Coordination Performance Survey Validation workshop May 2016

Agenda for the workshop 1) Welcome, by MoES 2) Introduction to the workshop, by the Education Cluster 3) Dividing into groups to discuss answers and reasons behind, best practices, strengthening of the Cluster and future coordination, facilitated by the Education Cluster 4) Plenum 5) AOB 6) Lunch

CCPM Process On-line Survey CCPM questionnaire translation CCPM on-line survey (in April) Validation workshops Kiev, May 10, 2016 Kharkiv, May 13, 2016 Sievredonetsk, May 18, 2016 Kramatorsk, May 19, 2016 Final CCPM Report Compiled from notes from the validation workshops Presented to HC and HCT by CLAs end of May 2016

Objectives of the validation workshop Discuss and if necessary amend the Cluster Description Report Contextualize the findings of the Preliminary Coordination Performance Report Identify actions for improvements

Partner type Number partners responding Total number of partners Response rate (%) International NGOs4667 National NGOs31225 UN organisations41400 National authority1617 Donors000 Others 1500 Total Response rate among partners

Performance status legend Green = Good Yellow = Satisfactory, needs minor improvements Orange = Unsatisfactory, needs major improvements Red = Weak

1.1 Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic priorities Established, relevant coordination mechanism recognising national systems, subnational and co-lead aspects; stakeholders participating regularly and effectively; cluster coordinator active in inter-cluster and related meetings. Good 1.2 Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery Cluster partner engagement in dynamic mapping of presence and capacity (4W); information sharing across clusters in line with joint Strategic Objectives. Satisfactory Supporting service delivery

Informing strategic decision-making 2.1 Needs assessment and gap analysis (across other sectors and within the sector) Use of assessment tools in accordance with agreed minimum standards, individual assessment / survey results shared and/or carried out jointly as appropriate. Unsatisfactory 2.2 Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication, and cross-cutting issues. Joint analysis for current and anticipated risks, needs, gaps and constraints; cross cutting issues addressed from outset. Good 2.3 Prioritization, grounded in response analysis Joint analysis supporting response planning and prioritisation in short and medium term Satisfactory

Planning and strategy development 3.1 Develop sectoral plans, objectives and indicators directly supporting realization of the HC/HCT strategic priorities Strategic plan based on identified priorities, shows synergies with other sectors against strategic objectives, addresses cross cutting issues, incorporates exit strategy discussion and is developed jointly with partners. Plan is updated regularly and guides response. Satisfactory 3.2 Application and adherence to existing standards and guidelines Use of existing national standards and guidelines where possible. Standards and guidance are agreed to, adhered to and reported against. Unsatisfactory 3.3 Clarify funding requirements, prioritization, and cluster contributions to HC’s overall humanitarian funding considerations Funding requirements determined with partners, allocation under jointly agreed criteria and prioritisation, status tracked and information shared. Satisfactory

Advocacy 4.1 Identify advocacy concerns to contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action Concerns for advocacy identified with partners, including gaps, access, resource needs. Good 4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and the affected population Common advocacy campaign agreed and delivered across partners. Satisfactory

Monitoring and Reporting Monitoring and reporting the implementation of the cluster strategy and results; recommending corrective action where necessary and Reporting Use of monitoring tools in accordance with agreed minimum standards, regular report sharing, progress mapped against agreed strategic plan, any necessary corrections identified. Satisfactory

Contingency Planning and Preparedness Contingency planning/preparedness for recurrent disasters whenever feasible and relevant. National contingency plans identified and share; risk assessment and analysis carried out, multisectoral where appropriate; readiness status enhanced; regular distribution of early warning reports. Satisfactory

Accountability to affected population Disaster-affected people conduct or actively participate in regular meetings on how to organise and implement the response; agencies have investigated and, as appropriate, acted upon feedback received about the assistance provided Unsatisfactory

Schedule Time 10:40Group work 11:10Plenary – 5 minutes each group 11:30Group work 12:00Plenary - 5 minutes each group 12:20Reviewing the Humanitarian Structure 12:45AOB 13:00Lunch

Reviewing the Core Functions Core Function Reviewed 1. Rationale for Score Review the scores of the survey and suggest possible rationale for why the function scored the way that it did. - Enter notes here in bulleted form - 2. Best Practices Review the best practices for the function (1); what works well currently with this function? Maintaining and Strengthening Review the reasons for the score (1) and the best practices for the function (2), then suggest actions to maintain or strengthen the function Stakeholder Responsible Review actions to maintain or strengthen function (3) and suggest which stakeholder should be responsible for this function over the long-term. What would this stakeholder need to take on the roles and responsibilities of the function?

Group work -> validation Group I Support Service Delivery Contingency & preparedness Accountability to Affected Population Group II Informing Strategic Decision making Monitoring and Reporting Group III Planning and Strategy Development Advocacy

Reviewing the Humanitarian Structure Humanitarian Need What are the primary education in emergency needs? What is the scope of needs? Are they decreasing or increasing? - Humanitarian System Does the current Cluster system fit the need? If no, in what ways does it not support the response What could be changed to create a more functional system? - Government Capacity What level of coordination support does the MoES still need at the national and local levels? -