OCHA Functional Review
Final Report
29 July 2016
2
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ... 3
II. Introduction ... 10
III. Role and operating model ... 17
IV. Management Model ... 36
V. Organizational Design ... 57
VI. People and Staffing ... 86
3
I. Executive Summary
I.1. Introduction
The Functional Review was commissioned by Under-Secretary-General O’Brien (the USG) shortly after he took office in July 2015. The overall purpose of the Functional Review is to improve OCHA’s effectiveness and efficiency by ensuring that it has the optimal structure, resources and capacities to deliver on its mandate and commitments, which emanate from GA Resolution 46/182 and OCHA’s 2014-2017 Strategic Framework as endorsed fully by donors through the ODSG.
The aim of the Functional Review is not to evaluate OCHA’s performance to date, but rather to identify existing challenges and to specify opportunities for improving the organization’s long term effectiveness. The specific objectives are as follows:
1. Clarify more explicitly OCHA’s role and operating model going forward, considering the evolving humanitarian ecosystem and the diverse contexts in which OCHA operates;
2. Strengthen OCHA’s management model and decision-making systems to better identify and manage OCHA’s priorities throughout the year;
3. Establish a highly effective organizational model, including a clearly defined organizational structure;
4. Review OCHA’s people management strategy and processes in order to more effectively use its people and to more efficiently support OCHA’s clarified role and operating model; and
5. Lay the foundation for a more productive and positive working culture.
Once these five objectives have been addressed, the next step would be to identify the key systems and processes that need to be improved and streamlined in order to implement the improvements to OCHA’s functioning as an organization. (Note: this final step was not covered in this phase of the Functional Review.)
OCHA is uniquely positioned in the UN and in the international humanitarian ecosystem to be the coordinator of humanitarian response for international players. OCHA has also been a key integration point between the international NGOs and the local organizations, a role that becomes more important as more response is driven in-country. Lastly, OCHA has a unique role with governments in various scenarios, as coordinator of response in some instances, as advisor in response in others, and as a connection point to bodies such as the African Union.
OCHA has key strengths in addressing a number of these needs in coordination in the current environment. OCHA has unique value as a non-programmatic agency dedicated to coordination and has earned a reputation as an honest broker with relevant tools and services. OCHA's ability to act as an honest broker has in turn made it capable of providing neutral territory in order to pursue common humanitarian goals, and has made OCHA capable of bridging a diverse set of humanitarian actors. OCHA is also seen by many stakeholders outside of the UN as being inclusive and as extending networks beyond the traditional UN agencies. Its focus on humanitarian rather than development questions expands its ability to be a connection point in some of the most challenging situations.
OCHA's approach in response has also been highlighted as a strength. Stakeholders specifically describe OCHA as entrepreneurial and responsive. OCHA staff are highly committed to the
organization and its mission, navigating what is often a challenging role with little formal authority. Additionally, the ERC role is broadly seen as an indispensable voice on behalf of the humanitarian community and the connections to the Security Council make OCHA uniquely positioned to influence the international humanitarian system.
Consequently, OCHA is strategically very well positioned for the humanitarian system of the future. The increasing diversity of responders beyond the traditional UN agencies calls for more collaboration
4 and coordination across the humanitarian system. As responders diversify, OCHA may have a greater role in providing bridges among the UN, NGOs and other responders.
While the Functional Review interviews reiterated that the fundamental strategic positioning of OCHA is strong, the review was focused on opportunities for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness. It is clear that OCHA has been hampered by internal issues for a number of years, which have led to some of the challenges identified in the preliminary findings below. These are substantive issues, but since many of the key adjustments apply to OCHA’s internal management and organizational model, there is also a clear pathway to resolve many of these challenges within a relatively short timeframe through a "back to basics" approach.
"Back to basics" is not intended to imply a return to a "Golden Age" – rather, it is meant to imply getting the fundamentals right:
Within role and operating model, this entails clarifying and providing transparency of OCHA's role across the Core Functions.
Within management model, this entails codifying and embedding into practice the set of tools and approaches that the leadership uses in making decisions, and bringing
transparency to decision-making and information sharing to OCHA.
Within organizational design, in large part this entails reducing complexity in the current structure and clarifying roles and relationships among organizational groups, both at headquarters and in the field.
Within people and staffing, this entails developing a clear staffing strategy and communicating that strategy and its implications to OCHA staff and partners.
Within culture, this entails clarity and communication of OCHA's unifying identity and "esprit de corps" and striving towards an organization with a more transparent, collaborative and service-oriented culture.
The following sections present findings and recommendations in those five key areas of inquiry.
I.2. Role and Operating Model
OCHA is operating in a challenging context with increasing pressures. The changing humanitarian landscape is driving more demand for humanitarian aid, but OCHA is increasingly facing resource constraints. While in previous years OCHA was able to draw on reserves, at this point those reserves are nearly drained.
Despite these inherent complexities, stakeholder interviews conducted during the Functional Review highlighted that OCHA's global and local role is highly valued. Six key themes emerged from the interviews:
1. OCHA is well positioned for the future. OCHA plays a unique role as a coordinator and honest broker across players, and is well positioned as a bridge between the UN and beyond. 2. Demand for OCHA's services is increasing.
3. OCHA has an inherently complex portfolio that spans both emergency response coordination in the field and global activities for the humanitarian system.
4. There are divergent views on OCHA’s role and identity internally and externally.
5. Available resources are struggling to keep up with humanitarian demand, adding pressure to OCHA's model.
6. Stakeholders report different levels of efficiency and effectiveness within OCHA's core functional areas.
OCHA's role in public and private advocacy is critical, well defined, and adequately exercised;
5 OCHA's policy activities are often well regarded, but not always seen as clearly articulated
or prioritized;
Stakeholders express confusion around the number and role of coordination staff on the ground, and are unclear on OCHA's strategy for preparedness, protection and IDPs, private sector engagement and cash programming;
Information management activities are viewed as the backbone of OCHA's response coordination work, but there is a consistent view that an updated strategy is required to keep up with the changing landscape; and
Humanitarian financing processes are viewed as cumbersome and slow.
The Functional Review recommends a set of general actions to clarify OCHA's role and to improve the effectiveness of its operating model:
1. OCHA should affirm its identify as having both a global and local mandate, while flexing in different circumstances, primarily take an 'Influencer' stance. It should also reaffirm that it is not programmatic.
2. OCHA should undergo an activity baseline exercise to analyze activities and invested
resources, prioritize, and transparently communicate the results. OCHA should examine tools and approaches to ensure transparent communication on an ongoing basis.
3. By functional area, OCHA should address specific strategic questions and opportunities for improving efficiency and effectiveness.
