Elements of Successful Proposals Global Fund Programs in the Balkans: Successes, Challenges and Pros

1
Elements of Successful Proposals Global Fund
Programs in the BalkansSuccesses, Challenges
and ProspectsManaging the HIV and TB
EpidemicsSUB-REGIONAL MEETINGPrno,
Montenegro15 December 2008
2
Presentation Outline

• Round 8 Outcomes in the EECA region
• TRP Review Criteria
• The minimum fundamental prerequisites for a
  recommendation for funding
• Pitfalls and weaknesses
• Proposal Development R9, RCC - Key points

3
Overview of Round 8 Global Results

• Largest Global Fund Round to date
• Nearly three times the size of Round 7
• Particularly successful for Malaria

Upper ceiling US2,753 billion for the initial
two years (phase 1).
4
Overview of R8 EECA Specifics
Upper ceiling US137,5 Million for the initial
two years (phase 1).

• Key Messages
• Proposals from 13 countries and 2 sub-CCMs
• 9 applicants applied Dual Track Financing, 3
  nominated 1 PR and 3 appointed UNDP as the
  Principal Recipient

5
Eastern Europe Central Asia - Rounds 1 to 8
6
Round 8 Review Criteria

• The TRP looks for proposals that demonstrate
• Soundness of approach
• Feasibility
• Potential for sustainability and impact

Detail is available in Annex 2 to Proposal
Guidelines Attachment 1 to the TRP TORs
Critically - the TRP does not "approve budgets"
or "specific targets" - this is
for TRP clarifications and grant negotiations
7
TRP Review Criteria Soundness of approach

• Use of interventions consistent with
  international best practices
• Demonstrate that interventions chosen are
  evidence-based and represent good value for
  money
• Give due priority to groups and communities
  most affected and/or at risk, including in the
  development and implementation of proposals

8
TRP Review Criteria Soundness of approach

• Involve a broad range of stakeholders in
  implementation (government, civil society,
  affected communities, and the private
  Sector)
• Address issues of human rights and gender
  equality, including contributing to the
  elimination of stigmatization of and
  discrimination and
• Are consistent with national law and applicable
  international obligations.

9
TRP Review Criteria Feasibility

• Provide evidence of the technical and
  programmatic feasibility of implementation
  arrangements relevant in the specific country
  context
• Build on, complement, and coordinate with
  existing programs (including those supported by
  existing Global Fund grants)
• Demonstrate successful implementation of programs
  previously funded by international donors
  (including the Global Fund)

10
TRP Review Criteria Feasibility

• Utilize innovative approaches to scaling up
  programs
• Focus on performance by linking resources to the
  achievement of outputs and outcomes
• Identify and address, in respect of previous
  rejected GF proposals, weaknesses or matters for
  clarification that were raised by the TRP

11
TRP Review Criteria Feasibility

• Demonstrate how the proposed interventions are
  appropriate to the stage of the epidemic and to
  the specific epidemiological situation in the
  country
• Build on and strengthen country impact
  measurement systems and processes
• Identify and address potential gaps in technical
  and managerial capacities in relation to the
  implementation of the proposed activities.

12
TRP Review Criteria Potential for
Sustainability and Impact

• Strengthen and reflect high-level, sustained
  political involvement and commitment
• Demonstrate that Global Fund financing will be
  additional to existing efforts, rather than
  replacing them
• Demonstrate the potential for the sustainability
  of the approach outlined, including addressing
  the capacity to absorb increased resources

13
TRP Review Criteria Potential for
Sustainability and Impact

• Coordinate with multilateral and bilateral
  initiatives and partnerships
• Demonstrate the contribution to reducing overall
  disease, prevalence, incidence, morbidity and/or
  mortality
• Demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to
  strengthening the national health system.

14
The minimum fundamental prerequisites for a
recommendation for funding."

• A disease proposal that is based upon and
  responds directly to the current, documented,
  epidemiological situation
• A coherent strategy that flows in a consistent
  order throughout the proposal
• A robust gap analysis, both programmatic and
  financial, that accounts for the full extent of
  existing resources
• Clear and realistic analysis of implementation
  and absorptive capacity constraints
• Based on TRP report to the Board on Round 8

15

The minimum fundamental prerequisites for a
recommendation for funding."

• Logical strategies to address capacity
  constraints
• Broaden service delivery channels to multiple
  sectors to achieve universal access for people
  most affected
• Demonstrated effort to address the more
  challenging drivers of, especially, the HIV
  epidemic in ways that will have a meaningful
  impact and planned outcomes

16

The minimum fundamental prerequisites for a
recommendation for funding."

