Page 1 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

2018 Cluster Performance Monitoring

Final Report

Cluster:

Nutrition

Country:

South

South Sudan

Level:

National

Completed on:

01/04/2019

1. INTRODUCTION South Sudan Nutrition Cluster The cluster approach was established in 2005 following an independent Humanitarian Response Review, to address gaps and to increase the effectiveness of humanitarian response by building partnerships. The Nutrition cluster was established late in 2010. The primary purpose of the Nutrition Cluster is to support and strengthen coordination of nutrition actors within the humanitarian community, and to ensure appropriate and efficient response to humanitarian crisis by providing life-saving nutrition support to populations in need in accordance with national and global standards.

Emergency nutrition activities are coordinated through fortnightly cluster coordination meetings and ad hoc meetings. The cluster also coordinates a number of technical working groups (TWG): Community Based Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) TWG; Nutrition Information Working Group (NIWG); Maternal Infant and Young Child Nutrition (MIYCN). Given the evolving and challenging environment and emergency nutrition response context in South Sudan, specific task forces were also established for providing common guidelines and response modalities, information sharing and developing and promoting coherent monitoring and reporting systems. This includes: Rapid Response Mission (RRM) task force; Quality and Accountability to Affected Population (QAAP) task force; and Nutrition in Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) task force. The vision and strategic direction of the nutrition cluster is decided by a Strategic Advisory Group (SAG). The SAG is chaired by the Director of Nutrition and co-chaired by the nutrition cluster coordinator and has representation from the Government (MOH), UN agencies, National and International NGOs and observers. The nutrition cluster coordination team has formally established Sub national nutrition cluster coordination arrangements in 10 of the former states (Upper Nile, Jonglei, NBeG, Unity, EES, WES, Lakes, Warrap, CES and WBeG). All the Sub national nutrition cluster coordination support the existing government health system on the ground and are supposed to be chaired by the heads of State or County Health Departments (CHD) or heads/nutrition focal points

Page 2 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

in the State and sub states. The composition of the State level coordination mechanisms is similar to that at Juba depending on the number of operational partners on the ground. The Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring: The purpose of a Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring is to identify areas for support and improvement, to ensure that clusters are efficient and effective coordination mechanisms, which fulfill the core cluster functions, meet the needs of constituent members, and support delivery to affected people. It is also an effective way of demonstrating accountability and the added value of the cluster and to justify the cost of coordination. A Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring provides an in-depth assessment based on the perceptions of partners and cluster coordinator about the functioning of the cluster in fulfilling its six specific core functions, which are:

1. Supporting service delivery 2. Informing strategic decision-making of HC/HCT for humanitarian response 3. Planning and strategy development 4. Monitoring and reporting 5. Contingency planning/preparedness 6. Advocacy

+ Accountability to affected populations Nutrition Cluster CCPM Objectives

▪ Ensure efficient and effective coordination ▪ Take stock of what functional areas work well and what areas need improvement ▪ Raise awareness of support needed from the government, HCT, cluster lead agencies, global clusters or

cluster partners ▪ Opportunity for self-reflection ▪ Strengthening transparency and partnership within the cluster ▪ Show the added value and justify the costs of coordination

South Sudan 2018 CCMP Process Step 1, Planning: October – December 2018. Step 2, On-line CCPM Survey: January – February 2019. Preliminary report issued 20th March 2019 and shared with all cluster partners; Step 3, Cluster analysis and action planning: 1st April 2019. CCPM Validation Workshop and development of the Action Plan to improve performance Step 4, Follow-up and Monitoring: quarterly. Finalization of the Action Plan, presentation to the HCT/Government, incorporation into the cluster workplan, implementation and monitoring.

Page 3 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

Table 1. Response rate among partners

Cluster partner type # partners completed

survey # partners Response rate (%)

Donors 0 5 0.0%

International NGOs 27 42 64.3% National Authority 0 1 0.0%

National NGOs 30 20 150.0%

ICRC/IFRC 0 2 0.0%

UN Organizations 1 5 20.0%

Total 58 75 77%

Page 4 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

Table 2. Score matrix and planned actions 2019

Core Functions Performance

status

Constraints: unexpected circumstances

and/or success factors and/or good

practice identified

Follow-up action, with timeline, (when status is

orange or red) and/or support required

Responsible. Who? Timeline. When?

