Anyone who ever tried, knows that country programme documents (CPDs) are a pain to write. Those having served in Regional Offices or Headquarters know that CPDs are a pain to read.
The same is true for Country Office Annual Reports (COARs). They are a pain to write and a pain to read.
It is not quite clear to me why nobody has found a way for our staff not to inflict pain upon and demotivate each other.
To minimize the anguish, Country Offices typically employ consultants to help them craft their CPDs; and regional or headquartered offices often employ consultants to analyse the COARs. This allows staff, in some measure, to focus on the more enjoyable aspects of their work.
Perhaps someone should hire a consultant to figure out how plans and reports should look like, so they can be written and read without the help of consultants. This would be a strategic investment. But I digress. My real concern is the following:
CPDs are five-year plans approved by the Executive Board. Am I the only living person who want to know what came of those plans? Should Board members not wish to know what happened to the millions of dollars they approved for a country, and what difference it made? Whether the planned results were achieved or what went wrong?
If I had the choice, the last annual report of the cycle should compare the final result with the original plan. I am aware that there is the occasional multi-agency, multi-sectoral and multi-dimensional evaluation that takes a long time to finalize and that provides scientific proof that almost everything was done that could humanly be expected to be done. Needless to say, readability – and I suspect readership – is low.
I don’t want it that complicated. I favour simple stories, told on a page or two, without long sentences and acronyms, and which I can repeat to my in-laws during a stroll in the park:
- This is what we thought was an important issue affecting some or all children in that country, five years ago.
- This was what the country was doing about it.
- This is how UNICEF helped the country to better address the problem and this is what happened.
- That’s how the life of some or all of those children changed.
- This is how much money we spent on this.
Detlef, is that not what we already do in country offices? At least in those offices where I served, that is what happened at the end of every yera end but not in so few words.
ReplyDeleteI recommend to look at one or more CPDs whose term ended in 2019. They can be found here. (https://sites.unicef.org/about/execboard/index_103772.html)
DeleteCompare with the 2019 annual report of the respective country. They can be found here. (https://open.unicef.org/program-fund-goal?year=2019)
When you open the CPDs and COARs in two different windows, you can read them side-by-side. Spot the difference in what was planned and what was achieved.
While I agree with the need to simplify and make reports more readable , would that make the professionals both in UNICEF and the donor community uncomfortable?
ReplyDeleteKindly accept my belated comments.
ReplyDeleteYou are spot on-target as to how reports should look and read.
We actually had something like that in Bangladesh when Dr. Michael Irwin was the Rep. (1976/77).
The reports were 1 or 2 pages (max.) long and covered: achievements, constraints, and statistics (re money, people served, etc.).
Things took a turn for the worse in Nairobi (regional office) around 1981/82 when a consultant (a retired staff member) felt he had to recommend something very comprehensive ("the best" - which in practice sometimes becomes the enemy of "the good"). The work required was so great that country offices either refused (or hired someone do write them). Then regional office staff didn't want to read or comment on them - so someone was hired to coordinate and move the reports from desk to desk and make the regional office staff sign a log book to say that the report had been noted.
Best,
John
John,
DeleteIf I’m recall (correctly) Michael I. requested each section to draft one or two paras each on the best achievements for the year, the second was to list mistakes/shortfalls and the third…I forget that !!! In any case the entire length had to be limited to no more than 1 to 2 pages.
Perhaps Kunio or Kamal might correct me and fill in the blanks. Cheers. Bertie
Dear Bertie et al:
DeleteThose reports had to be short - and that was one of their merits.
They were used by Michael Irwin as he had to report to NYHQ.
They consisted (more or less) of achievements and/or opportunities (the good news); shortfalls or delays (the bad news); and a quantitative part (budget spent, people served, etc.).
Best,
John