The evaluation covered the period from January 2020 to October 2024 and aimed to identify good practices, challenges and lessons learned from current processes, mechanisms and structures in order to improve the timeliness of reporting, with a focus on identifying the root causes of delays and exploring opportunities to improve reporting timeliness. Specifically, the evaluation sought to determine whether factors such as project budget, duration, reporting workload, programme capacity and donor requirements correlated with delays in reporting. The evaluation also aimed to understand variations across UNITAR Programme Units and gather good practices from other UN organizations.

The evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach, combining desk review, stakeholder mapping, surveys and interviews. The evaluation covered 1,197 contributions and IP grant agreements, with a sample taken of 73 agreements for in-depth assessment. Surveys were deployed to UNITAR personnel, donors and IPs, with response rates of 29 per cent, 18 per cent and 24 per cent, respectively. Additionally, 38 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. The evaluation faced some challenges, particularly regarding data reliability, as the Project Tracking Tool (PTT) does not record the reports’ actual submission dates. Survey and interview participation was also affected by high workloads and end-of-year schedules, and the broad scope of the evaluation made it difficult to capture nuanced, case-specific insights. Additional limitations are contained in the report.

Effectiveness in Timely Reporting

The evaluation found that while UNITAR personnel, donors and IPs generally understand timely reporting as meeting the deadlines set in agreements, there are different interpretations of its importance. 

The evaluation found UNITAR’s adherence to reporting deadlines to be inconsistent. While 83 per cent of reports were uploaded to the PTT, 248 reports were unsubmitted at the time of the issuance of this report. Donors largely recognized UNITAR’s efforts to meet the established deadlines, with 67 per cent of respondents stating that deadlines were generally met, although occasional delays were acknowledged. 

The evaluation identified several factors contributing to timely or delayed reporting. High reporting workloads and limited staff capacity emerged as key challenges, with many Programme Unit teams describing themselves as understaffed and struggling to balance reporting obligations with other responsibilities. The size of the budget and donor relationships also played a role in determining which reports were prioritized. Another critical factor was access to financial data, with delays often arising due to the level of experience with the Quantum Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system and unclear understanding of roles, responsibilities and timelines for issuing the financial reports. Many IPs also faced challenges related to delayed implementation, from funding delays and administrative hurdles to limited monitoring and evaluation capacity, which impacted their ability to submit reports on schedule.

The evaluation identified organizational challenges as the root cause of reporting delays. In this regard, the perception that reporting is primarily the responsibility of programme managers, rather than a shared institutional duty, resulted in reporting tasks being given lower priority.

In terms of adaptability, both UNITAR and donor respondents expressed a willingness to adjust reporting requirements when necessary. Some donors accepted interim reports in lieu of final reports when delays were anticipated, and UNITAR was generally praised for being receptive to donor feedback and efforts to improve its reporting practices over time. While all donors confirmed that UNITAR’s reports met their expectations, some pointed out that reports tended to be overly detailed, making them difficult to digest. There was also a call for stronger links between narrative and financial reporting, with clearer explanations of financial allocations and project outcomes.

Reporting Processes, Systems or Mechanisms

The evaluation found that while UNITAR has structured reporting processes in place, financial reporting remains a significant challenge due to delays in the closure of obligations and timelines in the response processes. The evaluation found narrative reporting to be generally more straightforward, with programme managers collecting and drafting reports, which are then reviewed and approved at the Programme Unit level. However, financial reporting requires coordination between programme teams and the Finance and Budget Unit (FBU), creating additional processes and expectations to manage.

To ensure timely reporting, some units have adopted good practices, such as establishing internal deadlines well in advance of donor deadlines, assigning reporting focal points to oversee data collection, establishing a Quality Assurance team and preparing financial report drafts to accelerate the delivery of these reports. The use of automated reminder systems in the PTT has also been helpful in keeping reporting deadlines visible, though the system does not currently provide joint project-specific notifications, which limits its effectiveness.

The evaluation noted the steps and additional controls taken by UNITAR Management in late 2024 to mitigate late narrative and financial reports, including the requirement that IP reporting obligations be compliant prior to subsequent grant payments and for IPs to provide justification for late reports falling outside of a four-week grace period. 

