Periodic Review ccm request template

Through this grant NACOSA will be procuring rapid HIV tests, condom and lube packs as well as refill CHBC kits. NACOSA will procure the tests off the national Government tender and the condom & lube off a joint tender with the PR Right to Care. CHBC kits are not viewed as health products but NACOSA provides guidelines for SRs in terms of procurement for refills.

NACOSA experienced a shortage of rapid tests during Phase I when the SD Bioline product was suspended, which left the Western Cape Department of Health without kits as well. NACOSA then developed emergency procurement guidelines that were approved by the GFATM. Going into Phase II NACOSA will only provide for the procurement of 40% of its needs for tests, assuming that the balance will be available free of charge from the provincial Departments of Health. This was possible for Phase I except for the abovementioned period when NACOSA bought in different tests from a supplier.

NACOSA’s PSM Plan for Phase I was approved by the GFATM and included a number of guiding documents for SRs to support their logistics management processes. PSM implementation is verified during OSDV visits by the PSR. Please refer NACOSA Annex 2, for NACOSA’s updated PSM Plan for Phase II.

6.2 Financial Proposal

6.2.1 Resources available to finance the grant/SSF after cut-off date

Table 37: Resources available to finance the grant/SSF after cut-off date

Line h) includes funds brought forward from phase 2 for the extension period

NACOSA has prepared their Phase II budget with the most accurate information available taking into consideration historical spending of the PR and its Sub-Recipients since the beginning of the grant period, 1 August 2010. The unit costs are value for money as it incorporates any efficiency in original grant pricing, as well as more standardised unit cost from information provided by all PRs, where applicable. The unit costs and quantities represent the correct required funding in order to implement Phase II of the Grant efficiently and effectively. A huge drop has been affected in the cost of per person tested because task shifting showed that SRs with lay counsellors can offer the service at lower cost. The PR has also decreased and consolidated participant hand out and stationery costs and removed equipment hire under Training.

No salary increases were incorporated into the Phase II budget other than a 5% cost of living (inflation) increase at July 2014 and July 2015. Posts were cut where necessary for enhanced efficiency. A new post for Internal Auditor was created from savings on the audit line. A 5% inflation rate was added to all other costs in April 2014 and April 2015 even though the rise in some of the costs (e.g. rent) will certainly be higher on a year on year basis. The CPI index in South Africa in the past two years has risen by 13.27% - see graph below.⁸²



Figure 13: CPI index in South Africa

The Human Resource cost category makes up 78% of the PR’s total grant. This category is so high because almost all the programmes are being implemented by community-based organisations at the local and household level. A table follows on the next page indicating the percentages of HR allocations within specific programmes.

SECTION 5: CURRENT PHASE/ IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD PERFORMANCE (PR 4 - NRASD)
5.1 Programmatic Achievements and Management Performance
5.1.1 Programmatic Achievements

Provide an Overall assessment of the progress of the PR during the current Phase/ Implementation Period based on the key programmatic indicators in the Performance Framework.

Progress is assessed as satisfactory for the current Phase/ Implementation Period until the cut-off date (Quarters 1-9, the period 1 October 2010 - 31 December 2012). However, NRASD performance on key programmatic indicators for this period must be assessed with cognisance to a number of factors.

Firstly, it should be noted that the Round 9 Work plan Budget set the currency exchange rate at USD1:ZAR8. The first funds disbursed by the GF for the first three quarters of implementation (October 2010 - June 2011) was received at an exchange rate of USD1:ZAR6,8. From the onset, the PR and SR’s had to implement with currency exchange losses.

Secondly, it should be noted that the NRASD Programme was disrupted for a period of nine months (July 2011 - March 2012) when disbursements from the GF was stopped due to a misleading draft report that was generated as a result of a Diagnostic Review by the Office of Inspector General Diagnostic Review, conducted by consultants on 25 July 2011 - 11 August 2011. Following extensive consultations, the Diagnostic Review was followed up by a full Forensic Investigation on the NRASD that was conducted by the GF Office of the Inspector General on 27 February 2012 - 9 March 2012. The findings of the Forensic Investigation differed from the findings of the Diagnostic Review, as the concerns raised in the OIG Diagnostic Review were found to be unfounded when the full audit was done. As a result, disbursements from the GF to the NRASD were immediately resumed and funds for Quarters 4-5 (July 2011 - December 2011) were received on 4 April 2012.

