Docstoc

Global Fund Round 7 Applications

Document Sample
Global Fund Round 7 Applications Powered By Docstoc
					RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP Global Fund Round 8 Proposals Mock TRP Nairobi, 27th-29th May 2008 Guidelines for reviewers The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for the review of draft Round 7 applications. Reviewers should pay attention to the points raised here, but are also encouraged to provide additional comments on the proposals they review. Reviewers should be critical but fair and provide constructive comments to improve their colleagues’ proposals.

Proposal reviewed:

Name of reviewer:

Page 1/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP

1. Funding summary and contact details  Has only one version of sections 1&2 been completed even if the country is applying for more than one disease component?

2. Applicant summary  Check o o o that: CCM applicants have completed only 2.1 and 2.2 Sub-CCM applicants have completed 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 Non-CCM applicants have completed only 2.4



Application history: in the case where the country last applied before Round 6 or was determined non-compliant with eligibility requirements in Round 6 or 7, has attachment D been completed and attached to the proposal?

 

Transparent proposal development process: are the meeting minutes attached as an annex? Processes to select Principal Recipients: are the meeting minutes attached as an annex?



Dual track financing: if the CCM has not selected at least one government sector PR and one non-government sector PR, has an explanation been provided?



Is the explanation sufficient and convincing? (Even though this question is subjective, please comment)

Page 2/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP 3. Proposal summary  If planning and funding occur through a programme-based approach, have the following been addressed? o Does the information in section 4.1 describe relevant health strategies?

o

Does section 4.9.1 describe how the PR(s) will interact with other implementing partners to achieve national outcomes?

o

Does the financial gap analysis in section 5.1 reflect the programmebased approach?



Summary of proposal – by disease: does it include o Who the proposal targets and why?

o

What the priority interventions are and why?

o

The basis of intended coverage for services?

o

A list of goals, objectives, SDAs and interventions/activities supported through Round 8 funding?

Page 3/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP

o

How the planned interventions will contribute to improved outcomes for the disease(s) if funding is requested to respond to health system gaps and weaknesses?

4. Programme description  Does the brief summary provide information on: o The current national malaria prevention, treatment and support strategies?

o

How these strategies respond comprehensively epidemiological situation in the country?

to

the

current

o

The expected outcomes following the implementation of those strategies?



Have the relevant documents been attached as annexes (strategic plans, M&E plan, etc)



If the proposal intends to cover only a specific region, or a specific population group, is a map showing their localization provided?

Page 4/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP  Major constraints and gaps: proposals should be based on a comprehensive review of weaknesses and gaps in disease-specific program(s) and the overall health system. During its last meeting, the GF Board recommended that “Given the urgency of the need to devote additional resources and to increase implementation capacities at country level to achieve universal coverage, the Board urges countries to submit ambitious Round 8, Round 9, and Rolling Continuation Channel proposals aimed at scaling up comprehensive malaria control programs (particularly the distribution of long-lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs) and ACTs) and are linked to broader health systems strengthening”.  Do sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 consider the gaps and weaknesses of the programme and health system in the context of scale-up?



Do sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 consider government, non-government and community level weaknesses and gaps, and also any key affected populations (especially those who may have lower access to prevention and malaria – such as women, girls and sexual minorities)?



Efforts to resolve major constraints and gaps: check that this part does not mention how this proposal contributes to these efforts – rather, this should be described in section 4.6.

Page 5/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP

 Round 8 priorities: again, please check that these priorities are set in the framework of scale-up, according to the GF Board recommendations.  Are the priorities described here based on the gaps identified in section 4.3?



Has a separate table for 3-6 of the major gaps/areas been completed?



Are the figures in each table correct (A-B=C)?



Are all assumptions clearly described in the narrative?

Page 6/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP  Is the contribution of other partners – especially big donors, such as PMI or WB – clearly outlined in the narrative?



Are the figures in the tables (and especially those in part D) consistent with the Performance Framework (Attachment A) for the proposal framework?



Check that table 4.4.1 includes all health system strengthening interventions specific only to malaria and not any cross-cutting HSS interventions.

 Implementation strategy: has the applicant submitted a malaria-specific Performance Framework (Attachment A) and a detailed work plan, (quarterly for years 1 and 2)?

Page 7/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP



Are the activities coherent with the stated goals and objectives?



Are the activities sufficiently detailed?



Do the activities ensure equal and universal access to health – do they address gender or other inequalities?



Are the HSS interventions described disease-specific or cross-cutting (in which case they should be described in section 4.B)?

Page 8/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP

 Performance Framework (attachment A): “it is recommended that each Performance Framework have between 8 and 18 indicators in total, and that these be focused at the output and outcome levels, with more process focused activities being included in the Work Plan”  Are the indicators o Harmonized with national plans?

o

Disaggregated by sex (whenever possible)?

o

Drawn from national lists of indicators wherever possible/existing?

o

Useful to measure performance?

o

Specific and measurable?

