Capacity Assessment of Implementers February 2014

What are the objectives of this session? What is the Capacity Assessment of implementers? Explain why and how the approach has changed and the differences with the old tools/processes Inform you about new tool to assess capacity of implementers What is LFA role in the implementer capacity assessment process? Inform you about the role of the LFA in the process of assessing capacity of implementers Key questions Objectives

What is the Capacity Assessment of implementers? Capacity Assessment is the assessment of the implementing entity’s systems and capacities against a set of requirements necessary to assume financial and programmatic accountability of a Global Fund supported program in a given context. Capacity Assessment is a pre-requisite for entering into a grant agreement with a nominated implementer.

Country Team led process – tailored to the context, role of the implementer, scope and scale of the program, past experience, available partner reports, past assessments Streamlined tool combining number of assessment reports/tools and plans – comprehensive source of information involving multiple actors Closely linked to the risk assessment processes of the Global Fund Shifting from a compliance-based to a risk-based approach – assessment not limited to PR only, other key implementers also assessed as relevant Why and how is the process changing?

Capacity assessment tool consolidates the following tools and reports Repeat and new PR assessment reports PR background analysis 5 LFA assessment tools –PHPM assessment tool –SR management assessment tool –Program management capacity assessment tool –Financial management assessment tool –M&E checklist PSM plan (narrative) PSM country profile M&E country profile M&ESS tool Data quality assessment tool To be automated – interim solution : InfoPath CAPACITY ASSESSMENT TOOL M&E Plan is still a requirement National M&E plan for Government PR Grant-specific M&E plan for civil society PR. If no M&E plan at the time of assessment, the PR will fill all sections of the M&E – PSM arrangements section.

When is Capacity Assessment conducted? As soon as the PR is nominated by the CCM - prior to submitting a Concept Note or after the CN submission; and As soon as the implementation map is completed by the CCM, and the Country Teams decide which key implementers need to be assessed

Objectives of the Capacity Assessment 1. Identify implementers that pose risks to the program due to their programmatic and fiduciary importance (Impl. Arrangement map) 3. Inform decision about the nominated implementer and determine measures to address capacity gaps and risks to ensure effective program implementation

Implementation Arrangements mapping 8 PR ?? ???? SR? ???? PR SR SSR Pre-submission CDCN submissionPost Grant signing Identify key entities and flow of funds: Entities roles and proportion of the grant value they are managing Identify potential risk factors: PRs / SRs handling large amount of funds Procurement & supply chain arrangements Interactions between grants External entities that influence implementation Prioritize risk through capacity assessment: Decide who needs to be assessed based on their financial and programmatic role PR, by default, is responsible for evaluating SRs. If PR is not strong enough (poor capacity) or is not independent, country team may use CAT or incorporate into future LFA oversight Mapping is an iterative process showing what is known and unknown at a point of time Important Note: Implementation arrangement map is mandatory for all new grants

M&E Assessment Finance Assessment PSM Assessment Governance and Program Management (including Sub-recipient management) Country Team tailors the information needs based on the context Implementer inputs information on their systems and management processes, as determined by the CT LFA verifies information submitted by the key implementers, as requested by the CT 1. Final conclusion/final rating on each section in each functional assessment area: No issues Minor issues Major issues Unknown Not applicable 2. Decision on the nominated implementer 3. Action Plan – includes measures to address capacity gaps and risks 4 assessment areas to assess 3 actors involved in the process Outputs of the assessment Assess capacity of implementers 8 2 Country Teams tailor the scope and depth of the assessment, shifting from a compliance-based approach to a risk-based approach

Measures to address capacity gaps and risks 3 Suggest TA provision Request CCM to nominate new PR/SR Suggest contracting of implementation support Could not be mitigated in the short term Issues Identified during assessment process Major issues: Corruption risk System weaknesses Poor past performance Minor issues: Technical weaknesses but fair past performance or strong governance Could be mitigated in the short term Could not be mitigated in the short term Could be mitigated in the short term

11 Overview of the capacity assessment process Identifies implementers to be assessed Tailors the information needs based on the context Decides mitigating actions and oversight plan Finalizes the capacity assessment Grant making Country Team Inputs information on relevant sections, as requested by country team Verify info as requested by country team, propose mitigating measures Implementer LFAs Concept note writing / submission Follow-up on mitigating measures, as requested by country team

Tailoring of the capacity assessment 12 Implementer needs to provide information on and LFA verify only these sections CT finalizes the rating after receiving implementer/LFA input and finalizes an action plan with mitigating/capacity building measures Factors to be considered during tailoring: -New/repeat implementer; -Role of the implementer in the program; -Scope and scale of the program; -Past assessment reports; -Recent partner/donor reports.

Inter-action between various actors 1 Section 1: National strategic plan and M&E coordination mechanisms No Issues Section 2: National M&E unit capacityMinor Issues Section3: Health Management Information System (HMIS)Major Issues Section 4: Quality of servicesMinor Issues Section 5: SurveysNo Issues CAT Dashboard per area 2 13 Action Plan 1.Suggested action 2.Responsible actor 3.Start/end date 4.Estimated cost and source of funding

?