MENA, EAP, and WCA Staff Associations Write to Catherine Russell on Concerns about the FFI Initiative

Regional Staff Association Committees from three UNICEF Regions have written to the Executive Director expressing their "observations,concerns,and recommendations concerning UNICEF's ongoing Future Focus Initiative (FFI).

This is a very long letter (14 pages including the tables), so you may want to read a summary and outline before tackling the full document.  The full document appears as a PDF at the bottom of this article and can be downloaded for later reading. 

Summary:

 The three regional staff association committees have raised serious concerns about UNICEF’s Future Focus Initiative (FFI), warning that the rushed, HQ-driven reform—particularly in centralizing operations—lacks proper data, risks undermining country programmes, and disproportionately harms field staff. They call for an extended timeline, inclusion of country and regional staff in decision-making, evidence-based piloting of reforms, protection of frontline roles, and prioritization of non-staff cost-saving measures. Without these changes, they argue, FFI could weaken UNICEF’s impact and erode trust internally and with partners.

The memo urges UNICEF leadership to rethink FFI implementation, emphasizing that the survival of UNICEF’s mission depends on safeguarding its decentralized, field-driven identity. It warns that without data-driven decisions and genuine staff participation, FFI may erode UNICEF’s credibility and effectiveness — especially in the world’s most vulnerable regions.

Outline of Key Concerns and Recommendations:

Key Concerns:
Top-Down Methodology & Insufficient Data:
* HQ-led design lacks field input and meaningful data (e.g., cost-benefit analysis, risk mapping).

* Centralization proposals (e.g., moving transactions to GSSC/SD) are theoretical, with no proven cost savings.

Disproportionate Growth at HQ:
* HQ staffing rose 45% (2017–2025), while country and regional office growth lagged.
* Suggested staffing cuts hit field offices first, though HQ expansion is the root imbalance.

Risks to Programme Delivery and Staff Trust:
* Rapid implementation risks weakening country programmes and long-standing government relationships.
* Staff morale, trust in leadership, and organizational integrity are jeopardized without transparency and equity.

Insufficient Inclusion of Field Perspectives:
* Field staff, who know local realities, are excluded from key decisions.
* The memo calls for greater involvement of CO and RO technical experts.

Stream III Operational Model Flawed:
* Proposal assumes centralized transactions reduce risk—but no proof.
* General Service (GS) staff face major impact with minimal financial relief for UNICEF’s overall budget.

Key Recommendations:

Extend the FFI Timeline:  Allow time for independent data collection, risk assessments, and staff consultations.

Field-Inclusive Design:  Involve CO and RO technical staff in all three review streams and recognize the unique contexts in middle-income and private sector fundraising (PSFR) countries.

Pilot Centralized Models: Test hub models in select offices before full rollout, with clear cost-benefit evaluations.

Prioritize Non-Staff Cost Savings: Cut travel, office space, and high-cost HQ functions before cutting staff. Consider relocating HQ roles to cheaper locations or adopting hybrid work models.

Protect Country-Level Capacity: Avoid one-size-fits-all restructuring; preserve successful regional setups. And Reduce management bloat at HQ (notably D1/D2 posts) and redirect resources to the field.

Offer Voluntary Adjustments: Propose early retirement, voluntary separation, or telework over forced layoffs.

Improve Transparency and Communication: Develop regional dashboards tracking FFI progress and staff feedback. And, ensure accountability and open dialogue with staff unions.