Handbook on Indicators - UNRWA



Resource Mobilization Strategy

2012-2015 Guidebook

29 October 2013

Fix Diversified Sources INDICATOR – formatting.

Crosscheck all 2013 Q4 INDICATORS – Contributions Unit revised all the data in March. The handbook does not reflect the latest data.

Add names of TDs with which UNRWA has active GF multi-year agreements.

Add names of the 10 TDs who ‘subscribe’ to the Harmonized Results Report (HRR framework).

Table of Contents

1. Summary 1

2. Key Reporting Deadlines 2

3. Definitions and Abbreviations 3

4. Annual Indicators 4

1.1 Traditional Donor Partnerships Strengthened

1.1.1 Institutional Relationships with TDs improved

1.2 Diversified donor-base contributing increasingly to resource needs

1.3.1 Corporate alignment in resource mobilization

1.3.2 Institutionalization of PPCM

1.3.3 Communication structures and systems harmonized

5. Quarterly Indicators 8

1.3.3. Communication structures and systems harmonized

1.1.2 Systematic communication with TDs established

1.2.1 Developed relations with Emerging Markets

1.2.2 Improved relationships with NTDs

1.2.3 Consolidated relationship with Arab Partners

1.2.4 Established functional private-sector fundraising

1.3 Enabling environment established supporting donor-relationship management

Executive Summary

The following handbook provides a guide to UNRWAs monitoring framework for results of the 2012-2015 Resource Mobilization Strategy (RMS). The handbook updates indicators used in the RMS also noting important changes. Please consult the tables below and Annex 3 (electronic attachment) for the most up-to-date figures. See notes 1-4 in the page footer for further explanation of the data and changes to the reporting structure.

For more information on data collection and methodology contact the Contributions Unit, ERCD-Gaza. For questions on reporting contact the Special Assistant to the Director, ERCD-Jerusalem.

ERCD-Gaza - Contributions Unit

Rima Dabbagh, Contributions Officer – R.dabbagh@

t: +972-8-6777728 m: 059-942-8092

Khitam Shashak, Assistant Contributions Officer - K.shashak@

t: +972-8-6777736 m: 059-942-8009

ERCD-Jerusalem

Ragnheidur Kolsoe, Special Assistant to the Director - R.kolsoe@

T: +972-2-589-1626, m: 054-240-2744

Key Reporting Deadlines

Reporting is due to the Special Assistant to the Director quarterly (March, June, September, December) and annually. Quarterly reporting is due one month after quarter end and annual reporting is due by February of the following year. Please observe the following submission deadlines:

• November 2013 – Preliminary findings due for the November AdCom

• March 31st 2014 – Final program report due to Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

• April 2014 - Final findings drawing on report to donor due to SubCom

• RBM closing deadlines: data entry within 45 days after quarter ends.

The following units/staff members are requested to report against the following indicators:

|Contributions Unit |Annually: |Due: end of February after reporting year |

| |1.1.a – % of increased GF income from TDs | |

| |1.1.r - % of GF income from TDs | |

| |1.1.s - % of EA income pledged by second quarter | |

| |1.1.t - % of GF income pledged by second quarter | |

| |1.1.u - % of required EA income received | |

| |1.1.1.a - # of multi-year framework agreements | |

| |1.1.1.b - Increased income from multi-year frameworks | |

| |1.2.a - % of GF income increase from diversified sources | |

| |1.2.b - % of GF income from diversified sources | |

| |Quarterly: one month after quarter end |Due: Q1 – end of April, Q2 – end of July, Q3 – end|

| |1.2.1.a - % of GF income from emerging markets |of October, Q4 – end of February |

