Guidelines

UNICEF Programme Cooperation Agreements and Small Scale Funding

Agreements with Civil Society Organisations

UNICEF New York

December, 2009
 Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................ii
1. Introduction and Overview of Changes ......................................................................... 1
2. Background and Context................................................................................................ 5
3. Accountabilities ............................................................................................................. 6
4. Mapping Potential Partners and Capacity Assessment .................................................. 7
5. Formalizing Partnerships with CSOs ............................................................................. 9
6. Characteristics of Programme Cooperation Agreements and Required Documentation
10
7. Characteristics of Small Scale Funding Agreements and Required Documentation ... 13
8. Applicability of the PCA and SSFA for Capacity Development ................................. 15
9. Budget Policy Framework and Different Types of Costs ............................................ 16
10. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation of Agreements................................................ 18
11. Phase-Out Strategies and Termination of Agreements ................................................ 20

Attachment 1. Programme Cooperation Agreements (with Annexes) ................................... 23

Attachment 2. Small Scale Funding Agreement ..................................................................... 36
Attachment 3: Guiding Principles for Partnerships with CSOs ............................................... 37
Attachment 4. Simplified Financial Management Assessment Checklist .............................. 39
Attachment 5. Sample Checklist for Assessing CSO Capacity and Integrity......................... 46
Attachment 6: Sample Terms of Reference. Programme Cooperation Agreement Review
Committee…………………………………………………………………………………... 47
Attachment 7: Description of a Generalized Workflow for PCA and SSFA Preparation,
Approval and Launch of Cooperation Country Office ............................................................ 51
Attachment 8. Checklist for Small-Scale Funding Agreement ................................................ 54
ABBREVIATIONS

BCA Basic Cooperation Agreement

CAG Cash Assistance to Government
CBO Community-based Organisation
CCC Core Commitments for Children in Emergencies
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
CO Country Office
CMT Country Management Team
CP Country Programme of Cooperation or Country Programme
CPD Country Programme Document
CPAP Country Programme Action Plan
CPMP Country Programme Management Plan
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
CRC Contract Review Committee
CSO Civil Society Organisation
CSP Civil Society Partnerships
DCT Direct Cash Transfers
DFAM Division of Financial and Administrative Management
PP Policy and Practice (UNICEF HQ)
DPSC Direct Programme Support Costs
EPRP Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan
FACE Funding Authorization and Certificate of Expenditure
HACT Harmonised Approach to Cash Transfer
HQ Headquarters
IFI International Finance Institutions
IHL International Humanitarian Law
IR Intermediate Result
IPC Indirect Programme Costs
JWP Joint workplan
MDG Millennium Development Goals
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTSP Medium Term Strategic Plan
MTR Mid-Term Review
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
OECD - DAC Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – Development Assistance Committee
OR Other Resources
PCA Programme Cooperation Agreements
PCARC PCA Review Committee
PCR Programme component result
PPPM Programme Policy and Procedure Manual
PRO Programme Instruction
ProMS Programme Manager System
RD Regional Director
RO Regional Office
RR Regular Resources
SD Supply Division (UNICEF Copenhagen)
SITAN Situation Assessment and Analysis
SSA Special Services Agreement
SSFA Small Scale Funding Agreements
SWAp Sector-wide approach
TOR Terms of Reference
TCPR Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review
UNCT United Nations Country Team
UNDAF UN Development Assistance Framework
UNDAF - AP United Nations Development Assistance Framework Action Plan
UNDG United Nations Development Group

P a g e | ii
1. Introduction and Overview of Changes

This guideline on UNICEF’s Programme Cooperation Agreements (PCAs) and Small Scale
Funding Agreements (SSFAs) with Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) updates and
supersedes previous instructions and guidelines on UNICEF cooperation with civil society
partners namely: CF/EXD/1996-001, CF/EXD/2001-013, CF/EXD/IC/2002-002,
CF/EXD/2005-008 and CF/EXD/2001-13.

These revised guidelines help, in part, to meet UNICEF’s commitment to develop stronger
partnerships with CSOs, as articulated in the Strategic Framework for Partnerships and
Collaborative Relationships approved by the Executive Board in June 2009.

These guidelines cover the use of revised formats for PCAs as a legal instrument for
partnership agreements with CSOs by country offices. Revised formats for use by Regional
and Headquarter offices will be issued subsequently.

Introduction

UNICEF’s collaborative relationships with civil society organizations – including

international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based
groups, youth associations and others - continue to extend the reach and effectiveness of
UNICEF-assisted cooperation across all areas of its Medium Term Strategic Plan (MTSP)
and in different operating contexts.

National and community-based CSOs bring an in-depth knowledge of the local context to
partnerships, helping to navigate access to different, and often marginalised population
groups, making mobilisation of political and popular support for positive behaviour change
possible and appropriate. Working together, UNICEF and CSOs benefit from a better
understanding of emerging trends, lessons learned and opportunities for improved practice. In
many country contexts, UNICEF-CSO partnerships and collaborative relationships are
contributing to the long-term sustainability of child-focused programmes and policy reforms.

Partnerships and collaborative relationships are a central feature of UNICEF's efforts to

achieve greater results for the rights of children and women through Country Programmes of
Cooperation and humanitarian action, based on its Core Commitments to Children in
Emergencies. They are anchored in both the legal platform of the Country Programmes
approved by the UNICEF Executive Board and agreed with national authorities through the
Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP), as well as the legal mandate that serves as the basis
for UNICEF’s work in humanitarian crises.

UNICEF has a wide range of partnerships and collaborative relationships in development

work and humanitarian action, including those with: other UN agencies; NGOs; international
and regional organizations; stand-by partners; private sector and corporate foundations;
research institutes; peacekeepers; and donors. Capacity development of partners is frequently
an important component and objective of these partnerships.

These revised internal guidelines will help to meet UNICEF’s commitment to develop
stronger partnerships with CSOs at all levels, as articulated in the Strategic Framework for

Page |1
Partnerships and Collaborative Relationships approved by the Executive Board in June
2009.

UNICEF currently has the following instruments which operationalise partnership

relationships with CSOs:

i. Memorandum of Understanding. Collaborations that are broadly focused on the

joint pursuit of identified common goals using each partner’s existing resources,
without the transfer of resources from one partner to the other, will normally be
governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). MOUs are agreements in
which the parties confirm that they share a common understanding in working
towards shared goals. MOUs are well suited to broadly define strategic alliances
between UNICEF and a CSO or network, declaring agreement on intent, areas of
common interest, spheres of co-operation and operational engagements. An example
might be a document in which four NGOs “resolve to work together on girls’
education”, each with defined goals or an agreement where both parties commit
themselves to undertake advocacy activities against child abuse, or to exchange
information.

An office should only conclude an MOU with a CSO when UNICEF does not intend
to transfer funds or supplies directly to the organisation. Where an MOU already
exists, and where it is later decided to transfer funds to the CSO, additional
Agreements will need to be concluded as a basis for this. Global MOUs with CSOs do
not represent pre-qualification/certification for relationships at country level, nor do
they do substitute for requirements for capacity assessments at country level.

ii. Programme Cooperation Agreement. Engagements that focus on the collaborative

implementation of a jointly-developed programme or set of humanitarian
interventions, within the framework of a UNICEF Programme of Cooperation or
UNICEF-supported humanitarian response, will be governed by a Programme
Cooperation Agreement. In such collaborations, UNICEF will provide support to the
civil society partner strengthening its participation in the implementation of the
programme, through the transfer of supplies and equipment, or cash, to the partner.
Having identified a partnership as being suitable for the Programme Cooperation
Agreement modality, UNICEF will then identify which of the two available
agreements (Attachment 1) is appropriate for the particular partnership – based on
criteria of the nature, duration, and complexity of the partnership and the amount of
UNICEF resources being provided to the civil society partner.

UNICEF Headquarters will also pursue discussions with selected CSO partners on the
possibility of developing standard global agreements, including standard levels of
allowable costs. These agreements would provide a framework for country-level
PCAs with those individual partners. More information will be forthcoming during
2010 on this approach.

iii. Small Scale Funding Agreement. Engagements that are similar in scope to PCAs
but do not have a value that exceeds USD 20,000 in terms of funding and/or the
equivalent value of supplies as a single or cumulative set of transfers related to the
partnership to an individual CSO in a calendar year. In addition, the total amount of a
Country Office's Small Scale Funding Agreements (SSFA) cannot exceed 10 % of the

Page |2
 total programme budget within a year. The SSFA agreement template is found in
Attachment 2.

Summary Types of Tools and Agreements

Type Main Purpose Other Features

Memorandum of
Understanding
Programme Cooperation
Agreement (2 forms of
agreement: “light” and “more
complex” - depending on the
scale, nature, assessed level of
risk and the complexity of the
partnership).
Small Scale Funding
Agreement
Articulate and agree on
common goals and interests.
Agreement to work for common
goals, with share risks and
responsibilities, resources and
benefits. The PCA is based on a
Joint Work Plan and budget.
Limited support provided to a
local/grassroots organization, or
other CSOs, not to exceed US$
20,000.
Involves no transfers of cash or
supplies.
Resources may be transferred to
the partner to assist it in
carrying out its roles. The
partner is uniquely positioned
and has specific capacities or
advantages to carry out its roles
under the PCA.
Flexible, with highly simplified
planning format and reporting
requirements.

The substance of this Guidance covers the use of Programme Cooperation Agreements and
Small Scale Funding Agreements.

A Note on Special Services Agreements

Distinct from the above partnership agreements, relationships that involve the delivery of
services to, or on behalf of, UNICEF, either at cost or at “cost plus” (for a service fee),
continue to be governed by a contract for services (referred to in UNICEF as a “Special
Services Agreement”). These constitute vendor relationships. The award of such contracts is
anchored in the competitive tendering and procurement process and requires compliance with
UNICEF’s regulations, rules, and procedures for the award of contracts. Special Service
Agreements (SSAs) are legal and binding agreements between UNICEF and
Consultants/Contractors used for engaging Consultants, Individual Contractors and
Institutional/Corporate Contractors to perform services for UNICEF which are not readily
available in the organization and which are expected to be strictly temporary, and possibly
intermittent, in nature. Institutional SSAs are applicable when the CSO acts as a contractor
for UNICEF. The CSO provides services or goods against payment upon satisfactory
delivery. Consequently, a CSO to be contracted as a provider of services should be selected
on a competitive basis through the process detailed in Financial Circular 19, Rev.3.
Regulations apply which may require the examination of the selection process by the
Contracts Review Committee (CRC). Payments to the CSO are made against satisfactory
delivery of the product (or stages of completion). An evaluation of the performed services is
required before final payment can be made.

The simultaneous use of a Programme Cooperation Agreement and the issuance of an SSA to
the same CSO is discouraged, unless the two relationships are clearly distinguished and
mutually understood to be entirely separate.

Page |3
Overview of Changes

This Guideline for PCAs and SSFAs with CSOs reflects and incorporates a number of
changes, based on the principles and considerations described below and in Attachment 3.
Among other modifications, UNICEF is introducing the following key changes to the PCA
and SSFA, both through these guidelines and the associated legal Agreements:

i. The principles and centrality of partnerships with CSOs are more clearly highlighted
in achieving results for children and women;

ii. The capacity development of local institutions is integrated as a high priority strategic
focus for cooperation and partnerships, wherever appropriate and agreed. This may
involve capacity development objectives in a PCA to benefit the cooperating partner
itself, or in favour of other, national/local organizations or groups;

iii. The duration of PCAs is no longer limited to two years. Any time period may be
agreed, within the country programme cycle or emergency funding cycle. The length
of a PCA should be appropriate to the objectives adopted and programme results to be
mutually supported;

iv. In PCAs, a revised approach is taken to funding of both indirect programme costs and
direct programme support costs for management and administration of the
collaborative programme or activities, or humanitarian response:

- Where UNICEF is transferring funds to a partner to help it undertake its work

under a Programme Cooperation Agreement. UNICEF will help to defray the
partner’s indirect programme costs1 through a flat rate addition of 7% to the total
amount of Cash Transfer (for programme costs and direct programme support
costs) to be provided by UNICEF2.

