Independent evaluation of the united nations internship program results & proposals

United Nations Internship Program
Independent Evaluation : Results and
Proposals. By Cristobal Mingo October 17th 2016, cmingo@alumni.lse.ac.uk
Abstract:
The main objective of this research is to propose (and show the benefits of) an evaluation mechanism
for the United Nations internship program. As any program evaluation, it must be measured against its
expected outcomes. These outcomes are outlined by the Administrative Instruction as an exchange
between labour and experience. The document proposes to measure the completeness of this
exchange, by focusing on the level satisfaction of interns and supervisors. To put in evidence the
benefits of this evaluation a survey is executed and analyzed.
The survey results show a high level of overall satisfaction of interns despite deficiencies on work
planning and monitoring reported by interns. By the same token the survey reveals the interns’
preferences for approachable and clear supervisors, capable of assigning work that leads to
professional growth. On the contrary, the complexities of administrative procedures and on-boarding
preparation had little influence in the intern satisfaction with the internship.
The analysis identified statistically significant differences between the performance of
divisions/agencies. The Environment Development Division showed the lowest scores on “overall
satisfaction levels ” and in specific areas such as: working environment and supervisor . At the same
time TIID registered the lowest scores on assigned work . In contrast Statistics division shows
significantly higher performance on the same areas. Additionally the survey also collected qualitative
data which allowed to speculate on mechanisms explaining the performance of divisions. For example,
interns cited the inability of sections to choose their own interns which could explain the low levels of
satisfaction within EDD.
In conclusion, even at this small scale the proposed monitoring and evaluation tool allows divisions to
learn from each other's best practices and improve the program for both interns and the United Nations.
An official annual implementation would not only allow to carry on a supervisor's survey to measure the
other side of the exchange, but also provide better disaggregation and more significant results.
Watch the video summary here
1

Origin and contact:
My name is Cristobal Mingo, I was an intern and later individual contractor at the United Nations ESCAP
Statistics Division in Bangkok during 2015/16.Though my experience with the UN was particularly
positive, it was pointed to me by fellow interns that there was no monitoring mechanism for the
internship program. No formal way of knowing if the program was fulfilling its objectives and if so how
well. No proper feedback channel for interns to vocalize their new ideas or concerns.
Moved by this opportunity and motivated by other interns I design with the help of college statisticians an
intern survey that would allow collecting quantitatively and qualitative information to run a simple
diagnostics on the program and its performance throughout the divisions. The survey was designed to
be the first half of the monitoring mechanism, complemented by a survey of supervisors. By measuring
the satisfaction on both sides of the internship exchange it’s possible to evaluate the program and
provide a feedback channel to improve its performance.
The paper below shows what can be achieved by this survey and intends to serve as an example of the
benefits a monitoring tool would provide and puts in evidence the little extra administrative cost this
would entail.
For further doubts and questions, you can comment directly on this paper or contact me at +44
7392060902 or write to cmingo@alumni.lse.ac.uk
2

CONTENT TABLE
Introduction
Background
Objectives
Method
What to evaluate?
How to measure?
Other Half of the Survey: Supervisors
Social Media Propagation
Limitations
Findings
General description and tendencies of sample
Assigned work
What Intern’s value
Satisfaction with your supervisor
What interns value
Satisfaction with the working environment
What interns value
Common mentioned points
Lack of pay or stipend
No Clarity, Work nor Plan
Value of work and motivation
Disaggregation
Divisions
EDD
TIID
SD
Length of Placement
Origin of funding
Previous Working Experience
Conclusions
Document recommendations
References
ANNEXES
Annex I
Annex II
Annex III
Annex V
Annex VI
3

Introduction
The UN employs over 4 thousand interns a year, from a workforce of around 44,000 (76,115
including agencies), this could account from 5-10% of the UN workforce at any given time,
depending on their placement length. Though UN intern programs has received its fair share
of media attention, most of it is focused on the fact that the majority of the internships are
unpaid. While this is a highly relevant topic, it is only one aspects in which UN internships
programs can be improved. This paper, while also contributing on this debate, intends to
focus on an equally important aspect of the UN internship programme: the lack of a
monitoring and evaluation mechanism. Currently there is no system in place to provide
feedback on the intern's experience. This is problematic in 2 levels: first there is no
mechanism making sure that interns are actually learning and being exposed to useful
experiences and not just employed as a supplemental workforce, as particularly prohibited
by the programmes mandates. Second the lack of feedback prevents any useful
observations on the working structure, procedures or innovations to have a channel from
which to be discussed and applied. This paper is dedicated to explore the benefits of such
channel and provide a starting point for its institution within the UN, by showing how it could
be done and what feedback it could contribute.
Background
The term “UN internship” is commonly used to refer to internships on multiple UN Agencies
with different set of rules and objectives. For example the ILO gives interns a basic stipend
of around 500 USD a month and the UN Secretariat allows for interns to apply for some low
level positions after finishing their placements. Lacking a more unified programme
description, this paper will use the secretariat’s programme conditions as yardstick for the
evaluation. The United Nations Secretariat Internship Program conditions and objectives are
established in the Under-Secretary-General for Management’s Administrative Instruction
ST/AI/2014/1, which replaced the original administrative Instruction ST/AI/2000/9.
The Administrative Instruction explains the purpose of the United Nations internship
programme as twofold:
“(a) to provide a framework by which students from diverse academic
backgrounds gain exposure to the United Nations through assignment to offices
within the Secretariat in order to enhance their educational experience and gain
experience in the work of the United Nations; and (b) to provide United Nations
offices with the assistance of qualified students specialized in various
professional fields.”
Since the year 2000 the internship administrative instructions have had various changes in
redaction and conditions but the program’s objectives have been maintained relatively
unaltered. Aside from the addition of some administrative and legal conditions, the main
4