Lessons from Other UN Organizations

The evaluation also considered reporting practices from other UN organizations and identified several good practices that UNITAR could possibly adopt. For example, some UN organizations enhance reporting by using standardized templates and training counterparts for better compliance. The Food and Agriculture Organization allows using native language for reporting for country offices and the International Training Center of the International Labour Organization (ITC-ILO) uses digital briefs and focuses on real-time data availability for speeding up submissions. Also, the Joint Inspection Unit recommends commensurate reporting for small contributions and pooled funding and standardized agreements to reduce reporting burdens. IOM’s Donor Accountability Group aims to strengthen reporting timeliness and quality. Frequent donor feedback surveys refine reports. These efforts demonstrate similar struggles but a strong commitment to timely, high-quality reporting across UN entities

Seven recommendations were issued by the evaluation:

Short-term (0-6 months)

On improving the timeliness of financial reporting:

1. FBU should provide additional training/ guidance to Programme Units on the financial aspects of donor and IP reporting. This could include, for example,

• Guidance on using the ERP platform for financial reporting and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders and timelines related to project closure; and
• Clarifying roles, responsibilities and timeframes for financial reporting through the issuance of operational guidelines.
• Preparing speaking notes to help PM raise awareness among donors that using the UNITAR standard financial reporting template whenever possible can lead to better timeliness and is less resource-intense
• Make the financial standard template available on UNITARnet for consultation during the agreement’s negotiation and reporting periods. 

On reporting timeliness, in general: 

2. UNITAR managers should enhance collective understanding on how timely and accurate reporting supports organizational goals, donor trust and partnership development. This could include:

• Setting the right tone from the top for enhancing a culture of timely reporting.
• Sharing of good practices in brownbag events on how long-term partnerships with donors are maintained and nurtured;
• Quality assuring, reporting and setting aside time for reporting in work planning;
• Budgeting time required for reporting in project budgets so that reporting becomes a dedicated and budgeted task.

3. If not already done, UNITAR managers should assign specific reporting tasks (e.g. in job descriptions/terms of reference) to project personnel or designate reporting focal points to strengthen accountability with reporting requirements. 

Medium to long-term (6-12 months)

Assign a KPI and report annually on timeliness and monitor feedback from donors.

4. UNITAR management should identify a key performance indicator for donor and IP reporting timeliness and report annually on it as part of its annual KPI reporting to the Board of Trustees. This indicator could also be measured at the Division or Programme Unit levels.

5. UNITAR should deploy an annual donor pulse survey as a recurrent and structured feedback mechanism on donor satisfaction with UNITAR reporting, including timeliness in respecting deadlines, report quality, relevance of the reports to their organizations, and usability, while identifying areas for improvement. Additionally, the survey should gather insights into how donors utilize UNITAR’s reports, fostering greater institutional awareness of reporting relevance.

The evaluation also identified the need to enhance the quality of reports, particularly those reports received from IPs.

6. UNITAR Programme Units should further increase guidance and support to IPs with limited resources on reporting, e.g. smaller organizations, IPs located in countries in special situations, etc. This could include institutional strengthening, training on monitoring, evaluation and reporting, automating reminders for reporting to implementing partners directly or ensuring forwarding of PTT reminders, etc.

7. UNITAR should further enhance the quality of narrative reports, including using innovative reporting methods. This could include:

• Presenting the results with a more analytical perspective, considering the outcome and output levels (main achievements and challenges).
• Building on robust project documents that provide a good basis for reporting, with e.g. a monitoring and reporting plan, log frames, and measurable indicators.
• Ensuring narrative reporting frequency and depth is commensurate with the budget size.
• Including a stronger link between the narrative and financial reports, explaining changes in resource allocation and financial progress. 

• L1. Open communication on timelines and expectations helps build mutual understanding and trust. Frequent communication with donors and IPs throughout the year, including regular meetings, eases the reporting process and ensures more flexibility when delays occur.
• L2. Adapting to the specific donor requirements and recommendations is key for successful project implementation and reporting.
• L3. A focal point in the country is essential for follow-up, communication and therefore compliance with deadlines of the IPs.
• L4. Selecting appropriate IPs is key in complying with reporting requirements. The due diligence assessment helps analyzing the IP’s capacity.
• L5. Regular check-ins, capacity-building initiatives providing clear templates and consistent feedback to IPs improve the timeliness and quality of reports.
• L6. Flexibility and patience in light of coordination challenges foster better collaboration across the units.
• L7. Monitoring financial expenditures during project implementation is key for closing projects and financial reports on time.