Detailed Information on the
Contribution to the United Nations Development Programme Assessment

Justifying requested funding for the program on the basis of the organization's accountability and achieved results.

Promoting results-based management and accountability in UNDP, e.g., ensuring UNDP implements effective management controls.

Working closely with UNDP, the Department created a new long-term goal.

Measure: "Operational Support Costs" as a Percentage of Total Costs

Explanation:Data not available until UNDP ends collection at the end of the calendar year and processes data. *UNDP is adapting its operations to the 2008-2011 strategic plan that the Executive Board just approved. An important pieces of the plan is a results matrix, which is being developed. UNDP and the Department of State will develop new PART measures in 2008.

Measure: Increased capacity for democratic governance in countries where UNDP is working. (Percentage of countries where annual targets were fully achieved out of the total number of countries where UNDP provided support for democratic governance goal.)

Explanation:UNDP's methodology for collecting the data (from 2001-2003) upon which the targets and baseline for this indicator were set in 2004 has changed. Subsequent UNDP data include "partially achieved" targets, which is different from what the original measures/indicators require. Moreover, UNDP defines "partially achieved" as over 50% achieved, but has had some difficulty receiving consistent data from the field. This resulted in reported actuals greatly exceeding targets. State will address this issue with UNDP this year in a ground-up review and revision of the PART to reflect new U.S. policy priorities and UNDP focus areas outlined in the organization's 2008-2011 strategic plan, and to capture data accurately. The data provided for out-year targets and actual results provided below are an interim solution, which reflects UNDP's new data collection methodology.

Measure: Percentage of countries where annual targets were fully achieved out of total number of countries where UNDP provides support for public administration reform and anti-corruption.

Explanation:UNDP's methodology for collecting the data (from 2001-2003) upon which the targets and baseline for this indicator were set in 2004 has changed. Subsequent UNDP data include "partially achieved" targets, which is different from what the original measures/indicators require. Moreover, UNDP defines "partially achieved" as over 50% achieved, but has had some difficulty receiving consistent data from the field. This resulted in reported actuals greatly exceeding targets. State will address this issue with UNDP this year in a ground-up review and revision of the PART to reflect new U.S. policy priorities and UNDP focus areas outlined in the organization's 2008-2011 strategic plan, and to capture data accurately. The data provided for out-year targets and actual results provided below are an interim solution, which reflects UNDP's new data collection methodology.

Measure: Achievement of annual milestones toward private sector development

Explanation:** The milestones do not fit in the cells and are held off-line. (1) UN SYG appointed the Commission on Private Sector Development. UNDP served as Commission Secretariat. (2) 5 public events launched, 31 engagements in country-level dialogue, 10 partnerships launched on SME development, and pilot programs launched in 3 countries. (3) Data not available until UNDP ends collection at the end of the calendar year and processes data. (4) 2006 Target: Engagement of country level dialogue in 40 countries; engagement in at least 12 key partnerships with private sector to drive SME development; and launch 3 public events showcasing UNDP activities and the impact on the ground. (4a) 2006 Results: In the 2006 UNDP MYFF reporting, 103 UNDP country offices reported that they were engaging in some ways with the private sector. Of these, 91 country offices reported that they engaged the private sector in a wide range of dialogue and advocacy activities across UNDP's various practice areas. Under the UNDP Growing Sustainable Business initiative, the following are some of the partnerships that have been developed and which contribute to drive entrepreneurship and SME development: Zambia (Spar Supermarkets), Zambia (Total), Turkey (Turkish Economy Bank), Turkey (Alter Eco), Kenya (Global Entrepreneurs Africa), Kenya: Cooperative Insurance Company of Kenya Ltd. (CIC Insurance), Kenya: Celtel Kenya Ltd. Madagascar (Madagascar Bamboo), Indonesia (Allianz). Other entrepreneurship and SME development related partnerships: Uganda - market linkages between small producers and large local companies, and Indonesia - promotion of sustainable coffee and market linkages in Aceh. Countries where the Growing Sustainable Business initiative is being implemented and which has demonstrated some substantial results: Tanzania, Kenya, Madagascar, Zambia, Malawi, Turkey, Serbia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Macedonia, Moldova. Public Events: (i) Workshop on the Growing Sustainable Business initiative as part of the FEDERE conference 2006 (March 30th) in Paris, (ii) Joint UNDP - UNIDO - Austria global conference in Vienna in June 2006 on sustainable business and entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility, (iii) Several other country level public events during 2006, e.g. in Lithuania on corporate social responsibility and in Turkey on public private partnerships. (5) 2007 Target: (i) Engagement of country level dialogue in 60 countries; (ii) engagement in at least 17 key partnerships with private sector to drive SME development; (iii) launch 3 public events showcasing UNDP activities and their impact on the ground. (5a) 2007 Results: (i) Engagement of country level dialogue in 43 countries; (ii) engagement in 13 key partnerships with private sector to drive SME development; and (iii) Country Offices in China, Kazakhstan and Poland, organized public events to showcase and discuss UNDP's activities pertaining to private sector development and engagement of the private sector. (6) 2008 Target: (i) Engagement of country level dialogue in 50 countries; (ii) engagement in at least 15 key partnerships with private sector to drive SME development; (iii) launch 3 public events showcasing UNDP activities and their impact on the ground. (7) 2009 Target: (i) Engagement of country level dialogue in 60 countries; (ii) engagement in at least 17 key partnerships with private sector to drive SME development; (iii) launch 3 public events showcasing UNDP activities and their impact on the ground.

