EspañolFrançaisРусский
    
 
 
   
 
 
in
 
 
        Blogs       Forums      
 
Page 2 of 2 (24 items) < Previous 1 2
Sort Posts:

07-24-2008 3:31 PM

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
In most countries technical assistance is available from development agencies (WHO, UNAIDS, PEPFAR, GTZ, KNCV) and bilateral partners to assist with proposal development. Unfortunately this is often provided by fly-in consultants who work with limited knowledge of local realities. The bigger challenge has been building capacity of local people who will be available after proposal approval and through grant implementation.

Development partners should therefore work with the Global Fund and the recipient countries to identify proposal building and writing capacity gaps and focus their technical assistance on building the local capacity rather than the proposal building and writing. This should be done prior to the opening of the proposal rounds.

07-24-2008 1:10 PM



    • konjit
  • Top 50 Contributor
  • Ethiopia
    Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
  • Posts 12

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
Proposal development for the GF is a challenge for the civil society organization/PLWHIV/FBO/ who are PR /SR as well as for the
Government PR. It is always a challenge and the need for understanding the requirement and the guideline of the GF proposal development preparation is important for success in getting the fund.
 
As such there is a need and a demand for TA by the selected PR in the process of the development of the project proposals. The quality of the TA offered is always important and needs to be critically evaluated by the agency that is offering TA, as well as by the GF. The selection of the TA needs to be scrutinzed for GF proposal development and implementation. What I think should be encouraged, and would contribute to promote in-county TA capacity is to use both local and non-local TA together in the process of proposal development and implementation in identified specific areas. The PR and SR will be encouraged to use the TA budget effectively, only they particpate in the selection of the TA as well as be able to monitor and evaluate the services offered by the TA. It needs to be closely alinged with strengthening the inistitutional capacity of the PR and SR. This I think is the incentive for the PR and SR to use TA budget effectively.
 
They (PR/SR) would also welcome to get information on the available TA within and outside the country to make informed decisions based on their need, this is where I believe the CCM/LFA comes in with providing quality and timely information on TA availability in partnership with the GF. The GF with the CCM and the LFA can support in-depth need assessment to be done to identify TA needs of the PR and the SR, this will ensure that the TA is demand-driven and would be utilized effectively.
 
The other need is mapping of the available TA locally and strenghten a continuous technacal skill capcity building program in the area of GF proposal development and implementation guidelines. This can be training online or in class and mentoring.This I believe is important not only local capacity but can extend to regional capacity building.
 
In the capacity building of the TA locally we should include civil society organization and the Private Sector, who are engaged in TA of other civils society organization as well as government. There are CSOs who have a good track of in the providsion of TA in different areas for other organizaiton. The GF, in collaboration with the CCM, can identify this CSO and design particpatory capacity strenghtening strategy in the proposal development and implementatio of the GF programs. This will contribute to the sustainability of the program as well as to the development of the capaicty of implementation and utilizatiion of the GF and other funds at the local level. The allocation of funds for this strategy and implementation is important and should be a priority for the GF.
 
Of course the other issues which was riased by other particpatnts in the forum is the monitoring and evaluation of the TA offered to the PR and SR of the GF. This is also so important in getting quality TA with results, the GF may need to devlop such tools with indicators with the CCM and other partners to enable the PR/SR to evaluate TA offered by UN, the private sector as well as the civil society. This will help in the use of the TA fund appropriately and getting results at the level of process and implementation of GF programs and activities.

07-24-2008 11:19 AM

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
I think a lot of answers to the capacity building needs of CCMs (for project proposals) and PRs and sometimes SRs (for implementation) are contained in the Aidspan White Paper on "Providing improved technical support to enhance the effectiveness of Global Fund grants" (March 2008). In this document, there are clear messages from countries that they are unhappy with the level and type of technical support they are receiving, and that many countries feel that capacity building efforts are not meeting their needs. We see this in many countries where we work. Technical support and capacity building organisations come into the country, offering a "cookie-cutter" approach: "We have done this in X other countries and we will do the same here", often without adapting to (or noticing?) the differences between this country and others.