1. Supporting service delivery

1.1 Providing a

platform that

ensures service

delivery is

driven by

Humanitarian

Response Plan

and strategic

priorities

Good Cluster website is outdated

Lack of proper linking of subnational

cluster to the national cluster and weak

coordination at sub-cluster level

Support for NNGOs for access to funds and

new locations is limited

Inadequate field monitoring by cluster team

Supporting nutrition supplies

Cluster website to be updated regularly

National cluster team to review and ensure sub-

clusters are linked, reporting and supported

Conduct a workshop/cluster partners meeting

dedicated to the discussion on how to build capacity

of national NGOs (and include discussion on the

HRP checklist inclusion and based on the MoH

guideline “one partner per county”)

Joint monitoring visits of subnational cluster

partners and SMOH to the 10 sites per year per sub-

cluster to improve performance

Systematically include supplies updates to the

monthly cluster meetings

NC-CT

NC-CT

SAG/ Cluster

National cluster

Cluster/UNICEF/WFP

At least monthly

Monthly

Q2

Continuously

Monthly

1.2 Developing

mechanisms to

eliminate

duplication of

service delivery

Good Lack of gap analysis at payam level

Gap analysis to be done at payam level (including

considerations for the access constraints)

Partners to update the gap analysis matrix

Cluster /SAG

Partners

Every 6 months

Every 6 months

2. Informing strategic decisions of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) and Humanitarian Country Team (HCT)

Page 5 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

2.1 Preparing

needs

assessments and

analysis of gaps

(across and

within Clusters,

using

information

management

tools as needed)

to inform the

setting of

priorities

Satisfactory Inadequate support (financial and

coordination) for needs analysis and

assessments more so for national NGOs.

Most surveys are only focused on

anthropometric measurements but don’t

look at behavioural issues such as KAP,

Barrier analysis

To develop an inclusive plan for the assessments

(not only SMART, but also KAP, coverage surveys,

MUAC screening, etc.)

NIWG

By end of May

and then Yearly

2.2 Identifying

and finding

solutions for

(emerging) gaps,

obstacles,

duplication and

cross-cutting

issues

Satisfactory Many partners are rejected to be part of the

HRP, especially the new partners - see

action joint on the workshop for NNGOs

2.3 Formulating

priorities on the

basis of analysis

Good

3. Planning and implementing Cluster strategies

3.1 Developing

sectoral plans,

objectives and

indicators that

directly support

realization of the

overall

response’s

strategic

objectives

Satisfactory The challenge is that the preparation of the

work-plan did include only SAG members

and not the nut cluster member as a whole

in the preparation phase

HIV/AIDS and TB to be implemented in a

systematic way at nutrition site (especially

in SC) - Rapid test is available, but PCR is

often delayed. Integration with other health

actors.

For the 2020 HRP to ensure partner engagement in

the HRP and workplan development (at least

through an early workshop)

All partners to follow CMAM guidelines on

HIV/AIDS and TB

NC-CT at national and sub-national level to

organise a meeting with HC and WASH and MoH

counterparts on the HIV/TB prevention, diagnosis

and treatment during nutrition programs

Reaching out to Ministry of Gender and Ministry of

Health for the guidance on disabilities

.

Nut Cluster Coordination and

SAG+ Nut Cluster members

All partners

NC-CT and sub-national CT,

MOH, HC CT, WASH CT

NC-CT

October 2019

Continuously

July 2019

Page 6 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

Disabilities and its lack of visibility. Lack

of figures. How big is the problem? Not

known and therefore not seen and no plan

for tackling it. No structures, no funds to

address the disability component and

presence of a lot of barriers

Involvement of and sensitize the donors.

To agree how NC can collect data on disability

(relevant for nutrition programs)

All partners

NIWG

July 2019

Continuously

3.2 Applying

and adhering to

common

standards and

guidelines

Good OK

3.3 Clarifying

funding

requirements,

helping to set

priorities, and

agreeing Cluster

contributions to

the HC’s overall

humanitarian

funding

proposals

Good Partners are in need to get access for funds.

Some partners complain they never receive

fundings, because of a presumed lack of

capacity. Local NGOs feel excluded

Early identification and selection of the review

panel for the SSHF in consultation with all partners,

before the start of the proposal period

Share with all partners the selection criteria for the

SSHF

NC-CT

NC-CT

September 2019

September 2019

4. Monitoring and evaluating performance

4.1 Monitoring

and reporting on

activities and

needs

Good If we move from Relief to development the

system (NIS) is not sustainable, as we have

already the DHIS2

Timely sharing of SMART/FSNMS reports

and data

To update the partners on the process of integration

of the NIS into the DHIS

Partners to complete final SMART reports within

two weeks after feedback provided by the NIWG

Share reports and upload on the cluster website

within 48 hours after sharing by a partner

MoH with NC-CT

Partners

NC-CT

Q2

Continuously

Continuously

4.2 Measuring

progress against

the Cluster

strategy and

agreed results

Good OK

Page 7 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

4.3

Recommending

corrective action

where necessary

Good Bulletin and updates shared twice in 2018.

