1. CCM EPA Methodologies, Impact and Shortcomings
CIVIL SOCIETY AND COMMUNITIES CCM SCORECARD AND SHADOW REPORTS TRAINING WORKSHOP
CCM EPA Methodologies, Impact and Shortcomings
NAIROBI: 24 – 25 OCTOBER 2016

2. CCM EPA Approach
Three different strategies to conduct the annual CCM EPAs:
Standard
Light
Superlight.
CCMs are informed of the current strategy relevant to them by their Fund Portfolio Manager (FPM).

3. Standard Strategy Has three components referred to as ‘Pillars”:
‘Pillar 1’ - Desk review by TA and self assessment by CCM members, using a Performance Framework
‘Pillar 2’) - a set of interviews with stakeholders
‘Pillar 3’) - Development of an Improvement Plan
CCMs should request Technical Assistance from GF specified TA Providers
EPA completed via an online platform (a specific link for each CCM)

4. Light and Superlight Strategies
Light and Superlight Strategies are simplified versions of Standard strategy
Include only EPA Pillars 1 and 3 (self-assessment and Improvement Plan)
CCMs do not have option to request TA support
In Light Strategy CCMs need to comply with both the six ERs and the Minimum Standards
In Superlight Strategy CCMs need to comply with only the six ERs

5. Areas covered in the interviews
Membership Composition and Representation
CCM Operations and CCM secretariat
Communications (Internal and External)
Orientation and Capacity Building
Oversight Function
Conflict of Interest: prevention, mitigation and management

6. CCM Eligibility Performance Assessment (EPA) Process
I EPA preparations
II Diagnostic work 1
CT communicates with CCM to request TA 2
CCM selects TA provider. Secretariat assembles documentation 3
TA facilitates the CCM EPA self assessment
TA provider conducts interviews 4 5
TA presents the results of the diagnosis to the CCM
If the ER are met, GF will grant a CCM clearance 8 7 6 10 9
CCM fixes outstanding issues before grant making
GF checks the improvement plan progress when concept note is submitted
GF advises if improvement plan is reasonable
TA and CCM design an action plan to address gaps – share with GF
CCM decides if an improvement plan will be needed
IV Final adjustments
III Improvement Plan designed and implemented

7. Impact
EPAs have had a very positive impact in enhancing continuous improvement of CCMs
Methodologies have ensured inclusion of all stakeholders, especially civil society, KPs and PLWD in development of improvement plans
Feeling of ownership and more participation
Other boards have looked at the template with a view to adopt/adapt the idea

8. Shortcomings
The correlation between ‘ticking boxes’ in the EPA and the portfolio’s performance is not clear.
Assumption that representatives provide wide reaching feedback
EPA approach – Very thorough but technology intensive????

9. EPA Technical Assistance providers
U.S. Government (USG)
French 5% Initiative
The International HIV/AIDS Alliance (except in countries where the Alliance a Global Fund recipient)
BACKUP Health (GIZ)
A pool of consultants working for the Global Fund Secretariat (Request support through FPM)
Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) should request support through FPM