changes are at an evaluation level for the interns. The removal of mandatory
end-of-internship written evaluation of the intern’s performance, left the program without a
clear feedback channel for improvements and observations (for more details in the changes
of the programme look at Annex I).
In 2009 some efforts to evaluate the intern program were made by the UN Joint Inspection
Unit (UNJIU,2009). The UNJIU, in charge of independently revising the UN, focused on the
procedures and fairness of the selection and remuneration. The report gave some useful
recommendations, like removing restrictions on job applications (#7). Unfortunately, this was
a one time evaluation and though it explicitly recommends conducting an end-of-internship
evaluation (#6), it does not propose a continuous procedure to monitor and adapt the
program.
Some efforts to open feedback channels have been initiated by many agencies and most
notably by ESCAP’s Human Resources Division. Regrettably, due to budgetary restraints
they have been discontinued and did not provide a systematic approach that would allow for
comparison between programs and feedbacks. The fact remains that a program accounting
for an important percentage of the UN workforce lacks a built-in channel to monitor and
receive feedback from its main players (interns or supervisors).
The need for a systematic evaluation and feedback loop is imperative, and would not be
questioned in other settings. With the best interest of the UN and future interns in mind, this
document is intended as a proposition for the creation of an evaluation system for the
program -exemplifying the low costs by which it can be achieved and the benefits it can
return (best practices).
The survey focuses on interns, mainly due to the independent nature of this evaluation,
which does not allow for UN internal surveys. Fortunately the private interns groups in social
media provide an ideal platform to disseminate the survey and obtaining reliable data. To
provide a complete coverage on the programme, a further (internal) survey should be
conducted to capture supervisor’s feedback on the program.
The survey has been designed to generate feedback from interns experience, probing
information under three areas: working environment, supervisor and assignments. These
three were selected as they expect to be determinant on the quality of the internship and the
main focus of the current program.
Objectives
The general objective of this document is to propose a feedback channel for the intern
programs on the Secretariat and UN agencies in Bangkok, in such a way it can practically
identify opportunities for improvements and shortfalls in the intern programme. It will achieve
this by designing and conducting a survey measuring the completion of the objectives of the
Internship programme. A secondary target of this document is to show the analysis power
this feedback can provide by: identifying the most important items for a successful
5

internship; comparing divisions to identify best practices and identifying other interesting
patterns in the programme.
Method
The document intends to show an effective and low cost method by which a feedback
channel can be opened for evaluation of the internship programme at UN ESCAP and other
UN Agencies. The proposed method requires two complementary surveys: one for interns
and a second for supervisors. As expressed before, due to its independent nature, this
document only collects data and summarized the findings for the intern survey. Left for
further work is the creation of a Supervisor/Administrative version of this survey. Therefore
the results of this work should not be seen as an exhaustive evaluation on the UN ESCAP or
other UN Agencies intern programme, but as half of the evaluation on the program. This half
is to be complemented by the missing internal Supervisor/Administrative staff survey .
What to evaluate?
Any programme must be measured in respect to its objectives and expected outcomes. For
the internship programme these are established in the Under-Secretary-General
Management’s Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2014/1. Which states that the interns will “
gain exposure to the UN” and “enhance the educational experience” by allowing them to
“gain experience in the work of the United Nations” . At the same time it’s expected from the
interns to “provide United Nations offices with the assistance of qualified students
specialized in various professional fields”. In short the Administrative instruction profiles a
barter between the gaining of experience and the provision of specialized labour.
Objectives such as “enhancement of the educational experience of interns” and “gain of
exposure” are not as easily defined or measured. The trouble relies in the impossibility to
find a common definition or measuring unit. To avoid falling in this discussion, the outcome
of this programme is understood as a barter. As such it will be measured subjectively by
both sides involved in the exchange. More specifically how each of the parts is satisfied by
the “experience” and “assistance” received in the exchange.
How to measure?
What interns and supervisors are receiving from the internship must be measured on their
own subjective terms, in order to understand if the exchange was successful for both parts.
In the case of the Interns, the particulars of what makes the experience of working worth
while are not easily defined. As they can vary drastically by professional area and individual.
This means a subjective scale is needed, but one that will allow us to compare outcomes.
The survey proposes to measure the overall personal satisfaction with the internship. By
6

asking this, the survey will establish a baseline from which to compare the rest of the more
objective aspects measured.
Measuring the overall level of satisfaction provides a reference point for the survey. This
question is followed by 3 batteries (Likert scales) of short and specific statements regarding:
the working environment, the supervisor and the work assigned to the interns. These
aspects were selected as they are expected to be defining factors on the intern's experience.
Each battery is lead by a measurement of the general satisfaction regarding that aspect,
followed by the measurement of other more tangible items. For example the supervisor
section of the survey is lead by the statement “Generally I was satisfied with my supervisor”
and follow by statements such as “My supervisor monitored my progress against milestones
and deadlines” To which the intern can agree or disagree in a likert item. The average of
these individual items creates the likert scale for each area.
The question structure purpose is double, first to obtain information on particular aspects of
the intern time within the UN (ie, the use of deadlines, existence of feedback, workload, etc).
Second, to understand if this aspects actually are factors to a satisfying internship
experience (is the use of milestones or clear instruction important for the interns experience).
By measuring the interns agreements with practical affirmations such as “ My supervisor
monitored my progress against milestones and deadlines” it is possible to estimate the
implementation of these. At the same time by comparing these with the “overall satisfaction
with the internship” it is possible to estimate which of the battery elements is more
contributing for a more satisfying internship (experience).
Like mentioned before the batteries of likert items on particular aspects of the internship
make 3 likert scales that will allow for a more continuous variable:
1. Satisfaction with the work you were assigned
a. I was generally satisfied with the work assigned
b. Work was challenging and motivating
c. There was NOT enough work for me to do
d. Work was relevant for my future studies/career
e. Work allowed me to learn and grow professionally
f. Work was in line with my expectations
g. The responsibility given to me was consistent to my experience
2. Satisfaction with your supervisor
a. I was generally satisfied with my supervisor
b. My supervisor gave me clear instructions
c. My supervisor monitored my progress against milestones and deadlines
d. My supervisor regularly discussed my performance and provided feedback
e. My supervisor was approachable for any questions
f. My supervisor made sure I had enough relevant work
g. The internship was in line with what was previously agreed with my
supervisor
3. Satisfaction with the working environment
a. I was generally satisfied with the working environment in the division
7

b. The environment in the Division was motivating
c. Colleagues in the Division were helpful and supportive
d. Colleagues in other parts of ESCAP were helpful and supportive
e. Administrative procedures were clear and easy
f. Support provided before on-boarding was adequate
A 7 point Likert scale was used to as an answer for the main question “state your overall
level of satisfaction with your internship”. For the secondary questions a 5 level Likert scale
stating the level of agreement with statement regarding the 3 areas previously mentioned.
The primary question and agreement with a statements and will be used as a nominal
variable across the document, unless expressed otherwise.
Qualitative questions: The survey includes qualitative questions requesting additional
information after on the working environment, supervisor, assignments. An additional space
for any creative suggestions and further comments is provided. The qualitative questions are
included in order to understand possible mechanisms that explain the performance of
division or the overall programme. This mechanisms could shape valuable
recommendations for improvement of the experience on both sides.
In addition information on the interns division, years of experience and source of funding is
asked. They will allow to disaggregate and understand the differences between divisions and
agencies within the UN and can improve the explanatory power of the model.
Other Half of the Survey: Supervisors
We are basically evaluating a transaction, to have a complete understanding we must look at
the satisfaction of both sides involved. The supervisors and administrative staff survey will
hold the same structure as the intern’s survey. A subjective overall satisfaction question
followed by batteries of particular aspects. The main difference between the intern and
Supervisor surveys will rely on these 3 batteries. In this intern survey, the correlation
between overall satisfaction and particulars aspects will reveal what interns most value from
the internship. On the Supervisor’s survey they will reveal traits expected from the interns
(i.e. the quality of his/her work and their ability to work as a team).
To reduce the response burden and obtain a higher response rate of we set the questions to
an absolute minimum and take out questions for which information can be obtained or
calculated from administrative records of the intern program. For Example, Regarding the
diversity of backgrounds, all applicants must fill in PHP forms which include background
information. A simple check amongst selected participants and applicants can show any bias
on selection regarding background, hence discarding the need to make this question.
Social Media Propagation
The survey was shared electronically within facebook. The total theoretical universe of UN
interns that had access to the survey was approximately 1392. This is including the UN
intern bangkok official facebook community page and 2 independent UN intern closed
groups. The number is an estimation due to the inability to discard duplicated individuals
8

