Periodic Review ccm request template

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).

NRASD performance on key programmatic indicators in the Work plan Budget for the period 1 October 2010 - 31 December 2012 should be assessed with cognisance to a number of factors which have been listed above and include: the loss in funds due to an exchange rate loss and the disruption in disbursements after the OIG Diagnostic Review report.

These factors had a direct effect on the burn rate (funds expensed as a percentage of funds disbursed) of the NRASD as 68% of grant funds budgeted for Quarters 1-8 of the programme were only received during Quarter 7 and Quarter 8 of the programme.

NRASD performance on key programmatic indicators in the Performance Framework for the period 1 October 2010 - 31 December 2012 as described in the section above reflects an achievement of more than 100% on all the indicators. This together with the ability to keep programmes going in the absence of regular disbursements shows the commitment and capability brought about by our numerous partnerships.

5.2 Financial Performance

5.2.1 Financial situation at cut-off date

Table 40: Cash at cut-off date NRASD



Have all liabilities at cut-off date been taken into account in the post-cut-off date budget? Yes

All liabilities have been taken into account. The NRASD has a Costed Extension for the current period (1 October 2012 - 31 March 2013) of which no funding has been disbursed yet from the Global fund. The NRASD is also in the process of having a further Costed Extension signed off for the period (1 April 2013 - 30 September 2013).

5.2.2 Analysis of expenditures versus budget

With reference to the latest available EFR at cut-off date, please summarize the main reasons for any under-spending or over-spending against budget.

Analysis of expenditure versus the budget reflects the following:

• 
  Cost Category health products and equipment, procurement of VCT and HBC kits: one of the areas where considerable savings were obtained. The VCT test kits were procured at half of the budget price.
  
• 
  Cost category of living support: responsible spending due to the lack of funds had led to this cost category lagging in terms of the budget. The two main items under this category that are lagging is the provision of material support and nutritional support to OVC’s. Five of our SR’s have activities in this SDA and it constitutes approximately 17% of our total grant budget. SR’s tended to keep these funds during times of cash flow constraints as this line item is capital intensive.
  
• 
  Cost category of monitoring and evaluation: overall spending by the SR’s was not significant. The reason for this is typical budget programming of these budget lines. The SR’s, due to nature of their programmes, when visiting sites would have performed two or three activities when they visited sites and the cost for the M&E would be apportioned or would not be allocated to the M&E budget line, but to one of the other activity lines.
  
• 
  Cost category of “other: community outreach and advocacy”, major underspends occurred. This was contributed to by the standard costing being applied for these activities. SR’s that operated within this SDA had significant savings due to actual costing that is significantly different to the budgeted costing. Huge saving is also a direct result of the start-stop nature of the grant where SR’s had to resort to implementing in areas that were closer (spatially) to them to reach targets even though initial planning was different.
  
• 
  The PR's underspend can mainly be attributed to the cash flow problems where the PR provided bridging finance to the SR’s during cash flow problems.
  
• 
  All SR’s are lagging behind on the burn rate of their programme activities due to the funds expensed by NRASD in relation to funds received by the Global Fund.
  

Please comment on whether the overall % expenditure versus budget variance at the cut-off date is in line with the average % achievement against all indicators in the performance framework. If not, please explain the reasons.

Although there was significant under-expenditure due to delays in disbursements plus an exchange rate loss, we were still able to meet all the targets. This was due to the fact that the PR and SRs were able to re-allocate funds in the short term to be able to deal with the cash flow shortages. Where this was not possible, the programmes were scaled down in a way that would allow easy scale up once funds started flowing again.

We have planned for and are making a strenuous attempt to catch up on expenditure now that funds are flowing again.

SECTION 6: CCM REQUEST FOR RENEWAL (PR 4 - NRASD)
6.1 Programmatic Proposal
6.1.1 Programme Objectives, SDAs, Indicators and Targets

Table 41: Performance Framework NRASD

Objective & Indicator Number	Service Delivery Area	Output/coverage indicator	Latest available baseline/result				Targets
							Period 1		Period 2		Period 3		Period 4		Period 5
			N #	%	Year	Source	1-Oct-13		1-Apr-14		1-Oct-14		1-Apr-15		1-Oct-15
			D #				31-Mar-14		30-Sep-14		31-Mar-15		30-Sep-15		31-Mar-16
OBJ 1: OPI02	OVC care and support	Number and percentage of OVC that received services and received an HIV test and know the results	TBD		2013	PR Results	720	10.0%	1 440	20.0%	2 160	30.0%	2 880	40.0%	3 600	50.0%
							7 200		7 200		7 200		7 200		7 200
OBJ 1: OPI03	OVC care and support	Number and percentage of OVC aged 0–17 years whose households received free basic external support in caring for the child		TBD	2012	PR Results	7 200	1.2%	7 200	1.2%	7 200	1.2%	7 200	1.2%	7 200	1.2%
							603 660		603 660		603 660		603 660		603 660
OBJ 2: OPI04	Prevention -Low socio-economic	Number and percentage of key populations (Low socio-economic) reached with HIV prevention combination package	TBD		2013	PR Results	77 450	2.2%	154 900	4.4%	232 350	6.6%	309 800	8.8%	387 250	11.0%
							3 530 908		3 530 908		3 530 908		3 530 908		3 530 908
OBJ 2: OPI05	Prevention - Low socio-economic	Number and percentage of key populations (Low socio-economic) who received an HIV test in the last 12 months & know their test results	TBD		2013	PR Results	24 215	31.3%	48 430	31.3%	72 645	31.3%	96 860	31.3%	121 075	31.3%
							77 450		154 900		232 350		309 800		387 250
OBJ 3: OPI09	Care and support for chronically ill	Number of active ART support groups established for key populations	TBD		2103	PR Results	276	NA	276	NA	276	NA	276	NA	276	NA
							NA		NA		NA		NA		NA
OBJ 3: OPI09	Care and support for chronically ill	Number of people living with HIV/TB reached with adherence sessions	TBD		2013	PR Results	5 520	0.3%	5 520	0.3%	5 520	0.3%	5 520	0.3%	5 520	0.3%
							1 589 575		1 589 575		1 589 575		1 589 575		1 589 575

The detail on the Objectives, SDAs and Activities can be found as the NRASD Annex 1 called Description of Activities– NRASD. During the development of the Performance Framework all indicators and targets were aligned with the NSP, other national programme strategies, plans and systems.

The NRASD Performance Framework, NRASD Annex 2, is attached and the alignment of indicators and targets with the national programme strategy, plans and systems is illustrated in the Table below:

Key M&E systems strengthening activities:

In line with SDA 4.1, Activity 4.1.3: to provide support to PR and SR’s for effective programme monitoring and evaluation including regular on-site data verifications and rapid services quality assessments, continuous mentoring and workshops are planned for the PR with the SR and for each SR with implementing sites over the programme term.

The NRASD will be implementing the Department of Social Development’s Community-Based Intervention Monitoring System (CBIMS) with the SR’s that support HBC and OVC activities to ensure that data is recorded in accordance with national standards at beneficiary level.

For further detail, please refer to the NRASD M&E Plan, NRASD Annex 3.

6.1.2 Pharmaceutical and Health Product Management (if applicable)