- The partner will also be able to capture its identified direct programme costs
attributable to management and administration of the programme3 up to a
maximum of 25% of the total amount transferred by UNICEF (including the value
of supplies; and net of the indirect programme charge), depending on justifiable
local costs as assessed by the UNICEF Country Office and the partner. UNICEF
may also agree to exceptions beyond this 25% cap in crisis or other extraordinary
circumstances where costs (e.g. logistical, security) are extreme.

v. Responsibility for the internal review and recommendation of proposed Programme

Cooperation Agreements will normally lie with a Programme Cooperation Agreement
Review Committee established in each UNICEF Country Office, and no longer with
the Contract Review Committee.

1
“Indirect programme costs” means the partner’s costs incurred in support of the collaborative programme that
cannot be separately identified and traced unequivocally to the programme.
2
Note: the flat rate addition of 7% will be implemented on a pilot basis under these Guidelines, and UNICEF
will globally assess and review this provision after three years.
3
“Direct programme support costs attributable to management and administration of the programme” are the
costs to the partner of management and administration that can be identified as arising directly and
unequivocally from the programme.

Page |4
 vi. Revised forms of Programme Cooperation Agreement are introduced, with a
simplified format for different types of relationships, depending on the nature,
duration, and complexity of the partnership and the amount of UNICEF resources
being provided to the civil society partner.

vii. The existing Small Scale Funding Agreement may now be used for grants (cash plus
value of supplies) of up to US$20,000. Such Agreements may constitute up to 10% of
the total annual UNICEF programme budget.

viii. The Programme Cooperation Agreement for grants over US$20,000 has been
replaced by two instruments: a Programme Cooperation Agreement for more complex
collaborations with higher levels of risk (usually indicated by a total value of
US$100,000 or more); and, a lighter version of the Programme Cooperation
Agreement for simpler, shorter, lower-risk collaborations (usually indicated by a total
value of up to US$100,000).

ix. Strategies for phasing out of Programme Cooperation Agreements and supporting
sustained results are more strongly emphasized.

2. Background and Context

The aim of all UNICEF-assisted Country Programmes of Cooperation is to further the

realisation of the rights of children and women. Human rights and child rights principles,
noted in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other internationally-adopted legal
instruments, guide programming in all sectors at all phases of the programme process. In
situations of armed conflict, the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two
Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 provide the basis for International
Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the protection of victims of international and non-international
armed conflict.

The Basic Cooperation Agreement (BCA) provides a legal basis for UNICEF's presence and
operations in a country, its programme cooperation, the procedures of programming, and
UNICEF's right to observe all phases of the programme. National entities retain the main
responsibilities for planning, formulating and managing the programmes funded by UNICEF.

The Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) is the key jointly- agreed document on
programme cooperation for the duration of the approved Country Programme Document
(CPD), thereby assuring national authorities’ ownership of the Programme of Cooperation
and setting out clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities. Responsibilities for
programme implementation can be given not only to government institutions, but also, with
Government concurrence, to civil society and non-government actors. Overall responsibilities
and funding of CSOs in programme implementation should be clearly spelled out in the
CPAP signed by UNICEF and the Government. UNICEF, as a cooperation partner to
governments rather than a donor, remains directly accountable to funding partners for
reporting on the use of resources to support the components of an agreed CPAP.

While it is desirable to have a formal government request for assistance in emergency

situations, UNICEF can act without this in a government-declared emergency, according to
UN General Assembly Resolution 46/182 of December 1991. Furthermore, UNICEF partners

Page |5
are likely to include a wider range of non-governmental entities in humanitarian and recovery
situations than in stable environments, including international NGOs, national CSOs and a
range of UN agencies.

The MTSP 2006-2013 acknowledges the crucial role of partnerships and collaborative
relationships for realising children’s rights important to achieving internationally agreed
development goals including the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and those
contained in the Millennium Declaration. The Mid-Term Review of the MTSP in 2008
further highlighted the contribution of UNICEF’s longstanding engagement with NGOs,
CBOs and many other civil society partners.

The General Assembly adopted the following resolution in response to the Triennial
Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR): “ that, with the agreement and consent of the host
country, the United Nations development system should assist national Governments in
creating an enabling environment in which the links and cooperation between national
Governments, the United Nations development system, civil society, national non-
governmental organizations and the private sector that are involved in development process
are strengthened, including , as appropriate, during the United Nations Development
Assistance Framework [UNDAF] preparation process, with a view to seeking new and
innovative solutions to development problems in accordance with national policies and
priorities;” 4

With its key principles –ownership, harmonisation, alignment and results, and mutual
accountability- the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action is an important vehicle for
greater transparency as a basis for policy dialogue and mutual accountability. The role of
Civil Society in the development processes is actively sought. CSO participation in policy
discussions is increasingly acknowledged by development partners as crucial, as is their role
in scaling up innovative and cost effective approaches.

The UNICEF Core Commitments for Children (CCCs) in emergencies describe a set of
programmatic and operational actions, procedures and inputs that UNICEF will deliver in the
first weeks of an emergency and beyond the initial response. Given the increasing
complexity and cost of emergency and humanitarian operations, Country Offices can only
meet the CCCs by working closely with host governments and other partners including
CSOs. The CCCs recognize that the most durable, effective and efficient results are obtained
when undertaken on a collective basis and in partnership with others. Partnerships are
essential during the preparedness, response and early recovery phases and in all
programmatic areas for UNICEF to fulfil its obligations to children and women under the
CCCs. Partnership agreements provide critical routes through which Country Offices can
both channel resources to CSOs as well as to mobilize important contributions to promote the
rights of children and women affected by crises.

3. Accountabilities

UNICEF exercises accountabilities to its Executive Board and funding partners through the
development with Government and other partners of agreed work plans, setting out activities,
inputs required and persons responsible. This is also done through annual programme (or

4
A/RES/62/208, General Assembly Resolution (2008) of 14 March, Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of
operational activities for development of the United Nations system.

Page |6
UNDAF reviews, Mid-Term Reviews (MTR) and programme evaluations, carried out jointly
with Governments, UN Country Teams (UNCT) and/or Humanitarian Coordinators, and
other partners. Important components of this accountability to the Executive Board are the
Executive Director’s Annual Report, which is a key element of the MTSP, reports on MTRs
and major evaluations, and the summary of the results of past programme cooperation
contained in new CPDs.

Accountabilities for UNICEF-assisted Country Programme and CCC-based humanitarian

responses can be shared, not only with government institutions, but also with civil society and
non-government actors. The roles and potential partnerships, including funding of CSOs,
should be clearly spelled out in the CPAP signed by UNICEF and the Government. Whilst
not all partnerships need be formalized or institutionalized, every partnership should have a
framework of accountability.

Formal partnerships should be based on explicit, written agreements through which partners
will jointly define their expected contributions, roles and responsibilities, based on an
analysis of each partner’s core competencies, capacities and risks assumed, and mutually-
agreed objectives, operational targets and budgeted activities, and monitoring, evaluation and
reporting procedures.

Mutual accountability is a relationship based on the obligation to demonstrate that work has
been conducted and contributions made in accordance with agreed principles, standards and
plans that performance results have been reported clearly and accurately.5 Each partner takes
responsibility for performance and contributions to agreed expected results. Mutual
accountabilities require: reporting on overall performance of the collaborative arrangement,
partner contributions, and what was learned; and, taking responsibility for the coordination
and management structure, partner actions and strategies.

Risk assessment provides the means for effective identification and management of internal
and external factors in the partnership that affect the achievement of planned results. Partners
should minimize the risk that operational plans, programme documents, and budgets are
procedurally delayed and should exercise feasibility to reformulate them during
implementation and changing circumstances may require, consistent with overall rules and
procedures that underpin organisational integrity and accountability for the use of resources.

4. Mapping Potential Partners and Capacity Assessment

The process of developing PCAs and SSFAs, following the identification of a programme
need for this type of partnership to achieve an identified result, is initiated by mapping and
assessing the capacity of potential partners. A systematic approach and appropriate tools
should be used to map, assess and identify partners. Taking these steps will minimise the
possibility of partnering with CSOs which lack adequate capacities and expertise for a
particular purpose.

The ongoing Situation Analysis of Children and Women (SitAn) is an opportunity to conduct
broad strategic assessments and identify partners. The SitAn process should help Country
Offices develop a clear vision of the work of the potential partnerships and their purpose,
opportunities, limitations and challenges, in relation to key goals for children and women and

5
E/ICEF/2009/15 Report on the accountability system of UNICEF

Page |7
unrealised rights. Further, a strategic analysis of the comparative advantages of organisations
on the ground and mapping of their strengths and weaknesses will facilitate the identification
of appropriate partners.

Additionally, the EPRP process provides opportunity to take concrete steps towards
formalizing agreements with humanitarian partners. Many countries have effectively
prepared pre-certified cooperation agreements with CSOs that have expertise in specific
sectors (e.g. re-unification of unaccompanied children, supplementary and therapeutic
feeding, among others). These pre-certified agreements can be easily and quickly activated at
the onset of humanitarian crises, gaining precious time for organising a response.

UNICEF offices should systematically collate basic information about CSOs as part of
mapping exercises. This information of in-country CSOs and development institutions
(International Finance Institutions - IFIs, bi-lateral, multilateral, NGO and CBO, private
sector and private institutions) will assist in the analysis of factors that influence the success
of a partnership, such as:

 mandate, mission and areas of expertise

 results of past CSO interventions
 mandate and level of capabilities (economic, human, political, socio-cultural,
protective/security)
 degree of interests and child-focus/sensitivity.

Simultaneously, UNICEF should assess its own comparative advantages within the context of
specific potential partnerships. This can be done by examining country-level strengths and
weaknesses, in relation to UNICEF mandate and normative framework and the opportunities
and threats in the country.

Potential new partnerships must be subject to a vetting process. For PCAs where transfer of
UNICEF resources (funds, supplies) is involved, pre-assessment of the partner’s financial
management capacity is mandatory. For PCAs that involve transfer of more than U$100,000,
or in cases where the combined value of transfers together with other UN agencies is more
than US$ 100,000 per year, a financial management capacity assessment is mandatory using
the Framework for Cash Transfers to Implementing Partners (otherwise known as HACT)
regardless of whether the UNCT and Government have adopted this Framework. For PCAs
that are for less than US$100,000, Country Offices should use the simplified financial
management assessment format provided in Attachment 4. Other features of the capacity and
integrity of a potential partner should also be reviewed using the template provided in
Attachment 5. If the partnership involves the management of supplies, an additional
assessment of the in-country logistic capacity of the CSO is also recommended. A self-
assessment by the CSO or peer assessment, using materials provided, perhaps facilitated by
UNICEF or a third party as appropriate, should also be considered.

These assessments may not be necessary if the CSOs capacities have already been vetted and
past performance analysed within a reasonable period of time by another UN agency or other
established partner (Government, IFIs, bi-lateral funding agency, etc.). The Country Office
should assemble the necessary documentation for inclusion into a country office data base.
This will also provide a useful tool to manage reputational risk, identify areas for evaluation
and establish clear audit trails.

Page |8
Once the Office has identified a CSO to partner with, it must select the appropriate
instrument to regulate the relationship between UNICEF and its partner for the particular set
of shared goals and planned results. The selection of instrument will depend on the purpose,
nature, complexity and scale of the partnership. Such instruments clarify, for instance, how
both parties are accountable for their contributions and actions. They facilitate transparency
and establish mutual expectations. They set out how any potential conflict will be resolved.

