Evaluation of UNHCR's decentralization and regionalization reform

EVO/2024/10

In 2016, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) set in motion one of the most far-reaching transformations in UNHCR’s history, intended to enhance the agility and timeliness of its support to forcibly displaced and stateless persons. The transformation had several dimensions, at the heart of which was the aim to decentralize and regionalize the organization. This reform introduced a new organizational design, implemented through the (re)location of Regional Bureaux from Geneva to strategic global locations, the redistribution of workforce, and the granting of new devolved authorities to senior managers in regions, Country Offices, National Offices and Sub-Offices.

Six years after the reform's initiation, an independent evaluation was commissioned to assess its design, implementation, and outcomes. The evaluation’s findings and recommendations are intended to contribute to ongoing adjustments and strategic refinements as UNHCR continues to adapt to an increasingly complex operational environment.

The evaluation focused on the D&R reform from its inception in 2017 to 2023, with particular focus on its implementation phase from 2019 to 2023. It has assessed changes within the four dimensions of a target operating model: strategy; people, organization and governance; processes; and technology.

The evaluation aimed to determine the relevance, coherence, sustainability, efficiency and effectiveness of the D&R reform. It covered macro-level design, implementation factors, and the reform's impact on operational effectiveness, agility, and support for broader goals of One UN and the GCR. The geographical scope included headquarters (HQ) and all UNHCR regions, with a focus on changes at regional, national, and sub-national levels.

The evaluation sought to answer the following evaluation questions:

• Design principles, approach and implementation processes: How relevant, appropriate and feasible was the design and planning approach taken in the D&R reform? How effectively did UNHCR manage the reform process? What were the unintended consequences? What can be learnt to inform the future?
• Reform outcomes: Have the intended results of the reform been realized?
• Organizational outcomes: To what extent has UNHCR delivered on the key intended strategic vision and outcomes of the reform?
• Lessons and recommendations: What are the good practices that can be built upon, the effective aspects of the reform and the possibilities not considered?

View inception report (pdf, 2.59 MB)

With respect to vision, objectives and change management

• Strong alignment between D&R and both UNHCR’s strategic directions and UN reform
• Strong reform vision but lack of a clearly defined end state impeding effective change management and tracking of progress.
• Change process insufficient in engaging staff and fell short in learning the lessons from previous decentralization experiences.
• Lack of a D&R budget prevented the assessment of total cost of the reform. However, expenditure distribution across the organization point to trends in line with the D&R reforms, with the share of expenditure shifting from HQ towards country and regional levels.

With respect to strategic planning processes

• Reform of strategic planning processes, including the new results management system - Compass – aligned with and supported the objectives of D&R by decentralizing decision-making to the field.
• Increased involvement of regional bureaux in planning processes of county operations since D&R, exercising delegated authorities and streamlining decision-making.
• However, challenges persist in aligning global priorities with regional/country contexts.

With respect to resource management

• Revised resource allocation framework has enhanced autonomy, but donor earmarking and procedural challenges limit practical utility.
• National staff recruitment is more efficient than before, while the impact on international recruitment is unclear. 
• Centralized approval processes hinder recruitment and budget reallocation efforts.

With respect to organizational architecture

• Flexibility provided during the design of D&R led to variations in the configuration of functional pillars in the regional bureaux. The appropriateness of the location and number of RBs is still subject to debate.
• At national and sub-national levels, D&R structures were adapted to existing organizational architectures. While this responded to country needs, challenges were identified in in field classifications and matrix CO structures.

With respect to functions and staffing

• Capacity at MCO/CO level has increased, in line with D&R objectives, however, no substantial HQ reduction has taken place contrary to plans.
• Lack of defined workforce strategy and skills mapping hinders thorough understanding of current staffing structures and their alignment with D&R objectives.
• Decentralization of training has allowed it to become more contextually adapted, but the absence of central oversight threatens the global coherence of capacity development.