In addition, the Functional Review makes the following specific recommendations by function: Policy: There is a need to examine the portfolio of current policy activities and prioritize. The
activity baseline exercise will support this process.
Response coordination: In addition to the activity baseline exercise, we recommend a new strategy around preparedness. We also recommend that OCHA answer key questions around protection and coordination in regards to Internally Displaced People (IDPs), engagement with private sector actors, and cash based programming.
Information management: We recommend that OCHA invest in upgrading its information management strategy in response to a rapidly evolving ecosystem
Humanitarian financing: We recommend that OCHA identify the root causes of delays in funding, identify ways to streamline applications for funding, and identify additional measures for risk management.
I.3. Management Model
An organization's management model is the set of tools and approaches that its leadership uses to make decisions and to promulgate them through the organization. A number of shortcomings in OCHA's management model have led to widespread organizational dysfunction, as evidenced by the results of the first organizational survey, which put OCHA in the bottom quartile on every dimension relative to relevant benchmarks.
Currently, OCHA has six main committees that make and promulgate decisions. With a couple of exceptions, these committees resemble those that we would expect to see; however, OCHA's
underlying management process prevents them from functioning as intended. Challenges with OCHA's management model are as follows:
1. The management model is not codified in a clear way, and is lacking key components and interconnections;
6 2. Decisions made at the senior management level generally lack disciplined follow through; and 3. The leadership team does not work well together and perspectives on specific managers have
become an entrenched lens through which all actions are viewed.
To address these challenges, our approach was to consider the best-practice management model seen in both public and private sector enterprises, and to suggest approaches to customizing the best-practice model for OCHA. Developing, clarifying and reliably executing the management model will rely on the following key elements:
1. Develop a management system that drives a clear agenda for the organization as a whole and ensures that the proper topics are being discussed regularly for timely and relevant decisions. The management system should:
Define the core areas for engagement of the leadership team; Define the cadence and process for decision-making; and
Link strategy, operations, finance, budgeting, initiative decision-making, and people and talent processes into a cohesive system.
2. Clarify the committee configuration and membership.
3. Clarify decision rights for each committee, branch, and organizational level.
4. Bring transparency to decisions and actions through standardized information sharing. 5. Develop and reinforce behavioral norms at the leadership level that tie together the mechanics
of a strong management model with disciplined follow-through and a cohesive culture. The specifics within each element of the management model and the tactics behind enforcing accountability must be customized to OCHA, periodically reviewed, and adjusted as needed.
Establishing a new management model will require a concerted effort led by the office of the USG. It should also engage the talented and highly committed layer of leaders below the senior management team.
Significant challenges were highlighted regarding administration, including gaps in basic HR and financial data, and absence of service orientation. We propose that OCHA launch a work stream to investigate administrative systems and service issues, evaluate options, and propose tactical solutions. As administrative services issues are cross-functional, a work stream with representation across OCHA would enable is required to address these issues.
I.4. Organizational Design
Organizational design defines the overall structure of an organization. OCHA's organizational structure was assessed against best practices in public and private sector enterprises. While OCHA's size is broadly consistent with expectations, there are a number of challenges with the current
structure:
1. Identifying New York and Geneva as two distinct headquarter offices leads to unnecessary complexity and confusion.
2. The span-of-control of some top-level managers is very broad.
3. The fragmentation of functions across branches leads to confusion as to who does what, and is a driver of duplication in the organization.
4. Some functions receive insufficient management attention due to (1) insufficient elevation, and (2) blending of internally and externally facing work.
5. There is a disconnect between functional groups at headquarters and those in the field. 6. OCHA headquarters size remains heavy and has not achieved economies of scale. 7. The demands of the ERC role place stress on the USG's time to focus on internal OCHA
oversight.
7 Some of these challenges are easier to address than others through organizational design and they can conflict with each other. In our recommended structure, we have also balanced organizational design changes that will improve OCHA' efficiency and effectiveness with the cost of disruption and the potential distraction from other core challenges. We recommend two senior roles supporting the USG, over time two ASGs, one focused on the field and another on central support and global activities. We also recommend that OCHA:
1. Use the first ASG post for greater internal management of non-field Core Functions and Administrative Functions, almost creating an internally facing 'COO' role.
2. Elevate select communications functions to the Office of the USG and add an internal communications focus.
3. Maintain the current informal relationship between the geographic Section Chiefs and Field Offices but reinforce their role within OCHA.
4. Group the execution of preparedness, local and regional partnerships and emergency response. 5. Maintain separation of global support and partnerships from response coordination.
6. Create regional alignment in the supply of export support services, such as communications and IM to the field.
7. Cluster Humanitarian Financing (HF) groups in headquarters, group together internally facing administrative functions (over the longer-term), and move thematic advisors out of CRD. 8. Announce a single headquarters location, but maintain physical presence in New York and
Geneva.
I.5.People and Staffing
Many organizations in the public and private sector assert that people are their most important asset and then behave in ways that contradict that statement. For OCHA, such statements have to be true. People are really all that OCHA has to offer. It does not deliver goods directly to others, it is not a donor organization1 and it does not have formal authority it can use to ‘command and control.’ Rather, OCHA has people with the motivation, commitment and expertise to persuade a very diverse and complex set of actors to cooperate, to carry out needs assessments, to share information, to mobilize and to allocate resources together. We heard over and over again that 'People make the difference.' And we heard over and over again that it was the quality of these people, and not their number, that made the difference—whether they were in the field or in HQ.
Managing human resources is always important, but it is doubly important for OCHA because the asset is so strategically valuable. Making this challenge even more daunting is the reality that OCHA’s human resources functions must navigate an extremely complex environment. OCHA is a department in the UN Secretariat and is therefore subject to Staff Rules and Staff Regulations of the United
Nations, which are largely geared to slow-moving, predictable operations and programs.
There are many players and many different roles and responsibilities in OCHA’s HRM processes. Staff are responsible for such things as staying well informed and taking various administrative actions. Line managers are involved through their leadership, managerial, supervisory and administrative roles. The Human Resources Section (HRS) has its role to play, as does the Administrative Services Branch (ASB). The UN’s administrative services are also involved, as they handle certain HRM processes, and UNDP administers national field staff.
