1. Anglophone Africa GF CRG Platform
Rhoda Lewa,
24th October 2016

2. An Overview of the Global Fund and the CS & Communities Shadow Report & Country Scorecards
An Overview of the Global Fund & its Architecture
An Overview of NFM & EPAs
CS & Communities Shadow Report & Country Scorecards

3. The Global Fund: An Overview
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is an international financing organization that mobilizes &disburses additional resources to prevent & treat ATM.
The GFATM is a 21st-century partnership organization designed to accelerate the end of ATM as epidemics.
Founded in 2002, Global Fund is a partnership between governments, CS, the private sector and people affected by the diseases.
The Global Fund raises and invests nearly US$4 billion a year to support programs run by local experts in countries and communities most in need

4. The Global Fund: An Overview
The Global Fund is a financing institution, providing support to countries in the response to ATM; the Global Fund does not implement programs on the ground.
The Global Fund raises funds from donors, and invests them in implementing countries.
Grants are intended to add to, but not replace, existing investments in health.
The Global Fund strives to support programs that are based on national health strategies

5. The Global Fund: Key Principles
Partnerships: Governments, civil society, communities affected by the diseases, technical partners, the private sector, faith-based organizations, and other funders.
Country Ownership: that people take their political, cultural and epidemiological to determine their own solutions to fighting ATM, and takes full responsibility for them. Each country tailors its response to the political, cultural and epidemiological context.  
Performance-based funding: Ongoing financing depends upon performance and proven results, carefully monitored and verified by Local Fund Agents.
Transparency: Operates with a high degree of transparency in its work i.e. applications for funding, funding decisions; grant performance, results, governance, and oversight.

6. Architecture at Global / Geneva Level
GF Board
Policy & Resource Mobilization
TRP
LFA
OIG
Assurance & Risk Management
GF Secretariat

7. The Global Fund- An Overview
The Global Fund is a learning organization
Rounds Based Model – Rounds 1 to 10,
- Single track and Dual Track Financing
- Rolling Continuation Channel
- Continuity of Services
- Grant consolidation
- National Strategy Application
Transitional Funding Mechanism and Cancellation of Round 11 (2011)
New Funding Model (NFM) March 2014

8. Defining CCMs A governance and oversight structure at country level
A public and private sectors multi-stakeholder partnerships
Governments
Multilateral or bilateral agencies
Non-governmental organizations
Academic institutions
Private businesses and
People living with the diseases

9. CCMs in Context of the NFM
CCMs have expanded roles and mandate
Convene stakeholders to engage meaningfully in inclusive country dialogue,
Agree on funding split & grant making,
Participate in the development of National Strategic Plan (NSPs)
More rigorous & mandatory CCM assessment processes.
Under NFM, CCM are required to have annually consultant facilitated Self Assessments (EPA) on ER 3-6 prior to any Concept Note Submission
EPAs inform the development of Performance Improvement Plans (PIP) to address and improve areas of weaknesses identified by the EPAs

10. CCM Core Functions
Coordinate the development and submission of funding request
Nominate the Principal Recipient
Oversee implementation of the approved grant
Approve any reprogramming requests
Ensure linkages and consistency between GF grants and other health and development programs.

11. Cross Roads? Take Stock

12. Rationale for CCM Shadow Assessment & Country Scorecards
The rationale is linked to the role and space of civil society of holding governments and other institutions accountable in what they do and with resources available
The rationale is generated from Objective 4 of the Regional Platform on, “Strategic Capacity Development Initiatives” specifically Support to “shadow reporting” of civil society / community participation in Global Fund processes
The OIG CCM Audit reveals persistently poor CCM performance in a number of areas.
Transparency is limited, as CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans are not currently made public.

13. Rationale for CCM Shadow Assessment & Country Scorecards
Current CCM Assessment & PIP lack questions that speak to quality of performance such as meaningful engagement, use of documentation and information, etc.
Civil society needs to be further engaged with the CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans in order to hold stakeholders accountable.
Civil society and affected communities must have the tools, knowledge and information they need to hold CCMs accountable.
Civil society need to be able to measure the performance of their CCM members who represent them.

14. Key Differences between the EPAs and the CS Shadow Assessments & Country Scorecard
EPAs are consultant facilitated self-assessments of CCMs that are largely driven by the Global Fund to facilitate accountability using a top down approach;
CS Shadow Assessment will be undertaken by civil society & community groups in country, using a bottom up approach;
CS involvement in the Shadow Assessments will empower and sustain the culture of demanding accountability from CCMs in country and can be replicated across other grant implementers; and
EPAs only target the membership of CCMs; CS Shadow assessments will transcend the CCM membership to include grant implementers (PRs,SRs, communities).

15. CCM Shadow Assessment Reports
CCM Shadow Reports focus on issues at country level.
They will assess CCM performance from the perspectives of both CCM members, grant implementers, communities and beneficiaries
The Shadow Assessment Reports will give a detailed analysis of CCM Performance i.e. strengths and areas of improvement; what is working and what needs to be done differently that might make for good entry points for advocacy.

16. CS and Communities Country Scorecards
Using the AAI Scorecard methodology, data from the Country CCM Shadow Reports will be analyzed and countries will be graded on their performance.
The Scorecards will provide a comparative analysis that ranks the participating countries against each other in terms of their performance.
The grading will highlight the best and worst practices; model CCMs which are ahead and CCMs lagging behind; similarities and differences that might make for good entry points for advocacy.

17. Shadow Report and Scorecards Methodology
The methodology will entail establishment country teams from participants herein
Country teams to elect/appoint Country Team Leads to enter into contract with EANNASO & receive a facilitatory one off grant of US$ 8,000
The grant will support country level mobilization and research costs which may include;
transport and communication,
FGDs meeting costs e.g. venue costs, refreshments, transport refunds etc..
Modest stipends for country teams,
Stationery amongst other costs.

18. Shadow Report and Scorecards Methodology
Country Teams will be required to:
Conduct a minimum of 8 face to face interviews
Undertake 1 Focused Group Discussion (FGD) for CCM members not reached through (i) above
Undertake 1 FGD for non CCM members (PRs, SRs, Communities)
Document issues and information from the FGDs and interviews in a 5-8paged narrative report
Capture information on a survey monkey; and
Submit to EANNASO and AAI for processing

19. Partners of the CCM Shadow Assessment & Country Scorecards
EANNASO and the Regional Platform
AID Accountability International (AAI)
CS and Community Groups Country Teams
CCMs and Regional CCMs
Broad Civil Society & Communities
The Global Fund and other stakeholders

20. Project Milestones
A 2-day training on accountability literacy , effective CCMs & CCM representation & how to undertake the CCM Shadow Assessments
Identification of country teams and their mobilisation to collection relevant data respondents; capturing of the data online into a survey monkey
Conduct 2 FGDs for a. at least 6 CCM members and b. for non CCM members ( PRs, SRs, Communities & Beneficiaries).
Produce a 2-3 page report that outline dates when the meeting took place, who was present in the discussions, their contacts; 5-8 page summary findings of the Discussions; and 3-5 strategic advocacy recommendations.

21. Project Milestones
A 2-day training on accountability literacy , effective CCMs & CCM representation& how to undertake the CCM Shadow Assessment
Develop and submit a 5-8 pages.
Analyse data and develop:
8 Country CCM Shadow Report
1 x approx20-page Civil Society and communities CCM Scorecard
Follow-up workshop (feedback session) where data collectors report back, share advocacy plans, advocacy progress, successes, challenges, etc.
Participate in the development of a follow-up 12-page policy paper/good practice report on CCM accountability by mid-June 2017.