Not yet in 2019

To produce quarterly NC Bulletins (covering all

Country and not only emergencies)

NC-CT April 2019

5. Building national capacity in preparedness and contingency planning

5.1 National

contingency

plans identified,

updated and

shared

Good Prioritization and early warning went on

well, there are existing sub-national clusters

however the following were of concern;

● Existing national contingency plan

not shared with partners and is

with UNOCHA. ● Partners have not been fully

involved in the whole process ● Preparedness and contingency

plans haven’t been part of the

annual work plan for the cluster.

Cluster needs to have a sectoral contingency plan

based on UNOCHA plan and share with partners so

that they can have their inputs.

Add contingency plans to the annual work plan of

the cluster CT.

NC-CT to share, partners to

comment

NC-CT

May 2019

May 2019

5.2 Cluster roles

and

responsibilities

defined and

understood

Satisfactory Lack of clarity on the roles of the cluster in

preparedness and contingency planning to

the partners.

Orientation session with partners on the

contingency planning

NC-CT with the GNC

Helpdesk remote support

Q2

5.3 Early

warning reports

shared with

partners

Satisfactory Cluster over depends on the IPC

classifications other than the guide from the

monthly situational update and hence

compromises

Share HC and FSLC Cluster (early warning), and

nutrition surveillance reports with partners. If areas

of concerns identified, to conduct a further nutrition

analysis.

NC-CT, NIWG Continuously

6. Advocacy

6.1 Identify

concerns, and

contributing key

information and

messages to HC

and HCT

messaging and

action

Satisfactory Challenges:

● Limited funding for nutrition

assessments

● Integration between health and

nutrition partners

● Lack of funds

● Weak capacity of new and smaller

organizations

● Interaction with the SMoH and

Sub-cluster

NC-CT and all partners to advocate for the funding

prioritisation for needs assessment based on the

developed assessment plan

Advocacy with partners and SMoH to improve

integration between health and nutrition

services.

Strengthen interaction with SMoH and the Sub-

cluster

NC-CT and all partners

National nutrition cluster

coordination team to take

lead

Involvement of SAG

members

Continuously

Continuously

Continuously

Page 8 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

6.2 Undertaking

advocacy on

behalf of

Cluster, Cluster

members and

affected people

Satisfactory Good practice:

· Strong advocacy for SSHF

7 Accountability to affected people

7.1 Mechanisms

to consult and

involve affected

people in

decision-making

agreed upon and

used by partners

Good Challenges:

● Feedback mechanism not carried

by all partners

● Limited capacity of new partners

● Monitoring mechanisms for

feedback not in place by cluster

partners

Good practice:

● AAP is an integral part of cluster

coordination activities at every

stage i.e. during assessment,

planning, implementation etc

Follow up with partners on regular basis and

monitoring during field visits

Capacity building of partners on AAP during cluster

meetings

Include AAP to the ToRs of all TWGs

Coordinate with sub-cluster to ensure AAP is being

implemented (QAAP TF to discuss)

National cluster coordination

team and MoH

QAAP TF and NC-CT

QAAP TF and NC-CT

Sub-cluster, SMoH

Nutrition partners

Continuously

Q2

Q2

Q2

7.2 Mechanisms

to receive,

investigate and

act upon

complaints on

the assistance

received agreed

upon and used

by partners

Good

7.3 Key issues

relating to

protection from

sexual

exploitation and

abuse have been

raised and

discussed

Satisfactory Challenges:

● Inadequate mainstreaming of

protection in nutrition

programming

Good practice:

● Most partners have PSEA policies

in place

At the cluster meeting to discuss a way forward

with PSEA

NC-CT Q2

Page 9 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

Annex : Additional guidance to support the CCPM meeting facilitation

The Final Reporting Template serves as a common, mandatory, minimum reporting format for the CCPM. It enables Cluster coordinators, in conjunction with cluster members, to identify common issues and actions that will assist the cluster in coordinating an effective and accountable response. These can be both areas requiring improvement, and methods of good practice that can potentially be amplified. It will also help the global clusters to identify any common challenges that may be occurring throughout different country responses and across different sectors. Thus, further aiding action and advocacy at the global level in addition to existing support.

