The joint evaluation assesses the extent to which the UNFPA-UNICEF joint programme has accelerated the abandonment of FGM/C in 15 programme countries (2008-2012). The evaluation provides an opportunity to ensure accountability to donors and other stakeholders, and is also a useful learning exercise. The evaluation assesses the relevance, efficiency, sustainability and the effectiveness of the holistic and multi-sectoral approach adopted by UNFPA and UNICEF in their programme for the acceleration of the abandonment of FGM/C. Furthermore, it also assesses the quality of the coordination mechanisms that have been established at the global level and within countries to maximize the effectiveness of joint programme interventions. Finally, the evaluation provides recommendations for the future direction of the FGM/C policies and programmes and gives UNFPA and UNICEF insights into the successes and challenges in conducting joint programming.

Country Reports

The case studies presented below are independent assessments of the UNFPA-UNICEF joint programme support for the acceleration of the abandonment of the FGM/C in Kenya, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Sudan.

Kenya Country Case Study Report

Burkina Faso Country Case Study Report

Senegal Country Case Study Report

Sudan Country Case Study Report

Further reads

Presentation of Main Results of the Joint Evaluation at the International Conference on FGM/C in Rome

Informal Consultation with the Executive Boards of UNICEF and UNFPA

Formal Consultation with UNFPA Executive Board,  Statement of the Director, Evaluation Office

Terms of Reference and Inception Report

Bringing together the findings of 26 country programme evaluations conducted between 2014 and 2015 and quality-assessed as “good” or higher, this exercise, the second undertaken by the Evaluation Office, represents a continued effort by the Evaluation Office to periodically undertake syntheses. To facilitate use for programming, lessons learned are organized by UNFPA 2014-2017 Strategic Plan outcome areas, with lessons surfaced in several other areas particularly important for organizational learning and strategic development, as well, such as UNFPA engagement in humanitarian settings and the use of a human rights based approach to programming.

The UNFPA Evaluation Office conducted a meta-analysis on the engagement of UNFPA in highly vulnerable contexts based on a cluster of six country programme evaluations (Bangladesh, Haiti, DRC, Liberia, Myanmar, and Nepal) with two standard evaluation questions on relevance and effectiveness. The document review, interviews and surveys extended to other 25 countries that UNFPA considers as priorities for humanitarian work.

The objectives of this exercise are, namely, to (1) draw lessons on the performance of UNFPA engagement in highly vulnerable settings, and (2) validate and complement this country-based body of findings and lessons learned through additional data collection and analysis work, with a view to reaching generalizable conclusions.

From a methodological standpoint, it is important to note that this meta-analysis is a lighter than a full-fledged evaluation. Its main purpose is learning as opposed to accountability. It intends to establish the degree to which UNFPA is in a position to provide efficient and effective emergency support in future; not to provide a comprehensive assessment of the extent to which UNFPA interventions have resulted in particular country-level outputs. Hence, the meta-analysis presents suggestions and conclusions, and not evaluation-related recommendations.

This exercise concluded that:

1. A fair basis has been laid for UNFPA to position itself strategically and programmatically within the humanitarian-development nexus
2. UNFPA’s humanitarian programming has grown, but funding is not commensurate with population needs, stakeholder expectations and corporate commitments in highly-vulnerable contexts
3. UNFPA staff in highly-vulnerable contexts are frequently thinly-stretched, which impacts on their well-being and performance and the Fund’s reputation as a humanitarian actor
4. The roles of UNFPA as leader of SRH and GBV humanitarian coordination are meaningful and appreciated but lack a solid footing
5. UNFPA is at a crossroads whether to invest in becoming a go-to agency for humanitarian data or to accept a more modest role
6. UNFPA systems and processes for procuring and delivering humanitarian supplies are in need of a revamp

Watch Karen Cadondon and Natalie Raaber, synthesis managers, outline key highlights of the good practices

The synthesis validates effective programmatic approaches and those that limit progress to accelerate UNFPA and partners’ efforts to achieve the organization’s three transformative results: zero preventable maternal deaths, zero unmet need for family planning, and zero gender-based violence and all harmful practices against women and girls.

The aggregation and validation of good practices involved a systematic review and analysis of evidence captured in 57 UNFPA country programme evaluations, conducted between 2012 and 2018.

With this exercise, the Evaluation Office provides usable and accessible evaluative knowledge for the organization, to better understand what kinds of programmatic interventions work to accelerate results. This rich evidence coincides with the Nairobi Summit as the global community reflects on the next steps to finally and fully implement the ICPD Programme of Action by 2030.

Follow #GetToZero

The Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All (the GAP) combines a focus on the health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – which are of central importance at both the global and country levels – with a diverse, multifaceted and multi-level inter-organizational partnership of UN and non-UN actors. The 12 signatory agencies of the GAP include Gavi – The Vaccine Alliance, the Global Financing Facility (GFF), The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, Unitaid, UN Women, the World Bank Group, WFP and WHO. 

The joint evaluability assessment was commissioned in recognition of the complexity of multi-stakeholder partnerships, that it is therefore essential to identify, early on in the partnership, any significant gaps in the pre-conditions for success in the GAP and/or in its systems for measuring, reflecting on and addressing performance. This early assessment would help to improve the chances that the health-related SDG targets are met by 2030, while also indicating what frameworks and measurements would need to be put in place to demonstrate the progress and achievements and learn from the experience along the way. Further, given the health-related SDG targets are currently off track – a risk only exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic – underlines the importance of an early assessment. 

With an evaluation of the GAP currently planned for 2023, the joint evaluability assessment applied an evaluative lens to the partnership now, so as to pre-emptively course correct any issues that the 2023 evaluation may raise, when it might be more difficult or even too late to address. In this way, the joint evaluability assessment helps the signatory agencies maximize the likelihood of the partnership’s success in supporting countries to achieve the health-related SDG targets. 

To enhance coherence among UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and UN Women in support of results, a common chapter was embodied in the organizations’ strategic plans, 2018-2021. Through the common chapter, the agencies have defined programme areas that require multi-sectoral approaches and where their combined added value and collaborative operationalization modalities can achieve greater synergy and higher efficiency. The four organizations also committed to continue harmonizing their approaches to results reporting, capturing their contributions to collective outcomes and the Sustainable Development Goals.

In 2019, an evaluability assessment of the common chapter was undertaken, which aimed to provide clarity on the operationalization of the common chapter in the first years of implementation and assess the existence of basic parameters that would make an evaluation of the common chapter possible.