See our List & Checklist of leading Multi- Component Approaches (MCAs) & Multi- Intervention Programs (MIPs)

You are here: Wiki-Summaries >> Common Terms & Topics  >> Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks >> WoG Practices to Support IPPCFs  >> Joint/Multi Sector Reviews/Planning

Good Whole of Government (WoG) Practices to Support & Align IPPFCs
Use Joint/Multi Sector Reviews & Ministry Planning

  • Glossary Term
  • Examples, Evidence and Guidance on how this Wog Practice can Align, Support IPPCFs
<
>
This page describes a good practices to align and support Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) that should be purposefully selected by each country to promote different aspects of the education and development of young people. The drop-down menu on the right hand side of this page lists several other WoG good practices. Use that menu and follow the web links to find examples, evidence and guidance about such WoG practices.

Joint Sector Reviews (JSRs) : A Step in Joint Ministry Planning

A guide for Joint Sector Reviews published by the Global Education Partnership (p.7) has described JSRs as "playing a pivotal and strategic role within national education systems. Through a participative review process, and inclusive sector dialogue, it is a mechanism for the joint review of results, progress and performance in the implementation of national education sector plans. Out of the discussions on the most difficult barriers to progress and on policy concerns, recommendations are made for corrective actions in the following annual or multiyear operational plans to reach targets and achieve greater impact. Moreover,these recommendations embed collective responsibility for ensuring longer term systemic improvements."

JSRs were developed in the development and relief aid sectors as a  means of harmonizing scare resources. They have been used primarily to assess specific programs. The process of organizing JSRs for assessing the alignment and delivery of several IPPCF frameworks will obviously be more complex. Especially since studies have shown that using JSRs to assess broad sector plans such as Education Sector Plans has proved to be difficult. However, the experience and evidence gathered from JSR use on specific issues or program goals can be transferable by clearly focusing the JSR assessment on the extent to which IPPCF frameworks are being used to implement a government wide policy the education and overall development of children and youth. .
JSRs have often developed as a "joint periodic assessment of performance in a specific sector with the aim of satisfying donors’
and recipients’ accountability and learning needs,” understanding performance in a broad way that includes inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts as well as systemic and institutional issues". However, rather than emphasizing accountability, JSRs can  also be an opportunity for having substantive exchange with partners,
and repurpose current or identify new actions.

According to the GPE project, JSRs should be carefully developed in accordance with a well-defined policy agenda. JSRs could be seen as "effective only when it ultimately serves as a management and support tool for sector planning, programming, budget preparation and execution". They should be inclusive, participatory, gather data from several sources and emphasize mutual accountability.

The activities or elements of JSRs include
  • They are organized once or twice a year, for a duration of one to two weeks. 
  • They are led by the sector ministry and engage various state and non-state stakeholders, and are divided into working groups to discuss thematic issues.
  • Inputs include a variety of primary and secondary data sources, mostly sector performance reports and financial reports prepared by the sector ministry and the Ministry of Finance, as well as commissioned studies on specific topics and information from front-line practitioners, middle managers, donors and CSO projects.
  • Field visits may feed into the main discussions.
  • Conclusions and recommendations are gathered into an annual review report that is shared with all stakeholders.
  • These reports should be fed into and considered regularly by the continous improvement programs or Monitoring, Reporting, Evaluation & Improvement (MREI) systems in each ministry.
  • JSRs used to assess the alignment and coordination of IPPCF frameworks, should be led by the First Ministers office or inter-Ministry Agency.










See our List & Checklist of leading Multi- Component Approaches (MCAs) & Multi- Intervention Programs (MIPs)

Use the drop down menu below to access descriptions , examples and links on several good practices in Whole of Government (WoG) approaches.
Whole of Government (WoG):
List of Good practices
  - Macro-Policy on Children & Youth
  - Inter-Ministry WoG Plan of Action on Children & Youth
  - Required Use of IPPCF Frameworks
  - Required Coordination of Programs/IPPCFs
   - Several Data Sources/ Regularly Compiled
  - Defined National Priorities for Child & Youth Developmentn
  - Focus Resources on 4-5 National Priorities
  - Regular Surveys of Policies & Programs
  - Reciprocal, Negotiated, Strategic Inter-Ministry Partnerships
  - Education Ministry as Host & Co-Lead
  - Anchor Other Ministry Roles in their Core Mandates & Programs
  - Defined Composite Roles for Front-Line Staff and Local Agencies
  - Regular reports on IPPCF Capacities
  - Senior & Middle Manager Involvement
  - Negotiate Formal & Informal Boundaries
  - Use of Inter-Ministry Mechanisms/Agencies
  - Comprehensive Inter-Ministry Agreements
  - Support for Core Components (Core H&LS curriculum , integrated student services etc from each IPPCF and ministry
  - Use of Joint/Multi Sector Reviews & Planning
  - Jointly named Inter-Ministry Coordinators
  - Defined job descriptions, competencies and development for Inter-Ministry Coordinators
  - Donors & Internal Funding Enable "blended funding" at local or regional levels
This summary was first posted in December 2023 as a "first draft". We encourage readers to submit comments or suggested edits by posting a comment below or on the Mini-blog & Discussion Page for this section.
This tab on this page provides examples of, evidence for, and guidance about capacity building systems/organizational change practices that have been or can be used with this Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Framework (IPPCF).

