EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR CCM ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE PARTICIPATORY IN WHICH ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE REPRESENTED BOTH AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS DURING WHICH EXPERTS  FROM ALL THE FIELDS OF TB, HIV AND MALARIA ARE INVOLVED.IN THIS METHOD,THOSSE FROM THE GRASS-ROOT COMMUNITY AND CSO AND NGOs SHOULD ALSO PLAY AN ACTIVE ROLE.                                                                                                                                   

THIS SHOULD TAKE PLACE EVERY QUARTER SO THAT ISSUES IDENTIFIED SHOULD HAVE A TIME FRAME FOR SOLUTIONS TO BE ARRIVED AT BEFORE THE NEXT ASSESSMENT DATE WHICH SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO ALL THOSE INVOLVE IN THE PROCESS.SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL THE ORGANISATIONS CONCERN.

First, the priority areas should be made known in an order of preference. The areas of importance that need to be tackled should be made known by the CCMs in their proposals.

However, since the Global Fund has limited funding, it should decide how many of the prioritized areas it can sponsor in a year in each country.

The Global Fund cannot “bite more than it can chew”. In implementing programs in each country, it should guard against favoritism, nepotism, as well as bribery and corruption. Those on the ground engaged in the implementation of the programs should exhibit openness, fairness as well as accountability.

To ensure impartiality, assessment should be the responsibility of knowledgeable and experienced people (in social and health matters) who have proven integrity and who are mainly citizens of a foreign country but who have stayed in the country where the assessment is taking place for a number of years. This assessment should be on quarterly basis. The local experts should exhibit objectivity, transparency, fairness and impartiality.

The submission of grant proposals, request for continued funding, selection of principal recipients and providing oversight on all Global Fund grants should be done based on objectivity, impartiality, fairness and transparency.

CCM assessments should be done periodically (every second year?), possibly by external evaluators that could assure a neutral view and collect the views of all different stakeholders.

• Composition:  This is a measure of inclusiveness.  What sectors are represented?  Are the representatives democratically elected by their constituencies?  Are the GFATM-required consituencies participating?
• Constitution:  Does a constitution exist to describe governance processes, including dysfunctions?  Is it widely available? Is it used and accepted widely?  Does it incorporate how amendments might be pursued?
• Coverage: Does it serve the population it wants to represent vis-a-vis the GFATM?  Are there groups that are not being served adequately, or are not able to enjoy the benefits that they deserve?  Is there an effort to reach hard-to-reach groups?
• Communication: Is there a communication plan?  Is there a transparent process of giving feedback?  Are people who have contrarian opinions about the CCM have a process of communicating them to the CCM?
• Conflicts of interest:  Is there a process of dealing with this?

• Meetings are regular and special meetings are publicized early enough for people to plan for it.  Meetings are open and observers can attend and ask questions or offer information.
• Minutes of meetings are shared widely and can be obtained upon request.
• Conflicts of interest (or potential ones) are declared; the constitution deals with the process in writing.
• Technical experts that rank proposals are not beneficiaries, nor are their relatives or affiliations.
• The Chair rotates every year.
• PRs are selected on the basis of performance, track record and ability to mentor sub-recipients.   

• Routine CCM assessment: this type of assessment, all members of the CCM have to fill in a questionnaire (closed and open questions). All countries have to participate. This assessment could be implemented by the GF secretariat or the LFA.
• In-depth CCM assessment: this type of assessment would be implemented based on the CCM members answers and if there is/are problems or obstacles within the CCM or due to the CCM performance.

In some countries it could be better to have external consultant/mission to review and assess the CCM especially when the PRs from the governmental or there are limited capacities to perform this tasks in the country. However, I think, using a participatory exercise involving all members and representatives of the beneficiaries and other related stakeholders is consider the effective method of the CCM assessment.