5. Formalizing Partnerships with CSOs

Informal collaborative arrangements remain a highly valued modality for engagement at all
levels of UNICEF and, where appropriate, should be acknowledged and valued. Important
results for children are often achieved through informal partnership arrangements. These can
include: co-developing strategies in response to persistent challenges for realising children’s
rights; facilitating the development of innovations for children by CSOs; or facilitating third
party action by bringing different parties together
to catalyse positive change. Representatives should ensure that the
CPAP includes a clause explicitly stating
that parts of the programme of cooperation
UNICEF’s formal partnerships with CSOs at the will be carried out with the involvement of
country level must have either the explicit or CSOs. It should, as appropriate, include
generally understood agreement of the statements supporting CSO capacity
appropriate government counterpart. Many development, and on the importance of
countries do not require CSOs to be officially involving informal, community-based
registered in order to be able to receive funds groups on issues relating to children’s and
from UNICEF. women’s rights. Specific NGOs/CBOs do
not need to be mentioned. Chapter 6,
The CPAP, as a binding agreement for Section 4 of the PPPM provides additional
government and UNICEF should contain explicit guidance on these aspects of the CPAP.
language recognising the expected role of CSOs
as partners in the implementation of the Country Programme. The CPAP should also include
a reference to potential small-scale funding agreements and PCAs with CSOs as part of the
Country Programme. Such references may enhance the understanding of Government of the
potential benefits of collaboration with civil society partners, and provide the formal basis for
subsequent agreements. Where common UN operational documents and processes are
employed, agreement should be reached within the UN team regarding the role of CSOs; and
where relevant, the document replacing the agency-specific CPAP should refer to the
strategic importance of partnering with CSO and on their potential roles. To the extent
possible, it is desirable for the CSO to be aware of and engaged in the UNDAF and country
programme development processes as a way to strengthen partnerships around common
goals.

Regional and global programmatic partnerships with CSOs take place in the context of the
MTSP in general, including the CCCs, and of the Inter-Country Programme approved by the
Executive Board in particular (the latter covers the programme activities of UNICEF
Regional Offices and HQ Divisions).

The pace and timing required for designing and preparing cooperation agreements together
with CSOs may vary. It is important to allow sufficient time for consultations with
community organisations and other stakeholders. Planning and preparation with CSOs can
often be complex, considering the potential need for:

Page |9
 - translations and communication in local languages
- briefing constituencies about programme activities
- consulting key stakeholders and disseminating information
- generating programme design and identifying strategies and methodologies.

This process often requires resources of time, expertise and funding, representing an
investment for better implementation of activities and inclusive and responsive partnerships.
Not allowing adequate time may result in loss of trust, legitimacy and effectiveness in the
long term. On the other hand, planning and negotiations should not be unduly drawn out,
especially where rapid response is required. A maximum of 2 - 3 months is suggested for the
preparation of Programme Cooperation Agreements and much less time in emergency
situations or for preparing a Small Scale Funding Agreement.

6. Characteristics of Programme Cooperation Agreements and Required

Documentation

The Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA), and also the Small Scale Funding
Agreement (SSFA – see Section 7) are legally binding; are used to govern the transfer of
financial or material resources to CSOs, and
are used to prescribe financial, knowledge- Characteristics of the PCA
based or material inputs by each partner into
 Each partner brings strengths, comparative
the common initiative. Standard legal
advantages and contributions to the pursuit
instruments are essential to ensure of common goals and planned results. Each
accountability for the use of UNICEF partner may assume risks and responsibilities
resources. in relation to the planned results. UNICEF
transfers resources to the partner to assist it
A PCA is used when a CSO acts as an in undertaking its roles and responsibilities.
implementing and/or contributing partner
and carries out mutually agreed activities,  By referring to CRC and the CEDAW, the
which are often - but not necessarily - part PCA clarifies that the cooperation is
of a work plan agreed with government and understood as an integral part of UNICEF’s
other partners. The CSO participates in human rights-based approach.
defining the expected results and strategies
 The PCA confirms that parties are not only
to be used. The CSO is typically selected on
accountable to their respective donors and
the basis of features such as its specific stakeholders, but also to those whom they are
technical expertise, its mandate, the intending to assist.
professional skills and integrity of the staff,
its geographic reach, and/or its ability to represent, mobilise, reach and/or involve
marginalized groups. The CSO fulfils a unique function, brings unique strengths to the PCA,
and is not easily inter-changeable with another organisation.

Just as the CPAP establishes clear responsibilities and accountabilities for the cooperation
between the Government and UNICEF, so does the PCA for the cooperation between a CSO
and UNICEF. Its purpose is to clarify the roles of both UNICEF and the CSO; to facilitate the
management of relationship between both; to manage and regulate the mutual contributions
and risks assumed and/or transfer of resources; and to provide for the resolution of problems
that may arise during implementation.

Meanwhile, in situations where these characteristics of working for a common purpose and
sharing risks, responsibilities, resources and benefits are not present, PCAs are not used.

P a g e | 10
Instead, SSAs (to formalize a contractual relationship)and MOUs (to formalize a relationship
that doesn’t involve the transfer of financial resources) may be considered.

Required documentation

The documentation required to formalize a PCA with partners includes a PCA document and
a Programme Document (which includes a narrative description of the programme, a joint
workplan and a budget).

A PCA document is required, using one of the appropriate versions found in Attachment 1.
These provide a “lighter” or a “more complex” version, depending on the scale, nature and
complexity of the partnership and its objectives. The elements of these Agreements represent
the minimum standard required to legalise the partnership.

As part of the decision regarding which of the two versions to use, the overall complexity and
level of risk to UNICEF should be taken into account. For Agreements that have a value that
exceed US$100,000, the “more complex” version of the PCA should be used. In general, for
Agreements less that US$100,000 the “lighter” version can be used. However, the value of
the resources to be transferred by UNICEF is only one factor in the overall assessment of
risk. Where this value is less than US$100,000, the level of risk to UNICEF will tend to be
lower, and this would indicate the selection of the “lighter” version of the PCA. However,
based on the finding of the assessment and other factors, the office may opt to use the “more
complex” version of PCA in order to manage the perceived level of risk even though the
value of resource transfer is below US$100,000.

If a UNICEF office is expecting to enter into more than one PCA with a single partner, then
the total value of all Agreements should be considered when selecting the version of the PCA
to be used in each case, due to the heightened level of risk.

The PCA is finalized based on a Programme Document, which includes a joint workplan
(JWP) and budget (see Attachment 1, Part A). These documents provide details on the
expected results and their contributions to the overall outcomes to be achieved through the
Country Programme towards national development priorities, or to the Humanitarian
Response. They establish clear responsibilities and accountabilities for the cooperation
among the partners.

The Programme Document (including the joint workplan and budget) should relate to the
larger major activities and budget lines of the relevant UNICEF Workplan.

The process of preparing these documents, as well as the PCA itself, often requires important
commitments of time, expertise and funding. It can be a capacity development exercise in its
own right and represents a good investment for building trust and mutual understanding. The
documentation should include a description of the expected result(s) of the collaboration, the
strategies and actions required to achieve the result(s), a budget which clearly denotes the
contributions of each organization and the timing for the main activities.

Unlike past practices, where a partner was often expected to submit a proposal to UNICEF
for UNICEF’s consideration, the development of the Programme Document, including the
JWP and budget, as the basis for the PCA, should be a joint one – a process that itself
reflects the principles of partnership. The preparation may begin with a review of each

P a g e | 11
organization’s capacities including the identification of the programmatic, managerial and
organizational strengths and areas requiring further development using the materials
provided. In light of these assessments and the result(s) to be achieved by the partnership, a
plan can then be developed to achieve these result(s) and may include efforts to further
develop the capacity of the partner as well as to address the sustainability of results, after the
formal conclusion of the partnership.

The development of Programme Document should bring together relevant staff members
from each organization, and, where relevant, members of the affected communities and other
stakeholders. Key constituencies should be briefed during the drafting process. This will help
ensure ownership and facilitate the management of relationship. During the preparation
phase, it is also advantageous to share and explain core values and conditions and discuss
mechanisms and processes for funding, management of supplies, monitoring and reporting
procedures, and establish coordination mechanisms. Special attention should be made on
reaching a shared understanding on the components of the budget, especially related to the
programme costs and the direct programme support costs. These are likely to be subject to
negotiation.

The joint workplan, which is a component of the Programme Document (see Attachment 1
Part A), outlines the activities that will be undertaken in the context of the partnership, and
identifies the time period, responsible partner and also identifies the budget for each activity.
The activities outlined in the joint workplan are related to each of the expected results of the
partnership, ensuring that the activities planned are sufficient to realize the expected results.

Amendments to or extensions of agreements are possible under the standard provisions of the
original agreement. Extensions of an agreement should only take place in cases where the
programmatic focus and goals or coverage areas of the extended partnership are not
substantially changed. If there is a substantial change in goals or focus, a new agreement
should be developed. Once the CSO has undergone the first internal assessment process,
additional agreements and budgets can be negotiated to cover subsequent collaborations with
new and different goals without further assessments. However, when such additional
agreements involve different technical areas, the CSO should be assessed for these new areas.

Budget

The budget, which is also a component of the PCA Programme Document along with the
narrative and the joint workplan, details the required resources (financial, human, and
material) and their costs. A budget should include specific headings that indicate distinct, yet
relatively broad categories of expenditure using the suggested format available in
Attachment, Part A. The extent to which CSOs and other partners will contribute to the total
cost should be indicated. A narrative summary should be included to justify budget items that
require explanation. Non-financial contributions (e.g. community mobilisation or local
knowledge inputs by the CSO) are important and should also be described. All budgetary
allocations must be within the policy framework of financial support to CSOs in Section 10
below, and all funds provided should advance the objectives of the UNICEF-assisted Country
Programme.

The projected cost of any single input in the budget included in the PCA Programme
Document that will be funded by UNICEF can be adjusted provided that (a) the variation is
no more than twenty percent (20%); (b) the total amount of Direct Programme Support Costs

P a g e | 12
does not exceed the amount approved by UNICEF (which can be up to one quarter of the
total amount of the budget); and (c) the total budget included in the PCA Programme
Document and the amount of Cash Transfer remain the same. However, exceptions should be
considered by the Head of Office and minuted for the record, where reasonable and
appropriate based on changed circumstances.

Review and Approval of PCAs

As noted above, a CSO is identified for a partnership based on an assessment of the relevant
competencies of the CSO to fulfil a unique function, adding value to the collaborative effort
that could not easily be provided by any other organisations.

While the use of competitive bids and lowest costs is not appropriate for PCAs, both the
programmatic and cost implications - including cost-effective options - should be taken
explicitly into consideration when considering PCAs. A structured process to review these
implications and approve the proposed Agreement is required.

All offices are required to establish a PCA Review Committee, which will be composed of
senior/mid-level programme and operations staff, to review, consider and endorse
proposed/draft PCAs. The PCA Review Committee (PCARC) will review and consider,
among other things: whether the assessment of the CSO has been adequately carried out;
whether its selection for this particular collaboration is justified, based on its ability to play its
expected role in relation to the objectives; the assessed level of risk; the programmatic
justification and design of the PCA; the cost/cost-effectiveness implications; the mutual
accountability provisions; the budget proposal and the proposed PCA document and
supporting documents themselves. The Committee may endorse a proposal on a provisional
basis, pending completion of the required documentation, which should be addressed within a
reasonable time period as stipulated by the Committee. In endorsing a PCA, the PCA Review
Committee thereby recommends signature by the Head of Office or his/her delegate.

The PCA Review Committee will report to the CMT providing periodic summaries of the
Agreements it has endorsed and those it has rejected or endorsed pending amendments. A
ToR for the Committee should be developed and approved by the CMT. See Attachment for
a sample TOR of the Committee. The Committee should consider establishing a work flow
and checklist to help staff understand the process and identify internal responsibilities for
each step in the review, approval and monitoring process. A generalized work flow found in
Attachment 7 can be the basis for developing a more detailed and context-specific work flow
appropriate for each country office.

Once the review process is complete, the draft Programme Document, including the joint
workplan and budget, should also be finalized. The required non-financial contributions, such
as technical assistance of UNICEF and other partners should be noted. The joint workplan
should always include monitoring and evaluation activities. The level of required detail in the
Programme Document varies according to the level of resources involved, the number of
partners and the scale and complexity of the collaboration. A JWP is not required for Small
Scale Funding Agreements.

