Among other things, UNICEF officials were informed on March 3 that the length of UN documents would have to be reduced by 10 percent from now on. For those too morose to do the math, the email specified that the word limit for Country Programme Documents (CPDs) would be reduced from 6,000 words to 5,400 words.
Apparently, this was a serious blow to UNICEF operations. Five days later, UNICEF managers had managed to negotiate a deal with the UN conference services that, exceptionally, CPDs for the Executive Board session in June 2025 can still expand to 6000 words.
Too bad. There is opportunity in every crisis. Here is how UNICEF can do better.
My Recommendation
The length of a CPD should be cut to a maximum of 600 words only, which is a reduction by 90 per cent from current practice. If you are presently working on a CPD, you don’t need to check this out with your supervisor, as there is no minimum length for a CPD. No change of rule or board approval is required.
It is easy. One doesn’t need any consultants, workshops, UN frameworks or regional advisors. Here is how to go about it:
Select not more than three issues affecting children in the country and describe for each of them in less than 190 words:
- The problem (for example: Half a million children not in school).
- What the government is doing about it.
- What more the government wants to do and how UNICEF is going to help the government doing it.
- The result expected in five years.
Finally, in fewer than 30 words, describe how much money UNICEF will (i) provide as cash to Government; (ii) spend on its own staff, offices and consultants; and (iii) hand over to local NGOs.
I have tried it myself, using the recently approved CPDs as an example. It works. Avoid three-syllable-words and anything that is repetitive, trivial, pc, extravagant, ornamental or irrelevant. Delete everything that can be taken for granted or is part of organizational policy, and any standard text that no one has read for the past 15 years.
This method will save several million dollars every year, as entire planning departments and consultants are no longer required.
There is dramatically more to it:
The Spin-offs
Because of the greater focus on only three results, the number of programme staff can be reduced, to a fraction of its current contingent.
Governments bear responsibility for the results, and governments are clear about what to expect from UNICEF.
Donors can easily determine whether they want to finance a result or not.
A UN agency will easily recognize the planned results of other UN agencies; they can sort out any duplication over a cup of tea; millions of dollars will be saved by not wasting time, energy and personnel with the RC system.
The number of financial transactions from UNICEF to the government can potentially be reduced to a handful of transactions once a year, based on an estimate of the resources the government needs to achieve the results. Governments will be required to transparently report on the use of their sector budgets that include any grants from UNICEF and other donors.
Due to the reduction in the number of transactions, 90 per cent of all non-programme staff can be let go.
Because only very few staff will be handling money, Audit and Evaluation can concentrate on examining whether planned results were achieved, and identify any causes of underachievement.
Annual reports are brief and focused on the planned results. There is no need to obfuscate expenditure on the otherwise countless projects and HQ activity about which there is nothing worth to report.
More money will be available for the governments of programme countries, to develop and save the lives of the country’s children.
I am sorry if all this means that some privileged UN staff will be out of their job, but it is small price for saving more children's lives elsewhere.
Only the author of the original PPP could be so clear. UNICEF has over extended ourselves by making the simplest things overly complex - from the way CPDs are done, to the dashboards we create, to filling in 1000 CSI questions each year, to the way we recruit people. We always take the complex route. In doing so we create giant multi-layered structures as well - our mission creep is all over the place. If we focussed on 2 or 3 things we could actually maybe get some work done and stop chasing our tails all day on processes. We may actually graduate from some countries having succeeded in those 2 or 3 things. But not, we stay forever and never leave. The number countries we "graduated" out of is a tiny handful - the number of countries we have stayed in for 5 or more decades keeps adding up. Not only do we not leave - but the longer the stay the bigger we get - even if the trajectory of children is improving we never phase out. Same can be said the entire UN system. If we each had 2 or 3 priorities and a clear mandate - who would need an RC system - now each UN agency pays a "1 % levy" on each grant that goes to the UNRC system - what does UNRC system do with the 100s of millions reaped in? As you say, making our work complex means we need to now have companies of UN retirees who "help" us develop vast frameworks and theories of change churning them out like a factory. Every time our work is too complex get our own heads around it - we have lost a grip on reality and have lost common sense and ownership.
