1 / 12

Lessons Learned from Round 7 第 7 轮经验 Screening and TRP Comments 初筛及 TRP 评语

Lessons Learned from Round 7 第 7 轮经验 Screening and TRP Comments 初筛及 TRP 评语. Presentation outline 主要内容. 申请书资格和初筛过程 1. Overview of Proposal Eligibility and Screening process TRP 评审标准 2. Revisiting the TRP review criteria 方法正确 Soundness of approach 可行性 Feasibility 潜在的可持续性 + 影响

emery-faulkner
Download Presentation

Lessons Learned from Round 7 第 7 轮经验 Screening and TRP Comments 初筛及 TRP 评语

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lessons Learnedfrom Round 7第7轮经验Screening and TRP Comments初筛及TRP评语

  2. Presentation outline主要内容 • 申请书资格和初筛过程 1. Overview of Proposal Eligibility and Screening process • TRP评审标准 2. Revisiting the TRP review criteria • 方法正确 • Soundness of approach • 可行性 • Feasibility • 潜在的可持续性+影响 • Potential for sustainability + impact • 第7轮评审所得经验 3. TRP Round 7 lessons learned - 应对一些关键事宜的方法 Tools to respond to some of the key issues - 其它可能的反馈信息来源 Possible sources of information for other feedback

  3. 1.1 全球基金初筛过程Re-cap of Global Fund screening process 两个主要目的： Two primary purposes: • 国家收入水平资格 1. Country Income Level eligibility • 中低收入+中高收入国家 • Applies lower-middle income + upper-middle income countries • 以贫穷/易感人群为重点 • Focus on poor/vulnerable populations • 满足经费分享规定（第8轮新要求） • Meet cost-sharing rules (new in round 8) 2. 申请资格(既CCM,RCM,地区组织) 2. Applicant Eligibility (i.e., CCM, RCM, Regional Org.) 评审完全性—但不是初筛的主要原则 Completeness is reviewed – but not the primary role of screeners - 缺失信息不是“明确的” missing information is not a 'clarification' - 初筛人员不能改正经费总数或修改一致性 screeners cannot correct budget sums, or make consistent 只有合格的申请书才会转给TRP Only eligible proposals are forwarded to the TRP

  4. 1.2 初筛—所得经验1.2 Screening – some lessons learned

  5. 2.2 申请书评审标准2,2 Proposal Review Criteria TRP评审申请书是否体现： The TRP looks for proposals that demonstrate: (a)方法正确 (a) Soundness of approach (b)可行性 (b) Feasibility (c)潜在可持续性（以及影响-第8轮） (c) Potential for sustainability (and impact -from Round 8) 分别评审不同疾病的申请书 Each disease proposal is reviewed separately 既：不会由于较好的部分而“分片选取通过” i.e., No "cherry-picking" of better parts • 如果较弱部分不太多，可推荐资助，但需要澄清细节 • If the weaker part is not substantial, can be recommended for funding, but with detailed clarifications • 但如果较弱部分很多—整个部分都不能推荐资助 • But if the weaker part is substantial – the whole component will not be recommended for funding TRP考虑的具体细节列在第8轮申请书指南的—附件2 Detail of the specific items that the TRP considers are set out in the Round 8 Guidelines for Proposals – Annex 2

  6. 3.1 西太区第7轮申请书—第1部分 (经验-因素1) Cat 3 + 4 Round 7 SEARO proposals - Part 1 (Lessons learned - Reason 1) 较共性的缺点 Relatively common weaknesses • 申请书不是不是补充性的；没有说明申请项目与现有项目的（补充）关系，也包括全球基金的赠款项目 • Proposal did not demonstrate complementarity or additionally; unclear how the program related or added to existing programs, including prior Global Fund grants • 在显示相互关系/联系之外，TRP认为申请者应清晰描述： • In addition to showing the inter-relationship/link, the TRP believes it important that applicants clearly describe: • 现有赠款项目的执行和所遇任何挑战 • Implementation and any challenges encountered with the current grants; • 应对这些挑战所采取的行动 • What actions have been taken to overcome these challenges; • 新申请书将怎样对现有赠款项目进行补充 • How the new proposal will be complementary to existing grants; and • 运转新赠款的能力 • Capacity to absorb new funds. • 对于多PR—应以整合日常活动为重点而不仅仅是在监督层面上的协调 • For multiple PRs – focus should be also on day-to-day integration of activities rather than only on coordination at the oversight level.