7. Characteristics of Small Scale Funding Agreements and Required Documentation

P a g e | 13
A Small Scale Funding Agreements (SSFAs) are engagements that are similar to PCAs but
have a value less than US$ 20,000 in terms of funding and/or the equivalent value of supplies
as a single or cumulative set of transfers related to the partnership to an individual CSO in a
calendar year. In addition, the total amount of an Office's small scale CSO agreements cannot
exceed 10 % of the total funded country
programme budget within a year.
Small Scale Funding Agreements may
serve three important purposes:
All SSFAs must be within the context of
the relevant Workplans and contribute to 1. To facilitate a rights-based approach
their expected results. For instance one or to programming by being able to
more Workplan activities may refer to the better support partners to assist hard-
CSO as implementing partner, indicating to-reach and marginalized groups.
the amount to be covered by the SSFA up 2. To flexibly meet the needs and help
to US$ 20,000 in supplies or cash build the capacities of community
equivalent. groups, such as informal youth or
women’s groups, who do not possess
the managerial capacity to handle
SSFAs are recommended to, approved and
elaborate administrative and financial
signed by the Head of Office, or by her/his procedures.
designee for this purpose. 3. To lower the transaction costs for
UNICEF and CSOs, which otherwise
SSFAs are most effectively used either for would arise in a PCA, especially
providing support to community/grassroots where these would be excessively
organizations; or for simple, one-time high compared to the relatively
transfers of resources to partners. They are modest amounts and simple, specific
designed to avoid costly administration and purposes involved.
accounting procedures and to promote
accountability and empowerment without sacrificing financial and legal accountability. These
use a simple form of documentation and do not require an additional Programme Document
or JWP.

Required documentation

For small-scale collaboration, a less detailed format or use of bullet points is sufficient for the
agreement (Attachment 2). Literacy levels should be taken into account when preparing
proposals in collaboration with local, grassroots CSOs.

A checklist can be used to determine whether a group/organisation is eligible for small-scale

funding (Attachment 8). The main criteria are:

 The organisation’s mission, focus and commitment to meet specific objectives should be
in line with UNICEF's mandate and programmatic framework;

 In the context of community development, the organisation follows a participatory

approach, and shows that it is representative of and accountable to the communities or
groups that it serves.

P a g e | 14
Budget

The budget cannot exceed the equivalent of US$ 20,000 in a single calendar year. Budget
lines may be included to support the development of the capacity of the CSO itself, where
this is an objective of the Agreement.

Monitoring and reporting requirements

Reporting requirements under Small Scale Funding Agreements are relatively light. Short
narrative reports, including basic financial reporting on implementation, results and lessons
learned, would normally suffice.

The Office will decide on appropriate monitoring mechanisms, considering their needs and
feasibility. The following might be done:

 Field visits
 Review meetings with the organisation’s head and staff
 Meetings with children and families meant to receive services from the organization
 Graphic depictions such as drawings or photographs, if available.

8. Applicability of the PCA and SSFA for Capacity Development

Capacity is defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development –

Development Assistance Committee (OECD – DAC) as the ability of people, organisations
and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully. Capacity development is
understood as the process whereby people, organisations and societies as a whole unleash,
strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time. The United Nations Development
Group (UNDG) has further broadened this definition to go beyond human resource
development such that it now includes societal and organisational transformation and issues
of national ownership, policy-level impacts, and sustainability.

UNICEF, with its access to a broad range of technical expertise, is a key partner for
supporting capacity development efforts which are strategic for children’s and women’s
rights. Countries have called upon UNICEF to further strengthen the capacity development
dimension of the country programme process to better utilise various cooperation modalities,
including sector-wide approaches. The critical need for capacity development and the
contribution that partnership and collaborative relationships with CSOs can make are both
considerable.

PCAs and SSFAs may both be used in part or whole to support the capacity development of
strategically important CSOs, at national or local level, including in situations where the
development of the civil society sector is an important programme strategy for strengthening
capacity for the progressive realisation of children’s and women’s rights. A capacity gap
analysis should be carried out to identify strengths and weaknesses of the organisation’s
capacities as a basis for designing Agreements for this purpose.

Budget lines may be included in PCAs with one partner (for example, with an international or
large national NGO) to help build the capacity of another partner or network of partners (e.g.

P a g e | 15
a local government agency or a local CSO with which the NGO may have a relationship and
a comparative advantage in supporting, including with complementary inputs of its own).

In addition to the direct transfer of funds, knowledge resources and supplies to CSOs, other
strategies can be used for building the capacity of organisations or groups. These might
include, for instance, internships, knowledge and technology transfer, participation in
communities of practice, technical assistance in kind or from third party institutions,
appreciative inquiry, training and mentoring.

9. Budget Policy Framework and Different Types of Costs

Important policy changes have been made affecting the framework for financial support to
CSO partnerships.

Budget costs for collaboration with CSOs governing the use of PCAs are grouped into a)
Direct Programme Support Costs (DPSCs); b) Indirect Programme Costs (IPCs); and c)
Programme Costs.
Direct programme support cost:
costs attributable to the management a) The following characteristics for the provision of
and administration of the DPSCs, as defined in the text box, apply:
programme, that can be identified as
arising directly and unequivocally  Direct Programme Support Costs to be supported
from its implementation. by UNICEF must be clearly identified as such in the
Budget.

 The total of DPSC should not normally exceed a maximum of 25% of the total funds and
value of supplies (net of indirect programme costs) provided to the CSO under the PCA.

Each UNICEF Office is responsible to clearly assess, together with the partner organisation,
what is “reasonable” considering the local context and typical costs for administering local
activities. As a guideline, up to 25% of the total budget to be transferred by UNICEF –
including the value of supplies; and excluding indirect programme costs - is allowable for
such costs. Normally, the amount will be less than the 25% limit.

The limit could exceptionally be exceeded depending on the justifiable costs in the proposed
budget for the local context. In the exceptional cases, which will usually be crisis situations
with very high logistics, access and/or security costs, the Representative must sign a written
justification to be filed with the PCA for any percentage of DPSC above 25%.

Direct Programme Support Costs are management and administrative costs that directly
support the project objectives and directly derive from implementation of the PCA. These
may include:

- Travel for programme management and monitoring purposes;

- Salaries and support costs of implementing personnel, technical assistance (possibly
prorated);
- CSO-owned vehicles and their maintenance if directly used to implement activities under
the Agreement;
- Office equipment used in direct support of the programme;

P a g e | 16
- Costs connected with planning and management, such as (prorated) salaries and related
costs for representation, planning, coordination and management;
- Pro-rated support to management for time which directly contributes to the programme;
- In-country planning expenses;
- Costs connected with the administrative support of the programme, including (prorated)
financial management and information resources management;
- Monitoring and evaluation costs6:
- Costs of any planned Audit;
- Other expenses incurred directly in support of the programme, including additional rentals
of office space, office maintenance, utilities, telecommunications, office supplies.

DPSCs should be itemised in broad categories and included in the Programme Budget.

 There is no restriction on the period in which DPSCs may be provided, within the above
limitations and within the time limit of the overall PCA. In contrast to previous
guidelines, this provision, if justified, may extend beyond two years, if the total period of
the PCA itself exceeds this. However, PCAs
and their budgets cannot be agreed for a period Indirect programme cost: the
partner’s costs incurred in support of
that goes beyond the life of the approved
the collaborative programme that
Country Programme or Humanitarian cannot be separately identified and
Response7. traced unequivocally to the
programme.
 Except for PCAs which are clearly and
explicitly global, regional or multi-country in
nature, DPSCs are intended to assist the CSO with its resource requirements to carry out
activities within the country of assistance. The funds are not to be used for the operations
or development of elements of the CSO that do not contribute to populations or
institutions within the country of assistance.

b) The Indirect Programme Cost (IPC), as defined in the text box, is included in PCAs as a
standard 7% addition to the (i.e. on top of the) Cash Transfer component (i.e. excluding
supplies, equipment and other forms of in-kind support) of the agreed budget of Programme
Costs and Direct Programme Support Costs, to support the partner organization’s general
operations.

IPCs are not included in the budgets of Small Scale Funding Agreements.

c) Programme Costs

All other budget items fall under the category of Programme Costs. These are acceptable if
they clearly contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the partnership and the
expected results as established in the PCA. Only items that contribute to the achievement of
these expected results may be supported by UNICEF.

6
Monitoring of beneficiary populations, as distinct from the monitoring of programme activities, may be
classified under “Programme Costs” rather than DPSCs. Evaluation may also be included in “Programme Costs”
where knowledge generation using the evaluation is an objective of the Agreement itself. Where M&E are for
programme management purposes, however, they should be counted as part of the support costs.
7
An existing PCA that runs out at the end of the current Country Programme or Humanitarian Response cycle
could be extended by mutual agreement once a new or extended cycle comes into effect.

P a g e | 17
Programme Costs are the costs of inputs, such as:

 Cash for activities, such as workshops, training (venue rental, accommodation or

logistics)
 Cost of supplies that directly assist beneficiaries or beneficiary institutions;
 Materials production and distribution;
 Costs of surveys, reviews, consultations and results-related evaluations;
 Technical assistance to support beneficiaries or beneficiary institutions
 Communication that directly supports the programme objectives.

Development of a Budget

The budget must be based on the agreed Programme Document and Joint Work Plan. The
following three steps are essential to securing a clear rationale and justification for
transferring UNICEF resources to a partner CSO.

1. All budget items and planned expenditures must contribute to the achievement of the
results described in the Programme Document.

2. The budget items must be based on a clear description of activities that will be undertaken
under the partnership.

3. All budget items must be assessed for their relevance to the implementation of the
activities and the achievement of the planned results. Those which can be justified as
essential to the achievement of the goals and planned results—whether categorized as
Programme Costs or Programme Support Costs—may be supported.

Relevant national labour laws and the use of UNCT-approved local salary and entitlement
scales will serve as the basis for preparing the budget for implementing personnel and
technical assistance costs.

10. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation of Agreements

The basis for transfer of cash is the submission/approval of FACE form. The basis for the
transfer of supplies is an approved request and delivery schedule as per the standard rules and
regulations (see Paragraph 22 in the PCA Agreement for additional information).

For countries implementing HACT, the modality of payment selected should be based on the
results of the assessment and overall analysis of risk as per the standard rules and regulations
related to HACT. Offices are encouraged to consider opportunities to use “Reimbursement”
and “Direct Payment” cash transfer modalities (as alternatives to “Direct Cash Transfer”),
especially for well-funded CSOs.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are distinct, but integral parts of programme preparation
and implementation. Adequate provisions for monitoring - and where appropriate to the
nature and scale of the Agreement, also for evaluation - should be included in the Programme
Document (including in the joint workplan and budget). Similar mechanisms can be applied
to collaboration with CSOs under SSFAs.

P a g e | 18
The process of working with partners to design and carry out monitoring and evaluation
activities can be an important capacity development exercise in its own right. Joint field
visits, designed to monitor and supervise technical, financial and supply contributions of both
partners strengthen the partnership and provide a basis for analysis and identification of
corrective action required and the role of each partner in these future actions. Joint actions,
such as these, promote a shared stake in both the process and outcome of the partnership.

Monitoring

Monitoring is a process of tracking and measuring what is happening. This includes:

 measuring progress in relation to the PCA and Programme Document (including joint
workplan and budget) andalso the SSFA
 measuring change in a set of conditions that the partnership aims to address (e.g. a change
in social indicators, attitudes or practices).

The purpose of monitoring is to provide information:

 for short term decision-making to improve programme performance

 for accountability in terms of implementation according to the plan
 as an input to later evaluation and learning.

Monitoring takes place continuously and provides the basis for periodic reports. It is a quality
control procedure for both the organisation and UNICEF, and facilitates organisational
learning. Detailed guidance on monitoring mechanisms is provided in the PPP Manual.

Reporting

The schedule of programmatic and financial reporting requirements to UNICEF by partners

under PCAs and SSFAs are defined by the terms of the Agreements. These will vary among
Agreements depending on duration, scale and complexity. In general, however, PCAs require
a financial report on a quarterly basis, and an in-depth analytical progress report on a six-
monthly basis. SSFAs have very simple reporting requirements.