| |1.2.2.a - % of GF income from NTDs | |

| |1.2.3.a - % of GF income from Arab Partners* | |

| |1.2.4.a - % of overall income from private sources* | |

| |*cross check with Arab Partners Unit and Partnerships Unit | |

|Donor Relations |Annually: |Due: January |

| |1.1.b – # of TDs UNRWA reports to using Results report | |

| |Quarterly: |Due: April, July, October, January |

| |1.1.2.a – Publication of bi-weekly donor newsletter | |

|Department of Planning |Annually: |Due: January |

| |1.1.b - # of TDs UNRWA reports to using Results report | |

| |1.3.2.a – Common Monitoring and Reporting Framework | |

| |Quarterly: |Due: April, July, October, January |

| |1.3.a - % of projects monitored under the new Aggregate Project Reporting Framework | |

|Director’s Office |Annually: |Due: January |

| |1.3.1.a – Agreed corporate work-plans | |

| |1.3.1.b – ACRA sets framework for RM priorities | |

|Public Information Officer |Annually: |Due: January |

| |1.3.3.a – Annual communication work-plan | |

|Visibility Coordinator |Quarterly: |Due: April, July, October, January |

| |1.3.3.b – Media articles covering UNRWA donor visibility | |

|Publications and Branding |Quarterly: |Due: April, July, October, January |

|Coordinator |1.3.3.c – Application of Agency branding guidelines | |

Definitions and Abbreviations

Donor categories:

Traditional Donors (TD): 18 AdCom Members as of January 2010. No additional donors are to be included in this category.

Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and the European Commission

Non-traditional Donors (NTD): Countries outside traditional donor and emerging markets categories – currently 21 countries and expected to increase.

Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg (joined AdCom after January 2010), Malta, Monaco, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Cyprus

Arab Partners (AP): Arab countries + Arab NGOs (NGOs based in Middle East) – currently 16 countries and expected to increase.

Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, K uwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates (including Ruler of Sharjah) + AFESED, Kuwait, Arab Authority for Agriculture Investment and Development (AAAID), Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Islamic Solidarity Fund (OIC), OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID), and Arab NGOs

Emerging Markets (EM): Emerging economies including BRICS – currently 19 countries and expected to increase.

Brazil, Brunei, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Vietnam, Guyana

Private Donors (PD): For the purposes of RMS reporting, "International NGOs" and "Other donors" are grouped together. In non-RMS reporting, these donors are grouped separately and Spanish regional government contributions are counted towards Spain.

Businesses, foundations and NGOs from Palestine or outside of the Middle East; individual donors; regional governments in Spain; UNRWA's national committees in the USA, Spain and Italy; and donations from the Arab world outside of Palestine

Diversified Sources (DS): EM, NTDs, Arab Partners, international NGOs, other UN Agencies and Private Donors (including regional Spanish governments; see PD definition above).

Income categories:

General Fund (GF): UNRWA regular GF, GF relieving, GF restricted, SSNP, and in-kind food donations (does not include project support costs)

Emergency Appeal (EA): OPT emergency appeal – West Bank and Gaza

Total Agency Income: GF, EA, Lebanon Appeal, Syria Appeal, Projects and UN contributions

ACRA - Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation

PPCM – Programme and Project Cycle Management

INCOME is based on confirmed pledges (as opposed to actual cash flow).

Annual Indicators

Annual indicators are reported at the end of the fourth quarter (by February of the following year)

1.1 Traditional Donor Partnerships Strengthened

|1.1.a Percentage of increase in GF income from Traditional Donors |

|Previously “Traditional donors cover GF increase”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

|Percentage change from baseline |2011 baseline|2015 target|2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

| | | |result | | | |

|TDs requested that UNRWA diversify its donor base. Lessened dependency on |0% |60% |52.07% |66.62% | | |

|TDs improves the TD relationship. | | | | | | |

|Difference from baseline shows progress from start of RMS strategy. | | | | | | |

|Method: Difference in TD GF income in reporting year to baseline/Difference in total GF income in reporting year to baseline |

|2012: 15,671,030/30,094,730 x 100 = 52.071% |

|2013: 21,999,337/33,022,732 x 100 = 66.62% - Interpretation: doing much worse with diversification. Further away from the target than last year. Absolute |

