Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Round 10 proposal process

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Round 10 proposal process"— Presentation transcript:

1 Round 10 proposal process
Key elements for a successful application

2 Overview Proposal development process & eligibility requirements
TRP and the proposal review process What makes a good proposal? Results for the region Q&A

3 Proposal development process & eligibility requirements

4 Proposals Process: Overview
Board: Call for Proposals Applicant: Proposal Development PR: Grant Agreement Negotiations Secretariat: Screening Signature & First Disbursement TRP: Technical Review 1 - Recommended Board Approval 2 – Rec. Minor changes Phase 2: Extension of initial 2 yr Funding 3 - Re-submission CCM: TRP clarifications (as required) 4 - Rejected

5 Board: Call for Proposals
Normally once per year Proposal forms and guidelines prepared for each Round Clearly established submission deadline Clearly established eligibility criteria 4 - Rejected

6 Applicant: Proposal Development
Start early Consult broadly and inclusively Identify barriers Share potential priorities Invite contributions Consolidate knowledge Review the application

7 Secretariat: Screening
Pre-Technical Review Secretariat: Screening 6 minimum eligibility requirements reviewed at proposal submission Members representing the non-government sectors must be selected by their own sector Evidence of membership of people living with and/or affected by the diseases Have documented and transparent processes to: Solicit and review submissions of proposals for possible integration into a consolidated national proposal Ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders Nominate the Principal Recipient (s) Conflict of Interests plan in place

8 Technical Review Panel & the proposal review process

9 Technical Review Panel
TRP: Funding recommendations to the Board Who: Group of independent technical experts appointed by the Board. Diverse geographic and programmatic backgrounds Consists of disease experts and cross-cutters, and experts with gender and sexual minorities experience Review: The TRP looks for proposals that reflect: Soundness of approach Feasibility Potential for sustainability & impact

10 TRP: Funding recommendations to the Board
Budget review TRP: Funding recommendations to the Board Specialist independent review of budgets, as in Round 9 TRP may request an independent budget review during clarifications TRP requested through its TORs to review Value for Money TRP to examine under spending in existing grants

11 TRP review process Small groups of 4 members:
2 disease experts + 2 cross-cutters Plenary session of 40 members: Recommendations discussed & finalized If necessary, second review: Additional TRP members asked to provide 2nd recommendation Final plenary : Last day for quality assurance + lessons learned

12 Timeline clarifications
TRP recommendation categories Category Description Timeline clarifications 1 Recommended for funding with no or only minor clarifications Within 8 weeks of notice 2 (incl. 2B) Recommended for funding provided that clarifications are met within a limited time frame (2B: weaker on grounds of technical merit, issues of feasibility, likelihood of effective implementation) 6 weeks for initial response & then up to a further 3 months to complete clarifications process 3 Not recommended for funding in its current form but encouraged to re-submit a revised version of the same proposal N/A 4 Rejected

13 Successful Proposals

14 What makes a good proposal?
Input from a broad range of stakeholders, based on a national strategy Interventions respond directly to current, documented, epidemiological situation Coherent strategy with robust gap analysis Appropriate implementation arrangements A clear plan for how to monitor activities and evaluate the impact of interventions Detailed budget and clear work plan The Board will accept proposals from Non-CCMs in certain cases For more information: TRP Reports from Rounds 8 and 9.

15 Key weaknesses (in no particular order)
Proposal sections not well aligned or incomplete Strategies proposed for major scale-up without prior testing/evaluation Weak demonstration of Value for Money No gap analysis Inappropriate Performance Frameworks and quality indicators Problems with budgets Unclear additionality/complementarity Missing or inadequate M&E Plan Problems with PR/SR and implementation

16 Results for the region

17 2 Year Recommended (US$) 5 Year Recommended (US$)
Round 9 Outcomes – MENA Disease proposal Number eligible Number recommended Success rate 2 Year Recommended (US$) 5 Year Recommended (US$) HIV 7 (only the HSS part of 1 HIV proposal) 0% 27 m 53 m TB 6 2 33% 26 m 54 m Malaria 5 40% 34 m Total 18 28% 87 m 159 m Key Messages: Most applicants submitted more than 1 disease Low success rate for proposals No HIV proposal recommended for funding 17

18 Recommended Proposals – MENA
Country Disease Category Funding Upper ceiling, 2 years (US$) Funding Upper ceiling, 5 years (US$) Sudan, Southern Sector HIV/HSS (only HSS approved) 2 27 m 53 m Chad M 30 m 44 m Djibouti 2B 3 m 10 m Yemen TB 11 m 25 m Iraq 15 m 29 m TOTAL 87 m 159 m

19 Middle East & North Africa - Rounds 1 to 9

20 Top 10 weaknesses for MENA: Cat 3 & 4 proposals
The budget information was inaccurate, questionable and/or not sufficiently detailed 56% Proposed activities are inappropriate 44% Sections of the proposal are unaligned and/or incomplete 39% Budget is imbalanced compared to the proposed program Proposed indicators are inappropriate 33%

21 Top 10 weaknesses in MENA: Cat 3 & 4 proposals
Proposed activities are insufficiently described 33% Program is too ambitious and unrealistic Financial Gap insufficiently analyzed 28% Additionality / complementarity with existing grants is not clearly described No strategy presented and lack of information regarding strategic approaches

22 Q & A ?

Download ppt "Round 10 proposal process"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google