaries controlled by its company, is engaged in the sale or manufacture of anti-personnel mines or of components utilized in the manufacture of anti-personnel mines. The vendor agrees that this is a fundamental provision of this agreement that will entitle [Partner] to terminate this agreement immediately and without penalty.

P a g e | 30

ANNEX 4 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

Template for Programmatic Reporting

Reporting Partner: […]

Country: […]

STANDARD PROGRESS REPORT

No. and title: […]

Reporting period: […]

I. PURPOSEThis section is a résumé of the Programme Document as approved in the Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA). It includes: Main expected results as per the approved Country Programme Document and Country

Programme Action Plan (CPAP) or United Nations Development Assistance Framework Action Plan (UNDAF-AP).

Reference to how the programme relates to the UNDAF and how it aims to support national development goals including the Millennium Development Goals and PRSP goals as pertinent.

II. RESOURCESThis section includes total approved budget and summary of resources available to the programme .

III. RESULTSInformation in this section includes: An assessment of the extent to which the programme is progressing in relation to the

expected results for the year. Main activities undertaken and achievements. Implementation constraints, lessons learned from addressing these and knowledge gained

from evaluations and studies that have taken place in the course of the year. Key partnerships and inter-agency collaboration: impact on results. Other highlights and cross cutting issues pertinent to the results being reported on.

IV. FUTURE WORK PLANInformation in this section includes: Priority actions planned for the following year to overcome constraints, build on

achievements and partnerships, and use the lessons learned during the previous year. Indication of any major adjustments in the strategies, targets or key outcomes and outputs

planned in the country programme. Estimated Budget required (including any major funding shortfalls).

P a g e | 31

V. FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATIONThis section is a provisional report on the financial implementation status.. This section should also include total approved budget over the full programme component period, current year budget and expenditures (provisional) for the year.

P a g e | 32

ANNEX 5 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

Template for Certified Financial Reporting

FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT(Amounts in US$ or Local Currency, as indicated)

Programme Cooperation Agreement Reference:

Previous Periods

(A)day/month/year

today/month/year

Current Periods(B)

day/month/year to

day/month/year

Total(C=A+B)

Funds Received (indicate currency)                          

     Total Funds Received      Expenditure       Programme costs      Use budget lines as per the approved budget

     

                    

Total programme costs       Direct programme support costs

     

Use budget lines as per the approved budget

Total direct programme support costs Indirect programme costsTotal Expenditure      Balance      

P a g e | 33

Part B) “Lighter” Programme Cooperation Agreement

See Accompanying File

P a g e | 34

Attachment 2 of PCA Guidelines: Format for Small Scale Funding Agreement

Based on the Country Programme Action Plan between the Government of [country] and UNICEF, UNICEF agrees to co-operate with [name of the organisation] as described below.

1. Workplan results to which the small-scale funding agreement contributes:___________________________________________________

2. Activity or activities to be carried out with the small-scale funding agreement:______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Expected results/outputs to be achieved: _____________________________________________________

4. Starting and ending dates for implementation of the activities: ____________________________________

5. UNICEF will contribute the following resources:a) Funds (US$ or equivalent): __________________________b) Supplies: ________________________________________c) Technical assistance: _______________________________d) Other inputs: _____________________________________

6. The [name of the organisation] will contribute the following matching resources:a) Funds: __________________________________________b) Staff/people: _____________________________________c) Equipment/in kind: ________________________________d) Other ___________________________________________

7. (If applicable) Portions of the small-scale support will be transferred by UNICEF in the following stages:Amount/Date__________________________________________________________ ______________________________

8. The Organisation will provide the following reports at or near the given dates:

Reports: Date:Narrative _____________ Basic/simplified financial _____________

9. The resources provided by UNICEF will only be used by [name of the organisation] in pursuit of the results as agreed to in 1 – 3 above.

10. The attached Project Proposal and Budget are part of this agreement.

11. UNICEF and the Organisation will cooperate to monitor the results of this programme

12. The Organisation may only use the UNICEF name, logo and emblem in connection with this programme with the prior written consent of UNICEF.