All partners must be adequately pre-assessed as having adequate controls. On the basis of
this pre-assessment, the FACE form is used for reporting expenditures.

On the basis that adequate financial pre-assessment has been carried out, the CSO partner is
not required to provide UNICEF with copies of receipts. However, the CSO should retain all
original receipts for a period of four (4) years under CAG and five (5) years under HACT,
available for future inspection by UNICEF or its agents, if required.

Evaluation and Audit

Evaluation attempts to determine as systematically and objectively as possible the

programmatic merit or value of a programme or activities. It needs to achieve a balanced
analysis, recognising bias and reconciling perspectives of all those interested in or affected.
Not every PCA needs to be evaluated, but a well-designed evaluation is often a good
investment in learning for the future. Evaluation plans should be agreed upon and outlined in
the Programme Document and related costs included in the budget.

P a g e | 19
A PCA evaluation may be conducted internally by members (and stakeholders) of a CSO or
in collaboration with UNICEF, or externally, by independent evaluators appointed in
consultation with the CSO. A combination of the two is also possible. The use of client-
focused surveys in both PCAs and SSFAs is encouraged to obtain perceptions of the quality
and appropriateness of the joint results as well as information on how the stakeholders view
the functioning of the partnership. Feedback should always be provided to those assisting in
the evaluation.

The broader impact on the programme environment of UNICEF’s cooperation with CSOs,
and their strengthened capacity could be the subject of a separate evaluation.

Audit requirements are specified in the PCA format. The cost of planned audits should be
included in the PCA budget, under Direct Programme Support Costs, including where the
audit will be commissioned by UNICEF itself.

Reviews

Collaboration with CSOs, regardless of whether covered by a PCA or SSFA, should be

assessed during annual reviews, and the Mid-Term Review of the Country Programme.
Evaluations should be timed, where possible, to feed into the Mid Term Review. Such
reviews may be undertaken together with CSO partners as a means of enhancing
collaboration and partnerships.

The UNICEF Management Team, in conjunction with the PCA/SSFA Review Committee,
should from time to time review the broad trends and statistics in the use of PCAs and
SSFAs, and the common programmatic, partnership and operational issues arising.

Further guidance on the options and standards for both monitoring and evaluation is available
in the Programme Policy and Procedure Manual (Chapter 5).

11. Phase-Out Strategies and Termination of Agreements

Sustaining the planned results

A PCA should include in the Programme Document, JWP and budget a series of activities
which contribute to the sustaining of the planned results following the conclusion of the
Agreement, and which would ultimately serve to strengthen any subsequent partnerships and
improve the capacity of the government, communities or other stakeholders. Such actions,
which may also be reflected in SSFAs, could include skills development, audits, client
surveys, evaluations or reviews with an emphasis on lessons learned. These actions should
be conducted using a participatory approach and serve to further strengthen the capacity of
the partners, government or local organizations. All Agreements should clearly specify the
agencies or organizations who will be responsible for maintaining assets, activities or results,
as relevant, after the period of the Agreement has ended. The future capacity needs of these
agencies should be considered.

Partnerships with international NGOs, in particular, should consider including provisions

which transfer technology and skills, support the capacities of local governments and
empower communities, leaving in place mechanisms to sustain the results of the partnership.

P a g e | 20
Breakdown of the letter and spirit of written agreements regulating the partnership

According to the UNICEF strategic framework for partnerships and collaborative

relationships, UNICEF should discontinue its participation in a partnership if:

 the alliance makes little or no progress towards achieving its mutual objectives
 the guiding principles are violated by one of the partners
 the operational guidelines are violated by one of the partners.

Partnerships and collaborative relations should establish at the outset of their work and as
specified in a Joint Work Plan, a mechanism by which monitoring, supervision and reporting
on progress towards mutually agreed goals and objectives can be jointly conducted. If in the
course of implementation of the Joint Work Plan, there is convincing evidence of little or no
progress towards achievement of the stated goals and objectives, corrective actions should be
agreed upon and documented along with a timeline for their implementation and any
necessary modifications to the budget. Responsibility for the corrective actions should be
clearly assigned. Every effort should be made by all parties to render maximum support to
ensure that the corrective actions are taken as effectively and efficiently as possible. If,
despite the good faith efforts of the concerned parties, there is a failure to achieve the desired
results, the partnership may be ended according to the procedures specified in the Agreement.

The legal Agreement governing the Partnerships contains language that refers to the guiding
principles of the United Nations System in general and UNICEF in particular. These
principles are non-negotiable and must be fully adhered to. In order to eliminate the potential
for any misunderstandings of these principles, user-friendly materials explaining what it
means to adhere to the guiding principles and the consequences for non-compliance may
need to be made available and discussed before signing a PCA or SSFA. Ideally, each
organization should support orientation and learning activities on these guiding principles
among their staff. Should a partner be accused of a fundamental breach of a guiding
principle, the partnership may be ended according to the procedures specified in the
Agreement.

The most critical operational guidelines for a PCA or SSFA are specified in the legal
Agreements governing the relationship among or between partners. With respect to UNICEF,
the HACT framework for cash transfers and the relevant paragraphs of the Agreement
dealing with supplies and equipment are among those of great importance. While it is the
responsibility of each partner to adhere to the operational guidelines, it is the responsibility of
UNICEF to provide sufficient clarity about them to encourage respect of the relevant clauses
of the Agreement.

The HACT framework requires the practice of jointly developing and implementing an
assurance and audit plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan. These plans, individually or
jointly, spell out the provisions for field monitoring, the method for conducting spot checks
of the financial management practices (including management of equipment or supplies) and
the timing and purposes of audits and evaluations. The findings of these plans should be
discussed during regular coordination meetings and formal reviews so that any weaknesses
identified are quickly brought to the attention to the management of the relevant partner(s)
and timely corrective action can be undertaken. Every effort must be made to work

P a g e | 21
collaboratively to resolve differences and eliminate weaknesses. However, should major
weaknesses continue without resolution, due to negligence or fraud, either of the partners
may seek to terminate the agreement according to the procedures specified in the Agreement.

P a g e | 22
Attachment 1 of PCA Guidelines: Format for Programme Cooperation
Agreements
Part A) “More Complex” Programme Cooperation Agreement

See Accompanying File

P a g e | 23
ANNEX 1 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

Format of Programme Document (including Joint Workplan and Budget)

This Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) Programme Document, which includes the
Joint Workplan and Budget, enables UNICEF and its CSO partner to jointly draft a
harmonized, results focused plan with a minimum of documentation. The document should
include the following sections:

1. Cover Page - one page

2. Executive summary – one page (optional)
3. Situation analysis – one to two pages
4. Strategies including lessons learned and the proposed project– one page
5. Results framework – one page
6. Management and coordination arrangements –one page
7. Fund management arrangements – one page
8. Monitoring, evaluation and reporting –one page
9. Workplans and budgets (as annexes) - two to three pages

A brief description of the expected content for each of these sections is provided below.

1. Cover Page (One page)

The cover page contains the expected result(s) of the cooperation, total estimated budget,
funded and unfunded components, expected sources of funding, duration of the agreement
and signatures of the NGO/CBO authorities(s).

2. Executive Summary (One page – optional)

The executive summary contains a comprehensive summary of all sections focusing on the
significance and relevance of the cooperation, its contribution to UNICEF’s priorities and
national plans, the results expected to be achieved, intended beneficiaries, and information
about relevant donors and other partners.

3. Situation Analysis (One to two pages)

This section provides a brief evidence-based causal analysis which may be obtained from the
Situation Analysis of Children and Women, the national development framework or the
relevant humanitarian action plan8. It outlines the economic, social, political, environmental
and institutional context of the collaboration. It identifies the development or human rights
challenges to be addressed; provides specific, current and disaggregated data on these
challenges, key causal factors, and the interventions that are necessary and sufficient for the
achievement of the planned results. This is to be supplemented with references to identified
baselines (to be noted in the Project Monitoring Framework in Section 8), relevant recent
research reports and/or reports and recommendations of field missions, assessments,
evaluations, etc.
8
The cooperation should be referenced in the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) that may have been signed by UNICEF and the host
government.

P a g e | 24
4. Strategies, including lessons learned and the proposed project (One page)

The subsections to be covered include:

Background/context: The intention of this sub-section is to describe how the cooperation

will contribute through the Rolling Work Plans (RWP) to the achievement of the national
development plans or priorities, Country Office priorities and international humanitarian
obligations, among others. It should also identify other outputs and stakeholders contributing
to the achievement of the results of the collaboration. It identifies other relevant stakeholders
who may be directly involved in this project: UN organizations, government, other non-
government institutions, and donor organizations active in the area.

Lessons Learned: This sub-section provides a summary of relevant lessons learned from
experiences, opportunities and challenges which may support or constrain achievement of
results. Statements of agreed lessons are particularly important where there is a significant
departure from previous programmes or strategies. If relevant, this sub-section may also
indicate how recommendations and observations of Human Rights treaty bodies to the
respective State Party have been considered and used in the design of the CA.

Proposed Collaboration: This sub-section outlines the specific strategies adopted to achieve
the expected results, taking into consideration the lessons learned. It focuses on how the
strategies address the key causes of the problems which have been identified, and the role of
the partner(s) involved in each phase. It includes details on the intended manner in which the
cooperation should unfold in its various phases. It provides a brief description of the division
of labor between the NGO/CBO and UNICEF, the added value of each to the expected
results, and the NGO’s/CBO’s capacity to deliver agreed outputs. The proposed project
strategy should confirm that the capacities necessary for the implementation were carefully
considered and that the selected partner has the capacity to achieve the intended results (refer
to the various assessments).

This section should also refer to prior assessments of key cross-cutting concerns such as:
human rights; gender equality; the environmental issues that are relevant in this case and how
the cooperation will address them; assessment of capacity gaps of key institutions and
collaborating partners and the capacity development strategies that will be adopted.
Depending on the subject covered, this section may also include other types of ex-ante
analyses, for example themes such as education, health, water and sanitation.

Sustainability of results: State how the results will be sustained including relevant capacities
being developed among duty bearers and rights holders and government institutions and
communities.

5. Results Framework (One page)

This section will contain a brief narrative and the results framework. The narrative should
briefly outline the logic of the results chain. The outputs of the cooperation should directly
contribute to the relevant programme results (i.e. outcomes, outputs, programme component
results (PCR) or intermediate result(s) as appropriate). Proper justification should be
provided, when any element of the cooperation falls outside the Country Programme’s results
framework.

P a g e | 25
6. Management and Coordination Arrangements (One page)

This section elaborates the project planning and management responsibilities and
commitments of NGO / CBO. Arrangements for monitoring, review, and coordination
should be documented. Linkages to existing coordination mechanisms should also be
specified.

7. Fund Management Arrangements (One page)

This section should specify the details of the agreed arrangement for transfer of cash to the
NGO / CBO. Cash transfer modalities (e.g. direct cash transfers, reimbursement or direct
payment) , the size and frequency of disbursements (generally on a quarterly basis). The
scope and frequency of monitoring, reporting, assurance and audit activities will be agreed
prior to programme implementation, taking into consideration the capacity of the NGO /
CBO, which should be adjusted as a function of the results of the assessments, the related
degrees of risk and corresponding mitigation measures including support for capacity
development.

8. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (One page)

Monitoring: Describe the monitoring activities that the NGO / CBO will undertake (such as
baseline collection, reviews or studies if necessary to measure effect/impact, field visits,
evaluation etc.), the timing of such activities and their respective responsibilities.

Annual/regular reviews: State the arrangements and clear responsibilities for conducting
regular reviews, including annual reviews where applicable. NB: Review of the collaboration
may also form part of Annual Review process.

Evaluation: State the arrangements for, responsibility and timing of evaluation(s) of the
collaboration. It should also state how the results of the evaluation(s) will be used by relevant
stakeholders.

It should further state how the risks and assumptions will be managed to achieve the agreed
results. These should at a minimum be reviewed at the annual/regular reviews and revised as
appropriate.

Reporting: A reporting format should be agreed upon by both parties.

