Analysis of Key Management Issues in UNICEF UK - Case Study Example

Business Report for UNICEF UK Table of contents Executive summary 3 Introduction 4 UNICEF UK 4 Key Fund 5 The Eden Trust 5 Analysis of Key Management Issues in UNICEF UK 6 Funding 6 Performance Management and Impact Evaluation 7 Strategic Direction and Choices 8 Comparator Organisations 8 Funding 8 Performance Management and Impact Evaluation 9 Strategic Direction and Choices 10 Recommendations and Conclusion 10 References 12 Appendices 14 Appendix A1: UNICEF UK’s Evaluation Approach 14 Appendix B1: Market Map 15 Appendix B2: Governance 15 Executive summary UNICEF UK, a subsidiary of UNICEF and a registered charity, faces three managerial challenges in the following areas: funding, performance management and impact evaluation and strategic direction and choices. The charity depends wholly on donor funding for its activities. Whereas it has performance management and impact assessment tools in place, those tools are weak and ineffective. The charity performs poorly as far as collaborating with local humanitarian NGOs is concerned, yet strategic partnerships are a key component of its strategy. Based on the lessons learned from two comparator organisations – Key Fund and Eden Trust – this report recommends that UNICEF UK does the following to improve its performance: venture into social enterprise, use data analysis to assess and improve the impact of its work and forge strategic partnerships both for social enterprise and its core work. Business Report for UNICEF UK Introduction The purpose of this report is to analyse and make comments on three management issues identified in UNICEF UK, herein variably referred to as the focus organisation. The report draws on the evidence obtained from a desktop review of the organisation in which special attention was paid to the organisations management practices. Evidence is also drawn from two comparator organisations – Key Fund and the Eden Trust – that were analysed with the view of determining how they have dealt with the same or similar management issues. Based on the lessons learned from the comparator organisations, the author of the report makes recommendations on how UNICEF UK can tackle its management issues and improve its performance over the next three years. UNICEF UK UNICEF UK is the UK branch of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), an affiliate agency of the United Nations. The mission of UNICEF Up is to ensure that all British children are free from the danger of disease, war and conflict, natural disasters, hunger and abuse(Unicef UK, n.d.). UNICEF UK mobilises funds to support UNICEF’s work of promoting and protecting children’s rights around the world in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)(Unicef UK, n.d.). UNICEF UK also runs children’s programmes in health facilities, schools and local communities (Unicef UK, n.d.). The aim of the programmes is to promote the rights and well-being of British children. Some of the organisation’s include The Baby Friendly Initiative, a programme that seeks to encourage breastfeeding as a means of strengthening the baby-parent bond by working with the UK government to improve care(Unicef UK , 2012); The Rights Respecting Schools Award (RRSA), an initiative that works with thousands of schools across the country and rewards schools that embrace the UNCRC into their school culture; and Child Rights Partners, a programme that brings together UNICEF UK and local authorities to incorporate children’s rights in public services. UNICEF has also been assisting children in emergency situations since World War Two. Key Fund Key Fund is a Newcastle-based registered charity that works with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds(Key Fund, n.d.). The charity helps groups of young people to conceive, plan and execute their projects. In so doing, it aims to develop in them twelve skills it considers essential. These include the skills to solve problems and negotiate. The Eden Trust The Eden Trust is another registered charity that aims to educate the public on the importance of conserving the environment(Eden Project, 2011). The charity also encourages research into plants. In 2001, the Eden Trust embarked on the Eden Project, an ambitious project comprising futuristic biomes that house a wide array of flora and fauna. The biomes sit on a reclaimed china clay pit and was constructed at a cost of 141 million pounds. It is this project that is particular interest to this report. Analysis of Key Management Issues in UNICEF UK Funding UNICEF receives no budgetary allocation from the UN. The organisation relies wholly on voluntary donations to fund its work of protecting childrens rights around the world(Unicef UK, n.d.). UNICEF UK is a registered charity. Besides donations, the charity also raises money through the sale of cards and gifts, legacies and fundraising. UNICEF receives money from corporate organisations, government departments, event organisers, charitable trusts and foundations and other bodies that make grants. In 2013, UNICEF UK raised 79.1 million pounds for children around the world(Unicef UK, n.d.). With that money UNICEF was able to accomplish a number of things including providing emergency relief for children in eighteen countries, vaccinating 29 million children against tetanus, providing 185,000 sets of warm clothing and 1 million blankets for Syrian children and promotion of better play for more than 15 million children in twenty countries. In the UK, part of the proceeds were used to build more Baby Friendly accredited centres, bringing the total to 170 and expand the RRSA programme such that over a million British children now attend schools that adhere to UNICEF’s rights-respecting approach. UNICEF recognises the challenge of sustaining its funding model given that the organisation has neither financial resources of its own nor receives budgetary allocation from the United Nations, but depends on donations. UNICEF’s response to the challenge has been the adoption of the thematic funding model as opposed to