While coordination at headquarters was fairly strong, significant duplication of resources provided to schools indicates that coordination, beyond headquarters, was weak. Initial coordination mechanisms between the Australian Government and implementing partners worked well with the establishment of targets and priority Meetings between partners were regular and provided an opportunity to engage, discuss issues and challenges, and present a united front to All partners were involved in the establishment of targets and indicators and DFAT promoted enhanced coordination through personal engagement by Suva post staff and the implementation of flexible contracting arrangements. In theory, this coordination appeared well organised, consultative and aligned to national priorities. However, the field visits revealed that coordination was less evident with a high proportion of schools receiving multiple levels of support. In some cases, schools have received support from all Australian-funded partners at various stages over the past 12-months and there was evidence of duplication of resources. The duplication appears to have increased in frequency since December 2016 as partners move to close out the recovery phase. Therefore, while coordination was occurring at the national level it was not transferring to the field. Interviews with District Education Officers (DEOs) reveal consultation efforts from partners were generally limited. DEOs had requested better coordination through existing systems (for example the Education Cluster) to help facilitate coordination processes, promote local ownership and leadership and to ensure resources are equally distributed according to need.
While coordination at headquarters was fairly strong, significant duplication of resources provided to schools indicates that coordination, beyond headquarters, was weak. Initial coordination mechanisms between the Australian Government and implementing partners worked well with the establishment of targets and priority Meetings between partners were regular and provided an opportunity to engage, discuss issues and challenges, and present a united front to All partners were involved in the establishment of targets and indicators and DFAT promoted enhanced coordination through personal engagement by Suva post staff and the implementation of flexible contracting arrangements. In theory, this coordination appeared well organised, consultative and aligned to national priorities. However, the field visits revealed that coordination was less evident with a high proportion of schools receiving multiple levels of support. In some cases, schools have received support from all Australian-funded partners at various stages over the past 12-months and there was evidence of duplication of resources. The duplication appears to have increased in frequency since December 2016 as partners move to close out the recovery phase. Therefore, while coordination was occurring at the national level it was not transferring to the field. Interviews with District Education Officers (DEOs) reveal consultation efforts from partners were generally limited. DEOs had requested better coordination through existing systems (for example the Education Cluster) to help facilitate coordination processes, promote local ownership and leadership and to ensure resources are equally distributed according to need.
tropical-cyclone-winston-education-response-evaluation.docx