In sum, 30% of grant funds budgeted for Quarters 1-8 of the programme were received at the start of Quarter 7 of the programme. Funds for Quarters 6-8 (January 2012 - September 2012) were received on 6 September 2012. In sum, 38% of grant funds budgeted for Quarters 1-8 of the programme were received at the end of Quarter 8 of the programme. This disruption to the programme did not occur as a result of the performance of the NRASD but the disruption had dire effects on the rendering of services to the beneficiaries in need of the services.

NRASD performance on key programmatic indicators in the Performance Framework for the period 1 October 2010 - 31 December 2012 reflects the following:

Table 38: Performance on key programmatic indicators NRASD

Indicator – Targets in terms of persons reached	Planned Target	Actual Target	%
Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) – Targeted audience reached	109,850	171,511	156%
BCC – Peer Educators and Traditional Leaders trained	1,445	1,890	131%
HIV Counselling and Testing (HCT) – Health Workers and Counsellors trained	50	125	250%
HCT – People tested who know their results	66,500	71,126	107%
Care and Support to PLHIV – Receiving Home and Community-Based Care	40,480 *	41,649 *	103%
Care and Support to OVC – Receiving support and care	52,800 *	59,927 *	113%
Organisations that received support to assist PLHIV	140	155	111%
* Note: All targets are reflected as cumulative over the programme term, including Care and Support to PLHIV and Care and Support to OVC. The latter two targets are reported to the GF as non-cumulative.

The main reasons for substantial over-performance on NRASD targets are:

• 
  In BCC – Extensive reach was achieved via a combination of one-on-one interventions and group interventions on the interpersonal level. The reach per Peer Educator, planned at 45 persons per Peer Educator per quarter, has been revised to 240 persons to be reached per Peer Educator per quarter from April 2013 onwards. The reach per educational theatre performance, planned at 50 persons to be reached per performance, has been revised to 100 persons to be reached per performance from April 2013 onwards. These revisions are based on actual figures in terms of reach over the past quarters;
  
• 
  In BCC and HCT training activities – Extensive reach was required in order to compensate for a high attrition rate as a significant portion of trained personnel were lost during the period when disbursements did not occur;
  
• 
  In HCT – Extensive reach was achieved via links with public clinics and the private sector (testing of persons in companies);
  
• 
  In Care and Support to PLHIV and OVC – Extensive reach was achieved via the deployment of more Care Givers in order to address the overall deficit on persons reached during the period when disbursements did not occur;
  

NRASD acknowledges the strength of partnerships as an essential element to the success and survival of the programme so far, in line with the title of the South African Round 9 Application to the Global Fund, namely: "Leveraging partnerships to achieve the goals of South Africa’s NSP, 2007 - 2011". The NRASD commends SR's for their work, patience and understanding, as SR’s had to work within an environment of uncertainty that severely tested the measure of trust between partners.

This also provides crucial reflection on the sustainability of the NRASD’s programmes as the NRASD and SR’s were able to not only survive a nine-month disruption to disbursements, but were also capable of a calculated scale-down in activities in order to sustain key activities in communities with limited access to services. This calculated scale-down in activities was matched by a calculated scale-up in activities once disbursements were resumed.

Placing people first in terms of the beneficiaries of the programme as well as the programme implementers has remained a crucial priority. The priority of placing people first has to be balanced with the demands of compliance of systems at PR and SR level in order to fulfil the requirements set by the Global Fund. The NRASD will continue to seek proper balance in terms of the execution of programme activities with the required concurrent changes to systems in order to make a difference in the lives of people by means of this programme.

Please summarize the current challenges in M&E systems and capacity based on any recent assessment undertaken during the current Phase/Implementation Period, and provide an update on status of implementation of M&E systems strengthening recommendations supported through Global Fund grant/SSFs and other partners during the current Phase/Implementation Period. Please also comment on the expenditures on M&E (variances, if any) against approved funding under the Global Fund grant/SSF during the current Phase/Implementation Period.

Summary of current M&E systems and capacity challenges:

Training and Orientation: An M&E Capacity Assessment Workshop with all SR’s was conducted on 8 July 2010. The workshop was hosted by the NRASD. It was facilitated by Prof Johann Mouton, Dr Donna Podems and Ms Kate Jackson from the Centre for Research on Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University. The purpose of the workshop was to present SR’s with the M&E requirements that had been set by the GF and to assess the current M&E capacity of SR’s.