9. Work plans and budgets (Two or more pages)

Joint Work Plans (JWP) will detail the activities to be carried out within the PCA by each
partner and include the inputs, timeframes and budget. The basis for all resource transfers to
an NGO / CBO should be detailed in the work plans, and agreed upon between UNICEF and
the NGO / CBO. The first JWP should be attached to the programme document.

In this Section, please also note non-financial, in-kind contributions, including supplies and
technical assistance, that UNICEF will provide.

P a g e | 26
 Joint Workplan
UNICEF (name of country) and name of CSO
Result* Activities Responsi
Timeframe (in
ble Budget (US$)
months)**
Partner
7- 13- 19-
0-6
12 18 24
RR OR Total

TOTAL
* the appropriate level of the result should be used that is consistent with the country programme’s results structure.
** A different timeframe may also be used as appropriate (and not to exceed 2 years).

P a g e | 27
 BUDGET*

Programme Cooperation Agreement Title: Title

Period: Start and end dates of the Agreement

Programme Costs
US$ or local currency*
Total UNICEF Contribution
MM-MM MM-MM MM-MM MM-MM
Total Partner's
Qua UNICEF YY YY YY YY
No. Items Unit Unit cost budgete contributio
ntity Contrib 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
d n
ution tranche tranche tranche tranche
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Provide description of budget items as per allowable

costs in Guidance 0.00 -

0.00

0.00

0.00 -

0.00 -

0.00 -

0.00 -

SubTotal 0.00 - - - - - -

P a g e | 28
 Direct Programme Support Costs
Total UNICEF Contribution
MM-MM MM-MM MM-MM MM-MM
Partner's
Qua Total UNICEF YY YY YY YY
No. Items Unit Unit cost contributio
ntity budgeted Contrib 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
n
ution tranche tranche tranche tranche
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Provide description of budget items as per allowable
costs in Guidance 0.00 -

0.00 -

0.00 -

SubTotal - - - - - - -

Budget Summary
Total UNICEF Contribution
MM-MM MM-MM MM-MM MM-MM
Total Partner's
UNICEF YY YY YY YY
budgete contributio
Contrib 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
d n
ution tranche tranche tranche tranche
Programme Costs
Direct Programme Support Costs
SUB-TOTAL
Indirect Programme Costs (7% of the Cash Transfer component of the
Sub-Total, added to Sub Total) XXXXX
TOTAL BUDGET
* Indicate the currency of the budget. If multiple currencies (i.e. US$ and local currency), reflect the amounts for each currency separately, and
provide the totals for each currency separately.

P a g e | 29
ANNEX 2 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

FACE form

Find the from at http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=255

P a g e | 30
ANNEX 3 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

UNICEF contract provisions

CHILD LABOUR. The vendor represents and warrants that neither it,
nor any of its affiliates, nor any subsidiaries controlled by it, makes use
of child labour in the manufacture, production, packaging, distribution,
or sale of any product. The vendor agrees that this is a fundamental
provision of this agreement that will entitle [Partner] to terminate this
agreement immediately and without penalty.

MINES: The vendor represents and warrants that neither it, nor any of
its affiliates, nor any subsidiaries controlled by its company, is engaged
in the sale or manufacture of anti-personnel mines or of components
utilized in the manufacture of anti-personnel mines. The vendor agrees
that this is a fundamental provision of this agreement that will entitle
[Partner] to terminate this agreement immediately and without penalty.

P a g e | 31
ANNEX 4 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

Template for Programmatic Reporting

Reporting Partner: […]

Country: […]

STANDARD PROGRESS REPORT

No. and title: […]

Reporting period: […]

I. PURPOSE
This section is a résumé of the Programme Document as approved in the Programme
Cooperation Agreement (PCA). It includes:
 Main expected results as per the approved Country Programme Document and Country
Programme Action Plan (CPAP) or United Nations Development Assistance Framework
Action Plan (UNDAF-AP).
 Reference to how the programme relates to the UNDAF and how it aims to support
national development goals including the Millennium Development Goals and PRSP
goals as pertinent.

II. RESOURCES
This section includes total approved budget and summary of resources available to the
programme .

III. RESULTS
Information in this section includes:
 An assessment of the extent to which the programme is progressing in relation to the
expected results for the year.
 Main activities undertaken and achievements.
 Implementation constraints, lessons learned from addressing these and knowledge gained
from evaluations and studies that have taken place in the course of the year.
 Key partnerships and inter-agency collaboration: impact on results.
 Other highlights and cross cutting issues pertinent to the results being reported on.

IV. FUTURE WORK PLAN

Information in this section includes:
 Priority actions planned for the following year to overcome constraints, build on
achievements and partnerships, and use the lessons learned during the previous year.
 Indication of any major adjustments in the strategies, targets or key outcomes and outputs
planned in the country programme.
 Estimated Budget required (including any major funding shortfalls).

P a g e | 32
V. FINANCIAL IMPLEMENTATION
This section is a provisional report on the financial implementation status.. This section
should also include total approved budget over the full programme component period, current
year budget and expenditures (provisional) for the year.

P a g e | 33
ANNEX 5 of Programme Cooperation Agreement with (name of partner)

Template for Certified Financial Reporting

FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT

(Amounts in US$ or Local Currency, as indicated)

Programme Cooperation Agreement Reference:

Previous Current Periods Total

Periods (B) (C=A+B)
(A) day/month/year
day/month/year to
to day/month/year
day/month/year
Funds Received (indicate currency)

Total Funds Received

Expenditure
Programme costs
Use budget lines as per the approved
budget

Total programme costs

Direct programme support
costs
Use budget lines as per the approved
budget

Total direct programme support

costs
Indirect programme costs
Total Expenditure
Balance

P a g e | 34
Part B) “Lighter” Programme Cooperation Agreement

See Accompanying File

P a g e | 35
Attachment 2 of PCA Guidelines: Format for Small Scale Funding
Agreement
Based on the Country Programme Action Plan between the Government of [country] and UNICEF, UNICEF
agrees to co-operate with [name of the organisation] as described below.

1. Workplan results to which the small-scale funding agreement contributes:

___________________________________________________

2. Activity or activities to be carried out with the small-scale funding agreement:

_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

3. Expected results/outputs to be achieved: _____________________________________________________

4. Starting and ending dates for implementation of the activities: ____________________________________

5. UNICEF will contribute the following resources:

a) Funds (US$ or equivalent): __________________________
b) Supplies: ________________________________________
c) Technical assistance: _______________________________
d) Other inputs: _____________________________________

6. The [name of the organisation] will contribute the following matching resources:
a) Funds: __________________________________________
b) Staff/people: _____________________________________
c) Equipment/in kind: ________________________________
d) Other ___________________________________________

7. (If applicable) Portions of the small-scale support will be transferred by UNICEF in the following stages:
Amount/Date_______________________________________
___________________ ______________________________

8. The Organisation will provide the following reports at or near the given dates:

Reports: Date:
Narrative _____________
Basic/simplified financial _____________

9. The resources provided by UNICEF will only be used by [name of the organisation] in pursuit of the results
as agreed to in 1 – 3 above.

10. The attached Project Proposal and Budget are part of this agreement.

11. UNICEF and the Organisation will cooperate to monitor the results of this programme

12. The Organisation may only use the UNICEF name, logo and emblem in connection with this programme
with the prior written consent of UNICEF.

13. This agreement can only be changed through an agreed modification in writing.

14. Place and date:

Signed: Signed:

_________________________________ ______________________________
(UNICEF Representative) (Head of CSO/ authorized person)

P a g e | 36
Attachment 3 of PCA Guidelines: Guiding Principles for Partnerships with
CSOs
The value of a partnership lies in combining the complementary strengths and contributions
of two or more parties, to achieve greater impact and synergy than when operating separately,
thereby contributing to better results for children and the promotion of their rights.

UNICEF has compelling reasons to partner strategically with CSOs, including NGOs and
community-based organizations, in pursuit of results for children and women, within the legal
framework of its presence and Programme of Cooperation with national authorities in each
country and in humanitarian emergencies:

 There has been increased recognition by Treaty Bodies, including the Convention on
the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Committees of the critical and
complementary role played by CSOs in the enjoyment of human rights by children
and women.

 CSOs can facilitate and advocate for the direct participation of children, women and
marginalized groups as actors in their own development, as required by the human
rights-based approach to development.

 The CCA and UNDAF, as the first steps of the country programming process
harmonized among UN agencies, emphasize the relevance of civil society in
supporting the pursuit of commitments arising from the Millennium Declaration and
other international treaties and conferences.

 The UNICEF Core Commitments for Children in Emergencies emphasize the

importance of engaging civil society and other partners to achieve and enhance results
in humanitarian contexts.

 Poverty Reduction Strategies and other development frameworks increasingly

promote broad national ownership and involvement of representative groups of civil
society.

UNICEF partnerships with civil society should adhere to the following guiding principles:

 Mutual focus on delivering results for children and women and promoting their
rights: UNICEF engages in partnerships that enable it to ensure effective and efficient
implementation of agreed Programmes of Cooperation and to discharge its
humanitarian mandate. Such partnerships must provide a clearly defined added value
to the achievement of internationally agreed development goals, including the
Millennium Declaration and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the
implementation of the CRC, CEDAW and UNICEF strategic priorities, as outlined in
the MTSP. Each partner makes clearly-identified contributions to the planned results.

 UNICEF must partner with organizations and entities committed to the core values of
the CRC, and the principles of good governance, including transparency,
accountability and sound financial management. UNICEF and its partners will each

P a g e | 37
 bring specific skills, resources and abilities to the partnership or collaborative
relationship, based on their respective competencies –including to bear risks and
responsibilities - and mandates and as best suited to the relevant programme
environment at the local, national, regional and global levels. UNICEF may partner
with faith-based and other organizations who are committed to these core values and
principles. Conversely, UNICEF will not partner with organizations or other entities
found to be in breach of core UN norms, including with entities involved or complicit
in the violation of human rights and those posing serious risks to the reputation of
UNICEF.

 Equity: The objectives and activities of partnerships and collaborative relationships

should be fully transparent and involve mutual accountabilities, mutual contributions,
as well as shared risks and benefits among all partners.

 Integrity and independence: Partnerships need to maintain the integrity and

independence of both UNICEF and the partner(s).

 Cost-effectiveness: Partnerships should seek to minimize administrative and financial

costs, to the degree consistent with accountability and effectiveness.

 Form of cooperation: UNICEF should select and promote forms of cooperation that
are most appropriate to the context and the goals pursued. These arrangements should
be formalized through a written, legally enforceable Cooperation Agreement when
funds, supplies or other resources are transferred.

 Equality: Equality requires mutual respect between members of the partnership

irrespective of the size or power of any one partner. The participants must respect
each other's mandates, obligations, principles and independence.

 Transparency: Transparency is achieved through open and participatory dialogue,

with an emphasis on consultation and sharing of information from the earliest stages
of the partnership. Communication and transparency, including financial
transparency, increase the level of trust among organizations.

 Responsibility: Organizations have an ethical obligation to each other to accomplish

their tasks responsibly, with integrity and in a relevant and appropriate way. They
must make sure they commit to activities only when they have the means,
competencies, skills, and capacity to deliver on their commitments. Prevention of
abuses among all staff must also be a constant effort.

 Complementarity: The diversity of the development and humanitarian community is

an asset if organizations build on comparative advantages and complement each
other’s contributions, including for the strengthening of sustained capacities among
national and local partners.

 Develop the capacity of national partners: Partnerships with national and international CSOs
will actively seek and pursue opportunities to develop the capacities of CSOs at the national
and community levels. Capacity development initiatives will be undertaken in accordance
with the goals and commitments expressed in the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda.

P a g e | 38
Attachment 4 of PCA Guidelines: Simplified Financial Management Assessment Checklist 9

Financial Management Capacity Questionnaire for Implementing Partners receiving or expect to receive cash transfers below an annual
amount (usually less than $100,000 combined from all Agencies or as locally agreed among the Agencies).