13. This agreement can only be changed through an agreed modification in writing.

14. Place and date:

Signed: Signed:

_________________________________ ______________________________(UNICEF Representative) (Head of CSO/ authorized person)

P a g e | 35

P a g e | 36

Attachment 3 of PCA Guidelines: Guiding Principles for Partnerships with CSOs

The value of a partnership lies in combining the complementary strengths and contributions of two or more parties, to achieve greater impact and synergy than when operating separately, thereby contributing to better results for children and the promotion of their rights.

UNICEF has compelling reasons to partner strategically with CSOs, including NGOs and community-based organizations, in pursuit of results for children and women, within the legal framework of its presence and Programme of Cooperation with national authorities in each country and in humanitarian emergencies:

There has been increased recognition by Treaty Bodies, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Committees of the critical and complementary role played by CSOs in the enjoyment of human rights by children and women.

CSOs can facilitate and advocate for the direct participation of children, women and marginalized groups as actors in their own development, as required by the human rights-based approach to development.

The CCA and UNDAF, as the first steps of the country programming process harmonized among UN agencies, emphasize the relevance of civil society in supporting the pursuit of commitments arising from the Millennium Declaration and other international treaties and conferences.

The UNICEF Core Commitments for Children in Emergencies emphasize the importance of engaging civil society and other partners to achieve and enhance results in humanitarian contexts.

Poverty Reduction Strategies and other development frameworks increasingly promote broad national ownership and involvement of representative groups of civil society.

UNICEF partnerships with civil society should adhere to the following guiding principles:

Mutual focus on delivering results for children and women and promoting their rights: UNICEF engages in partnerships that enable it to ensure effective and efficient implementation of agreed Programmes of Cooperation and to discharge its humanitarian mandate. Such partnerships must provide a clearly defined added value to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Declaration and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the implementation of the CRC, CEDAW and UNICEF strategic priorities, as outlined in the MTSP. Each partner makes clearly-identified contributions to the planned results.

UNICEF must partner with organizations and entities committed to the core values of the CRC, and the principles of good governance, including transparency, accountability and sound financial management. UNICEF and its partners will each bring specific skills, resources and abilities to the partnership or collaborative

P a g e | 37

relationship, based on their respective competencies –including to bear risks and responsibilities - and mandates and as best suited to the relevant programme environment at the local, national, regional and global levels. UNICEF may partner with faith-based and other organizations who are committed to these core values and principles. Conversely, UNICEF will not partner with organizations or other entities found to be in breach of core UN norms, including with entities involved or complicit in the violation of human rights and those posing serious risks to the reputation of UNICEF.

Equity: The objectives and activities of partnerships and collaborative relationships should be fully transparent and involve mutual accountabilities, mutual contributions, as well as shared risks and benefits among all partners.

Integrity and independence: Partnerships need to maintain the integrity and independence of both UNICEF and the partner(s).

Cost-effectiveness: Partnerships should seek to minimize administrative and financial costs, to the degree consistent with accountability and effectiveness.

Form of cooperation: UNICEF should select and promote forms of cooperation that are most appropriate to the context and the goals pursued. These arrangements should be formalized through a written, legally enforceable Cooperation Agreement when funds, supplies or other resources are transferred.

Equality: Equality requires mutual respect between members of the partnership irrespective of the size or power of any one partner. The participants must respect each other's mandates, obligations, principles and independence.

Transparency: Transparency is achieved through open and participatory dialogue, with an emphasis on consultation and sharing of information from the earliest stages of the partnership. Communication and transparency, including financial transparency, increase the level of trust among organizations.

Responsibility: Organizations have an ethical obligation to each other to accomplish their tasks responsibly, with integrity and in a relevant and appropriate way. They must make sure they commit to activities only when they have the means, competencies, skills, and capacity to deliver on their commitments. Prevention of abuses among all staff must also be a constant effort.