We examined six aspects of people and staffing at OCHA: staffing strategy, recruitment and on-boarding, surge capacity and deployment, development and learning, performance management and HRM services. The problems in HRM (HR and admin) at OCHA are systemic. We present our reflections and conclusions as recommendations regarding the issues OCHA must address in the six areas mentioned above; where relevant, concrete and immediate steps are also outlined. Our central
1 OCHA does, however, make and manage grants from the United Nations Central Emergency Response
8 recommendations concern staffing strategy, development and learning, and HRM services and are as follows:
OCHA should develop a fit-for-purpose staffing strategy; OCHA should draw up a comprehensive workforce plan;
OCHA should refine job design to capture the nuances of working for OCHA;
OCHA should create a time-bound work stream to ensure the implementation of the people and staffing issues OCHA is facing;
OCHA should develop a fully integrated talent- and career-management strategy; OCHA should commit to playing a more strategic role with respect to HRM in the
Secretariat;
OCHA should overhaul and significantly strengthen the internal HR function and consider outsourcing transactional work; and
OCHA should take immediate action in four key areas to be seen as responsive to the Functional Review.
Additional recommendations on recruitment, surge capacity and deployment, development and learning, and performance management may be found throughout the chapter.
We are not convinced that any of our recommendations are new. Most if not all of them have been repeatedly discussed and documented. The challenge is for OCHA to move to action to make the required systemic and culture changes.
I.6.Culture
Culture is both the cause and effect of the phenomena detailed in all chapters of the Functional Review. Culture also plays a large part in the effectiveness of change management.
OCHA's current culture was assessed mainly through an organizational culture survey, with a ~50% completion rate and even distribution of respondents across OCHA. The survey addressed behaviors at work as well as staff engagement and sentiment in five areas: engagement, objectives and
aspirations, accountabilities and collaboration, performance management and recognition, and people-manager capabilities and interactions.
There were five primary findings highlighted through survey results:
1. On staff satisfaction and engagement, OCHA performed significantly worse than benchmark organizations – in the bottom quartile on all dimensions.
2. OCHA's field staff engagement and satisfaction are higher than that of headquarters staff (largely driven by national staff), but remain below benchmarks.
3. International staff in both field and headquarters report persistent issues across most dimensions of culture.
4. OCHA has strengths that can be leveraged through the change management process. 5. OCHA lacks a strong unifying identity or esprit de corps.
To improve its culture, we recommend that:
1. OCHA should engage its leaders in the change –at all levels, not just senior management. 2. OCHA should create greater executional certainty.
3. OCHA should create a more engaged organization.
The review focused on areas of opportunity for OCHA. While some very significant challenges were found across the areas of focus and the change process ahead of OCHA will not be easy, there is a clear path forward. The review confirmed that OCHA is strategically well positioned for the future.
9 Coordination is accepted as an essential function at the heart of the complex humanitarian ecosystem. As we look forward, that coordination function will become all the more essential as that ecosystem seeks to integrate diverse players. Especially in the face of complex protracted crises, that diversity could make the difference between reaching affected people or not. OCHA has a tremendous asset in its engaged and talented leaders and staff. It will require the concerted effort of OCHA's full team working at the global and local levels to deliver. The recommendations in this review should be seen as supportive to that delivery effort by outlining how OCHA's leaders and staff can clarify OCHA's role and improve its efficiency and effectiveness.
10
II. Introduction
II.1. Purpose and Objectives of the Functional Review
The Functional Review was commissioned by Under-Secretary-General O’Brien (the USG) shortly after he took office in July 2015. The overall purpose of the Functional Review is to improve OCHA’s effectiveness and efficiency by ensuring that it has the optimal structure, resources and capacities to deliver on its mandate and commitments, which emanate from GA Resolution 46/182 and OCHA’s 2014-2017 Strategic Framework as endorsed fully by donors through the ODSG.
The aim of the Functional Review is not to evaluate OCHA’s performance to date, but rather to identify existing challenges and to specify opportunities for improving the organization’s long term effectiveness. The specific objectives are as follows:
1. Clarify more explicitly OCHA’s role and operating model going forward, considering the evolving humanitarian ecosystem and the diverse contexts in which OCHA operates;
2. Strengthen OCHA’s management model and decision-making systems to better identify and manage OCHA’s priorities throughout the year;
3. Establish a highly effective organizational model, including a clearly defined organizational structure;
4. Review OCHA’s people management strategy and processes in order to more effectively use its people and to more efficiently support OCHA’s clarified role and operating model; and
5. Lay the foundation for a more productive and positive working culture.
Once these five objectives have been addressed, the next step would be to identify the key systems and processes that need to be improved and streamlined in order to implement the improvements to OCHA’s functioning as an organization. (Note: this final step was not covered in this phase of the Functional Review.)
II.2. Scope
The Functional Review has considered the above objectives within the context of OCHA's 2014-2017 Strategic Framework. The Functional Review has reviewed OCHA's current state, with some review of historic data and documentation as required. The Functional Review has considered the views of internal and external stakeholders in the areas listed in the objectives above, with a focus on the internal workings of OCHA.
The Functional Review did not examine the following areas: OCHA’s standing within the Inter-Agency Standing Committee The cluster system and its workings
The HC/RC/DSRSG role and reporting relationships OCHA’s funding model
OCHA’s relationship with ISDR
OCHA’s institutional setting within the UN Secretariat, including the use of UN operational platforms such as Umoja
II.3. Context
11 The basis of OCHA’s mandate is General Assembly Resolution 46/182, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 1991 with the objective of strengthening the coordination of humanitarian
emergency assistance of the United Nations. The resolution established guiding principles for
multilateral humanitarian emergency assistance and created a number of tools for its coordination.2 In so doing, it provided a forward-looking and comprehensive framework for international humanitarian assistance and coordination that still holds today.
The resolution has 12 guiding principles, which include the following:
Humanitarian assistance must be provided in accordance with the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality;
The sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of States must be fully respected in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; in this context, humanitarian assistance should be provided with the consent of the affected country and in principle on the basis of an appeal by the affected country;
Each State has the responsibility first and foremost to take care of the victims of natural disasters and other emergencies occurring on its territory, and should facilitate the work of organizations implementing humanitarian assistance;
Special attention should be given to disaster prevention and preparedness by both the government concerned and the international community; and
The relationship between emergency, rehabilitation and development is highlighted. The resolution also created the following coordination mechanisms:
The high-level position of Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC), which combined into a single United Nations focal point the functions carried out by the Secretary-General's
representatives for major and complex emergencies, as well as the United Nation's natural disaster functions carried out by the United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (which was created in 1971 by Resolution 2816);
The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC); The Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP); and
The Central Emergency Revolving Fund, which in 2005 became the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF).
II.3.B. Mission and Core Functions
OCHA's mission is to mobilize and coordinate effective and principled humanitarian action in partnership with national and international actors in order to alleviate human suffering in disasters and emergencies; advocate the rights of people in need; promote preparedness and prevention; and facilitate sustainable solutions.3 It does this through five Core Functions that derive from its mandate, as follows:
Coordination; Policy; Advocacy;
Information Management; and Humanitarian Financing.
