relevance •
effectiveness
• coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation •
managing for results
• sustainability • relevance • effectiveness
coordination and partnership • efficiency •
national ownership
• international cooperation •
managing for results •
sustainability
• relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation •
managing for results
• sustainability • relevance •
effectiveness •
coordination and partnership
• efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing
for results • sustainability •
relevance
• effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership •
international cooperation • managing for results •
sustainability
• relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency •
national ownership
• international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability •
relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency
• national ownership •
international cooperation
• managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness
coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency • national ownership •
international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability •
relevance •
effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness
coordination and partnership • efficiency •
national ownership • international cooperation •
managing for results •
sustainability
• relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation •
managing for results • sustainability • relevance •
effectiveness •
coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing
for results • sustainability •
relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership •
international cooperation • managing for results •
sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency •
national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability •
relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness
coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership •
efficiency • national ownership •
international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability •
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION UNIT
In-depth evaluation of the
United Nations Global Initiative
to Fight Human Trafficking
(UN.GIFT)
UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME
Vienna
In-depth evaluation of the
United Nations Global Initiative
to Fight Human Trafficking
(UN.GIFT)
GLOS83
Independent Evaluation Unit
M ay 2 011
UNITED NATIONS
New York, 2011
ii
is evaluation report was prepared by Dalberg Global Development Advisors (www.dalberg.com), an internatio-
nal development consulting rm, in collaboration with the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) of the
United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). e evaluation team included the external evaluation
team of Dalberg Global Development Advisors: Veronica Chau, Gaurav Gupta, Michael Tsan, and Tim Carlberg.
e desk research and interviews were supported by a dedicated team of Dalberg researchers and interviewers
including Nupur Kapoor, Chris Denny-Brown, Tarun Mathur, and Vaibhav Garg.
In constructing this report, the many stakeholders who generously gave their time for interviews and electronic
surveys are thanked, as well as the UN.GIFT programme management and sta for their excellent cooperation
with the evaluation team’s data requests.
Independent Evaluation Unit of the United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime
United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime
Vienna International Centre
P.O. Box 500
1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone: (+43-1) 26060-0
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.unodc.org
Dalberg Global Development Advisors
Washington D.C. Oce
818 18th Street, Suite 505
Washington, DC, 20006, USA
Telephone: (+1) 202 659 6570
Telefax: (+1) 202 659 6863
Email: V[email protected] (Lead Evaluator)
Email: Gaurav[email protected] (Project Director)
Email: Michael.T[email protected] (Project Manager)
Website: www.dalberg.com
Independent Project Evaluations are scheduled and managed by the project managers and conducted by external
independent evaluators. e role of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) in relation to independent project
evaluations is one of quality assurance and support throughout the evaluation process , but IEU does not directly
participate in or undertake independent project evaluations. It is, however, the responsibility of IEU to respond
to the commitment of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) in professionalizing the evaluation func-
tion and promoting a culture of evaluation within UNODC for the purposes of accountability and continuous
learning and improvement.
Due to the disbandment of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) and the shortage of resources following its
reinstitution, the IEU has been limited in its capacity to perform these functions for independent project evalu-
ations to the degree anticipated. As a result, some independent evaluation reports posted may not be in full
compliance with all IEU or UNEG guidelines. However, in order to support a transparent and learning environ-
ment, all evaluations received during this period have been posted and as an on-going process, IEU has begun
re-implementing quality assurance processes and instituting guidelines for independent project evaluations as of
January 2011.
© United Nations, September 2011. All rights reserved.
e designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
is publication has not been formally edited.
Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Oce at Vienna.
iii
CONTENTS
Page
Executive summary ..................................................................... vii
Management response
................................................................... xi
Steering Committee response
............................................................ xiii
I. Introduction ............................................................................ 1
A. Background
........................................................................ 1
B. Evaluation scope, methodology and limitations
..................................... 12
II. Major evaluation ndings and analysis
................................................... 17
A. Relevance
.......................................................................... 17
B. Eectiveness
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C. Eciency
.......................................................................... 47
D. Partnerships, management and governance
.......................................... 49
III. Impact and sustainability
................................................................ 55
A. Impact
............................................................................. 55
B. Sustainability
....................................................................... 55
IV. Case studies
............................................................................. 57
A. Case study: South Asia Regional Conference (SARC)
............................... 57
B. Case study: Serbia Joint Programme
................................................ 63
V. Lessons learned and best practices
....................................................... 67
A. Lessons learned
.................................................................... 67
B. Best practices
....................................................................... 68
VI. Recommendations
...................................................................... 71
A. Interim recommendations and actions taken since October 2010
.................... 72
B. Final recommendations
............................................................. 73
C. Detailed level recommendations
.................................................... 77
iv
Page
Annexes
I. Summary matrix of ndings, supporting evidence and recommendations .......... 85
II. Terms of reference
.................................................................... 95
III. List of persons interviewed
............................................................ 97
IV. Evaluation interview guide sample
.................................................... 103
V. Evaluation survey sample
.............................................................. 105
VI. Mission schedule (Serbia)
............................................................. 117
VII. Mission schedule (India)
.............................................................. 119
VIII. UN.GIFT documents consulted
...................................................... 121
IX. External documents consulted
......................................................... 127
Figures
I. UN.GIFT Logical Framework with pillars, outputs and key activities ............ 2
II. UN.GIFT’s Organizational Structure (June 2010) ........................... 4
III. UN.GIFT’s Organizational Structure (December 2010) ...................... 4
IV. UN.GIFT expenditures (2007-2011) ..................................... 9
V. Shift of expenditures to capacity-building and victim support after 2008 .......... 11
VI. e relevance of the broad UN.GIFT output areas is high ..................... 20
VII. UN.GIFT assessments of AHT needs match perception of external stakeholders .... 20
VIII. UN.GIFT allocation of expenditures to global and regional initiatives ............ 22
IX. UN.GIFT activity mix by output area .................................... 23
X. Overall UN.GIFT eectiveness—contribution towards UN.GIFT outcomes ...... 24
XI. Rise in political commitment at state level ................................. 26
XII. Awareness of human tracking on the internet ............................. 27
XIII. UN.GIFT website statistics (prior to launch of Virtual Knowledge Hub) .......... 28
XIV. Comparison of UN.GIFT PSAs with those of other stakeholders ................ 28
XV. Web mentions and citations of UN.GIFT publications ....................... 29
XVI. Virtual Knowledge Hub website trac (May-November 2010) ................. 31
XVII. End-user feedback on the Virtual Knowledge Hub ........................... 32
XVIII. SGF eectiveness—positive outcomes on many dimensions .................... 45
XIX. UN.GIFT cost eectiveness ............................................ 47
XX. Break-down of Vienna Forum costs ...................................... 49
XXI. UN.GIFT Member States briengs (2007-2010) ............................ 51
XXII. Demographic of SARC participants by type ................................ 58
XXIII. Demographic of SARC participants by nationality ........................... 58
XXIV. Overview of UN.GIFT South Asia budget and activities ...................... 59
XXV. Stakeholder feedback on SARC impact ................................... 60
v
Page
XXVI. Knowledge sharing and networking at SARC ............................... 61
XVII. Stakeholder perspectives on UN.GIFT continuation ......................... 71
Tables
1. Project budget and expenditures (2007-2011) ................................. 5
2. Project budget, expenditures and activities by output area ........................ 7
3. Evolution of UN.GIFT (2007-2010) ....................................... 10
4. Terms of reference evaluation criteria ....................................... 13
5. Methodology and stakeholder engagement ................................... 15
6. Comparison of UN.GIFT and ICAT objectives and activities/priorities ............. 18
7. List of UN.GIFT Regional Conferences ..................................... 25
8. UN.GIFT Expert Group Initiative tools and manuals ........................... 33
9. Joint Programme status as of December 2010 ................................. 34
10. List of partnerships secured and type of involvement ............................ 38
11. Funds raised for UN.GIFT’s budget ........................................ 40
12. In-kind donations and co-funding for UN.GIFT .............................. 41
13. UN.GIFT Small Grant Facility recipients .................................... 43
vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AHT Anti-Human Tracking
AHTMSU Anti-Human Tracking and Migrant Smuggling Unit of UNODC
ECOSOC Economic and Social Council
ERP Enterprise Resource Planning
EGI Expert Group Initiative(s)
FRMS Financial Resources Management Service
ICAT Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Tracking in Persons
IEU Independent Evaluation Unit
ILO International Labour Organization
IOM International Organization for Migration
GA General Assembly
Global Report UNODC/UN.GIFT Global Report on Tracking in Persons
GPA United Nations Global Plan of Action to Combat Tracking
in Persons
JP Joint Programme
MS Member State(s)
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OHCHR Oce of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
PSA Public Service Announcement
PSC Programme/Project Support Costs
SARC UN.GIFT South Asia Regional Conference (Delhi 2007)
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SGF Small Grants Facility
SC UN.GIFT Steering Committee
TIP Tracking in Persons
TOR Terms of Reference
UN.GIFT United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Tracking
UN.GIFT Secretariat UN.GIFT Project team (also referred to as the Project team or sta)
UN.GIFT Management Project Senior Manager and UNODC managers responsible for
UN.GIFT
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNIAP United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Tracking
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women
UNODC United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime
UNTOC United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
Vienna Forum UN.GIFT Vienna Forum to Fight Human Tracking
(13-15 Feb. 2008)
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tracking in persons (TIP) is one of the worst forms of human rights abuse, and one of the most
brutal forms of crime. It is a multi-dimensional phenomenon aecting both adults and children and
touching on nearly all countries of the world. Estimates of tracked persons are controversial and vary
widely depending on denition and methodology used, with over 800,000 people tracked across
borders annually (United States Department of State, 2007), over 2.4 million victims of labour traf-
cking (ILO 2005), and up to 27 million people in modern slavery across the world (Bales 1999),
with recognition of widespread under-reporting. Estimates on the prots from this illicit trade are at
US$32billion annually (ILO 2005).
In 2000, the General Assembly adopted e Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Tracking in
Persons, Especially Women and Children (“Tracking in Persons Protocol”), supplementing the
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC). e Protocol laid the
foundation for global action on tracking in persons. However, while many organizations and Mem-
ber States developed anti-human tracking (AHT) programmes, a global spotlight on the issue and a
globally coordinated approach remained elusive, with a lack of consensus on a baseline of global traf-
cking patterns and varying views among Member States and other stakeholders about the specic
actions that should be taken to address the issue.
Recognizing these challenges, the Emirate of Abu Dhabi reached out to the United Nations Secretary-
General in 2006 proposing an international conference on anti-human tracking. In subsequent
discussions involving UNODC, as the custodian of the UNTOC and the Tracking in Persons Pro-
tocol, and a number of other stakeholders, the government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi committed
US$ 15 million to launching a global conference and broader global initiative to ght tracking in
persons. e development of the project design was led by the Anti-Human Tracking and Migrant
Smuggling Unit (AHTMSU) of UNODC and UN.GIFT was launched in March 2007 as UNODC
Project GLOS83.
UN.GIFT was launched as a global initiative to foster awareness, global commitment and action to
counter human tracking, with an initial focus on ten regional conferences and one global confer-
ence. Additional output areas included increasing AHT related political commitment and capacity of
Member States, resource mobilization, and creating and strengthening support structures for victims
of human tracking. UNODC has managed UN.GIFT in cooperation with a Steering Committee
comprised of the International Labour Organization (ILO); the International Organization for Migra-
tion (IOM); the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); the Oce of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights (OHCHR); the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE);
and the donor government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
By the end of 2010, total funds pledged by the initial donor and additional contributors amounted to
US$15.49 million and the Project had total expenditures of US$ 13.46 million,
1
including management
1
December 2010 expenditures are based on the FRMS interim report and cross-checked against UN.GIFT expenditure
tracking (showing minimal variance). As of 22 February 2011, nal corrections, including those resulting from currency
uctuations, are still pending.
viii
and programme support costs (PSC). All remaining pledged funds US$ 1.3 million of which were only
collected in 2011 have been allocated and will be disbursed in 2011. By February 2011, the remaining
UN.GIFT Secretariat activities were completed according to plan, with a number of ongoing activities to
be implemented by Small Grants Facility grantees and Joint Programme fund recipients.
is document is the report on the nal evaluation of the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight
Human Tracking (UN.GIFT), which was conducted by Dalberg Global Development Advisors, an
external evaluator, in collaboration with the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) of the United Nations
Oce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). It builds on the abridged preliminary evaluation, which was
submitted to the Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime (18-22 October, 2010). e nal phase of the evaluation
focused on UN.GIFT activities, which were still ongoing in October 2010, most importantly the
Small Grants Facility, the Virtual Knowledge Hub and Joint Programmes. In addition, this nal report
incorporates feedback on preliminary results from various stakeholders, in particular from Member
States, UN.GIFT Steering Committee members, UNODC Management and the UN.GIFT Secre-
tariat. Findings and recommendations of this nal evaluation are based on the most recent data
available, including expenditures until December 2010 and 2011 allocations.
e evaluation was conducted in an independent, transparent, and participatory fashion, featuring an
in-depth desk review of Project documents and publications, six electronic surveys of several stake-
holder groups, and semi-structured interviews with 114 stakeholders, including Member States repre-
sentatives, UN.GIFT Steering Committee members, UN.GIFT and UNODC sta and management,
civil society organizations and, private sector partners. e methodological approach also included
two eld visits and in-country case studies of a regional conference in India and a Joint Programme in
Serbia. e results of this evaluation are thus based on a triangulation of a wide range of sources and
dierent data collection methods.
Based on evaluation ndings, the overall recommendation is to continue certain aspects of UN.GIFT
with renewed funding, a conclusion that is in line with the views of the majority of consulted stake-
holders. e key rationale for UN.GIFT’s continuation is that the Project continues to be the sole
inter-agency technical cooperation and coordination mechanism for AHT with institutional experi-
ence in piloting successful global AHT interventions. Despite some relevant but addressable short-
comings, a large number of activities have been successfully implemented and, critically, healthy
cooperation relationships have been built, particularly between UN.GIFT’s Steering Committee
member agencies, which represent many of the key players in the global ght against human track-
ing. In addition, the Project managed to establish a relatively strong brand with global AHT decision
makers and practitioners, though not necessarily on the regional or country levels.
is nal evaluation report notes that important progress has been made by UNODC, the UN.GIFT
Steering Committee and the UN.GIFT Secretariat on interim evaluation recommendations in the
months since the release of the preliminary evaluation report in October 2010. e evaluation team
commends UN.GIFT management for having already taken action on ideas triggered by this evalua-
tion. Most important, UN.GIFT management has engaged in extensive consultations with Member
States and other stakeholders, and a number of the key portfolio strategy and governance recommen-
dations are in the process of being incorporated into a new strategy, as part of the ongoing strategic
planning process for a potential new phase of UN.GIFT. Another important example of the imple-
mentation of evaluation recommendations regards the knowledge transfer from UN.GIFT’s Small
Grants Facility to the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Human Tracking, called
for by the Global Plan of Action to Combat Tracking in Persons (GPA), which was adopted by the
General Assembly on 30 July 2010 and launched on 31 August, 2010.
e fact that some of the recommendations made in this evaluation report may already be in the pro-
cess of being adopted or implemented does not render this report obsolete but rather reinforces the
importance of its ndings and recommendations.
ix
ere is important context to consider when evaluating this initiative. UN.GIFT attempted to achieve
a very ambitious goal of creating a “global movement” to address the abhorrent crime of human traf-
cking. However, the approach for addressing this crime is quite complex, and requires coordination
across multiple agencies and disciplines. Furthermore, UN.GIFT’s multi-agency structure, involving
both United Nations agencies and non-United Nations global (IOM) and regional (OSCE) bodies, is
novel and unprecedented within the setting of UNODC. ere are only very few examples of global
inter-agency structures within the United Nations system (e.g. UNAIDS, UN-Water, UN-Energy)
and only one example of an AHT inter-agency structure at the regional level, the United Nations
Inter-Agency Project on Human Tracking (UNIAP) in the Mekong region. It is also generally
acknowledged—as demonstrated by reform eorts such as the “One UN” process—that achieving
consensus and implementing a coordinated and innovative agenda within the constraints of the United
Nations system are very challenging tasks. It often takes multiple years of evolution and learning
before an eective working relationship is achieved.
In light of this context, this evaluation nds that UN.GIFT has lled an important gap as a platform
for facilitating inter-agency cooperation in AHT eorts at the global level, within and outside the
United Nations system. e Project has made important contributions towards raising awareness
among global decision makers, the funding, production, and dissemination of knowledge and capacity-
building tools, and the broadening of the anti-human tracking coalition, including partnerships
with select private and civil society organizations. e Project’s contributions and relevance have been
recognized by multiple United Nations resolutions and its role was highlighted by the General
Assembly in the Global Plan of Action to Combat Tracking in Persons.
After an initially challenging period, the governance and management of UN.GIFT have substantially
improved. In response to strong interest of Member States, UN.GIFT management invested signi-
cant time and resources in increasing the level of consultation. e Project was also responsive to
Member State guidance by re-focusing its activities on capacity-building after 2008. ere is now
greater role clarity among Steering Committee members and their participation has evolved from a
largely advisory function at the inception of UN.GIFT to more equitable, coordinated joint develop-
ment and oversight of UN.GIFT’s strategic approach, resource allocation and activities. e experi-
ence of UN.GIFT has also pointed to important lessons learned about the investments—both in
terms of budget and sta time—that are required to develop an eective infrastructure for facilitating
coordination and ensuring that important follow-through activities occur.
However, given the magnitude of its objectives, UN.GIFT is still at a nascent stage of promoting
global awareness and coordinated AHT action. Progress to date on the objectives of strengthening
victim support structures and resource mobilization, despite some accomplishments and increasing
investment, has been relatively limited. A number of governance and management challenges continue
to be an issue and will need to be addressed. In connection with measuring long-term impact, many
of the Project’s objectives were dened too broadly and featured few baselines and metrics to establish
impact conclusively. ere is also little clear evidence for sustainability at this point, though improved
inter-agency cooperation at the Steering Committee level suggests potential for a more sustainable
eort in the future.
If UN.GIFT is to continue, substantial lessons should thus be incorporated into any subsequent Pro-
ject phase. e UN.GIFT Steering Committee, in close consultation with Member States and other
key stakeholders, should ensure that the recommendations of this evaluation are reected in any new
phase by re-aligning the portfolio of activities to build on UN.GIFT’s strengths and key areas of need
going forward. Additionally, the Steering Committee and UNODC Senior Management should con-
tinue to ensure that UN.GIFT’s governance structure and management approach is revised, with
improved ability to engage with Member States, increased Project autonomy from UNODC, broader
stakeholder participation, and more transparent and better dened results indicators, leading to greater
accountability.
x
e Summary Matrix in annex I provides an overview of the nal key evaluation ndings and recom-
mendations. Subsequent report sections and a detailed methodological appendix provide in-depth
information on UN.GIFT Project background, evaluation methodology, ndings, recommendations,
as well as lessons learned and best practices.
xi
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
UNODC Senior Management agrees with the recommendation to continue and renew the UN.GIFT
Project, pending Member States’ consultation and donor funding, leveraging its core strengths in
order to meet the substantial ongoing need for inter-agency technical cooperation in the eld of anti-
human tracking.
Lessons learned
UNODC Senior Management agrees with the need to fully engage Member States in a consultative
process to dene the future phase of UN.GIFT and to work with Member States to identify eective
means of engagement.
UNODC is pleased to note the positive impact of the UNODC/UN.GIFT Global Report. e
Global Plan of Action has called for the production of a biennial UNODC report on “patterns and
ows of tracking in persons at the national, regional and international levels in a balance, reliable
and comprehensive manner, in close cooperation and collaboration with Member States”. To support
the development of the continuing, eective, consultative and transparent reporting process requested
by Member States, UNODC plans to establish a dedicated Global TIP programme of work, which
will incorporate lessons learned from the preparation of the UNODC/UN.GIFT Global Report as
well as of periodic global reports, such as the UNODC World Drug Report.
UNODC Senior Management has acted upon the recommendation to ensure that the results and the
lessons learned from the UN.GIFT Small Grants Facility are conveyed to the management of the
United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Human Tracking. At the Board of Trustees’
rst meeting, a detailed presentation of the UN.GIFT Small Grants Facility was held and all relevant
documents were shared with the Board members, who decided to base the Trust Fund’s Small Grants
Facility on the UN.GIFT pilot.
e lessons learned from the development and implementation of a series of Joint Programmes will
inform future joint anti-tracking activities at the country and regional level.
Draft Strategic Plan UN.GIFT 2011-2015
UNODC Senior Management agrees with the recommendation made in the preliminary and nal
report to develop a strategy that features both an agenda for global level inter-agency cooperation, and
region-specic agendas. Together with the SC members and in consultation with Member States, the
process of developing a draft strategy for a proposed next phase of UN.GIFT was started in November
2010. A series of recommendations put forward in the evaluation are addressed in the draft strategy
and will guide UN.GIFT’s future action.
xii
e draft strategy identies three main areas of work, which will complement and promote the activi-
ties of the individual SC organizations: Knowledge Management, Strategic Support and Interventions
and Promoting Global. e knowledge management activities include the continuation and expan-
sion of the Virtual Knowledge Hub and the collection and dissemination of lessons learned. is
component also includes the systematic documentation of outcome level results data, base-line studies
and investments in developing feedback from end-beneciaries and partners as suggested in the nal
evaluation report.
e strategic support and interventions cater to the recommendation to strengthen the regional
dimension of UN.GIFT’s work by ensuring that global inter-agency anti-human tracking activities
and outputs are designed to be leveraged regionally and locally. ey further embrace the recommen-
dation to direct more technical assistance toward strengthening victim support structures as an integral
component of global, regional and national capacity-building activities and to increase the level of
interagency cooperation at the regional and country level. e component will also draw on the
lessons learned from UN.GIFT’s ongoing Joint Programmes.
e component of promoting global dialogue captures the recommendations to make inter-agency
cooperation an explicit objective and to develop a detailed pro-active stakeholder communication plan
for the next phase. It also draws on the recommendation to utilize lower cost events at the local level
with more clearly dened deliverables.
Governance and management
UNODC Senior Management agrees to continue to host UN.GIFT and to support the autonomy of
the UN.GIFT Secretariat in line with UN.GIFT’s role as a multi-agency platform. UNODC Senior
Management will ensure further clarication of roles and responsibilities of UN.GIFT vis-à-vis other
UNODC anti-human tracking eorts and will present a coherent and integrated response to human
tracking within its ematic Programme on Transnational Organized Crime.
Regarding the composition of the UN.GIFT SC, discussions have already taken place within the SC
on the potential to broaden participation and increase external stakeholder involvement. A careful
review of interested organizations and their operational capacities should take place to ensure an ade-
quate balance in broader participation, while maintaining an ecient and operational decision- making
structure. UNODC will also continue to increase the equity of participation in UN.GIFT through
clear decision-making rules and potentially, a rotating Steering Committee chair.
UNODC Senior Management agrees that the next phase of UN.GIFT should focus on multi-year
projects and allow for joint fundraising by SC members. is should include striving for a more diver-
sied donor base, while maintaining and sustaining the high quality partnerships already established
by UN.GIFT.
e component of promoting global dialogue captures the recommendations to make inter-agency
cooperation an explicit objective and to develop a detailed pro-active stakeholder communication plan
for the next phase. It also draws on the recommendation to utilize lower cost events at the local level
with more clearly dened deliverables.
xiii
STEERING COMMITTEE RESPONSE
Recommendations on relevance
Pending Member States’ consultation and donor funding, the UN.GIFT Steering Committee (SC)
2
agrees with the recommendation to develop further and jointly implement the UN.GIFT Project. It
will do so by leveraging its core strengths in order to meet the substantial ongoing need for inter-
agency technical cooperation in the eld of anti-human tracking while taking into account and capi-
talizing on the respective mandates of each of the member organizations, their expertise, accumulated
experience and developed partnerships and networks.
e SC accepts that UN.GIFT should maintain its role in networking and providing technical inter-
agency cooperation at the global level, while at the same time increasing the level of multi-agency
activity at the regional and country level where such inter-agency coordination eorts do not exist
today.
3
e UN.GIFT SC agrees with the need to clarify UN.GIFT’s role vis-à-vis the Inter-Agency Coordi-
nation Group against Tracking in Persons (ICAT) and will take steps to identify opportunities for
synergy between the two.
Recommendations on effectiveness
e UN.GIFT SC agrees to continue to review the progress of ongoing eorts such as the Joint
Programmes.
e UN.GIFT SC is pleased to inform that a strategy is currently being developed featuring an agenda
for global level inter-agency cooperation and opportunities for region-specic agendas tailored to spe-
cic needs where relevant local coordination platforms do not exist today. UN.GIFT will focus its
activities where it has demonstrated success to date and where it is well-positioned to do so with
improved execution, including the prioritization of activities with measurable impact and with a clear
need for cross-disciplinary, inter-agency eorts. It will develop joint activities at the global level, capi-
talizing on the mandates and expertise of the various member organizations involved and aimed at
nding ground breaking solutions.
e global agenda could feature:
(a) Providing an ongoing forum for inter-agency technical cooperation of agencies active in
human tracking;
(b) Producing and disseminating multi-agency anti-human tracking knowledge products,
including serving as a multi-stakeholder anti-human tracking knowledge hub;
2
Comprised of ILO; IOM; OHCHR; OSCE; UNICEF and UNODC.
3
Such inter-agency coordination does exist in Brussels where joint work has been undertaken on the EU directives.
xiv
(c) Documenting and sharing globally good practices and lessons learnt in ghting human
tracking;
(d) Facilitating engagement with civil society, worker’s organizations and private sector on anti-
human tracking issues;
(e) Involving survivors of tracking in persons when developing anti-tracking activities;
(f) Developing, rening and disseminating multi-disciplinary inter-agency capacity-building
tools and training programmes;
(g) Developing innovative sectoral and thematic responses and ways of working that are cutting
edge and which hold promise in reducing human tracking;
(h) Supporting awareness-raising campaigns, with emphasis on more targeted and measurable
inter-agency advocacy eorts;
(i) Fundraising for inter-agency coordination and technical cooperation projects, including the
mobilization of resources for victim support and prevention structures.
e UN.GIFT SC also agrees that inter-agency technical assistance geared toward strengthening vic-
tim support structures should be an integral component of global capacity-building activities and
regional and national activities via Joint Programmes.
e SC acknowledges that fundraising for inter-agency coordination and technical cooperation pro-
jects should be an integral component of the Project’s next phase. Subject to the specic regulatory
restrictions within each respective organization, SC members should have equal and shared fund-
raising responsibilities for UN.GIFT.
e UN.GIFT Secretariat will track and report on future in-kind contributions in a consistent manner
so as to ensure that all contributions are fully captured.
e SC agrees that a clear logical framework with distinct and well dened activities should be
established for the next phase of the project, including a comprehensive needs assessment to be
embedded in its future strategy. UN.GIFT’s future strategy should include detailed and measura-
ble impact as well as operational performance indicators. In addition, resources should be allocated
into base-lining studies to ensure that all inter-agency activities can be better managed and
evaluated.
Recommendations on efficiency
e SC agrees with the recommendation to prioritize inter-agency activities that can be leveraged at
local levels and utilizing lower cost events with more clearly dened deliverables.
e UN.GIFT Secretariat has invested in output-budget recording for UN.GIFT activities and com-
pilation of lessons learned logs. e SC agrees that UN.GIFT would benet from activity-level budget
and process tracking and investments in collecting and documenting feedback from end- beneciaries
and partners. ese should form part of the strategy development exercise and costing of the next
phase.
In order to further improve eciency among partner organizations, the SC will build on existing tem-
plates and lessons learned to establish standard agreements for Joint Programmes in the framework of
UN.GIFT.
xv
Recommendations on impact
UN.GIFT SC agrees that the strategy for subsequent phases of UN.GIFT should feature more realistic
objectives tied to time-delimited and measurable metrics as well as guiding principles to inform activ-
ity prioritization, such as by focusing on activities that cannot be implemented by any single agency
independently.
Another aspect of prioritization will be to strengthen the regional dimension of UN.GIFT’s work, to
ensure that global inter-agency activities and outputs are designed to be leveraged regionally and
locally.
Recommendations on sustainability
UN.GIFT SC agrees that a new strategy should focus on multi-year projects and allow for joint
fundraising by SC members. is should include striving for a more diversied donor base, while
maintaining and sustaining the high quality partnerships already established by UN.GIFT.
Recommendations on partnerships, management and governance
UN.GIFT SC agrees that a new strategy should focus on multi-year projects and allow for joint
fundraising by SC members. is should include striving for a more diversied donor base, while
maintaining and sustaining the high quality partnerships already established by UN.GIFT.
In order to improve the governance of UN.GIFT, clearer branding and communication on UN.GIFT’s
role should be sought and communicated by all SC members. In a next phase of UN.GIFT, a clear
communication plan with a focus on Member States and other relevant stakeholders should be devel-
oped. To this eect, the UN.GIFT HUB containing up to date online information on anti-human
tracking activities of UN.GIFT and its partners provides a solid basis for improved communication,
information gathering, knowledge generation and sharing of relevant information on anti-human
tracking initiatives worldwide.
e UN.GIFT SC acknowledges that there were serious and sustained tensions within the SC for
some parts of the rst phase of the initiative. Important lessons were learnt from the process of estab-
lishing an inter-agency initiative and it is worth highlighting the good will and mutual understanding
among SC members in this current stage.
Regarding the composition of the UN.GIFT SC, discussions have already taken place within the SC
on the potential to broaden participation and increase external stakeholder involvement by creating an
associate member track. A careful review of interested organizations as potential associate members is
taking place so as to ensure an adequate balance in broader participation, while maintaining an ecient
and operational decision-making structure.
e UN.GIFT SC agrees that UNODC should continue to host UN.GIFT for the next phase, while
ensuring accountability to Member States through:
(a) Engagement of Member States in a consultative process to dene the future phase of
UN.GIFT and to identify eective means of engagement on an ongoing basis;
(b) Agreement at the SC on prioritization of activities and work plans, while retaining UNODC’s
reporting role to its Member States on behalf of the SC and duciary nancial responsibility, transpar-
ency and administrative relationship;
xvi
(c) Increased emphasis on leveraging existing expertise and capabilities from SC members;
(d) Continuing to increase the equity of participation in UN.GIFT through clear decision-
making by consensus and in line with the mandates of the SC members and rotating Chairs for the
Steering Committee meetings;
(e) Clear division of tasks preferably where all those who are being coordinated have responsi-
bilities for at least one element of delivery.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
UN.GIFT project background
United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Tracking (UN.GIFT) is a multi-stakeholder part-
nership against human tracking launched in March 2007 and managed by the United Nations
Oce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in collaboration with a Steering Committee. Members of the
Steering Committee are the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization
for Migration (IOM), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United
Nation’s Children Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Oce of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR), UNODC and a representative of the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi. A small
UN.GIFT Secretariat, hosted by UNODC, provides support to the Steering Committee and drives
the implementation and coordination of Programme activities.
In accordance with the initial project document, the overall objective of UN.GIFT is to prevent traf-
cking in persons and reduce the number of tracked persons worldwide. e immediate objectives
are to (a) foster awareness, global commitment and action to counter human tracking in partnership
with dierent stakeholders including Governments, the international community, non-governmental
organizations and other elements of civil society and media, and (b) to create and strengthen support
structures for victims of human tracking.
Aside from these explicit objectives, the original project document and progress reports refer to implicit
goals of “setting in motion a broad-based global movement that will attract the political will and
resources needed to stop tracking in persons” and producing a “turning point in the ght against
tracking in persons.” is was to be accomplished by “fostering cooperation and coordination by
creating synergies among ongoing endeavours led by United Nations agencies, international organiza-
tions and other stakeholders, taking into account their respective areas of expertise, accumulated
knowledge and experience, as well as existing networks”.
In line with these objectives, UN.GIFT has been managed against ve output areas since 2007
(gureI):
(a) Output 1: Increase awareness and knowledge on human tracking;
(b) Output 2: Increase political commitment and capacity of Member States to counter human
tracking and implement the Tracking Protocol;
(c) Output 3: Mobilize resources to implement the action required to combat tracking at the
international, regional and national level;
(d) Output 4: Organize a Global Conference to assess the global tracking situation and to
promote global action against human tracking.
2
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Project documents additionally refer to four Project pillars cutting across these output areas. Consid-
ering the multiple objectives of many UN.GIFT initiatives, complex overlaps between “pillars” and
“outputs”, and several revisions to Programme activities over the past three years, there is signicant
complexity in the initial logical framework (gure 1):
Figure I. UN.GIFT Logical Framework with pillars, outputs and key activities
Background on management and governance
e United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Tracking (UN.GIFT) is managed by the
United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as a global technical assistance Project
(GLOS83), nanced primarily through a Funding Agreement between UNODC and the Govern-
ment of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
e UNODC, guardian of the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and
the “Tracking Protocol”, has acted as the Executing Agency and host of UN.GIFT’s Secretariat from
the Project’s inception. UNODC has implemented the Project under its Division for Operations
(DO) and, with internal re-alignment in mid-2010, under its Division for Treaty Aairs (DTA).
roughout the project period, UNODC has provided all necessary administrative and operational
support, including IT, nance, and logistics.
Pillars
Output
areas
Key
activities
2007-2008
Key
activities
2009-2010
4. Organize a global
conference to assess
the global trafficking
situation and to
promote global action
against human
trafficking
3. Mobilize resources
to implement the
action required to
combat trafficking at
the international,
regional and national
level
2. Increase political
commitment and
capacity of MS to
counter human
trafficking and
implement the
Tr afficking Protocol
1. Increased
awareness and
knowledge of
human trafficking
• Public awareness
campaigns (TV series,
films, publications,
PSAs)
• UN Global TIP Report
and small topical
reports
• 10 regional conferences
• Expert Group Initiatives
(e.g. manuals, tools)
• Parlamentarian
handbook and events
• Inter-agency
coordination at SC level
• Capacity-building
training events
• Women Leaders’
Council
• Fundraising activities
• Public-private
partnership activities
• Vienna Forum and
affiliated promotional
events (e.g. Film Forum,
Journey Against Sex
Tr afficking installation)
and publications
• Engagement and
funding for select global
NGOs (e.g. Stop the
Tr afik)
• Study exchanges and
training sessions with
service providers
• Public awareness
campaigns targeting
public at large, youth
and private sector
• Virtual Knowledge
Hub
• Methodology for UN
multi-agency report
on TIP
• 6 Joint Programmes
1. Activities under output area 3 mostly focuses on the private sector.
2. Joint Programmes typically have a victim support component but are listed under output area 2.
• Increased private
sector engagement
through awareness,
Business Leaders’
Award and PPP pilot
projects at global and
national/regional levels
• N/A • Victim Tr anslation
Assistance Tool (MP3
audio tool)
• Small Grants Facility
(US$ 529,000)
5. Increase support
to victims of
trafficking through
NGOs and other
service providers
1. Advocacy efforts to
raise awareness
2. Knowledge
creation to impact policy
3. Coordination
between intl. orgs.
4. Capacity-building of
stakeholders
3
IntroductIon
UN.GIFT has been governed by UNODC in partnership with a Steering Committee (SC), consisting
of four United Nations agencies (UNODC, ILO, UNICEF, and OHCHR), one international organi-
zation, IOM and one regional organization, OSCE, as well as the donor government of Abu Dhabi.
Over the course of the initiative, the role of the SC has evolved steadily from a more advisory function
into a more participatory joint oversight mechanism (also see Management and Governance ndings).
Currently, the role of the Steering Committee is to provide advice on the substantive implementation
of the Project and to act as its coordinating body.
Steering Committee decisions are made by consensus. e Steering Committee has been chaired by
the UN.GIFT Manager and meets regularly as deemed necessary by the committee chair, with
21meetings to date since Project inception in March 2007.