Complementarity: The diversity of the development and humanitarian community is an asset if organizations build on comparative advantages and complement each other’s contributions, including for the strengthening of sustained capacities among national and local partners.

Develop the capacity of national partners: Partnerships with national and international CSOs will actively seek and pursue opportunities to develop the capacities of CSOs at the national and community levels. Capacity development initiatives will be undertaken in accordance with the goals and commitments expressed in the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda.

P a g e | 38

Attachment 4 of PCA Guidelines: Simplified Financial Management Assessment Checklist9

Financial Management Capacity Questionnaire for Implementing Partners receiving or expect to receive cash transfers below an annual amount (usually less than $100,000 combined from all Agencies or as locally agreed among the Agencies).

Name of Implementing Partner: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________

Number of years Agency has worked with the IP: ________________

Summary of Risks related to the Financial Management Capacity of Implementing PartnerTested Subject Area (see subsequent pages for questions for each area that should be completed and summarized in these sections below)

Subject Area Risk Assessment CommentsH M L1. Implementing Partner2. Funds Flow3. Staffing4. Accounting Policies and Procedures 5. External Audit6. Reporting and Monitoring7. Information Systems

Inherent RiskList major specific issues identified in the assessment of the country’s public financial management system (macro-assessment), or specific risks related to the nature or operation of the Implementing Partner

Overall Risk AssessmentH M L

H – High M – Moderate L – Low

9 For PCAs that involve transfer of more than U$100,000, a financial management capacity assessment is mandatory as per the Framework for Cash Transfers to Implementing Partners. For PCAs that are for less than US$100,000, Country Offices should use a simplified assessment format, based on the one provided here.

P a g e | 39

Financial Management Questionnaire

Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments

1. Implementing Partner (IP)1.1 Is the IP legally registered? Please note the legal status /registration of the entity.1.2 Has the IP received UN resources in the past?1.3 Does the IP have statutory reporting requirements? Please describe.1.4 Is the governing body of the IP independent?1.5 Is the organization structure appropriate for the work to be carried out under UN cooperation?

Risk Assessment (Implementing Partner) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area2. Funds Flow2.1 Can the IP receive and transfer funds?2.2 Are the arrangements to transfer the funds to the IP satisfactory?2.3 Have there been major problems in the past in receipt of funds by the IP, particularly where the funds flow from the Government/Ministry of Finance?2.4 In the past, has the IP had any problems in the management of disbursements from a member of the UN country team? Please describe.2.5 How does the IP access its funds?2.6 How does the IP issue payments?2.7 If some activities will be implemented by NGOs or CBOs, does the IP have the necessary reporting and monitoring mechanisms to track the use of funds?

Risk Assessment (Funds Flow) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area3. Staffing3.1 Is the organizational structure of the accounting department

P a g e | 40

Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Commentsappropriate (include adequately qualified and experienced staff) for the level of financial volume? Attach an organizational chart.3.2 Is the level and competencies of staff appropriate for the level of financial volume? Identify the staff for the accounts department, including job title and responsibilities. Attached job descriptions for all posts (including vacant posts) and provide CVs of key accounting staff.3.3 Are accounts and finance staff familiar with UN procedures related to cash transfers?3.6 Is the IP anticipating any vacancies (e.g. retirement, rotation) within the duration of the agreement?3.7 Is there a training program for new and existing finance and accounting staff? Please describe.

Risk Assessment (Staffing) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area4. Accounting Policies and Procedures4.1 Does the IP have an accounting system that allows for the proper recording of financial transactions from UN Agencies, including allocation of expenditures in accordance with the respective components, disbursement categories, and source of funds, i.e., Chart of Accounts?4.2 Are cost allocations to the various funding sources made accurately and in accordance with established agreements?4.3 Are the general ledger and subsidiary ledgers reconciled and balanced?4.4 Are all accounting and supporting documents retained in accordance with agreements in a defined system that allow authorized users easy access?