|difference: 6,328,307. |

|2014: |

|2015: |

|Note: RMS report incorrectly placed 2011 baseline at 89%2 |

|Percentage change from previous year |2011 baseline |2015 target|2012 result |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Difference from previous year shows incremental improvement. |0% |60% |52.07% |216.13% | | |

|Method: Difference in TD GF income in reporting year to previous year/Difference in total GF income in reporting year to previous year |

|2012: 15,671,030/30,094,730 x 100 = 52.071% |

|2013: 6,328,307/2,928,002 x 100 = 216.13% |

|2014: |

|2015: |

|Note: Not an official indicator. |

|1.1.b Number of TDs receiving UNRWA Results Report |

|Previously “TDs subscribing to the Harmonized Donor Reporting matrix”4 |

|Source: Department of Planning/DRD |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 result |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|An increase in the number of donors UNRWA reports to using |4 |10 |8 | | | |

|common reporting requirements shows engagement of donors in | | | | | | |

|UNRWA’s planning and monitoring process. | | | | | | |

|Note: RMS report states indicator is measured quarterly3 |

|1.1.r Percentage of GF income from Traditional Donors |

|Previously “Share of TD in GF income”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 result |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|A decrease in the share of TD contributions to the GF |89% |84% |86.87% |87.51% | | |

|indicates a widening of the donor base. | | | | | | |

|Difference from baseline shows progress from start of RMS | | | | | | |

|strategy. | | | | | | |

|Method: GF income from TDs in reporting year/Total GF income in reporting year |

|2012: 506,943,905/583,580,303 x 100 = 86.87% |

|2013: 513,272,212/586,508,305 x 100 = 87.51% - Interpretation: Doing slightly worse, TDs’ share of total increased slightly in absolute and percentage |

|terms. |

|2014: |

|2015: |

|1.1.s Percentage of EA income pledged by 2nd quarter |

|Previously “Share of EA income pledged by 2nd quarter”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 result |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Early pledges indicate a strong working relationship between|43.86% |50% |73.59% |82.60% | | |

|UNRWA and its donors allowing UNRWA to plan ahead when | | | | | | |

|funding for interventions is inadequate. | | | | | | |

|Method: Pledged by Q2 in reporting year/Total EA income in reporting year |

|2011: 79,806,228/181,947,844 x 100 = 43.861 |

|2012: 117,026,353/159,025,255 x 100 = 73.591 |

|2013: 109,142,711/132,130,922 x 100 = 82.601 - Interpretation: Doing better in % terms. Predictability increased considerably in % terms, but the amount |

|raised by Q2 was approx.. 8 million lower than same time the year before. The improved statistics is due to the lowering of the EA requirement which was |

|reduced to be closer in line with projected income. |

|Note: RMS report incorrectly placed 2011 baseline at 40%2 |

|*2012 result reported in the 2013 March submission to donor and April submission to SubCom was updated to reflect the increase in Total EA income from |

|re-evaluated Turkish (in-kind) and late receipt of Canadian contributions. |

|1.1.t Percentage of General Fund income pledged by 2nd quarter |

|Previously “Share of GF income pledged by 2nd quarter”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target|2012 result |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Early pledges indicate donor recognition of UNRWA’s needs. |59.92% |83% |83.25% |88.71% | | |

|Early pledges help UNRWA adjust activities to match income and | | | | | | |

|initiate responses to budgetary gaps. | | | | | | |

|Method: Amount pledged by Q2 in reporting year/total GF income in reporting year |

|2011: 310, 719, 413/519,551,009 x 100 = 59.921 |

|2012: 485,810,789/583,580,303 x 100 = 83.251 |

|2013: 520,285,789/586,508,305 x 100 = 88.71% - Interpretation: Predictability is increasing, with confirmation of pledges and income being increasingly |