2 OCHA – Policy Development and Studies Branch, Reference Guide – Normative developments on the
coordination of humanitarian assistance in the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 46/182, 3rd edition, 2015
12
II.3.C. OCHA's current strategy
While the investigation into OCHA's role is meant to review role within the context of various stakeholder views and changing landscape, it is considered within the context of OCHA's 2014-2017 Strategic Plan and Management Plan.
OCHA’s Strategic Plan has two goals for 2014 to 2017 underpinned by 10 strategic objectives. These define the focus of OCHA’s work in the field and at headquarters, as well as the overarching priorities towards which all of its activities contribute. The two goals are:
Field effectiveness: More effective and principled humanitarian action that meets the needs of affected people.
Fit for the future: A more diverse and adaptable humanitarian sector, spanning a variety of existing and emerging responder and partner networks.
OCHA’s current Management Plan focuses on making OCHA fit for purpose. It is structured around five management objectives covering (1) people management, (2) staff learning and performance, (3) support services, systems and tools, (4) standards and innovation, and (5) resources, structure and management.
The investigation of OCHA's role considers not only the context of OCHA's Strategic Plan of 2014-2017 and alignment with the Strategic Plan, but also various stakeholder views and the changing landscape including considerations from the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS).
II.3.D. Humanitarian landscape
There are some major changes impacting the humanitarian landscape and potentially impacting the underlying demand for crisis response and coordination. In addressing changes to the landscape, we focus on the changes that most directly affect the delivery of humanitarian services to people.
Megatrends such as climate change4 which may increase the number of sudden on-set natural
disasters, growing risk of medical pandemics5 due to increased connectivity and globalization, growing inequality within and among countries,6 increased political instability7 and the changing nature of conflicts, growing urbanization8, and the increase in occurrences and severity of terrorist acts9 and violent extremism as well as anti-terrorism measures all make crisis response more complex. There are also trends in digitalization and mobile connectivity10, which change the nature of response and interaction with affected people as more people have access to smart phones and social media.
Given these megatrends, there is an increased need for humanitarian response. On average ~200 million people were affected annually by conflict or natural disasters from 2005 to 2014, with a growth in the proportion of conflict disasters. From 2011 to 2014, the number of people affected by
4 World Economic Forum: Global Risks 2014, Ninth Edition
5 WHO Disease Burden Data, November 2013; Unicef, WHO, World Bank, UN-DESA Population Division
"Levels and trends in child mortality 2013"; Secretary-General for the World Humanitarian Summit, "One Humanity: Shared Responsibility", 31 January 2016
6 European Council; UN (featured in Economist 2050 Megachange; Secretary-General for the World
Humanitarian Summit, "One Humanity: Shared Responsibility", 31 January 2016
7 2014 Marsh-Maplecroft Political Risk Map; UN Security Council Report February 2014; Secretary-General
for the World Humanitarian Summit, "One Humanity: Shared Responsibility", 31 January 2016
8 European Council; UN (featured in Economist 2050 Megachange; Secretary-General for the World
Humanitarian Summit, "One Humanity: Shared Responsibility", 31 January 2016
9 Global Terrorism Index: Measuring and Understanding the Impact of Terrorism, Institute for Economics and
Peace 2014 Report
13 violent conflicts increased by a 12% average annual growth rate, reaching ~60M people affected in 2014. At the same time, the number of people targeted through inter-agency appeals increased to ~76M people in 2014, which represents ~38% of total affected people. The average percent of affected people targeted over 2005 to 2010 was ~12% by comparison.11 In the case of terrorism, the breadth and severity of occurrences has increased. Deaths from terrorist activity increased five-fold from 3,361 in 2000 to 17,958 in 2013. In one year, the number of countries experiencing more than 50 deaths rose from 15 to 24, with majority of deaths from terrorism in 2013 occurring in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria –some of the largest recipients of humanitarian aid and coordination resources.12
Need is increasing, but humanitarian response funding is not keeping pace. The burden on the countries that have historically been the highest contributors to humanitarian aid cannot be
expected to grow with the rising need. Diversification from this base is both essential and expected as economies grow and more countries are in the position to be donors. As we write, we see change, but those new sources of funding have not sufficiently materialized to address gaps in funding for today's crises. The total humanitarian aid requested in 2015 was ~$20B, while at the same time the funding gap is at an all time high, with only ~50% of requested aid funded.13
There are an increasing number of both local and international NGOs. The universe of responders is also expanding and changing. There are more NGOs than ever before: estimates suggest that globally there were more than 54,000 NGOs, both local and international, active in 2016. More national authorities are playing a significant role in coordinating humanitarian response. The number of international actors grew by ~65% from 1985 to 201314, from ~4,700 to ~7,700
organizations. There is also a sense that 'the future of response is local' and that local actors will play a greater role in response over time. The increase in the number of responders greatly increases the potential effectiveness of emergency response, but it also creates a greater need for coordination. The increase in terrorism has complicated the rules for coordination. The rise in instances and severity of terrorist acts creates concerns for the safety of humanitarian aid workers and
complicates the landscapes for delivering and coordinating aid. International norms adopted to combat terrorism such as the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and UN Security Council Resolution 1373 on preventing the funding of terrorist activities can have a stifling effect on humanitarian donors and response entities, adding a layer of complexity to OCHA’s work in humanitarian financing.
Governments are increasingly able to coordinate their own responses and are increasingly looking to external agencies for advice and expertise. Though many governments are becoming better able to coordinate their own responses, they increasingly look to external agencies for advice and expertise. This is particularly evident in middle-income countries in Latin America and Asia, but it is also a rapidly growing trend in Africa. While this may reduce or change the amount of direct
response coordination required by OCHA, the differentiated responses by country increase complexity. Other new developments from the WHS create substantial shifts in the availability and
demand of resources moving forward. The WHS is a major development in the humanitarian landscape. The Summit took place in Istanbul, Turkey on May 23-24, 2016. The goal of the Summit was to initiate a set of actions and commitments aimed at enabling countries and communities to better prepare for, and respond to, crises. Three major commitments arising from the summit are highlighted below to display the breadth and potential impact of changes in the humanitarian landscape. The
11 OCHA Humanitarian Data and Trends 2015 Report
12 Global Terrorism Index: Measuring and Understanding the Impact of Terrorism, Institute for Economics and
Peace 2014 Report
13 OCHA Global Humanitarian Overview 2016, OECD CRS
14 commitments below were supported by top donors, aid organizations, and large recipients of aid. These commitments also outlined concrete steps for completion, deadlines, and processes.