Segregation of Duties4.5 Are the following functional responsibilities performed by different units or persons: (a) authorization to execute a transaction; (b) recording of the transaction; and (c) custody of

P a g e | 41

Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Commentsassets involved in transactions?4.6 Are the functions of ordering, receiving, accounting for, and paying for goods and services appropriately segregated?4.7 Are bank reconciliations prepared by someone other than those who make or approve payments?

Budgeting System4.8 Do the budgets lay down physical and financial targets?4.9 Are budgets prepared for all significant activities in sufficient detail to provide a meaningful too with which to monitor subsequent performance?4.10 Are actual expenditures compared to the budget with reasonable frequency, and explanations required for significant variations from the budget?4.11 Who is responsible for the preparation and approval of budgets?4.12 Are procedures in place to plan activities, collect information from the units in charge of the different components, and prepare the budgets?4.13 Are the plans and budgets of activities realistic, based on valid assumptions, and developed by knowledgeable individuals?

Payments4.15 Do invoice processing procedures provide for:

Copies of purchase orders and receiving reports to be obtained directly from issuing departments?

Comparison of invoice quantities, prices, and terms with those indicated on the purchase order and with records of goods actually received?

Comparison of invoice quantities with those indicated on the receiving reports?

Checking the accuracy of calculations?

P a g e | 42

Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments4.16 Are all invoices stamped PAID, dated, reviewed and approved, and clearly marked for account code assignment?4.17 Do controls exist for the preparation of the payroll and are changes to the payroll properly authorized?

Policies and Procedures4.18 Describe the basis for accounting (e.g. cash, accrual)?4.19 Are internationally accepted accounting standard followed? If so, which standard?4.20 Does the IP have adequate policies and procedures manual to guide activities and ensure staff accountability?4.21 Are manuals distributed to appropriate personnel?

Cash and Bank4.22 Indicate in remarks/comments section the names and positions of authorized signatories on the bank accounts.4.23 Does the implementing partner maintain an adequate, up-to-date cashbook, recording cash receipts and payments?4.24 Do controls exist for the collection, timely deposit, and recording of cash receipts at each collection location? Are receipts deposited on a timely basis?4.25 Are bank and cash reconciled on a monthly basis?4.26 Are all unusual items on the bank reconciliation reviewed and approved by a responsible officer?

Safeguard Over Assets4.27 Is there a system of adequate safeguards to protect assets from fraud, waste or abuse?4.28 Are subsidiary records of fixed assets and inventories kept up to date and reconciled with control accounts?4.29 Are there periodic stock-taking of fixed assets and inventories?4.30 Are assets sufficiently covered by insurance policies?

Other Offices or Entities 10

10 Other offices or entities refers to sub-offices of the implementing partners and/or respective parties.

P a g e | 43

Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments4.31 Are there any other regional offices participating in implementation?4.32 Has the IP established controls and procedures for flow of funds, financial information, accountability, and audits in relation to the other offices or entities? Please describe approval process.4.33 Does information among the different offices/Agencies flow in an accurate and timely fashion?4.34 Are period reconciliations performed among the different offices/Agencies?

Other4.35 Has the implementing partner advised employees, beneficiaries, and other recipients to whom to report if they suspect fraud, waste, or misuse of Agency resources or property?

Risk Assessment (Accounting Policies & Procedure) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area5. External Audit5.1 Is the IP financial statement audited regularly by an independent auditor? Who is the auditor5.2 Are there any recommendations made by the auditors in prior audit reports or management letters that have not yet been implemented? If yes, is there a plan to implement these?

Risk Assessment (External Audit) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area6. Reporting and Monitoring6.1 Are timely financial statements prepared for the entity and at what frequency?6.2 Does the system support reporting AWP related expenditures?6.3 Does the reporting system have the capacity to link the financial information with the AWP’s programme implementation? If separate systems are used to gather the information, what controls are in place to reduce the risk that

P a g e | 44

Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Commentsthe programme implementation information is synchronized with the financial information?6.4 Does the IP comply with the financial management reporting requirements within the agreements?6.5 Are financial management reports used by management?6.6 Are financial reports generated by the automated accounting system or are they prepared by spreadsheets or some other means?

