1. Proposal on Revised Mechanism of Selecting Applications for Approval Presentation by Secretariat of Council for the AIDS Trust Fund in Sharing Session on 7 December 2015

2. Observation (1) The annual expenditure of the PPE increase dramatically from $11 million per year on average in early 2000’s to more than $20 million per year after 2006 (ranged from $10 million to $40 million).

3. Observation (2) Yearly effective interventions conducted by ATF-funded projects are increasing in recent years These interventions will contribute to achieving the target set by ACA

4. Yearly effective interventions conducted by ATF-funded projects *Decreases in number of outreach on year 2009-2013 might due to transition from physical outreach to online outreach

5. Observation (3) Monitoring the progress of funded projects (e.g. achieve the targets of the indicators) is important in managing the ATF Some NGOs granted with large funds are not able to achieve the target of indicators

6. Observation (4) The whole Government is adopting a more stringent budget control approach in general There are competing priorities for funding among health and non-health issues During ATF fund injection in 2013, the Government pledged the injected new funding will sustain operation for 7-12 years From an audit point of view, proper budgeting control for managing the ATF is required to optimise the use of fund

7. Review on the future funding pattern of ATF

8. Factors taken into consideration The need to achieve targets set out by ACA in the Recommended HIV/AIDS Strategies for Hong Kong 2012-2016 in the recommended risk groups (e.g. no. of HIV counselling, HIV test and condom distribution etc) The rising trend in HIV cases

10. Factors taken into consideration The anticipated impacts to NGOs and their concerns The past inflation rates in Hong Kong. According to Census and Statistics Department, the average annual inflation rate in the past 5 to 10 years is around 3-4%.

11. Proposal on overall budget ceiling In order to strike a balance between available budget spending and concerns in increasing trends of HIV cases, the 5% increase of budget in three years cycle is suggested

12. Proposed Enhancement on priority setting for PPE and non- research MSS applications

13. Assessment Procedures Technical Review Panel (TRP) : to clarify and analyze proposal details on technical aspect and make recommendation to Sub-committee PPE Sub-Committee : to consider the application and comments from TRP and make recommendation to Council Council : to consider comments from TRP and Sub-committees and make the final decision

14. Priority setting during application When applying programme with more than one projects, applicant is advised to indicate their own priority

15. Priority setting on projects of similar target population and /or project designs

16. Technical Review Panel considering the following criteria without pre- set weighting: Technically sound Risk of infection of target population Type of intervention Monitoring methodology Past record Creativity Service users’ affordability and acceptability Feasibility Cost-effectiveness Other significant factors if appropriate

17. PPE Sub-Committee Considering the following points in making the recommendation to the Council – Technical Review Panel’s recommendation on the priority – Presentation made by the applicants – Budget raised by applicant – Overall resource allocation among each high risk groups

18. Council The Council will take into account the technical review report, PPE Sub-committee’s recommendations, previous funding pattern, projection of cash flow and pre-set ceiling of the year in making the decision.

19. Project may not be supported on grounds that Borderline in technical aspect Not in priority groups of addressing the need of target population or the local HIV situation Unsatisfactory achievement in previous supported projects Not cost effective as compared with other similar projects Lack of relevant experience for conducting proposed project – may consider 1 year pilot project

20. For three-year projects, only those with strong justifications on the continued public health need and demonstration of good past performance will be supported.

21. Timeframe for consultation and Implementation Pilot in this round of application (i.e August 2015) Sharing session with all NGOs (December 2015) Fully Implement in next round of application (i.e. February 2016)

22. Points to note To tackle the local HIV situation with available budget, those with epidemiological evidence of highest risk will be accorded higher priority e.g. young MSM. NGOs will be facing projects not being supported on grounds that they are not effective / with unsatisfactory achievement, not in priority groups or overlapping target groups with other projects.

23. Thank you.