ReplyDeleteNow we have half of the international staff in the world posted in HQ or Regional office - how can that be a streamlined business model? How did we land here?
ReplyDeleteHQ and RO locations are typically more comfortable duty stations, and we are good at looking after ourselves.
DeleteHowever, it’s naive to expect that drastic reform will be done by those who have enjoyed the bureaucratic powers for many years. It’s time for bringing new blood in the senior management and their no. could be reduced by half as there is no need for lengthy processes that have justified their existence. Time to bold !
ReplyDeleteAny reform would involve spending more on African children and less on ourselves. Who would agree with that?
DeleteSomething similar was proposed 25 years ago, but it was denounced as a suicidal, madman's harebrained scheme and the poor fellow who suggested it was laughed out of the room. Some could not follow the narrative, others claimed, pompously, that the programming process was more important than the implementation. There were not so subtle hints that it amounted to a betrayal of hard-working individuals who had dedicated their lives to development assistance. Consequently, the embryo of an idea was quickly killed, never to be broached again. Nevertheless, it would have made a difference at the time and UNICEF would have been more relevant and credible. Today it is too late. The Economist has had several articles on aid over the past couple of months, one was titled: "The Capitalist Revolution Africa Needs". It has elements that could help Africa develop. This week's issue has a leader with the more depressing title "The Death of Foreign Aid". If aid is to be saved, major changes are called for that focus on growing the economies of Africa with a high degree of transparency and accountability.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agree. Actually very sensible and doable suggestions. During my last years before I retired, I found it so frustrating that we were planning and monitoring ourselves to a complete standstill. Time to really think and do outside the box!
ReplyDeleteTrue - but we were a bit late, perhaps too late to realise it
DeleteDetlef, you make me smile…. and I could not agree more.
ReplyDeleteAs a freshly minted “Water consultant” I was included in the 1993 OLS annual deliberations led by the Programme Coordinator called Detlef Palm. Being an outsider, I was bemused by the language used then just as I remained bemused (and amused) as a staff member in NYHQ many years later. Freshly arrived from Pakistan, my first 3 hour meeting in HQ discussed “partnership”, but at an intellectual level that was akin to witnessing a debate about galactic programming and just dislocated from country level realities.
The arrival of the RC system in Pak was similarly eye opening. Debate between UN agency staff around the actual interpretation of terminology was overseen by over zealous UNDP colleagues, with extreme sensitivity over ‘mandate’ limiting any real ‘One UN’ structured programming. When the Pak Gov asked all agencies to provide examples and proof of capacity to actually deliver in areas they claimed fell to their mandate, red faces abounded…
One of the most underrated pleasures of stepping out from U is the silence…. at least in terms of white noise around an overly complex quagmire of processes… so heavy that consultants are invariably required to led staff through by the nose. At least in ‘93 you didn’t have a process consultant holding your hand!
Let's not confuse the size of the signpost with the size of the destination. Mahesh
DeleteMeanwhile, Governments in recipient countries are just getting on with adjusting to the new aid realities. This from a newspaper report on yesterday's budget speech in Tanzania:
ReplyDelete'The Government has reassured Tanzanians that it has assessed the impact of certain donor funding cuts on critical sectors such as health, education, water and employment. "To address this challenge, among other measures, the government plans to strengthen the AIDS Trust Fund by restructuring and increasing its funding to ensure continued support for treatment of diseases such as HIV/Aids, tuberculosis, malaria and immunisation programmes,' said Dr. Nchemba. He added that the government aims to enhance alternative financial mechanisms for development projects, including public-private partnerships (PPPs), to increase private sector participation in the economy' (https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/national/tanzania-prioritises-elections-afcon-in-sh57-trillion-budget-4960946)
Instead of looking at our internal processes, perhaps spending more time engaging with the governments of the countries we work in to see how we can support a paradigm shift in the way they support their own children might be worth considering?
