26th Regional Meeting of the Regional Director and WHO Representatives

183 views

Published on

JPRM review

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
183
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Based on the questionnaire sent on 20 June to all WRs, 13 WRs sent their feedback, which was quite positive regarding the JPRM process. Many of the answers demonstrated an appreciation for the JPRM. In the following slides I will highlight some of the findings that were collected. In some sections of the survey, alternatives to the current JPRM process were suggested…
  • A preliminary review of country specific programmes’ progress, as well as their needs and requirements should be prepared at the Regional Office by mission members and units in EMRO. Briefing notes should be relevant to the context of the country and feasibility of implementation. Country Cooperation Strategy (CCS) should be used as a platform for developing the JPRM by focusing on the priorities of the country as stated in the CCS. Guidelines should be sent to both MOH and Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the mission and preliminary discussions should take place before the mission (possibly through the use of video conferencing).
    The preparatory work needs to be more strategic in terms of briefing the counterparts about the global and regional health agendas discussed and agreed by the governing bodies. The Strategic objective could be narrowed down to 4-5 objectives instead of spreading the very limited JPRM funds across 11 SOs. That would allow also WRO’s to implement more comprehensive programmes with a sufficient budget to make tangible outcomes and more effective monitoring and evaluation plan.
    A larger mission should be organized that engages donors and others sectors (wider than just MOH) that presents new directions in overall WHO programmes, critical appraisal of country and perspectives for collaboration. The mission team should know the country and its specificities well, and avoid projecting their own agenda. JPRM should be conducted as a workshop and clearly linked to UNDAF where it exists.
  • Interaction between the JPRM mission and the MoH representatives is good;
    Duration for the JPRM mission development is sufficient;
    The profile required for the JPRM team should be made up of senior staff members, comprehending country context and sensitivities, working in the same priority areas, knowledgeable about WHO main mandate and priorities, regional priorities and the respective country's priorities; should have wider public health knowledge in order to discuss/defend the whole plan. Should also have worked in health systems of developing countries, field experience and have knowledge of evolving health challenges in the region and preferably a staff member who was in engaged in that respective countries CCS, as well as the respective country’s government (MOH) working system , civil society and private sector. Staff members should be chosen through a dialogue with the WR and in some cases director level maybe required, and technical staff should join in areas in which WRO anticipates problems/resistance. Staff member’s chosen should be conversant in the language of the respective country and should have a basic understanding of health and human rights, gender equity and results based management. Furthermore, the staff member chosen should good communication and negotiation skills, specifically dealing with conflict resolution. Finally, composition of the planning team should have HQ, RO and CO representation (WR from neighboring country and from other regions).
  • Should be concise, structured, summarizing achievements and/or a short executive summary may be used as a reference for executives. The chapters need to be revisited to ensure whether they are required. There should be a greater flexibility to introduce country specificities. Another possibility is to simply use the CCS.
    An enhancement of GSM Workplanner module is needed to enable WROs to generate the JPRM report in a standard format (as it was previously done using the workplanner application-WPE) instead of stapling the completed templates submitted by MOH and presenting them as JPRM report.





  • Tunisia (1), Sudan (2)
    A more appropriate and effective method would be to have a sound CCS development processes, aligned with national planning timeframes (and UNDAF) which should include costed workplans and budgets with specific outcomes. JPRMs would then be simply an operationalization of the CCS based on an evaluation of the progress made in the previous biennium available/expected resources, emerging priorities and opportunities. It could then be a much simpler and efficient planning exercise.
    Another approach would be to conduct the preparation long distance by the WRO and MOH, preparing draft plans and sending them for review to EMRO or by asking CO staff and EMRO staff to jointly prepare the draft plans.
    The country team, if lead by a knowledgeable WR, could do the work and discussions of the final draft over a day or two, which would make it more cost effective.
    Due to limited financial resources, limitation of time and different priorities of different countries, planning should be initiated at the country level with prioritization of the objectives of the country. Thus, only applicable strategic objectives should be planned for, not necessarily set activities for all the objectives. Being selective of prioritized strategic objectives would increase budget allocation and increase the efficiency of achieving goals.
  • 26th Regional Meeting of the Regional Director and WHO Representatives

    1. 1. 26th Regional Meeting of the Regional Director and WHO Representatives and Regional Office staff
    2. 2. Suggestion for improvement  Briefing notes should be relevant to the context of the country and feasibility of implementation;  CCS should be used as a platform for developing the JPRM;  The preparatory work needs to be more strategic in terms of briefing the counterparts about the global and regional health agendas discussed and agreed by the governing bodies;  A larger mission should be organized that engages donors and others sectors (wider than just MOH) that presents new directions in overall WHO programmes, critical appraisal of country and perspectives for collaboration.
    3. 3. Composition of JPRM Team  The profile required for the JPRM team should be:  Senior staff members, comprehending country context and sensitivities;  Have wider public health knowledge in order to discuss/defend the whole plan;  Worked in health systems of developing countries, field experience and have knowledge of evolving health challenges in the region and have in engaged in that respective countries CCS;  Chosen through a dialogue with the WR;  Conversant in the language of the respective country and should have a basic understanding of health and human rights, gender equity and results based management;  Have good communication and negotiation skills, specifically dealing with conflict resolution;  Have HQ, RO and CO representation (WRs from neighboring country and from other regions could also be included).
    4. 4. Suggestion for improving the JPRM Report  Should be concise, structured, summarizing achievements and/or a short executive summary may be used as a reference for executives or use the CCS;  An enhancement of GSM Workplanner module is needed to enable WROs to generate the JPRM report in a standard format.
    5. 5. Alternatives to JPRM 1. JPRMs would be an operationalization of the CCS, based on an evaluation of the progress made in the previous biennium available/expected resources, emerging priorities and opportunities; 2. WRO and MOH would prepare workplans and send them for review to RO.

    ×