Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) Funding Seminar

16 Jan 2014

Contenu connexe

Présentations pour vous(20)

Similaire à Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) Funding Seminar(20)


Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) Funding Seminar

  1. Global Poverty Action Fund Community Partnership Window Funding Seminar January 2014
  2. Agenda   Workshop Rationale GPAF Programme Objectives & Community Partnership window  Applicant organisation and project eligibility  Concept note appraisal process and criteria   If invited to submit a full proposal – documentation required and appraisal criteria Question and Answer session
  3. Aims of the workshop   To provide participants with a clarification of the GPAF funding guidelines and….. …..more specifically the key factors considered during the assessment of concept notes
  4. GPAF Programme    DFID’s main central programme of support to civil society organisations Poverty Reduction & MDGs Real, positive changes to the lives of poor people
  5. Approaches  Service delivery focused on MDGs  Empowering individuals and communities  Improving accountability  Addressing issues related to conflict, security and justice
  6. Approaches (contd.)  Capacity building and advocacy as integral components of projects focused on delivering poverty reduction outcomes for poor people  Value for money  Gender and diversity
  7. Community Partnership Window  For UK-based organisations  For smaller and newer organisations  For smaller scale community based projects  Innovation welcomed but not a requirement
  8. Organisational Eligibility   UK-based non-governmental and not for profit Average annual income <£1m
  9. Project Eligibility     Fit to GPAF Programme Objectives (see above) and specific objectives of the ‘Jobs and Livelihoods’ round New, time-limited discrete projects up to 36 months Maximum DFID contribution is £250k In GPAF eligible countries (note new policies on India and South Africa)
  10. What cannot be funded?  Areas covered more appropriately by other DFID funding schemes  Capital expenditure (as main focus)  Scholarships / stand-alone activities (e.g. conferences)  Organisational core costs   Discrimination / Civil disobedience / Partisan political stances / Proselytising Projects with primary focus outside scope of ‘Jobs and livelihoods’
  11. Project Partners  Important to establish mechanisms for beneficiary participation in design, management, implementation and monitoring and evaluation  Implementation partners  Collaborative partners
  12. How to Apply    Complete the concept note form (carefully following the guidance on the form) Check the content against the organisational and project eligibility criteria in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ document Submit with a copy of your organisation’s constitution / governance documents
  13. Concept Note Appraisal Process Fund Manager Appraisal    Eligibility and validity check Appraisal by team of experienced assessors using published criteria Quality assurance check Then Fund Manager recommendations reviewed by:  DFID Civil Society Department (CSD) Selection of Concept Notes  DFID – CSD determine the total number and selection of concept notes to be developed into full proposals  Fund Manager sends out e-mail announcement of decisions and specific feedback to all applicants.
  14. 1. 2.  Concept Note Appraisal Criteria Potential poverty impact  Justification for intervention (context/need)  Linkage to MDGs  Clarity and nature of anticipated changes  Potential for wider dissemination and impact Proposed implementation arrangements  Organisational capability  Proposed project approach /methodology Value for Money & Gender/Inclusion considerations
  15. Potential Poverty Impact Q 3.2: Why is this project needed at this time in this location?     How and why have the communities and beneficiaries been selected? What are the factors of poverty affecting their lives? How will the project address the MDGs identified in 3.1 (which MDGs?) Refer to any evidence that shows the relevant MDGs are “off-track”
  16. Potential Poverty Impact Q 3.3: What specific change is this initiative intended to achieve?     What is the anticipated impact of the project on the lives of the beneficiary communities? What results will be delivered at community level? Approximately how many people will benefit directly (from each of the target groups)? What is the anticipated magnitude of the change?
  17. Implementation Arrangements Q 3.4: What is the (proposed) methodology and approach used by the project to achieve the changes described?  How will the project work at community level?  Describe briefly the main activities
  18. Implementation Arrangements Q 3.5: Who will be carrying out the project activities?    Which organisations / stakeholders will undertake which work? Why are these organisations considered to be the most appropriate to implement this project? Who has been involved to date in project design?
  19. Value for Money Q 3.6: Why do you consider the proposed approach to offer good value for money in terms of the anticipated results and impact on poverty at the community level compared to the overall cost of the intervention?
  20. Gender & Inclusion Q 3.7: How will the proposed project impact positively on the situation of women and girls and other relevant diverse groups (e.g. disabled, minorities) who are particularly excluded in the local project context?
  21. Top Tips    Read guidance notes, questions and prompts very carefully and check relevance of responses Read through document presenting strengths and weaknesses of previous GPAF concept notes in relation to the assessment criteria Note that the appraisal will be based on information presented in the concept note only
  22. What additional documents would be required at full proposal stage?  A completed full proposal form (approx. 15 pages)  A project logframe / results framework  A detailed project budget  A copy of most recent set of approved org. accounts  A project organisational chart  A project implementation schedule
  23. What are the Criteria for Proposal Appraisal 1. Analysis of context 1. Analysis of context 2. Anticipated poverty impact // link to MDGs 2. Anticipated poverty impact link to MDGs 3. Project approach // methodology 3. Project approach methodology 4. Sustainability // Risk Management 4. Sustainability Risk Management 5. Project management & org. capability 5. Project management & org. capability 6. Monitoring, evaluation and learning 6. Monitoring, evaluation and learning 7. Budget, Efficiency and Effectiveness 7. Budget, Efficiency and Effectiveness V A L U E F O R M O N E Y G E N D E R & I N C L U S I O N
  24. Any Questions?