Risk Assessment (Reporting and Monitoring) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area7. Information Systems7.1 Is the financial management system computerized?7.2 Are the staff adequately trained to maintain the system?7.3 Does the management organization and processing system safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data?

Risk Assessment (Information Systems) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area

P a g e | 45

Attachment 5 of PCA Guidelines: Sample Checklist for Assessing CSO Capacity and Integrity11

Mission, mandate and values are consistent with those of UNICEF. Neither the organization nor any of its members is mentioned on the “New

Consolidated List of Individuals and Entities Belonging to or Associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Organisation as Established and Maintained by the Security Council Committee established by Resolution 1267 (available under http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm).

Transparency exists about the organisation’s policies, activities, structure, affiliation, and funding.

Information is available on the organisation’s scope of work and geographical area of coverage, human resources, financial management and control arrangements, and management systems.

What is the composition of the board? Are executive officers known for personal integrity?

What are the sources of core funds or income of the CSO/CBO? Are last year’s audited accounts on file? Is the CSO/CBO open to external

audits? Are there any outstanding liabilities from the CSO/CBO? Are any evaluations of projects executed by this CSO/CBO available? Did UNICEF co-operate with the CSO/CBO in the past? Are records of this

available within UNICEF and the CSO/CBO? Has the CSO/CBO’s office been visited by UNICEF staff? If the CSO/CBO is new to UNICEF, has information on the organisation’s

capacity and conduct been obtained through informal consultations with other UN agencies, CSOs or beneficiaries?

Does the organisation have the capacity to implement the project agreement? Is the organisation open to participation by children and women and other

beneficiaries in project planning and management? Does the CSO/CBO have a clear position on not exposing beneficiaries,

including children, to any form of discrimination, abuse and exploitation? Does the organisation reach out, is it representative of poor people, or those that

are hard to reach? Does it have credibility with families, the community and government? Does the CSO actively engage in networks and alliances, including with the

local community? Does the CSO/CBO engage in policy dialogue and advocacy, at the appropriate

level?

11 This Checklist was established under CF/PD/PRO/2001-13: Guidance for Collaboration with Non Governmental Organizations and Community Based Organizations in Country Programmes of Cooperation, updated April 2002.

P a g e | 46

Attachment 6: Sample Terms of Reference for the Programme Cooperation Agreement Review Committee

INTRODUCTION

1. This Terms of Reference (ToR) outlines the procedures to be undertaken by a Programme Cooperation Agreement Review Committee (PCARC) to review Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) proposals with Civil Society Organizations (CSO) prior to approval by the Head of the Office and subsequent commitment of UNICEF funds.

AUTHORITY OF THE PROGRAMME COOPERATION AGREEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE

2. A structured process to review proposals for cooperation with CSOs in the form of a Programme Cooperation Agreements be established by the Head of Office.

3. A Programme Cooperation Agreement Review Committee shall be established to render written advice to the Head of Office for proposals for PCAs with Civil Society Organizations (CSO).

MANDATE OF THE PROGRAMME COOPERATION AGREEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE

4. The PCARC is established to provide a competent, independent and unbiased review of proposals for PCAs and SSFAs.

5. The review by the PCARC will focus on the process that led to the proposal and its adherence to UNICEF applicable policy and procedure.

6. Proposals for Special Service Agreements (SSA), either individual or institutional are submitted to the Contract Review Committee (CRC) as per Financial Circular 19 Rev. 3.

SUBMISSIONS AND RE-SUBMISSIONS

7. All proposals for PCAs must be submitted to the PCARC before financial commitments are entered into.

8. Proposals to renew or to modify the substantive terms and provisions of the PCAs (i.e. a change in the expected results of the partnership) must be re-submitted for review by the PCARC.

9. Proposals to modify PCAs which result in an increase of more than 20% of the total financial commitment, must be re-submitted for review by the PCARC. Amendments to PCAs must not be issued prior to review by the PCARC and approval by the Head of Office.