from this independently administered groups. This said, it is important to point out that the
majority of exposure and responses where obtained from the UN Bangkok Interns 2016, a
secret facebook group ( 263 interns).
Limitations
Perhaps the most important limitation of this survey and mode of evaluation is the secondary
questions which only provide a pre imposed affirmations which are expected be factors in
the level of satisfaction. This agreements could be bias and influence the respondents, whilst
leaving important variables unmeasured. The space provided below each battery allowing
for further comments on each of the sections, is expected could help collect unknown
variables. They will be revised by analyzing the qualitative data for the most extreme cases,
in hopes to find a patterns.
The survey’s propagation medium could provide a self selection bias. The survey was
presented through facebook private messages and closed UN intern groups and in UN intern
social events of the UN/BKK (Approximately 270-300 interns). Interns that are not involved
socially or don’t use facebook might be left out, limiting the external validity of the survey.
This limitation was palliated by leaving the survey open for over 8 months, giving a better
opportunity for respondents that do not regularly check facebook.
The correlation expected to be found in the items measured (ie. satisfaction and supervisor
availability) might not be product of the mechanism but simple chance. If the mechanism is
not there to begin with, the general satisfactions are not comparable with the particular
aspect satisfaction. Though slim, this chance must be taken into account when estimating
the validity of the results found.
A possible distrust of anonymity of the survey, would limit the validity of the survey. It is
worth noting that the effects of this limitations could be reduced if the survey would be
officially prescribed by the UN Secretariat and Agencies. Presenting an anonymous survey
to all interns upon the end of their placement will allow to get better coverage and increase
the trust level of the respondents.
Not propositive, the “quantitative” aspects of the survey looks at existing aspects within the
internship, letting only the written responses for “outside the box” suggestions. To prevent
this from being a limitation, every year the particular aspects in the batteries should be
changed to search for a better fitting model, and the written observations of cases should be
analysed in search of patterns and suggestions.
Finally, the use of parametric statistics methods (regressions, correlations and analysis of
variance) with non-normal distributed data product of Likert scales might be questioned by
some. This issues are addressed by Norman, 2010 how demonstrates that the robustness of
parametric tests with non-normal samples above 5 is not reduced. On the other hand
Jamison, 2004 discusses the use of ordinal variables as interval, taking into account the
sample size and the nature of the question asked.
9

Findings
The findings are presented in 2 sections: The first includes general descriptive statistics of
the sample looking at the overall UN performance. Also included in this segment is the
correlation amongst overall and particular satisfaction levels to determine the best and worst
predictors for a “satisfactory internship” (what inters value most). The second part looks
at the satisfaction levels performance by divisions, length of placement, source of funding
and other variables that might show significant differences in levels of satisfaction.
General description and tendencies of sample
The total respondents to the survey where 101 by 19 September 2016, though the survey is
still open, any data entered later was not taken into account for this analysis. All responses
were valid and collected between May, 7th - September, 20th 2016. The sample belongs
mostly to the internship cohort of 2015 and 2016 as seen in the graph below.
10

The overall level of satisfaction for the entire sample shows distribution skewed towards a
high level of satisfaction, with over 77% of 101 respondents stating a satisfaction level equal
or above 5/7, 7 being “very high level of satisfaction with the internship”. The overall
feedback is a positive one for the UN intern programs in Bangkok. This findings are in line
with the UNJIU independent evaluation on the internship programs in 2009. Which found
positive feedbacks from interns and supervisors.
This suggests that, overall, the program is doing what it is suppose to do for interns, as they
report high levels of satisfaction. That said there is plenty of room for improvement as the
average of the sample is 5.2/7 and 23% reported a satisfaction level of 4/7 or lower.
Regarding the particular aspects of the internship, most of the questions show a similarly
skewed distribution (towards “agree”). The exceptions being: the supervisor’s monitoring
against milestones & deadlines; and the supervisor’s provision of regular feedback. Both
which show a uniform distribution, suggesting great variation on the methodology of
supervisors across the UN.
Assigned work
The battery is composed of a first question regarding the general satisfaction with the work
assigned followed by questions intended to measure the presence of expected factors that
would improve the experience regarding the assigned work. The first question works as an
allrounder for the category and as a verifier for the next 4 statements.
As can be derived from the graph below the general satisfaction on assigned work is high.
All other work aspects (motivation, challenging,workload, growth and relevance) show a
similarly skewed distribution towards agree (hypergeometric). Including the reversed score
of the affirmation “there was NOT enough work for me to do” due to a negatory (NOT).
80% of interns were generally satisfied with the work assigned, and an equally decisive
percentage regarding motivation, future relevance of the work and its allowance to learn.
Regarding the workload 66% of interns agreed there was enough work for them, but perhaps
11

most interesting is that 78% the interns that reported enough work for them, found that work:
either challenging or relevant for their future. Suggesting that most interns in the programme
are kept busy with relevant and challenging work.
The index of satisfaction on assigned work is calculated by using the numerical value of the
likert scale (1 is for strongly disagree and 5 is for strongly agree) and deriving a simple
average of the 5 variables shown. Note that the scores for the workload question are
reversed, which result on an average of 3.66 (StdDev 0.68).
What Intern’s value
As shown in the table below, the ‘general satisfaction with the work assigned’ share little
variance with the workload (Pearson -0.360 p= 0.001), but holds a strong positive correlated
to the challenging and motivating nature of the work (Pearson 0.799, p = 0.001) and with
work that allowed professional growth (Pearson 0.706, p = 0.001). Suggesting that most
interns value the motivating and challenging work
That said only 41 out of the 77 that reported a ‘general satisfaction with the assigned work’
also reported a high or very high overall satisfaction with the internship. The weak correlation
of 0.476 (p = 0.000) make it a poor predictor for the overall satisfaction of the internship.
Infact ‘Work that allows learning and professional growth’ seems to be much more important
than the other factors when defining the overall level of satisfaction with an internship with a
correlation of 0.53 (pearson 0.530, p 0.001).
Overall level
of satisfa.
with your
I was generally
satisfied with
the work
Work was
challenging
and
There was
NOT enough
work for me to
Work was
relevant to my
future studies
Work allowed
me to learn
and grow
12