  7. 3.2 西太区第7轮申请书—第2部分 (经验-因素2-5) Cat 3 + 4 Round 7 SEARO proposals - Part 2 (Lessons learned - Reason 2-5) • 方法/活动不正确 第8轮—强调基于当前流行病学资料的干预 • Some proposed approaches/activities inappropriateRound 8 – emphasis on interventions based on current epidemiology • 活动不够具体 第8轮—在s.4.5.1中有对提供具体细节的指导—具体描述活动及执行者 3. Insufficient detail on proposed activities Round 8 - guidance on providing specific details in s.4.5.1 - specific activities and by whom? 4. 申请书没有包括强有力的形势/差距分析(没有很好地解释项目差距) 4. The proposal did not contain strong situation/gap analysis (programmatic gaps not well explained) • 经费信息不准确，有疑问和/或不够详细 第8轮—可选的预算模版 5. Budget information was inaccurate, questionable and/or not sufficiently detailedRound 8 – optional budget template

  8. 3.3 西太区第7轮申请书—第3部分 (经验-因素6-10)3.3 Cat 3 + 4 Round 7 SEARO proposals - Part 2 (Lessons learned - Reason 2-5) • 不适宜/未明确定义的影响/结果指标 6. Impact/Outcome indicators inappropriate / not clearly defined 7. 经费不平衡（因此项目也不平衡）： 分配给某个或某些部门活动的经费太多或太少 7. The budget (and therefore the program) was imbalanced; too much or too little was allocated to one or more sector activities 8. 没有充分地把易感人群做为重点 8. Insufficient focus on vulnerable groups 9. 与伙伴合作不够/不明确 9. Inadequate/unclear use of partners • 为了移除瓶颈并支持扩展,描述合作伙伴的作用十分重要 • Important to describe the role of partners in efforts to assist in removing bottlenecks and supporting scale-up • 解释伙伴的作用并有一个持续评估支持有效性的系统 • Explain the role of partners and have a system to assess the effectiveness of the support on an ongoing basis • 对管理的援助与技术援助同样重要 • Management assistance is equally important to technical assistance 10. 没有应答既往TRP的评语 第8轮（和第7轮一样）有对项目计划改变的评论的专门章节 10. Prior TRP comments not addressed Round 8 (like R 7), specific section to comment on programming changes

  9. 3.4 经验及信息来源3.4 Lessons learned & sources of information • CCMs 已经直接回复 • CCMs already have direct feedback • 通过既往轮的TRP评审表 • Through the TRP Review forms from prior Rounds • 至少应考虑第6和7轮的评审表 • At least R6 + R7 priorreview forms should be considered • PR执行和管理能力是关键 • Capacity of PRs to implement andmanage is a key issue • 运用外部伙伴也有相关信息 • Use external partners also have information • Aidspan对第8轮申请的指导**www.aidspan.org • Aidspan Guide to Round 8 Applications**www.aidspan.org第4章指出： • Chapter 4 Identifies:  TRP最常发现的优点  Strengths identified by the TRP most often  TRP最常发现的缺点  Weaknesses identified by the TRP most often 强烈建议阅读TRP对第7轮的报告 Strongly encouraged to read TRP’s Report on Round 7Explains TRP评审申请收的总的策略 overall approach of TRP to proposal review ** Not officially endorsed by the Global Fund but may be of assistance

  10. 中国第7轮申请技术审查报告TRP for China’s Round 7 Proposal • 技术问题 Technical problems • 与第五轮在地域上可能有重叠，未明确分析 • Not clear addressed the potential overlap with R5 • 未明确对流动人群提供VCT/STI/ART等服务的方式 • Not clear about delivery of VCT/STI/ART services to migrants (residence based service) • 未详细描述私立部门参与工作场所提供健康服务的方式 • Not clear about how private sectors will provide health service at the work place • 艾滋病/结核双重感染问题 • Did not address HIV/TB screen • 指标解释不足 • Insufficient explanation on how proposed indicators can be measured

  11. 中国第7轮申请技术审查报告(续)TRP for China’s Round 7 Proposal (Cont.) • 预算问题 Budget problems • 配套经费与全球基金经费混在一起 • Mix counterpart fund and Global Fund together • 购买车辆、租办公室经费太多 • High expenses on vehicles and office rent • 大量昂贵的国际专家费 • Heavy emphasis on expensive international technical assistance • 印刷品单价高(每件$24-50) • High and unexplained printing cost ($24-50 per unit) • 未明确采购的抗机会性感染的药品 • Without specification on OI drugs • 杂项经费未细释 • $ 994250 for miscellaneous is neither specified nor justified

  12. 问题与评论 Questions and Comments

More Related