The Grand Bargain: the Grand Bargain is an agreement to increase data transparency, localization, use of pooled funding, cash-based programming and flexible funding in the humanitarian system. Many key players in the system supported the agreement, including governments, UN agencies, other inter-governmental organizations and NGOs. Over 100 NGOs and INGOs also supported the agreement. While the parties made multiple
commitments, some commitments of note include: transitioning to a global aggregate target of 25% of humanitarian financing to local and national responders (LNR) directly by 2020; applying a localization marker to measure direct and indirect funding to LNR; using country-based pooled funds, the IFRC Disaster Relief Emergency Fund, and NGO-led and other pooled funds;
building an evidence base to assess the costs, benefits, impacts, and risks of cash relative to in-kind assistance, service delivery interventions and vouchers; creating transparent and
comparable cost structures by the end of 2017; and saving incrementally up to $1B from efficiency savings to humanitarian action over five years. Ultimately, these commitments will increase the efficiency and flexibility of funding.
Doubling the CERF: the target amount of the CERF, which currently stands at $450MM, has been proposed by the SG to be doubled. Donors such as the Canadian and German
governments have made commitments to provide multi-year donations to CERF and to increase contributions to the fund by 25%. Meeting this goal will require significant resources from OCHA in terms of finding new donors and managing the fund.
Education Cannot Wait Fund: the fund, which has already raised approximately $90MM, aims to reach $3.75B in size by 2021. Many of the donors for this fund are also major donors for the entire humanitarian system. Unless the donors can increase their donation levels overall, it should be assumed that the donations will come from the general humanitarian financing pool. OCHA specifically made approximately 50 commitments at the Summit related to accountability,
gender, protection, resilience, humanitarian financing and other areas of impact. At this point, it cannot be determined how or when each of these commitments will be translated into specific actions or what they mean for OCHA's resource requirements.
Outside of crises where government is the primary coordinator, OCHA continues to be uniquely positioned in the UN and in the international humanitarian ecosystem to be the coordinator of
humanitarian response. While other groups such as Care and International Committee of Red Cross, and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have coordination components within their own networks, no other organization is solely focused on coordination. Similarly, no other organization has the same positional advantage in being able to bridge the UN system and non-UN humanitarian actors. However, as the actors diversify, this could shift as groups emerge as better positioned than OCHA for specific settings. With these new actors comes change for the UN and OCHA. While we expect many to elect to work with the UN system, others will choose their own paths, increasing diversity in the players and approaches to emergency response. This diversification will add to the complexity of the landscape in which OCHA operates but hopefully also add to the world's ability to respond effectively to different contexts.
Implications of where OCHA needs to clarify its role, given the outcomes of WHS, will be identified in Section III of this report.
The above trends have implications for the long term role of OCHA and create a backdrop for our approach in the Functional Review.
15 The Functional Review used a combination of resources including qualitative and quantitative data and literature. Primary quantitative data was collected through two organizational surveys: one focused on staff sentiment (which addressed current workings of the organization across different areas), and the other focused on the current activities of OCHA staff. Qualitative primary data was collected through confidential stakeholder interviews, group sessions, a review of confidential emails, two-way interactive digital engagement forums, and qualitative comments received through surveys. Additional information was gathered through field visits to Ethiopia, Kenya (including the Somalia office), the Philippines, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
This process was extraordinarily consultative. In total, the Functional Review included over 400 stakeholders through interviews, group discussions, emails, and interactive online posts. ~6% of the organization was interviewed or engaged in small forums of less than five individuals, representative of the entire organization, not just senior managers; this is an unusually large sample for a review of this kind. In addition, the functional review captured approximately 5,000 comments made in surveys and received ~1,800 responses to quantitative surveys. All survey responses were across a variety of constituents representing ~50% of OCHA staff in the first survey, and ~30% in the second survey. Interviews represented both internal stakeholders across the organization, but also key donors and partners, including UN agencies as well as NGOs and other institutions.
The Functional Review team reviewed hundreds of documents, including past reviews, audits and evaluations, governance documents, policies, organizational details for offices, annual reports, etc. Additionally, the Functional Review team analyzed current and historic staffing and budget documents across the organization.
Detailed methodology can be found in Annex B.
II.5. Functional Review Team
The Functional Review has been led and overseen by the USG and ERC. The day-to-day
management of the exercise was overseen by the Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, with the direct support of members of the Strategic
Planning, Evaluation and Guidance Section (SPEGS).
The Functional Review was jointly carried out by two management consulting companies, The Boston Consulting Group and MANNET. The Boston Consulting Group investigated the topics of role and operating model, management model, organizational structure and culture. MANNET investigated the topic of people and staffing.
II.6. About the authors
Dr. Sarah Cairns-Smith is a Senior Partner and Managing Director in the Boston office of The Boston Consulting Group. Elizabeth Kaufman is a Partner and Managing Director also in the firm's Boston office. Cristina Iftimie is a Project Leader in BCG's Washington D.C. office. Piers Campbell is President of MANNET and Judith Hushagen is Managing Director and Partner of MANNET,
Switzerland.
II.7. Acknowledgements
Before commencing with the Functional Review Report, we would like to express our sincere
thanks to all stakeholders with whom we have collaborated during this review, giving special recognition to the staff and management of OCHA offices worldwide. We wish especially to thank the staff and management of OCHA, UN, NGO, civil society, donor and government partners worldwide who so generously gave their time. We also would like to thank the staff of the Strategic Planning, Evaluation and Guidance Section for rapidly mobilizing data, and for engaging a network of global partners in the
16 functional review. It is a direct result of this level of cooperation and enthusiasm that the realization of this review has become possible.
II.8. Disclaimer
The contents and conclusions of this review report the opinion of the authors Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and MANNET.
The Boston Consulting Group investigated the topics of role and operating model, management model, organizational structure, and culture. MANNET investigated the topic of people and staffing. BCG was also responsible for the remainder of the document, excluding the people and staffing chapter 4 and other people and staffing topics embedded within the document, for instance in the executive summary.
17
III. Role and operating model
III.1. Context
Experience has affirmed that there is a fundamental need for coordination in the humanitarian system and has validated GA Resolution 46/182 that established the post of the ERC at the USG level, as well as the IASC. The dual roles of the ERC as chair of the IASC community and the USG as head of OCHA have some inherent tensions, but the two roles ultimately complement and support each other, just as OCHA's global and field roles do. The ERC role supports and significantly contributes to OCHA's ability to fulfill its mandate, in advocacy for example, and the USG role in managing OCHA provides the underlying infrastructure for the ERC and humanitarian system. The need for coordination can be expected to increase given the trends mentioned earlier in this document. At the same time, the trends also indicate that there is growing financial constraint in the humanitarian system.
