technical review panel
TRP focuses on gaps in services for key populations in its review of Ethiopia's TB/HIV funding request to the Global Fund
When the Technical Review Panel (TRP) assessed Ethiopia’s TB/HIV funding request last Fall, it considered the request to be technically sound, but expressed concerns related to coverage of key populations.
TRP praises Kenya's TB/HIV funding request to the Global Fund for its sensitivity to key populations and human rights
Zambia’s TB/HIV funding request to the Global Fund has ambitious targets and is well aligned with national programs and strategies
The third batch of funding approvals by the Board (see GFO article) included two TB/HIV grants from Zambia. In this article, we report on the comments from the Technical Review Panel (TRP) and the Grant Approvals Committee (GAC) on the funding requests from which these grants emanated.
Mozambique’s TB/HIV funding request to the Global Fund builds on achievements of current grants, TRP says
Among the grants approved by the Board in the third batch of funding (see GFO article) were four TB/HIV grants to Mozambique. In this article, we report on the comments of the Technical Review Panel (TRP) and the Grant Approvals Committee (GAC) on the funding request from which these grants emanated.
On 1 December 2017, the Global Fund Board approved grants worth $2.83 billion from the 2017-2019 allocations. This is the largest amount approved in a single batch since the start of the new funding model.
This article contains several brief extracts from the report of the Technical Review Panel (TRP) on the funding requests it reviewed in Windows 1 and 2 of the 2017-2019 allocation period. The extracts are from Part Two of the report (technical observations).
At the end of June 2017, the Technical Review Panel (TRP) met to assess funding requests submitted to the Global Fund in Window 2 (23 May 2017). In this window, the TRP reviewed 54 funding requests, including 22 full reviews, 31 tailored requests and one iteration request. No program continuation requests were submitted in Window 2.
The Global Fund should be more open about what options are being considered for the allocations methodology for the next period, 2017-2019.
By March 2016, the allocations methodology for 2017-2019 will have been adopted by the Board. That’s six months from now. It doesn’t look like there will be much public discussion of the methodology before it is approved.
Long before Round 3 took place, the Secretariat projected that the cost of Years 1-2 of grants approved in Round 3 would be about $1,600 m., almost double the cost of Round 2. As it turned out, the cost of Round 3 approved grants came to only $623 m., which is almost 30% *less* than in Round 2. This was caused, in part, by the fact that the percentage of proposals recommended by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for approval went down.