The form is arranged to correlate with the six core cluster functions, plus accountability to affected populations (6+1). The primary indicators (e.g. 1. Supporting Service Delivery – highlighted in bold/blue) relate directly to one of the 6+1 and are mandatory for all clusters to include in their final report. Each sub indicator is non-mandatory and relates to the additional information encompassed by the 6+1 framework. n.b. whilst non-mandatory, inclusion of those sub indicators is deemed best practice and enables cluster coordinators to identify further issues and action points in more detail.

Please ensure to remove any indicators from the final report that you are not reporting on (Primary Indicators 6+1 MUST remain). Further indicative characteristics for each indicator are located below, these will assist to guide coordinators in conducting the meeting and completing the final report. In the third column (Performance Status Constraints), Cluster coordinators should attempt to describe circumstances that have had a positive, or negative impact on the Cluster’s ability to function. This can include any unforeseen circumstances that appeared during the period of evaluation and also express any good practices that have been identified during the meeting.

In the fourth column (follow up action), for Cluster functions that have been identified as needing improvement, Cluster coordinators should focus on identifying specific and measurable actions that will assist in improving cluster functions relating to each of the 6+1 and assign responsibility to taking the actions forward. Those action items are not intended to provide feedback on individuals or agencies/organizations, they are primarily proposed to provide clusters with specific actions that they can implement, and thus improve the overall effectiveness of the cluster. Each action point should include specific forms of support that may be required to achieve the desired outcome, in addition to a timeline on proposed date of completion. If there are large cross cutting issues, then these can also be broken down into stages of implementation. Each action point should also allocate who will be responsible for follow up (if possible, these should be agreed upon at the meeting).

Indicative characteristics for each of the indicators in the Final Report Template

1. Supporting Service Delivery

1.1 Providing a platform that ensures service delivery is driven by Humanitarian Response Plan and strategic priorities

● A relevant coordination mechanism recognising national systems, subnational and co-lead aspects is established

● Stakeholders participating regularly and effectively, and able to influence discussions at Cluster meetings

● Meetings take a people-centred approach and set out to understand the best ways to meet the needs of people on the ground

● Local NGO members are able to contribute own perspectives, experience and capacities to the Cluster’s work as much as international UN/NGO members

● Cluster coordinator active in inter-cluster and related meetings.

1.2 Developing mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery

● Cluster partner engagement in dynamic mapping of presence and capacity (5W) ● Assuring quality and consistency in interventions, maximising coverage and minimising risks and gaps in response

● Different members’ mandates and capacities are taken into account when the Cluster is deciding how to respond to coverage gaps

● Information sharing across clusters in line with joint Humanitarian Response Plan objectives.

Page 10 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

2. Informing strategic decisions of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC) and Humanitarian Country Team (HCT)

2.1 Preparing needs assessments and analysis of gaps (across and within Clusters, using information management tools as needed) to inform the setting of priorities

● Use of assessment tools in accordance with approaches agreed in the Cluster; individual assessment/survey results shared and/or carried out jointly as appropriate

● Use of joint inter-sectoral assessment tools in accordance with approaches agreed in the inter-cluster coordination group; assessment/survey results shared and/or carried out jointly as appropriate

● Needs assessments that only consider "technical" data, without an adequate situational analysis, or qualitative data from the perspective of affected people are unlikely to help identify and prioritize needs comprehensively or find the most appropriate intervention strategies for the context.

● The Cluster regularly shares relevant information with all members

2.2 Identifying and finding solutions for (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication and cross-cutting issues

● Joint, continuous analysis for current and anticipated risks, needs, gaps and constraints

● Cross cutting issues addressed from outset. ● Without a good understanding of the situation and context, and the validation of local and other expertise, intervention strategies and approaches may be ineffective or

even accentuate risks and vulnerabilities.

2.3 Formulating priorities on the basis of analysis

● Joint, continuous analysis throughout the year supporting response planning and prioritization in short and medium term, consider affected people's needs, priorities and preferences

● There strong collaboration between the Cluster and other Clusters (Health, WASH, Nutrition etc.) where relevant, to ensure that the Cluster approach is complementary to what others are doing

3. Planning and implementing Cluster strategies

3.1 Developing sectoral plans, objectives and indicators that directly support the overall response’s strategic objectives (e.g. of an HRP) ● Strategic plan based on identified priorities, addressing affected people's needs and priorities, shows synergies with other sectors against strategic objectives, addresses

cross cutting issues, incorporates exit strategy discussion and is developed jointly with partners. ● Plan is updated regularly and guides response.