Available funds are not matching increased, and more complex, demand. So, along with the entire humanitarian system, OCHA is facing resource constraints. While in previous years OCHA was able to draw on reserves, at this point those reserves are nearly drained. The increasingly limited resource situation places pressure on staff both in the field and at headquarters to focus on priorities and to make some challenging choices.
Nonetheless, OCHA staff are extremely committed to the organization and its mission, navigating what is often a challenging role with little formal authority.
Quote from a donor: "within this system, you have OCHA with a role to coordinate and chair the IASC, but it's in a position without a toolbox and without any power…the mandate is essentially herding cats, but with no sticks, no carrots."
Lack of formal authority has been raised by some OCHA staff as an impediment that they would like to see overcome. While it is potentially possible for OCHA to gain formal authority as a coordinator within the UN system, the mechanisms to do so would be difficult and may actually be counter-productive, hampering its efficiency and effectiveness as a coordinator. Particularly as OCHA interfaces with NGOs and other actors who have constituencies beyond the UN, the lack of formal authority will persist. OCHA's ability to navigate this environment effectively without formal authority is an advantage in the face of a changing landscape. For the purpose of this report we have assumed that the status of OCHA's formal authority will not change in the future.
III.2. Current state
OCHA serves different global and local stakeholders across each of its five Core Functions: coordination, policy, advocacy, information management, and humanitarian financing. Some stakeholders rely on OCHA to provide services across all functions, while others rely on OCHA to provide a narrower set of services.
The focus of this chapter is on what OCHA does, we will discuss in a later chapter how OCHA is organized to perform those activities. This chapter is also not focused on internal OCHA functions such as administration or donor relations. Instead, we focused on key places in the Core Functions where OCHA should consider opportunities for improving efficiency and effectiveness, and where OCHA needs to clarify its role and sharpen its strategic focus.
Each of the Core Functions can be described in distinct ways, but they are not discrete work streams and the inter-relatedness of the Core Functions makes it difficult at times to delineate when one Core Function ends and another begins. Often functions within OCHA are not aware of the full remit of others. For the purpose of clarity, this report provides a delineation of the main roles and activities across each Core Function.
It is important to note that that the descriptions of the Core Functions do not equate to any specific OCHA organizational section or branch. There may be significant overlap in certain Core Functions with a specific branch or section and each branch or section is likely to have activities across multiple Core Functions, and any given functional activity is not exclusive to a single group.
18
Response coordination
The main roles of response coordination today are to 1) support the Humanitarian Coordinators and other humanitarian actors to ensure effective coordination at the country level, including through
partnerships with humanitarian actors, donors, and affected governments, 2) facilitate needs
assessments, situation analysis, joint response planning, evaluation and monitoring of humanitarian response, 3) work with national governments, regional bodies and other agencies to promote preparedness through early warning, contingency planning, simulations and other preparedness activities, and 4) manage the UNDAC and INSARAG or civil-military rapid-response mechanisms. Example response coordination activities include developing strategically prioritized cluster response plans, internal reporting, and liaising with relevant partners on the ground. As a key element of the ERC/USG role, timely briefings on crises – ongoing, emerging and protracted – are continually required.
Policy
The main roles of policy today are to 1) support the development of policies, guidance, agreements and partnerships to improve humanitarian action and respect for humanitarian principles, 2) provide advice and training on humanitarian policies, laws, norms and best practice, 3) develop policy in
response to and report on global trends, challenges and opportunities for effective humanitarian action, and 4) engage with Member States to advance humanitarian policy and operational priorities through inter-governmental fora. Policy activities include developing briefing materials on relevant policy areas for the ERC, engaging with partners to develop joint policy work, providing advice to the field for relevant topics. As the advisor to the Secretary General (SG) on humanitarian topics, the USG/ERC must be prepared to brief the SG as well as Member States and intergovernmental bodies, most notably the Security Council on every humanitarian topic of interest, including emerging trends or potential policy topics.
Advocacy
The main roles of advocacy today are to 1) actively facilitate and advocate for improved
humanitarian access, 2) coordinate humanitarian advocacy strategies, partnerships, campaigns and events, 3) identify and report on constraints to humanitarian action (e.g., access, underfunding, violation of humanitarian principles), and 4) communicate humanitarian advocacy priorities, laws, principles and objectives. Advocacy activities include coordinating messaging for the SG and the USG for public engagement, including press releases and media encounters, and offering technical advice to Member States and the Security Council. Advocacy is a key element of the externally facing ERC role and fulfilling the accountability of the role takes a significant amount of the USG/ERC time. However, the role the USG plays in coordination provides a powerful base for advocacy and adds an important perspective to the international conversation.
Information management
The main roles of information management today are to 1) collect, manage, analyze and disseminate data and information directly and / or through partnerships to support humanitarian preparedness and response, 2) manage information tools and products such as datasets,
spreadsheets, reports, charts, infographics, maps, web platforms, mobile applications and social media, and 3) provide information management support to OCHA colleagues, staff of UN agencies and non-governmental organizations, government counterparts and local populations. Example information management activities include developing information products from data on the ground, maintaining global data infrastructure such as Humanitarian Data Exchange, and cleaning and standardizing data for further analysis in the field.
19 The main roles of humanitarian financing today are to 1) coordinate development and revisions of inter-agency humanitarian appeals, 2) facilitate system-wide resource mobilization (humanitarian appeals launches, fundraising events, partnerships and joint strategies), 3) process and allocate funding from OCHA-managed humanitarian pooled funds (CERF, CBPFs), and 4) track, analyze and disseminate humanitarian funding data and trends. Financing activities include fund portfolio
management and investment analysis and tracking.
III.3. Findings
Finding 1: OCHA is well positioned for the future
Finding 1.1: OCHA is unique as a coordinator and is well positioned as a bridge between the UN and beyond
While humanitarian actors have some coordination components, OCHA is the only organization focused solely on humanitarian coordination both at the global level (for instance through advocacy and policy, and at the local level (through the humanitarian response coordination). OCHA is uniquely positioned in the UN and, in what is increasingly being called and accepted as the international humanitarian 'ecosystem', as the coordinator of humanitarian response for international players extending far beyond the UN entities. OCHA also serves as a unique integration point between international NGOs and local organizations, a role that becomes increasingly important as responses are increasingly driven in-country. Finally, OCHA plays an unparalleled role in its interface with
governments, as coordinator of response in some instances, as advisor in response in others, and as a connection point between governments and regional response bodies such as the African Union.
