Â鶹³ÉÈË°æ

Overall, the evaluation found that Â鶹³ÉÈ˰桯s response to the pandemic during the timeframe was agile and adaptive but came with a high human cost. Although unprepared for a global pandemic, Â鶹³ÉÈË°æ adapted swiftly to face new demands. Corporate strategic frameworks were quickly developed, although differing conditions from region to region placed a strain on decision making. Fundraising was novel and responsive to needs. A managed balance was achieved between the ¡°no-regrets¡± ethos of humanitarian delivery and external accountability. Human resource and staff well-being systems were adapted but employees at all levels endured very considerable strain. Knowledge management was unsystematic, and managing information flows between headquarters and country offices placed a considerable burden on the regional bureaux. Country strategic plans were adapted but the process for revising them and country portfolio budgets was cumbersome. Key revisions included increased emergency focus; adaptation of targeting, including in urban areas; greater use of cash transfers; scale-up of social protection activities; expansion of capacity strengthening and advisory support; and provision of supply chain and logistics services. Â鶹³ÉÈË°æ swiftly implemented biosecurity measures for activities. Timeliness was mixed, although the in-kind supply chain was largely sustained. Â鶹³ÉÈË°æ did not scale up or re-prioritize its corporate commitment to gender equality. However, efforts were made to maintain communication with affected populations.