fiscal year-based funding (Unicef, 2014). UNICEF receives thematic contributions against subject-specific programmes approved by the organisation’s Executive Board whereas humanitarian contributions are received against theme-specific humanitarian appeals. Under the thematic funding model, a donor commits to funding a part or the whole of a programme that runs across UNICEF’s four-year strategic plan. Usually, there is an allowance of one more year to ensure that the programmes are pursued to completion. Performance Management and Impact Evaluation In February 2011, the UK government released its report on the review of the work of UNICEF in the UK. On performance management, the UK government noted that UNICEF has a clear mandate and that its governing body was effective(UK Government, 2011). However, the government expressed concern over the ability of UNICEF to deploy suitably qualified staff to humanitarian emergencies. In response to this and other performance management concerns, UNICEF put in place in place a new system for monitoring and reporting performance(Unicef, 2011). The new system provides for integrated performance monitoring and reporting at country offices and the head office. On impact evaluation, the UK government noted that UNICEF UK’s management did little to follow up on evaluation reports (UK Government, 2011). In response, UNICEF attempted to improve the way it monitors how country office management teams respond to evaluations by ensuring that every UNICEF office has direct access the MR (management response) database(Unicef, 2011). Starting 2011, regional offices now receive regular updates on delinquent MRs and are required to follow up on the same with country offices. MR is now an integral component of country office audit by UNICEF’s Office of Internal Audit. While UNICEF’s impact evaluation reform efforts are commendable, they appear to be externally-driven: UNICEF is responding to the way its partners perceive its work. What is needed more is internally-driven impact evaluation to establish the impact of UNICEF’s work on its beneficiaries. A step was made in this direction when, in 2010, UNICEF UK evaluated the impact of its RRSA programme(Unicef UK, 2010). The strengths and shortcomings of the method used in the evaluation are summarised in Appendix A1. Strategic Direction and Choices UNICEF’s strategy consists in working with like-minded organisations to further child protection (Unicef UK, 2012). The two major partners of UNICEF UK are the UK government and local authorities. For instance, through the Child Rights Partners programme, UNICEF UK works with several local governments to mainstream children’s rights in service delivery. In its 2011 review of UNICEF UK, the UK government noted that the charity has a good record of working with local civil society organisations (CSOs) and helps them to build capacity(UK Government, 2011). However, the government also noted concern over inconsistencies in UNICEF UK’s work with local CSO in the humanitarian emergency situations. UNICEF responded to this concern by promising to up-scale its partnerships with local humanitarian NGOs and consulting with them on a regular basis(Unicef, 2011). However, there is no evidence that that promise has been kept four years down the line. Comparator Organisations Funding The Eden Project, a social enterprise, was an attempt by the Eden Trust, its owner, to diversify the source of the charity’s income away from over-reliance on donations(Eden Project, 2011). The bulk of the 141 million pounds that went into the project – over 93% came from public sources while the remainder came from commercial banks. According to the Eden Project, many of the loans have been repaid. In 2012, however, the project ran into financial trouble when the number of visitors to the facility dropped by 20%(Hillier, 2014). Visitor charges were and remain the main source of revenue for the project. The project’s owner, the Eden Trust, responded by first reshuffling the management team of the project and sending home some of them alongside score of employees. Next, the project’s sources of income were diversified: as of February 2014, both Asda and Mark & Spencer carried Eden-branded items. The pitfall’s notwithstanding, UNICEF UK could borrow a leaf from fro Eden Project’s diversification efforts. Performance Management and Impact Evaluation Five years ago, some of Key Fund’s partners were threatening to cut off their funds. They were concerned that some of the uses to which the charity was putting their money were a bad use of their money (Pudelek, 2014). Particularly they were cynical about leisure activities. Key Fund was hard-pressed to justify its spending decisions. The solution lay in data analysis. Through data analysis, led by the charitys chief executive, they were able to demonstrate that leisure activities were good value for money. They also demonstrated that the youth benefitted from the leisure activities as much as they did from the other activities. UNICEF UK, can use data analysis to evaluate the impact of their work on their beneficiaries. Strategic Direction and Choices Three lessons can be learned Eden Trust’s diversification drive, the challenges notwithstanding. First, it was driven by a need: the need for a steady reliable source of income. Secondly, the trust invested in a business that was very similar to its core activity environmental education. Third, in further diversifying the revenue streams of the Eden Project, the charity entered into strategic partnerships with two established brands – Asda and Mark & Spencer. UNICEF UK can apply these lessons first in forging partnerships for its humanitarian work then in income diversification. Recommendations and Conclusion In order to improve its performance now and in the future, UNICEF UK should consider doing three things. First, the charity should consider venturing into social enterprise in order to avoid the associated pitfall of donor funding. Even though UNICEF’s current model of thematic funding is a better option compared to fiscal year funding, the long-term