As of late 2010, agreed responsibilities of Steering Committee members are as follows:
(a) Promote UN.GIFT and advocate towards its goals;
(b) Support the development of joint activities, particularly of the UN.GIFT joint Projects;
(c) Fundraise for the joint Projects and other UN.GIFT activities;
(d) Represent UN.GIFT within their agencies and in other fora as appropriate;
(e) Coordinate human tracking interventions among its members and their respective
networks and alliances;
(f) Create synergies and avoid duplication to ensure the most cost eective delivery of activities
and actions to counter human tracking; and
(g) Contribute to UN.GIFT’s knowledge network.
A relatively small UN.GIFT Secretariat has led the day-to-day management of the Project and has been
responsible for supporting the UN.GIFT Steering Committee. e functions of the Secretariat have
varied for dierent activities and products, ranging from funding, management and coordination to the
development of specic events, knowledge products, and capacity-building tools.
From September 2007 to July 2010, the Secretariat has been led by a Senior Manager (D-1), respon-
sible for chairing Steering Committee Meetings, corporate partnership eorts and constituency-
building, and achievement of Project objectives.
Aside from the Senior Manager, the size of the Secretariat’s core sta, including one General Service
position, has ranged from 5 (2009) to 8 (2007-2008) sta members and long-term consultants.
As of June 2010 the Secretariat consisted of eight personnel, including one senior manager (D-1) two
full-time professional sta (one P-3, one temporary P-3), one part time professional sta (P-3,
20 per cent), a general service sta (G-5), and three consultants whose contract terms expire by
December31, 2010 and will be renewed till March 31, 2011 to ensure Project completion and/or
transition to a new phase (gures II and III).
4
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Figure II. UN.GIFT’s organizational structure (June 2010)
Figure III. UN.GIFT’s organizational structure (December 2010)
Programme Officer/OIC (P-3)
AHTMSU
Public Information
Officer (P-3)
Private Sector
Focal Point
(Consultant)
Joint Programmes
Coordinator
(Consultant)
Civil Society
Focal Point
(Consultant)
Programme
Assistant (G-5)
Exec. Officer, Office
of the Executive
Director (28%) (P-3)
P-4 (Vacant)
UN.GIFT
Senior Manager (UN.GIFT and
Anti-Human Trafficking and
Migrant Smuggling Unit) (D-1),
stationed at UNICRI
Public Information
Officer (P-3)
Private Sector
Focal Point
(Consultant)
Joint Programmes
Coordinator
(Consultant)
Civil Society
Focal Point
(Consultant)
Programme
Assistant (G-5)
Exec. Officer, Office
of the Executive
Director (28%) (P-3)
Programme Officer (Strategy and Partnerships) (P-3)
Programme Officer (P-4)
UN.GIFT
Senior Manager (P-5)
During the various phases of the Project, UN.GIFT has funded additional personnel in the eld and
within various sections at UNODC headquarters in Vienna. e number of personnel within UNODC,
involved in supporting UN.GIFT, varied over time (0 to 4) and included sta embedded in the Anti-
Human Tracking and Migrant Smuggling Unit (AHTMSU), the Division of Policy Analysis (DPA),
Co-nancing and Partnerships Section (CPS), Policy Analysis and Research Branch (PARB), and Advo-
cacy Section (AS); the Procurement Section (PS); and UNODC Oce of the Director-General and
5
IntroductIon
Executive Director. In addition, consultants were temporarily funded by the Secretariat for specic activ-
ities like the Vienna Forum (12 consultants), research for the Global Report on TIP (9 researchers world-
wide) and Joint Programmes (1 per programme launched and co-funded positions).
Since mid-2010, the UN.GIFT Secretariat has worked under the UNODC Division for Treaty Aairs
(DTA) and—over the entire project period—UN.GIFT has worked closely with the Division for
Management (DM) for all aspects of Project implementation and with the Division for Operations
(DO) in relation to regional and country programmes. UN.GIFT’s senior manager is also ocer-in-
charge of the Integrated Programme and Oversight Branch of DO.
UN.GIFT financials
Overall Project expenditure through the end of 2010 has been US$ 13.46 million, out of a total pro-
ject budget of US$ 15.49 million.
4
e nal tranche of US$ 1.3 million was collected in early 2011.
e total budget includes original UAE funding as well as additional funds mobilized by the Project
over the years (see section 4.2.8 Mobilization of Resources). Table 1 below shows the distribution of
funds by output area and total overheads (general and administrative costs), which include project
management costs, organizational overheads in the form of Programme Support Costs (PSC), and
expenditures related to the evaluation.
4
is number includes organizational overheads in the form of programme support costs (PSC), as well as project
management costs and evaluation related expenditures. December 2010 expenditures are based on the FRMS interim report
and cross-checked against UN.GIFT expenditure tracking (showing minimal US$ 2.8k variance). As of 22 February 2011,
nal corrections, including those resulting from currency uctuations, are still pending.
Table 1. Project budget and expenditures (2007-2010)
March 2007-Dec. 2010
expenditures
Total UN.GIFT
budget
2007 2008 2009 2010
(till Dec.)
US$
millions
% of
spending
Remaining funds
(2011 forecast)
US$
millions
% of
budget
Output 1 1.26 1.42 0.15 0.31 3.15 23 0.22 3.37 22
Output 2 1.43 0.96 0.56 0.86 3.81 28 1.29 5.10 33
Output 3 0.27 0.06 0.02 0.16 0.52 4 0.12 0.64 4
Output 4 0.36 1.92 0.02 – 2.30 17 – 2.30 15
Output 5 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.65 0.75 6 0.16 0.91 6
Mgmt. costs 0.21 0.55 0.90 0.40 2.07 15 0.08 2.15 14
PSC 0.18 0.25 0.09 0.13 0.65 5 0.09 0.74 5
Evaluation – – – 0.20 0.20 2 0.08 0.28 2
Total 3.76 5.19 1.80 2.72 13.46 100 2.03 15.49 100
Output 1: Increase awareness and knowledge of human trafficking
Output 2: Increase political commitment and capacity of Member States to counter human trafficking and implement the Traffick-
ing Protocol
Output 3: Mobilize resources to implement the action required to combat trafficking at the international, regional and national
level
Output 4: Organize a Global Conference to assess the global trafficking situation and to promote global action against human
trafficking
Output 5: Increase support to victims of trafficking through NGOs and other service providers
Note: December expenditures are based on FRMS interim report and UN.GIFT expenditure tracking. As of 8 February 2011, final
corrections, including those resulting from currency fluctuations, are still pending. Management expenditures include the strategy
development process in December 2010; numbers may not add up to 100 per cent due to rounding.
Source: UN.GIFT Secretariat; Dalberg analysis.
6
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
As of January 2011, a total of approximately US$ 2 million had not yet been disbursed but allo-
cated to the dierent output areas, with the majority (US$ 1.29 million) being allocated to output
area2 (table 1). In addition, remaining budget funds will cover organizational overheads in the
form of Programme Support Costs (PSC), evaluation related expenditures and project manage-
ment costs, which include the strategic planning process for a potential new phase of UN.GIFT.
e most substantial portion of these allocated funds (US$ 1.1 million) will be disbursed to Joint
Programme teams and spent over the next 12-16 months depending on underlying Joint
Programme timing.
Table 2 below shows budgeted funds by output area (a total of US$ 12.3 million), excluding budgeted
administration and management related costs (US$ 3.2 million). In addition the gure shows actual
expenditures by output area until December 2010 (a total of US$ 10.5 million), excluding administra-
tive and management related costs.
e Project has been extended to allow for nal disbursements of funds and other relevant transition
activities over the rst few months of 2011. At that point, UN.GIFT will be renewed for an additional
phase or terminated.
e standard United Nations PSC rate is 13 per cent on trust fund expenditures or, in UNODC’s case,
special purpose fund (SPF) expenditures (E/CN.7/2009/13–E/CN.15/2009/23). e purpose of PSC
is to recover incremental indirect costs incurred to support United Nations activities nanced from
extra-budgetary donor contributions. Indirect costs covered by PSC are those that cannot be “traced
unequivocally to specic activities, projects or programmes,” including those incurred when perform-
ing the following functions: project appraisal and formulation; preparation, monitoring and adminis-
tration of work-plans and budgets; recruitment and servicing of sta; consultants and fellowships;
procurement and contracting; nancial operations, payroll, payments, accounts, collection of contri-
butions, investments of funds, reporting and auditing.
5
In rare circumstances, the PSC ratio can be
lowered beneath the default amount, which needs to be justied and approved by special permission
of the Assistant United Nations Secretary-General for Financial Services.
UN.GIFT’s PSC rate on its initial grant is an instance of such an exception. e initial grant was
lowered to a 5 per cent PSC rate, based on the justication that the UN.GIFT project budget had
built in substantial direct support and a large contingency element already captured as part of manage-
ment costs. Project related management costs (including 2011 forecasts) will add up to 14 per cent of
the project budget. In addition, planned expenditures related to the independent evaluation will
amount to 2 per cent of the project budget, in accordance with UNODC guidelines. Based on 2007-
2010 expenditures and 2011 forecasts, total overheads thus amount to 21 per cent of the total project
budget.
In the case of UN.GIFT, PSC revenues have been utilized as general organizational overhead for the
hosting of UN.GIFT, with recovered costs being allocated to various UNODC sections and eld
oces.
Figure IV below shows further detail on UN.GIFT expenditures over time and particularly identies
organizational overheads in the form of PSC, project management costs, and expenditures related to
the independent evaluation.
5
UNOV/UNODC, e Concept of Regular Budget and Extra-Budgetary Resources (Special Purpose Funds,
Programme Support Funds and General Purpose Funds, 2010.
7
IntroductIon
Outputs
Total budget by
output area
(US$ mil.,
percentage)
a
Expenditures till
Dec 2010
(US$ mil., percentage)
a
Major programme activities funded, facilitated, and/or implemented by UN.GIFT (not exhaustive)
1a. Increased awareness of
human trafficking
b
3.4 (27 per cent) 2.1 (20 per cent) • Extensive media campaigns including a BBC TV Series, 3 lms, and UN.GIFT PSAs broadcast
on 9 international news channels (CNN, TV5, Deutsche Welle, Xinhua, AP)
• Awareness-raising posters, brochures, publications, and advocacy materials
• Awareness-raising initiatives like the Gulu Project and Start Freedom Campaign
1b. Increased knowledge of
human trafficking
b
1.0 (10 per cent) • UN.GIFT Global TiPs Report covering 155 countries (major share of knowledge budget)
• Multiple reports including 5 content specic reports/research papers, several region-specic
• UN.GIFT website launched in 2008 and expanded with rich content with launch of Virtual
Knowledge Hub in August 2010 (receiving up to 16k monthly unique visitors)
2. Increase political
commitment and capacity
of Member States to
counter human trafficking
and implement the
Trafficking Protocol
5.1 (41 per cent) 1.1 (11 per cent) • 10 regional conferences, covering Africa, Eastern Europe/Central Asia, South Asia and Lat. Am.
2.7 (26 per cent) • 5 Joint Programmes (down from original plan for 6 JPs) focused on local capacity-building
(1 launched in 2010; 2 to be launched in early 2011; 2 in development stage)
• Capacity-building tools for AHT professionals and government ofcials—including 9 Expert
Group Initiative manuals and toolkits developed by UN.GIFT Steering Committee members
• Capacity-building events (e.g. parliamentarian training, 6 law enforcement trainings)
• Inter-agency coordination—regular coordination meetings (22 since programme launch ) for
UN.GIFT Steering Committee members representing many of the key players in AHT
• Women’s Leadership Council
3. Mobilize resources to
implement the action
required to combat
trafficking at international,
regional and national level
0.6 (5 per cent) 0.5 (5 per cent) • Fundraising events and partnership with UNF: US$ 509k raised towards UN.GIFT budget,
US$ 780,000 raised by the JP team in Serbia, over US$ 1.5 million in indirect donations and
co-funding
• 17 private partnerships, 8 active, e.g. Qatar Airways, Eurolines, Hilton Hotels, ongoing private
sector engagement and training, and facilitation of initiatives like the upcoming Tourism Industry
Code of Conduct in India
• Best practices on private partnership design
Table 2. Project budget, expenditures, and activities by output area
8
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Outputs
Total budget by
output area
(US$ mil.,
percentage)
a
Expenditures till
Dec 2010
(US$ mil., percentage)
a
Major programme activities funded, facilitated, and/or implemented by UN.GIFT (not exhaustive)
4. Global Conference (i.e.
Vienna Forum)
2.3 (19 per cent) 2.3 (22 per cent) • Vienna Forum involving 1600 decision makers from 130+ countries, covered by 250+ media
outlets, with 6,000+ separate reports in media, and mentioned in multiple UN resolutions
5. Increase support to
victims of trafficking
through NGOs and other
service providers
0.9 (7 per cent) 0.7 (7 per cent) • Engagement and funding for global NGOs (e.g. Stop the Trafk), study exchanges for victim
support providers from Nigeria and UAE, Business Leader Awards
• Victim Translation Assistance Tool (MP3 audio tool)
• Small Grants Facility (US$ 529,000) launched with 440 applications, 12 grants in June of 2010
Total US$ 12.3 mil
a
US$ 10.5 mil
a
a
Budget and expenditures exclude management and PSC costs; total budget including management and PSC is US$ 15.5 mil, with expenditures of US$ 13.5 through Dec. 2010.
b
Output area 1 (“awareness and knowledge-building”) has been further sub-divided into 1a and 1b to facilitate transparency.
Source: Based on internal UN.GIFT Secretariat progress reports and tracking of expenditures; amounts may not exactly match UNODC nancial reporting system information.
9
IntroductIon
Figure IV. UN.GIFT expenditures 2007-2011 (in US$ millions)
2.4
2007
0.2
Total UN.GIFT
budget
3.8
12.3
15.5
0.1
0.1
2011(est.)
2.0
3.4
0.7
1.8
2010
2.7
2.0
0.2
0.6
2009
1.8
0.8
0.3
0.9
2008
5.2
4.4
0.1
0.6
0.1
Programme support costs
Management and evaluation costs
a
Programme expenditure on output areas
PSC (percentage)
Management and project
costs (percentage)
a
55554
16
a
11 50 822
US$ millions
Total overheads (percentage) 21 16 55 1227
5
6
11
a
Management costs include US$ 205k spent in 2010 on the evaluation of UN.GIFT and related strategic planning activity (2 per cent
of total budget).
Source: UN.GIFT Secretariat FRMS interim reports, UN.GIFT expenditure tracking, UN.GIFT Project Progress Reports; Dalberg
analysis.
Evolution of UN.GIFT
UN.GIFT has evolved signicantly over its rst three years of operations.
e original UN.GIFT Project Document called for three distinct phases of UN.GIFT (table 3):
(a) A preparatory phase focused on raising awareness, knowledge about human tracking,
identifying partners and mobilizing resources;
(b) A global stock taking phase in order to understand the priorities and key unmet needs of
stakeholders. is phase included the organization of a global conference on human tracking (the
Vienna Forum, planned originally for November 2007, but ultimately held in February 2008);
(c) An implementation phase focused on developing programmatic responses, partnerships and
coordination mechanisms in line with the priorities identied in the rst two phases.
In line with this plan, during the initial “preparatory” and “stock-taking” phases (2007-2008),
UN.GIFT focused on awareness-raising for the public and opinion makers, including ten regional
AHT conferences,
6
the Vienna Forum to Fight Human Tracking, a variety of public awareness
campaigns, and the launch of the UN.GIFT website.
6
e regional conferences have been categorized under the “political commitment and capacity-building” output area, but
like the Vienna Forum were mostly intended as a tool for political mobilization and awareness raising for decision makers.
10
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
UN.GIFT also funded, coordinated, and produced research and capacity-building tools on various
aspects of human tracking, with the most substantial knowledge investment being the funding of
the UNODC/UN.GIFT Global Report on Tracking in Persons.
A series of resolutions were passed early in the Project’s life in order to re-direct UN.GIFT activities
towards areas of greater strategic interest to Member States, specically technical assistance and
capacity-building.
Decision 16/1 of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) in April 2007
stated “that the Global Initiative to Fight Human Tracking should be guided by Member States”.
Decision 16/2 in November 2007 stressed “the importance of conducting UN.GIFT in full compli-
ance with the mandate of and decisions of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Conven-
tion against Translational Organized Crime” and requested “that the United Nations Oce on Drugs
and Crime to provide Member States, the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and
the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized
Crime with all information on the proceedings of the Vienna Forum as well as on progress and future
planning of UN.GIFT, including by providing reports on the meetings of the steering group and
reports of regional and expert group meetings”.
CCPCJ Resolution 17/1 on the “Eorts in the ght against tracking in persons”, requested “the
United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime to continue consultations with Member States and to
ensure that the Global Initiative to Fight Human Tracking is carried out as a technical assistance
project within the mandates agreed by the relevant governing bodies and to brief Member States on
the work plan of the Global Initiative, to be executed before the end of the project, in 2009”.
Aside from these resolutions, the Project has also been subject to a number of revisions, most notably
in December 2007, March 2009, December 2009, and February 2010 formalizing the shift to techni-
cal assistance, increasing the size of UN.GIFT Secretariat, extending the Project’s duration to Decem-
ber 2010, and revising the Project’s activities in line with a new Strategic Plan approved by the
UN.GIFT Steering Committee in November 2009.
Table 3. Evolution of UN.GIFT (2007-2010)
Phases of the Programme
Preparatory Stocktaking
Implementation
Regional events designed to
strengthen anti-trafficking
networks and to generate
coordinated activities and build
momentum for a global
campaign and conference on
human trafficking
A centerpiece of UN.GIFT, with
the organization of a major
global event, the Vienna
Forum to Fight Human
Tr afficking, and a global data
collection exercise on the
world state of human
trafficking
Builds on the political will, the
partnerships and global
networks generated in
previous phases to drive a
results oriented agenda and
support capacity-building
projects
Major project revisions
Sept.-Dec. 2007 Senior Manager appointed; MS direct UN.GIFT to cancel several activities (e.g. establishment of an
AHT fund), delay the Vienna Forum to February 2008, and resolve that the effort should be managed as a
technical assistance project with increased focus on capacity building
March 2009 No cost extension of the project by 9 months till 31 Dec. 2009; UNODC to continue consultations with MS
and to ensure that UN.GIFT is carried out as a technical assistance Project (restated in GA resolution 63/194)
Dec. 2009 No-cost extension of the Project until 31 Dec. 2010; restructuring of outputs and activities in line with a new
Strategic Plan approved by the UN.GIFT Steering Committee; some changes in monitoring and reporting
11
IntroductIon
In accordance with these resolutions and revisions and broadly in line with the Project’s original plans
for an “implementation” phase, UN.GIFT priorities shifted in late 2008 toward capacity- building and
technical assistance, as reected in increased expenditures for Output Area 2 (gure V). While con-
tinuing to carry out awareness-raising and knowledge eorts, UN.GIFT began to shift its resources to
developing Joint Programmes at the national or regional levels, mobilizing global and national public-
private partnerships, and launching a Small Grants Facility for NGOs with a focus on prevention and
victim support.
7
7
e UN.GIFT Small Grants Facility (SGF) focuses on four activity lines as agreed to by the SC, namely (i) the empow-
erment of vulnerable groups and communities, (ii) direct victim support, (iii) cooperation between NGOs from countries of
origin and destination, and (iv) collection of evidence-based knowledge.
Figure V. Shift of expenditures to capacity-building and victim support after 2008
100% =
6%
33%
8%
8%
7%
9%
44%
11%
5. Victim support structures
3. Mobilize resources
2. Increase political commitment
and build capacity
2009
43%
2.0
2010
(through Dec.)
16%
12%
72%
1.8
4. Global Conference
Budget remaining
as of Dec. 2010
1. Increase awareness and
knowledge
0.8
70%
19%
2008
4.4
22%
32%
2007
3.4
43%
b
(14%)
38%
a
Excludes management costs, evaluation fees, and PSC; expenditure per output calculated based on the UN.GIFT project team’s
internal monitoring of expenditures.
b
Includes US$ 1.1 million of regional conference spending (29 per cent of total), with balance of funds (14 per cent of total) spent
on capacity-building and TA activities.
Source: UN.GIFT team analysis.
It is important to note that the regional conferences in 2007, with nearly US$ 1.1 million of expendi-
tures, particularly focused on raising awareness of regional decisionmakers, knowledge-sharing and
boosting political commitment. However, due to the shortcomings of the logical framework, they
were categorized under the “capacity-building” output area (2) and therefore obscure the shift to tech-
nical assistance after 2007, which was in fact substantial. Adjusting for the regional events, technical
assistance spending has increased from a negligible portion of the US$ 3.4 million spent on Project
activities in 2007 (14 per cent), to 22 per cent of the US$ 4.4 million spent in 2008 to 43 per cent of
direct project expenditures in 2010 (gure V).
12
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Evaluation scope, methodology and limitations
e independent evaluation of UN.GIFT was initiated by the UN.GIFT Secretariat in accordance
with the original project document. An external company, Dalberg Global Development Advisors,
was selected through an independent procurement process and has conducted the evaluation, in col-
laboration with the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) of UNODC. Dalberg is a professional ser-
vices rm that specializes in providing management advice to organizations in the eld of international
development.
e purpose of the evaluation was to derive recommendations, best practices and lessons learned from
measuring the achievements, outcomes and impact produced by the project, as well as recommenda-
tions on the future of UN.GIFT. Based on this analysis, the evaluation has been meant to inform
major decisions on whether UN.GIFT should continue as is, be strategically re-positioned, or termi-
nated after December 31, 2010. In the case of continuation or strategic re-positioning, this evaluation
was meant to include a set of recommendations regarding Project mandate, activities, management,
and governance that would serve as an input into a comprehensive strategic planning process for any
new phase of UN.GIFT.
Per the evaluation TOR and subsequent adjustments agreed to by the IEU and UN.GIFT Management,
the evaluation has featured three phases:
(a) Phase 1: Preliminary evaluation. e rst phase of the evaluation was carried out July-
September 2010 and culminated in a preliminary evaluation report. e purpose of this rst phase
was to provide an analysis of progress that UN.GIFT has made as of June 30, 2010 in order to
inform decision-making about the future of UN.GIFT. An abridged version of the preliminary eval-
uation report was posted as part of the documentation for the Fifth Session of the Conference of the
Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (18-22 October,
2010);
(b) Phase 2: Syndication of evaluation ndings and preliminary recommendations. e
second phase of the evaluation (early September to mid-October 2010), carried out concurrently with
the end of the rst phase has been highly participatory, involving several rounds of feedback on pre-
liminary evaluation ndings and recommendations from Member States, Steering Committee mem-
bers, UNODC sections, and UN.GIFT Management and sta. It also included a number of
presentations and briengs for key Project stakeholders, the UN.GIFT SC, Member States, UNODC
Management and the UN.GIFT Project team. is phase culminated in an extended interim evalua-
tion document;
(c) Phase 3: Final evaluation report. e nal evaluation report was prepared in January/
February 2011 and will be published on UNODC’s external website. It is based on an the extended
interim evaluation document and an additional data collection and analysis phase in December 2010,
which particularly focused on ongoing activities, including a review of the Small Grants Facility, Joint
Programmes, and Virtual Knowledge Hub. e nal report accounts for Project funds disbursed
before January 2011 and include allocations for 2011. Additionally, the document provides rened
evaluation ndings and recommendations.
roughout the evaluation process the evaluators have focused on the criteria laid out in the evaluation
Terms of Reference including relevance, eectiveness, eciency, impact, sustainability, partnerships,
management and governance and related evaluation questions (table 4).
13
IntroductIon
Table 4. Terms of reference evaluation criteria
Evaluation criteria Key questions
Relevance • Are UN.GIFT’s objectives and activities aligned with clearly identied needs of stake-
holders and end-beneficiaries?
• Are the mandate and activities distinct and value-adding beyond the activities of other
players in anti-human trafficking?
• Do the activities and objectives make use of UN.GIFT’s comparative advantages or are a
good fit for the UN?
Effectiveness • To what extent have planned outputs and activities been completed?
• What was the quality of UN.GIFT deliverables and activities?
• To what extent have outputs and activities helped the Programme achieve its objec-
tives—e.g. improved awareness, increased political commitment, enhanced coordination,
strengthened victim’s support, improved capacity?
Efficiency • Have project activities and outputs been achieved on time and within budget?
• What is the perception of UN.GIFT efciency based on stakeholder experience?
• Could activities have been done more cost-effectively delivering the same or better
results?
• Has the Programme been monitored effectively in order to deliver the best results?
Impact • Has UN.GIFT reached it’s overall high-level objectives?
• What are the intended or unintended long-term effects of UN.GIFT on inter-agency
coordination and cooperation?
• What are the long-term micro- or macro-level effects of UN.GIFT activities on individu-
als, communities, and institutions?
Sustainability • To what extent have effects been sustained or are likely to be sustained after the activity
was completed?
• Has UN.GIFT mobilized resources in order to ensure sustainability of activities and
impact?
• Have the project stakeholders and beneciaries taken ownership of the objectives to be
achieved by the project?
Partnerships • Have inter-agency coordination mechanisms been successfully established?
• What lessons can be drawn from the UN.GIFT Joint Programmes?
• What lessons can be drawn from the engagement with civil society and private sector
stakeholders?
Management and
governance
• To what extent have governance arrangements been conducive to effective
implementation?
• To what extent have the roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee been
clearly defined and fulfilled?
• To what extent are the organizational structure of UNODC, the managerial support
provided, and the coordination mechanisms supportive of UN.GIFT?
Lessons learned • What lessons can be learned from the project implementation, governance and impacts
and how can these be applied to better future performance of the Programme?
• What are the best practices that emerge from the Programme and what is the potential
for replication?
14
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
To assess the Project against these dimensions, the evaluation team has conducted a wide-ranging
desk review of Project documents (List of UN.GIFT Documents Consulted in annex VIII), exter-
nal research (List of External Documents Consulted in annex IX), surveys and semi-structured
stakeholder interviews. A total of six electronic surveys of dierent stakeholder groups were carried
out, including Member States, UN.GIFT Steering Committee members, UNODC and UN.GIFT
sta, as well as external stakeholders like civil society organizations, private sector companies and
independent AHT experts. (Evaluation Survey Sample in annex V). Specic surveys were carried
out for India case study and of Small Grants Facility grantees. In addition, live and phone inter-
views were conducted with 113 representatives of various stakeholder groups. (Interview Guide
Sample in annex IV; List of Persons Interviewed in annex III). e evaluation was supplemented by
two country case studies undertaken through eld missions—a regional conference in India and a
Joint Programme in Serbia.
An overview of the survey and interview methodology and stakeholder coverage is provided in the
table below (table 5).
Limitations of the evaluation:
(a) Beyond the inherent diculties of evaluating multi-stakeholder initiatives like UN.GIFT,
limitations also resulted from the Project’s logical framework: Budget and expenditure data are organ-
ized against ve output areas, most of which are dened too broadly and show some overlap. Many
activities thus t into several categories, but are assigned to one particular output area. In addition,
there were substantial shifts of planned activities within the original logical framework in 2008 and
2009-2010. However, for the purpose of this report, the evaluators have adopted the same output
areas as the UN.GIFT logical framework;
(b) e absence of baseline data and adequate performance indicators and targets for most
Project results are related to the limitations of the logical framework. Similarly, they resulted in a focus
on activities and a lack of availability of performance review documents with end-user feedback;
(c) In addition, despite additional eorts of the UN.GIFT Secretariat, the evaluation team
faced a lack of activity-level budgets and expenditure data, due to limitations of UNODC’s nancial
and project management IT systems;
(d) In order to address the limited regional perspective, an additional focus was put on two case
studies, a regional conference in India and the Serbia Joint Programme (see chapter IV). Tight time-
lines in the rst phase of the process, partly due to an extended evaluation procurement process, had
some negative eects on the data collection phase. Despite eorts to ensure maximal outreach (e.g. via
reminder emails), the response rates for some electronic surveys remained low, partly due to the rst
phase’s short duration and timing during the summer period.
Despite these limitations, given the extensive stakeholder interviews across the globe, data from mul-
tiple electronic surveys, regional case study missions, and extensive triangulation of ndings with
external research and over 200 Project documents, the evaluators are condent about the quality of the
ndings and recommendations of the evaluation.
15
IntroductIon
Stakeholder group
Interview
coverage
(No.)
Methodology
(interviews)
Survey coverage
(No. of responses/
No. invited)
Methodology
(survey)
Total
stakeholder
coverage
Member States
(MS)
26 • Interview invitation to all 192 Member States
• Follow-up invitations to Regional Chairs, coun-
tries who have hosted regional events or Joint
Programmes, UN.GIFT donor countries, coun-
tries who have demonstrated particular interest
in UN.GIFT in the past
9/192
(5 per cent)
• Electronic survey invitation to all 192
Member States, with 3 weeks provided for
survey completion
29/192
15 per cent
of all Mem-
ber States
UN.GIFT Steering
Committee (SC)
7 • Interviews with primary points of contact from
all Steering Committee member organizations
• Interview with the representative of the donor
3/7 (43 per cent) • Survey invitation to primary points of
contact or alternative representatives as
nominated by SC member organizations
All SC
Members,
including
donor
Internal Stake-
holders (UN.
GIFT/UNODC)
33 • Interviews with entire UN.GIFT Secretariat team
and former UN.GIFT management, UN.GIFT
funded staff (e.g. consultants), and UNODC
staff and management with responsibilities for
UN.GIFT or who acted as UN.GIFT ‘s implemen-
tation partners
27/62
(43 per cent)
• Survey sent to UNGIFT funded staff and
UNODC staff with managerial responsibili-
ties for UN.GIFT or who acted as UN.GIFT
implementation partners
• Survey also open to eld ofce representa-
tives within UNODC
34
UN.GIFT/
UNODC
manage-
ment and
staff
External
stakeholders
12 • Sample of external stakeholders with direct
involvement in UN.GIFT activities, including
NGOs and Private sector partners
223/2264
(10 per cent)
10/12
(83 per cent)
• Wide sample of external AHT stake-
holders with and without exposure to
UN.GIFT activities, sourced from various
UN.GIFT contact lists and AHT databases
(223/2264)
• Additionally, 10/12 SGF recipients surveyed
245 external
stakeholders
India case study 10 • UNODC eld ofce staff involved in UN.GIFT
activity implementation; Other implementation
partners; Regional actors in the field of AHT
without direct involvement in UN.GIFT
13/326
(4 per cent)
• Electronic survey invitation to the 326
South Asia Regional Conference par-
ticipants (40 per cent of total conference
participants) whose contact details were
registered with UN.GIFT (2 weeks pro-
vided for responses)
23 internal
and external
stakeholders
Table 5. Methodology and stakeholder engagement
a
16
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Stakeholder group
Interview
coverage
(No.)
Methodology
(interviews)
Survey coverage
(No. of responses/
No. invited)
Methodology
(survey)
Total
stakeholder
coverage
Serbia case study 14 • UNODC, IOM, UNHCR eld ofce staff imple-
menting the Joint Programme; Government of-
cials and representatives of agencies and NGOs
who had exposure to Joint Programme activities;
representatives of Joint Programme donors
N/A • N/A 14 internal
and external
stakeholders
a
Interview coverage figures do not add up to total number of interviewees (114) because only one representative per MS/SC member/organization/company was counted.
17
II. MAJOR EVALUATION FINDINGS
AND ANALYSIS
Relevance
UN.GIFT’s overall role as a platform for technical AHT cooperation within and outside the
UnitedNations has been highly relevant.
International coordination and cooperation on anti-human tracking, within and outside the
UnitedNations system at both global and local levels is an important and persisting need. e impor-
tance of coordination and cooperation has been recognized by multiple United Nations resolutions
(e.g. GA resolutions 61/180, 63/194 and 64/178 on “Improving the coordination of eorts against
tracking in persons” and GA resolution 58/137 on “Strengthening international cooperation in
preventing and combating tracking in persons and protecting victims of such tracking”). Coordi-
nation remains a top priority as highlighted in the recent United Nations Global Plan of Action to
Combat Tracking in Persons (GPA), which “strongly urge[s] all responsible United Nations entities
to coordinate their eorts to ght tracking in persons eectively and protect the human rights of its
victims” and supports broader collaboration with NGOs and the private sector.
UN.GIFT has provided a global mechanism for technical cooperation through its multi-agency Steer-
ing Committee, its global and regional conferences, and its eorts to engage with the private sector
and civil society. At the regional level, within the United Nations system, the most prominent example
of a dedicated forum for inter-agency AHT coordination is the United Nations Inter-Agency Project
on Human Tracking (UNIAP), responsible for facilitating a stronger and more coordinated response
to human tracking within the Greater Mekong Subregion. Additionally, multiple inter-agency and
inter-governmental mechanisms and initiatives from outside the United Nations system have focused
on regional coordination (e.g. OSCE Action Plan and Forum to Combat Tracking in Human
Beings; Council of Baltic Sea States Task Force against Tracking in Human Beings; CIS Agreement
on Cooperation in Combating Human Tracking, Tracking in Organs and Tissues; Central Ameri-
can Coalition against Tracking in Persons; SAARC Convention on Preventing and Combating
Tracking in Women and Children for Prostitution).
However, at the global level, the Inter-Agency Coordination Group against Tracking in Persons
(ICAT) is the only other recognized mechanism for AHT coordination. ICAT is an 18-member AHT
coordination platform established pursuant to a request from the Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC 2006/27) and reinforced by GA Resolution 61/180 “Improving the coordination of eorts
against tracking in persons” in line with a United Nations Chief Executives Board for Coordination
(CEB) initiative to increase coordination on transnational crime issues.
Interviewed stakeholders recognize UN.GIFT as the most active global forum in promoting multi-
stakeholder cooperation in the eld of AHT and have also commented positively on the relevance of
UN.GIFT’s role in regional and local inter-agency cooperation as part of UN.GIFT Joint Programmes.
Although ICAT activities, in contrast, have until recently been limited to annual or bi annual meetings
of its members, a number of stakeholders remain concerned about UN.GIFT’s role as a body for inter-
agency cooperation vis-à-vis ICAT.
18
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
While the evaluators did not conduct an in-depth evaluation of ICAT, desk review and extensive stake-
holder feedback as part of the UN.GIFT evaluation show comparable objectives and priorities and
some similarities between UN.GIFT activities and ICAT planned activities. However, ICAT has been
eectively unfunded through much of its existence, has held relatively infrequent meetings, and has no
own Secretariat. In addition to the absence of funding (i.e. no operational budget) and supporting
sta, ICAT lacks an administrational basis and logical framework, with resulting detailed activity and
output plans and monitoring requirements. us, its objectives are eectively general AHT coordina-
tion priorities agreed-to by ICAT members rather than a concrete set of coordination activities. Other
notable dierences between ICAT and UN.GIFT are their legal basis—a General Assembly resolution
for ICAT and a technical assistance project document (GLOS83) for UN.GIFT, as well as member-
ship, which is signicantly larger for ICAT (table 6).
Key design elements IC AT UN.GIFT
Overall objective “Improve coordination and cooperation
between United Nations agencies and
other international organizations to
facilitate a holistic approach to preventing
and combating trafficking in persons
including protection of and support for
victims of trafficking.”
Coordination and a holistic approach to
AHT are not explicit overall objectives
but a cross-cutting theme: “the focus
of this initiative will be on the ways
of improving the coordination of
AHT efforts—at the national, regional
and global levels [through a] globally
coordinated AHT campaign.”
