Here is a valuable attempt to increase transparency. The Three Diseases Fund has published the evaluation report on its review meeting.
[him] moderator
++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback from Implementing Partners from the 2010 Annual Review Meeting
20 December 2010 - 3DF welcomes feedback and suggestions to improve its operation. At the December 2010 Annual Review Meeting, participants were invited to complete a Review Meeting Evaluation questionnaire and to provide feedback and further comment on the event. Eighty-four evaluations were received in an evaluation box place in the Market place area. Download 3DF Annual Review Meeting Evaluation Response (PDF 162KB)
In addition, several implementing partners provided spoken feedback about the meeting itself and about current and general issues. This feedback is important to us and is under review by the Fund Management Office. If you would also like to contribute your views and opinions, please write to us on info@3dfund.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it :
Annual Review Meeting (ARM) Presentations:
• “ARM is always a good opportunity to meet other 3DF IPs and share experiences and new methodologies. This year, both days were well organised with interesting presentations and a good time-planning. It helps partners share experiences with other IPs and get a better understanding of Fund Board future planning and policies. The event always gives good input for future planning and new methodologies”.
• “The presentations should be standardized across the programs to get similar information from them”.
• “In my opinion, IP presentation for each disease was a bit short and not representative for all. The meeting time should be longer. Half day for each disease may be more appropriate and would be more informative”.
• “Donors like very much individual case stories but, in my opinion, numbers and outputs are better. In that sense, the interim report was much appreciated”.
• “In general, it is good to attend ARM. All IPs can get a better idea about donors and the Fund Board. It helps IPs. We can learn from the presentations on each disease”.
• “I benefitted from attending the ARM and seeing the market place. I got an idea of 3DF’s plan for Phase II. I learned more about malaria situation in Myanmar and what NTP and NAP are doing in Myanmar”.
Market place:
• “What is the real goal of the market place?”
• “The market place is held in a small space and hence is too crowded”.
• “It is mostly populated by people attending the booths themselves. We missed the visit of ambassadors or potential additional donors and, if the goal or impact of the market place is to reach the present donors or other/new donors, the result is uncertain”.
• “The market place is nice and informative. We are able to share experiences. However, I am not sure it was attractive to donors and Fund Board. It might be good if we can know their comments on the market place”.
• “The market place might be open more broadly to the general public”.
• “The market place should be improved with a wider participation (as observers) of local and international NGOs, Embassies and other Donors not directly involved in the 3DF”.
• “Was the community/People Living with HIV well represented?”
• “Can 3DF direct us on what you want to see in the booth?”
• “Booths might be reviewed in a more systematic way”.
Feedback and suggestions for improvement
• “Lessons learned should be drawn from the results and lead to actions”.
• “The Call for Proposals could be more directive i.e. The 3DF aims to provide x many people with ART, open x many sites etc. Among the aid providers, who is able to provide/implement that? It could be more like a tender/bid where the donors know what they want to fund, instead of picking up among proposals which look good”.
• “As a donor, 3DF is:
Pro = Active, curious, flexible, imaginative and responding.
Con = Not in deep review of the programs implemented, not enough coordination between the programs supported in the same area in order to promote complementation instead of competition”.
• “3DF’s funding system and reporting systems are satisfactory, but sometimes feedback is too slow”.
• “We find the Fund Manager's Office to be very supportive and the many initiatives to improve the quality of the programmes (DQA, beneficiary accountability etc) have been very useful for us”.
• “The 3DF is quite flexible and quickly responsive making the life easier for the implementers. The reporting system is convenient to use and the reporting period every 6 months permits to avoid having always a report in the ‘to do’ list”.
• “There is need for more strategic vision and planning. There is need for a better coordination of the efforts of the various implementers”.
• “We will expand our malaria programme with the help of The Global Fund and we are also very interested in 3DF’s Phase II”.
• “On behalf of my organisation, I really appreciate 3DF and the Fund Manager. Without the external funding, it would be very difficult to sustain our activities. We used to think that 3DF was very rigid and negative. However, in the end it has become more positive and flexible. We are relieved to know that the 3DF is considering supporting Maternal and Child Health in Myanmar”.
• “3DF remains an essential donor in the Myanmar context and has proved to be reliable and flexible with the IPs. We definitely look forward to continue and to expand our collaboration with the Fund in the next future”.
http://www.3dfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=112:feedback-from-implementing-partners-from-the-2010-annual-review-meeting&catid=5:3df-news-and-events&Itemid=3