|received earlier in the year. In % terms, 88.71% of total GF was confirmed by Q2 compared to only 83.25% in the previous year. Difference: 5.46%; approx.|

|35 million more by Q2 in 2013 compared to previous year. |

|2014: |

|2015: |

|Note: RMS report incorrectly placed 2011 baseline at 61%2 |

|1.1.u Percentage of required/budgeted EA income received |

|Previously “UNRWA EA contribution level”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target |2012 result |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|EA funding indicates UNRWA’s success at securing financial|58.50% |40% |49.94% |44.03% | | |

|support for its interventions. Maintaining current EA | | | | | | |

|funding levels indicates successful donor management. | | | | | | |

|Method: Total EA income in reporting year/Total EA budget in reporting year |

|2011: 181,947,844/311,026,734 x 100 = 58.501 |

|2012: 159,025,255/318,424,896 x 100 = 49.941 |

|2013: 132,130,922/300,062,990 x 100 = 44.03% - Not sure whether this result is good or bad. From a target perspective, it is a positive result, with the |

|Agency moving closer to the 2015 target of 40%. The question remains how meaningful the indicator is. What does it tell us? |

|2014: |

|2015: |

|Note: RMS report incorrectly placed 2011 baseline at 40%2 |

|*2012 result reported in the 2013 March submission to donor and April submission to SubCom was updated to reflect the increase in Total EA income from |

|re-evaluated Turkish (in-kind) and late receipt of Canadian contributions. |

1.1.1 Institutional Relationships with TDs improved

|1.1.1.a Number of multi-year framework agreements |

|Previously “Number of signed GF multi-year framework agreements increases by 25%”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Increase in signed multi-year agreements shows donor |8 |16 |7 |10 | | |

|engagement in UNRWA planning and trust that services will be| | | | | | |

|delivered. | | | | | | |

|Interpretation: Moving closer to the 2015 target of 16. Had 10 valid multi-year agreements in 2013, compared to only 7 in 2012. |

|Note: All valid multi-year agreements are counted not only those negotiated in the reporting year. |

|RMS report states the indicator is measured quarterly3 |

|1.1.1.b Increase in income from multi-year framework agreements |

|Previously “Income from multi-year framework agreements increases by 25%”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Increase in income from signed multi-year agreement shows |0% or USD |25% increase or|1.17% 189m |27.33% | | |

|donor commitment to UNRWA programming not only in terms of |187m |USD 234m | |238,239,362 | | |

|contract but in amount secured. | | | | | | |

|Method: Increase in income in reporting year subtract 187/1.87 = percentage increase |

|Note: All valid multi-year agreements are counted not only those negotiated in the reporting year. |

|RMS report incorrectly placed 2011 baseline at USD 221m and 2015 target at USD 276m2 |

| |

3 Diversified donor-base contributing increasingly to resource needs

|1.2.a Percentage of increase in GF income from diversified sources |

|Previously “Diversified sources cover of GF increase”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

|Percentage change from baseline |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Increase in GF income from diversified sources improves the |0% |40% |47.93% |33.38% | | |

|TD relationship by lowering dependency and stabilizes | | | | | | |

|revenue sources. | | | | | | |

|Method: GF income from diversified sources in previous year minus GF income in previous year/Total GF income in reporting year minus GF income in previous|

|year |

|2012: 14,423,700/30,094,730 x 100 = 47.931 |

|2013: 11,023,394/33,022,732 x 100 = 33.38 – Interpretation: % of increase in GF income derived from diversified sources decreased in 2013 when compared |

|against the baseline. This is in line with the reduced income from Emerging Markets in 2013. |

|2014: |

|2015: |

|Note: RMS report placed 2011 baseline at 11%, changed to 0% to justify narrative2 |

|1.2.b Percentage of GF income from diversified sources |

|Previously “Overall GF contribution from diversified sources”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|An increase in the share of contributions to the GF from |11% |16% |13.13% |12.49% | | |