47

RESPONSIBILITIES / ACCOUNTABILITIES

10. The PCARC is responsible for ensuring that the proposed partnership is in the best interests of UNICEF, and for ensuring that appropriate procedures have been followed, and for making a recommendation in this respect to the Head of Office.

11. The responsible programme specialist is accountable for the technical aspects of the proposal, including that the proposed Agreement will ensure that programmatic or operational objectives are met and the performance monitored. The responsible programme specialist is also responsible for ensuring that appropriate authority has been obtained for the commitment of funds and that resources are available. Proposals for commitments for which resources are not fully available but which will be entered into in stages should be submitted to the PCARC in their entirety rather than through multiple submissions as resources become available.

12. The Secretary is an ex-officio non-voting member and is responsible for:a. coordinating the schedule of the PCARC meetings;b. obtaining and reviewing the submissions for completeness;c. overseeing the timely distribution of relevant documentation to PCARC

members;d. preparing the minutes and exchanges pertaining to the meetings;e. ensuring that the files of documentation pertaining to the submissions and

meetings are complete;f. filing complete documentation pertaining to the submissions and meetingsg. entering selected information about approved PCAs into a relevant database.

13. The Chairperson is a voting member and is responsible for: a. convening meetings;b. ensuring quorum at the meetings;c. chairing the meetings;d. identifying specialised resources to assist the PCARC in discharging its duties

in the most competent manner;e. ensuring that the minutes are prepared in a timely manner and that they reflect

accurately the deliberations and advice of the PCARC members; f. reporting on the activities of the PCARC.

14. The Chairperson and Members are to provide competent, independent and unbiased advice on the submissions. Each Member is responsible for recusing him / herself from the review of submissions for which conflicts of interest exist.

15. The Head of Office is responsible for: a. reviewing the advice of the PCARC and accepting or not accepting the

recommendation; and,b. in the case of non-acceptance, documenting the reasons for this decision;c. where non-acceptance occurs in locations away from headquarters, sharing the

documented reasons with the Regional Director.d. informing the Regional Director before entering into financial commitments

above USD1 million.

48

MEMBERSHIP OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

16. The PCARC will be composed of one operations officer and at three members drawn from programme staff and a pool of a sufficient number of alternates. Members and alternates must be UNICEF staff members.

17. The quorum will consist of three voting members. Each member appointed to the PCARC will have alternates so that the quorum can be reached when official travel or other duties cause some PCARC members to be unavailable for a meeting.

18. Heads of Office may consider the appointment of alternates from UNICEF offices in neighbouring countries or the Regional Office where reaching quorum with in-country members and alternates is problematic.

19. The Head of Office will appoint members for a period of up to two calendar years after completion of which they may be re-appointed.

20. The Head of Office may not serve as Chairperson or a member of the PCARC.

21. Special care should be taken to ensure diversity of skills and experience in the composition of the PCARC to be able to handle the complexity of issues arising from the submissions. Members do not represent any entity outside of the PCARC and serve in their own individual capacity.

22. The Head of Office will establish the PCARC and appoint the chairperson, members, alternates and secretary. The chairperson will be the most senior official responsible for Programmes. The secretary will be appointed based on the Head of Office’s assessment of the local situation, capacities and requirements of the PCARC.

23. In emergency situations, Heads of Office may include as members and alternates any appropriately experienced staff member that joins the Country Office following the emergency and after the regular PCARC membership was appointed. Heads of Office may also establish a PCARC at the level of a zone office based on operational reasons.

PROCEDURES

24. The PCARC will meet at the request of the Secretary as frequently as may be required but normally not more than once a week.

25. All issues raised by the PCARC and/or the responsible programme specialist with respect to PCARC submissions and/or recommendations must be addressed to the satisfaction of the PCARC and/or the Head of Office prior to the commitment of UNICEF funds.

26. Where the number or composition of staff in a Country Office does not permit the creation of a PCARC, proposed Agreements should be submitted to the Area Office or Regional Office PCARC as may be appropriate.