Measure: Increased capacity for crisis prevention and recovery in countries where UNDP is working. Number of countries that reported achievement of targets set in the area of crisis prevention and recovery over the total number of countries in which UNDP is active in this area.

Explanation:* UNDP's methodology for collecting the data (from 2001-2003) upon which the targets and baseline for this indicator were set in 2004 has changed. Subsequent UNDP data include "partially achieved" targets, which is different from what the original measures/indicators require. Moreover, UNDP defines "partially achieved" as over 50% achieved, but has had some difficulty receiving consistent data from the field. This resulted in reported actuals greatly exceeding targets. State will address this issue with UNDP this year in a ground-up review and revision of the PART to reflect new U.S. policy priorities and UNDP focus areas outlined in the organization's 2008-2011 strategic plan, and to capture data accurately. The data provided for out-year targets and actual results provided below are an interim solution, which reflects UNDP's new data collection methodology.

Measure: Percentage of countries where annual outcome targets were fully or partially achieved out of the total number of countries where UNDP provides support to building capacity of national partners to manage and reduce risk of natural disasters.

Explanation:1. Supports new long-term goal. In draft 07 Joint Performance Plan. 2. Data not available until UNDP ends collection at the end of the calendar year and processes data. *UNDP is adapting its operations to the 2008-2011 strategic plan that the Executive Board just approved. An important pieces of the plan is a results matrix, which is being developed. UNDP and the Department of State will develop new PART measures in 2008.

Measure: Percentage of countries where annual outcome targets were fully or partially achieved out of the total number of countries where UNDP provides support to post-conflict recovery through promoting sustainable livelihoods and reintegration programs.

Explanation:1. Supports new long-term goal. In draft 07 Joint Performance Plan. 2. Data not available until UNDP ends collection at the end of the calendar year and processes data. *UNDP is adapting its operations to the 2008-2011 strategic plan that the Executive Board just approved. An important pieces of the plan is a results matrix, which is being developed. UNDP and the Department of State will develop new PART measures in 2008.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: UNDP has adopted five core goals: reducing poverty, fostering democracy, combating HIV/AIDS, responding to crisis and post-conflict situations, and producing a sustainable environment. Thses goals are consistent with and supportive of U.S. strategic interests in democracy, prosperity, and security.

Evidence: a. UN decision establishing UNDP (A/6111); b. UN Resolutions, Mandates and Development Policy Documents; c. State Department FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Bureau of International Organizations Affairs (IO) Bureau Performance Plan (BPP) and US Mission to the United Nations (USUN) Mission Performance Plan (MPP), FY 2005

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: UNDP serves as the UN's primary development agency, to provide grant-based technical assistance in the areas of economic and social development, poverty eradication, democracy, human rights, global growth and stability, post-conflict needs and reconstruction to countries worldwide. For example, UNDP has cooperated with the U.S. in the reconstruction of Afganistan, Iraq, and Liberia.

Evidence: a. UN decision establishing UNDP (A/6111); b. Executive Board and ECOSOC documentation and decisions (A/RES/56/201); c. State Department FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: IO BPP and USUN MPPs, FY 2005

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: UNDP role is unique in providing overall coordination of UN operational activities for development in the field. Where other special interest funds have been set up such as the UN Capital Development Fund and UNIFEM for women's issues, these have been under the UNDP purview. UNDP has increasingly provided leadership in harmonization and coordination of UN development activities and in focusing individual country programs on overall UN agreed upon development priorities, i.e., good governance, democratic principles, sustainable development, improved health and education services, partnership with the private sector, improving the attractiveness of developing countries to investors, poverty reduction, mainstreaming women.