These are several examples (Good & Bad) of how this WoG practice can align or support IPPCFs:
  • Manitoba, Canada has a long-standing agency, Healthy Child Manitoba, to coordinate ministry policies and programs from a whole child perspective. HCM is led by the Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet, authorized by a specific law,  supports a healthy child advisory committee, and facilitates holistic surveys on early child development and youth health. A recent Manitoba education review commission has confirmed that HCM should focus on working across ministries to “facilitate the development of coordinated policies, programs, and services” rather than implement any programs of its own (thereby creating confusion or potential competition with programs of various ministries. (WoG#2)
  • "Joint Sector Reviews" of the education sector in Cambodia and Education Sector Performance in Ghana were actually a single sector (education only) reviews. The reviews monitored the result of GPE/World Bank funding in education very well but did not discuss any involvement from other ministries. As well, the results being monitored did not report on any factors affecting student enrollment or performance that could be addressed in partnership with other ministries (WoG#3). 
  • the Child Friendly School framework was adapted and used in a JSR conducted in Viet Nam in 2014 to assess primary schools as part of Vietnam’s Education for all (EFA) Action Plan  covering  all levels of education in 2003-15. Most of the results assessed by the JSR focused on education sector only changes such as curriculum , teacher skills etc. However, part of the report highlighted the need to expand Early Childhood Education (with no particular focus on a IPPCF approach) and the other recommended better engagement of other line ministries, particularly with marginalized students. However, the report sees this "engagement" as ther MOE advocating more effectively for more resources, especially from the Finance ministry, rather than seeing other ministries as partners (WoG#9)
  • reflections on a JSR of a WASH IPPCF in Nepal notes that  "More than 800 individuals engaged in a series of over 30 meetings, covering both thematic and non-thematic discussions, marking the successful conclusion of this phase. Initially, we grappled with over 150 questions, but our systematic approach prevailed. By carefully categorizing these questions using the invaluable insights from GLAAS, country self-assessment (SWA), and Financial BAT analysis (SWA), we streamlined our focus, ultimately narrowing down to 35 key questions. (WoG#6).  "Political sensitization and mutual accountability mechanisms were rarely addressed at the sub-national level, highlighting the need for capacity building initiatives at the local and provincial levels. Additionally, nascent organograms require nurturing. We always talk about devolution of work from federal to local but no one has noticed the glaring gaps in local governments where the local bodies are almost helpless, where all accountability lies but lesser resources , be it human, financial or technical. (WoG#12). While there's a significant financing gap, promising examples of diversification emerged, such as revolving funds, cooperative initiatives, and successful market linkages (WoG#22)

Here are sources of evidence (research & fact-finding) on how this WoG practice can align or support IPPCFs:
  • a working paper prepared for the Global Partnership for Education identified a significant gap in country practices on JSRs when they were used to assess Education Sector Plans (
    ESPs). The paper notes (p.23) that the JSR review processes often did not actually cover the whole scope of the Education Sector Plan. This was explained by a lack of awareness/use of the Education Sector Plan and the fact that often partners were focused more on their own specific programs or accountability for projects funded by development partners. (WoG#2)