With respect to roles, accountabilities and authorities (RAA)

• RAA framework not widely known or used beyond senior management.
• Dissemination activities of the RAA fell short in ensuring proper adoption of the framework across all levels of the organization.
• No RAA at national office or sub-office levels where accountabilities also lie.

With respect to technical support and oversight

• D&R reform aimed to decentralize authority and strengthen oversight, but the revised model creates overlaps. Dual roles across MCOs/COs, RBs, and HQ create confusion in oversight responsibilities. Regional bureaus prioritize technical support over second line oversight, despite added capacity from regional risk advisors, and regional evaluation officers.

With respect to culture and ways of working

• Culture has been identified as a key enabler of the D&R reform but has been largely overlooked in implementation. 
• The lack of a strong, overarching cultural strategy and the impact of COVID-19 led to significant variations in the evolution of culture in regions, driven by individual leadership personalities.

With respect to partnerships

• D&R strengthened UNHCR's collaboration and responsiveness to partners through regional presence and increased capacity at regional and country levels.
• The degree of regionalization of some strategic partners limits these benefits. Management of donor relations remains centralized in many cases.
• Local fundraising remains limited due, in part, to unclear eligibility criteria and rules on budget allocations.

With respect to operational delivery

• D&R reform increased agility and efficiency during emergencies, including enhanced coordination with stakeholders.
• Implementation of resource allocation authorities varied across operations.
• RBx' proximity to operations has generally improved understanding of local contexts and operational challenges, enabling more responsive and context-specific oversight.  
• There is growing technical protection capacity at regional and local levels, though capacity is uneven.  
• Supply in both emergency and non-emergency settings seems to have become more efficient due to regional procurement, however, disparities between regions persist.

With respect to technology enablers

• New technology systems support D&R reform goals, but rollout faced challenges.
• Centralized functionalities and distributed ownership hindered adoption.
• Compressed training timelines limited the effectiveness of new systems.

Recommendations suggested throughout the report have been consolidated into the following 13 key recommendations, which are elaborated with further details in the body of the report:

• Recommendation 1: Review the existing planning processes and related consultative mechanisms with the intent to enable COs to prioritize between various global and regional priorities more effectively.
• Recommendation 2: Further optimize the balance between flexibility and global coherence related to the Results-Based Management system by finetuning the core indicators.
• Recommendation 3: Foster transparency and common understanding on resource allocation criteria and parameters for prioritization of emergency funds.  
• Recommendation 4: Further decentralize the underlying processes aligned to the authorities granted under the Resource Allocation Framework.
• Recommendation 5: Improve coherence in organizational design of RBx and in classification of offices at the sub-national level.
• Recommendation 6: Streamline coordination in a matrix organization to effectively service smaller operations.
• Recommendation 7: Strengthen workforce planning to inform staffing structures and optimal staffing. This effort should be supported and informed by a comprehensive skills mapping exercise. The data on skills must be better captured, periodically updated, and made available for workforce planning and staffing. 
• Recommendation 8: Establish an organization-wide learning strategy, including clear responsibilities on training and minimum learning curricula in relevant areas to ensure consistency in learning outcomes and capacity across all regions.
• Recommendation 9: Align Roles, Accountabilities and Authorities (RAA) with D&R architecture and ensure accountability of senior management for establishing clear responsibilities in their respective entities using the RAA as a starting point and for driving their socialization within their respective entities.
• Recommendation 10: Translate existing frameworks (Roles, Accountabilities and Authorities/Three Lines Model) into specific regional oversight plans underpinned by risk assessments. 
• Recommendation 11: Prioritize desired changes in UNHCR’s organizational culture to create an enabling environment for D&R.    
• Recommendation 12: Strengthen measures to capitalize on resource mobilization and partnership opportunities.
• Recommendation 13: Delegate authority for user rights within the Business Transformation Programme in line with D&R principles. 

Learn more about the next steps that will be taken to strengthen UNHCR’s decentralization and regionalization.

Management response