OCHA has unique value as a non-programmatic agency dedicated to coordination and has earned a reputation as an honest broker with relevant tools and services. OCHA's ability to act as this honest broker has in turn made it capable of bridging across a diverse set of humanitarian actors to pursue common humanitarian goals. OCHA is seen by many stakeholders outside of the UN as being inclusive of networks beyond the traditional UN agencies. OCHA's approach towards humanitarian response has also been highlighted as a strength. Stakeholders specifically describe OCHA as
entrepreneurial and responsive relative to other UN entities. Additionally, the ERC role is broadly seen as an indispensable input for the humanitarian community in formulating its priorities and concerted actions. The connections to the Security Council uniquely position OCHA to influence the international humanitarian system.
Consequently, OCHA is strategically well positioned for the humanitarian system of the future. The increasing diversity of responders beyond the traditional UN agencies calls for more collaboration and coordination across the humanitarian system. As responders diversify, OCHA may have a greater role in providing bridges across the UN, NGOs and other responders. As a central actor that does not itself provide goods and services, OCHA is well suited to work with the humanitarian community on cross-sector opportunities for long term efficiency and impact. OCHA has demonstrated its capacity to do this. Within IM, OCHA-driven data standards are becoming more accepted and used by agencies, and this can lead to standardization across the humanitarian system and consequently to more efficiency in data sharing and analysis. Likewise, OCHA’s concerted advocacy vis-à-vis the Security Council led to outcomes such as Resolution 2165, passed in July 2014, which authorized cross-border humanitarian access for UN agencies and their implementing partners into Syria and established monitoring
mechanism under the SG’s authority to monitor aid deliveries across the designated borders into Syria.
Finding 1.2: Stakeholders value OCHA's role and services and typically demand more
External stakeholders largely view OCHA’s role as valuable and typically request more OCHA support in the areas of response coordination, advocacy, and IM. Despite the challenges and inherent
20 complexities involved in OCHA's role, the interviews conducted during the Functional Review
underlined that OCHA's role is highly valued by stakeholders across both global and local contexts. Interviewees from organizations that depend on OCHA in the field were overwhelmingly supportive of the need for OCHA. When asked if OCHA support in the field should be limited to a tighter upfront role, interviewees typically proposed longer versus shorter OCHA engagement. Both UN players and those outside the UN system underlined how crucial OCHA's role can be in ensuring the humanitarian system delivers on its mission as effectively as possible. Those organizations outside the UN
underlined the importance of OCHA in including them, and in bridging beyond the UN with the ability to ensure that the comprehensive response reflects the comparative advantage of different organizations. Quote from a partner: "Coordination needs don't go away after the start of a crisis, even if they go down"
Quote from a partner indicating the need for OCHA even if no large active crisis: "If there is substantial UN presence, say D1s and D2s in several other agencies, then we need at least a small core of OCHA support, perhaps supported out of the HC's office"
Quote from a partner: "OCHA works well to integrate us (one of the largest INGOs), they make sure our voice is heard, OCHA is nimble and entrepreneurial relative to the rest of the UN system"
The majority of interviewees pointed to the increasing demand for this umbrella coordination role as more diverse players, such as local NGOs and the private sector, become more engaged in response. As mentioned above, the role that OCHA plays as a bridge between the UN and the other actors is highly valuable and uniquely positions OCHA to meet this demand in the future. Additionally, as more governments take leading roles in coordinating response, OCHA was cited as an important connection point.
Stakeholders also underlined the importance of strong OCHA IM to its coordination role, both within the crisis response and in conveying messages from the field to the global humanitarian community, underlining its unique advocacy position and connection to the Security Council. The importance of the policy work on key core topics as well as the integral role OCHA plays in intergovernmental and inter-agency processes was also highlighted as critical. The central need for OCHA coordination can be summarized in the observation of one INGO stakeholder "if there wasn't an OCHA, we'd need to invent it immediately."
While the Functional Review interviews reiterated that the fundamental strategic positioning of OCHA is strong; stakeholders highlighted some of the challenges identified below.
Finding 2: Demand for OCHA's services is increasing
Finding 2.1: There are an increasing number of responders to crises, which increases the need for coordination
There are an increasing number of responders in humanitarian crises, with different needs and capabilities. More local NGOs are participating in responses, and in certain situations are the fastest to respond and are the only groups able to access certain populations. Additionally, private sector
involvement is becoming more common especially in natural disaster settings, and while the companies provide a valuable contribution to the overall response, they are also responders that require
coordination. Given that OCHA is typically not staffed with people with private sector backgrounds, navigating this coordination role will be hard. Additionally, governments are playing a bigger role, depending on their capacities, and are an increasingly active part of the response in many areas.
Finding 2.2: The emergencies requiring humanitarian response are increasingly complex and protracted
Along with the entire humanitarian system, OCHA is facing new challenges given increased and more complex demand. There are more protracted and politically sensitive crises in increasingly
complex settings. For example, there are more crises triggered by political strife, compounded by weak government and/or protracted natural disasters, and more conflict in urban settings, which increase
21 complexity of response. This shifting need calls for OCHA to consider the specific capabilities required for these settings, such as access negotiation, and reflect on the configuration of OCHA response needs for the future.
Quote from a partner "Now more complex protracted emergencies – need to account for political and economic context. OCHA needs to be more strategic and smart in its response"
Quote from a partner "Today, things are more complex than they were in the cold war period" Finding 2.3: OCHA has constituents who have different needs both globally and locally, which concurrently drive different demands in OCHA
OCHA is tasked with the coordination for emergency response and must work with partners to alleviate the suffering of people in need. Beyond the affected people and direct responders to emergencies, there are other constituents that OCHA must work with in order to fulfill its mandate. OCHA must continue to work with, and meet the needs of a wide range of constituents and
constituencies as they are all vital to a more efficient response.
The diverse stakeholder needs create a tension in addressing OCHA's role. All want OCHA to focus on 'core' but each defines core differently.
Partners
Partners want OCHA to be an on-the-ground ally that identifies gaps and coordinates response in the field. Some partners have also highlighted the desire for more strategic analysis that is better informed by the context. At the same time, partners have highlighted that the coordination process, while valuable, can at times be overly burdensome and may interfere with critical activities they must undertake in the field. Partners have indicated that OCHA should continue to pursue opportunities to increase efficiency and lighten the burden.