49

27. The Chairperson of any PCARC in any location may choose to consult the Director of Policy and Practice on matters of policy or principle or for administrative guidance and with the Director of Programmes on issues of partnership, especially if the PCARC is reviewing PCAs with international CSOs. Consultations are also encouraged with the Chief of Contracting Centre in the Supply Division on procurement matters, the Director of the Division of Human Resources on contracting of individual contractors, and the Senior Adviser, Office of the Executive Director on legal matters.

28. The PCARC may decide in the case of certain specialised submissions to identify and seek the assistance of technical resource persons as required.

29. When the Head of Office/authorised official decides not to accept the advice of the PCARC, he/she shall record in writing the reasons for his/her decision. This written note forms part of the record of the PCARC process and copies should be sent by the Head of Office to the Chairperson of the PCARC at the duty station.

50

Attachment 7: Description of a Generalized Workflow for PCA and SSFA Preparation, Approval and Launch of Cooperation Country Office

1. As part of the Country Programme development process, including the development of the expected results in the Country Programme Action Plan (or UNDAF Action Plan as appropriate), identify the expected results of the Country Programme that would be most effectively realized through partnerships with Civil Society Organisation

2. Identify potential Civil Society Organization (CSO) partners using mapping exercise followed by strategic selection As part of the preparation of a Situation Analysis of Children and Women,

Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (EPRP), an on-going scoping of the development environment

May follow the identification of a new problem requiring a new partnership or additional partners

3. Establish dialogue with partner on: UNICEF strategic priorities, existing partnerships including the relationship with the

Government and within the UN System, the Country Programme results including long (Programme Component Results, PCR) and shorter-term results (Intermediate Results, IR) and specific areas of potential collaboration in the country

The meaning of partnership and its implications for each organization Confirm that the envisioned collaboration is not for the provision of services/goods

(otherwise develop an Special Service Agreement, SSA)4. Confirm that the Civil Society Organization (CSO) meets the requirements for a

partnership as per the Sample Checklist for Assessing CSO Capacity and Integrity included in Section B of the PCA Toolbox including: Neither the organization nor any of its members is mentioned on the “New

Consolidated List of Individuals and Entities Belonging to or Associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Organisation as Established and Maintained by the Security Council Committee established by Resolution 1267 (available under http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm).

Principles of Partnership are valued Committed to the core values of the UN, the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

(CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

5. Establish that mutual understanding of each organization’s specific intent and procedures for formalizing a partnership Confirm that there is a strong potential that such a partnership will advance both

organization’s agendas Explain all parts and implications of the Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) /

Small-Scale Funding Agreement (SSFA) and share relevant policies and procedures, especially core conditions

51

Discuss mechanisms and processes for funding, management of supplies, monitoring and reporting procedures, coordination mechanisms, etc.

6. Discuss with the relevant government bodies the potential rewards and risks of partnering with the CSO Obtain consensus for formalizing the partnership Confirm that the organization has undertaken the proper registration procedures Seek approval for seat for partner at relevant conferences, reviews, discussions to

facilitate mutual understanding of how UNICEF works and the area of work7. Initiate assessment procedures

Share all assessment tools and checklists beforehand Explain their use

8. Initiate drafting of the Programme Document (to be concluded after the assessments completed) Iterative process conducted jointly with the partner Should be done in all countries (with selected organizations) in the context of the

EPRP Ensure funding arrangements if intent is to initiate agreement Discuss the proposal within the Country Office (Head of Programmes, Section Chief,

Head of Operations, Supply Chief, especially if supplies, equipment, vehicles, etc. are involved and at Programme Coordination meetings

Prepare Programme Document including the Joint Work Plan (JWP) for the first period of implementation

9. Finalize the Assessments and associated reports Share the reports with the partner and allow sufficient time for review and rebuttal Once consensus reached on the main findings, discuss options for capacity

development Discuss procedures for programmatic monitoring, assurance and audit plan as a

function of the assessments Integrate relevant elements into the final Programme Document