Our recent work with a country on a HIV proposal had to account for the fact that, after a war and UN intervention, it has 3 Presidents (spending 8 months as President in rotation) and 13 Prime Ministers. It can be imagined what difficulties were experienced in trying to harmonise HIV prevention and treatment services. In another country with an NGO as PR, we found that there was no need for training courses on working with injecting drug users (the main work of the PR) as the staff knew this very well: what was needed were the managerial and financial skills to grow from a turnover of US$200,000 annually to more than US$3million annually.
 
We find that capacity building needs to incorporate three elements:
  1. Long-term mentoring: Real capacity building requires time, regular access, the building up of relationships of trust, and the ability to provide assistance for the problems faced by the CCM or PR NOW (real-time problem-solving).

  2. Training courses for specific purposes (sometimes): a short training course can only ever be an introduction to a topic or set of topics. Effective training courses are built on international best practice (and this usually means that the training materials need to be vetted by international experts or at least 1 international trainer used), fully adapted to local practices and culture (a simple translation into Arabic of a Californian outreach manual for addressing gay men is likely to be of limited use), evaluated at all levels (including some months after the training to see what information/ skills have been used), and regularly revised to keep training materials and processes current and able to meet current needs. While our company does a great deal of training, we never recommend it as a stand-alone response to any issue and there are many circumstances where a training course will not be cost-effective.

  3. Institutionalisation or scale-up of capacity building. For too long, we have seen countries "receive" capacity building for a number of years, with seemingly little ongoing benefit after a project is completed. This has happened for decades with bilateral HIV projects and the mistakes are being repeated with some Global Fund grants. A sustainable capacity building system is required: from the international evidence level, through regional consultancy networks and organisations, to national and local consultants and trainers. Linkages between these levels can ensure that the best evidence is used at every level and that local concerns and issues are fed up to inform and broaden international understanding.
 
As I said in an earlier post, it is also vital that those of us who provide capacity building services find ways to evaluate our work so that CCMs and PRs can make evidence-based decisions about which organisations to use for which capacity building tasks.
 
Cheers from Sydney

07-24-2008 8:41 AM

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
The proposals should be written from the grass root, i.e. where the activities are going to take place so that the beneficiaries have a say in the project. For example, if the project is to help the people of northern Uganda, then it should be written from the area and includes the local communities.
The possible obstacle is that in most cases these technical assistances always demand for a "kick back" that is some thing for the work they are doing which is very unproffesional and it tends to corrupt the whole process and the successes of the intending project.
 
There is need to use local technical assistance since they have the knowledge of area of interest. The Global fund should be able to include the budget of all the receipients and the information on how much money is needed should come from the local area.
 
Members at the moment I end here hope to come again with more ideas.
 
Collins Kidega
Radio King 90.2fm Gulu
Uganda

07-23-2008 10:41 AM

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
The following could be ensured that countries receive the capacity development support they need for the preparation of proposal and the implementation of programme.
Before designing a project for the benefit of the people, it is important that learning should take place from the local people about the problems and opportunities of their crux of the matter is to enable people to take the decision as key stakeholders in their development process. This is a fundamental aspect of project formulation and requires closer understanding of people’s potentials, understanding, capacities and commitments.
 
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Logical Framework analysis (LFA) are a set of accepted tools to animate the process of planning in partnership with people. These are alternative one thuds, which give ample scope for interactive learning and capturing the reality that counts.
 
A log frame (also known as a project frame work) is a tool for planning and managing development projects. It looks like a table (or frame work) and aims to present information about the key components of a project in a clear, concise, logical and systematic way. The LFA method contains of nine different steps.
1. Analysis of the project context
2. Problem Analysis
3. Stakeholder/ Participation analysis
4. Objectives analysis
5. Plan of Activities
6. Resource Planning
7. Indicator/ Measurement of Result
8. Risk analysis
9. Analysis of Assumptions Indicators need to define “QQT” – Quality, Quantity & Timing once indicators have developed, the source of the information and means of verification (MOV) should be established for each indicator.
An MOV should test whether or not an indicator can be realistically measured at the expense of a reasonable amount of time, money and effort. To Avail these technical assistance to ensure that countries receive the capacity development support need for the preparation of the proposals and the implementation of programms, the partners need financial assistance to conduct periodical trainings.