3.2 Applying and adhering to common standards and guidelines

● Use of existing national standards and guidelines where possible. ● Standards and guidance are relevant to the local context, agreed to (including by the affected population), adhered to and reported against.

3.3 Clarifying funding requirements, helping to set priorities, and agreeing Cluster contributions to the HC’s overall humanitarian funding proposals

● Funding requirements determined with partners, allocation under jointly agreed criteria and prioritization, status tracked and information shared. ● The Cluster has considered ways to prioritize and allocate funding and resources to local communities and actors to help ensure effective and sustainable outcomes for

affected people. ● The Cluster tells all members what resources it has available for the Cluster itself (e.g. funding for staff, meetings, training etc.) and how the Cluster is spending it

4. Monitoring and evaluating performance

Page 11 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

4.1 Monitoring and reporting on activities and needs

● Regular, ongoing monitoring of the context, the coverage and technical quality of interventions, and the satisfaction of affected people takes place and the Cluster regularly shares relevant information with all members

● A balance of quantitative and qualitative data helps Clusters to have an evidence base to inform decision-making and ensure interventions are relevant and appropriate

4.2 Measuring progress against the Cluster strategy and agreed results

● Regular reporting and sharing of information between the cluster members, coordinators and inter-cluster mechanisms that includes results reported against planned indicators, targets, baselines and in-need figures.

● Where relevant to informing and effective response plan to meet the needs of all affected people, reporting should be disaggregated by sex and age, and include vulnerable and marginalised groups

4.3 Recommending corrective action where necessary

● The results of monitoring lead to direct action, e.g. the cluster adjusts response activities, indicators and priorities

● The strategic plan might also be changed to reflect changes in underlying need and context ● Advocacy to relevant actors around funding, capacity or other bottlenecks to achieving planned results.

5. Building national capacity in preparedness and contingency planning

5.1 National contingency plans identified, updated and shared

● Local capacity building strategies should go beyond preparedness and contingency planning to include response and coordination capacity that will minimise the need and improve the effectiveness of international assistance in future crises.

5.2 Cluster roles and responsibilities defined and understood

● Local capacity is able to contribute own perspectives, experience and capacities to the Cluster’s work as much as international UN/NGO members

● Different members’ mandates and capacities are taken into account when the Cluster is developing strategies

● Clusters are meant to complement and support national coordination efforts, not replace them. ● This means building on existing plans and capacities and identifying and planning for potential risks and scenarios that could increase vulnerabilities, and the role of

Clusters to support national actors to minimise those risks.

5.3 Early warning reports shared with partners

● The cluster must be effective and timely in sharing early warning reports

6. Supporting robust advocacy

6.1 Identify concerns and contributing key information and messages to HC and HCT messaging and action. ● The Cluster periodically shares key advocacy messages with the HC/RC and HCT, e.g. on Capacity, coordination gaps (current or upcoming), funding and other barriers to

an effective response.

6.2 Undertaking advocacy on behalf of Cluster, Cluster members and affected people

● Advocacy that is not grounded in the experiences and realities of affected people is unlikely to lead to the changes that will help improve the response or their situation.

7. Accountability to affected populations

Page 12 of 12

Cluster Performance Monitoring final report

4/1/2019 12:00:00 AM

7.1 Mechanisms to consult and involve affected people in decision-making agreed upon and used by partners

● Does the Cluster encourage consultation and involvement of affected people in decision making?

● Accountability to affected people is a shared responsibility of all aid providers. ● Cluster members also have mutual accountabilities to each other, and to other stakeholders, such as local actors.

7.2 Mechanisms to receive, investigate and act upon complaints on the assistance received agreed upon and used by partners

● Does the Cluster encourage engagement with affected through feedback mechanisms?

● While accountability to affected people is much broader than simply having ‘feedback mechanisms’ in place, failure to address issues of feedback and complaints, and protection can create serious risks and consequences for affected people, as well as undermine the overall quality and effectiveness of responses

7.3 Key issues relating to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse have been raised and discussed

● Does the Cluster encourage all agencies to have a code of conduct to prevent abuse and other human rights violations?

● The Cluster meetings have included discussions with partners around the key issues raised by affected people.