Evaluation Criteria

 PTF makes small grants (to date only up to $25,000), it relies on desk reviews of project proposals from civil society organizations (CSOs), supplemented by references and, when feasible and convenient, by meetings between CSO representatives and PTF members or representatives of international organization.

When deciding whether and on what conditions to make a grant, the starting point for PTF is to evaluate whether the project, if properly implemented, would contribute in a direct and significant way to reducing or preventing corruption.  Other factors that are taken into consideration include whether (a) the project is innovative and could therefore serve as a model, domestically and/or internationally, (b) there are important lessons that might be learned, and (c) implementing the project would help strengthen the CSO's capacity to carry out anti-corruption work


The next consideration is whether the project meets the other PTF criteria:

1. It must be time bound (normally no more than a year), with a specific, monitorable outcome at the end.  PTF does not finance recurrent expenditures or projects limited to training or other institution-building activities that would affect corruption only indirectly.

   
   

2. There must be some interaction with and support from a public agency, so that there is a reasonable prospect that the project will have an impact on the performance of the public sector.  PTF normally asks for documentation of the agreement between the CSO and the agency(ies) concerned.  PTF does not finance activities such as legal or journalistic investigations of into alleged  specific instances of corruption - instead the aim is to strengthen the institutional mechanisms for curbing corruption.

   
   

3. There must be a reason why an independent source of finance, such as the PTF, is needed, rather than funds from the Government or from a bilateral donor.  The rationale is normally the need for the CSO to retain its independence from the Government, and the potential political disadvantages of having a bilateral donor associated with the project.

The third area of examination is the institutional capability to implement the project.  This is a serious constraint in many cases, as CSOs in developing and transition countries tend to be relatively new, small and under-funded.  Background information on the CSO is a necessary part of the project proposal.  PTF normally pays particular attention to the CSO's experience in implementing other externally funded projects, and contacts the bilateral or multilateral donor agencies or foundations directly to get their assessments of the CSO's performance.  In addition, PTF asks for the resume of the local or international project director or "partner", to be sure that he or she has the requisite qualifications, or, if the person has not yet been selected, for the TORs, qualifications and selection process.

 

Once PTF is satisfied in these respects, it examines the remainder of the project proposal to see whether it is satisfactory, or needs any modifications.  Questions are frequently asked about the budget, both in terms of the justification for the inclusion or size of particular items, and in terms of whether all necessary costs have been covered.  PTF expects some counterpart contribution, in cash and/or in kind (e.g. administrative support by the CSO, in terms of staff time, access to office technology etc.).  PTF considers whether the implementation plan appears to be realistic, and whether key activities such as dissemination of results have been adequately planned for.  Project proposals are often modified based on the subsequent communications between PTF and the CSO. An important contribution PTF offers is the technical advice of project team members who have had considerable practical experience.


 The final step in project evaluation is drafting a grant agreement and sending it to the CSO for comment/concurrence.  In addition to spelling out the project scope and objective, the grant agreement includes the reporting and accounting requirements, and the disbursement conditions.  The CSO is expected to keep a special project account, which would be certified by the CSO financial management and subjected to the CSO's normal auditing requirements.  Any unused funds are to be returned to PTF.  The project proposal and subsequent revisions or clarifications (often in the form of E-mails) are appended to the grant agreement.


To limit the wastage of funds on projects not being implemented satisfactorily, while at the same time not imposing excessive bureaucratic burdens on either the CSO's or itself, PTF normally disburses in two tranches - the first upon signing of the grant agreement, and the second when some benchmark has been reached.  The tranches may or may not be of equal size, depending upon the requirements of the project.


The CSO receiving a grant from PTF is expected to provide brief quaterly reports assessing progress and reporting any difficulties encountered in project execution. At the end of the project, PTF expects the beneficiary CSO to prepare a full report on what the project has achieved, what the impact on corruption has been, and on its sustainability and replicability. Subsequent to project closing, PTF undertakes, wherever feasible at minimal cost (generally using experienced volunteers who are visiting the country for another reason), an ex-post assessment of the project implementation and results.