Funding Local NGOs In the Response to HIVAIDS Under PEPFAR

1
Funding Local NGOs In the Response to HIV/AIDS
Under PEPFAR

• Pact Community REACH

2
Pacts HIV/AIDS Global Grants Program

• Awarded in 2001 by USAID to rapidly make
  available HIV/AIDS funding to INGO local NGOs
  for care support, prevention VCT
  
• Community REACH consists of a global grants
  program (22 countries) country regional level
  HIV/AIDS grants programs in
  
• South Africa - Cambodia
• Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland - Brazil
• Vietnam
• Greater Mekong Region

3
Global Outreach

• 7 global grants solicitations - 550 applications
• 2001 2003 Pre-PEPFAR Intl local 22
  rapid scale up intensive countries
  
• Community HBC support
• Youth VCT Linkages Referrals
• Reducing Stigma Discrimination
• Support to OVC
• 2004 2005 PEPFAR Local NGOs only
• Positive Prevention, Care Support for PLWHA
  Focus Countries
  
• Support to HBC Volunteers- Non-Focus Countries
• Community Engagement in ARV Treatment Non-Focus
  Countries

4
Why Grant to Local NGOs?

• Accountability and Commitment
• Passion involvement
• Transparency
• Respect trust of participants
• Culturally appropriate
• Provide missing link between
• communities and formal treatment services
• Cost Effective
• Embedded in local economy
• Inspire volunteerism
• Greater chance of sustainability

5
Grantee Results Prior to PEPFAR 2001-2004

• 8 million in subgrant funds to 80 organizations
  in 22 countries (11 PEPFAR Focus Countries)--55
  local new USG partners (Average grant size
  200,00 for two-three year programs)
• Reached over 520,000 individuals w/ prevention
  messages services through 40 outlets
  
• Provided care support to 75,000 PLWHA OVC
  through 28 programs
  
• Provided VCT services to over 27,000primarily
  youth at 20 service points
  
• Trained nearly 10,000 HCWs support staff

6
Transitioning to PEPFARChallenges Successes

• Challenges
• Of 20 grant programs in 11 Focus Countries Only
  25 picked up by the COP process
  
• 2004 Non-focus grantees roadblock to additional
  
  
• Procurement process of funds slow
• FY05 Grant Program Shifted to Non-Focus
  Countries Malawi, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, India,
  Indonesia, Nepal, Dominican Republic, Honduras,
  Russia, Ukraine
• Successes/Adaptations
• PCI- Bwafwano Zambia, HAPCSO Ethiopia
• Adapted global grant lessons learned in engaging
  local NGOs/FBOs/CBOs to country-level programs
  
• OGAC revised ME Structure ME workbook

7
PEPFAR Focus Country Regional ProgramsSouth
Africa, February 2004

• Program
• APS Process for INGO local NGOs large grants
  program avg. size 2.5 million for Pepfar
  activities
  
• Challenges
• South Africa NGO Country Portfolio transitioned
  from single agency (s) to inter-agency management
  
  
• Rigorous competition
• PEPFAR ME reporting requirementslack of
  understanding
  
• Successes
• Rapid funding of NGOs under PEPFAR
• Broad Outreach to NGO community

8
Botswana, Lesotho Swaziland January 2005

• Program
• HIV/AIDS grants program to regional local
  NGOs/CBOs/FBOsavg. size 100,00 (1-3 years) for
  Prevention Care
  
• Grants 32 Botswana, 22 Lesotho,15 Swaziland
• Challenges
• Overwhelming response from CBOs-
• Capacities of local CBOs/FBOs varies capacity
  building TA key
  
• Successes
• Utilized lessons learned from South Africa APS
  process
  
• Articulated PEPFAR goals from solicitation
  process
  

9
Vietnam January 2005

• Program
• Rapidly Fund Start-up ProgramOne-year grants
  Average grant size 300,000 to Intl and Local
  NGOs
  
• Activities funded range of Pepfar activities
• Challenges
• NGOS not familiar w/ PEPFAR goals reporting
• Treatment issues multi-year commitment
  sustainability Central procurement ability to
  sustain drugs
  
• Procurement Funds projected for April 2005
  still not available September 2005
  
• Successes
• Able to forward fund from central mechanism
• Two Treatment programs started

10
Implementation Issues

• Procurement delays versus rapid implementation
  start-up
  
• COP process of identifying partners local NGOS
• Budgets remain fixed on preliminary plans
  decided annually
  
• Central procurement mechanisms for ARV drugs with
  separate NGOs government agencies implementing
  programs
  
• Treatment costs versus continuum of care

11