internship assigned motivating do /career professionally
Overall level of
satisfaction with
your internship
Pearson Corr. 1 .476**
.444**
-.324**
.313**
.530**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .001 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101
I was generally
satisfied with the
work assigned
Pearson Corr. .476**
1 .799**
-.360**
.620**
.706**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101
Work was
challenging and
motivating
.799**
1 -.408**
.568**
.638**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101
There was NOT
enough work for
me to do
Pearson Corr. -.324**
-.360**
-.408**
1 -.276**
-.224*
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .005 .025
N 101 101 101 101 101 101
Work was relevant
to my future studies
/career
.620**
.568**
-.276**
1 .677**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .005 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101
Work allowed me to
learn and grow
professionally
.706**
.638**
-.224*
.677**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .025 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101
Work assigned
index
- - - - -
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 - - - - -
N 101 - - - - -
**correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed)
The correlation between the ‘level agreement on general satisfaction’ and the level of
agreements on other affirmations is strong, which suggest the selected factors for the
indicator are adequate. The only exception being the workload, which might suggest that
neither overwork or underwork are valued by interns. The weak correlation between ‘the
overall level of satisfaction’ and ‘Work assigned index (pearson 0.510, p 0.001)’ suggests
there must be other factors not measured in this battery, which further influence the level of
satisfaction of an internship.
13

Satisfaction with your supervisor
Though 81% of interns were generally satisfied with their supervisor, other aspects like: clear
instructions, monitoring progress and regularly feedback show a more uniform distribution.
Suggesting that this practices are not common or very irregular amongst supervisors. The
shortcomings on monitoring and feedback are also repeatedly mentioned on the intern’s
comments for this section.
82% of interns agree that their supervisor was approachable (strongly agreed skewed) and
almost 60% thought he/she was giving them enough relevant work (agree skewed).
Additionally many interns note there is a general positive disposition but poor work planning.
Concentrating on the comments for the worst performing supervisor evaluations many
interns cite a lack of administrative capacity and work plans, but the most repeated
observation was the lack of intern-supervisor interaction. Either because the supervisor was
too busy, travelling, or was simply apathetic, the common pattern is the missing interaction
with a supervisor.
On the other hand, the open comment for the best rated supervisors index show mutual
appreciation and a maintained mentoring relationship with the supervisor. Another repeated
statement was the high level of experience of the mentors, this observation was found
repeatedly on positive evaluations (average of 3.8 and over on the supervisor index).
What interns value
As shown in the bivariate correlations table below the strongests correlations with the
‘general supervisor satisfaction’ is with ‘the supervisors approachability’ (0.768, p 0.001) and
his tendency to give clear instruction (0.708, p 0.001). This strong correlations suggest that
14

the best predictor for a satisfying supervisor is their approachability and their ease giving
clear instruction. This is supported by the scattered plots below, being the highest correlated
variable to the general satisfaction, the availability of the supervisor. Additionally the mean
difference on the overall satisfaction level between approachable and non approachable
supervisors was of -1.2 out of 7 (p 0.001).
Overall level
of satisfa.
with your
internship
I was
generally
satisfied with
my
supervisor
Gave me
clear
instructions
Monitored
progress
against
milestones &
deadlines
Regularly
discussion on
Performance
& Feedback
Approachabl
e for any
questions
Made sure I
had relevant
work
Overall level of
satisfa. with
your internship
Pearson Corr. 1 .512**
.456**
.461**
.401**
.321**
.461**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I was generally
satisfied with
my supervisor
1 .708**
.563**
.629**
.768**
.602**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Regularly
discussion on
Performance &
Feedback
.708**
1 .634**
.579**
.532**
.449**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I was generally
satisfied with
my supervisor
.563**
.634**
1 .764**
.424**
.463**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Regularly
discussion on
Performance &
Feedback
.629**
.579**
.764**
1 .555**
.520**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I was generally
satisfied with
my supervisor
.768**
.532**
.424**
.555**
1 .462**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Regularly
discussion on
Performance &
Feedback
.602**
.449**
.463**
.520**
.462**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Supervisor
Index
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 101
15

Satisfaction with the working environment
The working environment particular affirmations shows a smooth distribution skewed
towards the general agreement. Over 81% of the interns were satisfied with the working
environment in their division. The divisions appear to be helpful and supportive (74%
agreement). Only 50% of interns through their division as motivating, with even lower rates
of agreements were the affirmations regarding administrative procedures and on-boarding
support.
What interns value
As shown in the table below there is a strong correlation between the general satisfaction
with the environment in the division and the motivating environment and supportive colleges.
The environment index shows a weak but significant correlation to the overall satisfaction on
the internship.
16

Overall level of
satisfaction
with your
internship
I was generally
satisfied with
the
environment in
the division
Division
environment
was motivating
Colleagues_ in
the Division
were
supportive and
helpful
Colleagues in
other parts of
ESCAP
supportive and
helpful
Administrative
procedures
clear and easy
Support
provided before
on boarding
was adequate
Overall level of
satisfaction
with your
internship
Pearson
Correlation
1 .362**
.462**
.372**
.122 .145 .074
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .226 .148 .463
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
I was generally
satisfied with
the working
environment in
the division
Pearson
Correlation
.362**
1 .825**
.715**
.409**
.379**
.382**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
The
environment in
the Division
was motivating
Pearson
Correlation
.462**
.825**
1 .732**
.390**
.335**
.350**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Colleagues in
the Division
were helpful
and supportive
Pearson
Correlation
.372**
.715**
.732**
1 .511**
.316**
.351**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Colleagues in
other parts of
ESCAP were
helpful and
supportive
Pearson
Correlation
.122 .409**
.390**
.511**
1 .477**
.376**
Sig. (2-tailed) .226 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Administrative
procedures
were clear and
easy
Pearson
Correlation
.145 .379**
.335**
.316**
.477**
1 .712**
Sig. (2-tailed) .148 .000 .001 .001 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Support
provided before
on-boarding
was adequate
Pearson Corr. .074 .382**
.350**
.351**
.376**
.712**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .463 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
Work
Environment
index
N 101
**[[compare low ranking groups with high ranking groups (dummy) on particular variables to
estimate their valuation by interns.]]
In conclusion the internship programmes in general show an acceptable level of satisfaction
on the three particular areas measured. The clearest shortcomings identified are regarding
the supervisor and working environment. The lack of feedback and progress monitoring
milestones are not only missing at program level, but also at an individual level, with 38% of
interns not having monitoring and 32% of them lacking feedback from their supervisors.
In hand with the low levels of monitoring and feedback the workload is polarized, 64%
interns having too much work, while 21% report not having enough. It is worth noting that
improvements on the management, like planning of work and objectives, could directly
increase the agreement on these affirmations.
Regarding the working environment, the low levels of pre-onboarding support (not adequate
for 30% of interns) and the complexity of administrative procedures (unclear for 33% of
interns) could be improved by an induction talk, or welcome package for all new interns
every month. This should include the structure of the internship, hierarchy of office, the
setting of objectives for the internship and a meeting for their revision.
17