10. Finalize the Programme Document Obtain clearance from the Head of Programme and if significant value of supplies

involved, seek clearance from the Supply Chief Establish clear linkage between the PCR and or IR or in the case of an emergency or

humanitarian crisis, the Core Commitments to Children (CCC)s Ensure that donor conditions are respected11. Based on the nature and characteristics of the proposed collaboration, including the

amount of resources that are involved, determine the legal instrument that is appropriate as per the PCA Guidelines

12. Preparation for and follow-up to the Review Committee Provide members of the Committee with copies of the assessments and associated

reports, Programme Document, short justification for the partnership and how the partner selected is the best fit (with ample time for review of the documentation)

Provide evidence of sufficient funds covering the entire duration of the PCA or SSFA Draft of the PCA or SSFA

52

Present the information at the Committee meeting Follow up with the Committee should they require additional information

13. Note for the Record Prepared If recommended for approval, seek signature on the Agreement from the Head of

Office and then the head of the partner organization If not recommended, determine value of amending the proposal or ending the effort Amend materials in collaboration with the potential partner and resubmit to Review

Committee If effort to establish a partnership ends, discuss the decision and reasons with the

partner organization and inform the Government14. Agreement signed by both parties

Copy to the partner and if not already done, share relevant information on relevant policies and procedures

Offer short orientation and formal training (if necessary)15. Launch the partnership

Inform government, media, targeted communities and other relevant groups (e.g. UNCT, Cluster leads, etc.)

Inform office staff and prepare those playing key roles in the implementation (e.g. Supply staff) and share JWPs

Integrate JWP into the relevant annual Workplan and seek approval from the Government

Enter information and characteristic of the partnership into relevant databases Process request for payment and cash liquidation Conduct programmatic monitoring, assurance activities and audit plan as per JWP

16. Review progress regularly Report on progress towards results with partner and Government After suitable period of implementation, take stock and decide on on-going relevance,

effectiveness and efficiency of the partnership17. Modify Agreement, if on-going

If collaboration beneficial, then draft new Programme Document and annexes Reassess only those areas which are new to the partnership (e.g. new programmatic

area) Review previous assessments and capacity development plan and reassess only those

areas previously found to be high risk (low capacity)18. Phase-out, if partnership ending due to clauses in the Agreement or no continuing

need for the partnership Ensure return of unused funds, supplies, equipment, vehicles, if relevant Inform Government, partners, affected communities, etc Confirm or put into place systems/institutions to promote sustainability or actions

(if relevant)

53

Attachment 8: Checklist for Small-Scale Funding Agreement

Ref. No.

Name of the Partner:

Address:

Phone No.

Fax No.:

Name of contact person/s:

Date of establishment as an Organization:Registration documents:

Geographical area of operation:

Population covered:

Area(s) of expertise of the Organization:

Minimum conditions that will always have to be met:Mission, mandate and values are consistent with those of UNICEFNeither the organization nor any of its members is mentioned on the “New Consolidated List of Individuals and Entities Belonging to or Associated with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda Organisation as Established and Maintained by the Security Council Committee established by Resolution 1267Transparency exists about the organisation’s policies, activities, structure, affiliation, and funding: Additional checks that should be conducted:

Is it likely that the organisation has the capacity to implement the project agreement? Is information available on the source of core funds and income of the Organization?Are any evaluations of projects implemented by this Organization available?Are records of previous collaboration between UNICEF and the

54

Organization available and do they indicate satisfaction with previous performance? Has the Organization’s office been visited by a UNICEF programme officer and operations staff?If the Organization is new to UNICEF, has information on the organization’s capacity and conduct been obtained through informal consultations with other UN agencies, government institutions, other organizations? Does it have credibility with families, the community and government?Does the Organization have a clear position on not exposing beneficiaries, including children, to any form of discrimination, abuse and exploitation?Does the Organization support participation by children and women and other marginalized groups in decision making, including decisions about the project? Does the organization reach out; is it representative of poor people, or those that are hard to reach?Does the Organization actively engage in networks and alliances, including with the local community?

Recommendation:

Signature:

Title:Date:

55