Notes de l'éditeur

  1. Welcome …. Introductions … …
  2. Will invite requests for clarifications after each section but please note opportunity for Q&amp;A questions at end. Please avoid asking questions very specific to your individual applications
  3. This should result in participants being better prepared to present a good quality concept note.
  4. Programme: Launched October 2010 - GPAF programme – Budget of £120 m over six years There has been an additional budget allocation of approx. £21 m for the interim round. Recognises role of CSOs in helping to contribute to the achievement of MDGs So far 141 awards made; £96.4m; 114 organisations; 32 target countries; designed to benefit over 11m direct and 38.1m indirect beneficiaries. As well as clear poverty reduction objectives related to MDGs, DFID also keen for GPAF funds to be accessible to a diverse range of organisations Originally 2 windows - Impact window (90%) + Innovation window (10%) (now replaced by Community Partnerships window) To date 48% of Impact awardees and 73% of Innovation awardees had not previously accessed DFID grant funding
  5. Service delivery: Contribute to achievement of locally relevant MDGs Be relevant to local context and needs Be complementary to existing services Consider aspects of sustainability (and relevant aspects of empowerment and accountability) Empowerment and accountability: Must be a ‘clear line of sight’ to poverty reduction &amp; achievement of MDGs Real benefits to poor people within the project life span If relevant - see additional guidance note on this subject (based on learning from Civil Society Challenge Fund - CSCF) Conflict, Security, Justice: Conflict and security issues are major challenge to poverty reduction and achievement of MDGs Again, there must be a ‘clear line of sight’ to poverty reduction &amp; achievement of MDGs NOT for humanitarian relief (CHASE funding for this) but can be for community building resilience
  6. Capacity building and advocacy: As means of achieving a project outcome related to poverty reduction Value for Money: Obtaining maximum benefit for poor people with the available resources Should be mainstreamed i.e. should be considered at all stages in the project cycle and should be considered in all project management decisions. Consider economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Is this the most effective approach? Are we doing it in the most efficient way? Are we getting our inputs at the right price? See BOND VFM paper for simple and practical one page summary. Gender and diversity: Consider threats, risks, opportunities for women, girls, men and boys … and other relevant groups representing diversity within the beneficiary communities Should also be mainstreamed i.e. should be considered at all stages in the project cycle and should be considered in all project management decisions.
  7. DFID undertook an internal review to consider what progress has been achieved in the first year of the GPAF.  Following consultation and interviews with key stakeholders, the review also identified certain measures that would further improve the impact of the GPAF to deliver results through a range of organisations.  These changes should help small and large organisations to do what they do best, whether innovating or using proven approaches to deliver projects that achieve tangible results at relevant scale.  Additional measures – including this seminar – as part of DFID’s efforts to provide support to a diverse range of organisations reducing poverty in the developing world. 
  8. UK based not for profit orgs. (but note exclusions) Do not have to be registered charities. If part of a larger international org. – must demonstrate significant autonomy Can be a formal consortium (but all members have to be eligible) Average annual income over last 3 years as shown in accounts If &lt;3 years of accounts – use average of available years. We will consider applications from new organisations but need to see evidence of proposed development of capacity to manage.
  9. Fit to Jobs and livelihoods round Improving household income and/or ‘household consumption resilience’ e.g. supporting income generation activities, job creation, agricultural production (food security and/or income) NOT projects focused PRIMARILY on e.g. primary education, child health etc. Discrete projects up to 36 months: Additional components of on-going projects must be clearly identifiable as discrete projects with a well-defined project outcome, time-limited schedule for delivery and a distinct budget. Maximum DFID contribution is £250k: Total project budget can be higher – but there must be a viable plan for the required additional funding. In GPAF eligible countries: See list of 58 eligible countries 9.4 The Secretary of State has outlined the UK’s changing relationship with India and South Africa. In line with this, the GPAF will only consider concept notes for India and/or South Africa focused on technical assistance. Projects should be focused on transferring unique skills and expertise from civil society organisations to local development partners. Technical assistance in this context is considered to be the provision of know-how in the form of, for example, training, peer support or skills sharing to facilitate change for durable impact. The know-how and skills should be unique to the GPAF applicant, such that they are not deliverable by civil society in-country.