Satisfaction with the work you were assigned Strongly Agree
or Agree
Strongly Disagree
or Disagree
I was generally satisfied with the work assigned 78% 12%
Work was challenging and motivating 61% 21%
There was NOT enough work for me to do [reversed] 64% 22%
Work was relevant for my future studies/career 69% 10%
Work allowed me to learn and grow professionally 70% 12%
Satisfaction with your supervisor Strongly Agree
or Agree
Strongly Disagree
or Disagree
I was generally satisfied with my supervisor 82% 10%
My supervisor gave me clear instructions 62% 25%
My supervisor monitored my progress against milestones and
deadlines
39% 38%
My supervisor regularly discussed my performance and provided
feedback
45% 32%
My supervisor was approachable for any questions 81% 10%
My supervisor made sure I had enough relevant work 58% 20%
Satisfaction with the working environment Strongly Agree
or Agree
Strongly Disagree
or Disagree
I was generally satisfied with the working environment in the division 80% 12%
The environment in the Division was motivating 51% 19%
Colleagues in the Division were helpful and supportive 74% 11%
Colleagues in other parts of ESCAP were helpful and supportive 51% 11%
Administrative procedures were clear and easy 39% 33%
Support provided before on-boarding was adequate 48% 30%
18

From the correlations between particular aspects of the internship, we can speculate the
best predictors, or most important factors for an intern’s satisfaction. The biggest incidence
on the overall satisfaction is the supervisor index with a pearson coefficient of 0.542 (sig
0.001). Work index has a pearson correlation of 0.53 (sig 0.001). Working environment index
shows the lowest correlation with a 0.482. Though not a particularly strong or weak
correlations this could be used to analyze the interns priorities for a satisfactory placement.
To further illustrate this point top and lowest ratings are compared: by comparing the overall
satisfaction (mean) from the 30 top and 30 bottom ranked responses of each measured
aspect (assigned work, supervisor, working environment) we are also able to take an idea of
how much each of this aspects affects the overall satisfaction. The table below shows the
dummy variable regression unstandardized beta coefficients and their level of significance.
Unstandardized B Std. Error Sig
Working Environment Dummy 0.981 0.273 0.001
Assigned Work Dummy 1.332 0.272 0.000
Supervisor Dummy 1.531 0.234 0.000
*All this dummy regressions passed the assumptions of Normality of standardized residuals, PP plot and the Durbin-Watson test
for autocorrelation.
As shown by the table above the largest difference between the top and lowest ranking is in
the supervisors index, with a Beta of 1.531(p 0.001), the second is assigned work (B 1.332,
p 0.001) and the third is working environment with a B of only 0.981 (p 0.001). Look at the
patterns in their written comments amongst this highest and lowest.
Common mentioned points
Though only valid for some divisions or agencies the following points have been mentioned
with high frequency and are worth noting on the analysis.
Lack of pay or stipend
Though all interns are aware of the internship conditions before starting, 40% of responses
mention the lack of pay during the internship as a negative aspect or as something to
improve on the programme. Making it the most repeated single comment in the sample.
Some of the reasons to express this include: Inabilities to attract best talent, higher chance
interns are not valued or not given relevant work because the cost of their placement is very
low, and no equality of opportunity for interns of developing countries. Most suggest a
minimum stipend to cover food and reduction on facilities fee (i.e. Gym, Library). It is worth
noting that there was no significant difference in the overall level of satisfaction or any other
quantitative indicator between intern that mentioned stipend and the ones that did not.
19

No Clarity, Work nor Plan
15% of interns mention the lack of clear instructions and 27% mention no work or structured
work plan as a negative comment. Combined this topic becomes very relevant to improve
the internship experience. Together with lack of evaluation, this item is repeated between the
worst performing responses. To solve this issues some interns suggest preparing a relevant
work plan at the beginning of the internship or focus internships on particular tasks or
projects and avoid having interns as work force for last minute or unwanted tasks. Providing
internship targets would also allow to address the third most popular negative comment:
Value of work and motivation
27% of interns commented that their work was not valued or motivating, some mention that
the work was not challenging for their level of abilities and that they wish they had more
responsibility. It is worth noting that the responses that mention low motivation and work
value also show a 4% lower satisfaction with the workplace and the work assigned than the
interns that did not mentioned this issues (p 0.05).
Disaggregation
The survey collects voluntary information on division of placement, origin of funding, years of
experience and length of placement. The following section explores possible differences on
the levels of satisfaction by this factors. This is to identify program shortcomings or
outperformance of division and facilitate the communication of best practices.
Divisions
Taking a closer look at individual UN agencies and ESCAP divisions the overall satisfaction
level varies substantially from division to division. It is worth noting that stating the division
was not mandatory for the respondents to guarantee anonymity on the survey. Consequently
some divisions do not have enough data points to be statistically significant. Based on the
recommendation by Norman, 2010 I have chosen to only analyze the divisions that at least
have 5 responses. Hence only 4 divisions can be compared parametrically : EDD, TD, TIID,1
SD.
Below we can see histograms on the “overall level of satisfaction” reported by divisions. The
ESCAP Trade innovation and investment Division (TIID) shows a distribution similar to that
of the entire sample, skewed towards a high level of satisfaction, and so do most divisions.
On the other hand the Environmental Development Division with 9 respondents shows a
polarized satisfaction. Below find the distribution for some of the divisions with over 4
respondents.
1
Calculate Means, Standard deviation, regressions and T-test.
20