Thanks Paul - if we focussed more on helping our host governments leverage more for children than grilling them on DCT payments we would be better off. with UN and other donors ODA being such a small part of the budget in many countries - our exit is not a dive off a cliff. But rather governments are finding ways to cover gaps we leave behind.
DeleteSad, but true. Some version of a mini-Musk would probably do UNICEF good.
ReplyDeleteNo need for UNICEF to "graduate" out of any country (unless kicked out). Advocacy is needed for children's rights everywhere. We need 1 (one) strong UNICEF advocate per country (in the core team if a programme country, on their own if not), with a strong grounding in children's rights and needs and how to protect and fulfil them, and not afraid to use the UNICEF mandate. Work with the national human/children's rights commission (etc) and give them whatever value can be added from international experience. I proposed this for Mauritius in 1998. Best to all.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Detlef on the CPDs. If they weren't being paid I'd feel sorry for those consultants who are hired to write the CPDs because staff can't be bothered. I am happy to note that as a staff member I took a lead in drafting CPDs myself rather than hiring spending the country programmes precious resources on consultants but I knew exercise had little value. There was a time when UNICEFs executive board was populated with veteran members who had shown up year after year for decades and who knew well what was happening and who had a hand in shaping us - I would see the having a genuine and useful to and fro with the ED at the time, Jim Grant, who appreciated the interactions. It was a proper board. Some of them would even read CPDs with interest and ask questions. For years now, the board has taken on a diluted character. A kind of a training trip for junior diplomats. I remember in the early 1990s at a PPP workshop in Nairobi sitting at a table with a CPD drafting consultant who had flown in the week before from Indonesia where he had just finished drafting the CPD. Now he was working on Somalia. He showed me how most of his work was done by swapping in the word "Somalia" for "Indonesia" and then changing the budget table. So yes, I agree with Detlef and he could have written his words many years ago. It is likely these kinds of efficiency gains will now be sooner rather than later.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that 80% + of the CPDs are done by consultants who are retirees or ex-UNICEF staff, the constructive suggestions above should be from the policy wonks in NY. Consultants only do what they are told as they are commissioned to do so. An emerging problem is how many of the current staff really know how to do a CPD?
ReplyDeleteThe triplicate structure, the oversized HQ and RO and in many instances oversized COs, the quite wasteful outposted HQ divisions and the plethora of consultants alongside the endless sub-contracting together puts the organization under immeasurable financial and credibility stress.
ReplyDeleteWe can use our AI tools to write a CPD - it would take about 30 seconds.
ReplyDeletewhat is laughable - is the current HQ in charge of the future are all over age 60. So dinosaurs in charge of evolution.
ReplyDeleteSo, those of us over 60 years are "dinosaurs", eh? Not a very pretty comment from "Anonymous".
DeleteI am also over 60 - but would never insert myself our presume to LEAD UNICEF reform process. The very same people who let it bloat to extreme proportions - are in charge of fixing it? And yes I am a dinosaur too - but not pretending to lead a process at such a critical time. Appoint a change team - with a mix representing what UNICEF should look like. Be transparent - don't hold town hall meetings in the dark of night and not share any transcripts. Why is that so hard?
DeleteIf I recall correctly UNICEF had a "Change Officer" at one point, but nothing much changed. Can UNICEF, with lots of vested interests, change from within?
DeleteNo doubt about it. Presenting CPDs to the EB could be reduced to one page (maximum) per CO.
ReplyDeleteA 1-page document to authorize millions of dollars of public money expenditures? As John McEnroe said, "You Cannot be Serious"!
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely serious.
DeleteCPDs, in their current forms, contain no information that requires decision by the Executive Board.
