8837
vote!
average rating:
give rating:
What about our org structures?
posted by: ADG Team, 04 Feb 2011, 13:58 PM
category: 4. Organisational structure
Do you have any particular views on Australia's organisational structures for ODA, including that of AusAID?
Are they effective in delivering aid? Is there any room for improvement? Some other questions you might like to ponder: Is AusAID effective in engaging with, say, the private sector, or NGOs? Again, are there ways that it could improve?
Please let us know what you think, and share constructive ideas you might have.
6618
vote!
average rating:
give rating:
Focus on 'Organisational Structure'
posted by: ADG, 06 Jan 2011, 15:24 PM
category: 4. Organisational structure
4th on the Review Team's TORs is a look at the best future organisational structure for the aid program. That includes AusAID's structure for aid delivery, but also coordinating Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) across the public service and with other donors and institutions. A tough one to balance and get right, and no easy answers... but any ideas on starting points, here?
6588
vote!
average rating:
give rating:
5. Appropriate (i) ODE role-How can we strengthen reviews’
posted by: ADDC, 09 Mar 2011, 15:13 PM
category: 4. Organisational structure
ADDC recommends that:
-
an ‘Ambassador for Disability-Inclusive Development’ be created at Deputy-Director General level to promote leadership and accountability for disability-inclusive development both within and external to AusAID (refer d & e) below)
-
investment is given to resources for greater DPO capacity building and involvement
-
the Disability Inclusive Development (DID) unit within AusAID has sufficient resources to maximise the quality of AusAID’s policy and practices in inclusive development
(excerpts from Australian Disability and Development Consortium (ADDC)’s submission to the Aid Review Panel. ADDC is an Australian based, international network with 450+ members working on disability in developing countries).
8843
vote!
average rating:
give rating:
idea 23: australians & our aid
posted by: ADG, 24 Mar 2011, 16:07 PM
category: 4. Organisational structure
1 consultant believed country partners valued Australians’ ‘informality, friendliness and competence’, though noted some Australians’ over-confidence in positions, and also an AusAID reputation for being ‘expensive, inflexible and isolated institutionally… a paternalistic institution’...
[ref TOR 4A]
Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.
8453
vote!
average rating:
give rating:
idea 24. disability in structure
posted by: ADG, 24 Mar 2011, 16:11 PM
category: 4. Organisational structure
2 people recommended disability inclusive development initiatives for AusAID, including a dedicated team in this area, an ‘Ambassador’ for this area at DDG-level, and further devolution and explanation of the ‘Development for All’ strategy to Posts and government departments...
[refer TOR 4A]
Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.
8426
vote!
average rating:
give rating:
idea 25: whole of govt. approach
posted by: ADG, 24 Mar 2011, 16:11 PM
category: 4. Organisational structure
1 person suggested that aid could be best delivered under an independent authority within the Foreign affairs portfolio, working across portfolios to ensure that the best and most relevant sectoral information is incorporated into aid programs. They suggested a governing board would enable the authority to have more freedom to focus on effectiveness and the distance from cabinet may provide more flexibility and freedom to innovate with reduced political risk...
[refer TOR 4B]
Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.
8948
vote!
average rating:
give rating:
idea 26: donor coordination
posted by: ADG, 24 Mar 2011, 16:13 PM
category: 4. Organisational structure
4 people expressed the view that ‘donors trip over each other’, and suggested agencies need to ensure their structures seek to overcome a ‘great deal of overlap… spending money on the same projects… [lack of] sharing of information’. 1 person suggested focusing resources more intensively on some forgotten countries or promising reformers would improve donor coordination.
1 person noted examples of doubling aid to avoid, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan and PNG, characterized by ‘lots of TA, a parallel civil service of local consultants, MCs and NGOs ignoring Government’. Another person suggested that 'while the paris declaration expresses an intent or hope that donors will collaborate with each other in signatory countries', they believe donors rarely collaborate...
[refer TOR 4C]
Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.
Thanks, 'Just a suggestion' for this idea here. What do others think of this proposal and this structure?
Please feel free to share any comments over the final day, pre voting.
Perhaps aid could be best delivered under an independent authority within the Foreign affairs portfolio. Such an authority could work across portfolio’s to ensure that the best and most relevant sectoral information is incorporated into aid programs. Perhaps a governing board would have more freedom to focus on effectiveness and the distance from cabinet may provide more flexibility and freedom to innovate with reduced political risk.
Thank you Karina, for your comments here. There are a mix of strategic and more operational suggestions relating to how to best structure AusAID and partner organisations to encourage disability inclusive development.
What about others' views? Would anyone like to share their ideas on how best to structure Australia's organisational structures for aid?
Australia is well positioned regionally to take on a coordination and leadership role in the area of disability inclusive development.
In terms of disability inclusive development, to better coordinate overseas development assistance across the public service:
· The rollout steps for implementation of AusAID’s strategy, Development for All: Towards a disability-inclusive Australian aid program 2009-2014, must be communicated to the whole of AusAID including regional posts;
· Partner country programs run by various departments including AusAID and the Department of Defense should be coordinated under the one country strategy; and
· There should be more transparency in departmental budget allocation for programs involving multiple departments.
Increased resourcing and capacity building for AusAID in disability inclusive development must be prioritised in order to effectively meet AusAID’s overall objectives and the outcomes of Development for All. This can be achieved through. Investment in a specialist team in disability inclusive development within AusAID. Also, an ‘Ambassador for Disability Inclusive Development’ should be created at Deputy-Director General level to promote leadership and accountability for disability inclusive development both within and external to AusAID.
Hi Christine. Thank you for this contribution. It’s useful to have an insight in to the ADDC’s submission to the aid review panel.
What do others think about these 4 recommendations to AusAID? In brief...:
Please let us know your views.
ADDC recommends that: • an overarching Inclusive Development Policy be developed under which all social strategies (disability, human rights, gender and child protection etc.) can be clearly defined and integrated into all aid and development programs • an ‘Ambassador for Disability-Inclusive Development’ be created at Deputy-Director General level to promote leadership and accountability for disability-inclusive development both within and external to AusAID • within AusAID, Disability and Health are separate and clearly defined both programmatically and in budget allocation • a greater investment is required in cross cutting thematic areas and a rights-based approach be adopted for the aid program and strongly systemised within all AusAID programs (excerpts from Australian Disability and Development Consortium (ADDC)’s submission to the Aid Review Panel. ADDC is an Australian based, international network with 450+ members working on disability in developing countries).