UNODC
relationship
UNODC is the chair of ICAT and is
entrusted with oversight of ICAT’s
coordination activities; agreement on
rotating chair in 2009 meeting
UNODC is the Executing Agency of
UN.GIFT (Project GLOS83) and the
host of the UN.GIFT Secretariat
Comparable AHT
priority areas
Joint regional activities—improve
coordination activities at the global and
regional levels (including synergies with
existing coordination mechanisms)
Best practice sharing—e.g. publishing
a technical assistance toolkit gathering
resources and best practices
Knowledge exchange—platform for
exchange of info and good practices on
AHT (ICAT website idea dropped)
Trafcking data—joint action will be
initiated for the development of global
indicators on trafficking in persons
Joint regional activities—develop and
implement UN.GIFT inter-agency Joint
Programmes at regional or country levels
Best practice sharing—develop and
disseminate best practice manuals and
toolkits (via EGIs)
Knowledge hub—serve as a hub for
inter-agency knowledge sharing within/
outside United Nations via a Virtual Hub
Trafcking data—Global Report on
TIP and a variety of other inter-agency
knowledge efforts; including multi-agency
report with common methodology/
indicators
Table 6. Comparison of UN.GIFT and ICAT objectives and activities/priorities
Key similarities
19
Major evaluation findings and analysis
e evaluation concludes that the outlined similarities can easily create a perception of over lapping
mandates, even though structure and activities of UN.GIFT and ICAT have been very distinct. While
UN.GIFT’s focus has been on more technical ground-level coordination, ICAT shows potential for
high level policy coordination, especially given its broader membership and legal basis.
8
If ICAT was to obtain new funding, there is some risk of duplication in the future if ICAT was to
pursue some of its objectives without close coordination with UN.GIFT. Potential activities that could
lead to duplication include the publication of technical assistance toolkits to promote inter-agency
best practices, potential coordination of activities and projects at the regional and national levels,
alignment on global tracking indicators and methodologies, and enhanced cooperation with organi-
zations outside of the United Nations system. Other activities, though mentioned in early ICAT docu-
ments, appear to have been dropped in subsequent materials (e.g. ICAT knowledge exchange and
coordination website).
Based on these facts and given the strong support for both ICAT and UN.GIFT in the GPA, further
clarication is critical to reduce confusion and avoid duplication of roles in the future. e ICAT ana-
lytical review released on the occasion of the 2010 COP with an update on ICAT’s mandate and objec-
tives was a useful step in this direction. However, further clarity on distinctions from and linkages to
UN.GIFT is likely required in future communications to the AHT community and Member States.
e evaluation found that in addition to UN.GIFT’s de facto inter-agency cooperation and coordina-
tion role, the sub-objectives of UN.GIFT at the level of output areas are also highly relevant. is was
clearly reected in surveys of of external stakeholders (gure VI) and consistent feedback from Member
States and Steering Committee members on critical AHT needs and gaps.
8
See context section in ICAT, An analytical review: 10 years on from the adoption of the United Nations Tracking in
Persons Protocol (2010).
Source: ICAT TOR and other documentation; UN.GIFT discussion paper on UN.GIFT and ICAT 2009; evaluation team analysis.
Key design elements IC AT UN.GIFT
Legal basis Created from United Nations
system resolutions based on the
recommendations by the Chief
Executives Board for Coordination
(CEB)
Created through a technical assistance
project document and referred to in
United Nations resolutions and GPA
Membership 18 entities: ILO, IOM, UNICEF, UNIFEM,
UNDAW, UNHCR, UNODC, OHCHR,
DPKO, UNICRI, UNFPA, UNAIDS,
UNDP, UNESCO, UN-INSTRAW, ICAO,
ICPOInterpol, WB
6 entities: ILO, IOM, OHCHR, OSCE,
UNICEF and UNODC (additionally,
a representative of the UAE donors
participates in UN.GIFT Steering
Committee meetings)
Administration and
budget
<US$ 100,000 one off resources over
entire history (no dedicated funding, 1
supporting resource, no Secretariat)
US$ 15.5 mil. project with operational
budget, logframe, and monitoring
requirements and 5-8 FTE Secretariat
Inter-agency
meetings
(2007-2010)
4 (original plan to meet bi-annually) 21
Key differences
20
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Figure VI. The relevance of the broad UN.GIFT output areas is high
Providing direct support to victims
Mobilizing resources to implement the action required
90%
52%
85%
82%
71%
Increasing awareness of trafficking in persons
Organizing global conferences (to mobilize the
AHT movement)
90%
86%
Increasing political commitment and capacity
of Governments
Providing direct assistance to Governments on policy
Providing data and evidence on trafficking in persons
External stakeholders (N = 203)*
Significant or very strong emphasis should be placed on the following activities in the fight against HT
Source: Electronic surveys with responses from 203 external stakeholders.
Source: Electronic surveys with 203 external and 27 “internal” (UNODC and UN.GIFT) respondents on this question.
Additionally, the external assessment of critical AHT gaps matched internal UN.GIFT and UNODC
assessments of most relevant priority areas for UN.GIFT (gure VII).
Figure VII. UN.GIFT assessments of AHT needs match perception of external stakeholders
81%
78%
63%
48%
Organizing global conferences
(to mobilize AHT movement)
Providing direct support to victims
Mobilizing resources to implement
the action required
41%
67%
Providing direct assistance to
Governments on policy
67%
Providing data and evidence on
trafficking in persons
Increasing political commitment
and capacity of Governments
Increasing awareness of
trafficking in persons
52%
90%
85%
71%
82%
86%
90%
Internal stakeholders (N = 27)*
Significant or very strong emphasis
should be placed by UN.GIFT on the
following activities in the fight against HT
External stakeholders (N = 203)*
Significant or very strong emphasis
should be placed on the following
activities in the fight against HT
21
Major evaluation findings and analysis
e prioritization of individual activities under these output areas, however, has been questioned by
many stakeholders.
Once the Project is completed, the major spend areas, as a percentage of the total budget for output
areas (i.e. excluding overheads), will be the following: global (19 per cent) and regional (9 per cent)
conferences and aliated activities; capacity-building including tools, events, and Joint Programmes
(23 per cent); and awareness-raising activities (18 per cent). In contrast, enhanced victim support
structures, an output area and one of the two major Project immediate objectives, will have received
less than 7 per cent of budgeted Project resources under the Victim Support output area or up to
10 per cent if victim support expenditures embedded in Joint Programmes are added to this output
area instead.
Over time, in light of the funds committed to the Small Grants Facility, the victim support budget has
doubled from earlier project documents. Furthermore, it must be noted that additional funding for
victim support structures is embedded in the capacity-building output area as part of Joint Pro-
grammes. e evaluation team estimates that over 30 per cent of actual and anticipated Joint Pro-
gramme funding will be targeted to victim support. Accounting for these funds, the actual victim
support spending will account for roughly 10 per cent of the overall UN.GIFT budget.
Even with these adjustments, however, it appears that a very limited amount of funds was directed
towards the critical and relevant victim support objective particularly in light of the fact that the crea-
tion and strengthening of victim support structures was one of the two overarching objectives in the
initial UN.GIFT strategy. at initial focus on victim support was appropriate, as survey and inter-
view results from this evaluation have universally highlighted victim support structures as a top concern
of Member States, NG.
Questions have also been raised on the share of resources allocated to conferences relative to other
AHT priorities, which is signicant. However, the prioritization of conferences was approved by the
donor and is transparent in early Project documents. Furthermore the need for a global forum for
sharing ideas, coordinating, and increased global prole for TIP was acknowledged widely at the time
of the event. Stakeholder feedback suggests that the continued need for such forums remains, but at a
smaller scale and on more targeted issues, often at regional level, since such opportunities for best
practice exchanges are still limited in many regions.
In terms of geographic mix, over 70 per cent of all Project expenditures for output areas (as of
31December 2010) have been global (i.e. not targeting specic regions), with South Asia received the
majority of regional expenditures (gure VIII).
While these expenditures are in accordance with the original project document and the global focus of
the Project, stakeholders expressed strong needs for more technical cooperation on the regional and
national level.
22
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Effectiveness
Completion of activities against UN.GIFT plans
Based on the volume of activities, UN.GIFT accomplishments against the original and revised work
plans are impressive in light of the small size of the UN.GIFT Secretariat (i.e. 5-8 core personnel, sta
and consultants, over the Project’s life-time). e large volume of activities was also possible due to the
substantive contributions of SC members and key partners in supporting and implementing many of
the Project’s activities.
Review of Project documents shows that at least 174 activities (tallied in June 2010), albeit of highly
diering levels of size, duration and eort, were completed since March 2007 (gure IX).
e evaluation team’s desk research conrms that the vast majority of activities in the initial and
revised project documents were completed in accordance to plans through December 2010. However,
it must be noted that in December 2010 the nal tranche of pledged funds had not yet been collected
and some output area related disbursements were still pending in 2011 (for details see also table 2).
Of the 27 activities in the original work plan, ve were cancelled in response to Member State guid-
ance—a second global conference planned for Abu Dhabi in 2008, the Group of Like-minded Member
States, the creation of a special purpose “AHT Implementation Fund,” and two fundraising events.
2010 work plan activities, which were still ongoing at the time of the preliminary evaluation (e.g.
Small Grants Facility, Virtual Knowledge Hub, Business Leaders’ Award), have been completed as
planned, though some nal disbursements have been delayed and will be made in 2011.
Figure VIII. UN.GIFT allocation of expenditures to global and regional initiatives
28%
72%
12%
25%
5%
8%
16%
7%
26%
Latin America
Eastern Europe
and Central Asia
Middle East and
Northern Africa
West and
Central Africa
Eastern Africa
Southern
Africa
South Asia
UN.GIFT expenditure by region (2007-2010)
100% = US$ 10.5 million
100% = US$ 2.94 million
Regional initiatives*Global initiatives
Note: Regional expenditures include regional research expenses, joint programme expenses, and other regional expenses like
dissemination of capacity-building tools (e.g. translation and printing) that are administered by the HQ.
Source: UN.GIFT Budget Report (2007-2010), UN.GIFT nancial summaries (2007-2010); UN.GIFT Financial Authorizations
(2007-2010).
23
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Implementing agencies of Joint Programmes and Small Grants Facility grantees will continue with the
implementation of related activities after the termination of the current phase of UN.GIFT, as
planned. However, one Joint Programme (Pakistan) was postponed due to the oods, the security
situation and major restructuring and down scaling of some implementing agencies in the country. In
September 2010 the Steering Committee thus approved the reallocation of funds to other Joint Pro-
grammes. As of February 2011 one Joint Programme (Serbia) is being implemented according to
plan, two are scheduled to be launched in early 2011 (Bolivia, Rwanda) and two are currently in the
developing stage (Central Asia, Egypt).
Quality of activities and project outcomes
e evaluation team reviewed a large sample of UN.GIFT activities, with a focus on initiatives with
larger budgets.
e available evidence indicates that the execution of individual activities has generally been high in
terms of output quality. However, the contribution of these often experimental and innovative activi-
ties to Project objectives (i.e. “outcomes”) is often dicult to quantify because of a lack of measurable
outcome-level data and baselines.
a
Due to shortcomings in UN.GIFT project management systems the evaluation team had to construct its own activity database
from periodic UN.GIFT activity reports and manually categorize activities by project output and pillar (in come cases requiring
subjective judgment on activity classication); the database was not updated for the nal evaluation, but would have included no
more than 10-15 new activities with no material impact on the activity distribution shown above.
b
Excludes management expenses and project support costs not allocated against specic output areas.
Source: UN.GIFT Project Progress Reports, UN.GIFT expenditure tracking, Dalberg analysis.
Figure IX. UN.GIFT activity mix by output area
8%
5%
45%
36%
36%
30%
Expenditure on output areas
through December 2010
10.5
b
7%
22%
Cumulative number of
activities (tallied in mid-2010)
a
174
a
10%
1%
5. Supporting victims
4. Global conference
(Vienna Forum)
3. Resource mobilization/
partnerships
2. Capacity-building and
coordination
1. Awareness-building and
knowledge creation
24
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Evidence from stakeholder surveys (conducted in July/August 2010) suggests that the most recog-
nized contributions toward outcomes are in the awareness-raising for decision makers via the Vienna
Forum and awareness-raising for the public, followed by capacity-building and increasing knowledge
of TIP. e least progress was seen on the mobilization of resources and victim support structures
(gure X).
Figure X. Overall UN.GIFT effectiveness—contribution towards UN.GIFT outcomes
15%
35%
71%
49%
56%
37%
36%
22%
55%
70%
57%
22%
42%
41%
35%
33%
44%
33%
1a. Increasing awareness on
human trafficking
1b. Increasing knowledge of
human trafficking
2. Increasing political commitment
3. Mobilizing resources
4. Organizing global conferences
(to raise decision-maker awareness)
5. Increasing support to victims of
trafficking through NGOs and
service providers
Percentage of survey participants who thought UN.GIFT activities were effective or
very effective in contributing to Project outcomes
Internal stakeholders
a
External stakeholders
b
Member States
c
a
27 UNODC and UN.GIFT staff and management involved in UN.GIFT.
b
223 external stakeholders including NGOs, private sector players, and government officials involved in AHT activities worldwide.
c
9 Member States (limited sample, but corresponds to Member State perceptions reported through semi-structured interviews.
Source: Electronic surveys.
Awareness-building for decision makers and political commitment
e most consistent theme across all stakeholder interviews was UN.GIFT’s notable contribution to
raising the prole of human tracking with opinion makers at the global and regional levels particu-
larly via the Vienna Forum, ten regional conferences in 2007, and activities like the active participa-
tion by UN.GIFT SC members at the General Assembly ematic Debate on AHT in June 2008 and
multi-stakeholder eorts such as the launch of a parliamentarian handbook.
e multitude of mentions of UN.GIFT in United Nations resolutions and documents—the
UN.GIFT Secretariat has complied over 50 such mentions over the course of three years—can be seen
25
Major evaluation findings and analysis
as a directional indicator of decision maker recognition and awareness of UN.GIFT’s activities and a
measure of the strength of UN.GIFT’s brand with global AHT stakeholders.
e 2008 Vienna Forum, a gathering of over 1,600 participants, including government (50 per cent),
civil society (32 per cent), international agency (15 per cent), and private sector (3 per cent) decision
makers across more than 130 countries, was the most prominent UN.GIFT event aimed at mobilizing
opinion makers and building stakeholder awareness on the issue of anti-human tracking.
e Forum was the most commonly mentioned example of eective UN.GIFT activities in stake-
holder interviews (with 90 per cent of mentions being positive) and was highly rated in the evaluation
survey of external stakeholders (60 per cent awareness among external stakeholder sampled, with
60 per cent of attendees nding the event useful or highly useful), with most commenting on the
enhanced prole for AHT with opinion makers and the benets of involving new social and private
sector players in the AHT eort.
Ten regional conferences fed into the Vienna Forum with the objectives of focusing on the regional
specicities of the crime, raising awareness, and broadening the AHT coalition (table 7).
Table 7. List of UN.GIFT Regional Conferences
Location Topic
Kampala, Uganda (19-22 June 2007) First Regional Anti-Human trafficking Conference in Eastern Africa,
Vulnerabilities of Conict and Post Conict Countries
Brazil (3-4 October 2007) Challenges to Combating Human Trafcking in Brazil
Bangkok (2-4 October 2007) Criminal Justice Responses to Trafcking in Persons,
“Ending Impunity and Securing Justice”
Cape Town (3-5 October 2007) Interfaith dialogue: What Religious Communities Can Do to Combat
Human Trafficking
New Delhi (10-11 October 2007) Responding to Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation in South Asia
Côte d’Ivoire
(20-22 November 2007)
Int’l Conference on the Trafcking in Children for Their Use in Armed
Conflict
Lithuania (25-26 October 2007) Conference on Preventing TIP—Challenges and Solutions
Turkey (9-10 October 2007) Trafcking in Human Beings in the Black Sea Region
Egypt (October 2007) Reviewing the status of Arab legislation for combating trafficking in
persons
Kyrgyzstan (13-14 December 2007) Round table to combat human trafficking aimed at strengthening
cooperation and coordination among partners in Eastern Europe
In Brazil and South Asia the events emphasized awareness-raising. Some of the other conferences were
organized more as technical meetings that garnered less media attention. is evaluation’s case study
on the 2007 South Asia Regional Conference (SARC) suggests that at least some of these events were
26
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
an important tool for raising the prole of human tracking with opinionmakers (see SARC Case
Study in section 6.1). Over 60 per cent of SARC participants in the survey sample considered the
regional conference as being “useful” or “highly useful”. Likewise, 75 per cent of respondents reported
“high” or “very high” SARC impact on AHT awareness of the region’s government ocials and other
key stakeholders, the highest rated dimension among all conference objectives.
e causal attribution of increased political commitment to the awareness raising activities of one
particular initiative like UN.GIFT is dicult due to the involvement of many other parties in political
mobilization on AHT. At the same time, there is good evidence of increased political commitment to
AHT over the past three years. e number of parties to the Tracking in Persons Protocol has grown
from 111 to 142 between the launch of the Project in March 2007 and December 2010. e number
of countries introducing a specic oence of TIP has also increased over the period, though the
improvement from 2006 to 2008, the latest year known, has been relatively marginal (from 72 per cent
to 80 per cent) according to the UNODC/UN.GIFT Global Report on TIP (gure XI).
Figure XI. Rise in political commitment at state level
140
117
Before UN.GIFT After UN.GIFT
Signatories of UNTOC
2006 November 2008
10%
2003
20%
40%
Percentage of countries that have introduced a
specific offence of trafficking in persons into their
legislation
Source: UNODC/UN.GIFT Global TIP report; UNTOC signatory database (September 2010).
Stakeholder interviews and surveys suggest, however, that UN.GIFT’s contribution to increasing
political commitment has been limited relative to other Project accomplishments. e “output area”
related to an increase of political commitment received the lowest “very eective” or “eective” rating
relative to other UN.GIFT objectives across the evaluation’s Member State, external stakeholder, and
UNODC/UN.GIFT sta electronic surveys.
Interview evidence also suggests that initial awareness and momentum created by the global and
regional conferences did not translate into immediate, concrete political commitments, e.g. no
dening statements or declarations came as a result of the Vienna Forum. In the case of the South
Asia Regional Conference in India, case study interviews likewise suggested that UN.GIFT’s role in
driving political commitment for governments in the region has been limited (SARC Cast Study in
chapter IV).
27
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Awareness-raising for the public
Public awareness has increased since 2007, continuing an earlier trend of rapid growth in web searches
on human tracking related terms and articles, books, and blogs related to AHT (gure XII).
Figure XII. Awareness of human trafficking on the internet
2004-05
12.6
2003-04
5.9
37.4
2009-10
333.0
2008-09
261.9
2007-08
142.4
2006-07
76.6
2005-06
Internet mentions of human trafficking
books, articles, blog entries on AHT (thousands)
a
2009-10
3.69
0.71
2008-09
1.28
2007-08
2.30
2006-072005-06
0.42
Human trafficking related
a
Google searches
(millions)
a
Based on an index of various AHT terms (e.g. sex trafcking, labour trafcking, child trafcking, anti-trafcking, etc.)
Source: Google index ( books, blogs and videos).
UN.GIFT awareness raising products have likewise had a substantial and growing reach. UN.GIFT
has provided substantial funding—20 per cent of output area related expenditures through December
2010 or 27 per cent of total budget for all output areas (i.e. excluding overheads) if 2011 allocations
are considered—on public awareness-raising, including lm events, TV series, PSAs, posters, and
more targeted advocacy activities (e.g. Start Freedom Campaign for youth).
UN.GIFT’s website has also been an awareness-raising tool, featuring 7,000-8,000 monthly unique
visitors at the launch of the Vienna Forum and 13,000-19,000 by the summer of 2010, and typically
rating in the top 5-10 websites on human tracking online (gure XIII). e trend shown is prior to
the launch of the Virtual Knowledge Hub in August 2010. e knowledge hub has a much wider array
of functionality beyond awareness-raising.
e magnitude of UN.GIFT’s overall contribution to public awareness is dicult to isolate and quan-
tify, however, without clear baselines and in light of the fact that public awareness-raising is a common
tool, adopted by most of the multi-lateral agencies, many NGOs, and governments involved in AHT.
Directional evidence, like the below-average online popularity of UN.GIFT PSAs vis-à-vis alternative
products, suggests that while UN.GIFT has unquestionably contributed to public awareness, it must
be considered as one important public awareness-raising eort among many (gure XIV).
28
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Figure XIII. UN.GIFT website statistics (prior to launch of Virtual Knowledge Hub)
Unique visitors to UN.GIFT website
(thousands, Feb. 2008-May 2010)
Rankings for websites related to human trafficking
5
May
2010
13
15
19
5
Jan.
2010
7
9
11
11
Sep.
2009
8
6
6
7
May
2009
8
9
8
8
Jan.
2009
6
6
7
5
Sep.
2008
6
5
5
7
May
2008
5
7
Feb.
2008
6
Website
ranking
(position
on list
in millions)
Website
visits
(per million
internet
users)
0.53 4.2humantrafficking.org 0.53 4.2humantrafficking.org
0.74 2.2notforsalecampaign.org 0.74 2.2notforsalecampaign.org
0.75 3.5polarisproject.org 0.75 3.5polarisproject.org
1.02 1.4ecpat.net 1.02 1.4ecpat.net
ungift.org 1.83 1.2ungift.org
Source: Google Analytics; AlexaWeb analytics; evaluation team analysis.
Figure XIV. Comparison of UN.GIFT PSAs with those of other stakeholders
20
25
5
65
75
7k UNODC avg.
12k non-UN.GIFT a
vg.
4k UN.GIFT avg.
0
10
15
70
NGOs/others
UNODC
UN.GIFT
Number of web views of a sample of 30 YouTube videos on trafficking
(thousands of YouTube hits)
Source: Google Analytics; Evaluation team analysis.
Many of UN.GIFT’s public awareness-raising activities (with notable exceptions of UN.GIFT cam-
paign focused on youth) were relatively untargeted and global in nature, whereas many practitioners
believe that more narrowly tailored advocacy campaigns (e.g. local language materials, advocacy
29
Major evaluation findings and analysis
campaigns targeting specic vulnerable groups at the regional and national levels) have a much higher
likelihood of impact.
Interviews suggested that broad public advocacy eorts were often a challenge for UN.GIFT from the
perspective of both substance and process. Some stakeholders suggested that the Project found it dif-
cult to pursue edgier, less traditional advertising campaigns given the need for multi-stakeholder
consensus and the political constraints inherent in advocacy within the United Nations context. From
a process standpoint, over the Project’s lifetime, three consultants were responsible for advocacy work
at dierent times, with each bringing new context, approach, and priorities to the eort and thus
reducing the consistency and impact of the advocacy eorts as a whole.
Knowledge dissemination and coordination
UN.GIFT knowledge coordination eorts have been well received and knowledge products funded by
UN.GIFT have helped ll a number of gaps in the AHT knowledge landscape.
As the Project’s biggest knowledge investment, the UNODC/UN.GIFT Global Report on Track-
ing in Persons—accounting for the majority of spending under the knowledge output area—was
an important step to meet what stakeholders have identied as a signicant decit in standardized
and neutral tracking statistics. e report, managed by UNODC and with input provided by
other SC members, established a baseline for future research and analysis, with data on over
155countries.
e report is one of the most visible products for Member States (top mention along with the Vienna
Forum) and external stakeholders, with 32k downloads o the UNODC/UN.GIFT websites in 2009
and, compared to the US 2008 Report on TIP, identied by all interviewers as the main alternative
data source on global tracking (gure XV).
Source: Google Analytics; Evaluation team analysis.
Figure XV. Web mentions and citations of UN.GIFT publications
116
556
1,120
1,200
1,870
7,360
115
0
1
2
2
3
5
6
19
21
34
79
Web hits (Google) Citations (Google Scholar)
40,400
16,800
17,900
19,700
42,500
106,000
Global report on trafficking in persons
Introduction to human trafficking
Caring for trafficked persons
Human trafficking: An overview
Global Initiative to Fight Human Tr afficking
Model Law against Tr afficking in Persons
Tr aining manual to fight trafficking in children
U.S. Dept. of State TIP Report 2008
Guiding Principles on MoUs
Tr afficking in Persons: analysis in Europe
Combating Forced Labour
Manual for Criminal Justice Practitioners
30
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
e majority of external AHT stakeholders (75 per cent) were aware of the report, of which approx-
imately 60 per cent found it useful or very useful, highlighting factors like objectivity and neutral-
ity, comprehensiveness, and the progress towards establishing a baseline that can be monitored over
time.
Despite the largely positive reception and wide audience, the Global Report faced some criticism and
challenges. ese should be noted in order to increase the eectiveness and buy-in for future Global
Reports on TIP that will be published by UNODC bi-annually in accordance with the GPA. While
the objectives of the report were universally praised, a number of stakeholders suggested that the
implementation was not in the inter-agency spirit of UN.GIFT in so far as the report—a major
UN.GIFT investment at nearly US$ 1 million, with 9 regional researchers and a year-long preparation
process—was driven by only one agency (i.e. UNODC), with what some noted as a lack of a holistic
view and cross-disciplinary expert consultation.
e evaluation found that other SC members were nevertheless involved to some extent: data was col-
lected from SC members willing to participate, SC members were regularly briefed about the report’s
progress via the Steering Committee meetings, and UNODC complied with requests from UN.GIFT
Steering Committee by, for instance, sharing the entire database with other members. Nonetheless,
stakeholder interview feedback—and disagreements noted in SC meeting minutes about report brand-
ing—do suggest a lack of clarity on SC members’ roles in developing the report which resulted in a
misalignment of expectations and perhaps a missed opportunity to better involve a broader group of
AHT stakeholders in data collection and validation.
Furthermore, multiple stakeholders suggested that consultation with regional AHT experts outside of
government ocials, including with the AHT eld sta of UNODC and other SC member agencies,
was inadequate. is suggests, at the very least, a need for systematic post-report feedback from a
global panel of stakeholders and AHT experts as well as the need to clearly communicate the data
collection and syndication process to eld sta and external stakeholders.
Some design issues were raised in the interviews, such as limited value and comparability of data for
practitioners due to reliance on ocial statistics, focus on sex tracking rather than labour tracking,
and focus on factual reporting rather than comparative analysis of trends. However, these limitations
were clearly noted in the report’s introduction and were an acknowledged component of its methodo-
logical design.
Finally, stakeholder interviews and survey feedback noted instances of factual inconsistencies (e.g. a
national action plan was listed as adopted when it was not actually in place), unbalanced descriptions
of anti-human tracking initiatives (e.g. focus on specic NGOs without clear explanation of whether
they were representative of the broader AHT landscape), and some production errors (e.g. cut o
sentences or paragraphs). e evaluators conclude that such inconsistencies are not uncommon of rst
version reports and could easily be addressed through a rened regional and global peer review process
in the future.
UN.GIFT spending on other knowledge eorts, not counting EGIs captured under the capacity-building
output area, has been limited, but some of the smaller regional reports, such as the India Tracking
Report in 2007, and the Virtual Knowledge Hub, the largest recent knowledge eort, have been
positively acknowledged by many stakeholders.
UN.GIFT’s website was re-launched as a “Virtual Knowledge Hub” on August 30, 2010. It has a rich
set of functionality including an actively managed library of materials on AHT from within the
31
Major evaluation findings and analysis
UnitedNations system and other development partners, daily content updates that include publications
and events from Steering Committee members and other AHT news, several hosted blogs on human
tracking (including a survivors blog, posted by a former victim of human tracking), and social
media functionality (i.e. Facebook). e number of unique visitors went up signicantly in the last
quarter of 2010. Although numbers typically drop in August and rise again in the following months, the
increase of 87 per cent (August-November) is signicant. Compared to 2009 gures, there has been an
increase of 48 per cent (September 2010), 37 per cent (October 2010) and 64 per cent (November
2010) respectively. Only March 2010 recorded a higher number of unique monthly visitors, but a
temporary peak (of 18.7k) due to the launch of the Small Grants Facility.
Figure XVI. Virtual Knowledge Hub website traffic (May-November 2010)
16,708
14,395
11,700
8,915
8,695
10,488
12,753
May 2010
+23%
June 2010 July 2010 Aug. 2010 Sep. 2010 Oct. 2010 Nov. 2010
UN.GIFT
Virtual Knowledge Hub
launched
Number of unique monthly visitors
Source: UN.GIFT; Evaluation team analysis.
More important than the rising number of visitors at this early stage, is the fact that a survey of Virtual
Knowledge Hub users revealed very high satisfaction rates. e vast majority of surveyed visitors,
70-80 per cent, reported “good” or “excellent” ratings for various measures of Virtual Knowledge Hub
quality—including quality of information, presentation of materials, site interactivity, and speed of
access (gure XVII).
Given the substantial information and coordination gaps in the market and considering the more
limited features of competing platforms (e.g. humantracking.org, no-tracking.org), the evalu-
ation team concludes that the Virtual Knowledge Hub, though still in its early days, must be
considered an important positive contribution to AHT eorts and has good potential to become
the “go-to” site for information and best practice sharing for practitioners and the broader public
alike. e trends detailed above suggest that the UN.GIFT website in the form of the Virtual
Knowledge Hub is likely to further improve its ranking amongst the top 3-5 global sites on AHT
(see gureXIII).
32
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Figure XVII. End-user feedback on the Virtual Knowledge Hub
Excellent
Good
Okay
Bad
Very bad
37%
49%
10%
2%
2%
Very fast
Fast
Slow
Very slow
24%
56%
18%
2%
Not so
well structured
Little or
no structure
38%
47%
15%
0%
Very
structured
Rather
structured
Excellent
Good
Okay
Bad
Very bad
26%
45%
25%
4%
0%
Excellent
Good
Okay
Bad
Very bad
35%
44%
20%
2%
0%
How do you rate the quality of the
multimedia files?
How do you rate the information
structure?
How do you rate the information on
the Hub?
How do you rate the interactivity on
the Hub?
How fast can you reach the
information needed?
is warrants continuation of the Virtual Knowledge Hub in any potential new UN.GIFT phase or
successor Project. However, maintaining and further developing high prole knowledge and network-
ing hub will also require further investments. Challenges include limited sta capacity for content
screening, management and customization. As of December 2010 only one sta member was involved
in Hub activity and promotion of the site within the broader AHT community and on the internal
websites of UN.GIFT SC members. Furthermore, considering the expected increased amount of data,
technical infrastructure and technical support provided by UNODC’s Information Technology
Services, may not suce or need further upgrading (e.g. server, search engine).
Capacity-building and technical assistance
Major capacity-building activities for UN.GIFT included Expert Group Initiative manuals and tools
and a variety of smaller capacity-building initiatives at global and country levels (e.g. workshops for
select AHT practitioners and government stakeholders). In addition, UN.GIFT Joint Programmes are
part of this output area.
Capacity-building tools, in the form of Expert Group Initiative (EGI) manuals (table 8), have been
extremely well received with consistently positive feedback from interviewed stakeholders. ough
quantication is dicult, the evaluation team’s interviews suggest relatively frequent use and adoption
of the tools by global AHT practitioners and decision makers. At the same time interviews suggest that
more can be done in terms of EGI promotion and dissemination at the regional and country levels by,
for example, investing more into localized, translated versions for select markets.
33
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Table 8. UN.GIFT Expert Group Initiative tools and manuals
Expert Group Initiative Lead authors Year
Combating forced labour: A handbook for employees and business ILO 2008
Training manual to fight human trafficking in children for labour,
sexual and other forms of exploitation
ILO, UNICEF 2009
Guiding Principles on Memoranda of Understanding Between
Key Stakeholders and Law Enforcement Agencies on Counter-
Trafficking Cooperation
IOM 2009
Caring for Trafficked Persons: Guidance for Health Providers IOM 2009
Model Law Against Trafcking in Persons UNODC 2009
Anti-Human Trafcking Manual for Criminal Justice Practitioners UNODC 2009
First Aid Kit for Use by Law Enforcement Responders in Addressing
Human Trafficking
UNODC 2009
Needs assessment toolkit on the criminal justice response to
human trafficking
UNODC 2010
Analysis of the business and socio-economic causes of trafficking in
persons
OSCE 2010
Aside from EGIs, the major focus of UN.GIFT’s AHT capacity-building strategy has been the launch
of several inter-agency Joint Programmes at the country level. Joint Programmes were conceptualized
as part of UN.GIFT’s revised strategic work plan in 2008. After a selection process involving all Steer-
ing Committee members, six country programmes received SC approval in October 2008—Serbia,
Rwanda/Burundi, Bolivia/Argentina, Central Asia Region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan), Egypt and Pakistan.
e original concept involved the provision of seed UN.GIFT funds (a US$ 50,000 grant) to facilitate
the initial scoping and design of each programme by the country-level UN.GIFT member agency
sta. In the original design, the local JP teams were responsible for: (a) developing an inter-agency
MOU based on templates provided by the UN.GIFT Secretariat (b) retaining a consultant to develop
the Joint Programme document after a thorough needs assessment and consultation with governments
and other country-level stakeholders, and then (c) raising donor funds for programme implementa-
tion, with a target of US$ 2-4 million for each programme.
Despite careful design, the process of launching Joint Programmes has proved to be a dicult one. Joint
Programmes typically required signicant investment of UN.GIFT Secretariat’s time and resources into
project design, inter-agency coordination, and fund-raising and featured long (18-24months) lead
times to programme launch. Aside from diculties in aligning inter-agency agendas—an inherently
dicult process given competitive on the ground dynamics and the diversity of AHT approaches and
priorities—the biggest challenge has proved to be fund-raising.
At the time of the evaluation team’s eld work in mid-2010 only the Serbia Joint Programme (see
case study in chapter IV) had been launched. e ve other Joint Programmes were in dierent
34
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
stages of project formulation, design and fund-raising with little progress on external resource
mobilization.
In response, UN.GIFT reviewed the status of Joint Programmes, revised and scaled back the overall
Joint Programme plan. e Steering Committee made the decision to allocate a substantial portion of
remaining UN.GIFT budget funds (US$ 1.1 million) to the Joint Programmes as planned, without
waiting for matching donor funding, and approved the reallocation of funds amongst Joint Pro-
grammes. New funding levels for each JP were determined on the basis of programme progress to date
and prospects for a rapid launch.
e scope of two JPs, Bolivia and Rwanda, was pared back from multi-country to single-country
designs in light of stakeholder capacity and reduced funding availability. e Pakistan Joint Programme
was postponed due to security concerns, oods, and resulting changes in the resources and priorities
of country-level implementation agencies. UN.GIFT funds have been allocated to enable the develop-
ment of Egypt’s Joint Programme in early 2011, based on the recently completed National Study on
Human Tracking. Finally ILO and UNODC will cooperate through their oces in the Central Asia
region to launch the programme design process using UN.GIFT funds in early 2011.
9
Consequently, UN.GIFT funds are now being utilized both for programme design and launch (i.e.
seed funds) and for the initial phases of implementation for Serbia, Bolivia, and Rwanda, with the
objective of local JP teams leveraging initial project accomplishments to raise further donor funds in
the future.
e December 2010 status of each of the Joint Programmes appears in table 9 below:
9
By late 2010 disbursements to launch work on the Bolivia and Rwanda JPs were awaiting the transfer of the nal
tranche of donor funds to UN.GIFT, thus delaying the launch of the Bolivia and Rwanda JP into 2011.