|diverse sources indicates a widening of the donor base. | | | | | | |

|Method: GF income from diversified sources in reporting year/total GF income in reporting year |

|2012: 76,636,398/583,580,303 x 100 = 13.131 |

|2013: 73,236,092/586,508,305 x 100 = 12.49 – Interpretation: Both percentage value of GF income from diversified sources decreased when compared with |

|previous year from 13.13% to 12.49%. The absolute value decreased as well from 76.6 million in 2012 to 73.23 million in 2013. |

|2014: |

|2015: |

4 Corporate alignment in resource mobilization

|1.3.1.a Agreed corporate RM work-plans |

|Source: D/ERCD |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Greater intra-Agency consultation strengthens RMS by |New |Create |Yes |Yes | | |

|ensuring work-plans match needs, priorities and funding | |work-plans | | | | |

|requirements. | | | | | | |

|1.3.1.b ACRA sets framework for RM priorities |

|Source: D/ERCD |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|ACRAs leadership strengthens Executive oversight of |No |Create |Yes |Yes | | |

|operations and strengthens Agency coherence with RMS, | |priorities | | | | |

|programmatic goals and funding priorities. | | | | | | |

5 Institutionalization of PPCM

|1.3.2.a Common monitoring and reporting framework in place |

|Source: Department of Planning |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|A framework to monitor project progress and access |No |Create framework |Yes |Yes | | |

|up-to-date financial data better enables UNRWA to meet | | | | | | |

|reporting deadlines thereby strengthening the | | | | | | |

|relationship with donors. | | | | | | |

6 Communication structures and systems harmonized

|1.3.3.a Annual communication works-plan in place |

|Source: Communications Division |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|An integrated external communication strategy with a joint |No |Create |Yes |Yes | | |

|mission statement and shared themes and activities | |work-plan | | | | |

|harmonizes Agency communication and limits conflicts of | | | | | | |

|interest. | | | | | | |

Quarterly Indicators

Quarterly indicators are reported one month following the end of each quarter

|1.3.3.b Media articles covering UNRWA donor visibility |

|Source: Communications Division |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target|2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Donor visibility is essential to retaining donors and |3.22 |TBD |Q1: 6.2 |Q1: 10.26 | | |

|attracting new donors. The strength of Agency press releases| | |Q2: 9.7 |Q2: 11.28 | | |

|are measured by the number reprints in external media. | | |Q3:10.4 |Q3: 10.41 | | |

| | | |Q4: 8.4 |Q4: Wissam | | |

|Method: Number of articles that appear about donor events in UNRWA media reviews in reporting quarter/Number of UNRWA press releases sent out in |

|reporting quarter |

|2012 Q1: 148/24 = 6.2; Q2: 232/24 = 9.7; Q3: 188/18 = 10.4; Q4: 269/32 = 8.4 |

|2013 Q1: 195/19=10.26; Q2: 282/25 = 11.28; Q3: 229/22 = 10.41 |

|2014: |

|2015: |

|1.3.3.c Application of Agency branding guidelines |

|Source: Communications Division |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|A recognizable UNRWA brand will engender trust and encourage|No |Adhere to brand|Yes |Yes | | |

|positive association with the Agency and the Palestinian | | | | | | |

|refugee cause. This will aid in attracting new donors and | | | | | | |

|raising awareness of UNRWAs activities. | | | | | | |

|Note: SA will speak to donors about making this indicator annual rather than quarterly |