Evidence: a. UN decision establishing UNDP (A/6111); b. Executive Board and ECOSOC documentation and decisions (A/RES/56/201). BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: IO BPP and USUN MPP, FY 2005

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Per the PART guidance, no known evidence indicates that another approach or mechanism would be more efficient/effective. A variety of evaluations demonstrate improvements in efficiency over time.

Evidence: a. Triennial policy review of operational activities (UNGA Res A/RES/56/201); b. Budget, Programming and Aggregated Results Documents; c. Evaluation Documents. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: IO BPP and USUN MPPs, FY 2005

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: UNDP reviews and revises its program funding framework every 5 years to ensure the system of distribution of available resources is in line with organizational priorities and reflects the needs of the developing countries. The formula provides for countries to graduate to a level whereby they might no longer receive financial support but would continue to be able to draw on technical advice, and finally to graduate from being a recipient country to a donor country. USG contributions are based on a consideration of the direction and effectiveness of UNDP's program. The US contribution to UNDP's core resources stipulates that no portion of the US contribution can be spent in certain specified countries. Other US contributions are made to specific projects, for which the we provide clear specifications for the expenditure of the funds, and closely monitor and evaluate the projects funded.

Evidence: Budget, Programming and Aggregated Results Documents

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The State Department has in place a Performance Plan for its Bureau of International Organizations that contains a long-term goal and target for the United Nations Development Program. This goal is consistent with both long-term U.S. foreign policy objectrives and UNDP's mission. The outcomes being measured are not included on the measures tab, as there are too many to list, but they are known to the State Department and available for all to view at http://rbmsgat.undp.org.

Evidence: http://rbmsgat.undp.org BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Goal papers developed by State and UNDP; IO BPP for UNDP

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The long-term goal, which is included in the measures section, sets a time-bound ambitious target.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Goal papers developed by State and UNDP; IO BPP for UNDP

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: State and UNDP have developed a set of annual goals and targets to measure progress toward achieving the long-term goal. Additionally, beginning from 2000, UNDP produces a results-oriented annual report (ROAR) as well as end-of-cycle multi-year funding framework (MYFF) Report (last issued in 2003). The ROAR reporting mechanism allows for measuring and reporting on progress made towards achievement of UNDP multi-year outcomes. With the adoption of the second MYFF for 2004-2007, the reporting approach and methodology as well as management arrangements for taking corrective action have been further improved. The outcomes being measured are not included on the measures tab, as there are too many to list, but they are known to the State Department and available for all to view at http://rbmsgat.undp.org.

Evidence: a. UNDP 2000-2003 ROAR; b. UNDP proposals for reporting on the MYFF 2004-2007 (DP/2004/4) presented to the Executive Board in January 2004; c. http://rbmsgat.undp.org. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Goal papers developed by State and UNDP; IO BPP for UNDP

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The annual goals, which are included in the measures section, set ambitious targets and timeframes.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Goal papers developed by State and UNDP; IO BPP for UNDP

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The U.S., UNDP, and other member states are committed to the annual and long-term program goals. In fact, the majority of USG performance goals for this program are adopted from the UNDP performance plan. The State Department has selected those goals that are most important to the U.S. for inclusion in its performance plan. The U.S., as a major donor and member of the Executive Board, plays an active role in setting program and management policies for the organization. In addition to funding for UNDP's regular resources, the USG also makes earmarked contributions to UNDP for specific projects with specific criteria outlined in letters between the USG and UNDP. While UNDP reports on its programs and performance, State continues to work with UNDP to refine the reporting process to clearly demonstrate whether the goals are being met and ensure that these reports are available to the public.

Evidence: a. UNDP Annual Report; b. UNGA Millennium Declaration; c. UNDP MYFF 2004-2007; d. UN decision on the Triennial Policy Review of Operational Activities; e. Exchange of letters governing grant contributions; f. Project documents for specified contributions.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The U.S. has an independent representative who sits on the UN Advisory Committee on Administration - Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) which does an annual review of the UNDP program and budget. UNDP Board, of which the U.S. is a member periodically requests independent audits, for example, an audit was undertaken in 2001 of UNDP. The UNDP Office of Audit and Performance Review (OAPR) conducts regularly scheduled audits of all UN funds and programs. The UNDP Evaluation Office conducts strategic, thematic, country evaluations as well as evaluations of the regional programs.