Expenditure is not authorized for spending by the host country, but by the UNICEF office.
Host countries are not interested in the CPD. They only engage when they find statements about their country that they find unflattering.
The amount of funding is determined by a formula, and the strategy by the Strategic Plan.
Comments by Board members, over the past years, have only been about wording but not about the substance of the CPDs.
Nobody ever reported back to the Executive Board whether the planned results (if any were mentioned) of a CPD were actually achieved.
Please - this is no longer about the validity of CDDs, it is existential.
DeleteI am staying anonymous until I actually retire this year. In case I need to keep in good books to get hired as a retiree to draw theory of change boxes.
ReplyDeleteNewton Bowles - used to come to work everyday as a retiree - not getting 700 USD per day - but on a one dollar contract to write up his wisdom. By the way - i think our last month before retirement we should have a mandatory process of recording what we learned - what we would differently, what changes we saw. It is a loss when people leave and we lose all that.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that mandatory process should include what we achieved and how much we were paid for those achievements.
DeleteOk so i asked COPILOT - the online AI that is used by UNICEF to produce a Theory of Change that describes challenges of children in Tanzania and how we could get them back on track to thrive - in about 1 second here is what I got - is this any less Ok than what we could spend a year on at country office level and with the consutlant in tow and mountains of MICS data? Absolutely! Here's a theory of change that outlines the main challenges faced by children in Tanzania and the strategies to help them succeed:
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! Here's a theory of change that outlines the main challenges faced by children in Tanzania and the strategies to help them succeed:
ReplyDeleteMain Challenges Faced by Children in Tanzania
Poverty: Many children in Tanzania live in poverty, which affects their access to basic needs such as food, healthcare, and education1.
Limited Access to Quality Education: There is a significant disparity in educational opportunities, especially for girls and children with disabilities2. Many schools lack adequate resources, trained teachers, and infrastructure2.
Health Issues: High rates of malnutrition, preventable diseases, and limited access to healthcare services hinder children's physical and cognitive development3.
Child Labor and Exploitation: A considerable number of children are involved in child labor, which affects their ability to attend school and enjoy a healthy childhood1.
Gender Inequality: Girls face additional challenges such as early marriage, teenage pregnancy, and gender-based violence, which limit their educational and personal development2.
Theory of Change to Help Children Succeed
Goal: Ensure all children in Tanzania have the opportunity to thrive and succeed by addressing their socio-economic, educational, and health challenges.
Strategies
Improve Access to Quality Education
Invest in School Infrastructure: Build and renovate schools to provide safe and conducive learning environments.
Train Teachers: Implement comprehensive training programs to enhance teachers' skills and knowledge.
Provide Learning Materials: Ensure schools are equipped with necessary textbooks, technology, and other learning resources.
Promote Inclusive Education: Develop programs that support children with disabilities and ensure equal access to education for all.
Enhance Healthcare Services
Expand Healthcare Facilities: Increase the number of healthcare centers, especially in rural areas.
Nutrition Programs: Implement school feeding programs and community nutrition initiatives to combat malnutrition.
Preventive Healthcare: Promote vaccination campaigns and regular health check-ups for children.
Reduce Child Labor and Exploitation
Strengthen Child Protection Laws: Enforce laws against child labor and exploitation.
Community Awareness Campaigns: Educate communities about the importance of children's rights and the negative impacts of child labor.
Support Families: Provide economic support and vocational training to families to reduce reliance on child labor.
Promote Gender Equality
Empower Girls: Create programs that support girls' education, health, and personal development.
Combat Gender-Based Violence: Implement initiatives to prevent and respond to gender-based violence.
Advocate for Policy Changes: Work with government and organizations to develop policies that promote gender equality.
Outcomes
Increased School Enrollment and Retention: More children, especially girls and children with disabilities, attend and complete school.
Improved Health and Nutrition: Children experience better health outcomes and reduced rates of malnutrition.
