Evaluation of Project Proposals

In evaluating the project proposals it receives, PTF follows the eligibility criteria and application process described in the "How to apply for a grant" section of this website. Normally, PTF relies on desk reviews of project proposals from civil society organizations (CSOs), supplemented by references and, when feasible, by meetings between CSO representatives and PTF advisers.

It is expected that in the process of project evaluation, PTF advisers will work with the applicant to help in strengthening project design and that this process may require a number of iterations and be spread over several months. This may include encouraging the applicant to undertake a more thorough analysis of the corruption problem to be addressed and more discussion among stakeholders as to the best approach to take.

The starting point for PTF is to evaluate whether the project falls within PTF`s mandate. Towards this end, PTF will evaluate whether, if properly implemented, the project would contribute in a direct and significant way to reducing or preventing corruption in a sustained manner. PTF will review whether the corruption problem to be addressed is well analyzed and whether the project is expected to lead to `systemic changes` that can be expected to continue after the project has been completed.

Second, PTF seeks to finance projects that would normally not be financed by traditional donors or governments. Often the CSO wishes to retain its independence from the government and for bilateral or multilateral donors the project may be too small or too politically sensitive.

Third, CSOs must be genuinely independent of government and its agencies.

Once these basic criteria have been satisfied, PTF will evaluate project proposals along the following four dimensions:

1. Quality of project design

In assessing the quality of project design, PTF will consider questions, such as:

• Is the project innovative and could it serve as a model, domestically and elsewhere?

• Will it strengthen the capacity of the applying CSO to carry out anti-corruption work?

• Has the CSO consulted with a wide range of stakeholders in designing the project?

• Is there a well-defined implementation plan (action plan) which clearly sets out what is to be done, when and by whom, with a clear timeline?

• Is the project well-focused to address well-analyzed corruption problems? Is there a clear set of recommendations to address these problems? Is there provision to discuss the recommendations with concerned stakeholders including the relevant public officials? Are there appropriate follow-up actions?

• Is there a logframe?

• Is the project time-bound (normally no more than a year), with a specific, monitorable outcome at the end? Is the implementation plan realistic, and are key activities such as dissemination of results adequately planned for?

• Is the budget realistic? Are all budget items well justified? Have all necessary costs been covered? If staff are to be hired, are salaries/fees appropriate to the local economy and are conflicts of interest avoided?
  

2. Institutional capacity

An important area of examination is the institutional capability of the applying CSO 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. PTF pays particular attention to the CSO`s experience in implementing and may contact the referees given, or in-country staff of bilateral or multilateral donor agencies or foundations to get their assessments of the CSO`s capability.

Other questions to assess institutional capacity include:

• Does the CSO have enough staff with the right skills mix to manage the project? If not, has it brought in other CSOs or individuals to compensate for this?

• Does the CSO have past experience with similar projects and in similar geographic areas? Does it have a track record that demonstrates its honesty and reliability? PTF normally relies on 2-3 independent referees, preferably from previous funders.

• Will the CSO make a 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.)? A contribution of at least 5% is desirable though well justified exceptions may be made.

3. Constructive engagement with public sector

The project must provide for adequate interaction with and support from a public agency, or influential public official or political leader, so that there is a reasonable prospect that the project`s recommendations will be properly implemented and 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.

Other questions may include:

• Does engagement with government counterparts happen at an early enough stage to enable constructive criticism and facilitation?

• Does the work assist the government to improve their functioning or change their attitude?
  

4. Sustainability and replicability

In assessing a project`s expected impact, PTF also forms a view as to whether the project`s achievements are likely to be sustained following project completion. Questions that will arise in this context include:

• Will the project lead to `systemic changes`, i.e. changes in the way a public sector agency works and/or in the attitudes of its staff?

• How intensive are other stakeholders (including possibly the local community) engaged in the implementation of the project?

• To what extent does the applying CSO use its own resources for the project? Is there a contribution from the community towards the project?

• Would the project develop tools or approaches that may be replicated elsewhere either in the same country or in another country?
  

Subsequent to project closing, PTF undertakes, wherever feasible at an acceptable cost, an ex-post assessment of project implementation and results. For this purpose, PTF generally uses experienced advisers or volunteers who are visiting the country for another reason.