The table below shows the average score of the questions asked under each of the three
categories (workplace, assigned work and supervisor) averaged into an indicator (likert
scale), to see the detailed tables look at annex 3. The overall satisfaction scale is 1 to 7,
seven being very high and one being very low levels of satisfaction. The workplace,
assigned work and Supervisor are scored 1 to 5 with 5 being the best performing score.
Average levels of satisfaction Overall
1->7
Workplace
1->5
Assigned
Work
1->5
Supervisor
1->5
Division or
Agency
Count
EDD 9 4.2 2.7 3.4 2.6
ILO 4 5.0 2.8 3.6 3.3
SCAS 3 5.0 3.8 3.2 4.1
SDD 4 5.3 3.6 3.9 3.5
Statistics D. 7 5.1 3.8 3.8 4
TIID 16 4.8 3.4 3.1 3.2
Transport D. 6 4.8 3.4 4 3.7
UNDP 3 6.3 3 4.6 3.4
UNODC 4 5.5 3.9 3.8 3.8
(OTHER) 45 5.5 3.6 3.8 3.7
All 101 5.2 3.4 3.7 3.5
It is worth noting that from the results shown above only 2 of the mean comparisons for the
overall level of satisfaction are statistically significant (p 0.05), due to the small samples for
each division.Nonetheless, EDD holds the lowest satisfaction level in 3 of the major
indicators: the overall level of satisfaction, the supervisor indicator and the workplace
indicator. For the assigned work TIID shows the lowest comparable scores.
See annex 3 for detailed tables on all statistically significant differences amongst divisions.
Overall level of satisfaction
Division/Agency_I Division/Agnecy_J Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
EDD OTHER -1.2667*
.4462 .006
TIID OTHER -.7389*
.3557 .041
22

Supervisor Indicator
EDD Statistics Division -1.4550*
0.4516 0.002
EDD Transport Division -1.1019*
0.4723 0.021
EDD OTHER -1.0963*
0.3272 0.001
TIID Statistics Division -.8289*
0.4061 0.044
Workplace Indicator
EDD Statistics Division -1.0873* 0.3911 0.007
EDD TIID -.7049* 0.3233 0.032
EDD OTHER -.9111* 0.2834 0.002
Assigned Work Indicator
Division/Agency_1 Division/Agnecy_2 Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
TIID Transport Division -.86250* 0.3931 0.031
TIID OTHER -.64472* 0.2390 0.008
EDD
This division shows a consistency of low scores across the canvas. Scoring significantly
lowest in areas of work environment such as motivation and the supportive staff. At the same
time EDD’s low performance in the supervisors index are explained by the lowest scores
across divisions regarding the supervisors tendency to not measure progress, give feedback
or clear instructions. the highest difference (1.4) recorded in the supervisors index with
Statistics Division (p 0.01).
Cases like that of EDD require a closer look to explain their significantly lower performance
across indicators. Qualitative responses provide possible explanations for such results.
Under working environment EDD interns mentioned poor integration to the team and feeling
little or no appreciation from the colleagues. As well as unprofessional behaviour from
supervisor towards interns. Some interns appoint their negative valuation on serious
problems within the office environment including petty fights, name calling and in one
extreme case “Bullying”.
In line with the results of the quantitative analysis, 7 out of 9 interns commented in some way
23

that their experience depended on the supervisor and the relationship with him/her . Some2
comments point to the supervisor’s inability to provide a work plan or clear goals. It is worth
noting that this survey was open for interns that served before the division of EDD and some
of their sub sections such as the energy division.
TIID
TIID’s performance is low under the assigned work indicator because most interns report
that there was not enough work to be done, and the work given, was not leading to
professional growth nor useful for the future career (see annex VI for detailed tables).
Though TIID did show better performance on the workplace indicator, it lags behind on
division’s motivation and helpfulness of staff. Regarding the division’s supervisors they
scored significantly higher in approachability than other divisions, but failed to regularly
assign relevant work in comparison with other divisions.
An explanation for the low performance, as pointed out by anonym intern comments, could
be the relative low presence of longer placements on the division. As seen in the graph
below. This is contradicted by the table showing that the longer placements (5) have the
lowest scores particularly on the underperforming area of TIID “assigned work” (highlighted).
TIID average satisfaction levels by placement length
Months Overall level of
satisfaction
all variables Workplace
Indicator
Assigned
Work
Indicator
Supervisor
Indicator
3 4.7 3.3 3.8 3 3
4 4.3 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.6
5 6 3.7 3.5 3.6 4.2
6 4.8 2.9 2.7 2.9 3
2
In a general note regarding the qualitative responses collected, some responses mention specific names in
positive and negative circumstances. This evaluation believed unnecessary to repeat publicly for 2 reasons. First
accusations and public defamation with no concrete proof would seriously undermine the main objective of this
document which is the creation of a responsible evaluation process for the intern programme. Second, the main
issues regarding divisions like EDD’s performance is one of office environment, which must be solved as a team
rather than by name calling that would only result in alienating member and further damaging the division and its
sections. On the other hand identified positive supervisors or divisions could be privately interviewed to better
understand their approach and method.
24

SD
As one of the best evaluated division it comes as a surprise that many of the comments seen
in other poorer performing division, regarding assigned work, are also present in the
qualitative responses for SD. This include the need for better defined deadlines, little
feedback, and missing on-boarding material. The main difference being a string of positive
feedback regarding the supervisors and positive reception by the division. Mentioning the
inclusion in the division dynamics (celebrations, games, shows) and the possibility to expose
their work during division weekly meetings leading to appreciation/discussion by staff of all
ranks.
The qualitative responses show that interns satisfaction with the internship experience are
greatly dependant on the supervisor relationship. This concurs with the correlation found
between the quantitative data. Suggesting that improving the program's shortcomings on
induction, monitoring or feedback should be addressed within a supervisor/intern relationship
improving framework (i.e. mandatory 1hr online course for new supervisors).
Length of Placement
The most common (mode) internship length was 6 months with 36% of interns, but
combined 3 and 4 months account for almost half (49%) of the internships. This polarized
distribution could be explained because most supervisors prefer longer internships and at
the same time most student only have 3-4 months for internship.
25

Interns that had longer placements did report significant higher levels of satisfaction.
The table and graph below show a weak, but statistically significant positive linear
relationship (Beta 0.202) between the length of the internship and the overall level of
satisfaction of interns, with a p-value (0.043).
It is worth noting that this difference could be product of multiple mechanisms at play, such
as self selection bias due to interns (and supervisors) having the potential of extending or
terminating (early) their placement. The difference could also be product of more time
invested on interns by their supervisors due to their expected higher yields on their efforts.
Additionally it could be a simple loss aversion by longer placed interns reporting higher
satisfaction as the placement took more effort-time(Arken, 1999).
26