Evidence: a. Budget, Programming and Aggregated Results Documents; b. Assessment of Development Results (ADR) of selected countries; c. Thematic evaluations such as the PRSP, MDGR Assessment, Development Effectiveness Report, Administrator's Report on Evaluation to the Executive Board; d. Balanced Score Card.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: UNDP's Resource program needs are presented in its global program budget and individual Country and Other (Regional, Global) Programme documents that are approved by the Executive Board and directly linked to the MYFF. State Department budget requests for UNDP are based partly on recent historical levels, partly on the calculation that U.S. funding levels leverage funds from other donors, but largely on the importance of UNDP's programs to U.S. interests. Although the link with performance is not explicit in any given year, lack of effectiveness over time has, and would again, lead to lower U.S. funding levels.

Evidence: a. State IO FY 05 budget request for UNDP; b. UNDP budget request documents; c. UNDP Multi-year Funding Framework 2004-07 (MYFF); d. 2004-2007 Programming Arrangements, individual Country Programmes, new TRAC 2 Framework paper, 2004-2005 Biennial Support Budget Strategy. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: IO BPP

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: In 2004, UNDP entered the second four-year MYFF cycle that covers the 2004-2007 period. Results and lessons from the first MYFF (2000-2003) have been reviewed and considered in the development of the second MYFF (2004-2007). Additionally, the results-oriented annual report (ROAR) mechanism, in use since 2000, is continuously refined to exert a greater influence over the quality of programs. The State Department has worked hard to improve its performance planning for this program after last year's PART surfaced deficiencies in strategic planning. The IO Bureau Performance Plan now includes specific long-term and annual goals for UNDP.

Evidence: a. UNDP MYFF 2004-07; b. Report on the multi-year funding framework 2000-2003, and Supplementary Information (DP/2003/12 and DP/2003/CRP.14) presented to the Executive Board in June 2003. BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Goal papers developed by State and UNDP; IO BPP

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: State has several channels to collect timely and credible information. State uses the Executive Board and bilateral forums to discuss, review, and manage UNDP policies, programs, and performance. The Executive Board, of which the U.S. is a member, makes decisions on the organization's strategic policy direction and resource requirements. Information that is collected through UNDP evaluations is presented to the Executive Board and is used by management to make decisions regarding the programs and activities and make adjustments as necessary. UNDP management is also responsible for presenting a response to any evaluations findings regarding how any recommendations are to be implemented. Two recent examples of country evaluations, India and Sudan, highlighted that UNDP was not working in the most strategic areas and needed to re-adjust. As a result, the Country Cooperation Frameworks for both countries presented to the Board in 2002 were re-aligned following the evaluations.

Evidence: a. Budget, Programming and Aggregated Results Documents; b. Evaluation Documents (Access to the Sudan and India evaluations as well as the Handbook for Monitoring and Evaluating Results are available at www.undp.org/eo/index.htm)

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: State IO program managers' job elements require them to promote and achieve U.S. objectives for UNDP. Their performance ratings are based on how well they fullfiled their job elements. Federal Managers do not directly manage UNDP programs but instead work with UNDP and through the Executive Board to achieve U.S. objectives. In UNDP, the staff performance appraisal, the Results and Competency Assessment, uses the results-based approach and directly links performance of managers with the achievement of targets established in the MYFF and Strategic Results Framework.

Evidence: UNDP Guidelines for Results and Competency Assessment, job elements for program manager Note: The issue of inclusion of accountability into the performance standards of Federal managers is currently being reviewed for resolution at the Department-wide level.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The State Department obligates the funds in its account in a timely manner, following which payment is made to UNDP. UNDP allocates resources to program countries on the basis of an Executive Board approved formula based on a number of factors including level of development, absorption capacity, per capita GNP, and population. A corporate scorecard provides indicators for review of each country office's expenditures and performance. Based on this, a system has been developed for releasing a second tranche of program funds. In UNDP, funds are obligated in a timely manner and for the intended purposes as defined in the MYFF and individual Country Programmes. Budget resources are released annually in line with expected resource availability. Expenditure targets are established in order to ensure that these resources are spent accordingly.

Evidence: a. UNDP efficiency indicator paper; b. UNDP Annual Country Programme Resource Planning Frameworks Exercise and annual Biennial Support Budget Plan; c. UNDP Budget, Programming and Aggregated Results Documents; d. UNDP efficiency indicator paper; e. UNDP Annual Country Programme Resource Planning Frameworks Exercise and annual Biennial Support Budget Plan; f. Treasury SF133 reports.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: UNDP has procedures, including an internal audit function, to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness of programs. UNDP follows well-established UN procedures for competitive sourcing. For obligations of $30,000 or less, a short list of providers is developed. A system of international bidding is required for obligations of $100,000 and up. Through the PART process, IO, working with UNDP, has established a new efficiency indicator with measurable targets.