7 Systematic communication with TDs established

|1.1.2.a Publication of biweekly donor communique |

|Previously “Publication of biweekly e-newsletter”4 |

|Source: ERPO |

| |2011 baseline|2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|Regular newsletters strengthen UNRWAs relationship with TDs |0 |26 |Q1: 1 |Q1: 6 | | |

|by promoting the exchange of information. | | |Q2: 1 |Q2: 7 | | |

| | | |Q3: 5 |Q3: 6 | | |

| | | |Q4: 13 |Q4: 7 = 26 | | |

1.2.1 Develop Relationships with Emerging Market

|1.2.1.a Percentage of GF income from emerging markets |

|Previously “EM share of GF income increases”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target|2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|UNRWA is seeking to diversify its donor base. The |0.30% |1% |Q1: 0.16% |Q1: 0.67% | | |

|indicator shows successful outreach to emerging | | |Q2: 1.65% |Q2: 0.5% | | |

|markets. | | |Q3: 1.55% |Q3: 0.72% | | |

| | | |Q4: 1.65% |Q4: 0.74% | | |

|Method: |

|Q1/Q2/Q3: EM GF income/GF income to-date (ie. Q2 combines Q1 and Q2) |

|Q4: EM GF income/Total GF income |

|2012: |

|Q1: 493,457/302,500,336 x 100 = 0.161 |

|Q2: 7,996,156/485,810,789 x 100 = 1.651 |

|Q3: 8,021,156/516,952,227 x 100 = 1.551 |

|Q4: 9,640,586/583,580,303 x 100 = 1.651 |

|2013: |

|Q1: 2,320,000/343,736,035 x 100 = 0.671 |

|Q2:2,592,807/520,285,789 x 100 = 0.51 |

|Q3: 3,922,307/547,362,001 x 100 = 0.72% |

|Q4: 4,368,020/586,508,305 x 100 = 0.74% - Interpretation: Moving further away from the goal of 1%. Merely 0.74% of total 2013 GF income derived from EM |

|compared to 1.65% in 2012/the year before. (Despite the negative trend, we are still well above the 2011 baseline of 0.30%). |

|2014: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

|2015: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

1.2.2 Improved relationships from NTDs

|1.2.2.a Percentage of GF income from Non-Traditional Donors |

|Previously “NTD share of GF increases”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 |2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

| |baseline | | | | | |

|UNRWA is seeking to diversify its donor base. The |0% |4% |Q1: 2.65 |Q1: 2.41% | | |

|indicator shows successful outreach to non-traditional | | |Q2: 1.78 |Q2: 2.09% | | |

|donors. | | |Q3: 1.86 |Q3: 2.02% | | |

| | | |Q4: 1.80 |Q4: 1.92% | | |

|Method: |

|Q1/Q2/Q3: NTD GF income/GF income to-date ((ie. Q2 combines Q1 and Q2) |

|Q4: NTD GF income/Total GF income |

|2012: |

|Q1: 8,020,572/302,500,336 x 100 = 2.651 |

|Q2: 8,624,494/485,810,789 x 100 = 1.781 |

|Q3: 9,590,121/516,952,227 x 100 = 1.861 |

|Q4: 10,475,710/583,580,303 x 100 = 1.801 |

|2013: |

|Q1: 8,296,394/343,736,035 x 100 = 2.411 |

|Q2: 10,876,454/520,285,789 x 100 = 2.091 |

|Q3: 11,043,913.7/547,362,001 x 100 = 2.02 |

|Q4: 11,277,126/586,508,305 x 100 = 1.92% - Interpretation: An absolute (807k) and percentage (difference/increase of 0.12% between years) increase |

|between years (and moving further away from the 2011 baseline (0%)). |

|2014: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

|2015: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

|Note: RMS report incorrectly placed 2011 baseline at 3% likely because Ireland and Finland were mistakenly characterized as NTDs as opposed to TDs2 |