  10. Areas covered more appropriately by other DFID funding schemes a. Refer to funding section of DFID website b. Example – Humanitarian relief is funded through CHASE Capital expenditure (as main focus) Cannot be the main focus Must be fully justified as essential and directly contributing to a sustainable outcome linked to the reduction of poverty within the life of the project. Scholarships / stand-alone activities a. Stand alone includes e.g. conferences, one off trainings, exchanges etc. which are not part a more broadly focused project delivering a sustainable outcome. Organisational core costs: All items included in GPAF project budgets (detailed budget required at proposal stage), must be clearly related to the delivery of the proposed project Discrimination / Civil disobedience / Partisan political stances / Proselytising Re focus of this round (3)…
  11. Partners to ensure beneficiary participation: Beneficiary engagement and ownership are very important to ensure relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of projects Implementation partners: Manage project funds and play prominent role in project management and delivery Collaborative partners: Do not manage project funds Engaged to support the delivery of the project e.g. local government agencies; other CSOs in the area; relevant networks.
  12. Concept note form: Must use the concept note form provided on the DFID website We will not consider applications submitted in any other format Please ensure that you follow the guidance on the form in relation to: Font size (Arial 12pt.) Section 3 must not exceed 4 pages (A4) Must not alter the formatting of the form and guidance notes The guidance is intended to ensure that the process is fair to all. Any that do not comply with the guidelines will not be considered. Maximum of 3 concept notes per organisation Check content: Before submitting your concept note, check against the organisational and project eligibility criteria in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ document. Constitution / Governance documents: This is required to check organisational eligibility for funding under the GPAF Community Partnership window. This is now requested at concept note stage to avoid situations where organisations invest a lot of time in preparing full proposals only to discover that their org. is ineligible. If your org. is a formal consortium, the governance documents of individual members will also be required.
  13. Fund Manager Appraisal: Concept notes are logged in with a basic eligibility and validity check. Only those that are valid and eligible will go to the next stage of assessment. Applicants sent e-mail within 10 days with a unique ref. number. Team of experienced assessors with range of geographic and thematic experience Concept notes are scored against the published criteria. All appraisals are checked by a quality assurance team to ensure consistency of appraisal judgments in relation to set criteria Selection: DFID-CSD reviews the Fund Manager recommendations and determines the number of concept notes to developed into full proposals. Value for money considerations regarding the number invited to submit full proposals in comparison to the number likely to be funded.
  14. Potential Poverty Impact: See question 3.2 of CN form – “Why is this project needed at this time in this location?” See question 3.3 of CN form – “What specific change is this initiative intended to achieve?” Proposed Implementation Arrangements: See question 3.4 of CN form – “What is the methodology and approach to be used by the project to achieve the changes described?” See question 3.5 of the CN form – “Who will be carrying out the project activities?” Value for Money: See question 3.6 of the CN form – Why do you consider the proposed project to offer good value for money in terms of the anticipated results and impact on poverty at the community level compared to the overall cost of the intervention?” Gender: a. See question 3.7 of the CN form – “How will the proposed project impact positively on the situation of women and girls and other relevant diverse groups who are particularly excluded in the local project context?”
  15. See Strengths and weakness document: Strengths … Analysis rooted in deep understanding of the local community and different beneficiary groups, their needs and the target area. (EXAMPLE) National context for MDG progress, referenced by recognized data complemented by further analysis of the local context and community in relation to the identified MDGs. Clear identification of gap or lack of appropriate initiatives to address the identified causes of poverty. Clear and thorough processes for engagement with beneficiaries in the design of the programme, including appropriate mechanisms to enable active participation of women and other potentially marginalized groups. Clear demonstration of how the beneficiaries have influenced the project design. Evidence that other relevant stakeholders (including government) have been considered in the project design.The nature of any previous work in the area is clearly presented, and the proposed project addresses clear gaps in appropriate initiatives to address the area of concern.