Based upon the findings of the workshop, training and support needs were identified in order to ensure that due diligence requirements would be complied with, and that the different M&E systems and practices of SR’s were brought together for the purpose of consolidated M&E reporting to the Global Fund.

On-going Improvements: The M&E systems were also reviewed by the GF Diagnostic Review in 2011 and all their recommendations were reviewed and addressed fully where necessary.

Programme Evaluations:

The NRASD conducted M&E assessments for HBC and OVC, specifically reviewing the strongest and weakest sites with a view to making recommendations on good practice. These recommendations have been considered with a view to implementation.

The NRASD also conducted an internal Mid-Term Review of the first two years of the programme. The review considered the performance of the NRASD and SR’s, particularly with cognisance to the effect of the disruption of the programme based upon the findings of the Diagnostic Review.

A joint evaluation of Phase 1 of the NRASD/ NACOSA OVC Grant was also conducted. The Evaluation Draft Report on the Phase 1 NRASD/ NACOSA OVC Grant have been generated and the NRASD has responded to the Evaluation Draft Report. It is anticipated that the Evaluation Final Report will be finalised soon. Another joint evaluation of Phase 1 of the NRASD/ NACOSA HBC Grant is being planned.

The GF Local Fund Agent (LFA), KPMG Services (Pty) Ltd, conducted On-Site Data Verifications on NRASD SR’s and service delivery points (sites). The following indicators were randomly selected by the LFA:

• 
  Number of targeted audience reached through BCC;
  
• 
  Number of people who received a HIV test and know their results; and
  
• 
  Number of OVC households received free basic external support in caring for the child.
  

The results with recommendations have been shared with the GF by the LFA.

The expenditure by NRASD on monitoring and evaluation was within the allocated budget.

5.1.2 Grant/ SSF Risk Management

Major grant/ SSF management risks and issues:

Risk-based assessments on the NRASD were conducted by the GF via:

1. 
   Diagnostic Review, conducted by consultants on 25 July 2011 - 11 August 2011. The final report with GF findings is pending;
   
2. 
   Forensic Investigation, conducted by the GF Office of the Inspector General on 27 February 2012 - 9 March 2012. NRASD is still awaiting the final report with findings from the GF;
   
3. 
   Operational Risk Management Workshop, facilitated by the GF Grant Management Division (High Impact Africa I) on 10 - 14 September 2012. The operational risk management worksheet has been completed and sent to the Global Fund. Areas of risk were structured in terms of: (a) programmatic and performance; (b) fiduciary and financial; (c) health services and products; and (d) government oversight and management. Proposed prevention and mitigation strategies were identified that has and continues to be addressed by the NRASD.
   

The completed operational risk management worksheet, as submitted to the GF, follows:

Table 39: Operational risk management NRASD

1. Programmatic & Performance Risks
Ref	Risk name	Risk definition	Risk Category	Rating	Explanation of ratings and most significant causes	Proposed prevention & mitigation actions
1.1	Limited Programme Relevance	Possibility that funded interventions will become programmatically irrelevant in relation to: a) the goals and objectives defined in the proposal, including through the selection of inappropriate targets and/or indicators, b) Value for Money concerns, i.e. the goals and objectives of the proposal are no longer consistent with the highest impact and priority interventions, c) the broader national context	Likeli-hood	Unlikely	Currently funded interventions could be regarded with limited programmatic relevance: (1) in view of the fact that the current NRASD Proposal was developed to address the goals of the NSP 2007-2011 whilst the new NSP 2012-2016 has been adopted; (2) in view of the GF 2013 priority funding areas currently under discussion with the CCM as part of the Phase 2 proposal development process; and (3) in view of the need for a current national gap analysis that would inform funding proposals in 2013.	Review work plan with cognisance to relevance in terms of NSP 2012-2016, the GF 2013 priority funding areas, and a national gap analysis that would inform funding proposals in 2013.
			Severity	Moderate
			Risk Level	Medium
1.2	Inadequate M&E & Poor Data Quality	Possibility that results are misreported or insufficient progress is made towards M&E systems strengthening; Inadequate monitoring and evaluation activities, and poor data quality, are clearly key risks as they can result in grossly incorrect assessment of grant and Programme performance	Likeli-hood	Unlikely	NRASD M&E systems have been developed and have been operational over the past 2 years. National M&E Plan and related systems to implement national plan to be finalised.	Refinement of PR and SR's M&E systems would be sustained in future.
			Severity	Moderate		National M&E Plan and related systems to implement national plan to be finalised.
			Risk Level	Medium
1.3	Not Achieving Grant Output Targets	Possibility of the grant not achieving its Output performance targets related to the next 12 months, as agreed in the Performance Framework, i.e. expected mean percentage achievement for the "top 10 indicators" in this period	Likeli-hood	Highly Unlikely	Targets have been substantially reached over the past 18 months. We anticipate this trend to be sustained given a more stable disbursement of funds. It would have severe consequences for the programme beneficiaries, SR's, PR, and the country, if grant output targets were not achieved and funding was stopped, based upon the GF's use of a performance-based funding model.	PR to continue with quarterly OSDV's per SR and to sustain technical support to SR's where relevant.
			Severity	Major		PR to proactively engage with the GF, CCM, LFA, PR's and SR's in order to meet the obligation of all stakeholders to perform.
			Risk Level	Medium
1.4	Not Achieving Grant Outcome & Impact Targets	The assessment concerns whether and to what extent implementation arrangements and grant activities in the next year will contribute to progress towards Outcome and Impact Targets as agreed in the performance framework, which may be defined over a longer period	Likeli-hood	Unlikely	It is problematic to gauge the effect or influence of the PR on the national outcome and impact indicator baselines and annual country targets, in view of challenges with reference to a national M&E Plan with related systems.	PR and SR's will make every effort to contribute to the process of selecting outcome and impact indicators.
			Severity	Moderate		National M&E Plan and related systems to implement national plan to be finalised.
			Risk Level	Medium
1.5	Poor Aid Effectiveness & Sustainability	Possibility of ineffective or unsustainable programs in terms of alignment with, building capacity for and accountability of national systems and cycles, additionality and coordination with counterpart and partner financing, and other aspects of sustainability; The assessment concerns whether and to what extent implementation arrangements and grant activities in the next year will contribute to 'ineffective aid' or unsustainable programs in the longer-term	Likeli-hood	Unlikely	There is a fair measure of confidence in the existing national systems that have been developed as well as the ability of national coordinating bodies. Risk to PR's and SR's in terms of sustainability is linked to the strength of partnerships and the consolidated national effort.	Ensure good working relationships with all stakeholders (GF, CCM, LFA, PR's and SR's).
			Severity	Moderate		Relationships measured by concrete communication and points of contact with specific outcomes.
			Risk Level	Medium

2. Financial & Fiduciary Risks
Ref	Risk name	Risk definition	Risk Cateogory	Rating	Explanation of ratings & most significant causes	Proposed prevention & mitigation actions
2.1	Low Absorptive Capacity or Over-commit ment	Possibility that funds budgeted by the GF cannot be used by PR or SRs due to (i) limited absorptive capacity, or (ii) commitments and/ or disbursements in excess of actual requirements (i.e. budget padding)	Likeli-hood	Likely	Low absorptive capacity anticipated in view of history of disbursements from the GF, as well as 2 months (December and January) of below-optimal activity. Severity rating tied to the consequences of performance rating with related decreased funding due to perceived low absorptive capacity.	PR to manage SR performance in terms of activities and expenditure with a view to accelerated implementation plans.
			Severity	Moderate		PR to actively engage with the GF, CCM, LFA and SR's to facilitate stability in disbursements.
			Risk Level	High
2.2	Poor Financial Efficiency	Possibility that GF funds are wasted due to poor management by PR or SRs, including for Pharmaceutical & Health Products	Likeli-hood	Highly Unlikely	Ratings tied to fair measure of confidence in existing controls and systems.	Sustain review and refinement of existing controls and systems.
			Severity	Moderate		SR's submit monthly financial reports coupled with quarterly OSDV's conducted by PR.
			Risk Level	Low
2.3	Fraud, Corruption, or Theft of GF funds	Possibility that GF funds (cash) are lost due to fraud, corruption, or theft within PR, SRs, other in-country partners or third parties	Likeli-hood	Highly Unlikely	Ratings tied to fair measure of confidence in existing controls and systems. Various levels of authorisation required to release payments.	Sustain review and refinement of existing controls and systems.
			Severity	Moderate		Various levels of authorisation required to release payments.
			Risk Level	Low		Payments are executed electronically.
2.4	Theft or Diversion of Non-financial Assets	Possibility that GF funded assets (non-cash) are lost due to theft or diversion by PR, SRs, other in-country partners or third parties	Likeli-hood	Highly Unlikely	Assets are centrally procured and registered as per asset register. Assets are stored in low-risk areas and checked on a timely basis as per asset.	Sustain review and refinement of existing controls and systems.
			Severity	Minor		Assets are centrally procured and registered as per asset register.
			Risk Level	Low		Assets are stored in low-risk areas and checked on a timely basis as per asset.
2.5	Financial Non-compliance	Possibility that GF funds or resources are not used by the PR and SRs for agreed purposes (as per grant agreement, local rules and regulations, etc.), such as transfers across grants or ineligible expenditures, but excluding fraud, corruption, theft or diversion	Likeli-hood	Unlikely	Ratings tied to fair measure of confidence in existing controls and systems.	Sustain review and refinement of existing controls and systems.
			Severity	Moderate		PR to continue with quarterly OSDV's as well as regular communication with SR's to ensure correct allocation of resources.
			Risk Level	Moderate
2.6	Market and Macro-economic Losses	Possibility of unanticipated financial losses due to foreign exchange, price, or other market changes, including for Pharmaceutical & Health Products	Likeli-hood	Likely	Foreign exchange gains/ losses are beyond the control of the PR.	Policy on foreign exchange to be reviewed by PR.
			Severity	Moderate		Foreign exchange gains/ losses to be absorbed and managed by PR.
			Risk Level	High
2.7	Poor Financial Reporting	Possibility that GF funds are not properly recorded, accounted for, or reported by PR or SRs	Likeli-hood	Likely	Number of SR's to be verified in terms of proper financial reporting creates risk. SR finance operations are managed by SR's.	SR financial reporting on a monthly basis to be sustained and refined.
			Severity	Moderate		Finance reporting is accompanied by detailed ledger and bank statement.
			Risk Level	High