Origin of funding
Regarding the origin of funding and the overall satisfaction reported there was no statistically
significant difference found between the overall level of satisfaction and any of the financing
categories: Family, Own Debt/ Saving, Private Sponsor or scholarship, and Public Sponsor
or Scholarship. At the same time there is no important difference on the distribution of
interns by financing source and division. Meaning that division do not show a bias towards
origin of funding with reference to the complete sample. Further selection or auto-selection
bias could be looked at with access to official application records in HR.
Previous Working Experience
There is was no significant correlation found between years of previous working experience
and the overall level of satisfaction reported by interns or any of the other 3 indicators. As
seen in the graph below most interest have some working experience, though the majority
do not go over 2 years.
Contingency table for Years of Previous working Experience and Overall Satisfaction
Overall Level of Satisfaction 0 y. 1y. 2y. 3y. 4y. 5y. +6y. (N/A) Grand Total
1 (Very Low) 1 1
2 1 1 1 3
3 1 1 1 1 2 6
4 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 13
5 11 5 7 3 1 7 34
6 3 8 2 3 2 1 1 12 32
7 (Very High) 1 6 1 1 1 2 12
Grand Total 17 16 18 7 6 4 5 28 101
27

Conclusions
Overall the United nations Internship programme shows successful levels of satisfaction
across the sample. This said, divisions show considerable and significant differences
amongst their satisfaction levels. The survey puts in evidence the shortcomings of the
programme regarding work plans, monitoring, feedback and working environment. The
evaluation shows that some divisions such as TIID must put better care in the usefulness
and amount of the assigned work. Divisions such as EDD on the other hand must look into
to the working environment and work monitoring as their performance in this areas are the
lowest of all divisions.
The survey also shows the points most “valued” by interns are having a good supervisor,
capable of mentoring and showing availability. An other indicator of a satisfactory internship
is the value given to the work assigned. Improving some of the lowest overall scoring
practices, such as proper planning of work, could improve this aspects. Foreseeing work
plans would allow interns to understand their part in a the bigger picture within the UN and
lead to more efficient use of the human capital within the organization.
Document recommendations
This document is an example of the benefits derived from the monitoring and evaluation of
the internship programme. Based on the work presented it is highly recommended to design
and instate an anonymous end-of-internship survey for both interns and supervisors across
UN divisions and Agencies. The available data will allow for significant results and accurate
28

outcomes assessments from both sides of the internship barter. By identifying under
performing divisions and producing recommendations for the supervisors and possible
improvements for the entire division, this evaluation could make internships more productive
for both supervisors and interns.The survey will also give protection to the interns as this will
provide a feedback on to the institution of their experience.
29

References
Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The Sunk Cost and Concorde Effects: Are Humans Less
Rational Than Lower Animals? Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 591–600.
Aisha Gani. (2015). UN employed more than 4,000 unpaid interns in 2012-13, figures show |
World news | The Guardian. Retrieved August 3, 2016, from
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/14/un-employed-thousands-unpaid-interns
Economist Intern. (2015). The Economist explains: Why the UN doesn’t pay its interns | The
Economist. Retrieved August 3, 2016, from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-15
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Educ Health, 17, 53–61.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
Nations, United. (2014). THE ESSENTIAL GUIDEBOOK FOR UNITED NATIONS .
Retrieved from https://hr.un.org/sites/hr.un.org/files/Essential_Guide_UN_final_0.pdf
Nations, United. (2015). Composition of the Secretariat: staff demographics, 21827(July
2014). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/70/605
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “‘laws’” of statistics.
Springer. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
United nations Secretariat. (2000). ST:AI:2000:9 United Nations internship programme.
Secretariat Administrative Instruction, (19 september). Retrieved from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4hlWUTmlYxWWHNJQS05dFRCVjQ/view
United nations Secretariat. (2014). ST:AI:2014:1 United Nations internship programme, (13
january). Retrieved from
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4hlWUTmlYxWUHdUWFhxYUNnWkU/view
Wynes, M. D., & Posta, I. (2009). INTERNSHIPS IN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM. UN
JIU/NOTE/2009/2. Retrieved from
https://www.unjiu.org/en/reports-notes/JIU%20Products/JIU_NOTE_2009_2_English.pdf
30

ANNEXES
Annex I
List of changes in the AI responsible of defining the internship programme
● Scope; Instruction is for Secretariat offices and each duty station can set specific
arrangements (Information circular)
● Eligibility, minor conditions changed.
● Terms of the internship change in tone and limitations
● Status. Interns now can apply for some limited positions during and immediately after
their internship.
● Responsibilities and obligations, removal of condition that assignments must be
“meaningful for both the department/office and the intern”. Regarding feedback
responsibilities the removal of a mandatory end-of-internship written evaluation of the
intern’s performance and meeting to provide constructive feedback. Plus the addition
of 2 more conditions regarding the respect of local laws and the immediate
termination.
● Remuneration. Addition of no remuneration in case of loss of personal items or
damage to third parties during the internship period
● Limit to location to family duty stations
● Partnerships with institutions must be approved by Assistant Secretary-General for
Human Resources Management.
● Addition of conditions regarding Posting of internship opportunities, applications,
evaluations and selection.
Annex II
Survey questions link
31

Annex III
Averages of agreement level by statement regarding the satisfaction level of the Interns by
subject (Assigned work, Supervisor, Working environment). Results are color coded to help
identify trends, for all variables green represents higher level of agreement (5) red low level
of agreement with statement. The only column (variable) were this is not the case is for the
statement “There was NOT enough work for me to do” under Assigned work, where the color
coding is inverted as it is a negative statement. Count (sample size) does not add up due to
divisions that do not have more that 3 replies are not rendered in this tables.
Assigned Work
Average of Satisfaction with the work you were assigned [ 1
Strongly disagree --> 5 Strongly Agree ]
Division or
Agency
Work
allowed
me to
learn and
grow
professio
nally
Work was
relevant for
my future
studies/car
eer
There was
NOT
enough
work for me
to do
Work was
challenging
and
motivating
I was
generally
satisfied
with the
work
assigned
Count
EDD 3.1 3.4 1.9 3.2 3.1 9.0
ILO 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.8 3.8 4.0
SCAS 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.0
SDD 4.0 3.8 2.3 4.0 4.0 4.0
Statistics
Division
4.1 3.4 2.0 3.1 4.1 7.0
TIID 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.5 16.0
Transport
Division
4.0 4.3 2.2 3.7 4.2 6.0
UNDP 4.7 4.3 1.3 4.7 4.7 3.0
UNODC 4.0 3.5 1.8 3.3 3.8 4.0
(blank) 3.9 3.8 2.6 3.3 3.8 26.0
All responses 3.8 3.8 2.5 3.4 3.8 101.0
32