Evidence: UNDP evaluative documents, especially DP/2002/12.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: UNDP is the lead agency within the UN Development Group at headquarters and within the UN country team of organizations active in the field to ensure a collaborative and coordinated effort. The UN has established a Common Country Assessment (CCA) and UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for collaboration among different agencies' programs. In post-conflict reconstruction, UNDP coordinates closely with the donors and other international organizations in conducting needs assessments and donor conferences. In this regard, UNDP has played an important role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, Liberia, Iraq and East Timor. UNDP leads coordination among UN development agencies. UNDAF is an critical instrument through which UN development agencies ensure their activities in a particular country are complementary, not duplicative, and lead to a common outcome. The State Department works with other USG agencies, mostly USAID, in overseeing the activities of UNDP to this end.

Evidence: a. UNDG WB review of recent post conflict needs assessments, chapter 4 and 5; b. Liberia case study, chapter 2 pages 7-10 and chapter 4 pages 11 -13; c. Armenia UNDAF, pg. 5 to 14; d. The 2003 Resident Coordinator Annual report, chapter 2 (pg. 15 to 20), chapter 3 (pg 21-26), chapter 4 (29-32), and annexes.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: A new approach to audits undertaken in 2001 has resulted in significant improvements in transparency of audit criteria for calculating overall performance. Subsequent documents indicate that UNDP is addressing audit recommendations. In addition, a Management Review and Oversight Committee has been established to provide the Administrator with an accountability framework. UNDP is currently reviewing its Financial Regulations and Rules and its Internal Control Framework for further strengthening in line with the implementation of its 2004 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems solution called Atlas.

Evidence: a. UNDP Evaluative Documents; b. Financial Regulations and Rules, Internal Control Framework; c. ROAR; d. Audit Report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: UNDP has made great strides in reforming its system of management at headquarters and the field since the issuance of the UN Secretary General's 1997 Program for Reform. The audit reforms described above provide one example.

Evidence: a. UNDP Budget, Programming and Aggregated Results Documents; b. UNDP Evaluative Documents.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Department and UNDP have established measurable annual goals that are used to evaluate progress toward the long-term goal. Available data show that UNDP is making adequate progress.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: Goal papers developed by State and UNDP; IO BPP

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Initial 2002 Baseline and 2003 Results data available for evaluation of annual goals reflect progress toward achievement of those goals. This is the first year that UNDP is formally included in the IO Bureau Performance Plan.

Evidence: BPP Evidence: Goal Papers: IO BPP

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: UNDP aligned its strategies with intended development results, and utilizes a balanced scorecard and internal and external surveys to measure its performance. UNDP is currently implementing an ERP system, which integrates result- based management to become more efficient and cost effective in implementing programs. Examples: 1) The programme delivery per post increased by 20% for the biennium 2002-2003 compared to 2000-2001. 2) The implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) streamlined UNDP's banking operations worldwide, reducing transaction cost per vendor payment in the US from $12.50 to around 8 cents; 3) An efficiency indicator has recently been created. This indicator showed a decrease in the ratio of operational support costs over total costs, from 12.7% in 2002 to 12.0% in 2003 (estimate).

Evidence: MYFF 2004-2007. Post data: Biennial budget estimates 2004-2005 summary table 5a page 56 showing 5,133 posts for 2002-2003; Biennial budget estimates 2002-2003 summary table III page 61 showing 5,377 posts for 2000-200. Programme expenditure (delivery) data: Annual review of the financial situation 2003 (table 13.a); Annual review of the financial situation 2002 table 11a page 24; Annual review of the financial situation 2001 table 13a page 21. Bank of America Letter on ERP reduction in transaction cost. Efficiency indicator. Note on the calculation for program delivery per post: The 20 % increase is calculated by first calculating the total programme delivery (expenditure) for each biennia 2000-2001 and 2002-2003. The next step was dividing the total delivery by the number of posts for each biennium. The average delivery per post for 2002-2003 was then compared to the delivery per post for 2000-2001 showing a 20% increase between the two biennia.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: UNDP has a unique role. At present, no other comparable program has been identified.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: UNDP evaluative documents indicate that the program has improved its efficiency and effectiveness and has taken steps to address deficiencies. However, these documents also indicate that there is room for improvement, so progress needs to continue to be made by UNDP to improve it's management and performance.

Evidence: a. UNDP Evaluative Documents; b. Assessment of Development Results (ADR) reports; c. Strategic/thematic evaluations and Development Effectiveness reports.