3. Health Services & Health Products Quality Risks
Ref.	Risk name	Risk definition	Risk Category	Rating	Explanation of ratings & most significant causes	Proposed prevention & mitigation actions
3.1	Treatment Disruptions	Possibility of negative health outcomes for beneficiaries from treatment disruptions due to issues in the Procurement and Supply Management (PSM) cycle of pharmaceutical and health products (PHP)	Likeli-hood	Select	Not applicable.
			Severity	Select
			Risk Level	Unrated
3.2	Substandard Quality of Health Products	Possibility of providing pharmaceuticals and other health products to end-users that do not meet required minimum quality standards	Likeli-hood	Likely	Procurement chain from SR to end-user could compromise quality assurance of health products.	Application of TA to assess and strengthen the capacity of SR's to store and distribute health products.
			Severity	Moderate
			Risk Level	High
3.3	Poor Quality of Health Services & Use of Health Products	Possibility of poor prescriber and provider adherence to internationally recognized diagnosis, treatment and prevention guidelines, patient’s adherence to regimens, monitoring of adverse events, or other related of quality of health services and rational use of health products	Likeli-hood	Unlikely	Health products are limited to in-vitro diagnostic test devices and HCBC kits with limited adverse effects for end-user.	Ensure procurement of health products that adheres to quality standards.
			Severity	Moderate		Sustain training programme of health workers, counsellors and care givers.
			Risk Level	Medium
3.4	Poor Access and Promotion of Equity & Human Rights	Possibility of grant activities conflicting with or not adequately promoting access to health services, equity, and human rights for under-served and most-at-risk populations targeted in the proposal	Likeli-hood	Highly Unlikely	Programme aligned to facilitate access to the general population.	Nature of programme mitigates risk.
			Severity	Minor
			Risk Level	Low