Here are some of many guidance documents/reports on how this WoG practice can align or support IPPCFs:
  • the JSR Guide on JSRs provides several specific suggestions that are applicable to JSR use in assessing the use of IPPCFs in whole of government policies on the education and overall development of young people. They include:
    - Alignment of monitoring efforts around an agreed-upon policy framework is central to the comprehensive assessment of progress and critical constraints facing the education sector (WoG#3).
    - JSR focused dialogue should generate greater alignment among stakeholders around the ESP/TEP and a common understanding of sector challenges beyond stakeholder groups’ own priorities (WoG#5).
    - Close attention is needed to ensure coherence between stakeholder expectations for the JSR, what the JSR actually reviews, and countries’ national sector plans and operational documents (WoG#8)
    - when the JSR annual report is comprehensive, development partners should ideally be able to use it as part of their reporting processes. In contexts where governments work with many different partners, this can help to align reporting mechanisms and result in reducing transaction costs and circumventing divergent lines of
    accountability
    - As a multi-stakeholder platform, JSRs aim at inclusion (who is represented) and participation (effective
    engagement) of the broader community in joint sector monitoring efforts. More inclusive stakeholder
    participation allows for a wider spectrum of perspectives to be heard on the realities, challenges, and
    successes of implementation. In an effective JSR, participating actors aim for gender balance and include high-level leadership of the ministries in charge of or contributing to school-based or school-linked programs and their technical departments, sub-national education authorities, the Ministry of Finance, which provides the critical link between information on education finance, the annual planning process, and budgeting decisions, allowing dialogue on domestic financing and allocations to the IPPFCs being used in or to support the school-based or school-linked policies and programs, development and humanitarian relief aid agencies, which support both the implementation of the education plan technically and financially as well as potentially funding the JSR process, CSOs/NGOs, teacher organizations, and organizations representing education support personnel, principals, school system administrators, counselors, school nurses, social workers, psychologists, librarians, and education deans, representatives of parents’ associations and school management committees, the private sector, donor organizations and others
    - a responsive, forward-looking planning cycle  requires up-to-date education requires information and financial data from the year under review, related to whether ESP/TEP targets were met (or not), the challenges and bottlenecks encountered, and even the usefulness of different indicators and related
    interventions. This includes quantitative data sourced from education management information systems (EMIS); government financial management systems; population census and other national databases; and targeted, rapid or targeted surveys. Disaggregated data sets should track the impact on vulnerable groups and other data sets can track progress over time. Secondary analysis of databases; beneficiary
    surveys; ‘deep dives’ into specific sector or sub-sector issues are also useful.
    - JSRs are part of a continuous monitoring of sector plan implementation. The stocktaking of past performance, looking back at past results and shortcomings through the JSR, including the monitoring of previous JSR recommendations, underpins mutual accountability and enables an assessment of whether targets are being achieved on time and as planned (WoG#14)
    - effective JSR meetings culminate in a set of prioritized and actionable recommendations that designate the
    responsible parties (‘who’) in charge of the specific remedial action (‘what and how’) and a timeline for their
    operationalization (‘when’). These are documented in a collectively agreed-upon aide-memoire disseminated to the JSR stakeholder group (and beyond) as the basis for moving forward.

​For updates and reader comments on this section of this web site, go to our
Mini-Blog on Common Topics &Terms

Here is our list of topics for this section:
- Introduction & Overview
- Education Equity, Inclusion & Success - Intersectoral Policy-Program Coordination Frameworks (IPPCFs) (published at global level)
- Multi-component Approaches (MCAs)
- Core Components         - School Culture & Climate
          - Staff Wellness
          - Student Conduct & Discipline
          - Engaging/Empowering Youth
          - Parent Participation
          - Community Involvement
  • Physical Environment & Resources
- Multi-Intervention Programs (MIPs)
  • How to Build a Multi-Intervention Program
- Single Interventions (Issue-Specific Programs, Policies, Services, Practices)

- Learning/Behaviour Models (LBMs)

- Behaviour & Learning Theories

- Government/Inter-sector Actions & Levers - Workforce Development
  • Workforce Planning in HPSD
  • Teacher Education & Development
    - Early Childhood Educators
    - Primary School Teachers
    - Secondary PSHE Specialists
    - Home Economics Specialists
    - Physical Education Specialists
    - School Counsellors
    - School Psychologists
    - School Principals
  • Preparing Other Professionals to Work with or within Schools
    - School Nurses
    - School Social Workers
    - School Resource (Police) Officers
    - Security/Civil Protection Guards
    - Teaching/Learning Assistants
    - School Administrative/Clerical Staff
    - School Maintenance Staff
    - Pastoral Counsellors
    - Community Volunteers & Elders
    - Emergency Relief Aid Workers
    - Development Aid Workers
- Systems Approaches
  • A Systems Focused Paradigm
  • Contextualizing Approaches & Programs
  • Implement, Maintain, Scale Up & Sustain Programs & Approaches
  • System & Organizational Capacities
  • Integrate Within Education System Mandates, Concerns & Constraints
  • Better Use of Systems Science & Organizational Development Tools