DOC

Global Fund Round 7 Applications

By Ricardo Stewart,2014-05-07 17:33
11 views 0
Global Fund Round 7 Applications

     RBM GF R8 Support Mock TRP

    Global Fund Round 8 Proposals

    Mock TRP th-29th May 2008 Nairobi, 27

    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 07/05/2010

     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 that:

    o CCM applicants have completed only 2.1 and 2.2

    o Sub-CCM applicants have completed 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3

    o 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 07/05/2010

     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 programme-

    based 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 07/05/2010

     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 to the current

    epidemiological situation in the country?

    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 07/05/2010

     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 07/05/2010

     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 07/05/2010

     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 07/05/2010

     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 07/05/2010

     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 re-

    submission of an RCC proposal)?

     Page 9/21 07/05/2010

     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 07/05/2010

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com