4. Governance, Oversight & Management Risks
Ref.	Risk name	Risk definition	Risk Category	Rating	Explanation of ratings and most significant causes	Proposed prevention & mitigation actions
4.1	Inadequate CCM Governance & Oversight	Possibility that the CCM exhibits: unmitigated conflict(s) of interest; poor multi-stakeholder and constituency representation; weak organizational structure, policies and processes; inadequate leadership and quality of CCM secretariat staff; lack of transparency; ineffective PR selection, oversight or sanctions; or insufficient engagement and coordination with Programme stakeholders and partners	Likeli-hood	Likely	CCM still to be properly constituted with broad representation and required policies to facilitate governance and oversight role. CCM to sign off on Phase 2 Grant Proposal.	SANAC to facilitate proper constitution of CCM.
			Severity	Major		PR to lobby sector to facilitate constitution of CCM. Sector representatives are to be nominated via transparent process and communicated to SANAC.
			Risk Level	High
4.2	Inadequate PR Governance & Oversight	Possibility that the PR exhibits: unmitigated conflict(s) of interest; weak organizational structure; inadequate leadership or quality of senior staff; ineffective capacity building; inadequate audit, internal control, and risk management procedures and activities; ineffective SR selection, oversight or sanctions; inadequate MIS; or insufficient engagement and coordination with Programme entities and partners	Likeli-hood	Unlikely	PR has been exposed to LFA due diligence assessment, OIG diagnostic review, OIG forensic investigation, etc. in order to assess and strengthen governance and oversight.	Assessment and strengthening of PR governance and oversight mechanisms to be sustained as an on-going process.
			Severity	Moderate		Challenges to be clearly identified and communicated with all stakeholders.
			Risk Level	Medium
4.3	Inadequate PR Reporting & Compliance	Possibility that the PR exhibit delays and/or quality issues in regular reporting (PU/DR, EFR, PQR, Audit Reports, etc.) to the Secretariat, non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement, or failure to fulfil conditions precedent, special conditions, management actions and recommendations within prescribed deadlines	Likeli-hood	Likely	Interpretation of content required and quality issues related to PU/DR and EFR reporting are still being clarified with the LFA.	Pro-active communication with the LFA required in order to mitigate the occurrence of data presented and misinterpreted.
			Severity	Moderate		PR has provided training to SR's on the completion of reports (programme, finance, M&E).
			Risk Level	High		PR to liaise with GF on standard requirement for PU/DR submission with EFR, forecasting and commitments, as PU/DR is to be submitted within particular timeframe. It is risk when additional components are added without proper analysis of time/ resources required to complete additional components within same timeframe.
4.4	Inadequate Secretariat and LFA Management & Oversight	Possibility of delays and/or quality issues in Secretariat or LFA grant management and oversight activities, including failures to proactively identify and reasonably mitigate issues that materially impact attainment of grant and GF objectives	Likeli-hood	Likely	GF and LFA in period of transition with relatively new teams. Replacement of previous team members resulted in loss of institutional memory. This raises the risk of inadequate management and oversight.	GF and LFA to preserve institutional memory via succession planning.
			Severity	Major		GF to build on more country-specific approaches with awareness of contextual differences between countries.
			Risk Level	High		LFA tends to make first view a financial view. Lens of LFA to be broadened in order to view combination of programme, finance, PSM, M&E and governance.
4.5	Inadequate SR Governance & Oversight	Possibility that the SR exhibits: weak organizational structure; inadequate leadership or quality of senior staff; ineffective capacity building; inadequate audit, internal control, and risk management procedures and activities; inadequate MIS; or insufficient engagement and coordination with Programme entities	Likeli-hood	Likely	PR has assessed SR's for capacity (programme, finance, M&E, oversight) before signing of grant agreements with SR's. Certain SR's were also assessed by the OIG as part of the forensic investigation. Certain SR's lost key staff due to the delays in disbursements and this has introduced a risk.	Capacity-building of SR's is viewed as an on-going process that is executed via every point of contact, OSDV, and training sessions.
			Severity	Moderate		Gaps in capacity due to staff turnover are to be identified and addressed by means of support from the PR.
			Risk Level	High
4.6	Inadequate SR Reporting & Compliance	Possibility that the SR exhibit delays and/or quality issues in regular reporting to the PR, non-compliance with the terms and conditions of legal agreements, or failure to fulfil conditions and recommendations within prescribed deadlines	Likeli-hood	Likely	PR has assessed SR's for capacity (programme, finance, M&E, oversight) before signing of grant agreements with SR's. Certain SR's were also assessed by the OIG as part of the forensic investigation. Certain SR's lost key staff due to the delays in disbursements which introduced a risk.	Capacity-building of SR's is viewed as an on-going process that is executed via every point of contact, OSDV, and training sessions.
			Severity	Moderate		Gaps in capacity due to staff turnover is to be identified and addressed by means of support from the PR.
			Risk Level	High

5.1.3 Grant Performance Rating

Grant Performance Rating for the current Phase (Phase 1/ RCC Phase 1)

X

A1

A2

B1

B2

C