Table 9. Joint Programme status as of December 2010
Programme Funding Programme status
Serbia US$ 90k—seed funding for consultant/
programme design
US$ 530k—UN.GIFT funding for
implementation
US$ 780k—external donor funds
mobilized for implementation with further
fund-raising continuing
• Joint Programme launched in June 2010
• Planned activities on track with excellent
stakeholder feedback:
- Baseline AHT landscape studies
completed in December 2010
- Conference on combating Human
Trafficking in Serbia for parliamentarians
and first of three planned workshops
on the National Referral Mechanism
completed
- Programme management moved to
premises within the Ministry of Interior,
closer to national counterparts
35
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Programme Funding Programme status
Rwanda US$ 50,000 seed funding for consultant/
programme design utilized
US$ 330,000 UN.GIFT funding for rst
phase of work awaiting disbursement
• Programme design modied the
programme document into a phased
approach with UN.GIFT funding to cover
the first six-month phase which will allow
the partners to undertake initial activities
(awareness-raising, training), prepare
the ground and mobilize resources for
subsequent phases
• JP launch pending disbursement of
UN.GIFT funds in 2011
Bolivia US$ 50,000 seed funding for consultant/
programme design utilized
US$ 440,000 UN.GIFT funding for rst
phase of work awaiting disbursement
• Programme document developed by
the implementing agencies (UNODC,
IOM, UNICEF) with national stakeholder
involvement
• One-year plan focusing on capacity
development and victim assistance in
Bolivia ready to launch when funds are
disbursed
• Further fund-raising for subsequent
phases planned for 2011
Central Asia
(Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan)
US$ 50,000 seed funding for programme
development (to be disbursed in 2011)
• Seed funds for programme development
will be disbursed to enable the joint
hiring of a consultant by programme
partners (ILO and UNODC) and the
development of the detailed project
document in early 2011
Egypt UN.GIFT co-funding of the National
Study on Human Trafficking
US$ 38,000 seed funding for programme
development (to be disbursed in 2011)
• National Study on Human Trafcking
completed in late 2010
• Seed funds for hiring of consultant (by
UNDP) and programme development
will be disbursed in early 2011
Pakistan US$ 50,000 seed funding for consultant/
programme design
• JP developed but implementation
postponed
e eectiveness of UN.GIFT Joint Programmes cannot be assessed at this stage, as they will only be
implemented in 2011 or are still at the developing stage, with the exception of the Serbia Joint Pro-
gramme. On the basis of the latest management update in December 2010, the Serbia JP is on track
in terms of delivering promised activities for the rst phase of work.
Based on this progress and the ndings of the case study (in chapter IV), the evaluation analyzed the
Serbia JP development eorts and identied a number of success factors for joint programmes in gen-
eral, which bear the potential for increased integration and ownership and less duplication of eorts.
It must be noted, however, that their reproducibility is likely limited and that risks associated with
joint programmes in general remain high. e track record in Serbia and elsewhere suggests that joint
programmes on country or regional level (i.e. multi-year, US$ 2-5 million initiatives) need a lot of
investment in terms of time and resources at the design and development stage. After two years of
eort, only three UN.GIFT Joint Programmes out of an initially planned six have launched or are near
36
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
launch. e initial stages of the programme development process required extensive support from the
UN.GIFT Secretariat to rene design to country-specic conditions and align agency and external
stakeholder interests.
Although it lasted longer than anticipated, the preparatory phase of the Serbia JP can be considered a
success: UN.GIFT, through its multi-agency membership and the seed money it provided, enabled
extensive inter-agency coordination, featuring joint activities (e.g. the hiring of programme manager)
and best practice involvement of country-level stakeholders. Government involvement was addition-
ally supported through the co-funding of ministerial focal points. e JP is thus based on country
needs (i.e. is aligned with national strategy and National Plan of Action to Combat Tracking in
Human Beings) and existing structures like the Serbia Republic Team for Combating Tracking in
Human Beings. As a result, the JP has a relatively strong fund-raising record and a high potential for
success.
Identied success factors include:
(a) Strong government support and t with country priorities. A government inclined to col-
laboration was an important success factor in the case of Serbia. In addition, the JP was able to build
on existing structures and priorities (strategy and National Plan for Action);
(b) Substantial investment of time and resources and support from a neutral central Secretariat.
e “seed money” approach for the design and development stage, together with the involvement and
‘backstopping’ support of the UN.GIFT Secretariat proved eective;
(c) Donor priority and interest in the topic and region. Given the scale and ambition of
UN.GIFT Joint Programmes, donor interest was a major determinant of successful programme
launch, with many incipient programmes nding it dicult to mobilize donor funds;
(d) An open consultative approach from the start of the process;
(e) A programme consultant (preferably with appropriate language skills and strong local
relationships) to identify project needs and facilitate stakeholder engagement;
(f) Upfront buy-in from senior agency sta at headquarters and/or regional levels, which was
facilitated by the UN.GIFT Steering Committee.
e evaluation found that the UN.GIFT Joint Programme experience is consistent with the lessons
learned of the United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Tracking in the Greater-Mekong
Subregion (UNIAP) in spite of the fact that UNIAP has a very dierent structure from UN.GIFT’s
Joint Programmes. UNIAP is the major example of formalized inter-agency cooperation on AHT at
the regional level.
UNIAP was established in 2000 and serves as the secretariat to the Coordinated Mekong Ministerial
Initiative against Tracking (COMMIT), a subregional institutional framework for counter-track-
ing initiatives with high-level representation from regional governments. It is managed from a project
management oce in Bangkok with country oces in the six greater Mekong region States. UNDP
serves as the project coordinator from the United Nations side and oers administrative hosting to
UNIAP project management and country oce sta. e project is governed by a management com-
mittee consisting of a rotating membership of United Nations agencies (including UNDP as the resi-
dent coordinator, UNICEF, IOM, ILO, and UNOD), donor representatives, and COMMIT country
representatives.
37
Major evaluation findings and analysis
UNIAP’s most recent evaluation
10
concluded that the Project made a major contribution to improving
the counter-tracking response in the greater Mekong region through its support of the COMMIT
process, its ability to “analyse tracking issues holistically” and “catalyse partnerships to support truly
integrated responses.” At the same time, however, the UNIAP evaluation revealed many of the same
challenges in improving inter-agency coordination at the country and subregional levels that have
characterized UN.GIFT Joint Programmes.
e UNIAP evaluation highlighted the diering institutional priorities of AHT agencies and the real-
ity of improved inter-agency coordination requiring years of investment, clear external incentives to
break through organizational silos, a neutral structure or project for inter-agency engagement, forums
for technical cooperation (e.g. in the case of UNIAP, a special “Advisory Group” composed of a small
number of major AHT agencies), and close links to governments at the country or regional level to
ensure that coordination eorts are tied to relevant country AHT priorities.
e lessons from UNIAP and the experience of UN.GIFT consequently suggest that the country-level
inter-agency coordination through Joint Programmes is both possible and desirable, while also being
dicult to achieve. In the case of UN.GIFT, in particular, all stakeholders interviewed by the evalua-
tion team have reported that increased collaboration was desirable, would likely lead to improved
outcomes, and, in the case of Serbia, was already creating important behavioural changes to ensure a
more coordinated delivery of AHT capacity-building services by the development community.
At the same time, the potential for replicating the current Joint Programme design across much new
geography in any future phase is likely limited, considering their ambitious nature and the current size
of the central Secretariat with only one consultant in charge of backstopping JPs.
Many interviewed stakeholders suggested, however, that some of the core benets of joint programme
activity could also be captured through small-scale inter-agency collaboration. Smaller scale inter-
agency projects focused on specic knowledge, advocacy, or capacity-building eorts should be less
dicult to initiate. is is evidenced by projects like the US$ 50,000 UNODC/UNIFEM knowledge
building joint programme in South Asia (not part of the UN.GIFT Joint Programme initiatives). It
represents an opportunity to enable some of the benets of Joint Programmes, but with a wider scope
in terms of more geographies or a greater variety of issues. One option would be a grants facility that
incentivizes inter-agency cooperation through smaller grants (e.g. in the US$ 50-500,000 range) based
on applications of consortiums of partner AHT agencies at the country level.
7. Private sector and civil society engagement
UN.GIFT is not the only entity reaching out to the private sector and civil society. ere are various
eorts by AHT agencies to seek private and civil sector engagement. However, the dierent roles,
cultures, and mandates of various United Nations bodies can often be opaque to others. It is dicult
for external stakeholders to understand where to go for partnerships, assistance or advice. UN.GIFT’s
visible and active role as an inter-agency platform for engagement of private sector companies and civil
society organizations has consequently been highly appreciated stakeholders.
As part of its private sector engagement strategy, UN.GIFT has contacted a total of 112 companies to
seek partnerships in AHT work, including 40 leading worldwide airlines, 9 major bus transportation
10
Cunnington, P. and S. Hung, Mid-term Evaluation Report of UNIAP Phase III 2007-2010, March 2009.
38
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
companies, 30 leading Hotel chains, 10 leading train companies, as well as the textile industry in India
and a variety of companies contacted via the Women Leaders’ Council and the United Nations Global
Compact Survey. ese eorts resulted in 19 partnerships with private sector companies, launched by
the UN.GIFT Secretariat. (table 10).
Table 10. List of partnerships secured and type of involvement
Eight active partnerships (as of October 2010)
1. Hilton Hotels Cooperation agreement signed with UN.GIFT for the dissemination of material in
their hotels in Vienna and for training of their staff.
2. Qatar Airways Cooperation agreement signed with UN.GIFT for the dissemination of material in
their company branches and for training of their staff.
3. Eurolines Cooperation agreement to be signed with UN.GIFT for the dissemination of
material in their company busses, for training of their staff and employing a former
victim of human trafficking.
4. OEBB railways Cooperation agreement with UN.GIFT to be signed for the dissemination of
material in their company branches and for training of their staff.
5. Air Canada UN.GIFT and Air Canada agreed in June 2010 to jointly elaborate and implement
a campaign which promotes awareness raising for travellers concerning human
trafficking. Air Canada agreed to train their staff and show in-flight videos as well
as give UN.GIFT a space in their in-flight magazine EnRoute to raise awareness on
human trafficking.
6. Doanis (Kenya) Agreed to train their staff on human trafficking using the UN.GIFT e-learning tool
and facilitated cooperation with the National TV and Radio Broadcast Co. (KBC) to
show UN.GIFT PSAs on TV and radio.
7. Microsoft Developing AHT e-learning tool for private sector companies pro-bono. The content
will be provided by UN.GIFT and this initiative is in partnership with the End Human
Trafficking Now! Campaign.
8. Women Leaders’
Council
The WLC is a public-private partnership where prominent women agree to
advocate for human trafficking (incl. 33 prominent women leaders)
9. The Body Shop Contribution to the Private Sector Publication, testing of e-Learning tool and
provision of a testimonial
10. Beulah London Contribution to the Private Sector Publication, testing of e-Learning tool and
provision of a testimonial
Inactive partnerships
11. South Africa Airways Agreed to include article on human trafcking/UN.GIFT in their in-ight magazine
during the months of the FIFA World Cup.
12. Manpower Funded the Vienna Forum business breakfast.
13. Business Leaders
Forum
Helped conceptualize and attract businesses for the Vienna Forum panels and
business breakfast.
39
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Inactive partnerships
14. Producers association Granted permission for the screening of 19 films during the Film Forum on Human
Trafcking, which took place during the Vienna Forum.
15. Roadside attractions On the 19th September, UNODC in partnership with the international human rights
organization Equality Now and Roadside Attractions hosted the world premiere
of the movie “Trade” starring Academy Award-winning actor Kevin Kline, at United
Nations HQ.
16. GAP Inc. (HQ) Contributed by reviewing and providing comments to the private sector survey,
carried out in partnership with ILO and United Nations Global Compact.
17. GAP Inc. (India) In partnership with the Ministry of Women and Child Development and UNODC,
organized the first sensitization workshop for the apparel industry under the banner
of UN.GIFT.
18. International
Organization of
Employers and
Manpower
Contributed to the ILO/UN.GIFT EGI, which produced “Combating Forced Labour:
A Handbook for Employers & Business”.
19. WEF (Middle East) Granted the space and time for a session on human trafficking, as an emerging topic,
to be organized by the SMWIPM and UN.GIFT.
Pilot partnerships have been high quality with very positive feedback from private sector counter-
parts interviewed by the evaluation team. However, many have been limited in scope. Of the
active partnerships, for instance, over half are limited to agreements to disseminate information
on human tracking either internally or to customers of the company via means like in-ight
magazines.
e relatively modest scope of many initiatives and diculties in sourcing partnerships (i.e. 8active
partnerships out of 112 companies contacted) are not surprising since human tracking is a dicult
issue for companies to accept, address and engage in. As UN.GIFT’s own analysis of private partner-
ship lessons has revealed, “most corporate social responsibility departments are engaged in environ-
mental as well as social causes and still see the engagement in an anti-tracking campaign with
scepticism. Companies’ commitment to review corporate policies and supply-chains to prevent and
combat human tracking is even more challenging [due to reputation concerns].”
ese challenges do not weaken the case for UN.GIFT’s activities, but do suggest that the Project’s
biggest contributions to date on partnerships have been the development of a set of private partnership
tools and precedents (e.g. model MOUs, private partnership best practices) that can be leveraged in
future eorts.
Furthermore, the slow uptake of the AHT issue by the private sector highlights the importance of
UN.GIFT’s advocacy and awareness-raising eorts focused on this stakeholder group.
Beyond involving private sector actors in the Vienna Forum and regional conferences, UN.GIFT
private partnership advocacy eorts have included important initiatives like the Business Leaders
Award to Fight Human Tracking. e well publicized award—launched jointly by the United
Nations Global Compact, the End Human Tracking Now! Campaign, and UN.GIFT—was
40
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
presented at the Luxor International Forum in December 2010 in recognition of three business leaders
(executives at Body Shop, Carlson Companies, and LexisNexis) who made the commitment to combat
human tracking an integrated part of their business strategy.
Along with the need for advocacy, the challenging process of sourcing private partnerships also high-
lights the importance of careful UN.GIFT coordination with other AHT agencies on partnership
sourcing to avoid duplication of partner relationships and to ensure that other AHT agencies can learn
from lessons gathered by UN.GIFT (e.g. for partnerships at regional level).
UN.GIFT’s involvement in civil society partnerships, often captured through output areas like Victim
Support and Awareness-raising, has likewise received highly positive stakeholder feedback. e victim
support MP3 translation tool (VITA) is one very successful and appreciated result of such a partner-
ship. However, civil society partnerships have also required substantial investments of the UN.GIFT
Secretariat and have in most cases been relatively limited in scope.
Despite the challenges, the evaluation team sees these partnerships as pilot projects that will prove to
be useful examples for future partnership development eorts and are already being replicated inde-
pendently by regional AHT advocates and organizations (e.g. a point highlighted by many external
stakeholders in India).
Mobilization of resources
Mobilization of nancial resources for AHT eorts has been a struggle for UN.GIFT, but eorts to
mobilize in-kind private sector and government involvement (e.g. partnerships on victim rehabilita-
tion) have been more eective.
Initial Project documents set out an objective of “raising funds at national, regional, and international
levels from government institutions, private sector” and other players. However, beyond the initial
grant of US$ 15 million, UN.GIFT has only been able to raise approximately US$ 0.5 million at the
headquarters level for the UN.GIFT budget. e funds were largely raised through donor grants and,
minimally, US$ 0.18 million in public donations (table 11).
Table 11. Funds raised for UN.GIFT’s budget
US$ Percentage
Member States 15 207 180 98.0
UAE 15 000 000 96.7
Canada 161 783 1.0
Austria 43 197 0.3
Australia 2 200 0.01
Public donations 184 184 1.2
UN Foundation partnership 31 980 0.2
Other public donations 152 204 1.0
41
Major evaluation findings and analysis
US$ Percentage
UN Agencies 75 000 0.5
UNDP 50 000 0.3
UN Intl C 15 000 0.1
UNIFEM 10 000 0.1
Private sector 43 269 0.3
ARTOC Group 22 000 0.1
Moshino 21 269 0.1
Total 15 509 633 100.0
Indirectly, however, the existence of UN.GIFT and support from the UN.GIFT Secretariat helped
UN.GIFT partners and Joint Programme teams raise an additional US$ 2.36 million for UN.GIFT
developed projects. is includes US$ 0.78 million raised by the multi-agency Joint Programme eld-
sta in Serbia from Belgium (US$ 0.68 million) and Switzerland (US$ 0.1 million); US$ 1.04 million
raised from the EC, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, and United Kingdom for
enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation to ght human tracking in countries of origin and desti-
nation; and US$ 0.51 million raised from the Principality of Monaco for building support structures
for victims of human tracking in Senegal and Mali.
Furthermore, though not tracked systematically by the UN.GIFT Secretariat, additional resource
mobilization has taken place in the form of at least US$ 1.65 million of in-kind donations (table 12)
or funds provided as co-nancing.
Table 12. In-kind donations and co-funding for UN.GIFT
Donor Amount Type of donation Use of donation
Multiple SARC participants 120 000 In-kind and sponsors South Asia Regional Conference
events
Egypt Telecom 450 000 Activity sponsorship Working Lives series on BBC
CNN 500 000 In-kind Opportunity to screen PSAs on
network
Norway and Sweden 320 000 Co-funding AHT manual for criminal justice
practitioners
BBC 150 000 In-kind BBC Business Leaders Award
Microsoft ~55 000 In-kind E-learning tool for private sector
Orascom 50 000 In-kind Production of Business Leader
Award PSA (through End Human
Trafficking Now!)
Other private sector partners <5 000 In-kind Various private sector partnership
activities
Total (not comprehensive) 1 650 000
42
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Despite some important fundraising successes, internal and external stakeholders have almost unani-
mously described resource mobilization as a major Project challenge. e fundraising diculties must
be seen in the context of a generally dicult funding environment in the wake of the economic
downturn. However, additional contributing factors reported by stakeholders should be considered in
the Project’s next phase, including: cancellation of most fundraising events early in the life of the
Project in line with new priorities and new work plans approved by Steering Committee;
11
concerns
by Steering Committee members that joint mobilization of funds will lead to the “cannibalization” of
resources from individual member organizations; suppression of Member State donations due to the
lingering eects of the initially dicult consultation process; lack of willingness to contribute due to
the perception that the Project was already extremely well funded by the original donor, and the per-
ception of some stakeholders that the original donor had a strong inuence on the Project’s priorities
and strategy.
Strengthening victim support structures
While creating and strengthening victim support structures is one of the two overall objectives of
UN.GIFT and has been identied as a top need in the evaluation’s external stakeholder survey, limited
activities and funding have been directed by UN.GIFT toward this issue area relative to others.
e output area related to strengthening of victim support structures accounts for 7 per cent of bud-
geted spending and expenditures on output areas (including 2011 allocations). Even if victim support
funds earmarked in planned UN.GIFT Joint Programmes are counted, total spend on victim support
structures rises to only 10 per cent of the UN.GIFT budget for output areas (i.e. overheads not
included).
e victim support activities that have taken place, however, have been extremely well reviewed. For
example, multiple stakeholders commented positively on UN.GIFT’s prevention advocacy partner-
ship with the NGO Stop the Trac. Similarly, there was signicant positive feedback on the victim
support MP3 translation tool (VITA) with pre-recorded encounter messages for victims of tracking
in 40 languages. e tool was developed by UN.GIFT in collaboration with the Austrian Criminal
Intelligence Service and the IBF section of Lefoe (NGO) and is currently being rolled out globally by
Interpol. In the opinion of the evaluation team and multiple consulted AHT experts, VITA is a highly
innovative output and a best-practice example of the type of cross-disciplinary, globally usable victim
support and prevention tools that can be produced and promoted by an inter-agency eort like
UN.GIFT.
e most important UN.GIFT activity under the Victim Support output area (budget of
US$529,000) has been the Small Grants Facility (SGF), targeting grass-roots level anti-human
tracking NGOs. ough some of the evidence is preliminary, the evaluation team nds that the
SGF will likely be a highly eective project, with good potential for impact and important lessons
to be learned for the upcoming United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Tracking in
Persons.
12
11
Cancelled activities included a “fundraising event for the IT private sector,” “events and other activities to attract fund-
ing from non-traditional donors;” other fund-raising events (e.g. fund-raising event to mobilize the private sector in Hong
Kong were repurposed).
12
In accordance with the GPA, the Trust Fund will be administered by the UNODC and is in the process of being
launched in 2011.
43
Major evaluation findings and analysis
e SGF project started with the core idea of creating a global multi-agency process to engage with
and support anti-human tracking NGOs, particularly organizations focused on direct victim support
and prevention of tracking in persons.
SGF was one of the core elements of UN.GIFT’s post-2009 shift toward capacity-building and had
multiple inter-related objectives including:
(a) Building a database of relevant AHT civil society organizations worldwide to improve
provider information and enhance networking among service providers);
(b) Identifying promising practices and highlighting successful projects for global replication;
(c) Enabling selected CSOs to continue and/or scale up their successful AHT initiatives;
(d) Encouraging alternative funding for CSO activities;
(e) Use the information obtained to engage CSOs in policy dialogue.
UN.GIFT launched the SGF in March 2010 with a call for project proposals for short duration (max.
1 year) AHT projects requiring funding of US$ 30-50 thousand. Over 800 NGOs registered their
interest on the UN.GIFT website and 440 grant proposals were received from 76 countries. e rst
300 submissions were assessed by specially retained consultants following a rigorous set of selection
criteria. After several rounds of review, a Board of Experts composed of IOM, OSCE, UNODC rep-
resentatives and the UN.GIFT Secretariat assessed a short-list of 30 applications and selected 12grant
nalists (table 13).
Table 13. UN.GIFT Small Grant Facility recipients
Organization Project title Grant Country Region
1 Ateneo de Manila
University—Ateneo
Human Rights Center
Evidence-Based Research
on the Trafficking of Moro
Women and Children to
Malaysia
US$ 45 500 Philippines Asia/Pacic
2 Immigrant Council of
Ireland
Providing legal services to
migrant women suspected VoT
for sexual exploitation
US$ 48 023 Ireland Europe
3 Sociedade de Defesa
dos Direitos Sexuais na
Amazônia
Female migrantes against
human traffic
US$ 43 750 Brazil America
4 Different & Equal Providing Sustainable
Reintegration Assistance for
Albanian Victims of Trafcking
and those in risk of being
trafficked
US$ 42 130 Albania Europe
5 Bice Togo (Bureau
International Catholique
de l’Enfance—Togo)
Prévention et prise en charge
des enfants vulnérables/à
risque potentiels et les
enfants victimes de traite à
travers le renforcement des
opportunités socioéducatives
US$ $48 088 Togo Africa
44
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Organization Project title Grant Country Region
6 Agir pour les Femmes
En Situation Precaire
(AFESIP)
Article 25 project US$ 39 400 Lao People’s
Democratic
Rep.
Asia/Pacic
7 Shakti Samuha Reintegration for Sustainability
of Trafficking Survivors
US$ 45 549 Nepal Asia/Pacic
8 All Ukrainian civil
organization “Rozrada”
Destigmatization as a method
of safety environment ensuring
for the rehabilitation of
trafficking victims
US$ 45 168 Ukraine Europe
9 Impulse NGO Network Encouraging Responsible
Tourism in North East India by
engaging stakeholders
US$ 50 000 India Asia/Pacic
10 Empower Foundation Scaling up Empowerment for
migrant sex workers
US$ 44 750 Thailand Asia/Pacic
11 Women for Afghan
Women
Rescue, Rehabilitation,
Reintegration of Female
Victims of Trafcking
US$ 47 000 Afghanistan Asia/Pacic
12 The International La
Strada Association
Compensation for Trafficked
Persons
£30 000 Netherlands Europe
e selected organizations represented a wide geographic cross-section (50 per cent from Asia and Pacic,
33 per cent from Europe, 6 per cent from Latin America, and 6 per cent from Africa). e average award
size of US$ 45,000 amounted to between 10 per cent to 200 per cent of prior annual AHT expenditures
depending on the organization. Project objectives ranged from providing emergency support to victims,
to empowering vulnerable communities, and to collecting evidence-based AHT knowledge. e intended
use for grant funds, based on the 10 evaluation survey respondents, ranged from scale-up of activities in
existing areas (50 per cent of respondents), replication of existing approaches/activities in new areas
(30 per cent), and piloting/experimentation with entirely new approaches (30 per cent).
13
At the time of the evaluation team’s review in late December 2010 only six months had elapsed since
grant disbursements, but evidence from the evaluation’s electronic survey of SGF recipients is highly
encouraging (gure XVIII) and is further corroborated by positive early indicators from interim SGF
monitoring reports submitted to UN.GIFT.
Surveyed grantees (10 out of all 12 grant recipients) expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the
SGF programme. Half of the surveyed organizations believed that SGF had a “signicant impact” on
their achievements, 44 per cent declared a “signicant increase” in their AHT activities in the wake of
the grant, and 40 per cent viewed the value-added of the grant as “very high”.
Among other changes, organizations reported a raised prole with government stakeholders
(33 per cent witnessed a “signicant increase”) and improved networking with domestic and interna-
tional AHT organizations (SGF was a “signicant help” in this regard for 44 per cent of grantees).
13
Multiple responses on fund use were allowed in the survey, so the results do not add up to 100 per cent.
45
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Figure XVIII. SGF Effectiveness—positive outcomes on many dimensions
Little or insignificant
Low-moderate
Moderate-high
Very high
0%
10%
50%
40%
Don’t know
No change
Moderate increase
Significant increase
33%
22%
11%
33%
Can’t say
No help
Moderate help
Significant help
11%
11%
33%
44%
44%
Don’t know
No change
Moderate increase 44%
0%
11%
Significant increase
Can’t say/don’t know
No positive impact
Somewhat more sustainable
Substantially more sustainable
22%
44%
33%
0%
Has your organization become more
sustainable thanks to the grant?
Has the grant helped you improve
your networking with other domestic
or international AHT organizations?
What is the UN.GIFT grant’s
added value for your organization?
How much have your AHT activities
expanded as a result of the grant?
Has the partnership with UN.GIFT
through SGF raised your profile with
government stakeholders?
Moderate impact
No impact
Can’t say
Significant impact 50%
25%
0%
25%
How much impact has grant had on
your achievements?
Source: Dalberg SGF recipient survey and analysis; survey covered 10 grant recipients with 6-10 respondents for each survey
question.
e vast majority of surveyed organizations (77 per cent) reported that they became more sustainable
as a result of the grant, with 33 per cent reporting new, sustainability-enhancing partnerships enabled
by the grant and 44 per cent stating that the grant helped them raise new third-party funds. Some of
the resource mobilization eorts were still ongoing at the time of the survey, but organizations were
already able to claim US$ 82,000 of new funds from third-parties due to the grant (16 per cent of
total funds disbursed by SGF).
From an operational perspective, 60 per cent of respondents saw the grant selection and fund distribution
processes as “highly ecient”, though 22 per cent reported some delays in grant disbursements.
Despite the SGF’s successes, there were a number of opportunities to improve eectiveness. Qualita-
tive survey feedback, UN.GIFT’s own assessment of lessons learned, and the experience of other small
grants facilities like UNDP’s Global Environmental Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF) suggests
a number of lessons that should be incorporated in any future AHT grant facilities like the upcoming
United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Tracking in Persons:
(a) Clarify grant objectives by type of intended impact (e.g. piloting new types of projects, scal-
ing up existing projects, replicating existing approaches in new geographies) to facilitate assessment of
grant impact;
(b) Create several tiers of grants, including a smaller tier (US$ 10-30,000) tied to grant objectives
and recipient organization size. e average grant size of US$ 45,000 for 1 year projects was excessively
large for most small AHT NGOs and exceeded the average grant size of other small grant facilities like
46
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
GEF (US$ 25,000 on average) and World Bank’s Social Development Civil Society Fund (US$ 20,000
on average). Several grantees requested higher amounts but with longer implementation periods;
(c) Provide capacity-building for specic civil society organizations on how to apply for fund-
ing. Many smaller, less savvy organizations are highly deserving of funds but have limited grant writing
expertise. e reach of the grant selection process can be extended by providing capacity-building
services or application planning grants for select applicants—such an innovation would not be unpre-
cedented, the GEF for instance provides small Planning Grants (e.g. up to a maximum of US$ 2,000)
which enable the applicant to fully develop the business case/proposal;
(d) Look into opportunities to localize grant-making processes to ensure local relevance as the
grant-making programme is scaled up. is could mean regionalizing grantee selection and post-grant
monitoring through regional or national focal points or selection committees consisting of representa-
tives from multiple AHT agencies. Leverage the existing relationships of the main grant administrator
(i.e. use the UNODC eld people, not just Vienna HQ sta and consultants);
(e) Design grant process for maximal learning (e.g. capture more baseline information upfront
about grantees to enable impact monitoring, create a newsletter sharing best practices).
Strengthening victim support structures
A trade-o between specicity and exibility in the initial UN.GIFT strategic plan led to a lack of
transparency and insucient clarity on Project activities and prioritization, while also creating obstacles
for the evaluation of Project eectiveness and the assessment of longer term impact.
Initial strategic documents also did not clearly link Project objectives and activities to specic end-
beneciaries and needs (i.e. a “theory of change”).
e original logical framework featured multiple broadly dened overlapping pillars and output areas
impeding the monitoring of project progress and increasing confusion about Project objectives. In
many cases, underlying Project activities have been categorized in ways that were not intuitive for
Project stakeholders and personnel (e.g. activities as diverse as inter-agency coordination meetings
and regional conferences categorized under the “political commitment and capacity-building” output
along with Joint Programmes and other capacity-building eorts, private partnerships and fund-
raising combined under one output area).
More importantly, the initial Project documents featured few impact indicators, no baseline data for
core objectives (e.g. starting public awareness levels of tracking in persons), and no quantitative
impact targets.
Stakeholders have recognized the most recent revised UN.GIFT strategic plan, developed by the
UN.GIFT Secretariat and approved by the UN.GIFT SC in November 2009, as a major improve-
ment on the tactical level with more granular project deliverables and indicators. For instance, the
new strategic plan features more clearly dened activities with numerous impact indicators. However,
the new plan still does not clarify why some activities were prioritized over others and largely lacks
evaluable activity baselines and targets.
Consultations with AHT stakeholders, particularly at the regional level, suggest a persisting lack of
awareness of UN.GIFT’s strategy, with many only being able to recall select activities like the Vienna
Forum and Global Report, which points to the need for an improved communications strategy.
47
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Efficiency
e Project’s total overheads, which include organizational overheads in the form of Programme
Support Costs (PSC), project management costs and evaluation related expenditures, add up to
21 per cent of the total project budget. Many stakeholders have raised questions about the costs of
UN.GIFT, with a perception of insucient cost-eectiveness (gure XIX).
e evaluation team’s review of evidence suggests, however, that UN.GIFT’s general and administra-
tive costs were at an acceptable level, particularly in light of the large volume of Project activities and
the relatively small size of the UN.GIFT Secretariat.
Figure XIX. UN.GIFT cost effectiveness
17%
18%
5%
45%
32%
Steering Committee
67%
33%
Member States
50%
33%
UNODC/ UN.GIFT
Very cost effective
Cost effective
Somewhat cost effective
Not cost effective
Based on your experience, how cost effective is UN.GIFT?
Source: Survey responses were used primarily and supplemented where necessary by structured interview responses.
Detailed cost benchmarks for the few inter-agency projects that are directly comparable to UN.GIFT
are not publicly available. More generally, overhead ratios for development institutions and pro-
grammes are notoriously dicult to benchmark due to limited transparency on cost data, dierent
denitions of general and administrative costs (G&A), and dierent delivery approaches for technical
assistance (e.g. via agency sta vs. external consultants), all aecting the quality and comparability of
cost data.
Despite these limitations, the evaluation team’s analysis of a proprietary cost dataset for 50 develop-
ment agencies, drawing on both public and non-public data, suggests that UN.GIFT overhead costs
were likely well within range of other development institutions.
14
14
e evaluation team relied on a study of 40+ development agencies (see Williamson 2009), as well as non-public cost
data available to the Dalberg team from prior evaluation engagements for a total sample of 50 institutions including
10United Nations agencies/programmes.
48
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
UN.GIFT’s total overheads (21 per cent) compare favourably with United Nations organization bench-
marks—overheads range from 10 per cent to 129 per cent, depending on the United Nations agency or
programme (e.g. 25 per cent for UNAIDS)—with an average of over 30 per cent for the sample
reviewed by the evaluation team. e UN.GIFT cost ratio is also well below the 30 per cent G&A on
average calculated for multi-lateral development agencies.
15
However, it is important to note that this
analysis compares the UN.GIFT Project to institutions. Nonetheless, UN.GIFT was hosted by
UNODC and organizational overheads (PSC) are a component of the Project’s total overheads.
From a qualitative perspective, the UN.GIFT cost levels also appear reasonable. e Project’s manage-
ment cost ratio (16 per cent of total project budget including 2 per cent for project evaluation), for
instance, suggests ecient management, considering the high volume and range of activities, the rela-
tively small size of the UN.GIFT Secretariat, and the generally positive stakeholder feedback regarding
responsiveness and eciency of the UN.GIFT Secretariat team.
Furthermore, UNODC Programme Support Costs (PSC) for the initial Project grant (5 per cent)
were much lower than the default PSC level (13 per cent), which required a special approval by the
Assistant Secretary-General for Financial Services. Approval was provided on the basis that substantial
direct support had been built in and a large contingency element was already captured as part of
management costs (also see section on UN.GIFT nancials).
Stakeholder interviews showed that many of the questions raised about the cost eectiveness of
UN.GIFT related specically to the Vienna Forum. Many stakeholders, including those highly positive
on the impact of the Vienna Forum, perceived the costs of the Vienna Forum and regional mobilization
events in the initial phase of the Project as excessive (28 per cent of total budget for all output areas).
Given the unique prole of the Vienna Forum, few comparable benchmarks exist, but the evaluation
team found that Forum costs were not disproportionately high given the scale and ambitions of the
event. One important consideration is that 40 per cent of the total budget for the Forum was spent on
publications, events, and activities beyond the conference itself (e.g. the Journey exhibition, parliamen-
tary side-event, Vienna Film Forum) (gure XX).
e Vienna Forum and regional event costs were fully transparent in the original project document
and came in substantially under the planned budget of US$ 3 million. As an United Nations event,
expenditures were in line with United Nations procurement procedures and standard cost guidelines.
In spite of these facts and substantive positive feedback on the Vienna Forum, the percentage of funds
spent on this particular event created negative perceptions of UN.GIFT’s cost eectiveness and prior-
itization of activities.
If UN.GIFT is continued, management should be sensitive to such perceptions in relation to high-
cost events in designing activities.
Stakeholders have also questioned the eciency of the Project in the area of activity-based recordkeep-
ing and monitoring, which is related to the limitations of UNODC’s nancial and project manage-
ment IT systems. UN.GIFT project managers made substantial and continuous eorts to work around
these limitations in order to track activity based budgets and expenditures.
Despite these improvements and the successful transition to output-level expenditure tracking in
2009, the lack of automated activity level data tracking continues to be a challenge and should receive
further investment and attention if UN.GIFT is continued for future phases.
15
Ibid.
49
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Figure XX. Breakdown of Vienna Forum costs
5%
8%
14%
18%
12%
40%
Conference facilities, management
and services
Conference promotion
and advertisement
Tr avel accommodation,
DSA of VIPs, speakers
and select participants
Journey against Sex Tr afficking
Vienna Film Forum
3%
Other (e.g. Parliamentary Forum)
Publications
100% = US$ 2.3 million
Partnerships, management and governance
When evaluating the management and governance of UN.GIFT there are some important considera-
tions about the nature of the Project and the broader context must rst be taken into account.
UNODC had never implemented a multi stakeholder partnership of this size, level of complexity and
high prole before. ere are also systematic challenges to international coordination among
UnitedNations and other international agencies, including incentives that agencies have to secure and
maintain resources in a competitive funding environment and variations in their governance structures
(e.g. partnership challenges between decentralized vs. centralized agencies due to very dierent levels
of headquarters resources).
As a result of all of these factors, it is reasonable to expect that the management and governance
arrangements of UN.GIFT would involve some degree of trial, error, and subsequent learning and
renement. is evaluation has found evidence of challenges experienced at the outset, as well as
substantial learning and improvement in subsequent years.
Nonetheless, these challenges proved to be a signicant hindrance to eectiveness and led to complica-
tions for Project management. Many of the management and governance issues were addressed too late
in the Project lifecycle and a signicant amount of management and sta time was spent on resolving
these issues during implementation.
