4.2 Organizational structure

Finding 7 – Organizational structure: Different parts of UNDP are integrating LNOB principles through informal mechanisms. Yet having LNOB communicated as everyone’s responsibility has diluted accountability, and limited coordination and incentives for LNOB.

To date, integration of LNOB into UNDP work has been driven by individual champions and limited to standalone activities. While the organization has benefitted from a motivated staff and informal support mechanisms at the regional and country levels, formal functions that might be expected to be in place to promote and coordinate a cross-cutting theme – such as work plans, budgets, focal points, incentive and accountability structures, networks and a community of practice for LNOB and RFBF – were found to be absent in UNDP. The absence of an organized network means that there is likely a lack of systematic learning shared across contexts and countries. This would incur significant costs in terms of staff time, e.g., in running a network or community of practice, or being a focal point. These focal point roles often go to junior staff, who, while usually very committed, do not have a major role or influence on decision-making, and lead to the ‘function’ becoming the responsibility of these focal points only, rather than being adequately mainstreamed.

Despite multiple events and discussions with some focus on LNOB, and availability of some relevant publications on solutions for integrating those left behind, evidence suggests that the Global Policy Network (GPN)162 was overall not effective in systematic and reliable experience- and knowledge-sharing on LNOB. Various communities of practice, HQ and Regional Bureaux sections and individuals took the lead in different contexts, with no organizational coherence, systemic approach or clear linkage with the country offices. For example, CO staff often indicated not knowing who to get in touch with at HQ in relation to LNOB, alongside a clear gap in explicit expertise or reference points at regional levels and very few focal points at CO level. COs also mostly lacked practical resources for integrating LNOB and RFBF. The approach might be considered ‘letting a thousand flowers bloom’, but while some have bloomed in an ad hoc way, others would have benefitted from a better structure.

During the UNDP organizational restructuring in 2018-2019, there was discussion of establishing a dedicated LNOB unit.163 However, resources were not available, and work related to LNOB was integrated into the Signature Solutions, in particular poverty eradication (now poverty and inequality, Signature Solution 1). At the HQ level, the inclusive growth team is still considered by most to be the informal lead, while at regional level, different Signature Solutions took the lead. Interview respondents differed in their opinion as to whether there should be a specific focal unit leading on LNOB, such as the SDG integration or the inclusive growth team.164 Relying on integration of this cross-cutting priority without a coordinating role has led to a situation where it is ‘everyone and no-one’s business’.

162 The UNDP Global Policy Network (GPN) is a network of global experts and practitioners, from local to global. 163 Interview respondents shared an undated and untitled PowerPoint presentation from around the end of 2018 which corroborates the information. 164 The analysis of comparable organizations found that none of the organizations have an organizational LNOB unit. UNFPA has an

LNOB task force/reference group, and GIZ has LNOB focal points. UNFPA subsequently developed an operational plan for 20222025 with a focus on reaching the furthest behind. See United Nations Population Fund, ‘Assessment of UNFPA Performance in

Addressing the Principle of Leaving No One Behind as Part of the UNFPA Strategic Plan, 2018-2021’, UNFPA, New York, 2020.