  16. See Strengths and weakness document: Strengths … Clear definition of the expected changes for the specific beneficiary community and different groups, the rate of anticipated progress/growth in income generation, access to services etc., and the link to relevant MDGs.Realistic estimates of the nature and extent of changes anticipated for specific target groups and a clear connection between the anticipated changes, the analysis of the problem and the needs of the target groups.   Where appropriate, the changes recognize how the expected nature and extent of the desired change may be different for men, women, girls and boys.
  17. See Strengths and weakness document: Weaknesses ….. Unclear how the initiative would address the specific problems identified in the analysis of the problem and lead to the anticipated impact on poverty at the community level. (EXAMPLE) The project is trying to address a broad range of issues, some of which are beyond the capacity of the applicant and identified partners The proposed project is over-ambitious and unlikely to be successfully achieved within the proposed duration and with the proposed levels of resources. The project design fails to recognise the need for linkages with other programmes or government initiatives in the community. The proposed approach is based on previous experience but little or no information is provided on the lessons learned. Insufficient evidence of beneficiary involvement in project identification and design.   Insufficient clarity regarding how the project will actually be implemented in terms of direct engagement with the community target groups.
  18. See Strengths and weakness document: Weaknesses ….. The organisational arrangements for managing and implementing the project are not sufficiently clear.   The relative roles and responsibilities of the applicant and project partners are confused or not well-defined.  The applicant and partners appear to have only limited or no previous relevant experience in the sector or project area that the project is intended to address. The added value of the applicant organisation in the successful delivery of the proposed project is unclear (beyond the sourcing of funds). For UK-based applicants, the added value is sometimes stated in terms of administrative tasks only, such as liaison with the donor and financial oversight, rather than specific skills, experience or capacity required for delivery of proposed project. Strengths … incl.: The governance arrangements are clear, and enable both community beneficiaries and other stakeholders to influence the direction of the project as it is implemented.
  19. See Strengths and weakness document: Weaknesses ….. Projects targeting a small number of beneficiaries but with a high budget, and no clear explanation of why the costs should be so high. Target number of direct beneficiaries is either unclear or inconsistent. No clear justification for multi-country initiatives (e.g. in terms of either value-added or economies of scale); or mention of ‘economies of scale’ without further clarification. Little evidence of consideration of alternative, potentially more cost effective approaches. Strengths include …. The project intends to make use of existing resources/facilities and make them more efficient and/or effective.
  20. See Strengths and weakness document: Weaknesses ….. Many organisations stated that women and girls were to be involved in project activities, but they did not show either the specific barriers faced by women and girls within the project context, or how the project has been designed to overcome these. Even where issues around gender (problem statement) are strong and gender specific outcomes are presented, the attention to gender issues is not adequately reflected in the design. Failure to address common issues related to ‘women’s economic empowerment’ such as the risks of creating increased workload, and inability to control economic assets. Strengths ….. Being realistic in how barriers are to be broken down and clear about who needs to be involved to support the processes.   Addressing multiple exclusions, e.g. disability plus gender, gender plus caste, caste plus disability etc.   Clearly articulate how girls/women will have a role in decision-making or management within the project scope.  Recognition of complexities in achieving change and addressing issues through project design e.g. by working with men and boys.
  21. Proposal form – more detail about project design Logframe - More guidance will be provided and this will be a primary focus of proposal preparation workshops Budget – Detailed breakdown of implementation costs WITH justification notes Accounts – approved &amp; examined at appropriate level Project Org Chart – Who will be involved in project delivery and how are they related Implementation schedule – to show sequencing of activities
  22. Criteria for appraisal of full proposals – similar key issues looked at in more detail Proposal preparation workshops – will clarify criteria Possible opportunity to clarify issues that are unclear