further. The need for flexibility by the Secretariat means an increased reliance on STC/ETC staff. The uncertainty of short term contracts adds to the challenge of building a strong/stable Secretariat team e.g. ETC’s cannot, for example, be task managers with authority over budgets. While the recent burst flexibility of to recruit’ remains an area of some tension between the Secretariat and HDNVP. procedures for hiring Secretariat staff and (as above) terms for the participation by the GPE Board in senior recruitments (also see staff rules below). High Bank rules on procurement are there to support core Bank business but are often too limiting for the scale and type of contracting undertaken by the Secretariat. This slows down & adds costs to Secretariat and delivery. Currently Secretariat staff lead on procurement themselves which adds costly steps to the process as not all are equally familiar with the rules and exemptions etc. The Secretariat’s current decision to recruit a ‘Resources Manager’ with responsibility for leading on procurement should significantly aid current procurement processes. Training/sharing of good practice within the Secretariat on the scope for more flexible/smarter ways of doing business. The Secretariat needs to develop a stronger voice in working with the service departments of the Bank along with dedicated HR/procurement and IT contact persons within Bank service departments Secretariat with WB HR to finalise recruitment of a Resources Manager asap. Secretariat to ensure internal knowledge sharing on engaging effectively with Bank systems. ‘How to’s’ developed to assist recruitment, and flexible procurement etc. Resources Manager as above October 2012 Ongoing Ongoing GPE staff are able to quickly and efficiently procure goods and services to meet the needs of GPE operations. GPE staff are fully up to speed with Bank procurement processes and the flexibilities therein. Resources Manager Post filled. New and existing Secretariat staff show improved speed/confidence working with a range of Bank systems (measured through GPE staff and client surveys)
High Bank staff rules put all matters relating to the Bank – brand, identity etc - above that of GPE. Bank staff rules are a key part of the authorizing environment for the hosting arrangement but should not exclude the possibility of staff duly serving both the Bank and GPE on an equal footing A key principle of the MoU should include the simple statement that “for staff of the Secretariat, loyalty to the World Bank means duly serving the interests of GPE” (similar to what happens when WB staff are seconded to other organisations Board chair and WB senior management to agree as part of an MoU language to manage the staff rule for GPE staff as per WB secondees. Finalised by December 2012 GPE staff fully recognise and operationalize their accountability to GPE senior management and the Board. Clause on staff rules included in MoU High Bank-led performance management of the senior team in the Secretariat skews incentives and gives the appearance of greater accountability to Bank management than the GPE Board. MoU needs to clearly specify GPE Board involvement in senior leadership performance management through: (a) Possible establishment of a ‘performance management to oversee Secretariat performance (b) Drawing up a performance framework for Head/CEO to be monitored by the GPE Board. Board chair/nominated Board representatives agree with senior Bank management in HDN/HR a modus operandi (to be inserted in into MoU) for GPE formal engagement in performance management. Finalised by December 2012 GPE Chief Executive and senior Secretariat management are directly and fully accountable to the GPE Board. involvement in senior performance management formalised with clear performance goals being monitored by the Board on a regular basis.
High Bank financial reporting/charge codes do not give a readily accessible picture of the Secretariat operating costs to Board members and external stakeholders. Work on the presentation and transparency of cost data to for a clearer assessment of ‘cost of doing business and pass through cost’ with clearer benchmarking over time. Secretariat to (a) introduce a new/simplified format for tracking of doing business categorised clearly into Board governance, administrative and operational costs (b) ensure the timely production of the GPE Annual Report with cost data and portfolio performance data fully disclosed (c) production of a scorecard with cost vs. spend & portfolio performance data regularly presented to the GPE Board (see below). October 2012 for simplified cost data December 2012 for performance scorecard (see Greater transparency of of doing business and portfolio performance improves the regularity and quality of Board oversight of GPE operations. Scorecard and improved cost data regularly presented to Board and disclosed as part of Annual Report. High No clear/simple methodology for Secretariat reporting to the Board on key performance issues: from elapsed times for recruitment to portfolio performance and average disbursement rates. Develop a scorecard of key performance measures to be routinely shared with and monitored by the full Board. Secretariat with Ongoing for Annual Report. First scorecard by December 2012 Board oversight of the quality of GPE operations improves. Greater transparency of operational/ portfolio performance improves the quality of oversight of GPE operations. GPE Partner & processes Medium Managerial accountability is current weighted towards the host. There is a need to increase the managerial authority of the Board by increasing the amount of regular engagement/oversight on matters of operational importance to GPE. The working group agreed with the issue but felt further work was needed on a proportionate response that was also in tune 1. Appraise in more detail the pros and cons of establishing a (or alternative formulation) of the Board to take particular responsibility for administrative/ managerial & performance issues of the Secretariat. 2. Identify and in methods into regular 1. Board chair to get agreement from the Board in September 2012 to commission a short additional piece of work appraising ways to improve the managerial heft of the Board for decision at the December Board meeting. 2. Board chair to work with Board liaison to identify opportunities for November Board meeting A more engaged and responsive Board providing effective and timely oversight. CEO/Secretariat view the Board as having an equally important role in managerial oversight. Partners see an improvement in the accountability relationship between the Secretariat and the
both globally and at country level. Medium Secretariat quality assurance processes are relatively new. The FAC is functioning well but neither process draws on independent technical advice. Good practice would suggest an important role for independent technical input/challenge in order to improve the overall quality and relevance of sector plans and grant proposals. The working group are not yet decided on a proposal to address this issue but suggest additional thinking on how a virtual independent technical review panel could give feedback on a random selection of ESPs and grant proposals while acting as an appeals mechanism in the event of disputes over the quality/readiness of ESPs in particular. Appraise the potential contribution of a small but diverse panel of independent experts who would provide periodic input on the quality of ESPs and GPE grant proposals. Board chair to commission further work on the possible role and scope of work of a small independent (virtual) technical advisory panel for discussion at the November Board meeting. Independent panel members should be drawn from a broad expert pool across education and aid effectiveness (public, private and CSO). Decision taken by end 2012. members in place with clear ToR by mid 2013. High quality and timely feedback available to the and FAC on ESPs and grant development / implementation. Independent group/panel convened and operational. Partners report useful contributions from the Independent panel that improve the quality of plans and grant decisions. Operational model at country level High Local Education Groups/local donor groups often weak and most are insufficiently representative. Secretariat must devise a programme of active support to LEGs with a focus on creating inclusivity and being clear about performance viz GPE goals at country level. Secretariat finalises a strategy for support to LEGs/LDPs with clear benchmarks for assessing/comparing composition & performance and a specific focus on ensuring effective and broad-based CSO involvement and promoting better quality CSO engagement. Strategy in place and agreed by Board by December 2012 Support ongoing from October 2012 with regular monitoring Increased local/national CSO engagement in GPE processes. Greater Secretariat presence at country level helps to distinguish GPE’s mission Benchmarks show improvements in LEG composition & performance over a period in over half GPE countries.