Partnerships
Many stakeholders view UN.GIFT as an important and the most visible global attempt to drive inter-
agency technical cooperation on the issue of AHT. Specically, UN.GIFT is viewed widely as an eec-
tive mechanism to facilitate inter-agency cooperation on joint initiatives and programmes, which has
also created a sense of partnership among AHT actors on the UN.GIFT Steering Committee. Beyond
50
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
inter-agency partnerships, UN.GIFT has been supporting relationship-building between the
UnitedNations and civil society organizations and private sector companies. UN.GIFT has made pro-
gress towards raising awareness within the private sector and has created a new channel through which
civil society can engage with the United Nations. In addition it has been brokering partnerships at the
regional and national levels through Joint Programmes and conferences.
2. Engagement with Member States
At the outset of the Project, UNODC and UN.GIFT management did not eectively engage Member
States. is was partly due to an overall lack of eective mechanisms and processes for engaging with
Member States on technical cooperation projects within UNODC, given the fact that the agency lacks
a Board of Governors and Executive Board.
Several areas of concern were consistently raised during the evaluation process:
(a) e initial process for engaging Member States did not anticipate the sensitive nature of the
issue. One of the original objectives of UN.GIFT was to bring greater awareness and political commit-
ment to the issue. e degree of sensitivity among Member States, as well as a lack of consensus by
external stakeholders about the exact action to be taken in addressing human tracking, created a
strong MS desire for the oversight of UN.GIFT’s activities. Member States were not adequately con-
sulted during the design stages of UN.GIFT and reported that subsequent reporting on activities,
particularly in earlier stages of the Project, did not provide adequate time or means to pro-actively
provide feedback or input;
(b) While classied as a technical assistance project, in many ways UN.GIFT functioned as a
coordinating body and an advocacy organization. In this highly visible role, UN.GIFT was seen by
some Member States to be acting beyond the scope of the initial project document. As a result, there
were misaligned expectations about the mechanisms, channels, and degree of engagement that should
occur between UN.GIFT management and Member States. is led some Member States to question
the appropriateness of doing so without sucient processes in place to ensure that the project priorities
and operations were actively guided by Member States;
(c) Lack of a United Nations resolution in the formation of UN.GIFT and a relatively vague
set of Project objectives led to concerns about Project legitimacy. UN.GIFT, as a technical project
administered by UNODC, was set up without an initial United Nations resolution and, despite later
United Nations resolutions positively noting the work of UN.GIFT, was seen by some Member States
as operating without a clear mandate within the United Nations system. is perceived lack of initial
legitimacy was exacerbated by UN.GIFT management’s lack of success in clearly dening and com-
municating the Project’s objectives at the early stage of the Project (e.g. distinguishing these objectives
from implementation mechanisms like UNODC’s AHTMSU and coordinating mechanisms like
ICAT);
(d) Finally, the single-donor nature of UN.GIFT heightened concerns about accountability of
the Project. At the launch of the Project in 2007, concerns were raised about the degree to which
UN.GIFT could be a truly global partnership given that the operational and programmatic funding
relied largely on funds provided by a single donor. Member States questioned the amount of inu-
ence the donor should have in setting the agenda of the initiative. As a result, the Commission of
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) passed decisions in 2007 and 2008 that ensured
that ultimate accountability of UN.GIFT would be to Member States.
51
Major evaluation findings and analysis
ere is signicant evidence that UNODC actively learned from the challenges of the early years and
in subsequent years adopted approaches that are much more conducive to facilitating consensus and
buy-in. Specically, UN.GIFT Management took a more proactive approach to communicating
with Member States, including new engagement tools (e.g. Member State corner on the UNODC
website). UN.GIFT prepare and provided annual and interim quarterly reports to MS throughout
2008 and 2009, updates were posted to a MS corner accessible through the UNODC website and a
total of 25 MS briengs and consultations were held between June 2007 and October 2010. How-
ever, it is important to note that of these briengs and consultations, 19 took place in 2007 and 2008
and only six, including two Secretariat briengs to the Working Group on TIP, in 2009 and 2010
(gure XXI).
Figure XXI. UN.GIFT Member State briefings (2007-2010)
4
6
13
2007 2008 2009 2010
2
a
Note: Participation in MS briengs was very high during the preparation phase for the Vienna Forum (50-70 MS at a brieng), with
lower but still with significant interest in the following years (30-50 MS at a briefing, with 20-30 at the 2010 meeting).
a
Includes 1 Secretariat brieng to MS Working Group on Trafcking in Persons.
Source: UN.GIFT; evaluation team analysis.
It can be concluded that the situation improved over time as a result of the increased focus on consul-
tation with Member States. Nonetheless, before the release of the preliminary evaluation in October
2010, nearly half of MS survey respondents and a number of interviewees stated that there continued
to be inadequate transparency and insucient consultation between UN.GIFT and Member States.
Some of these concerns may have now been addressed through this evaluation process and related
consultations, but the feedback highlights the need to involve MS upfront in any new phase of
UN.GIFT and to nd mechanisms for better engaging them on an on-going basis.
52
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Steering Committee relationships
e working relationships of the Steering Committee members have evolved signicantly over the life
of the initiative.
Initially, lack of transparency of member selection criteria, diering understanding of the “advisory”
role of SC members, and the strong leadership role taken by UNODC led to inter-agency tensions
and lack of buy-in—a situation recalled in many interviews and apparent in Steering Committee
meeting minutes.
(a) e initial composition of the Steering Committee was questioned by stakeholders both
within the committee as well as outside agencies and organization. e original selection of SC mem-
bers was not guided by clear or transparent criteria, resulting in questions regarding the representative-
ness of the SC. For example, four of the six agencies represented form part of the United Nations while
the OSCE is the only regional body represented on the committee. Notable exceptions from commit-
tee membership include, but are not limited to organizations like UNHCR and UNIFEM which
maintain a signicant focus on tracking in persons. In addition, UNHCR is the implementing
partner of UN.GIFT’s Serbia Joint Programme. It is, however, important to note that the issue of
representation was discussed in multiple SC meetings, but the group was intentionally kept small so
as to create a strong and focused working group rather than a completely representative body;
(b) Ambiguity over the role of the host agency, UNODC, initially put a strain on working rela-
tionships within the Steering Committee. During the early phases of the Project, a number of Steering
Committee members voiced concern about the lack of clarity of UNODC’s role as the host agency,
particularly around how closely UN.GIFT should be linked to UNODC’s institutional agenda.
After 2008, the UN.GIFT Secretariat, under the leadership of the Senior Manager, took steps to
improve the situation. is included moving away from the advisory function of the Steering Com-
mittee towards the implementation of a fully participatory decision-making process and led to the
joint development and adoption of a revised UN.GIFT strategy by the SC in November 2009.
ere is now a universally acknowledged improvement in the working relationships on the SC with
multiple tangible examples of fruitful cooperation including Expert Group Initiatives (i.e. capa city-
building manuals and tools), alignment on and joint fundraising for regional/local Joint Programmes,
and collaboration on awareness-raising.
e vast majority of SC members now state that they value the UN.GIFT Steering Committee as the
key forum for meaningful collaboration on specic projects and operational matters. e overwhelm-
ing sentiment within the membership is that, in spite of a challenging start, the Steering Committee
is now an eective mechanism for inter-agency collaboration. Nonetheless, at the time of the prelimi-
nary evaluation, SC members appropriately continued to call for further clarication of decision rights
and responsibilities and requested further governance evolution to ensure that the Steering Committee
a more representative body.
Positioning of UN.GIFT within UNODC
ere has been strong visible support for UN.GIFT by UNODC management, including the agency’s
Executive Director. Following a major organizational realignment within UNODC in April 2010,
both UN.GIFT and AHTMSU are now housed within the Division for Treaty Aairs under the
53
Major evaluation findings and analysis
Organized Crime and Illicit Tracking Branch (OCB). In addition, from early 2008 to July 2010,
both have been under the leadership of a common Senior Manager. However, ambiguity around the
precise role and activities of the UN.GIFT Secretariat created some organizational structural tensions
with other sections of UNODC involved in AHT eorts, particularly AHTMSU. Attempts to achieve
a constructive working relationship between the UN.GIFT Secretariat and other UNODC sections
involved in AHT eorts have been challenging due to perceived overlaps in work areas and in connec-
tion with roles and responsibilities of sta embedded in or shared with other sections of UNODC.
ese challenges have abated somewhat in recent years with multiple examples of eective collabora-
tion like the Vienna Forum and the Parliamentary Handbook, but a number of stakeholders.
e evaluation team nds that such intra-UNODC frictions are a structural issue, unrelated to indi-
viduals and personalities, and largely stemming from a lack of clarity of UN.GIFT’s mandate and role
vis-à-vis other UNODC sections engaged in AHT. Despite such tensions, which should be addressa-
ble through the careful denition of roles and increased autonomy of the UN.GIFT Secretariat,
UNODC remains the natural host organization for UN.GIFT, given the agency’s mandate as guardian
of the Tracking Protocol, host of ICAT, and its role in the implementation of AHT technical
assistance eorts in line with the Tracking Protocol and GPA.
In addition to better denitions of roles, better internal and external communication of UNODC’s
relationship with UN.GIFT is also needed. Multiple stakeholders mentioned confusion on this front,
with many external stakeholders contacted by the evaluation team (e.g. NGOs, private sector partners,
regional AHT opinion makers) viewing UN.GIFT and UNODC as interchangeable.
55
III. IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY
Impact
Considering that the project was only launched in March 2007 and that some major activities, initi-
ated and funded by UN.GIFT (i.e. Small Grants Facility and Joint Programmes), are still being imple-
mented by grantees and implementing agencies, an impact assessment is in many cases still premature.
e lack of evaluable impact indicators, baselines and systematic end-user feedback further complicates
the feasibility of long term impact assessment.
In the view of the evaluators, the Steering Committee, which has developed into a productive forum
for technical cooperation among agencies involved in AHT eorts, bears the most signicant potential
for long-term impact to date. Another important foundation for potential long-term impact is the
relationships that have been developed with civil society stakeholders, the media, and the private sector.
In addition, products like the victim assistance translation MP3 tool (VITA), which are taken up by
other organizations and partners to be rolled out globally, have a high potential for long-term impact.
On the rst overall objective of “increased awareness, coordination, and political commitment,” the
Project reached many important outcomes on the underlying activities as noted earlier. Stakeholder
interviews and case studies suggest, however, that these accomplishments did not, as stated in the
Project document, “set in motion a broad-based global movement that will attract the political will
and resources needed to stop tracking” nor produce “a turning point in the ght against tracking.”
e evaluation team believes that beyond being dicult to evaluate, such broad objectives were overly
ambitious given the institutional capacity, timing, and resources of UN.GIFT in relation to the
broader anti-human tracking landscape.
e evaluation team estimates that even at their peak, UN.GIFT expenditures presented 2-5 per cent
of annual AHT spending by United Nations and non-United Nations agencies, foundations, NGOs,
and major bilateral donors,
16
an amount which is likely insucient to demonstrably catalyze a global
movement.
Despite helpful information in project documents, including annual progress reports, quarterly reports,
and “lessons learned” for major output areas, in many cases a detailed attribution was not possible due
to limited activity-level documentation and the diculty in disaggregating the value added by the
UN.GIFT Secretariat from the contributions of SC members or other external partners.
Sustainability
Evidence for the sustainability of many individual UN.GIFT activities and the overall Project are rela-
tively limited, but the next phase of the Project has the potential to be far more sustainable.
16
e evaluation team estimates an annual spend of over US$ 200 million; other estimates are US$ 150 million (no-
tracking.org, 2008).
56
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Few eorts initiated by UN.GIFT have had a life of their own without ongoing UN.GIFT funding.
e lack of sustainability and continuity of impact was a consistent theme with many stakeholders
criticizing UN.GIFT for focusing on large one-o activities (e.g. the Vienna Forum, South Asia
Regional Conference, and large awareness-raising campaigns), without sucient programmatic
engagement and resources to ensure a sustainable platform for impact over the long-term. However,
some of the Project’s activities like capacity-building tools (e.g. EGI manuals) and results of partner-
ships (e.g. Code of Conduct for Safe and Honourable Tourism in India) are likely to have sustained
impact without ongoing UN.GIFT funding. Furthermore, the long-term time-frame and focus on
stakeholder ownership for Joint Programmes (e.g. in Serbia) also demonstrates appropriate design for
sustainability.
For the overall UN.GIFT eort, the Project has not achieved sustainability due to limited resource
mobilization beyond the initial grant as already noted in the discussion of UN.GIFT’s fundraising
track record. Even though several donors have made contributions to UN.GIFT, it will be benecial
for sustainability to further diversify the donor base in the future. If the fundraising issue is addressed,
there is promise of greater sustainability due to the strong working relationships within the Steering
Committee, which represents many of the major players in AHT globally, and partnerships with other
stakeholders which have evolved over time.
57
IV. CASE STUDIES
Case Study: South Asia Regional Conference (SARC)
Context and methodology
e South Asia Regional Conference (SARC) which was held in New Delhi on 10-11 October, 2007
marked the ocial launch of UN.GIFT in South Asia.
e evaluation team carried out a case study of SARC to assess and evaluate the results of this regional
event and to examine how “it led to a comprehensive set of activities, implemented through a pilot
Project with various stakeholders, including the private sector.” In addition the case study was intended
to provide lessons on how to ensure greater sustainability of Project activities and how to build on the
momentum and awareness-raising generated through regional events.
e evaluators conducted 10 interviews across relevant stakeholder groups, with 12 interviewees
including managers within the South Asia regional oce of UNODC, civil society and private sector
partners, ocials in government ministries, and civil society stakeholders active in AHT. Additionally,
the evaluation team conducted an electronic survey of 326 SARC participants recorded in the
UN.GIFT database.
SARC background
e South Asia Regional Conference was one of the ten 2007 regional pre-cursor events to the Vienna
Forum. e main objectives of this conference were to increase awareness on the issue of human traf-
cking and to facilitate cooperation among stakeholders in order to leverage their collective strengths
towards an eective ght against human tracking in the South Asian region. e intended outcomes
of the Conference were.
(a) Visibility and advocacy: e problem of human tracking to be prioritized in South Asia,
greater networking among stakeholders as a result of the conference, adoption of a declaration to
energize the region’s eorts against tracking;
(b) Partnerships with the private sector: e campaign provides opportunity for new partner-
ships with business enterprises and philanthropists and an avenue for engaging them in the ght
against human tracking;
(c) Increased Knowledge: Plenary sessions, symposia and satellite sessions to share best practices
in addressing human tracking in South Asia.
SARC costs amounted to US$ 346,000, of which UN.GIFT expenditures constituted approximately
US$ 220,000. e balance was paid for by partner agencies through cash and in-kind contributions.
58
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
e conference involved 800 participants and included international agencies, high commissions, media
personnel and private sector participants, but was largely dominated by NGO representatives and
government ocials (gure XXII).
Figure XXII. Demographic of SARC participants by type
N = 326 participants in SARC participant database
Academia Intl.
agencies
6%
Private
sector
6%
UN.GIFT
4%
High
commissions
2%
Media
1%
Total
participants
100%
Govt.
7%
NGOs
22%
52%
e conference included robust representation from India, and some representation from other South
Asian countries including Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and SriLanka
(gure XXIII).
Figure XXIII. Demographic of SARC participants by nationality
N = 326 participants in SARC participant database
Nepal India
85%
6%
Sri Lanka
3%
Bangladesh
3%
USA,
Europe
2%
Other
South Asia
<1%
Total
participants
100%
59
Case studies
In the aftermath of the conference, UN.GIFT has continued to fund follow-on awareness raising,
capacity-building and private sector partnership activities in 2008-2010, which have been imple-
mented by the regional UNODC team in India. e annual budget for the 2007 conference and
subsequent South Asia regional activities has gradually decreased from US$ 379,000 in 2007 to
US$50,000 in 2010 (gure XXIV).
Figure XXIV. Overview of UN.GIFT South Asia budget and activities
50,000
101,300
248,000
379,100
2007 2008 2009 2010
Funding for UN.GIFT South Asia (2007-2010)
Key UN.GIFT activities in South Asia (2007-2010)
South Asia Regional Conference
• 800 participants from over 10 countries, including government,
NGO, media, private sector, academia, and international agency
representation
• Delhi Declaration on trafcking signed by Govt./Non-Govt.
stakeholders
Awareness generation
• Short lm and public service announcements on trafcking
launched and screened across the country
• Media coalition created to increase visibility of the AHT issue
• National Anti-Human Trafcking Campaign launched in collabo-
ration with the Ministry of Women and Child Development
Knowledge building and sharing
• India Country Report developed and presented at a Brazil AHT
conference
Capacity-building
• Workshops to train and sensitize law enforcement ofcers
• Working groups on trafcking formed
• MOU with UNODC-UNIFEM launched to review legislation on
trafcking in India, Nepal and Bangladesh
• Partnership on victim protection and prevention with ATSEC
NGO
Private sector partnerships
• 300 corporations contacted through 3 sensitization workshops
• Think tank on public private partnerships formed
• Facilitated a PPP between the Ministry of Tourism, Pacic Asia
Tourism Association (PATA) and Save the Children India to
develop and launch the Code of Conduct for Safe and Hon’ble
Tourism in India
• Fostered successful engagementwith the private sector apparel
industry in India through the Apparel Export Promotion Council
(AEPC), including small scale rehabilitation and prevention
programmes
Key findings
e South Asia Regional Conference lled a gap in regional awareness-raising and coordination by
bringing together an unprecedented group of over 800 stakeholders. Most interviewed participants
and anti-human tracking stakeholders (United Nations agencies, civil society and government rep-
resentatives) reported that the conference and its visible products, most notably the Delhi Declaration
and related publicity raised the prole of anti-human tracking issues with key decision makers, the
media, the public, and to a lesser extent the public at large and the private sector.
60
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Although the number of electronic survey responses was too low to provide a statistically robust sam-
ple, survey results corroborated interview ndings, reporting positive impact on awareness-raising,
particularly amongst decision makers and media professionals, but only modest impact on secondary
implicit objectives like the mobilization of resources for the ght against tracking (gure XXV).
Figure XXV. Stakeholder feedback on SARC impact
In your opinion, what was the level of impact that the conference had on each of the following in the South Asia region?
Percentage of a small sample of SARC participants reporting “moderate” or “high” impact (N = 9)
56
56
22
67
33
78
56
Increasing awareness of human trafficking
among the population at large
Increase awareness of human trafficking
among government decision-makers
Increasing awareness of human trafficking
of the private sector
Increasing awareness of human trafficking
among media professionals
Increasing attention and inflow of funds
from donors
Promoting cooperation across international
actors who combat human trafficking
(e.g. United Nations agencies)
Promoting cooperation across national
actors who combat human trafficking
Source: Electronic surveys of 326 SARC participants; team analysis.
In addition the evaluation found that the conference helped facilitate connections across sectors and
geographies and introduced participants to new publications and resources (gure XXVI). Multiple
cross-regional connections were reported by attendee NGOs and several private sector associations
saw the conference as a starting point of their involvement in AHT issues.
ese results were also reected in the largely positive comments on the conference provided by
36conference participants who lled out detailed feedback forms collected by UN.GIFT in 2007.
Over 90 per cent of these respondents viewed the conference in positive or highly positive terms, with
most of the comments focused on SARC impact on awareness-raising for decisionmakers, improved
networking for core AHT players and the broadening of the AHT coalition (e.g. through the inclusion
of grass-roots NGOs, media, and Bollywood).
Important immediate outcomes of the conference included the formulation and signing of the Delhi
Declaration on tracking, the formation of working groups on anti-human tracking, and the facili-
tation of talks between the Indian government, civil society and the private sector to create Public
Private Partnerships to rehabilitate survivors of tracking. e Delhi Declaration, the South Asia
“think tank” (i.e. working group) on anti-human tracking and the various Public Private Partner-
ships were often cited as very useful outcomes of the SARC.
61
Case studies
Figure XXVI. Knowledge sharing and networking at SARC
Percentage of SARC conference survey respondents (N=9)
Ye s
No
Don’t know
78%
22%
0%
11%
Ye s 67%
No 22%
Don’t know
Did you learn of any new anti-human trafficking
related publications/resources through
participating in SARC?
Did any new contacts result from the conference
which proved useful for the fight against
human trafficking in the region?
Post conference initiatives included but were not limited to the dissemination of awareness materials
(including a movie and posters), the launch of a India Tracking Report, sponsorship of anti-human
tracking awards in the region, the formulation of a code of conduct with the Ministry of Tourism
to reduce human tracking, the development of small-scale joint programmes between UNODC
and other United Nations agencies on AHT, and several Public Private Partnerships to ght tracking
and support victims. Among UN.GIFT’s regional initiatives in the aftermath of the conference, Pub-
lic Private Partnerships gained most traction, though with relatively limited scale and scope relative to
the size of the problem. For example, UN.GIFT facilitated a successful Public Private Partnership
with the Apparel Exports Promotion Council, but as of August 2010 it had only benetted 25survi-
vors of tracking. e UN.GIFT Report on Tracking in India was seen as a useful document, but
the UN.GIFT awareness-raising movie for the public received mixed reviews from interviewees on
reach and eectiveness.
Despite these post conference activities and results, the positive momentum of the conference has not
been suciently sustained over the following few years. is nding was consistent across all inter-
viewed stakeholders and was also reected in electronic survey results with 55 per cent of respondents
(80 per cent of respondents excluding “don’t know” responses) reporting that UN.GIFT’s eorts in
South Asia after SARC did not suciently or at all sustain the conference’s momentum. One example
is UN.GIFT’s now defunct media working group, which has not been able to increase visibility of the
issue in regional media in a sustainable fashion. Less tactical objectives have seen the least traction, e.g.
changes in inter-agency coordination in the 2 years after the conference have been limited, even though
small-scale bilateral joint programme pilots with UNIFEM and IOM have been launched by the
regional UNODC team with UN.GIFT funds.
62
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Although reasons for limited sustainability include management turnover and a lack of strategic direc-
tion from UN.GIFT headquarters, the major challenge proved to be the mobilization of resources for
anti-human tracking initiatives locally. Aside from US$ 126,000 worth of in kind contributions
raised from United Nations agencies and the private sector for the SARC, no additional funding was
raised for UN.GIFT eorts locally to ensure sustainability.
e following ndings, resulting from the India case study, pertain to the broader UN.GIFT Project,
including activities at the global level that were not specically targeted to any specic region.
(a) e Vienna Forum was viewed as an elite global platform that brought together a large
group of international anti-human tracking experts to increase awareness and coordination on
human tracking globally with limited percolation of impact to the South Asia region;
(b) e UNODC/UN.GIFT Global Report on TIP was generally not perceived as a signicant
change of the status quo of the knowledge base on tracking in South Asia, given the approach of
publishing ocial statistics;
(c) EGI tools and manuals developed with UN.GIFT funding and support were considered
particularly useful, with many respondents stressing the potential of these tools to enhance capacity-
building initiatives across the region, particularly if they could be adapted to regional needs and
translated into local languages;
(d) e Small Grants Facility was cited as an activity that had low visibility. One major issue
identied was the insucient involvement of regional experts in grantee selection or post-funding
monitoring;
(e) Overall, there was relatively limited visibility of UN.GIFT activities on the ground, because
most respondents considered UN.GIFT eorts as being synonymous with those of UNODC, with
implications for the UN.GIFT brand in the region.
Recommendations resulting from the SARC case study
e recommendations are:
(a) Re-establish the UN.GIFT brand in South Asia as distinct from UNODC and reposition
the Project as an independent coordinating eort that brings together anti-tracking organizations
that can be accessed through a single platform;
(b) Extend UN.GIFT’s impact at the regional level by (a) creating dedicated regional inter-
agency coordination forums (e.g. regular quarterly or bi-monthly meetings) and (b) increasing engage-
ment with existing government coordination platforms like the South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC)
17
to promote intra-regional coordination on anti-tracking and (c) improving
coordination and cooperation between the UN.GIFT Steering Committee members through a greater
volume of smaller size joint programmes or activities;
(c) Provide consistent long-term support and funding for regional AHT cooperation eorts—
given the diculty and cost of building coordination, consider co-funding regional or national
UN.GIFT focal points (e.g. 20 per cent of compensation) or ‘coordinators’ already embedded into
one of the SC member agencies on the ground, who can be used to promote multi-agency cooperation
eorts and communicate to local and regional stakeholders about the inter-agency agenda;
17
SAARC was established in 1985 by the Heads of State or Government of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka; Tracking in Persons is among the many issues included on SAARC’s current coordination agenda.
63
Case studies
(d) Leverage existing resources and materials (e.g. advocacy materials, training manuals, knowl-
edge eorts) through regional players to allow a wider dissemination of information and a percolation
of impact to the end beneciaries;
(e) Facilitate an increase in communication and coordination between global and regional
UN.GIFT eorts to improve clarity on regional roles in the global eorts (e.g. the involvement of
regional oces in the selection or monitoring process in connection with small grants Project grantees)
and allow an eective formulation of the regional strategy and budget that supports sustained regional
eorts;
(f) Push the Private Public Partnership (PPP) agenda at the regional and national level forward
by investing in capacity of public and private players to engage in such partnerships (e.g. publishing
simple manuals and guidelines on setting up PPP’s in India; a database of best practice examples of
AHT related PPP’s from across the globe.
Case Study: Serbia Joint Programme
Context and methodology
e evaluation team carried out a case study on the Serbia Joint Programme, which was the rst of the
JPs to launch. e evaluators conducted 14 interviews (19 interviewees) across the ve major JP stake-
holder groups (governmental institutions, national non-governmental organizations, international
organizations, UN.GIFT Project sta and donors), during a two day visit to Belgrade and via tele-
phone (see Mission schedule in Appendix E). Additionally, the evaluation team conducted a desk
review of relevant brochures and documents provided by UN.GIFT and interviewees, as well as of
additional material collected from other sources.
e impact cannot yet be assessed given that the Serbia JP was only launched in June 2010. Instead,
the evaluation team focused on the eectiveness of the preparatory phase of the JP, which lasted for
one and a half years and included fund raising activities. Expected results of the preparatory phase are
(a) relevance of the Joint Programme design, dened by acceptance amongst and involvement of vari-
ous stakeholders including the government and donors and (b) the JP’s contribution to improved
coordination amongst various stakeholders active in the eld of anti-human tracking in Serbia.
Serbia Joint Programme background
As part of its capacity-building eorts, UN.GIFT originally made available funds for the launch of six
Joint Programmes globally.
18
e UN.GIFT Joint Programme (JP) in Serbia is one of the resulting JPs,
approved by the UN.GIFT Steering Committee in October 2008. After an extensive period of pro-
gramme development, syndication, and fund-raising, the Serbia JP was ocially launched on June
2010 replies to the question on complexity and pace usually showed signicant variance.
e Serbia JP is a partnership between the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Oce on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC) and the Government of Serbia. e JP is the rst joint initiative by these
18
In September 2010 funding was re-allocated amongst JPs and one JP cancelled. For details see chapter II, on Capacity-
building and technical assistance, page 32.
64
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
implementing partners in the eld of anti-human tracking in Serbia and has been developed in
broad consultation with all relevant national and international counterparts.
e JP builds on an existing basis, which includes a Strategy for Combating Tracking in Human
Beings in the Republic of Serbia (2006), the Republic Team to Combat Tracking in Human Beings
(with membership of governmental bodies and non-governmental organizations and expert bodies), a
“Service for Coordination of Protection of Victims of Tracking” and the Serbian National Action
Plan to Combat Tracking in Human Beings (NAP), adopted by the government in 2009. e JP’s
overall objectives are to operationalize and deliver against four interlinked specic objectives of the
National Action Plan:
(a) To strengthen national capacities to implement NAP and improve coordination within the
National Referral Mechanism on tracking in persons (NRM);
(b) To create a sustainable framework for systematic prevention of tracking in human beings
among particularly vulnerable groups;
(c) To strengthen the criminal justice responses of Serbia;
(d) To improve mechanisms for protection and (re)integration of potential and actual victims
of human tracking (children and adults), including those identied within asylum channels.
UN.GIFT contributions to the Joint Programme involved:
(a) US$ 50,000 upfront “seed” funding (with an eventual extension to US$ 90,000) for a
consultant to conduct needs assessment, coordinate programme design and undertake resource mobi-
lization eorts; participation in the initial multi-agency stakeholder meeting;
(b) Provision of templates for the Joint Programme MOU and sta TORs;
(c) Input into the draft programme document;
(d) Ongoing advice for eld sta and the JP programme manager (IOM) on Programme design
and launch;
(e) US$ 200,000 in matching funds (increased by a further US$ 330,000 in September 2010)
once programme design was nalized and the major donor identied;
(f) Some fund raising attempts through donor round-tables held by the UN.GIFT Secretariat
in Vienna.
Beyond the initial UN.GIFT seed funding and the allocation of US$ 530,000 in Project funds, the
Serbian Joint Project team has raised additional funds of US$ 680,000 from the Belgian government
and US$ 100,000 from the Swiss Development Agency.
From the design and launch standpoint, the Project can be considered a success:
(a) It is highly relevant in terms of country needs because of a very collaborative consultation
process with input from all relevant stakeholders, resulting in strong support and positive climate
among stakeholders and generally optimistic assessments of prospective long-term impact;
(b) Increased coordination between the international agencies during the preparation and design
phase, facilitated through initial UN.GIFT funding (i.e. via the JP consultant funded by UN.GIFT);
coordination process featured actual joint activities instead of coordinated parallel activities;
(c) Resource mobilization on the ground supported by a collaborative multi-stakeholder JP
design and high stakeholder involvement, which was welcomed by donors.
65
Case studies
Key findings
Relevance: e Serbia Joint Programme is considered to be a timely and relevant eort, especially
because it is closely tied to the Serbian National Action Plan (NAP), which was adopted by the govern-
ment in 2009 and developed by state institutions in collaboration with civil society and international
AHT agencies. All interviewed national and international stakeholders conrmed the need for and
high relevance of the planned JP activities.
Coordination: Even though some coordination between various governmental and non-governmental,
national and international stakeholders had already been in place from previous initiatives (e.g. multi-
stakeholder involvement in the development of the National Action Plan (NAP), 60member Republic
Team to Combat Tracking in Human Beings), various stakeholders conrmed visibly increased coor-
dination through UN.GIFT’s Joint Programme activities. Despite many positive factors on the ground
(e.g. positive relationships between United Nations agency eld sta), the lack of additional incentives
for inter-agency coordination would have impeded collaboration without the JP, which made initial
funding for coordination activities, as provided by UN.GIFT, a critical success factor.
Resource mobilization: e high level of government involvement (JP tied to the National Action Plan
and promoted by the Serbian National AHT Coordinator) and the joint character of the Programme
(i.e. many relevant international organizations and national stakeholders involved), appear to have had
a strong impact on donor funding decisions, even in the face of perceived “donor fatigue” in the
region. e UN.GIFT brand did not appear to have been a relevant factor for donor funding decisions
at the regional level, which mainly focused on the Serbian government’s participation, t with donor
priorities, and number and relevance of participating international agencies. However, since funding
decisions also involved donor head oces/capitals, awareness of UN.GIFT cannot be entirely ruled
out as a contributing factor.
Eciency: e preparatory phase lasted for one and a half years, but even though the fund-raising
period took longer than expected, stakeholders did not consider this period to be particularly long for
the preparation of a Joint Programme, compared to other non-UN.GIFT Joint Programmes they had
been involved in or were aware of. Considering the quality and level of stakeholder involvement, stake-
holders generally found the time and eort invested adequate. Stakeholder feedback consistently dem-
onstrated that the inter-agency eld sta and Vienna headquarters UN.GIFT Secretariat sta involved
in setting up the JP have been responsive, dedicated, and ecient in providing their support.
Sustainability: Even though funds for the JP are secured for one year and beyond, sustainability
remains a major issue. More funding will be needed to implement the programme as planned. More-
over, to guarantee continuous improvement for anti-human tracking measures in Serbia and to
ensure adequate sustainable support for victims of tracking, budget based funding from the Serbian
government will be needed; current funding of victim support structures are based on NGO contribu-
tions and funds originating from a one-o stamp sale initiative by the Ministry of Interior.
Recommendations resulting from the Serbia JP case study
Joint activities have a high relevance in the eld of anti-human tracking, which has been conrmed
by all stakeholders. e major resulting recommendation with regard to the development of joint
programmes is to plan for a very substantial investment of time and extensive coordination eorts at
66
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
the design and development stage, in order to create ownership and ensure involvement of all relevant
stakeholders. e related lesson learned is that the investments needed at this stage are easily under-
estimated, for the national and particularly for the regional level.
A number of success factors can be identied in connection with the Serbia JP. ey should be repli-
cated to the extent possible, when developing joint programmes:
(a) A government inclined to collaboration, evident through a history of cooperation between
national stakeholders, including NGOs, and international organizations;
(b) Donor priority and interest in the topic and region;
(c) Initial funding for coordination and fund raising activities;
(d) Support from UN.GIFT headquarters for the initial inter-agency stakeholder meetings and
ongoing support of the eld team;
(e) Engagement of competent facilitators in the country with local language skills to kick o
programme development;
(f) Open consultative approach with all national and international stakeholders;
(g) Design that builds on and supports the national or regional anti-human tracking strategy
as opposed to duplicating eorts or creating new activities for which there is limited “pull”.
67
V. LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES
e UN.GIFT Project has been a unique and innovative experiment for UNODC and as such holds
a number of important lessons and best practices for the agency and for United Nations inter-agency,
multi-stakeholder project design in general.
Lessons learned
Large scale, multi-stakeholder initiatives like UN.GIFT require increased upfront consultation. A lack
of extensive consultation with Member States and other stakeholders leads to downstream challenges
that are not easily resolved even with successful implementation. It is essential that Member States and
other relevant stakeholders are identied and consulted at an early stage and on a regular basis, during
the design and implementation process of such an initiative. e process of extensive upfront consulta-
tion typically needs a signicant investment of time at the design stage (6-12 months or more), but is
highly relevant for ownership, success and sustainability and aects the Project’s fund raising
prospects.
In the United Nations system, legitimacy of initiatives is a major consideration. Initiatives focusing on
sensitive or controversial issues, in particular, need to invest in communicating clear objective and
Project rationales to ensure that Member States fully understand and agree on the exact nature of the
proposed objectives and activities. is is also true for initiatives which do not directly build on a prior
consensus and mandate in the form of a United Nations resolution.
In connection with multi-stakeholder initiatives there is an exceptional need for clearly dened and
communicated governance arrangements. is includes clear selection criteria and a transparent pro-
cess of selecting members for a multi-stakeholder steering committee, as well as the granular deni-
tion of roles, responsibilities, reporting requirements and structures, in order to create a sense of
fairness and set clear expectations.
A process for adding and removing members should be dened at Project inception: while a balance
between comprehensive representation and operational agility is important, a clear path to member-
ship or other involvement (e.g. as observers) for outside stakeholders is essential to also ensure buy-in
from non-members.
Ensuring an eective relationship between the host organization and members of an inter-agency
steering committee likewise requires clearly dened roles and responsibilities, decision-making pro-
cesses and accountability arrangements. e role and inuence of an agency hosting a multi- stakeholder
United Nations initiative must be clearly understood and agreed to by all stakeholders of a steering
committee. A particular focus should be put on the initiative’s terms of reference, which need to con-
tain sucient detail and a clear denitions of the responsibilities of the host vis-à-vis other steering
committee members.
68
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
A multi-stakeholder initiative needs a supporting Secretariat, which has to be seen as a shared and
independent resource by partner agencies, especially if it is hosted by one of the agencies. It should
thus be embedded in the host agency as a separate unit with isolated stang and maximally independ-
ent reporting lines. While this may increase the need for coordination between the Secretariat and the
host agency, the costs will be outweighed by the benets of more neutrality and independence.