Quote from a partner "OCHA needs to ensure the entire coordination system is light and nimble, rather than being heavy, time-consuming, bureaucratic and process-driven, as it often is today" Donors
Donors are also looking for OCHA to coordinate, but they have different needs. Donors face pressure from their specific governments to justify the budgets they allocate to the multiple UN organizations for specific crisis responses. Consequently, donors are increasingly asking for more details and deeper understanding of how money is allocated within and across responses, and are increasingly looking to OCHA for a variety of tracking, reporting, and information products to provide the consolidated view of the response. The challenge is that adopting a stronger 'monitoring' role may limit OCHA's ability to get players to the table and openly share the reality of the on-the-ground situation, which is at the core of successful response coordination. While monitoring is not equivalent to evaluating, it may be perceived as such. Collective agreement to share common metrics on the response would position OCHA to play a coordination role of that reporting, but it may be difficult if OCHA is perceived to be enforcing that reporting on behalf of donors.
Quote from a donor "OCHA could play a critical role by conducting analysis on financing data and increasing transparency of funding to humanitarian system (e.g., where is money flowing, how effective and sustainable is it, where are administrative fees taken out?"
Quote from a donor "Products like the Global Humanitarian Report are valuable to donors who don't have time to analyze this kind of data and rely on OCHA to provide this evidence-based overview." Governments
22 The affected countries themselves are also a critical constituent. In some situations, there is a fully functioning government that is the overall coordinator in the response and OCHA acts as an external advisor. In other situations, OCHA has stronger engagement and the governments are a responder within a primarily international response, but do not have the capabilities to coordinate. In certain other situations, the government is either weak, or perhaps even hostile to the UN and OCHA, in which case the government body becomes a group for OCHA to include in coordination in order to enable the response to the affected people. The complexity of the OCHA coordination increases further where the governments are seen to be parties to ongoing conflict, e.g. conflicts in complex environments such as Syria.
Finding 3: OCHA has an inherently diverse portfolio that spans both emergency response coordination
in the field and global activities for the humanitarian system
Finding 3.1: OCHA's mandate requires it to address both emergency response in the field, elements of preparedness and the broader strategic needs of the global humanitarian community
OCHA's mandate has been described as a "mandate to do everything". OCHA straddles a unique
role between the field and headquarters and consequently has a significant ability to influence the highest political decision-makers through informing about and advocating on behalf of critical needs in the field. Beyond coordinating a response in the field, OCHA has additional accountabilities to the humanitarian community, including, for example, global advocacy campaigns and inter-governmental policy dialogue. Coordination can take many forms, information management and policy can span wide tracts, humanitarian financing roles are diverse, and advocacy can have many messages and
audiences.
Finding 3.2: The complex nature of today’s humanitarian emergencies requires a more customized humanitarian response
There is no single model for OCHA’s field coordination role. As indicated above, crises have become increasingly complex. Government capabilities and desire for support are highly diverse, further adding complexity. Given that the efficiency and effectiveness of OCHA is highly contingent on customizing its approach, it is difficult to perform typical management comparisons to judge
performance and to ensure consistent quality. The customization also calls for trade-offs among
elements of the mandate, which is difficult for an organization that lacks a cohesive management model (see the next chapter).
While we see some evidence of OCHA customizing its footprint in-country, some internal and external stakeholders believe that OCHA could still improve the adaptability of coordination
approaches. In Colombia, for example, while the majority of the staff is in Bogota, there are a number of small sub-offices with as few as 1-2 people to ensure that the response considers the different needs in the country. We see similar customization in DRC where the level of demand is challenging to address. Colombia also has leveraged partnerships with local universities in order to build on its ability to gather data to inform decision-making. Looking forward, with the expectation of more diverse
players and funders engaging in humanitarian response and with the desire to better integrate along the humanitarian/development continuum, we expect this complexity to increase.
Finding 4: There are divergent views on OCHA’s role and identity internally and externally
Finding 4.1: External partners and donors do not share a common view of OCHA's raison d’être nor of how it should relate to its partners
The fact that OCHA's mandate under GA Resolution 46/182 is broad and open to interpretation means that its stakeholders do not all share the same view of what constitutes OCHA’s ‘core’ work,
23 what its current priorities should be, or when OCHA is best-placed to provide certain services to the humanitarian sector.
As mentioned in Finding 2.3, OCHA constituents have different needs and therefore differing views on OCHA's role in serving those needs. Consequently, there are often competing views on OCHA's raison d’être that make it difficult for OCHA to find common ground across constituents. Additionally, constituents often do not know or do not take into account the differing pressures that OCHA faces from different partners, which does not allow for a common view of OCHA's role.
Finding 4.2: OCHA’s leaders have different visions for the organization and have concurrently pursued different activities aligned with their individual visions
The combination of a broad mandate, a diverse need base, a lack of cohesion across OCHA leaders, and external stakeholders with very different incentives, creates room for different interpretations of the OCHA role. While OCHA respondents to the organizational survey are overwhelmingly proud to work for the organization and understand how their role contributes to the goals of the organization, there is an overall view that managers do not communicate a common vision for the organization. The organizational survey question with the lowest result relative to the
benchmark averages was "we can see senior management is committed to organization goals", where only 56% of the organization agreed with the statement. These concerns about the lack of alignment around a vision were also echoed throughout the qualitative data.
Quote from an internal stakeholder: "There has been no unified and coherent 'senior management' for quite a while. Therefore, there is no common vision and no joint 'selling' points rather a big flea market from which to pick and chose or ignore."
Quote from an internal stakeholder: "[Senior managers communicate and sell the vision] very poorly. There is no clear vision so there is nothing much to sell. Unfortunately, this is very apparent to external partners, making it difficult for staff to sell the organization, its values and fund what we are already doing."
Quote from an internal stakeholder: "Difficult to understand senior management vision as there are several visions from different members of the senior management team"
Quote from an internal stakeholder: "Currently, OCHA lacks vision over all and even if there is a vision, it has not been communicated effectively. The SMT is divided into conflicting and opposing groups, infested with power struggle between branches and different headquarters."
While all of the issues discussed above point to challenges behind determining the OCHA role, lack of senior management cohesiveness is driving the fragmented and at times duplicative activities we see. Similarly, the siloed approach has allowed divergent views on OCHA's role to drive forward into divergent positions and activities. This takes the form of different branches pursuing initiatives and projects for functional topics that, while independently good ideas, do not concurrently march along the same path. OCHA's value may increasingly be its ability to be flexible as humanitarian contexts evolve, but that flexibility still needs a framework and currently different elements of OCHA are working with different frames.
Quote from an internal stakeholder: "The leadership team however does not have a vision as each manager pursues his/her own (private) objectives. The individual vision is sold to their own staff and communicated down. The problem is that there is no common vision, hence each Director
communicates only his/her vision creating a highly fragmented OCHA"
Finding 5: Available resources are struggling to keep up with humanitarian demand, adding pressure
to OCHA's model
Finding 5.1: The financial constraints faced by the humanitarian system create corresponding resource constraints and the constant push to ‘do more with less’ in OCHA