 Have the applicants attached TRP comments from previous unsuccessful proposals submitted in Round 6 or 7 (or under the RCC if this proposal is a resubmission of an RCC proposal)?

Page 9/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP



Does the proposal address those TRP comments or have a clear explanation sheet?



Are the answers to the TRP comments complete, convincing and sufficiently detailed?



Does the proposal address past performance and previous implementation bottlenecks (particularly in relation to previous grants)?



Have the applicants described the specific actions in this proposal to mitigate the risk of these challenges affecting implementation?

Page 10/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP  Social and gender equality  Does the proposal include purposeful outreach to assure social support, protection, information and access to services that are equitable between women and men, and girls and boys?



Does the proposal describe whether particular groups may receive prioritized access to services and the rationale for this approach?



Does the proposal describe how support for the planned interventions will strengthen social equality by reaching those most in need of the interventions?

 Have the applicants described their strategy for mitigation of any unintended consequences?

Page 11/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP

 Links to other interventions and programmes  Does this section explain how the Round 8 request complements but does not duplicate activities that already being supported?



Have the applicants included a table or diagram describing the links and their nature?



Have the applicants described links to other GF grants as well as to other onGF support?



Is the involvement of the private sector well described? Have the applicants described the main contributions and how they are important to the planned outcomes and outputs? Have they provided examples of the anticipated contributions of the private sector?

Page 12/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP  Program sustainability: “Applicants are not required to demonstrate financial self-sufficiency for the targeted interventions by the end of the proposal term. However, they should include how the proposal is addressing issues such as capacity to absorb increased resources and recurrent expenditures, and how national planning frameworks are seeking to increase available financial and non-financial resources to ensure effective prevention and control of the disease”  Does the proposal describe how the activities/interventions to be undertaken will strengthen overall service delivery?



Have the applicants included community strengthening activities/interventions in their proposal, and if so, do these activities respond to identified weaknesses and gaps?

 Measuring impact  Do the M&E arrangements in this proposal use existing reporting frameworks and systems (including reporting channels and cycles, and/or indicator selection)?



Have the applicants used the GF M&E Systems Strengthening Tool to assess weaknesses and gaps of their system?

Page 13/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP  Does the proposal describe the applicants’ strategy to reinforce their M&E system and address the identified weaknesses?

 Implementation capacity  Have sub-recipients already been identified? If yes, is a list provided and does the proposal describe the relative proportion of work to be undertaken by each one of them?



If the sub-recipients have not yet been identified, does the proposal explain why and provide information on the process that will be used to select them?



Does the proposal describe how PR(s) and SR(s) will interact?



Does the proposal require funding for management and/or technical assistance to ensure strong programme performance? If so, are the following described? o The planned assistance o The process used to identify needs within the various sectors o How the assistance will be obtained on competitive, transparent terms

Page 14/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP The process that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of that assistance?

o

 Management of health and pharmaceutical products  Have the applicants provided an annex a diagram of main of main organisations involved in procurement and their interactions with other entities?



Does this proposal intend to rely on existing country systems to manage the additional pharmaceutical and health product activities that are planned? If not, does it explain why?

Page 15/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP Section 4B. HSS cross-cutting interventions A disease proposal cannot include only sections 4B.1 – 4B.3 and have no other disease programme activities described in section 4.5.1. This section should only be included if: o the identified gaps and constraints in the health system have an impact on HIV, tuberculosis and malaria outcomes. o the required interventions are cross-cutting and benefit more than one of the three diseases o it is not already included in the HIV or tuberculosis proposal  Does the proposal provide clear and logical justification between the planned HSS cross-cutting interventions, the national health development plans or strategies, and improved outcomes for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria?



Is table 4B.1 filled in for a maximum of 5 interventions?



Does each intervention refer to a WHO building Block?



Does the proposal describe how key health system stakeholders have been involved in the proposal development process?

Page 16/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP  Do the detailed workplan and Performance Framework for this disease include a separate worksheet clearly identifying the HSS cross-cutting interventions?



Does the proposal describe the country’s strategy to mitigate potential unintended consequences that may result from the described HSS crosscutting interventions?

Page 17/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP

Page 18/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP Overall impression  Is the proposal coherent?

Page 19/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP



Are there any discrepancies between various sections of the proposal?

Additional comments Please add any additional comment you may have on the proposal you have just reviewed.

Page 20/21

12/12/2009

RBM GF R8 Support – Mock TRP Group discussion on proposal review Write here the general conclusions of your group on the reviewed proposal and the major recommendations you would like to give the country team.

Page 21/21

12/12/2009


				
DOCUMENT INFO