Inter-agency coordination within the United Nations system requires incentives and “patient capital”
for success. is includes steady sources of funding specically tied to inter-agency forums (e.g. fund-
ing for UN.GIFT Steering Committee meetings) and funding for agency focal points to any coordina-
tion body to ensure sucient investment of time and eort of all stakeholders. Inter-agency
coordination norms and relationships evolve over time and need a long investment horizon, at least
18-24 months at regional and global levels.
As regards management, the main lesson has been that while exibility on work planning is important
for experimental programmes, a long-term strategic vision and a results framework (logical frame-
work) with measurable indicators must be clearly specied upfront to ensure appropriate focus and
prioritization, transparency for programme stakeholders, and eventual evaluability. A logical frame-
work, which includes clear denitions of objectives, intended outcomes, outputs and indicators for
measurement, is needed for proper planning, implementation and management throughout the life
time of a programme or initiative. In addition, in order to properly monitor and evaluate projects,
baseline data and targets need to be established upfront with sucient investment in pre- implementation
planning (e.g. baseline data surveys).
In terms of programme design and approach, sustainability proved to be a major issue. Despite of
follow-on activities in the aftermath of major events like the Vienna Forum or the South Asia Regional
Conference, the momentum was typically hard to sustain. In addition, interviews and surveys showed
high levels of scepticism, which accompany high cost, high-prole events. e UN.GIFT experience
shows that while there is value in such conferences and events, there is also a high risk of limited return
on investment. A particular focus has to be put on long-term strategic approaches, in order to guaran-
tee sustainability.
Best practices
e UN.GIFT Project featured a number of best practices that should be noted and emulated, if
possible, in future United Nations eorts within and outside of the eld of anti-human tracking.
e United Nations can be a powerful platform for raising awareness and the overall prole of com-
plex, under-prioritized issues like the ght against human tracking, at both global and regional
levels. is is particularly true if there is substantial and visible personal involvement by senior United
Nations management (i.e. Executive Director), visible collaboration of multiple agencies and external
partners and a particular focus on increasing knowledge as well as awareness, which was the case with
UN.GIFT.
UN.GIFT has succeeded as a United Nations forum which reached external stakeholders like
NGOs, the media and the private sector and eectively reduced their transaction costs for engaging
with the United Nations system. is has resulted in increased cooperation on anti-human track-
ing among actors, who did not typically collaborate, and in a number of very innovative and useful
joint products.
69
LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES
In the case of the Serbia Joint Programme, a particular focus was put on a consultative and suciently
long development process (i.e. about two years, including fund raising activities), which also included
needs assessment activities. is process was enabled and facilitated through the UN.GIFT seed fund-
ing approach and additional incentives for coordination in the form of co-funding of AHT/UN.GIFT
focal points, e.g. in ministries. It resulted in a highly relevant programme design, high levels of owner-
ship and increased coordination and cooperation on AHT.
UN.GIFT, which started out as a UNODC AHT project with some (SC) agencies in an advisory role,
has evolved signicantly since its inception in March 2007. e management’s responsiveness to criti-
cism and guidance of MS and SC member agencies is evident in the initiative’s development towards
an inter-agency AHT coordination body, with a more equitable consensus oriented decision making
process, increased ownership of SC member agencies, and shift of resources to activities and objectives
(e.g. Joint Programmes) prioritized by the Member States. Considering the relatively short timeline,
this must be considered best practice in terms of organizational learning.
71
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Pending Member State consultation and donor funding, UN.GIFT SC and UNODC Senior Man-
agement should continue and renew UN.GIFT, leveraging the Project’s core strengths in order to
meet the substantial and on-going need for technical inter-agency cooperation in the eld of AHT. In
any future phase, the project should function as a more independent multi-agency eort with a new
strategy and substantial evolution in activity prioritization, governance, and management.
is conclusion is in line with the perspectives of most stakeholders, including over 60 per cent of
Member States consulted during this evaluation (gure XXVII).
Figure XXVII. Stakeholder perspectives on UN.GIFT continuation
Based on your perspective, should UN.GIFT continue?
7%
12%
7%
15%
12%
24%
Member States
c
UNODC
e
Steering Committee
d
38%
24%
43%
57%
UN.GIFT
f
31%
31%
88%
13%
Potentially no
b
Potentially yes
a
Don’t know
Definitely no
Definitely yes
a
Respondents who are generally positive towards the continuation of UN.GIFT but express a need for some changes.
b
Respondents who are generally negative towards the continuation of UN.GIFT without significant changes.
c
Member States based on [26] structured interviews and [9] survey responses, with one response recorded per state.
d
Steering Committee based on [7] structured interviews and [3] survey response, with one response recorded per organization.
e
UNODC based on [21] structured interviews and [19] survey responses, with one response recorded per staff member; UNODC
staff with managerial responsibilities for UN.GIFT or who acted as UN.GIFT implementation partners.
f
UNGIFT based on [6] structured interviews and [8] survey responses, with one response recorded per staff member; UN.GIFT
staff classified as 100 per cent focused on UN.GIFT activities without broader UNODC responsibility.
Source: Evaluation survey, supplemented where necessary by structured interview responses.
72
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Interim recommendations and actions taken since October 2010
e preliminary evaluation report, shared at the Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in October 2010, recommended
that, pending MS consultation and donor funding, UN.GIFT SC and UNODC Senior Management
should continue and renew the Project, leveraging its core strengths in order to meet the substantial
ongoing need for technical cooperation in the eld of AHT.
Most interim recommendations are thus relevant to the ongoing strategic planning process for a
potential new phase of UN.GIFT, which the preliminary evaluation encouraged: “UN.GIFT SC
should ensure a clear logical framework with distinct and well-dened activities for the next phase of
the Project, including a comprehensive needs assessment and detailed and measurable impact and
operational performance indicators, and invest resources into base-lining studies to ensure that all
inter-agency activities can be properly evaluated and managed.”
e need for a consultative strategic planning process, particularly with the involvement of Member
States, was also highlighted in the preliminary evaluation report: “UN.GIFT SC and UNODC Senior
Management should adequately consult with MS on the next phase of UN.GIFT as well as identify
more eective means of engaging MS on an ongoing basis through exploring the formation of new
mechanisms (e.g. via an informal advisory group with open membership, newsletters, feedback polls,
more frequent, regularly scheduled briengs)”.
In addition, the preliminary evaluation report called for immediate action regarding the
following:
(a) In the near term, UN.GIFT SC and MS should clarify UN.GIFT’s role vis-à-vis ICAT and
ensure that these entities can be of benet to each other, e.g. clarify ICAT and UN.GIFT roles in next
brieng or communiqué to the MS and identify opportunities for synergy between ICAT and
UN.GIFT. Given that UNODC is the host of both ICAT and UN.GIFT, UNODC Senior Manage-
ment should immediately launch an assessment of ICAT. e assessment should consider options to
maximize synergies between ICAT and UN.GIFT;
(b) UN.GIFT SC should immediately continue to review the progress of ongoing eorts (e.g.
Joint Programmes) and make provisions for funding or transitioning ownership of initiatives in case
of Project termination or delays in renewal. e UN.GIFT Secretariat should focus on successful
completion and documentation of on-going activities for the remainder of 2010, including activities
such as Joint Programmes, the Small Grants Facility, private sector partnerships, and UN.GIFT’s web-
based Virtual Knowledge Hub. UN.GIFT SC should reserve funds to ensure continuity of UN.GIFT
activities while provisions are made for the future of UN.GIFT;
(c) UN.GIFT SC should review the results of the Small Grants Facility and ensure that lessons
learned are conveyed to the management of the upcoming United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for
Victims of Tracking in Persons, called for by the GPA, and currently being established by UNODC.
e recommendations in this nal evaluation report build on the preliminary recommendations, but
have been revised based on the review of the nal phase of Project activities (e.g. Small Grants Facility)
and extensive UN.GIFT stakeholder feedback.
UNODC Management, UN.GIFT Steering Committee and UN.GIFT Secretariat have begun
implementing recommendations of the preliminary evaluation report. Although a detailed review of
responses to interim recommendations is beyond the scope of this document and will be addressed
73
RECOMMENDATIONS
by UNODC and UN.GIFT in their Management Response, the following developments are to be
commended:
(a) UN.GIFT and UNODC leadership have made extensive eorts to engage Member States
on evaluation ndings and recommendations, including consulting with them on the work of
UN.GIFT and high priority focus areas for a potential new phase of the Project. To this end, more
than 20 bilateral consultations were held with representatives of MS through their Permanent Missions
in Vienna;
(b) e UN.GIFT Secretariat has launched a strategic planning process for a potential next
phase of UN.GIFT. e organization retained two independent and renowned anti-human tracking
experts to consult with the SC partners on their ideas for the future of UN.GIFT, relating both to the
main areas of work and UN.GIFT governance. e process is ongoing, but appears to have strong
buy-in from all Steering Committee members and agreement on a number of recommendations on
portfolio strategy and governance (e.g. UNODC remaining the host, but more equitable management
by moving to a rotating Chair model);
(c) UN.GIFT Secretariat has provided input into the evolving draft UNODC thematic pro-
gramme on transnational organized crime, which positions UN.GIFT as the multi-agency response to
human tracking, in distinction to the UNODC AHT criminal justice activities supported by AHT-
MSU and other UNODC units. e draft also clearly distinguishes between the roles of ICAT and
UN.GIFT;
(d) UN.GIFT Secretariat has focused on ensuring the transfer of knowledge and experience on
the Small Grants Facility to UNODC’s Manager of the new Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of
Human Tracking. All materials developed for the SGF call for proposals and evaluation and selec-
tion phase have been shared with the Trust Fund trustee, with strong evidence that the Trust Fund will
draw on SGF experience and have many similar features.
Final recommendations
In the summary matrix of the executive summary, the recommendations of this evaluation are struc-
tured by DAC criteria (relevance, eectiveness, eciency, impact and sustainability) and an additional
“governance, management and partnerships” dimension, with detailed corresponding ndings and
evidence. In the following section they are grouped in order to highlight relevant areas like governance
issues, strategic positioning, Project development and results framework. In addition, some recom-
mendations are related to the continuation of good and best practices like the collection of “lessons
learned” and the Virtual Knowledge Hub.
Overall recommendations: e recommendations below are overall recommendations, which are related
to the continuation of the Project with a focus on its core strength as a coordinating body for multi-
stakeholder technical cooperation in the eld of AHT:
(a) Pending MS consultation and donor funding, UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT
SC should continue and renew the Project, leveraging its core strengths in order to meet the substan-
tial ongoing need for technical cooperation in the eld of AHT (recommendation 1);
(b) UN.GIFT SC should maintain its role in networking and technical inter-agency coopera-
tion at the global level (recommendation 2.1);
(c) UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT SC should ensure that inter-agency coopera-
tion is an explicit objective and is backed by sucient resources, e.g. funding for bimonthly SC
74
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
meetings, partial funding for SC member “focal points” to ensure resourcing for coordination activi-
ties (recommendation 14.2).
Governance: As was also evident from the extensive stakeholder consultations in July and August 2010,
major improvements in terms of governance and stakeholder involvement are a necessary condition
for any successful Project extension or new phase of UN.GIFT.
(a) UN.GIFT SC and UNODC Senior Management should adequately consult with MS on
the next phase of UN.GIFT as well as identify more eective means of engaging MS on an ongoing
basis through exploring the formation of new mechanisms (e.g. an informal advisory group with open
membership, regular newsletters, feedback polls, more frequent, regularly scheduled briengs) (recom-
mendation 16);
(b) UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT SC should continue to increase the equity of
participation in UN.GIFT through clear decision-making rules and, potentially, a rotating Steering
Committee Chair (recommendation 20.1);
(c) UN.GIFT SC should put increased emphasis on leveraging existing expertise and capabili-
ties from other SC members (recommendation 20.2);
(d) UN.GIFT SC should review its composition in order to broaden participation and increase
external stakeholder involvement by creating an associate member track or involving ocial observers
while maintaining an ecient decision-making structure (recommendation 17);
(e) UNODC Senior Management should continue to host UN.GIFT but with increased
autonomy of the UN.GIFT Secretariat, in line with UN.GIFT’s role as a multi-agency AHT platform
(recommendation 19.1);
(f) UNODC Senior Management should ensure accountability to the UN.GIFT SC and
Member States through primary reporting line to the SC on work plans and prioritization, while
retaining UNODC’s duciary nancial responsibility and administrative relationship (recommenda-
tion 19.4).
Stakeholder communication: Closely related to changes in the governance structure, perceptions of
overlapping roles and lack of transparency on responsibilities, suggest the need for clarifying organiza-
tional roles and responsibilities and better communicating Project governance and objectives to exter-
nal and internal audiences:
(a) UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT SC should ensure separate branding of
UN.GIFT and clear communication within and outside UNODC on UN.GIFT’s mandate and role
(recommendation 19.3);
(b) UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT SC should ensure the further clarication of
roles and responsibilities of UN.GIFT vis-à-vis other UNODC functions engaged in AHT eorts
(recommendation 19.2);
(c) UNODC Senior Management, UN.GIFT SC and MS should clarify UN.GIFT’s role vis-
à-vis ICAT and ensure that these entities can be of benet to each other. Opportunities for synergy
between ICAT and UN.GIFT should be identied and incorporated in their respective strategies,
agendas and work plans, with appropriate input from the ICAT membership (recommendation 3);
(d) UN.GIFT SC should develop a detailed pro-active stakeholder communication plan on its
strategy and activities, with a focus on MS and other relevant stakeholders, including SC members’
AHT eld sta, government ocials engaged in AHT activities and stakeholders like NGOs and
private sector partners engaged in AHT (recommendation 18).
75
RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategic positioning and design principles: e recommendations below relate to the future strategic
positioning of the initiative. Most importantly, the critical underlying criteria should be to (a)pursue
only those activities that cannot be implemented by any one agency independently or (b)focus on
activities where eectiveness and impact are materially enhanced by working in a coordinated fashion
with other AHT agencies and stakeholders. While UN.GIFT’s original set of output areas are in line
with general AHT priorities, the prioritization of activities should be revised to reect more focus on
capacity-building, with visible improvements on the regional and country levels.
(a) UN.GIFT SC should continue its current agenda in terms of broad “output areas”, but
deliver a much more focused and better targeted set of inter-agency activities, where UN.GIFT has
demonstrated success to date or is well-positioned to do so with improved execution. Additionally,
the SC should prioritize activities where impact is measurable and a clear need exists for cross-
disciplinary, inter-agency eorts (recommendation 4.1);
(b) UN.GIFT SC should focus on sustainability in its forward-looking strategy, with a focus on
developing multi-year projects and ensuring that budget and sta resources for post-event activities
and working groups are built-in to maintain momentum of one-time events (recommendation 14.1);
(c) UN.GIFT SC should develop a strategy that features both an agenda for global level inter-
agency cooperation, and region-specic agendas tailored to specic needs where local coordination
platforms do not exist today (recommendation 5). e global agenda should feature:
(i) Providing an ongoing forum for AHT inter-agency technical cooperation;
(ii) Producing and disseminating multi-agency AHT knowledge products, including serving
as a multi-stakeholder AHT knowledge hub;
(iii) Facilitating engagement with civil society and private sector on AHT issues;
(iv) Developing and disseminating multi-disciplinary inter-agency capacity-building tools and
training programmes;
(v) Supporting awareness-raising campaigns, with emphasis on more targeted and measurable
advocacy eorts;
(vi) Fundraising for inter-agency technical cooperation projects, including the mobilization of
resources for victim support and prevention structures.
(d) In response to growing demand, UN.GIFT SC should increase the Project’s level of
inter-agency activity at the regional or country level where such inter-agency coordination eorts
do not exist today. All of these activities should be guided by an in-depth needs assessment
(recommendation2.2);
(e) UN.GIFT SC should signicantly strengthen the regional dimension of UN.GIFT’s work
by ensuring that global inter-agency AHT activities and outputs are designed to be leveraged region-
ally/locally (recommendation 13.1);
(f) UN.GIFT SC should take into consideration the scepticism that accompanies high cost,
high-prole events by prioritizing inter-agency activities that can be leveraged at local levels and utiliz-
ing lower cost events with more clearly dened deliverables (recommendation 10);
(g) UN.GIFT SC should consider opportunities to drive regional and country-level inter-
agency AHT cooperation—e.g. by selecting and partly funding local focal points among existing sta
of SC member organizations or holding periodic AHT round tables at regional levels where inter-
agency coordination platforms are not in place (recommendation 13.2);
(h) UN.GIFT SC should ensure that inter-agency technical assistance geared toward strength-
ening victim support structures is an integral component of global capacity-building activities and
regional and national activities via Joint Programmes (recommendation 7.2);
76
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
(i) UN.GIFT SC should ensure that fundraising for inter-agency coordination and technical
cooperation projects is an integral component of the Project’s next phase with an explicit role for all
SC members to participate in joint fundraising (recommendation 8.1);
(j) UN.GIFT SC should strive for a more diversied donor base in a next phase of the Project
and engage in joint ongoing fundraising for the Project, including clear fundraising responsibilities for
all SC members (recommendation 15).
Learning from good or best practice activities: UN.GIFT featured many innovative activities that have
the potential to support learning, particularly if ‘lessons learned’ or ‘lessons for successes are collected,
recorded and disseminated. One instance was the Small Grants Facility, which could be considered a
successful pilot for the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Tracking. Other exam-
ples of innovative projects include partnerships with civil society organizations and private sector
companies and the development of the Virtual Knowledge Hub. e recommendations below are
related to the continuation and replication of good or best practices, as well as to the transfer of knowl-
edge and lessons learned:
(a) UN.GIFT Secretariat and UN.GIFT SC should maintain and sustain partnerships devel-
oped with various AHT stakeholders (recommendation 20.3);
(b) UN.GIFT Secretariat should continue to promote the Virtual Knowledge Hub and further
expand its functions and features in order to increase AHT coordination and in preparation of an
expected increase of posted material and use (recommendation 6.2);
(c) UN.GIFT Secretariat should continue to compile lessons learned (recommendation 11.2);
(d) UN.GIFT SC should ensure that the lessons learned on UN.GIFT Joint Programmes feed
back into strategic planning of future joint AHT activities (recommendation 4.2);
(e) UNODC should incorporate lessons learned on the Global Report into future bi-annual
UNODC reports on TIP (per GPA), investing in a transparent data validation process that involves
consultation with a broader range of AHT agencies and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs, United Nations
eld sta), including potentially utilizing the UN.GIFT SC as part of the data validation and peer
review process (recommendation 6.1);
(f) UN.GIFT SC should review the results of the Small Grants Facility and ensure that lessons
learned are conveyed to the management of the upcoming United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund for
Victims of Tracking in Persons, called for by the GPA, and currently being established by UNODC
(recommendation 7.1).
Setting targets and measuring performance: e evaluation has highlighted the importance of clear
outputs, outcomes, objectives and corresponding, measurable performance indicators for strengthen-
ing impact and ensuring the evaluability of the Project. ere was considerable room for improvement
in connection with the logical framework of the Project, including the need for baselines and needs
assessments at the project development stage. e related recommendations below will be particularly
relevant for the pre-implementation planning and target-setting stage for any new phase of UN.GIFT:
(a) UN.GIFT SC should ensure a clear logical framework with distinct and well-dened activi-
ties and detailed and measurable impact and operational performance indicators for the next phase of
the Project, based on a comprehensive needs assessment (recommendation 9.1);
(b) UN.GIFT SC should ensure that the strategy for any subsequent phases of UN.GIFT fea-
tures guiding principles to inform activity prioritization (e.g. activities that cannot be implemented by
any one agency independently) and realistic overall objectives tied to baselines and time-delimited and
measurable performance indicators (recommendation 12.1);
77
RECOMMENDATIONS
(c) UNGIFT SC and UNODC Senior Management should invest resources into base-lining
studies to ensure that all inter-agency activities can be properly evaluated and managed (recommenda-
tion 9.2);
(d) UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT Secretariat should establish new activity-
level budget and progress tracking processes, with workarounds where needed to overcome the limita-
tions of UNODC nancial systems (recommendation 11.1);
(e) UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT SC should establish norms to systematically
collect and document outcome level results data on all major activities, including feedback from end-
beneciaries, partners and participants (recommendation 11.3);
(f) UN.GIFT Secretariat should ensure that in-kind contributions are tracked and reported in
a consistent manner going forward (recommendation 8.2).
Detailed level recommendations
is nal section of the report builds on the recommendations listed in the previous section, but adds
an additional layer of detail, with some more specic proposals. While these detailed level recommen-
dations should also be considered in a potential next phase of the initiative, any nal decisions related
to governance and Project design should be based on a consultative strategic planning process with MS
and other Project stakeholders.
Focus on global inter-agency coordination: As demonstrated by many of its activities, UN.GIFT has
a core competency for fostering collaboration through its Steering Committee. UN.GIFT SC should
ensure that inter-agency technical AHT cooperation is an explicit objective and is backed by sucient
resources, for example funding for bi-monthly SC meetings and partial funding (e.g. 20-30 per cent
of compensation) for SC member “focal point” liaisons to ensure that sucient attention is given to
technical cooperation activities.
In order to provide an ongoing forum for inter-agency technical AHT cooperation, funding for
monthly working inter-agency meetings and additional cooperation forums and working groups on
specic topics, potentially involving AHT agencies outside UN.GIFT SC, will provide a high return
on investment and should be continued.
Revise Project governance and clarify roles and responsibilities: e governance structure will require
careful consideration before UN.GIFT is renewed. e evaluation team has based its governance rec-
ommendations on stakeholder feedback, current Project experience, and a high-level review of existing
United Nations governance structures and external examples.
ere are many “mechanisms” whose role is to coordinate or enhance the actions of their member
organizations within the United Nations system. ey vary enormously in size and level of formalized
mandate and have emerged at dierent points in time and in dierent circumstances. Some act as
implementing bodies with large levels of programme resources (e.g. UNAIDS), some have the prime
purpose of galvanizing action (UN-Oceans). e review included United Nations inter-agency coor-
dination structures like UNAIDS, UN-Water, UN-Energy, UN-Oceans, UNIAP, Inter-Agency Steer-
ing Committee on Humanitarian Assistance (IASC), United Nations Girls Education Initiative
(UNGEI), as well as lessons from other inter-agency initiatives beyond the United Nations system like
Roll Back Malaria and the GAVI Alliance.
78
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Best practices learned from prior evaluations of such inter-agency eorts include:
(a) A clear vision of the role of the coordination mechanism and what it is trying to achieve, in
particular clear and assessable goals, which go beyond the goals of underlying agencies;
(b) Commitment and engagement from members towards the common purpose, including
visible buy-in and support from senior agency leadership;
(c) e need for any central unit to have a clear formal mandate accepted by all those being
coordinated;
(d) Clear and transparent decision-making structures and processes which allow for joint agenda
setting;
(e) A requirement that the mechanism must involve more than just the exchange of informa-
tion between members (i.e. should involve joint activities);
(f) Clear division of tasks preferably where all those who are being “coordinated” have respon-
sibility for at least one element of delivery.
Role of UNODC and the SC. In light of these governance best practices and extensive stakeholder
feedback, the evaluation team recommends that UN.GIFT should pursue a governance structure
that maintains the status quo with respect to UNODC’s role as host of UN.GIFT, but with substan-
tial renements to enhance UN.GIFT’s autonomy through stronger decision-rights for other SC
members.
Under the recommended approach UNODC would retain administrative responsibility for UN.GIFT’s
Secretariat and duciary responsibility for Project funds, while SC members would get stronger deci-
sion-rights over project activities and the strategic direction, resource allocation and Secretariat sta-
ing. e SC Chair role would rotate among members, including important decision rights for the SC
Chair, though not duciary responsibility. As the host agency, UNODC would still retain veto power
on budget and HR decisions to ensure that all decisions are consistent with UNODC’s mandates and
the Tracking in Persons Protocol.
Potential solutions to transform the Steering Committee into a more representative body include
increasing external stakeholder involvement by creating an associate member track or involving ocial
observers while maintaining an ecient and lean decision-making structure. Specic steps should
involve:
(a) Reviewing the size of UN.GIFT’s Steering Committee, potentially including select organi-
zations already active as implementing agencies of UN.GIFT Joint Programmes or partnerships (e.g.
UNIFEM, UNHCR) in order to increase buy-in while still maintaining organizational eciency;
(b) Inviting non-voting members to consult on UN.GIFT strategy and participate in working
groups.
Role of Member States: In order to improve the governance of the Project, an appropriate engagement
of MS is needed. As discussed above, a potential next phase of the Project should feature extensive
consultation with Member States upfront to ensure that the Project’s next phase adequately addresses
Member State needs. In addition, UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT Steering Committee
should identify more eective means of engaging MS on an ongoing basis, e.g. through:
(a) An informal MS advisory committee with open membership (may also be formalized by
including MS representatives on the Steering Committee—e.g. rotational representation by MS
regional chairs at UN.GIFT meetings);
79
RECOMMENDATIONS
(b) UN.GIFT quarterly MS newsletter;
(c) Biannual or annual electronic feedback polls distributed to all MS;
(d) More frequent, regularly scheduled briengs (e.g. quarterly timed to coincide with the
newsletter).
Role of the Secretariat: e UN.GIFT Secretariat should operate with increased autonomy:
(a) Double reporting lines of UN.GIFT Secretariat senior ocer to the SC Chair and UNODC
manager;
(b) Despite Secretariat sta retaining UNODC contracts as part of the administrative host-
ing arrangement, sharing of project sta with UNODC should only be possible via formal
secondments.
e exact size and competencies of the Secretariat should be dened as part of the strategic planning
process. However, the evaluators recommend maintaining at least a comparable size of the Secretariat
(e.g. 5 sta members, as in 2009) and ensuring sucient AHT technical expertise in order to be able
to provide thought leadership and substantive support for future UN.GIFT eorts.
ough UN.GIFT should strive for maximal delivery of activities via SC member agencies and exter-
nal partners, the evaluation team recognizes that certain activities are best delivered with the support
of a central team, which also has sucient AHT expertise, particularly where the development of
partnerships and knowledge products are concerned. (e.g. serving as knowledge hub, contact point for
private sector and civil society players).
Additionally, the Secretariat, as the “central unit” of UN.GIFT will need the capabilities to play the
role of strategic planning, project proposal development, project monitoring, standard-setting, and
learning/self-assessment.
Finally, improved operational and nancial management may potentially require an additional sta
resource dedicated to the collection of Project feedback, the tracking of operational and nancial
activity-level data, and stakeholder reporting.
Role of UN.GIFT vis-à-vis ICAT. In the near term, UN.GIFT SC and MS should clarify UN.GIFT’s
technical inter-agency cooperation role vis-à-vis the Inter-Agency Coordination Group against
Tracking in Persons (ICAT) and ensure that there is no duplication of mandates and activities.
e evaluation team reviewed a number of potential options for increasing role clarity and synergies
between UN.GIFT and ICAT, including the option that ICAT assumes UN.GIFT’s role and activities
and options related to some form of structural merger, e.g. with UN.GIFT becoming ICAT’s technical
cooperation committee.
However, there are signicant limitations to options involving structural changes of ICAT. For exam-
ple, there are legal constraints on linking ICAT and UN.GIFT under United Nations Rules and Regu-
lations, given the dierent legal bases and reporting structures of both mechanisms. ICAT is not set up
as a Project but as a coordination platform, which has implications for its administration, e.g. it does
not have an operational budget or logical framework and UNODC’s monitoring and reporting
requirements for projects do not apply. Given ICAT’s legal status, any substantial decisions and struc-
tural or strategic changes would also require a new Member State resolution—likely a lengthy and
dicult process given the variety of stakeholders and views on AHT.
80
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
e evaluation team therefore concludes that ICAT is better suited for higher level policy coordina-
tion, while UN.GIFT is best positioned for coordination at the technical level.
To facilitate decision-making on this point, the evaluators recommend that UNODC, as the host of
both ICAT and UN.GIFT, should conduct a survey of the full ICAT membership and MS to better
understand stakeholder preferences.
If the structural status quo is maintained, this will require a detailed clarication of ICAT and
UN.GIFT’s roles and responsibilities. In addition, in the absence of a structural merger, a major focus
will need to be put on a formalized coordination and exchange between the two bodies in order to
make best use of potential synergies and strengthen both mechanisms.
Potential opportunities for coordination and collaboration could include:
(a) Regular mutual briengs and formal presentations of UN.GIFT activities at ICAT meetings
and, potentially, the circulation of UN.GIFT’s strategy and work plans to all ICAT members;
(b) Creating an ICAT members’ corner on the UN.GIFT website (i.e. as an element of the
Virtual Knowledge Hub), with functionality originally envisioned for an ICAT website (e.g. repository
of annual work plans/strategies for all ICAT agencies, discussion forums on coordination best
practices);
(c) A potential role for ICAT members to participate in UN.GIFT SC meetings as non-voting
members based on prior application.
Ensure sucient transparency and communication with all stakeholders: One major lesson learned
relates to the increased need for communication in connection with multi-stakeholder initiatives.
Despite the comparably high number of briengs and consultations and a number of additional out-
reach activities, which are not typical of UNODC projects (e.g. UN.GIFT website, Member State
corner on UNODC website, annual reports with output area based nancials), stakeholders generally
felt the need for more communication and transparency.
Beyond increased communication with MS, UNODC Senior Management and UN.GIFT SC should
draft a detailed pro-active stakeholder communication plan on its strategy and activities, with a focus
on all relevant stakeholders, including SC member headquarters and eld sta involved in AHT
activities, and key external AHT stakeholders at the regional and local levels.
e communication should also place stronger emphasis on a separate branding for the UN.GIFT
Secretariat and activities, as well as a clarication of UN.GIFT’s mandate and specic roles within
UNODC. In order to position UN.GIFT for greater impact in the future, the new strategic plan
should more clearly identify the “clients” of UN.GIFT’s activities (e.g. Member States, AHT agencies,
social and private sector partners, victims of tracking) and link activities as well as communication
and outreach eorts to specic indicators for the various client groups.
e communication should also place stronger emphasis on a separate branding for the UN.GIFT
Secretariat and activities, as well as a clarication of UN.GIFT’s mandate and specic roles within
UNODC. In order to position UN.GIFT for greater impact in the future, the new strategic plan
should more clearly identify the “clients” of UN.GIFT’s activities (e.g. Member States, AHT agencies,
social and private sector partners, victims of tracking) and link activities as well as communication
and outreach eorts to specic indicators for the various client groups).
81
RECOMMENDATIONS
Improve operational and nancial tracking: UNODC and UN.GIFT management should establish
new activity-level budget and progress tracking processes. Acknowledging the fact that UNODC’s
new ERP system will not be in place for another few years, the evaluators encourage the UN.GIFT
Secretariat to work with UNODC’s Financial Resources and Management Services (FRMS) to nds
appropriate workarounds. At the very least, the next phase of work should feature internal tracking of
budget and timing for all Project activities (e.g. via an excel spreadsheet maintained by UN.GIFT
management with quarterly reconciliation to output level budget items in UNODC nancial manage-
ment systems).
Prioritize activities based on needs and strengths: In any new strategic plan it will be important to
position the goals of UN.GIFT to be realistic and in line with UN.GIFT’s size and budget relative
to other AHT stakeholders. In UN.GIFT’s new strategy, a focus should be put on areas of need with
a clear prioritization of activities. In line with these principles, UN.GIFT should deliver a much
more focused set of inter-agency activities where the Project has demonstrated success to date or is
well-positioned to do so with improved execution.
ough more specic guidance should be provided by UN.GIFT’s strategic planning process, the
evaluation team advises that the UN.GIFT SC, with the support of the UN.GIFT Secretariat, should
focus the next phase of the Project on the following areas:
(a) Producing and disseminating multi-agency AHT knowledge products, including serving as a
multi-stakeholder AHT knowledge hub. UN.GIFT has demonstrated a comparative advantage in identi-
fying knowledge and research gaps across various AHT dimensions, based on the input of UN.GIFT
SC members. UN.GIFT is also well positioned to serve as a knowledge and data clearinghouse across all
AHT disciplines via its website and new Virtual Knowledge Hub. ese functions should be continued,
with an increased focus on the coordination of inter-agency knowledge agendas, promulgation of stand-
ard denitions and methodologies on AHT, and active promotion and dissemination of high-quality
inter-agency knowledge products. For the Virtual Knowledge Hub, UN.GIFT should consider:
(i) Investing more into Hub marketing (including internal marketing to UN.GIFT member
agency sta involved in AHT;
(ii) Collecting feedback on Hub design and functionality from a panel of AHT professionals
(i.e. not just existing visitors;
(iii) Expanding Hub functionality to include regional pages (including non-English pages with
content from regional UN.GIFT member AHT sta;
(iv) Expanding social media interfaces (e.g. Twitter);
(v) Creating value added pages/forums to facilitate inter-agency cooperation (e.g. creating an
ICAT members forum).
(b) Facilitating engagement with civil society and private sector on AHT issues. UN.GIFT has suc-
cessfully positioned itself as an eective global point of contact for civil society and private sector
stakeholders seeking to engage with the United Nations on AHT issues. Given the signicant invest-
ment of time required to seek out and support partnerships with the private sector and civil society and
the relatively limited scope of many such partnerships established to date, the UN.GIFT Secretariat
should further focus on sharing best practices, creating and maintaining a global donor and partner
database, and supporting partnerships with private sector and civil society at the local and regional
levels via Joint Programmes—or at the global level, when approached by multinational corporations—
where such partnerships cannot be replicated or supported by a single AHT agency;
(c) Developing and disseminating multi-disciplinary inter-agency capacity-building tools and train-
ing programmes. UN.GIFT has demonstrated a core capability in initiating, funding, and supporting
82
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
multi-agency working groups that produce capacity-building tools and manuals. e Project has
funded many tools that would otherwise have remained in the conceptual phase and furthermore
provided substantive cross-disciplinary input into such tools via the UN.GIFT Secretariat. UN.GIFT
should continue to play this role while ensuring that products are demand-driven and exploring addi-
tional mechanisms for supporting capacity-development at the regional and local levels beyond tools
and manuals (e.g. nancing capacity-building of trainers in each region);
(d) Supporting awareness-raising campaigns, with emphasis on more targeted and measurable advo-
cacy eorts. UN.GIFT SC should leverage its wide network of contacts and the UN.GIFT brand to
strengthen eorts to raise public awareness and increase commitment to AHT issues. Awareness-
raising for opinion makers should be conducted at a more regional level, via targeted networking or
topic-specic events. Public awareness raising campaigns should be designed with clear baselines and
post-campaign measurement budgets to allow for evaluation and ecient deployment of resources.
Targeted awareness-raising for vulnerable populations, e.g. refugees and disadvantaged minority
groups, is typically better executed at the grass-roots level, but could be an important component of
regional and national Joint Programmes;
(e) Fundraising for inter-agency technical cooperation projects, including the mobilization of
resources for victim support and prevention structures. UN.GIFT should continue acting as a manager of
funds that incentivize agencies to overcome structural barriers to collaboration. Building on existing
relationships, UN.GIFT is well positioned to serve as a mechanism through which United Nations
agencies can work together to call for increased levels of funding for joint AHT eorts. To enable
UN.GIFT to play this role going forward, UN.GIFT Steering Committee should develop a clear
fund raising strategy upfront for the next phase of the Project across both public and private sources
and, if needed, develop partnerships with external fund-raisers. It will be crucial that all SC members
have fundraising responsibilities for joint projects, leveraging the already existing fundraising functions
within UNODC and other SC members.