Reduced Child Labor: Fewer children are involved in child labor, allowing them to focus on education and personal development.
Enhanced Gender Equality: Girls have equal opportunities to succeed and are protected from violence and exploitation.
Moderators
Community Engagement: Active participation and support from local communities.
Government Support: Commitment from the government to implement and sustain these initiatives.
Partnerships: Collaboration with NGOs, international organizations, and private sector partners.
By addressing these challenges through targeted strategies, we can create a supportive environment that enables children in Tanzania to thrive and succeed. 🌟
Does this align with what you were looking for?
This sounds similar to what UNICEF and the aid community have done since Tanzania's independence. The kids have gotten relatively poorer ever since. How about changing tack and try growing the economy, making people reacher, wealthier and better off?
DeleteI agree - so spend a year on a SITAN, 6 months on MTR with a consultant, 6 months on a UN cooperation framework and UNICEF CPD - all by consultants - and we end up with a paper that is no more robust than what we can get from an AI in 1 second. And if Tanzania wanted to grow its economy - the last place they would look is the UN. Paul Edwards has already shared that Tanzania is not sitting on their hands and clutching their pearls at US government cuts - they are opting to fund vital services from their OWN revenue - something they could have done all along had UN not insisted to bog them down in CPD and UNDAP meetings and chasing cash advance liquidations. Tanzanian leaders know that with better revenue collection on the wealthy, no more slush funds with UN or other donors, tighter control over their own natural resources, cutting down corruption - they could easily get themselves on track to be wealthier and better off.
DeleteThe other day a field office colleague told be he was with a teacher in a rural island - the teacher was in desperate need of a climate change curriculum that was relevent for his age (10 to 12 years old) with some games and easy instructions. Our field colleague entered the request into AI and in one second got a full set of exercises for children that age on climate change, it was appropriate to rural island communities, had games and exercises, and was in the LOCAL language. if UNICEF or World Bank were to embark on this it would take us maybe a year and a million + dollars to do this - and we would still not be sure if it was appropriate and if it would actually get INTO THE HANDS of the teachers - or if it would stay in a consultant report, or in boxes that never quite reached the last island schools in country x. In a world with such tools - what is the role of UNICEF?
ReplyDeleteI think we should reduce talking by 42%.
ReplyDeleteTalking should increase by 59%, because 59 is a prime number.
Delete42% is close enough in-between prime numbers 41 and 43
DeleteIf the debate is about real reform then:
ReplyDeleteRight from the first days that I worked with UNICEF, I saw how the Patronage System was diverting money away from where it was needed, and I wanted to encourage senior staff to debate the matter with nationals in the country concerned with the rider that if they didn’t do something about it, UNICEF would divert its assistance elsewhere. I was told to forget it as if those senior staff didn’t want to confront the issue – which is hardly the way in which to resolve a problem.
It was only after I was retired early that I saw what the Asian Devlt. Bank was doing in Karachi where money was being bled out of the Municipality to fat cats and Municipal services were getting worse and worse for lack of funds. ADB said that it would help Karachi resolve this – offering eye-watering sums - but on the one condition, that the Municipality was to be run in the private sector where hiring and firing were to be based solely on performance. I saw this in operation and while I didn’t get all of the details, it certainly seemed to attract competent people.
Hiring and firing based on performance is perhaps something UNICEF could consider emulating.
DeleteKen - when i left Pakistan a few years ago - there was over 10 m USD still unaccounted for in one province - inspite of several audits - not a shred to account for this huge cash advance.
DeleteAnd we are still in business - amazing.
DeleteJust as well that we aren't a company accountable to shareholders.
DeleteThe ones we were accountable to never had a say.
DeleteToo bad. There will be no CPDs for approval in the 2025 annual session of the UNICEF Executive Board. All the negotiations on the allowable number of words in the CPDs were in vain. But the next Strategic Plan will still be discussed! Click here in anticipation of the UNICEF Executive Board Meeting!
ReplyDelete