Supervisor
Average of Satisfaction with your supervisor [ 1
Strongly disagree --> 5 Strongly Agree ]
Division or
Agency
I was
generally
satisfied
with my
superviso
r
My
supervisor
gave me
clear
instructions
My
supervisor
monitored
my
progress
against
milestones
and
deadlines
My
supervisor
regularly
discussed
my
performanc
e and
provided
feedback
My
supervisor
made sure
I had
enough
relevant
work
My
superviso
r was
approach
able for
any
questions
Count
EDD 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.2 3.4 3.0 9.0
ILO 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.0
SCAS 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.7 3.0
SDD 4.0 3.8 3.0 2.5 3.8 3.8 4.0
Statistics
Division
4.4 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.9 4.7 7.0
TIID 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.9 16.0
Transport
Division
4.2 3.2 2.8 3.7 4.3 4.0 6.0
UNDP 4.7 2.3 2.3 3.3 4.3 3.7 3.0
UNODC 4.3 4.0 3.0 2.8 3.8 4.8 4.0
(blank) 4.1 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.3 4.2 26.0
All responses 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.5 4.1 101.0
33

Working
Environment
Average of Satisfaction with the working environment [ 1 Strongly
disagree --> 5 Strongly Agree ]
Division or
Agency
Support
provided
before
on-boardi
ng was
adequate
Administrati
ve
procedures
were clear
and easy
Colleagues
in other
parts of
ESCAP
were
helpful and
supportive
Colleagues
in the
Division
were
helpful and
supportive
The
environmen
t in the
Division
was
motivating
I was
generally
satisfied
with the
working
environm
ent in the
division
Count
EDD 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.6 9.0
ILO 1.8 2.0 3.0 3.8 3.0 3.3 4.0
SCAS 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.0
SDD 3.8 3.5 4.0 3.8 3.3 3.5 4.0
Statistics
Division
3.3 3.4 3.4 4.3 4.0 4.4 7.0
TIID 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.5 2.9 3.6 16.0
Transport
Division
3.5 3.0 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.7 6.0
UNDP 1.3 1.3 2.7 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.0
UNODC 3.5 3.3 3.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.0
(blank) 3.0 3.1 3.6 4.1 3.5 4.1 26.0
All responses 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.9 3.4 3.9 101.0
34

Annex V
Correlation with Overall level of satisfaction with your internship
work_assigned_I_was_generally_satisf Pearson Correlation .476**
N 101
work_assigned_Work_was_challengi Pearson Correlation .444**
N 101
work_assigned_There_was_NOT_enough_work Pearson Correlation -.324**
N 101
work_assigned_Work_was_relevant_to_my_future_studies_career Pearson Correlation .313**
N 101
work_assigned_Work_allowed_me_to_grow_professionally Pearson Correlation .530**
N 101
supervisor_I_was_generally_satisfied_with_my_supervisor Pearson Correlation .512**
N 101
supervisor_My_supervisor_gave_me_clear_instructions Pearson Correlation .456**
N 101
supervisor_My_supervisor_monitored_my_progress_against Pearson Correlation .461**
N 101
supervisor_My_supervisor_regularly_discu_Perfor_Feedback Pearson Correlation .401**
N 101
supervisor_My_supervisor_was_approachable Pearson Correlation .321**
N 101
supervisor_My_supervisor_made_sure_I_had_relevant_work Pearson Correlation .461**
N 101
work_environ_I_was_generally_satisfied_enviroin_division Pearson Correlation .362**
N 101
work_environ_Division_envi_was_motivating Pearson Correlation .462**
N 101
work_environ_Colleagues_in_the_Div_supportive_helpful Pearson Correlation .372**
N 101
work_environ_Colleagues_in_ESCAP_supportive_helpful Pearson Correlation .122
N 101
work_environ_Administrative_procedures_clear_easy Pearson Correlation .145
35

N 101
work_environ_Support_provided_before_onbording_addequate Pearson Correlation .074
N 101
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlations Satisfaction and evaluation indicators
Overall level of
satisfaction with
your internship
Workplace
Satisfaction
Indicator
Supervisor
Satisfaction
Indicator
Assigned
Work
Satisfaction
Indicator
Overall level of
satisfaction with your
internship
Pearson Correlation 1 .337**
.542**
.510**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101
Workplace Satisfaction
Indicator
Pearson Correlation .337**
1 .506**
.379**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101
Supervisor Satisfaction
Indicator
.506**
1 .715**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101
Assigned Work
Satisfaction Indicator
.379**
.715**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 101 101 101 101
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
36

Annex VI
The tables below show all the significant mean differences between divisions. All means
hold values from 1 to 5, where one indicates strong disagreement with statement and 5
strong agreement with the statement. All Divisions in Column J show higher scores than the
ones in column I.
Significant Mean Differences Between Divisions on:
Overall level of Satisfaction
Division/Agency_I Division/Agnecy_J
Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
EDD OTHER -1.2667*
.4462 .006
TIID OTHER -.7389*
.3557 .041
General satisfaction with the work assigned
EDD Transport Division -1.0556* 0.5214 0.046
EDD OTHER -.8000* 0.3612 0.029
There was NOT enough work for me to do
EDD TIID -1.4236* 0.4482 0.002
Statistics Division TIID -1.3125* 0.4875 0.008
Transport Division TIID -1.1458* 0.5150 0.029
OTHER TIID -.8903* 0.3131 0.006
Work allowed for learning and professional growth
EDD OTHER -.8222* 0.3734 0.030
TIID Statistics Division -1.0804* 0.4634 0.022
TIID OTHER -.8708* 0.2976 0.004
37

Work relevant to future studies/career
TIID Transport Division -.9583* 0.4815 0.050
TIID OTHER -.6472* 0.2928 0.030
Supervisor gives clear instructions
0.5484 0.006
EDD OTHER -1.3778*
0.3973 0.001
Supervisor monitors progress against milestones and deadlines
0.6057 0.017
EDD OTHER -1.2000*
0.4389 0.007
Supervisor’s regularly discussing performance and providing feedback
0.6108 0.008
EDD Transport Division -1.4444*
0.6388 0.026
EDD OTHER -1.0444*
0.4426 0.020
Supervisor’s approachability for any questions
0.5243 0.001
EDD TIID -.9375*
0.4335 0.033
EDD OTHER -1.2444*
0.3799 0.001
Supervisor providing enough relevant work
TIID Transport Division -1.5208*
0.5613 0.008
38

I was generally satisfied with the working environment in the division
EDD TIID -1.0694* 0.4027 0.009
EDD Transport Division -1.1111* 0.5094 0.032
EDD OTHER -1.6222* 0.3529 0.000
The environment in the Division was motivating
EDD OTHER -1.2000* 0.3772 0.002
TIID Statistics Division -1.1250* 0.4681 0.018
TIID OTHER -.7694* 0.3007 0.012
Colleagues in the Division were helpful and supportive
EDD OTHER -1.3333* 0.3534 0.000
TIID OTHER -.6111* 0.2817 0.033
39

Independent evaluation of the united nations internship program results & proposals

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Independent evaluation of the united nations internship program results & proposals

Similar to Independent evaluation of the united nations internship program results & proposals (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Independent evaluation of the united nations internship program results & proposals