07-23-2008 9:44 AM

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
Regarding partnership with Govt, private sector,civil-society,affected communities, in implementing GF program,definitely GF principles& GF framework document have detailed accountability& allocation of funding priority. Capacity development support receive by countries needs specific socio-economical acceptance,socio-cultural support in many countries for GF principles implementation.
In GF framework document,integration of general equilibrium analysis of economical factors (impact of diseases)with human rights,equity, genetic potentialities,country's behavioural & cultural pattern, understanding of health technology,adoption of national policy favouring standards of living rather than socially unacceptable poverty elimination program , could expand more acceptable form of partnership& capacity development.
 
In many less GNP developing countries with varied socio-economic socio-cultural& environmental condition, specific poverty elimination program in GF'framework may not applicable in implementation of program. In the above conditions GF secretariat could expand its own role by providing active involvement with general equilibrium analysis model, facilitation of health technology,adoption of GF specific policy for providing constitution,goods& services. On the basis of analysis model ,restricted financial contribution component could be made more transparent & accountable in a country. Along with GF Secretariat ,Local Fund Agent mechanism could give better use of local resources,ad-hoc consultancies,partnership strategy with national& local policy adoption.
 
For international health financing, CCM,country partnership proposals,financing resources could take additional corporate sector involvement ,trade framework favoured partner environment, research & development support from external partner,governance support for partnership strategy,civil-society& community based organisation support for providing GF framework implementation to affected population in a country.
 
Participation with technical partners could define technical definition of GF partnership strategy,country's responsibility of technological approaches for understanding of possible obstacles in financing public health program. Technological approaches & technical partners should take appropriate technical methods, Eg. Radiometric methods, Lowenstein jensen methods for cost effective approaches,quality assurance methods,information technology, testing methodlogy. These approaches are not easily accessible in low GNP& less essentials of survival countries & affected population. Integration of organisation as provider of technical assistance could give effective technical partnership& formal relationship to affected community,civil-society involvement& predictability of GF technical facilitation capacity development.


Thank you
ASHISH SRIVASTAVA
ex-International Marketing
CCM(SEAR-INDIA)81237

07-22-2008 9:38 AM

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
Dear members,
 
This time the question look too technical but I can not always run out of ideas. The Global Fund should put up the project monitoring committee at all levels. These committees would be charged with giving technical advice on matters that may be of great impact to the beneficiaries of the funds Committees will also help to ensure that activities being undertaken by the beneficiaries is closely monitored to ensure that they match up with the standard set by the Global Fund.
 
Members, at the moment this is my submission hope to come back again
 
Collins Kidega
Radio King Box219 Gulu
Uganda
kidegacollins@yahoo.com

07-21-2008 2:36 PM

Re: Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
there are many parameters that the global fund can use to estimate with more precision and less bias ,the need of certain country and community for the technical and financial fund.
 
I am sure that the global fund is doing and a big achievements already regarding this aspect and a part of this is the quality of proposals and the accuracy of the goals for the countries who are trying to have that privilage.
Tag(s):

07-21-2008 1:39 PM



    • Info
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Switzerland
    Global Fund Secretariat
  • Posts 685

Week 1: Capacity Development

Reply Contact
Read the introduction to this topic

How could the Global Fund better ensure that countries receive the capacity development support they need for the preparation of proposals and the implementation of programs?

(This question is also available in: Español - Français - Русский)
Your answer could include (but does not have to be limited to): ways to obtain technical assistance for proposal development; possible obstacles to including technical assistance in a proposal; information on available technical assistance; ways to identify the technical assistance needs of sub-recipients and include these in grant proposals and in implementation plans – could the Global Fund do more to ensure that sub-recipients’ technical assistance needs are being met?; incentives to encourage principal recipients to spend technical assistance budgets in an effective, demand-driven manner; adjusting technical assistance to local needs; the involvement of civil society organizations as providers of technical assistance; measuring the quality of the technical assistance; best ways to promote in-country technical assistance and the better use of local resources.
 
 
Reference material: 

Partnerships overview
How the Global Fund Works 
Technical Assistance (Round 8)
Technical Assistance and Other Guidance
Page 2 of 2 (24 items) < Previous 1 2
© 2002 - 2008 The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. About this site | Legal