• A clear plan for how to monitor activities and
  evaluate the impact of interventions
• A budget that is sufficiently detailed to allow
  the costs of activities to be assessed
• A work plan that makes clear the timing and
  sequencing of activities and responsibilities for
  each activity.

17
R8 Lessons Learned - Common pitfalls

• Proposals that had inadequate planning
  approaches
• No integration with the national strategy
• Not based on preferred public health approaches
  or linked to the countrys disease outcomes
• No integration with the activities of other
  partners
• Did not address issues raised by TRP on previous
  submissions
• Has no linkages and were not complementary to
  current Global Fund grants
• Duplication and lack of gap analysis between R7
  and 8, relating to all programmatic, geographic
  and financial aspects.

18
R8 Lessons Learned - Common pitfalls

• Proposals that had implementation approach
  issues
• A PR or PR(s) with no programmatic and financial
  experience and/or weaknesses in this area
• No plan for coordination among implementing
  entities
• Inconsistencies between goals, objectives,
  strategies, service delivery areas, the narrative
  and the budget.
• Incoherent approach due to over-reliance on non
  country-specific planning tools developed by
  partners despite sound country analysis
  (particularly in TB).

19
R8 Lessons Learned - Common pitfalls

• Proposals that had strategy issues
• Not explained the threats the program may face
  from contextual factors
• Human resource costs or activities that were not
  linked to a human resource plan
• Training costs that were not linked to a training
  plan or a training strategy
• BCC activities that were not linked to a BCC
  strategy and/or a media plan.
• Missed opportunities in TB/HIV collaborative.
• Inappropriate ME plan and budget.
• Addressing gender issues.

20
R8 Lessons Learned - Common pitfalls

• Proposals that had significant budget weaknesses
• Budget poorly constructed, presented and lacked
  sufficient details
• Overhead cost not detailed or explained or
  inflated
• Budgets in several currencies
• Duplication of activities leading to increased
  costs
• Vehicles or large purchases of office equipment
  not justified

21
R8 Lessons Learned - Common pitfalls

• Proposals that failed to take into account
  changes in the epidemiology
• No recent assessment of the epidemiological
  situation in the country. (particularly for
  countries that had applied for the same disease
  in or before Round 4 )
• Continuation" of an earlier grant, but without
  any re-evaluation of the appropriateness of
  earlier strategies. Inappropriate, unfocused
  activities proposed for concentrated epidemics

22
Common Pitfalls for proposals from EECA region

• Imbalanced budget (and program)
• Insufficient detail on proposed activities
• Insufficient description of epidemiology
• Inappropriate targets indicators
• Inaccurate/Inadequate budget information
• Inappropriate approaches/activities

23
Proposal Development R9, RCC - Key points

• Round 9 continues on policies introduced in Round
  8, including
• Health Systems Strengthening
• Grant consolidation
• Dual-track financing
• Gender sensitive approach
• Community System Strengthening

24
Proposal Development R9, RCC - Key points

• Proposal Development country led process.
• GF policy highlights that all CCMs must
• Ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders
• Have documented and transparent processes to
• Solicit and review submissions of proposals for
  possible integration into a consolidated national
  proposal
• Nominate the Principal Recipient (s)

Why CCM? The CCM is the central pillar in the
Global Fund's architecture to ensure
country-driven, inclusive, coordinated
multi-sector processes.
25
Proposal Development R9, RCC - Key points

• Are updated need and gap assessments available?
• Contribute to agreement among key stakeholders on
  proposal components.
• Identify sub-recipients best qualified to
  implement program component.
• Is the Work Plan and Budget aligned with the
  strategy of the proposal and with each other?
• Is the proposal consistent with existing grants
  and/or does it link to previous submissions?

26
Proposal Development R9, RCC - Key points

• Is Technical support staff/consultant needed for
  proposal development?
• Understand the process and realities of GF.
• Writing skills but also networking and
  participating in the proposal development
  process.
• Present critical issues to all key actors and
  work for consensus building.
• Does the proposal anticipate future program
  realities?
• Who will implement program? Is the PR known?
  (track records, absorption capacity)

27
Proposal Development R9, RCC - Key points

• Are there any needs for technical and management
  assistance are these clear?
• Is the budget aligned with the activities in the
  work plan?
• Are all expenses reasonable and justified clearly
  by providing unit costs throughout?
• Does each indicator linked with the work plan and
  the budget?

28
Proposal Development R9, RCC - Key points

• Carefully read
• Guidelines
• FAQ Round 9, 45 pages (incl. special FAQ on
  resubmission)
• Proposal Form attachments
• Fact sheets (dual track, HSS, GSS, Gender)
• http//www.theglobalfund.org/en/rounds/9
• Register at www.myglobalfund.org
• Round 9 proposals deadline 1 June 2009

29
Thank you for your attention