The GF does fund training. What we have observed though is countries have applied for short courses. What we need to look at is is the GF can fund undergraduate training for example in Laboratory whereby instead of funding training of Microscopists the GF would fund training of Laboratory Technicians either by supporting the existent schools in country or by sending them for training elsewhere where there is no school.

Dear imranzali, 

Thank you for your posting and your interest in working with the Global Fund. Your questions (highlighted in red) have been answered below.

Q. Does the GF fund training? 
Q. Does the GF fund BCC - Behavior Change Communication?   

In response to your request, we would like to refer you to Annex 3 of the Round 9 Guidelines “What the Global Fund will support”. In addition, we would like to invite you to visit our website http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/apply/proposals/ to learn about the types of programs that we support.

We also suggest that you read our 'Frequently Asked Questions for Round 9' to more fully understand the Global Fund’s proposal process. These 'FAQs for Round 9' are available at the following link: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/rounds/9/faq/#1.

Q. Can one component that the GF does not like or finds too innovative and outside the dogma lead to rejection of the entire proposal? 

In response to this question, we would like to refer you to Annex 3 of the Round 9 Guidelines “What the Global Fund will support”. 

We recognize that in-country settings have a significant impact on what is appropriate to particular country contexts. Proposals that include requests for ongoing support and scale-up of proven interventions are encouraged, as are requests for support for innovative approaches to increase access to prevention, treatment, care and support services for people in need. 

Also, in line with the TRP Terms of Reference available under http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/about/technical/TRP_TOR.pdf, and in particular, Attachment 1, the TRP looks for proposals that demonstrate, among other characteristics, “innovative approaches to scaling up programs, such as through the involvement of the private sector and/or affected communities as caregivers”. 

In addition, as outlined in the TRP Terms of Reference, the TRP reviews each Rounds based proposal as a whole and not separately evaluate elements within a proposal and recommend some to the Board for funding and not others. The TRP can however recommend modification or even elimination of weak elements in an otherwise strong proposal where those weak elements are not a key or major aspect of the proposal.  

However, in reviewing a disease component which contains a cross-cutting HSS section, the TRP may recommend for funding either:

a. The entire disease component, including the cross-cutting HSS section;

b. The disease component excluding the cross-cutting HSS section; or

c. Only the cross-cutting HSS section if the interventions in that section materially contribute to overcoming health systems constraints to improved HIV, tuberculosis and malaria outcomes. 

Q. Is there any provision that allows a proposal to be modified to make it in alignment with GF priorities to facilitate an approval? 

In response to this question, we would like to underline that there are no Global Fund priorities.

Again, as outlined in the TRP Terms of Reference, the TRP undertakes its review ensuring that each of the review criteria are equally considered (no one criterion overweighting any other), without consideration of the amount of resources available to the Global Fund or the income level or burden of disease of the economy targeted by proposal. 

Apart from that, applicants are strongly encouraged to take into account the TRP's comments regarding the weaknesses indentified in the TRP Review Forms in regard to their previous applications. 

Q. Can the Proposal Team give more detailed comments and answer specific questions in simple language why a proposal got rejected or put in category 3? 

In response to this question, we would like to underline that Category 3 means “Not recommended for funding in its present form but encouraged to resubmit following major revision” and Category 4 means “Rejected”. 

Typically, the Global Fund only receives proposals which have been developed through a consultative, multi-stakeholder process, and clearly demonstrate that they are in line with the country’s national disease prevention and control plans. The Global Fund has already provided many grant funds for HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis to successful applications from a multi-stakeholder group called the 'Country Coordinating Mechanism' (CCM).  Information on a particular CCM’s existing Global Fund grants is available at the following address: http://www.theglobalfund.org/programs/search.aspx?search=4&lang=en and we encourage you to contact your 'CCM' to discuss your ideas. 

The Global Fund only provides financial support directly to NGOs in very limited circumstances.  These exceptions are explained in the Round 9 Guidelines for Proposals.  You will find this information at: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/rounds/9/single/#guidelines 

Country Proposals

• Does the GF fund training? 

• Does the GF fund BCC - Behavior Change Communication? 

• Can one component that the GF does not like or finds too innovative and outside the dogma lead to rejection of the entire proposal? 

• Is there any proviso that allows a proposal to be modified to make it in alignment with GF priorities to facilitate an approval. 

• Can the Proposal Team give more detailed comments and answer specific questions in simple language why a proposal got rejected or put in category 3.