Name of Implementing Partner: ___________________________________________ Date: __________________

Number of years Agency has worked with the IP: ________________

Summary of Risks related to the Financial Management Capacity of Implementing Partner

Tested Subject Area (see subsequent pages for questions for each area that should be completed and summarized in these sections below)
Risk Assessment
Subject Area Comments
H M L
1. Implementing Partner
2. Funds Flow
3. Staffing
4. Accounting Policies and Procedures
5. External Audit
6. Reporting and Monitoring
7. Information Systems
Inherent Risk
List major specific issues identified in the assessment of the country’s
public financial management system (macro-assessment), or specific risks
related to the nature or operation of the Implementing Partner
H M L
Overall Risk Assessment
H – High M – Moderate L – Low

9
For PCAs that involve transfer of more than U$100,000, a financial management capacity assessment is mandatory as per the Framework for Cash Transfers to
Implementing Partners. For PCAs that are for less than US$100,000, Country Offices should use a simplified assessment format, based on the one provided here.

P a g e | 39
 Financial Management Questionnaire

Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments

1. Implementing Partner (IP)
1.1 Is the IP legally registered? Please note the legal status
/registration of the entity.
1.2 Has the IP received UN resources in the past?
1.3 Does the IP have statutory reporting requirements? Please
describe.
1.4 Is the governing body of the IP independent?
1.5 Is the organization structure appropriate for the work to be
carried out under UN cooperation?
Risk Assessment (Implementing Partner) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area
2. Funds Flow
2.1 Can the IP receive and transfer funds?
2.2 Are the arrangements to transfer the funds to the IP
satisfactory?
2.3 Have there been major problems in the past in receipt of
funds by the IP, particularly where the funds flow from the
Government/Ministry of Finance?
2.4 In the past, has the IP had any problems in the management
of disbursements from a member of the UN country team?
Please describe.
2.5 How does the IP access its funds?
2.6 How does the IP issue payments?
2.7 If some activities will be implemented by NGOs or CBOs,
does the IP have the necessary reporting and monitoring
mechanisms to track the use of funds?
Risk Assessment (Funds Flow) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area
3. Staffing
3.1 Is the organizational structure of the accounting department

P a g e | 40
 Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments
appropriate (include adequately qualified and experienced staff)
for the level of financial volume? Attach an organizational
chart.
3.2 Is the level and competencies of staff appropriate for the
level of financial volume? Identify the staff for the accounts
department, including job title and responsibilities. Attached
job descriptions for all posts (including vacant posts) and
provide CVs of key accounting staff.
3.3 Are accounts and finance staff familiar with UN procedures
related to cash transfers?
3.6 Is the IP anticipating any vacancies (e.g. retirement,
rotation) within the duration of the agreement?
3.7 Is there a training program for new and existing finance and
accounting staff? Please describe.
Risk Assessment (Staffing) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area
4. Accounting Policies and Procedures
4.1 Does the IP have an accounting system that allows for the
proper recording of financial transactions from UN Agencies,
including allocation of expenditures in accordance with the
respective components, disbursement categories, and source of
funds, i.e., Chart of Accounts?
4.2 Are cost allocations to the various funding sources made
accurately and in accordance with established agreements?
4.3 Are the general ledger and subsidiary ledgers reconciled
and balanced?
4.4 Are all accounting and supporting documents retained in
accordance with agreements in a defined system that allow
authorized users easy access?
Segregation of Duties
4.5 Are the following functional responsibilities performed by
different units or persons: (a) authorization to execute a
transaction; (b) recording of the transaction; and (c) custody of

P a g e | 41
 Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments
assets involved in transactions?
4.6 Are the functions of ordering, receiving, accounting for, and
paying for goods and services appropriately segregated?
4.7 Are bank reconciliations prepared by someone other than
those who make or approve payments?
Budgeting System
4.8 Do the budgets lay down physical and financial targets?
4.9 Are budgets prepared for all significant activities in
sufficient detail to provide a meaningful too with which to
monitor subsequent performance?
4.10 Are actual expenditures compared to the budget with
reasonable frequency, and explanations required for significant
variations from the budget?
4.11 Who is responsible for the preparation and approval of
budgets?
4.12 Are procedures in place to plan activities, collect
information from the units in charge of the different
components, and prepare the budgets?
4.13 Are the plans and budgets of activities realistic, based on
valid assumptions, and developed by knowledgeable
individuals?
Payments
4.15 Do invoice processing procedures provide for:
 Copies of purchase orders and receiving reports to be
obtained directly from issuing departments?
 Comparison of invoice quantities, prices, and terms with
those indicated on the purchase order and with records of
goods actually received?
 Comparison of invoice quantities with those indicated on
the receiving reports?
 Checking the accuracy of calculations?

P a g e | 42
 Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments
4.16 Are all invoices stamped PAID, dated, reviewed and
approved, and clearly marked for account code assignment?
4.17 Do controls exist for the preparation of the payroll and are
changes to the payroll properly authorized?
Policies and Procedures
4.18 Describe the basis for accounting (e.g. cash, accrual)?
4.19 Are internationally accepted accounting standard
followed? If so, which standard?
4.20 Does the IP have adequate policies and procedures manual
to guide activities and ensure staff accountability?
4.21 Are manuals distributed to appropriate personnel?
Cash and Bank
4.22 Indicate in remarks/comments section the names and
positions of authorized signatories on the bank accounts.
4.23 Does the implementing partner maintain an adequate, up-
to-date cashbook, recording cash receipts and payments?
4.24 Do controls exist for the collection, timely deposit, and
recording of cash receipts at each collection location? Are
receipts deposited on a timely basis?
4.25 Are bank and cash reconciled on a monthly basis?
4.26 Are all unusual items on the bank reconciliation reviewed
and approved by a responsible officer?
Safeguard Over Assets
4.27 Is there a system of adequate safeguards to protect assets
from fraud, waste or abuse?
4.28 Are subsidiary records of fixed assets and inventories kept
up to date and reconciled with control accounts?
4.29 Are there periodic stock-taking of fixed assets and
inventories?
4.30 Are assets sufficiently covered by insurance policies?

P a g e | 43
 Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments
Other Offices or Entities 10
4.31 Are there any other regional offices participating in
implementation?
4.32 Has the IP established controls and procedures for flow of
funds, financial information, accountability, and audits in
relation to the other offices or entities? Please describe approval
process.
4.33 Does information among the different offices/Agencies
flow in an accurate and timely fashion?
4.34 Are period reconciliations performed among the different
offices/Agencies?
Other
4.35 Has the implementing partner advised employees,
beneficiaries, and other recipients to whom to report if they
suspect fraud, waste, or misuse of Agency resources or
property?
Risk Assessment (Accounting Policies & Procedure) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area
5. External Audit
5.1 Is the IP financial statement audited regularly by an
independent auditor? Who is the auditor
5.2 Are there any recommendations made by the auditors in
prior audit reports or management letters that have not yet been
implemented? If yes, is there a plan to implement these?
Risk Assessment (External Audit) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area
6. Reporting and Monitoring
6.1 Are timely financial statements prepared for the entity and
at what frequency?
6.2 Does the system support reporting AWP related
expenditures?
6.3 Does the reporting system have the capacity to link the

10
Other offices or entities refers to sub-offices of the implementing partners and/or respective parties.

P a g e | 44
 Subject Area Yes No N/A Review Remarks / Comments
financial information with the AWP’s programme
implementation? If separate systems are used to gather the
information, what controls are in place to reduce the risk that
the programme implementation information is synchronized
with the financial information?
6.4 Does the IP comply with the financial management
reporting requirements within the agreements?
6.5 Are financial management reports used by management?
6.6 Are financial reports generated by the automated accounting
system or are they prepared by spreadsheets or some other
means?
Risk Assessment (Reporting and Monitoring) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area
7. Information Systems
7.1 Is the financial management system computerized?
7.2 Are the staff adequately trained to maintain the system?
7.3 Does the management organization and processing system
safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data?
Risk Assessment (Information Systems) H M L Circle assessed risk for Subject Area

P a g e | 45
Attachment 5 of PCA Guidelines: Sample Checklist for Assessing CSO
Capacity and Integrity11

 Mission, mandate and values are consistent with those of UNICEF.

 Neither the organization nor any of its members is mentioned on the “New
Consolidated List of Individuals and Entities Belonging to or Associated with the
Taliban and Al-Qaeda Organisation as Established and Maintained by the Security
Council Committee established by Resolution 1267 (available under
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm).
 Transparency exists about the organisation’s policies, activities, structure, affiliation,
and funding.
 Information is available on the organisation’s scope of work and geographical area of
coverage, human resources, financial management and control arrangements, and
management systems.
 What is the composition of the board? Are executive officers known for personal
integrity?
 What are the sources of core funds or income of the CSO/CBO?
 Are last year’s audited accounts on file? Is the CSO/CBO open to external audits?
 Are there any outstanding liabilities from the CSO/CBO?
 Are any evaluations of projects executed by this CSO/CBO available?
 Did UNICEF co-operate with the CSO/CBO in the past? Are records of this available
within UNICEF and the CSO/CBO?
 Has the CSO/CBO’s office been visited by UNICEF staff?
 If the CSO/CBO is new to UNICEF, has information on the organisation’s capacity and
conduct been obtained through informal consultations with other UN agencies, CSOs or
beneficiaries?
 Does the organisation have the capacity to implement the project agreement?
 Is the organisation open to participation by children and women and other beneficiaries
in project planning and management?
 Does the CSO/CBO have a clear position on not exposing beneficiaries, including
children, to any form of discrimination, abuse and exploitation?
 Does the organisation reach out, is it representative of poor people, or those that are
hard to reach?
 Does it have credibility with families, the community and government?
 Does the CSO actively engage in networks and alliances, including with the local
community?
 Does the CSO/CBO engage in policy dialogue and advocacy, at the appropriate level?

11
This Checklist was established under CF/PD/PRO/2001-13: Guidance for Collaboration with Non
Governmental Organizations and Community Based Organizations in Country Programmes of Cooperation,
updated April 2002.

P a g e | 46
Attachment 6: Sample Terms of Reference for the Programme
Cooperation Agreement Review Committee

INTRODUCTION

1. This Terms of Reference (ToR) outlines the procedures to be undertaken by a

Programme Cooperation Agreement Review Committee (PCARC) to review
Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) proposals with Civil Society
Organizations (CSO) prior to approval by the Head of the Office and subsequent
commitment of UNICEF funds.

AUTHORITY OF THE PROGRAMME COOPERATION AGREEMENT REVIEW

COMMITTEE

2. A structured process to review proposals for cooperation with CSOs in the form of a
Programme Cooperation Agreements be established by the Head of Office.

3. A Programme Cooperation Agreement Review Committee shall be established to

render written advice to the Head of Office for proposals for PCAs with Civil Society
Organizations (CSO).

MANDATE OF THE PROGRAMME COOPERATION AGREEMENT REVIEW

COMMITTEE

4. The PCARC is established to provide a competent, independent and unbiased review

of proposals for PCAs and SSFAs.

5. The review by the PCARC will focus on the process that led to the proposal and its
adherence to UNICEF applicable policy and procedure.

6. Proposals for Special Service Agreements (SSA), either individual or institutional are
submitted to the Contract Review Committee (CRC) as per Financial Circular 19 Rev.
3.

SUBMISSIONS AND RE-SUBMISSIONS

7. All proposals for PCAs must be submitted to the PCARC before financial
commitments are entered into.

8. Proposals to renew or to modify the substantive terms and provisions of the PCAs (i.e.
a change in the expected results of the partnership) must be re-submitted for review
by the PCARC.

9. Proposals to modify PCAs which result in an increase of more than 20% of the total
financial commitment, must be re-submitted for review by the PCARC. Amendments
to PCAs must not be issued prior to review by the PCARC and approval by the Head
of Office.

47
RESPONSIBILITIES / ACCOUNTABILITIES

10. The PCARC is responsible for ensuring that the proposed partnership is in the best
interests of UNICEF, and for ensuring that appropriate procedures have been
followed, and for making a recommendation in this respect to the Head of Office.