Strengthen regional coordination and design for local leverage: a higher “return on investment” can
be achieved by prioritizing inter-agency activities that can be leveraged at local levels, for example
continuing to design toolkits and training manuals that can be customized for use in a variety of
regions. One potential approach to signicantly strengthen the regional dimension of UN.GIFT’s
work, is to partly fund (e.g. 20 per cent of compensation) ongoing local focal points within the exist-
ing sta of Steering Member organization, in order to drive inter-agency cooperation at regional or
country-levels where such coordination platforms (e.g. UNIAP in South East Asia) are not already in
place.
e Serbia Joint Programmes is an example of how this co-funding structure can work. Even in those
geographies where Joint Programmes are not in place national UN.GIFT focal points embedded into
one of the SC member agencies could promote multi-agency and inter-agency cooperation eorts and
communication with local and regional stakeholders accordingly.
Other potential solutions for increasing UN.GIFT’s impact at the regional level include funding
regional inter-agency coordination working groups (e.g. regular quarterly coordination meetings for
SC member eld sta) and focusing on activities that provide for engagement with existing inter-
agency or inter-governmental AHT coordination platforms (e.g. SAARC forum in South Asia).
UN.GIFT’s Joint Programme activities have substantial promise but UN.GIFT’s experience shows
that signicant investments into stakeholder coordination and fund-raising are needed in order to
launch large-scale (i.e. US$ 3-5) multi-year joint programmes.
83
RECOMMENDATIONS
In any potential next phase, UN.GIFT should consider rolling out a two tier Joint Programme strat-
egy: (a) continue to support the extension of full-scale joint programmes into new geographies, par-
ticularly where government and donor interest is clear upfront and (b) incentivize inter-agency
coordination eorts at the country level that fall short of large-scale joint programmes. For the latter
option, the approach would focus on providing small-medium sized grants (e.g. US$ 50-100,000) to
innovative inter-agency anti-human tracking projects at the country level (e.g. the UNODC/
UNIFEM joint programme in India). e application would be submitted by country level AHT
agency stakeholders and would have coordination as a key element of project design.
Design the Project for sustainability: UN.GIFT SC should adopt guiding principles that promote
greater sustainability at the Project design stage. ese principles should include preferences for multi-
year inter-agency initiatives; allowing for longer project time frames to build necessary stakeholder
buy-in and consensus; engaging in ongoing fundraising—including fundraising partnerships and a
greater role for SC; and ensuring that budget and sta resources are built-into follow-on activities to
capture momentum of conferences and events.
In addition, increasing the leverage of existing structures should be a major focus area in order to
increase sustainability and avoid duplication. is means designing activities so that they can best be
delivered via SC member organizations and external partners, who already operate in a country or
region. In its strategic plan, UN.GIFT should prioritize those products/services that can be leveraged
at local levels as opposed to global, single instance delivery. e identication of knowledgeable local
focal points and increased communication and exchange with sta and partners at the country level
will be a good basis for any needs assessment and prioritization of activities. Building a more sustain-
able base for the Project should also involve the pursuit more diversied sources of funding in any new
Project phase.
85
ANNEX I. SUMMARY MATRIX OF FINDINGS,
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
RELEVANCE
1. UN.GIFT’s overall role
as a platform for technical
AHT cooperation within
and outside the UN has
been highly relevant.
Stakeholder interviews, multiple UN
resolutions (e.g. GA resolutions 58/137,
61/180, 63/194, 64/178), and the GPA
(approved in GA resolution 64/293) suggest
that inter-agency coordination on AHT
efforts continues to be vital. Stakeholder
consultations and research show that
UN.GIFT has been the most active forum
for inter-agency technical cooperation at
the global level; the majority of consulted
stakeholders have expressed a preference
that UN.GIFT continues to play this
important role.
1. Pending MS consultation and
donor funding, UNODC Senior
Management and UN.GIFT SC
should continue and renew the
Project, leveraging its core strengths
in order to meet the substantial
ongoing need for technical
cooperation in the field of AHT.
2. The relevance of
individual activities has
generally been high,
especially with respect
to building networks and
facilitating partnerships
at the global level
and gathering and
disseminating information.
However, stakeholders
have raised questions
about the prioritization
and geographic spread of
activities.
While recognizing that
the shift to more regional
and technical assistance
spending in 2009 has
improved UN.GIFT’s
relevance to the needs
of vulnerable populations
and victims, total spending
on strengthening victim
support structures has
been relatively limited
in comparison to other
output areas.
Stakeholders credit UN.GIFT for adding
value at the global level through its work
to strengthen networks and facilitate
cooperation on technical projects (e.g.
EGI tools and manuals). The majority of
expenditures (72 per cent) have been global
rather than regionally focused, with an initial
focus on awareness-raising and knowledge
efforts.
The post-2008 shift to capacity-building
in line with MS guidance received strong
approval from stakeholders. There is
increasing demand at the regional and
country levels for more localized forms of
support.
As of December 2010, expenditures on
victim support structures were 7 per cent of
total expenditures for all output areas.
2.1 UN.GIFT SC should maintain
its role in networking and technical
inter-agency cooperation at the
global level.
2.2 In response to growing
demand, UN.GIFT SC should
increase the Project’s level of inter-
agency activity at the regional or
country level where such inter-
agency coordination efforts do not
exist today. All of these activities
should be guided by an in-depth
needs assessment.
86
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
3. UN.GIFT’s overlap
with ICAT’s coordination
mandate remains a
concern, though actual
overlap with ICAT
activities has been
minimal due to ICAT’s
limited funding, infrequent
meetings and different
structure.
UNODC is the host of
both ICAT and UN.GIFT
and the support for both
in the GPA compounds
the perception of overlap
and highlights the need for
greater clarity.
Interviews reveal a persisting lack of clarity on
the division of roles between UN.GIFT and
ICAT, with a perception of duplicate mandates.
ICAT’s inter-agency coordination mandate
was formally established by MS resolutions
(e.g. ECOSOC 2006/27, A/RES/61/180).
UN.GIFT, in contrast, was originally defined
by a UNODC project document, with inter-
agency cooperation serving as only one of
several underlying Project principles and
objectives. ICAT has a de jure coordination
mandate, but had limited funding and
relatively infrequent (annual or bi-annual)
meetings, combined with a broader
16-member composition. Stakeholders have,
in contrast, recognized UN.GIFT as an active
de facto global body engaged in inter-agency
cooperation for technical AHT efforts.
The GPA calls for strengthening of ICAT,
while also urging UN entities to coordinate
via both ICAT and UN.GIFT, without further
clarification.
3. UNODC Senior Management,
UN.GIFT SC and MS should clarify
UN.GIFT’s role vis-à-vis ICAT
and ensure that these entities
can be of benefit to each other.
Opportunities for synergy between
ICAT and UN.GIFT should be
identified and incorporated in their
respective strategies, agendas and
work plans, with appropriate input
from the ICAT membership.
EFFECTIVENESS
4. The UN.GIFT
Secretariat in cooperation
with SC members and
other implementation
partners has delivered
a significant volume of
activities, including many
not specified in original
project documents, but
subsequently implemented
in response to stakeholder
demand.
In connection with
the Joint Programmes
UN.GIFT had to respond
to development and
implementation challenges
by reducing the number of
Joint Programmes, scaling
back of planned activities
and reallocating funds. The
proposal for reallocation
of funds was prepared
in a timely manner and
approved by the Steering
Committee in September
2010.
The evaluation confirmed that 174 activities,
including multi-year efforts, were completed
or in progress by the time of evaluation
field-work in mid-2010. These included
all activities in the original work plan and
additional activities, except for five which
were cancelled in response to MS guidance.
By February 2011, the remaining UN.GIFT
activities were completed according to
plan, except for a reduction in the scope
and number of JP related activities that was
approved by UN.GIFT SC in September
2010. By early 2011, one JP was postponed,
one was progressing according to plan, two
were in the development phase and two
were delayed, pending the receipt of a final
tranche of pledged donor funds.
4.1 UN.GIFT SC should continue
its current agenda in terms of
broad “output areas”, but deliver
a much more focused and better
targeted set of inter-agency
activities, where UN.GIFT has
demonstrated success to date or
is well-positioned to do so with
improved execution. Additionally,
the SC should prioritize activities
where impact is measurable and
a clear need exists for cross-
disciplinary, inter-agency efforts.
4.2 UN.GIFT SC should ensure
that the lessons learned on
UN.GIFT Joint Programmes feed
back into strategic planning of
future joint AHT activities.
87
ANNEXES
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
5. Overall, the quality of
Project activities has been
high, but the magnitude
of these activities’
contribution to progress
on anti-human trafficking
has been difficult to
quantify.
UN.GIFT has made
verifiable progress,
particularly at the global
level, on promoting
multi-agency technical
cooperation, awareness-
raising for decision makers,
broader engagement of
civil society and private
sector, and capacity-
building through high
quality tools and manuals.
UN.GIFT has contributed
to public awareness-raising
through its media and
advocacy campaigns, but
the outcome level results
of this contribution has
proven difficult to quantify.
Even though the results of most Project
activities are difficult to measure without
baselines and well defined results indicators,
the evaluation was able to directionally assess
the quality of completed activities based on
extensive stakeholder interviews, surveys, and
desk research.
Stakeholders provided substantial positive
feedback on conferences and other outreach
to global decision makers as important pre-
cursors to AHT cooperation; support was
also evidenced by numerous UN resolutions
on UN.GIFT. Users generally gave strong
positive feedback on tools and manuals
resulting from UN.GIFT activities. Interviews
and surveys of civil society and private sector
partners indicate an appreciation for having
a neutral broker and a responsive partner
inside the UN.
A variety of indicators (e.g. Google
indices) suggest that public awareness of
human trafficking has increased and that
UN.GIFT’s awareness-raising activities have
had increasing reach, but existing baselines
and indicators make it difficult to isolate
or quantify the Project’s impact on public
awareness levels.
5. UN.GIFT SC should develop
a strategy that features both an
agenda for global level inter-agency
cooperation, and region-specific
agendas tailored to specific needs
where local coordination platforms
do not exist today. The global
agenda should feature:
Providing an ongoing forum
for AHT inter-agency technical
cooperation
Producing and disseminating multi-
agency AHT knowledge products,
including serving as a multi-
stakeholder AHT knowledge hub
Facilitating engagement with civil
society and private sector on AHT
issues
Developing and disseminating
multi-disciplinary inter-agency
capacity-building tools and training
programmes
Supporting awareness-raising
campaigns, with emphasis on more
targeted and measurable advocacy
efforts
Fundraising for inter-agency
technical cooperation projects,
including the mobilization of
resources for victim support and
prevention structures
88
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
6. Stakeholders
recognize the unique value
of UN.GIFT as a forum
for linking research to the
needs of practitioners in
AHT and facilitating multi-
disciplinary knowledge
sharing.
The UNODC/UN.GIFT
Global Report on
Trafficking in Persons was
an important first step
towards establishing a
neutral global baseline
on human trafficking
data, with high levels of
stakeholder awareness.
However, the evaluation
also identified some
stakeholder concerns and
lessons related to the
consistency of analysis and
integration of inputs from
other AHT stakeholders.
Other efforts by UN.GIFT
to promote knowledge-
sharing, most notably the
Virtual Knowledge Hub,
have been well received
and hold substantial
promise.
75 per cent of surveyed AHT stakeholders
were aware of the UNODC/UN.GIFT
Global Report, of which approximately
60 per cent found it useful or very useful.
Stakeholders praised the report’s objectivity,
comprehensiveness, and the progress
towards establishing a baseline that can
be monitored over time. However, some
criticised aspects of the report’s analysis and
reported dissatisfaction with the level of
engagement of other UN.GIFT SC members
and regional staff. The GPA calls for UNODC
to lead the production of bi-annual Global
Reports on TIP.
The Virtual Knowledge Hub was launched
according to plan. Results from survey
feedback questionnaires and IT indicators
(e.g. number of unique visitors) confirm that
it was well received and is seeing increasing
use.
6.1 UNODC should incorporate
lessons learned on the Global
Report into future bi-annual
UNODC reports on TIP (per
GPA), investing in a transparent
data validation process that involves
consultation with a broader range
of AHT agencies and stakeholders
(e.g. NGOs, UN field staff),
including potentially utilizing the
UN.GIFT SC as part of the data
validation and peer review process.
6.2 UN.GIFT Secretariat
should continue to promote
the Virtual Knowledge Hub and
further expand its functions and
features in order to increase AHT
coordination and in preparation
of an expected increase of posted
material and use.
89
ANNEXES
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
7. Efforts focused on
victim support structures
showed the least progress
in the early stages of the
Project, which was mostly
due to low expenditures
on strengthening of
victim support structures
compared to other output
areas.
The more recent priority
setting showed an
increased focus on and
more funds dedicated to
this output area. Recent
activities like the Small
Grants Facility are being
carried out successfully
and the project has also
rolled out valuable tools
aimed at strengthening
victim support structures
in cooperation with civil
society organizations.
Although strengthening of victim support
structures has been one of the two
immediate objectives in the original project
document, this output area received only
7 per cent of expenditures on output areas
through the end of 2010.
If more recent activities which are embedded
in Joint Programmes and aiming at
strengthening victim support structures are
considered, the percentage increases to up to
10 per cent.
Interim reports of the SGF grantees,
submitted in December 2010, confirm
progress on implementation.
Notable completed activities have included
a victim assistance translation MP3 tool
(VITA) and several study exchanges on victim
support.
7.1 UN.GIFT SC should review
the results of the Small Grants
Facility and ensure that lessons
learned are conveyed to the
management of the upcoming UN
Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims
of Human Trafficking, called for
by the GPA, and currently being
established by UNODC.
7.2 UN.GIFT SC should ensure
that inter-agency technical
assistance geared toward
strengthening victim support
structures is an integral component
of global capacity-building activities
and regional and national activities
via Joint Programmes.
8. Despite a notable
amount of in-kind
contributions and
accounting for the difficult
financial environment,
progress to date has been
limited on the mobilization
of resources for UN.GIFT
and the broader anti-
human trafficking agenda.
Fundraising efforts targeted a diverse array
of private and public donors, though many
fundraising events were cancelled early in the
Project’s life. US$ 0.5 million were directly
raised for the Project budget beyond the
initial grant and the UN.GIFT Secretariat
supported the fund-raising of an additional
total of US$ 2.4 million for UN.GIFT
developed projects, including the Serbia Joint
Programme.
In-kind contributions, including co-financing,
and direct investments into activities initiated
by UN.GIFT, totalled over US$ 1.6 million, but
have not been tracked systematically.
8.1 UN.GIFT SC should ensure
that fundraising for inter-agency
coordination and technical
cooperation projects is an integral
component of the Project’s next
phase with an explicit role for all
SC members to participate in joint
fundraising.
8.2 UN.GIFT Secretariat should
ensure that in-kind contributions
are tracked and reported in a
consistent manner going forward.
90
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
9. UN.GIFT lacked a
detailed strategic vision,
long-term work plan, and
impact indicators and
baselines at its inception;
this has affected overall
effectiveness of the
Project in its initial stages.
Important improvements
were enacted by the
UN.GIFT Secretariat,
including a more detailed
2009 UN.GIFT strategy
document, but the new
logical framework and
work plan still have several
shortcomings.
Stakeholders consider the absence of a
detailed strategic vision and relevant results
indicators in initial project documents as
major contributors to a lack of prioritization
and focus over the Project’s rst 12-18
months.
Subsequent strategic plans (e.g. 2009 strategy
approved by the SC) addressed many of
these initial issues, but still feature few activity
baselines and targets.
9.1 UN.GIFT SC should ensure a
clear logical framework with distinct
and well-defined activities and
detailed and measurable impact
and operational performance
indicators for the next phase of the
Project, based on a comprehensive
needs assessment.
9.2 UNGIFT SC and UNODC
Senior Management should invest
resources into base-lining studies to
ensure that all inter-agency activities
can be properly evaluated and
managed.
EFFICIENCY
10. Many stakeholders
have raised questions
about the cost
effectiveness of UN.GIFT
activities. At the
tactical level, however,
stakeholders have
generally been highly
complementary of the
responsiveness and
efficiency of the UN.GIFT
Secretariat team.
The evaluation
team’s review of
evidence suggests that
UN.GIFT’s general and
administrative costs were
at an acceptable level,
particularly in light of the
large volume of Project
activities and the relatively
small size of the UN.GIFT
Secretariat.
Stakeholder feedback
on cost effectiveness
particularly focused
on Vienna Forum
expenditures. However,
the evaluation concludes
that Vienna Forum costs
were not inappropriately
high for a high-profile and
large-scale event with over
1600 participants.
Surveys and interviews show that a majority
of stakeholders perceived UN.GIFT to be
“not” or “only somewhat” cost effective,
particularly with respect to the Vienna Forum,
despite substantial positive feedback on the
operational efficiency and responsiveness of
the UN.GIFT Secretariat.
UN.GIFT total overheads include
organizational overheads in the form of
Programme Support Costs (PSC), project
management costs and evaluation related
expenditures and add up to 21 per cent of
the total project budget. Though cost data for
comparable inter-agency initiatives was not
available, published studies and non-public
cost benchmarks
a
suggest that UN.GIFT’s
overhead costs were below the average
overhead levels of UN agencies/programmes
and other multilateral development agencies.
Similarly, the cost-effectiveness of the Vienna
Forum has been difficult to benchmark.
However, it was organized in accordance
with UN procurement rules and standard
cost guidelines. The costs, which included a
number of additional events, were within the
range of other high-profile global conferences
and came in under the planned budget.
10. UN.GIFT SC should take into
consideration the scepticism that
accompanies high cost, high-profile
events by prioritizing inter-agency
activities that can be leveraged at
local levels and utilizing lower cost
events with more clearly defined
deliverables.
91
ANNEXES
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
11. Overall UN.GIFT
operational efficiency
and the evaluation team’s
ability to assess the cost-
effectiveness of individual
Project activities were
constrained by insufficient
activity-level budgeting and
expenditure tracking in
part due to the limitations
of UNODC’s nancial
and project management
systems.
While the Project made
notable improvements
in operational activity
tracking and reporting
after 2009, operational
and financial monitoring, as
well as feedback collection
on outcomes and
reporting requires further
improvement.
Starting with 2009 work plans, the UN.GIFT
Secretariat has transitioned to output-level
budgeting, but activity level expenditure and
timing data is still lacking.
The Project’s collection of outcome
level results data has been limited to
questionnaires sent to regional events
participants, a late 2009 partner survey,
monitoring reports from SGF recipients,
and internal “lessons learned” reviews.
Outcome level results data has not been
collected systematically and consistently for
a wide range of other activities (e.g. public
awareness), thereby limiting the opportunity
to learn from a portfolio which included very
innovative pilot projects.
11.1 UNODC Senior
Management and UN.GIFT
Secretariat should establish
new activity-level budget and
progress tracking processes, with
workarounds where needed
to overcome the limitations of
UNODC financial systems.
11.2 UN.GIFT Secretariat should
continue to compile lessons
learned.
11.3 UNODC Senior
Management and UN.GIFT
SC should establish norms to
systematically collect and document
outcome level results data on all
major activities, including feedback
from end-beneficiaries, partners
and participants.
IMPACT
12. Despite the verifiable
progress towards project
objectives at the outcome
level, the evaluation team
has been unable to assess
the exact impact of many
Project activities, given
the short duration of the
effort and the shortage of
evaluable indicators and
baselines.
However, improved
working relationships
between SC member
agencies, initiated
partnerships, and
knowledge and tools hold
the potential for future
long-term impact.
Baselines and indicators for measuring long-
term impact are not clearly specified in the
Project documents; overall Project objectives,
e.g. serving as a “turning point for the fight
against trafficking,” were highly ambitious and
often formulated too broadly to serve as a
realistic bar for evaluation.
With regard to increased political
commitment, there are no measurable links
between UN.GIFT activities and increased
political commitment at the state level.
12. UN.GIFT SC should
ensure that the strategy for any
subsequent phases of UN.GIFT
features guiding principles to inform
activity prioritization (e.g. activities
that cannot be implemented by
any one agency independently) and
realistic overall objectives tied to
baselines and time-delimited and
measurable performance indicators.
92
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
13. Stakeholder
consultations suggest
that many of the global
UN.GIFT activities have
not “trickled down” to the
regional level, with limited
evidence of impact on
regional needs outside of
region-specific initiatives, in
spite of UN.GIFT’s shift of
priorities towards regional
activities like the Joint
Programmes.
Although UN.GIFT’s rst phase centred
around 10 regional conferences in addition to
the major global conference, most activities
focused on the global rather than regional
and national level.
13.1 UN.GIFT SC should
significantly strengthen the regional
dimension of UN.GIFT’s work
by ensuring that global inter-
agency AHT activities and outputs
are designed to be leveraged
regionally/locally.
13.2 UN.GIFT SC should
consider opportunities to drive
regional and country-level inter-
agency AHT cooperation—e.g. by
selecting and partly funding local
focal points among existing staff
of SC member organizations or
holding periodic AHT round tables
at regional levels where inter-
agency coordination platforms are
not in place.
SUSTAINABILITY
14. Evidence of
sustainability to date
is limited because
many of the earlier
event-based initiatives
were not followed by
continuing engagement
and resources. However,
some UN.GIFT activities
(e.g. tools and practitioner
manuals and activities with
a long-term view like JPs)
have more potential for
sustainability.
In addition, the productive
relationships between
UN.GIFT SC members
and partnerships with
other stakeholders that
have evolved over the life
of the effort can be the
foundation for a more
sustainable Project in the
future.
Many stakeholders have criticized early
UN.GIFT activities for being one-off (e.g.
Vienna Forum, regional conferences),
without sufficient planning or deployment of
resources to ensure post-event momentum.
14.1 UN.GIFT SC should focus
on sustainability in its forward-
looking strategy, with a focus on
developing multi-year projects
and ensuring that budget and staff
resources for post-event activities
and working groups are built-in to
maintain momentum of one-time
events.
14.2 UNODC Senior
Management and UN.GIFT
SC should ensure that inter-
agency cooperation is an explicit
objective and is backed by
sufficient resources, e.g. funding for
bi-monthly SC meetings, partial
funding for SC member “focal
points” to ensure resourcing for
coordination activities.
15. Sustainability of
UN.GIFT overall has been
limited by the fact that the
Project has largely relied
on one major donor with
few resources mobilized
beyond the initial grant.
Although a number of donors have
contributed to UN.GIFT, the original US$ 15
million of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi remains
the major funding source of the Project.
15. UN.GIFT SC should strive
for a more diversified donor base
in a next phase of the Project and
engage in joint ongoing fundraising
for the Project, including clear
fundraising responsibilities for all SC
members.
93
ANNEXES
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS
16. UNODC and
UN.GIFT Management
did not effectively engage
MS at the inception of
the Project. Despite
substantial steps by
Project management to
increase consultation with
MS, lingering scepticism
continues to negatively
impact the governance
and partnership
dimensions of the Project.
Additionally, in spite of a
detailed communication
plan and substantial
investments into
communications over
time, the awareness of
UN.GIFT’s strategy and
activities remains limited
for many important
stakeholders.
Interviews suggest that challenges with MS
engagement early in the Project were rooted
in both a perception of a lack of effort by
UN.GIFT to engage MS and limitations of
UNODC’s own governance structure (e.g.
no Executive Board). UNODC and UN.GIFT
Management made significant efforts to
improve the situation through regular
meetings and online resources.
Nevertheless, MS continue to report
insufficient consultation and awareness of the
work plan and strategic direction by external
stakeholders beyond the SC members
appears limited, particularly at the regional
level.
16. UN.GIFT SC and UNODC
Senior Management should
adequately consult with MS on the
next phase of UN.GIFT as well as
identify more effective means of
engaging MS on an ongoing basis
through exploring the formation
of new mechanisms (e.g. an
informal advisory group with open
membership, regular newsletters,
feedback polls, more frequent,
regularly scheduled briefings).
17. The original selection
of UN.GIFT SC members
was not guided by clear
or transparent criteria,
leading to questions from
many stakeholders about
the composition and
overall credibility of the
committee.
Four of the six agencies represented on
the SC form part of the UN and OSCE
is the only regional body represented on
the committee. Notable exceptions from
committee membership include, but are not
limited to, UNHCR and UNIFEM. UNHCR
acts as an implementing agency for one
of UN.GIFT’s JPs and both organizations
maintain a focus on AHT efforts.
17. UN.GIFT SC should review its
composition in order to broaden
participation and increase external
stakeholder involvement by
creating an associate member track
or involving official observers while
maintaining an efficient decision-
making structure.
18. The distinction
between UNODC and
UN.GIFT is still not
well understood by all
stakeholders, particularly
at the regional level or by
external stakeholders.
Beyond the SC and MS, external stakeholders
(e.g. private sector partners and NGOs at
regional levels, regional opinion makers) often
could not distinguish between UN.GIFT and
UNODC efforts.
18. UN.GIFT SC should develop
a detailed pro-active stakeholder
communication plan on its strategy
and activities, with a focus on MS
and other relevant stakeholders,
including SC members’ AHT eld
staff, government officials engaged
in AHT activities and stakeholders
like NGOs and private sector
partners engaged in AHT.
94
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Findings Supporting evidence/examples Recommendations
19. Despite examples
of effective collaboration
between UN.GIFT and
other UNODC functions
engaged in AHT efforts,
and major investments
aiming at integrating
UN.GIFT within UNODC,
structural organizational
tensions continued to
persist.
The evaluation concludes
that in the case of
an agency hosting an
inter-agency initiative or
Project, a considerable
additional effort is needed
to guarantee clarity of
roles and responsibilities
in order to avoid potential
tensions.
Despite these challenges
most consulted
stakeholders believed that
UNODC should remain
the host of the Project,
considering its role as the
guardian of the Trafficking
Protocol and host of ICAT.
UN.GIFT and UNODC management
have made notable efforts to ensure a
collaborative relationship between the
Project and UNODC sections and functions
involved in AHT efforts, e.g. a common
manager with AHTMSU. There are examples
of very effective collaboration between
UN.GIFT and other UNODC functions
engaged in AHT efforts, e.g. Vienna Forum
and Parliamentary Handbook. However,
stakeholder interviews and surveys show
that some structural organizational tensions
persist, particularly with UNODC’s AHTMSU.
However, surveys and interviews across
stakeholder groups showed that UNODC
was considered the natural host agency
for such an inter-agency initiative or
platform, given the organization’s mandate
in connection with the Convention on
Transnational Organized Crime and the
“Trafficking in Persons Protocol”.
19.1 UNODC Senior
Management should continue to
host UN.GIFT but with increased
autonomy of the UN.GIFT
Secretariat, in line with UN.GIFT’s
role as a multi-agency AHT
platform.
19.2 UNODC Senior
Management and UN.GIFT
SC should ensure the further
clarification of roles and
responsibilities of UN.GIFT vis-à-vis
other UNODC functions engaged
in AHT efforts.
19.3 UNODC Senior
Management and UN.GIFT SC
should ensure separate branding
of UN.GIFT and clear internal
and external communication on
UN.GIFT’s mandate and role.
19.4 UNODC Senior
Management should ensure
accountability to the UN.GIFT
SC and Member States through
primary reporting line to the SC
on work plans and prioritization,
while retaining UNODC’s nancial
responsibility and administrative
relationship.
20. UN.GIFT has
contributed to a spirit of
partnership around AHT
issues and developed
strong partnerships within
the UN.GIFT Steering
Committee and with civil
society organizations, as
well as private sector
companies, which resulted
in successful technical
cooperation activities and
products.
Significant inter-agency tensions in the early
phase of the project have given way to
progress following a shift to more equitable
decision-making and consultation within the
SC. SC members universally acknowledged
the significant investment of time and
effort which helped establish UN.GIFT
as a productive forum of inter-agency
cooperation. Manuals and tools, alignment on
and joint fundraising for JPs, and collaboration
on awareness-raising are examples of
successful cooperation.
20.1 UNODC Senior
Management and UN.GIFT SC
should continue to increase the
equity of participation in UN.GIFT
through clear decision-making rules
and, potentially, a rotating Steering
Committee Chair.
20.2 UN.GIFT SC should put
increased emphasis on leveraging
existing expertise and capabilities
from other SC members.
20.3 UN.GIFT Secretariat and
UN.GIFT SC should maintain and
sustain partnerships developed
with various AHT stakeholders.
a
Analysis based on a proprietary cost ratio data set for 50 development agencies, including 10 United Nations entities, and drawing
on both non-public cost data and the data set from C. Williamson, Fixing Failed Foreign Aid: Can Agency Practices Improve?, AidData
Conference, 2009.
95
ANNEX II. TERMS OF REFERENCE
e Terms of Reference of the evaluation will be provided by the Independent Evaluation Unit upon
request.
97
ANNEX III. LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
I. India case study interviews
Name Organization Title Date
1. Suruchi Pant
2. Swasti Rana
UNODC 1. Deputy Representative Regional Office
for South Asia
2. Project Associate Regional Ofce for
South Asia
04.08.2010
1. Anindit Roy
Chowdhury
2. Madhubala Nath
UNIFEM 1. Regional Resource Mobilization
Specialist
2. Regional HIV/AIDS Advisor
04.08.2010
Jaidev Bakshi AEPC Joint Director 04.08.2010
N.S. Kalsi Ministry Home Affairs Joint Secretary General (Centre-State) 06.08.2010
Nishat Chowdhury IOM National Project Ofcer 09.08.2010
Manabendra
Mandal
ATSEC, India President 09.08.2010
Manjula Krishnan Ministry Rural
Development
Chief Economic Advisor 10.08.2010
Ruchira Gupta Apne Aap Women
Worldwide
President 10.08.2010
Sunitha Krishnan Prajwala President 12.08.2010
Devesh
Chaturvedi
Ministry of Tourism Additional Director General 17.08.2010
II. Serbia case study interviews
Name Organization Title Date
Sasa Gosic Ministry of Interior,
Serbia
Senior Police Inspector; Ministry Focal
Point for the UN.GIFT Joint Programme
29.07.2010
Slobodan Boskovic Ministry of Justice, Serbia Assistant Minister 29.07.2010
98
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Name Organization Title Date
Mila Muskinja Ministry of Justice, Serbia Ministry Focal Point for the UN.GIFT
Joint Programme
29.07.2010
Danijela Popovic
Rocco
Commissariat for
Refugees, Serbia
Assistant to the Commissioner for
General and Legal Issues and HR Affairs
29.07.2010
Biljana Zoranovic
Avlijas
Ministry of Labour,
Employment and Social
Policy, Serbia
Representative of Service for
Coordination of Protection of Trafficking
Victims
30.07.2010
Denise de
Hauwere
Government of Belgium Ambassador of Belgium to Serbia 29.07.2010
Beatrice Meyer Swiss Agency for
Development and
Cooperation
Country Director 29.07.2010
1. Biljana Zlatanovic
2. Ivana Stankovic
NGO Praxis (Theatre of
the oppressed)
1. SGBV Coordinator
2. Project Coordinator
29.07.2010
1. Jelena
Miloradovic
2. Jovana Mihajlovic
IOM 1. CT Project Assistant
2. JP UN.GIFT Project Manager
29.07.2010
1. Claudia Gioffre
2. Davor Raus
UNODC 1. Consultant, Programme Office in
Serbia
2. National Project Ofcer, Programme
Office in Serbia
29.07.2010
Sandra Sljepcevic NGO Atina Project Coordinator 30.07.2010
1. Sasa Valadzija
2. Buba Mitrovic
3. Jun Shirato
UNHCR 1. Project Co-ordinator
2. Protection Assistant
3. Senior Protection Officer
30.07.2010
Marija Andjelkovic NGO ASTRA President 30.07.2010
Marija Lukic OSCE, Serbia National Officer for Human Rights,
Democratization Department
05.08.2010
III. Stakeholders interviews in Vienna, Austria and via phone
Name Organization Title Date
Sandeep Chawla UNODC Director of Policy Analysis and Public
Affairs
16.07.2010
Sheila Coutts UNODC/UN.GIFT UN.GIFT Joint Projects Coordinator 16.07.2010
Sandra Kozeschnik UNODC/UN.GIFT UN.GIFT Civil Society and Victim Support 16.07.2010
99
ANNEXES
Name Organization Title Date
Riika Puttonen UNODC Drug Control and Crime Prevention
Officer
16.07.2010
Francis Maertens UNODC UNODC Deputy Director 16.07.2010
Alexis Taveau UNODC/UN.GIFT Associate Crime Prevention Expert 16.07.2010
Narue Shiki UNODC/UN.GIFT UN.GIFT Programme Officer 18.07.2010
Cristina Albertin UNODC Representative Regional Office for South
Asia
19.07.2010
Yatta Dakovah UNODC/UN.GIFT UN.GIFT/OED Executive Ofcer 19.07.2010
Martin Fowke UNODC OiC Anti-Human Trafficking and Migrant
Smuggling Unit
19.07.2010
Livia Wagner UNODC/UN.GIFT UN.GIFT Private Sector Partnership
Focal Point
19.07.2010
Johan Weijers UNODC Chief of the Co-Financing and Partner-
ship Sections
19.07.2010
Ekaterina
Kolykhalova
UNODC Project Ofcer 19.07.2010
Fabrizio Sarrica UNODC Research Expert on Trafficking in Persons 19.07.2010
Alun Jones UNODC Chief of Advocacy Section 19.07.2010
Katsutoshi Ishikawa Japan Permanent
Mission
First Secretary, Permanent Mission 19.07.2010
1. Regina Rusz
2. Elisabeth
Lemmerer
Austria Permanent
Mission
1. Austrian Foreign Ministry—Head of the
International Crime Unit
2. Representative Austria Permanent
Mission
19.07.2010
Representative
[anonym.]