1.2.3 Consolidated relationship with Arab partners

|1.2.3.a Arab share of GF income increases |

|Previously “Arab share of GF increases”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 |2015 target|2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

| |baseline | | | | | |

|UNRWA is seeking to diversify its donor base. The |3% |4% |Q1: 4.73% |Q1: 1.17% | | |

|indicator shows successful outreach to Arab | | |Q2; 4.42% |Q2: 1.85% | | |

|partners. | | |Q3; 4.26% |Q3: 3.30% | | |

| | | |Q4: 4.53% |Q4: 4.21% | | |

|Method: |

|Q1/Q2/Q3: Arab GF income/ GF income to-date (ie. Q2 combines Q1 and Q2) |

|Q4: Arab GF income/Total GF income |

|2012: |

|Q1: 14,320,088/302,500,336 x 100 = 4.731 |

|Q2: 21,470,220/485,810,789 x 100 = 4.421 |

|Q3: 22,009,241/516,952,227 x 100 = 4.261 |

|Q4: 26,448,035/583,580,303 x 100 = 4.531 |

|2013: |

|Q1: 4,024,506/343,736,035 x 100 = 1.171 |

|Q2: 9,608,331/520,285,789 x 100 = 1.851 |

|Q3: 18,042,583/547,362,001 x 100 = 3.30% |

|Q4: 24,711,862/586,508,305 x 100 = 4.21 – Interpretation: Percentage and absolute decrease between 2012 and 2013 from 4.53% in 2012 to 4.21% in 2013 |

|(decrease of 0.32%) equal to an absolute decrease of 1.737 million. |

|2014: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

|2015: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

1.2.4 Established functional private-sector fundraising

|1.2.4.a Percentage of overall income from private sources |

|Previously “Increase in overall income from private sources”4 |

|Source: Contributions Unit Database |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|UNRWA is seeking to diversify its |0.94% |2% |Q1 1.17% |Q1: 0.64% | | |

|donor base. The indicator shows | | |Q2 0.71% |Q2: 0.57% | | |

|successful outreach to private | | |Q3 0.8% |Q3: 0.74% | | |

|partners. | | |Q4 0.97% |Q4: 0.76% | | |

|Method: |

|Q1/Q2/Q3: Private GF income/ Agency income to-date (i.e. Q2 combines Q1 and Q2) |

|Q4: Private GF income/Total Agency income |

|2012: |

|Q1: 4,370,444/374,324,669 x 100 = 1.171 |

|Q2: 4,680,115/658,291,615 x 100= 0.711 |

|Q3: 5,723,638/712,657,761 x 100 = 0.81 |

|Q4: 8,671,078/891,848,746 x 100 = 0.971 |

|2013: |

|Q1: 3,194,102/495,853,966 x 100 = 0.641 |

|Q2: 4,972,177/875,949,386 x 100 = 0.57%1 |

|Q3: 7,377,553/ 1,001,214570 x 100 = 0.74% |

|Q4: 9,324,671/1,222,130,636 x 100 = 0.76% - Interpretation: Absolute income from private sources increased between years from 8.671 m in 2012 to 9.324 m |

|in 2013 or by 0.653 m. The increase is not properly reflected as a percentage share, but income from the private sector is calculated as a share of total|

|Agency income as opposed to solely GF. (Syria effect). |

|2014: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

|2015: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3; |

|Q4: |

|Note: RMS report incorrectly places baseline at 0.2%2 |

12 Enabling environment established supporting donor-relationship management

|1.3.a Percentage of projects monitored in the new Aggregate Project Reporting Framework that are submitted in a timely manner |

|Previously “Percent of projects, monitored in the new aggregate reporting template, that are submitted in a timely manner”4 |

|Source: Department of Planning |

| |2011 baseline |2015 target |2012 |2013 |2014 |2015 |

|A high assessment rate provides the Agency with|New |80% |Q1 NC |Q1: | | |

|a clearer picture of the implementation and | | |Q2 NC |Q2: | | |

|expenditure status of projects across and | | |Q3 NC |Q3: | | |

|improves donor relationship management. | | |Q4 13% |Q4: | | |

|Method: Number of projects assessed/Number of projects that qualify for monthly assessment |

|2012 Q1: Q2, Q3 NC – Not collected; Q4: 12/90 = 13% |

|2013: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

|2014: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

|2015: |

|Q1: |

|Q2: |

|Q3: |

|Q4: |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download