11. The responsible programme specialist is accountable for the technical aspects of the
proposal, including that the proposed Agreement will ensure that programmatic or
operational objectives are met and the performance monitored. The responsible
programme specialist is also responsible for ensuring that appropriate authority has
been obtained for the commitment of funds and that resources are available.
Proposals for commitments for which resources are not fully available but which will
be entered into in stages should be submitted to the PCARC in their entirety rather
than through multiple submissions as resources become available.

12. The Secretary is an ex-officio non-voting member and is responsible for:

a. coordinating the schedule of the PCARC meetings;
b. obtaining and reviewing the submissions for completeness;
c. overseeing the timely distribution of relevant documentation to PCARC
members;
d. preparing the minutes and exchanges pertaining to the meetings;
e. ensuring that the files of documentation pertaining to the submissions and
meetings are complete;
f. filing complete documentation pertaining to the submissions and meetings
g. entering selected information about approved PCAs into a relevant database.

13. The Chairperson is a voting member and is responsible for:

a. convening meetings;
b. ensuring quorum at the meetings;
c. chairing the meetings;
d. identifying specialised resources to assist the PCARC in discharging its duties
in the most competent manner;
e. ensuring that the minutes are prepared in a timely manner and that they reflect
accurately the deliberations and advice of the PCARC members;
f. reporting on the activities of the PCARC.

14. The Chairperson and Members are to provide competent, independent and unbiased
advice on the submissions. Each Member is responsible for recusing him / herself
from the review of submissions for which conflicts of interest exist.

15. The Head of Office is responsible for:

a. reviewing the advice of the PCARC and accepting or not accepting the
recommendation; and,
b. in the case of non-acceptance, documenting the reasons for this decision;
c. where non-acceptance occurs in locations away from headquarters, sharing the
documented reasons with the Regional Director.
d. informing the Regional Director before entering into financial commitments
above USD1 million.

48
MEMBERSHIP OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

16. The PCARC will be composed of one operations officer and at three members drawn
from programme staff and a pool of a sufficient number of alternates. Members and
alternates must be UNICEF staff members.

17. The quorum will consist of three voting members. Each member appointed to the
PCARC will have alternates so that the quorum can be reached when official travel or
other duties cause some PCARC members to be unavailable for a meeting.

18. Heads of Office may consider the appointment of alternates from UNICEF offices in
neighbouring countries or the Regional Office where reaching quorum with in-
country members and alternates is problematic.

19. The Head of Office will appoint members for a period of up to two calendar years
after completion of which they may be re-appointed.

20. The Head of Office may not serve as Chairperson or a member of the PCARC.

21. Special care should be taken to ensure diversity of skills and experience in the
composition of the PCARC to be able to handle the complexity of issues arising from
the submissions. Members do not represent any entity outside of the PCARC and
serve in their own individual capacity.

22. The Head of Office will establish the PCARC and appoint the chairperson, members,
alternates and secretary. The chairperson will be the most senior official responsible
for Programmes. The secretary will be appointed based on the Head of Office’s
assessment of the local situation, capacities and requirements of the PCARC.

23. In emergency situations, Heads of Office may include as members and alternates any
appropriately experienced staff member that joins the Country Office following the
emergency and after the regular PCARC membership was appointed. Heads of Office
may also establish a PCARC at the level of a zone office based on operational
reasons.

PROCEDURES

24. The PCARC will meet at the request of the Secretary as frequently as may be required
but normally not more than once a week.

25. All issues raised by the PCARC and/or the responsible programme specialist with
respect to PCARC submissions and/or recommendations must be addressed to the
satisfaction of the PCARC and/or the Head of Office prior to the commitment of
UNICEF funds.

26. Where the number or composition of staff in a Country Office does not permit the
creation of a PCARC, proposed Agreements should be submitted to the Area Office
or Regional Office PCARC as may be appropriate.

49
27. The Chairperson of any PCARC in any location may choose to consult the Director of
Policy and Practice on matters of policy or principle or for administrative guidance
and with the Director of Programmes on issues of partnership, especially if the
PCARC is reviewing PCAs with international CSOs. Consultations are also
encouraged with the Chief of Contracting Centre in the Supply Division on
procurement matters, the Director of the Division of Human Resources on contracting
of individual contractors, and the Senior Adviser, Office of the Executive Director on
legal matters.

28. The PCARC may decide in the case of certain specialised submissions to identify and
seek the assistance of technical resource persons as required.

29. When the Head of Office/authorised official decides not to accept the advice of the
PCARC, he/she shall record in writing the reasons for his/her decision. This written
note forms part of the record of the PCARC process and copies should be sent by the
Head of Office to the Chairperson of the PCARC at the duty station.

50
Attachment 7: Description of a Generalized Workflow for PCA and SSFA
Preparation, Approval and Launch of Cooperation Country Office

1. As part of the Country Programme development process, including the development of

the expected results in the Country Programme Action Plan (or UNDAF Action Plan as
appropriate), identify the expected results of the Country Programme that would be most
effectively realized through partnerships with Civil Society Organisation
2. Identify potential Civil Society Organization (CSO) partners using mapping exercise
followed by strategic selection
 As part of the preparation of a Situation Analysis of Children and Women,
Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (EPRP), an on-going scoping of the
development environment
 May follow the identification of a new problem requiring a new partnership or
additional partners
3. Establish dialogue with partner on:
 UNICEF strategic priorities, existing partnerships including the relationship with the
Government and within the UN System, the Country Programme results including
long (Programme Component Results, PCR) and shorter-term results (Intermediate
Results, IR) and specific areas of potential collaboration in the country
 The meaning of partnership and its implications for each organization
 Confirm that the envisioned collaboration is not for the provision of services/goods
(otherwise develop an Special Service Agreement, SSA)
4. Confirm that the Civil Society Organization (CSO) meets the requirements for a
partnership as per the Sample Checklist for Assessing CSO Capacity and Integrity
included in Section B of the PCA Toolbox including:
 Neither the organization nor any of its members is mentioned on the “New
Consolidated List of Individuals and Entities Belonging to or Associated with the
Taliban and Al-Qaeda Organisation as Established and Maintained by the Security
Council Committee established by Resolution 1267 (available under
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm).
 Principles of Partnership are valued
 Committed to the core values of the UN, the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
(CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW)
5. Establish that mutual understanding of each organization’s specific intent and procedures
for formalizing a partnership
 Confirm that there is a strong potential that such a partnership will advance both
organization’s agendas
 Explain all parts and implications of the Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) /
Small-Scale Funding Agreement (SSFA) and share relevant policies and procedures,
especially core conditions

51
  Discuss mechanisms and processes for funding, management of supplies, monitoring
and reporting procedures, coordination mechanisms, etc.
6. Discuss with the relevant government bodies the potential rewards and risks of partnering
with the CSO
 Obtain consensus for formalizing the partnership
 Confirm that the organization has undertaken the proper registration procedures
 Seek approval for seat for partner at relevant conferences, reviews, discussions to
facilitate mutual understanding of how UNICEF works and the area of work
7. Initiate assessment procedures
 Share all assessment tools and checklists beforehand
 Explain their use
8. Initiate drafting of the Programme Document (to be concluded after the assessments
completed)
 Iterative process conducted jointly with the partner
 Should be done in all countries (with selected organizations) in the context of the
EPRP
 Ensure funding arrangements if intent is to initiate agreement
 Discuss the proposal within the Country Office (Head of Programmes, Section Chief,
Head of Operations, Supply Chief, especially if supplies, equipment, vehicles, etc. are
involved and at Programme Coordination meetings
 Prepare Programme Document including the Joint Work Plan (JWP) for the first
period of implementation
9. Finalize the Assessments and associated reports
 Share the reports with the partner and allow sufficient time for review and rebuttal
 Once consensus reached on the main findings, discuss options for capacity
development
 Discuss procedures for programmatic monitoring, assurance and audit plan as a
function of the assessments
 Integrate relevant elements into the final Programme Document
10. Finalize the Programme Document
 Obtain clearance from the Head of Programme and if significant value of supplies
involved, seek clearance from the Supply Chief
 Establish clear linkage between the PCR and or IR or in the case of an emergency or
humanitarian crisis, the Core Commitments to Children (CCC)s
 Ensure that donor conditions are respected
11. Based on the nature and characteristics of the proposed collaboration, including the
amount of resources that are involved, determine the legal instrument that is
appropriate as per the PCA Guidelines
12. Preparation for and follow-up to the Review Committee
 Provide members of the Committee with copies of the assessments and associated
reports, Programme Document, short justification for the partnership and how the
partner selected is the best fit (with ample time for review of the documentation)
 Provide evidence of sufficient funds covering the entire duration of the PCA or SSFA
52
  Draft of the PCA or SSFA
 Present the information at the Committee meeting
 Follow up with the Committee should they require additional information
13. Note for the Record Prepared
 If recommended for approval, seek signature on the Agreement from the Head of
Office and then the head of the partner organization
 If not recommended, determine value of amending the proposal or ending the effort
 Amend materials in collaboration with the potential partner and resubmit to Review
Committee
 If effort to establish a partnership ends, discuss the decision and reasons with the
partner organization and inform the Government
14. Agreement signed by both parties
 Copy to the partner and if not already done, share relevant information on relevant
policies and procedures
 Offer short orientation and formal training (if necessary)
15. Launch the partnership
 Inform government, media, targeted communities and other relevant groups (e.g.
UNCT, Cluster leads, etc.)
 Inform office staff and prepare those playing key roles in the implementation (e.g.
Supply staff) and share JWPs
 Integrate JWP into the relevant annual Workplan and seek approval from the
Government
 Enter information and characteristic of the partnership into relevant databases
 Process request for payment and cash liquidation
 Conduct programmatic monitoring, assurance activities and audit plan as per JWP
16. Review progress regularly
 Report on progress towards results with partner and Government
 After suitable period of implementation, take stock and decide on on-going relevance,
effectiveness and efficiency of the partnership
17. Modify Agreement, if on-going
 If collaboration beneficial, then draft new Programme Document and annexes
 Reassess only those areas which are new to the partnership (e.g. new programmatic
area)
 Review previous assessments and capacity development plan and reassess only those
areas previously found to be high risk (low capacity)
18. Phase-out, if partnership ending due to clauses in the Agreement or no continuing need
for the partnership
 Ensure return of unused funds, supplies, equipment, vehicles, if relevant
 Inform Government, partners, affected communities, etc
 Confirm or put into place systems/institutions to promote sustainability or actions
(if relevant)

53
 Attachment 8: Checklist for Small-Scale Funding Agreement

Ref. No.

Name of the Partner:

Address:

Phone No.

Fax No.:

Name of contact
person/s:

Date of establishment as
an Organization:
Registration documents:

Geographical area of
operation:

Population covered:
Area(s) of expertise of
the Organization:

Minimum conditions that will always have to be met:

Mission, mandate and values are
consistent with those of UNICEF
Neither the organization nor any of
its members is mentioned on the
“New Consolidated List of
Individuals and Entities Belonging to
or Associated with the Taliban and
Al-Qaeda Organisation as
Established and Maintained by the
Security Council Committee
established by Resolution 1267
Transparency exists about the
organisation’s policies, activities,
structure, affiliation, and funding:
Additional checks that should be conducted:
Is it likely that the organisation has
the capacity to implement the project
agreement?
Is information available on the source
of core funds and income of the
Organization?
Are any evaluations of projects
implemented by this Organization
available?
Are records of previous collaboration
between UNICEF and the

54
Organization available and do they
indicate satisfaction with previous
performance?
Has the Organization’s office been
visited by a UNICEF programme
officer and operations staff?
If the Organization is new to
UNICEF, has information on the
organization’s capacity and conduct
been obtained through informal
consultations with other UN
agencies, government institutions,
other organizations?
Does it have credibility with families,
the community and government?
Does the Organization have a clear
position on not exposing
beneficiaries, including children, to
any form of discrimination, abuse
and exploitation?
Does the Organization support
participation by children and women
and other marginalized groups in
decision making, including decisions
about the project?
Does the organization reach out; is it
representative of poor people, or
those that are hard to reach?
Does the Organization actively
engage in networks and alliances,
including with the local community?

Recommendation:

Signature:

Title:
Date:

55