 

1. GF should consider including other players in the CCM  ie CCM representatives at country levels,technical experts in the relevant fields(malaria,TB,HIV&AIDS,representatives from the CSOs both intenational,national and even community based,reps from the governments and communities and even representatives from the target beneficairies.This will ensure that the decisions arrived at are informed,get to the right target and that the impact is fulfilling(Turns lives around) and is in line wih the GF,country,CSOs strategic plans to combat the pandemics.
2. There should also be people drawn fom outside the circle(external consultants in OD and project Management/planning/grantsmaking,M&E,researchers among others).This will strengthen the objectivity of all programme phases, identify variances  and projects' course promoted to have more felt impact on the beneficiaries.
3. I believe if ther eis a good team in place disfunctions will be minimized and when they happen they should be dealt with in line with the guiding primciples,policies and procedures.If the disfunctions are seen to be so grave,then the inevitable would have to happen...the agencies could be excluded from the recipients list till they put their house in order...
4. That the implementing agencies and communities contribute even in the smallest way t the projects so as to cultivate a sense of ownership for long term sutainability..when projects are funded 101% the culture of dependency increases and then sustainability becomes elusive

The first step should be to modify the laws that  SET UP the CCM.Re-regulate their powers and functions.Their powers still exist, no matter any machanism that could be set up to control or asses them.Even if a monitoring commission is set up  to ases the CCM, would not carry out the duties of the CCM.It is better to set up a mechanism to asses the implementations of  the global fund accepted projects in each country.

The methods i consider to be effective for monitoring CCM assessment are as follows-: 1) CCM must submit monthly, Quarterly and annual performance reports. The Global fund must review these reports and provide timeous feedback so that corrective measures are taken. 2) CCM must be assessed against approved work plans. 3) Performance Indicators must be clear. 4) There is need for independent monitoring of performance bi-annually. This can be done by professional consultancy firms. The independent evaluators should also cover governance issues such as accountability, professionalism and risk management among other issues. When there are dysfunctions, these should be clearly highlighted and steps taken to remedy such dysfunctions. This should be reported on the monthly/quarterly/annual progress reports. The reports should also cover noted weaknesses, strengths and challenges and measures taken to remedy identified weaknesses and challenges. The CCM needs to document cases of Best Practice and should also learn from identified cases of best practice. There is need to facilitate the sharing of best practice, information and experiences.

This summary is also available in Español - Français - Русский

 

Week of 3 November 2008 

 

-  Challenges to the functioning of CCMs include a lack of political commitment, absence of transparency and humanitarian challenges faced in areas of conflict. The CCM should also be more accountable, participatory and representative in terms of scope and expertise.

-  Assessment to be considered includes qualitative and quantitative methods that ensure transparency and balanced representation. 

-  The Global Fund could assess the CCM itself, or use independent third-party expertise, composed of local and non-local professionals, international organizations or NGOs. Experienced Grass- root CSOs should be trained to carry out assessments, working in collaboration with the Global Fund secretariat. In any case, the assessment should not be carried out by governments.  

-    To carry out an assessment on the CCM, the following could be used: questionnaires to sample opinions; reports for impact assessment; and television and radio phone-in programs. Suggestions for the frequency of assessment varied from bi-annual, to once every two years. Some members suggested making the assessments every three months after the start of the program or at the end of each project phase. Another member believes that it would be more reasonable to carry out an assessment every 3 -5 years. 

-    The Global Fund should have local offices in recipient countries to monitor and evaluate CCMs.  

-    The most appropriate method is self-assessment, which should be carried out to improve the planning of CCM activities in light of its five main functions.  

-    The evaluation report should be discussed within the CCM and a plan of action (recommendations to implement) should be adopted before the drafting of a new proposal.  

-    CCM should be evaluated by a CCM from another country and could be done once a year. The team would represent each sector ensuring that sexual minorities are being represented. Issues to evaluate are: impact, public policy, and equity in the proposal depending on disease burden, permanent benefits for communities (legislation, laws, and improvements). 

-    CCM assessment should not be applied since this is a structure formed by people that work voluntarily. There should be instead a feedback mechanism to reinforce the CCM, an opportunity to carry out a self-evaluation. This should be done by someone external, who would share the results with the CCM but would also help them implement improvements. Frequency would be every two or three years. It should be made clear that it is a feedback evaluation and not a performance evaluation. 

-    CCM should be evaluated externally and it would help that it'd be done by a multi-sector group. In Paraguay we have a manual that outlines functions and internal procedures for all CCM members. 

Contributors: 

English: khalid, Amzad Ali, Mukonjia, c.Ravichandran, Crynigeria, Jane, Najibullah Safi, Dr P.Cheena chawla
French: Malakona, Vackat isabelle edith, Stanli83, KIKWE MBAKA patrick  
Spanish: Jmatute, Ana Rojas , Mirta Ruiz Diaz, Aldo Araujo
Russian: Sagyn