sustainability of the model is questionable(Unicef, 2014). Should UNICEF UK opt to venture into social enterprise, careful thought should be given into the kind of business to invest in. As much as possible, the business should be related to the core work of the charity. Also, the charity may consider forging a partnership with an existing, well-recognised corporation. The market map and the section “Harnessing Social Enterprise” in Appendices B1 and A2, respectively, might be helpful for this purpose. This should be an easier option than starting from starch.UNICEF UKs venture into social enterprise may necessitate a change of policy at the head office regarding ways through which the charity may raise money. On performance management and impact evaluation, credit must be given to the focus organisation for their efforts at evaluating the impact of the RRSA programme on the well-being and performance of children attending schools that participate in the programme (Unicef UK, 2010). However, much more needs to be done. The organisation should more proactive in assessing the impact of their work rather than waiting to be evaluated by its partners. The preceding statement is not meant to negate the importance of evaluation of UNICEF UK by its partners: both levels of evaluation are important. The organisation needs to put to use good use the wealth of the data at its disposal. Then, it should put in place a better data management system. The benefits of data analysis to the organisation and its clients are many. For instance, the organisation will better be able to focus its resources where they are most needed. The organisation’s clients will enjoy better services. Overall, according to UNICEF UK’s main partner, the UK government, the charity is doing well as far as partnership behaviour is concerned (UK Government, 2011). However, more needs to be done in the area of humanitarian emergencies. The market map in Appendix B1 might be helpful in determining who the focus organisation may work with in different areas. It may also help in identifying the agents of child abuse and child rights violation. With such knowledge, UNICEF UK will be better positioned to deliver its mandate of protecting the British child. References Eden Project, 2011. Sustainability Report 2011-2012, Cornwall: Eden Project. Hillier, A., 2014. Analysis: Eden Project - weathering a perfect storm. [Online] Available at: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/analysis-eden-project-weathering-a-perfect-storm/finance/article/1230503 [Accessed 29 March 2015]. Key Fund, n.d. About Us. [Online] Available at: http://thekeyfund.co.uk/about-us/ [Accessed 29 March 2015]. Pudelek, J., 2014. Analysis: Crunching the numbers for charity. [Online] Available at: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/analysis-crunching-numbers-charity/finance/article/1284284 [Accessed 29 March 2015]. UK Government, 2011. Multilateral Aid Review: Assessment of the United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF), London: UK Government. UNICEF, 2011. UNICEF Response to the UK Multilateral Aid Review, New York: UNICEF. UNICEF UK, 2012. Preventing disease and saving resources: the potential contribution of increasing breastfeeding rates in the UK, London: UNICEF UK. UNICEF UK, n.d. How We Are Funded. [Online] Available at: http://www.UNICEF.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/How-were-funded/ [Accessed 29 March 2015]. UNICEF UK, 2010. Evaluation of UNICEF UKs Rights Respecting Schools Award, London: UNICEF UK. UNICEF UK, n.d. Our 2013 Annual Report. [Online] Available at: http://www.UNICEF.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/Our-achievements/ [Accessed 29 March 2015]. UNICEF UK, n.d. Our UK Work. [Online] Available at: http://www.UNICEF.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/Our-UK-work/ [Accessed 29 March 2015]. UNICEF, 2014. A Guide to UNICEF Thematic Funding, New York: UNICEF. Appendices Appendix A1: UNICEF UK’s Evaluation Approach The table below summarises the strengths and limitations of UNICEF UK’s approach to impact evaluation. The summary is based on the 2010 RRSA evaluation report. Strengths Weaknesses Allowed enough time for evaluation – three years A clear goal – to evaluate the impact of the RRSA on the well-being and academic achievement of learners The use of third parties (universities) to conduct the evaluation – ensures some level of objectivity The concept of “well-being” not defined and therefore, vague Small sample size – 31 out of 1,600 schools Appendix A2: Harnessing Social Enterprise Based on the example of Eden Trust, UNICEF UK can tap into the power of social enterprise by: Convincing the head office to allow it to venture into social entrepreneurship Identifying business opportunities that are in line with its core activity of child protection Identifying strategic partners for a joint venture as opposed to building a business from scratch Introducing a number of products into the market; even if some fail, the others may succeed Appendix B1: Market Map The diagram below represents a market map. It portrays the various actors that UNICEF UK interacts with in the UK market. Appendix B2: Governance NGOs are a unique sector not just by virtue of the “not-for-profit” nature and the nature of the clients they serve, but also due to the unique problems they face. Starting the 1980s, the NGO sector has enjoyed a boom as global donors stopped channeling development money through governments, instead opting to fund NGOs directly(Moore & Stewart, 2000). This situation has been the cause of the sector’s biggest problem: that of accountability. This problem has called for a unique governance structure that is characterised by people who are considered more critical and self-reflective than those in the private and public sectors. UNICEF UK, like all other developed country offices, is governed by a national committee, an autonomous local NGO(Unicef, n.d.). The committee serves as the public face and committed voice of UNICEF and works hard to raise money to fund UNICEF’s work. Read More