Egypt Permanent
Mission
Representative Permanent Mission 28.07.2010
Mariana Katzarova OHCHR Senior Adviser on Human Trafficking 22.07.2010
Mark Shaw UNODC/UN.GIFT Ofcer-in-Charge, Integrated Project and
Oversight Branch
22.07.2010
Doris Buddenberg UNODC/UN.GIFT Former OiC UN.GIFT and AHTMSU 22.07.2010
1. Adam Davis
2. Cassandra Stuart
3. Carla Menares
Bury
United States Perma-
nent Mission and State
Department
1. Counsellor, Acting Officer
2. Program Ofcer, State Dept. Bureau of
International Narcotics Law Enforcement
Policy Coordination Office
3. Multilateral Affairs Coordinator, State
Dept. Global Office to Monitor and
Combat Trafficking in Persons
26.07.2010
100
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Name Organization Title Date
Harry MacDonald United Kingdom Perma-
nent Mission
First Secretary, United Kingdom
Permanent Mission
27.07.2010
1. Asif Hussain
Memon
2. Muhammad
Usam Iqbal Jadoon
Pakistan Permanent
Mission
1. First Secretary
2. Second Secretary
27.07.2010
Thibault Le Pichon UNODC Chief, Studies and Threats Analysis Section 27.07.2010
Antonio Maria
Costa
UNODC Former Executive Director 27.07.2010
Evelyn Probst LEFOE, Organization for
Counselling, Education
and Support for Migrant
Workers
Coordinator IBF 27.07.2010
Maria Grazia
Giammarinaro
OSCE OSCE Special Representative and
Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in
Human Beings
28.07.2010
Andreas Halbach IOM Director IOM in Vienna 28.07.2010
Siria Gastelum Felix UNODC/UN.GIFT UN.GIFT Public information Ofcer/
Knowledge Manager
28.07.2010
Erik Frimannslund
Brede
Norway Permanent
Mission
First Secretary 29.07.2010
1. Mila Francisco
Ferrada
2. Ariel W.
González
3. William Calvo
4. Eduardo Farias
5. Ralf Arne Mirus
6. Sandra Noriega
Urizar
GRULAC—Group
of Latin America and
Caribbean
(Chile, Argentina, Costa
Rica, Brazil, Nicaragua,
Guatemala)
1. Third Secretary, Chile Permanent
Mission; Chair GRULAC
2. Counsellor, Permanent Mission of
Argentina
3. Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission
of Costa Rica
4. Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission
of Brazil
5. Permanent Mission of Nicaragua
6. Permanent Mission of Guatemala
29.07.2010
John Sandage UNODC Officer-in-Charge of Division for Treaty
Affairs, Chief of Organized Crime & Illicit
Trafcking Branch
29.07.2010
Ursula Wynhoven United Nations Global
Compact
Head of Policy & Legal 29.07.2010
Matthew Taylor Department of Justice
Canada
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section 29.07.2010
Dennis Cole Canada Permanent
Mission
First Secretary (Migration Integrity
Ofcer, Canadian Boarder Services
Agency)
30.07.2010
101
ANNEXES
Name Organization Title Date
1. Suranga
Algewatte
2. Satya Rodrigo
3. Jeanne Mrad
4. Spica
Tutuhatunewa
5. Bacharee
Puengpak
6. Patcharamon
Siriwatana
7. Nawaf Al Rujaib
8. Mariel Algabre
9. Yerden
Nurgaliyer
10. Mohamed
Ghaniei
11. Shen Qinmin
Asia Group
(Sri Lanka, Lebanon,
Indonesia, Thailand,
Kuwait, Philippines,
Kazakhstan, Iran, China)
1. Second Secretary, Permanent Mission
of Sri Lanka
2. Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Sri
Lanka
3. First Secretary, Permanent Mission of
Lebanon
4. First Secretary, Permanent Mission of
Indonesia
5. First Secretary, Permanent Mission of
Thailand
6. Second Secretary, Permanent Mission
of Thailand
7. Representative, Permanent Mission of
Kuwait
8. Minister, Permanent Mission of
Philippines
9. Representative, Permanent Mission of
Kazakhstan
10. First Secretary, Permanent Mission of
Iran
11. Second Secretary, Permanent Mission
of China
30.07.2010
Pierre Lapaque UNODC Chief Implementation Support Section,
Organized Crime and Illicit Trafficking
Branch
30.07.2010
Susu Thatun UNICEF Child Protection Specialist— Migration
and Trafficking
02.08.2010
1. Steve Chalke
2. Ruth Dearneley
Stop the Traffik 1. Founder Stop the Traffik, special advisor
to UN.GIFT on community involvement;
2. CEO Stop the Traffik
02.08.2010
Chris Schroeder Qatar Airways Head of CSR 02.08.2010
Wim Bontinck Belgium Federal Judiciary
Police
Head of THB Police UNIT 02.08.2010
Abhijit Halder India Permanent Mission Counsellor, Embassy of India 03.08.2010
Valery Turcey France Permanent
Mission
Counsellor (Legal) 03.08.2010
Simon Mamouney Australia Permanent
Mission
Third Secretary, Australia Permanent
Mission
03.08.2010
Jeffrey Avina UNODC/UN.GIFT Former Director of UN.GIFT 04.08.2010
Knut Brattvik INTERPOL Criminal Intelligence Officer 04.08.2010
102
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Name Organization Title Date
Simon Pearce UAE/Abu Dhabi Director of Strategic Communications 05.08.2010
Marcel ven den
Heuvel
UNODC/UN.GIFT Former Manager of UN.GIFT 05.08.2010
Simone
Monasebian
UNODC Representative of New York Liaison
Office
05.08.2010
Francesca
Friz-Prguda
UNHCR Senior Liaison Ofcer 06.08.2010
Farido Hemani LINX Productions Director 06.08.2010
1. Hans van de
Glind
2. Beate Andrees
ILO 1. Senior Technical Specialist, IPEC
Project to Combat Forced Labour
2. Senior Policy Officer
09.08.2010
Daniel Slack-Smith UAE/Abu Dhabi Donor representative 10.08.2010
Martin Chungong IPU Director, Division for the Promotion of
Democracy
10.08.2010
Aleya El Bindari
Hammad
End Trafficking Now Founder 10.08.2010
Kristiina
Kangaspunta
UNODC Former UNODC staff 13.08.2010
Caroline Hames Global Alliance Against
Trafcking in Women
(GAATW)
Advocacy Officer 17.08.2010
Jonathan Martens IOM Counter-Trafficking Specialist 18.08.2010
Gary Lewis UNODC Representative Regional Centre for East
Asia and the Pacific
23.08.2010
Troels Vester UNODC/UN.GIFT Regional Crime Prevention Advisor;
Former UN.GIFT staff
25.08.2010
Michael Jandl UNODC/UN.GIFT Research Expert 26.08.2010
103
ANNEX IV. EVALUATION INTERVIEW GUIDE
SAMPLE
Interviewee information
Name
Member State
Level of engagement with UN.GIFT
Date of interview
Interviewers
Location of interview
Key takeaways/insights
(To be completed at the end of the interview)
Key areas to probe with the interviewee
(Completed in advance of the interview)
1. What key questions would you like to see addressed by this evaluation?
2. How would you characterize the overall value of UN.GIFT to global efforts to fight and prevent human
trafficking?
a. What, if any, specic UN.GIFT products, publications or activities have you found to be useful? Why?
b. What, if any, specic UN.GIFT products, publications or activities have you found to be less useful?
Why?
c. In what ways would you like to see UN.GIFT strengthen its overall approach to combating human
trafficking?
d. Is the UN.GIFT in line with the priority areas for technical assistance identified by Member States? If
yes, what are these? If not, what priority areas are they not meeting?
3. How effectively has UN.GIFT developed partnerships with other key stakeholders in the fight against
trafficking?
a. How effectively has UN.GIFT engaged with Member States? What are some suggestions for how
they can improve their approach to engaging with Member States? Through what specific mecha-
nisms would you suggest that UN.GIFT engage with Member States?
b. Do you feel Member States are equipped to provide high quality guidance to UN.GIFT? If yes, why,
and if not, why not?
c. How would you rate the UN.GIFT’s supply of information to Member States? How has this evolved
over time?
104
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
d. How effectively has UN.GIFT engaged with other stakeholders (e.g. other international institutions,
civil society, and private sector)?
e. Overall, do you believe that UN.GIFT has the right mix of partners currently? How should this mix of
partners evolve in the future?
4. We would like to discuss the governance arrangements. Specically, to what extent have the Project’s
governance arrangements been conducive to effective Project implementation?
a. What lessons can be drawn from UN.GIFT governance structure?
b. How would you rate the effectiveness of UN.GIFT?
5. Overall, do you believe that UN.GIFT should be continued?
a. If yes, what elements should stay the same?
b. What should be done differently?
c. What criteria would you use to prioritize where UN.GIFT should focus in the future?
d. On the basis of these criteria, what specic areas (objectives or outputs) would you suggest that
UN.GIFT focus on?
105
ANNEX V. EVALUATION SURVEY SAMPLE
1. Please complete the following demographic information:
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Country name 100.0 10
Your name 100.0 10
Your title 100.0 10
answered question 10
skipped question 3
2. To what extent has your Government been involved with UN.GIFT over the period March 2007-June 2010?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 10.0 1
Not involved 0.0 0
Little involvement 50.0 5
Some involvement 20.0 2
Very involved 20.0 2
Please provide a brief description of your involvement with UN.GIFT 7
answered question 10
skipped question 3
3. Does your Government currently fund other global anti-human trafficking initiatives?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 10.0 1
Ye s 70.0 7
No 20.0 2
If yes, please specify 7
answered question 10
skipped question 3
106
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
4. To what extent does your Government prioritize efforts to combat trafficking in persons?
Answer options N/A Little to no
importance
Somewhat
important
Important Very
important
Response
count
On the national level? 1 0 0 3 6 10
On the international level? 1 0 1 4 4 10
answered question 10
skipped question 3
5. Please indicate whether this prioritization has changed over the period March 2007-June 2010.
Answer options Response percentage Response count
N/A 20.0 2
Lower priority placed on trafcking 0.0 0
No change 30.0 3
Higher priority placed on trafficking 40.0 4
Much higher priority placed on
trafficking
10.0 1
answered question 10
skipped question 3
6. There are a growing number of efforts to address the problem of trafficking in persons. However, there are
several challenges that Governments and other organizations encounter in their efforts. Listed below are some of
these challenges. Based on your experience, please rate how signicantly these challenges hindered international
efforts to combat trafficking in persons over the period 2007-2010.
Answer options N/A Not
significantly
Somewhat
significantly
Significantly Very
significantly
Response
count
Lack of general awareness of
human trafficking
1 0 2 7 0 10
Lack of data and empirical
evidence on human trafficking
1 0 3 5 1 10
Lack of political commitment by
UN Member States to counter
human trafficking and implement
the Trafficking in Persons Protocol
1 1 0 6 2 10
Lack of capacity of UN Member
States to counter human
trafficking and implement the
Trafficking in Persons Protocol
2 1 1 4 2 10
Lack of resources to implement
the action required to combat
trafficking at the international,
regional and national level
1 0 2 4 3 10
107
ANNEXES
Answer options N/A Not
significantly
Somewhat
significantly
Significantly Very
significantly
Response
count
Lack of a forum or multi-
stakeholder mechanism through
which to assess the REGIONAL
trafficking situation and to
promote REGIONAL action
against trafficking
1 1 5 3 0 10
Lack of a forum or multi-
stakeholder mechanism through
which to assess the GLOBAL
trafficking situation and to
promote GLOBAL action against
trafficking
2 2 3 3 0 10
Lack of support to victims of
trafficking
1 0 0 8 1 10
answered question 10
skipped question 3
7. In your opinion, please rate the extent to which the following broadly described forms of exploitation have
received the appropriate level of attention from global efforts to combat trafficking in persons.
Answer options Don’t know Too little
attention
Too much
attention
Adequate
level
attention
Very good
level of
attention
Response
count
Sex trafficking (including exploiting
prostitution of others and other
forms of sexual exploitation such
as pornography, sexually-oriented
performances and sex tourism)
0 1 0 5 4 10
Trafficking for non-commercial sex
purposes (including early marriage,
forced or servile marriage,
arranged marriage, compensation
marriage, transactional marriage,
temporary marriage and marriage
for childbearing)
0 5 0 4 1 10
Labour trafcking (including
domestic servitude, sweatshop or
agricultural or construction labour,
and enforced enrolment in an
armed force)
0 4 0 5 1 10
Other (please specify) 1
answered question 10
skipped question 3
108
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
8. What, if any, unique contributions can be or are being made by UN.GIFT to further the collective response to
combat trafficking in persons? Please be specific in your response.
Answer options Response count
6
answered question 6
skipped question 7
9. Are there areas where UN.GIFT activities are redundant in relation to the activities of other entities?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 20.0 2
Ye s 40.0 4
No 40.0 4
Please describe specific examples
that may exist
4
answered question 10
skipped question 3
10. Did your Government participate any of the regional events addressing different geographic and thematic
challenges of trafcking in persons which took place in Uganda, Brazil, Thailand, South Africa, India, Côte d’Ivoire,
Lithuania, Turkey, Egypt, and Kyrgyzstan during 2007 and 2008 leading up to the Vienna Forum? If yes, how useful
did you find this event(s)?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 30.0 3
No, did not attend 30.0 3
Yes; Not useful 0.0 0
Yes; Somewhat useful 0.0 0
Yes; Useful 30.0 3
Yes; Very useful 10.0 1
answered question 10
skipped question 3
109
ANNEXES
11. Did a representative from your Government attend the Vienna Forum to Fight Human Trafcking on
13-15 February 2008? If yes, how useful did they find this conference?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 10.0 1
No, did not attend 10.0 1
Yes; Not useful 20.0 2
Yes; Somewhat useful 10.0 1
Yes; Useful 40.0 4
Yes; Very useful 10.0 1
If yes, please describe any sessions
you found particularly useful.
6
answered question 10
skipped question 3
12. Have you read (partially or completely) The Global Report on Trafficking in Persons published in 2009? If yes,
how useful did you find this report?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 0.0 0
No, did not read 20.0 2
Yes; Not useful 10.0 1
Yes; Somewhat useful 50.0 5
Yes; Useful 20.0 2
Yes; Very useful 0.0 0
If yes, please list any aspects of
this report that were viewed as
particularly useful.
5
answered question 10
skipped question 3
13. Are you aware of public service announcements published by UN.GIFT on human trafficking? If yes, how use-
ful do you believe they have been in raising awareness within the general public?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 10.0 1
No, not aware 30.0 3
Yes; Not useful 10.0 1
Yes; Somewhat useful 20.0 2
Yes; Useful 30.0 3
Yes; Very useful 0.0 0
answered question 10
skipped question 3
110
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
14. Are you aware of the UN.GIFT website? If yes, how useful do you find the information contained on this
website?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 10.0 1
No, not aware 10.0 1
Yes; Not useful 10.0 1
Yes; Somewhat useful 20.0 2
Yes; Useful 30.0 3
Yes; Very useful 20.0 2
answered question 10
skipped question 3
15. Has your Government used any of the capacity-building tools developed by UN.GIFT? If so, how useful did
they find these tools?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 30.0 3
No, have not used 50.0 5
Yes; Not useful 0.0 0
Yes; Somewhat useful 0.0 0
Yes; Useful 10.0 1
Yes; Very useful 10.0 1
If yes, please list any that were
viewed as particularly useful.
1
answered question 10
skipped question 3
16. Is your country participating in a joint programme organized by UN.GIFT? If yes, how useful do you believe
this partnership will be?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 30.0 3
No, not participating 60.0 6
Yes; Not useful 0.0 0
Yes; Somewhat useful 0.0 0
Yes; Useful 10.0 1
Yes; Very useful 0.0 0
answered question 10
skipped question 3
111
ANNEXES
17. Are you aware of the small grants facility aimed at providing funding to NGOs focused on the fight to com-
bat trafcking in persons? If yes, how transparent do you nd the objectives and process for this programme?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 30.0 3
No, not aware 40.0 4
Yes; Not transparent 0.0 0
Yes; Somewhat transparent 20.0 2
Yes; Transparent 10.0 1
Yes; Very transparent 0.0 0
answered question 10
skipped question 3
18. Has your country received technical assistance (including training programmes) organized or run by
UN.GIFT? If yes, how useful did you find this assistance?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 20.0 2
No, have not received 60.0 6
Yes; Not useful 0.0 0
Yes; Somewhat useful 10.0 1
Yes; Useful 0.0 0
Yes; Very useful 10.0 1
answered question 10
skipped question 3
19. How in line are the technical assistance programmes of UN.GIFT with your priority areas of need?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
N/A 30.0 3
Not in line 10.0 1
Somewhat in line 50.0 5
In line 10.0 1
Very much in line 0.0 0
Please briefly explain 2
answered question 10
skipped question 3
112
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
20. Based on your experience, how would you rate the effectiveness of UN.GIFT at the following areas?
Answer options N/A Not
effective
Somewhat
effective
Effective Very
effective
Response
count
Increasing awareness of human
trafficking
2 0 3 3 2 10
Providing data and empirical
evidence on human trafficking
2 1 4 3 0 10
Increasing political commitment
and capacity of Member States
to counter human trafficking
and implement the Trafficking in
Persons Protocol
2 3 1 4 0 10
Mobilizing resources to implement
the action required to combat
trafficking at the international,
regional and national level
2 2 3 3 0 10
Organizing global conferences
to assess the global trafficking
situation and to promote global
action against trafficking
2 2 1 5 0 10
Increasing support to victims of
trafficking through NGOs and
service providers
2 2 4 2 0 10
answered question 10
skipped question 3
21. In your opinion, has UN.GIFT been cost effective in the pursuit of its objectives?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
N/A 40.0 4
Not cost effective 20.0 2
Somewhat cost effective 30.0 3
Cost effective 10.0 1
Very cost effective 0.0 0
answered question 10
skipped question 3
22. In your opinion, what were the most important achievements of UN.GIFT from March 2007-June 2010?
Answer options Response count
8
answered question 8
skipped question 5
113
ANNEXES
23. Were there any major roles/activities that UN.GIFT should have done or did not do well enough from
March 2007-June 2010?
Answer options Response count
6
answered question 6
skipped question 7
24. In your opinion, has UN.GIFT’s approach and activities been sufciently gender inclusive?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 30.0 3
Not inclusive 0.0 0
Somewhat inclusive 50.0 5
Inclusive 20.0 2
Significantly inclusive 0.0 0
Very inclusive 0.0 0
Please briefly explain 3
answered question 10
skipped question 3
25. How successful has UN.GIFT been at influencing the global movement to combat trafficking in persons from
March 2007-June 2010?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 30.0 3
Not successful at all 20.0 2
Somewhat successful 20.0 2
Successful 30.0 3
Very successful 0.0 0
answered question 10
skipped question 3
26. In your opinion, how strong is the UN.GIFT brand and its association with the global movement to combat
trafficking in persons?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 30.0 3
Not strong 20.0 2
Somewhat strong 20.0 2
Strong 20.0 2
Very strong 10.0 1
answered question 10
skipped question 3
114
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
27. Do you believe that UN.GIFT should continue beyond its initial work plan which is currently scheduled to
end in 2010?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
Don’t know 20.0 2
Definitely no 20.0 2
Potentially no 0.0 0
Potentially yes 40.0 4
Definitely yes 20.0 2
Please briefly explain 5
answered question 10
skipped question 3
28. If UN.GIFT were to continue, how much emphasis should UN.GIFT place on each of the following activities
in the future?
Answer options N/A No
emphasis
Some
emphasis
Significant
emphasis
Very strong
emphasis
Response
count
Increasing awareness of human
trafficking
0 0 4 4 2 10
Providing data and evidence on
Trafficking in Persons
0 0 2 7 1 10
Increasing political commitment
and capacity of Member States
to counter human trafficking
and implement the Trafficking in
Persons Protocol
0 0 2 3 5 10
Providing direct assistance
to Governments on policy
development
0 0 4 2 4 10
Mobilizing resources to implement
the action required to combat
trafficking at the international,
regional and national level
0 0 3 4 3 10
Organizing global conferences
to assess the global trafficking
situation and to promote global
action against trafficking
0 2 3 4 1 10
Increasing support to victims of
trafficking through NGOs and
service providers
0 0 2 2 6 10
Other (please specify) 1
answered question 10
skipped question 3
115
ANNEXES
29. At inception, how satisfied were you with the level of consultation with Member States regarding the design
of UN.GIFT?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
N/A 30.0 3
Too little consultation 50.0 5
Too much consultation 0.0 0
Acceptable level of consultation 20.0 2
Very good level of consultation 0.0 0
Please briefly explain 4
answered question 10
skipped question 3
30. At present, how satisfied are you with the level of consultation between Member States and UN.GIFT?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
N/A 30.0 3
Too little consultation 40.0 4
Too much consultation 0.0 0
Acceptable level of consultation 20.0 2
Very good level of consultation 10.0 1
Please briefly explain any concrete
steps UN.GIFT could take to
enhance cooperation with Member
States
3
answered question 10
skipped question 3
31. In your opinion, how transparent are the management and governance structures of UN.GIFT?
Answer options Response percentage Response count
N/A 30.0 3
Not transparent 20.0 2
Somewhat transparent 30.0 3
Transparent 20.0 2
Very transparent 0.0 0
Please briefly explain 3 3
answered question 10
skipped question 3
116
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
32. Please add any additional comments you would like to share.
Answer options Response count
4
answered question 4
skipped question 9
117
ANNEX VI. MISSION SCHEDULE (SERBIA)
UN.GIFT Independent Evaluation
Belgrade, Serbia, 29 July-30 July 2010
Evaluation Mission
Dalberg Global Development Advisors and Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU)
ursday, 29 July 2010
Ministry of Interior: Mr. Sasa Gosic
Ministry of Justice: Mr. Slobodan Boskovic and Ms. Mila Muskinja
Belgium Embassy to Serbia: Ms. Denise de Hauwere
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation: Ms. Beatrice Meyer
Commissariat for Refugees: Ms. Danijela Popovic-Rocco,
NGO Praxis (eatre of the oppressed): Ms. Biljana Zlatanovic and Ms. Ivana Stankovic
IOM: Ms. Jovana Mihajlovic and Ms. Jelena Miloradovic
UNODC/UN.GIFT: Ms. Claudia Giore and Mr. Davor Raus
Friday, 30 July 2010
NGO Atina: Ms. Sandra Sljepcevic
UNHCR: Mr. Sasa Valadzija, Ms. Buba Mitrovic and Ms. JUnited Nations Shirato
Service for Coordination of Protection of Tracking Victims (Ministry of Labour, Employ-
ment and Social Policy): Ms. Biljana Zoranovic Avlijas
NGO ASTRA: Ms. Marija Andjelkovic
Monday, 5 August 2010
OSCE Serbia (Telecon): Ms. Marija Lukic
119
ANNEX VII. MISSION SCHEDULE (INDIA)
UN.GIFT Independent Evaluation
New Delhi, India, 4-6 August 2010
Evaluation Mission
Dalberg Global Development Advisors
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
UNODC ROSA: Ms. Suruchi Pant and Ms. Swasti Rana
UNIFEM: Mr. Anindit Roy Chowdhury and Ms. Madhubala Nath
AEPC: Mr. Jaidev Bakshi
Friday, 6 August 2010
Ministry Home Aairs: Dr. N.S. Kalsi
Monday, 9 August 2010
IOM (Telecon): Ms. Nishat Chowdhury
ATSEC India (Telecon): Mr. Manabendra Mandal
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Ministry Rural Development (Telecon): Ms. Manjula Krishnan
Apne Aap Women Worldwide (Telecon): Ms. Ruchira Gupta
ursday, 12 August 2010
Prajwala (Telecon): Ms. Sunitha Krishnan
Wednesday, 17 August 2010
Ministry Tourism (Telecon): Mr. Devesh Chaturvedi
121
ANNEX VIII. UN.GIFT DOCUMENTS
CONSULTED
Document name Type Date
Project Document Management Mar-07
Project Logframe Management Mar-07
Project Revision Management Dec-07
Project Revision Management Mar-09
Project Revision Management Dec-09
Project Revision Management Feb-10
Steering Committee Terms of Reference (original) Management 2007
Annual Progress Reports Management 2007-2009
Quarterly Progress Reports Management 2007-2010
Decisions of the UNODC Executive Committee on UN.GIFT Management 2007-2010
Results of the UN.GIFT survey Management 2009
Compendium of inter-governmental resolutions and reports
on UN.GIFT
United Nations
Decisions
2007-2009
Regional Meetings Reports: Brazil, Uganda, Cote D’Ivoire, India
and Thailand
Report 2007
The Vienna Forum Report: A Way Forward to Combat
Trafficking
Report 2008
An Introduction to Human Trafcking: Vulnerability, Impact and
Action. Background Paper
Publication 2008
Human Trafficking: An Overview Publication 2008
Multi-Agency Synopsis of Mandates and Research Activities
Related to Combating Human Trafficking
Publication 2008
Combating Trafficking in Persons: A Handbook for
Parliamentarians
Publication 2009
Global Report on Trafficking in Persons Publication 2009
Trafficking in Persons; Analysis on Europe Publication 2009
Training material on human trafficking for the private sector Publication 2010
Joint Project documents (General, Bolivia-Agentian, Burundi,
Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Serbia).
Management 2009-2010
Discussion paper on UN.GIFT’s governance Management 2009
UN.GIFT Strategy Management 2009
UN.GIFT Membership and working arrangements Management 2009
Paper on UN.GIFT and ICAT Management 2010
TORs and PHF for all UN.GIFT core staff and for staff
embedded in other divisions
Management 2007-2010
UN.GIFT structure organigrams Management 2007-2010
122
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Document name Type Date
UN.GIFT Expert Group Initiatives (EGI)
Combating forced labour: A handbook for employers and
business (UN.GIFT/ILO)
UN.GIFT EGI 2008
Training manual to fight trafficking in children for labour, sexual
and other forms of exploitation (UN.GIFT/ILO/UNICEF)
(Large documents)
UN.GIFT EGI 2009
Guiding Principles on Memoranda of Understanding Between
Key Stakeholders and Law Enforcement Agencies on Counter-
Trafcking Cooperation (UN.GIFT/IOM)
UN.GIFT EGI 2009
Caring for Trafficked Persons: Guidance for Health Providers
(UN.GIFT/IOM) (Large document, 232 pages)
UN.GIFT EGI 2009
Model Law Against Trafcking in Persons (UN.GIFT/UNODC) UN.GIFT EGI 2009
Anti-Human Trafcking Manual for Criminal Justice
Practitioners (UN.GIFT/UNODC)
UN.GIFT EGI 2009
First Aid Kit for Use by Law Enforcement Responders in
Addressing Human Trafficking
UN.GIFT EGI 2009
Needs assessment toolkit on the criminal justice response to
human trafficking
UN.GIFT EGI 2010
Analysis of the business and socio-economic causes of
trafcking in persons (UN.GIFT/OSCE)
UN.GIFT EGI 2010
Other capacity-building tools and awareness-raising material
UN.GIFT Public Service Announcements PSA 2008
Vienna Forum Clip Video 2008
UN.GIFT CNN Vignettes on human trafcking and business PSA 2009
UN.GIFT Start Freedom Educational Material for Youth Web material 2009
UNODC/UN.GIFT MP3 tool with key encounter messages
addressing victims
MP3 tool 2010
UN.GIFT BBC Working Lives Series Documentary 2010
i-Phone app. Awareness raising tool on human trafficking for
young people
App. 2010
Provisional Project and Final Report: Study Exchange
Drehscheibe-WOTCLEF-NAPTIP held in December 2008
Report
A promising practice for protecting child victims of trafficking:
Drehscheibe Augarten in Vienna
Publication 2010
Strategy and work planning documents
UN.GIFT Steering Committee Meeting Summaries Management 2007-10
Anti-Human Trafficking and Migrant Smuggling Unit
(AHTMSU) and the Future of the Global Initiative to Fight
Human Trafficking (UN.GIFT)
Management 2008
UN.GIFT Quarterly Financial Statements Management 2007-2010
UN.GIFT Work Plan 2007-2009 Management 2007-2009
UN.GIFT Work and Monitoring Plan 2009 Management 2009
123
ANNEXES
Document name Type Date
UN.GIFT Work and Monitoring Plan 2010 Management 2010
UN.GIFT Progress Update 2008 Management 2008
UN.GIFT Progress Update 2009 Management 2009
Study on the impact of the internet on trafficking in persons Research 2010
Private sector survey Report 2009
UN.GIFT Budget per eld segment Management 2010
Capacity-building, mobilization background documents
Background paper for the General Assembly Thematic Debate Report 2008
Final Summary of the General Assembly Thematic Debate
2008
Report 2008
Final Summary of the General Assembly Thematic Debate
2009
Report 2009
Background paper of the Secretary-General on Improving the
Coordination of Efforts on Trafficking in Persons
Report 2009
A Global Plan of Action—possible goals and elements Report 2010
Private sector documents (concept notes, agreements, Excel
sheets, background information, private sector survey)
Activities 2009-2010
VITA documents (Presentation, concept note) Activities 2009-2010
Draft General TOR for Joint Project development Management 2008
Joint Projects background note for Steering Committee Report 2008
UN.GIFT Joint Programming note May 08 Report 2008
UNDG Presentation on Joint Projects Guidance 2006
Concept note Small Grants Facility Concept note 2010
Guidelines for Call for Proposals/Small Grants Facility Guidelines 2010
Annex I Template for Full Project Proposal/Small Grants
Facility
Internal Tool 2010
Annex II Interim Report Small Grants Facility Internal Tool 2010
Annex III Final Report Small Grants Facility Internal Tool 2010
Administrative check template for proposals received under
the SGF
Internal Tool 2010
Evaluation table for proposals SGF Internal Tool 2010
Final list of proposals funded through the SGF Internal Tool 2010
Evaluation Table used in meeting of Board of Experts SGF Internal Tool 2010
Study exchange follow up proposal Nigeria Concept note 2009
CSO Questionnaire sent to NGO participants of UN.GIFT
Regional Events
Internal Tool 2010
Information on funding of participation at the Vienna Forum Guidelines 2007
Challenges in HT—International Federation of the Red Cross
on UN.GIFT
Letter to UNODC 2007
CSO Questionnaire for the regional events Internal Tool 2007-08
CSO Questionnaire responses for New Delhi/SARC Internal 2008
Summary of private sector partnerships Internal 2010
124
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Document name Type Date
Vienna Forum—ACV Invoice Internal 2010
Vienna Forum—link to standards cost manual 2008 Internal 2010
Vienna Forum Costs_24Aug2010 Internal 2010
Sponsored Vienna Forum Participants Internal 2010
Consolidated list Vienna Forum sessions Internal 2010
Information for the India desk review
Delhi Declaration: Statement of Intent which was an outcome
of the UN.GIFT Conference in 2007.
India 2007
India Country Report: This was developed under the Project
in 2008 and released at the World Congress III on Sexual
Exploitation of Children and Adolescents in Brazil.
India 2008
Code of Conduct for Safe and Honourable Tourism: Launched
recently by the Ministry of Tourism.
India 2010
Project Annual Report India 2007
Project Annual Report India 2008
Project Annual Report India 2009
GLOS83 India Project Revision India 2010
Information for the Serbia desk review
Questionnaire on the National Reponses to Trafcking in
Persons
Serbia 2007
Questionnaire on the National Reponses to Trafcking in
Persons
Serbia 2008
Presentation on national measures to suppressing trafficking in
persons in Serbia
Serbia 2009
Presentation on the Serbia Joint Project Serbia 2010
Minutes of inter-agency meeting on joint Project development Serbia 2008
Meeting report on the development of the joint Project Serbia 2009
Terms of reference for the joint Project consultant Serbia 2008
Meeting of stakeholders on the Serbia joint Project Serbia 2008
ASTRA comments to UNODC Serbia 2009
ASTRA SOS Hotline and Direct Victim Assistance
2008 Statistics
Serbia 2008
ATINA factsheet Serbia 2009
Meeting with State Secretaries and donor roundtable
March 2009
Serbia 2009
Lessons learned log
UN.GIFT Steering Committee lessons learned log Internal 2010
UN.GIFT Joint Projects lessons learned log Internal 2010
UN.GIFT Vienna Forum lessons learned log Internal 2010
UN.GIFT Private sector lessons learned log Internal 2010
UN.GIFT VITA Tool lessons learned log Internal 2010
125
ANNEXES
Document name Type Date
UN.GIFT Civil society lessons learned log Internal 2010
UN.GIFT Advocacy lessons learned log Internal 2010
Final Narrative Reports SC Partners on EGIs and Research
Combating Forced Labour: A Handbook for Employers and
Business (ILO)
Report 2009
Training Manual to Fight Trafcking in Children for Labour,
Sexual and Other Forms of Exploitation (ILO-UNICEF)
Report 2009
Guiding Principles on Memoranda of Understanding between
Key Stakeholders and Law Enforcement Agencies on Counter-
Trafficking Cooperation (IOM)
Report 2009
Caring for Trafficked Persons: Guidance for Health Providers
(IOM)
Report 2009
Analysis of the business and socio-economic causes of
trafficking in persons (OSCE)
Report 2010
Cairo Research Report (IOM) Report 2008
Other documents
Concept note on the United Nations Multi-agency
compendium
Internal 2010
Concept note on the virtual knowledge hub Internal 2010
Media statistics for the UN.GIFT website Internal 2010
Media statistics for the launch of the Global Report on
Trafficking in Persons
Internal 2010
Concept note on the Gulu Project Internal 2009
Serbia National Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Human
Beings, 2009-2011
Serbia 2009
Shelter Proposals SGF
Manama Declaration Report 2009
TOR Film Forum Internal 2007
Invitation Exhibition domestic servitude VIC Invitation 2009
Invitation Exhibition domestic servitude Geneva Invitation 2010
Luxor-Business Leaders Award Concept note Internal 2010
Bahrain—Human Trafcking at the Crossroads Report Report 2009
Concept Paper for study on Internet-related trafficking Internal 2010
UNODC Regional Events Summary Internal 2007
Public Private Partnerships - A critical tool in combating
human trafficking
Report 2008
List of Non-State Parties to UNTOC and Protocols Internal 2010
UN.GIFT website statistics Internal 2010
Detailed financial information by year and region
Financial Summaries (2007-2010) Report 2007-2010
Progress Report (March 2007-June 2010) Report 2010
126
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
Document name Type Date
Report to the Conference of States Parties to the UNTOC Report 2010
UN.GIFT Research Budget Internal 2010
Regional financial authorizations (consolidated) Internal 2010
Detailed UN.GIFT funding figures Internal 2010
Global Regional Breakdown of Expenses Internal 2010
Regional event costs Internal 2010
Media and Communications
Media Report Linx (April 2008) Report 2008
Media Report Linx (September 2008) Report 2008
Post-Vienna Forum Media Relations Report 2008
CNN Media Report Report 2010
Summary UN.GIFT communication strategy briefings and
outreach
Internal 2007
Communications_strategy AS 051007 Internal 2007
UN.GIFT Phase 1 PR Plan Internal 2007
Communication concept note handover Internal 2009
UN.GIFT MS corner on the UNODC website Internal 2010
Documents on ICAT
Report of the #1 inter-agency coordination Meeting Tokyo
(September 2006)
Report 2006
Report of the #3 inter-agency coordination meeting in NY
(November 2007)
Report 2007
Report of the inter-agency coordination meeting (April 2009) Report 2009
Report of the inter-agency coordination meeting (March 2010) Report 2010
Annex 1 BACKGROUND ICAT April 2009 Report 2009
Main ECOSOC and United Nations GA Resolutions related
to ICAT
Internal 2010
127
ANNEX IX. EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS
CONSULTED
Bales, K., Disposable People, University of California Press, 1999.
Cunnington, P. And S. Hung, UNIAP, United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Tracking in the
Greater Mekong Sub-region, Mid-term Evaluation Report of UNIAP Phase III 2007-2010, March 2009.
ECPAT International, e Body Shop International PLC, eir Protection is in Our Hands, 2009.
Evaluation Services of the European Union, Evaluating Coordination, complementarity and coherence in
EU development policy: A synthesis, 2007.
ICAT, An analytical review: 10 years on from the adoption of the United Nations Tracking in Persons
Protocol, 2010.
ICF, where is the Research on Human Tracking and the Evaluation of Anti Tracking Eorts? 2010.
IEU, Evaluation of the Global Programme against Tracking in Human Beings, 2005.
ILO, A global alliance against forced labour, Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ILO, Geneva, 2005.
IOD, Assessment of UN-Water, 2009.
Laczko, F., Gozdziak, E.M.,Data and Research on Human Tracking: A Global Survey, International
Migration 43 (1/2), 2005.
Tsai W., Social Structure of “Competition” within a Multiunit Organization: Coordination, Competition,
and Intra-organizational Knowledge Sharing, Organization Science, vol. 13, No. 2, 2002.
UNAIDS, Second Independent Evaluation 2002-2008, 2009.
United Nations Energy, Looking to the Future, 2010.
UNICEF, Action to Prevent Child Tracking in South Eastern Europe: A Preliminary Assessment, 2006.
United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Global Plan of Action to Combat Tracking in
Persons, General Assembly Resolution 64/293, 2010.
United Nations General Assembly, ematic Dialogue “Taking collective action to end human track-
ing”, 2009.
UNICEF IRC, ‘South Asia in Action: Preventing and Responding to Child Tracking: Analysis of Anti-
Tracking Initiatives in the Region’, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2009.
128
IN-Depth evaluatIoN: uN.GIFt
UNODC, UNODC Strategy 2008-2011, 2008.
UNODC/UN.GIFT, Global Report on Tracking in Persons, 2009.
UN-Water, UN-Water Work Programmes 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.
U.S. Department of State, Tracking in Persons: 2008-2010 Reports, 2008-2010.
U.S. Government Accountability Oce (GAO), Human Tracking: Better Data, Strategy and Report-
ing Needed to Enhance U.S. Anti-tracking Eorts Abroad, 2006.
Williamson, C. Fixing Failed Foreign Aid: Can Agency Practices Improve?, AidData Conference, 2009.
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, www.unodc.org
Printed in Austria
V.11-84021—September 2011—50
