DRAFT Proposal Summary
The Independent Resource Allocation Commission (IRAC) has developed a first draft of its report, which is now open for comment by the Federation.
Below is a summary of the report and you can also download the draft report in full.
The preliminary report includes:
- An assessment of our current approach to allocating resource in IPPF;
- A summary of the lessons learnt and experiences of similar organsations;
- The results of the Commission’s survey on resource allocation;
- A review of proposed principles for a future approach to resource allocation;
- An analysis of key design features;
- And finally, a recommended approach and its rationale.
The Commission is now seeking your response to the proposal prior to finalising its report and detailed recommendations for the Members Assembly that will convene at the end of November 2019
There are three ways to be heard.
- Download the preliminary report below and email us your views on IRAC@ippf.org
- Fill in our new and final survey for the reform here
- Write a comment in the box below
Proposal summary
Shrinking global funding and civil society space for sexual and reproductive health and rights means that IPPF must make its income work harder, in order to deliver its strategic goals. Unrestricted income can help do this, if it is spent wisely and effectively.
Through the IRAC consultations and the feedback we received from the survey, we understand that IPPF’s current resource allocation model is neither understood, respected or trusted.
With this in mind, the IRAC has sought to develop a new model that has additional value for the Federation. It will bring greater accountability so we can measure how effective investments to MAs are. In addition, it will be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to be relevant. This is part of the process of building the IPPF we want and need.
The model outlined below attempts to ensure that the limited unrestricted funds are put to their best possible use.
This approach is expected to bring new, significant benefits, including:
- MA-centricity: MAs are at the heart of the proposed resource allocation model, and building their capacity to ensure “no one is left behind” is a key element.
- A focus on core services – and MAs – that are “difficult to fund”, challenging environments and poor national health indicators; these will play a more prominent role in future approaches to resource allocation.
- A more comprehensive performance-based funding approach, with a wider range of key performance indicators that will measure services and a broader contribution to IPPF’s mission.
- Multi-year unrestricted grants, perhaps for 2-3 years, which will help MAs to plan more strategically: MAs can submit proposals for strategic activities.
- Funding for emergency preparedness and resilience, for which all MAs will be eligible; this will enable MAs to respond more rapidly to emerging crises.
- Transparency around resource allocations to the Secretariat, whose role as enablers of MAs will be clarified and strengthened.
Overview of Proposed Model
| Funding Streams | Stream 1: Core funding for MAs | Stream 2: Strategic Fund | Stream 3: Initial Emergency response | Stream 4: Core funding for Central Office (CO)/Regional Offices (ROs) |
| Funding definition | To cover core governance functions and support the accelerated response. Focus on “difficult to fund” activities. | To support innovative/higher risk approaches which have the potential to create a step-change. Emphasis will be on developing new models which have wide replicability. There will also be a strong evaluation component | Funding to allow initial short-term response to emergency situations (with restricted funds expected to cover the full response). Intended to operate as a revolving fund | As Stream 1 for CO/RO |
| Eligibility (and co-financing arrangements) | Available to MAs in low income and lower middle-income countries | All MAs are eligible. Upper middle income and high-income countries are expected to co-finance the proposals | All MAs. Upper middle income and high-income countries should replenish the fund from own resources. | |
| Strategy and policy decision by | Board to approve allocations between the 4 funding streams | |||
| Board approves allocation formula. | Board approves guidelines for Fund | Board approves guidelines/process for declaring emergency | Board approves allocation | |
| Allocation of funding decision | Responsibility of the Secretariat/RO has some discretion to propose modifications in MA allocations – Director General approves | Responsibility of the Secretariat in consultation with independent experts – Director General | Responsibility of the Secretariat in consultation with Regional Directors – Director General approves | Responsibility of the Secretariat/RO – Director General approves |
| Recommended model for allocation | Formula based for the MAs (largely driven by unmet needs with scope for regional modifications according to agreed criteria). Modified approach to performance based funding | Proposal based. Guidelines will be developed to identify objectives, set funding ceilings, co-financing arrangements etc) | Case by case | Role based for the ROs/ COs |
| Accountability arrangements | Reporting against MA 3-year work plan / proposal | Progress against key milestones/indicators set out in project proposals | To be agreed | Reporting against CO/ROs 3-year work plan/ proposal |
| Timeframe | 3 years | Generally, 1-2 years | Case by case | 3 years |
| Transition plan | Elements of the new approach will be introduced from 2021. An independent review in 2022 will inform the design for full implementation in 2023 | |||
| 2020: prepare guidelines/formula 2021 and 2022: initial introduction of a formula-based approach (2 year cycle) 2023-2026: full introduction of 3-year cycle (aligned with next Strategic Framework) | 2020: preparation of guidelines – learning lessons from other organisations 2021: full implementation | |||
The resource allocation model is quite impressive and holds people more accountable for results to increase effectiveness and efficiency in program implementation.
La asignación de fondos, no permite el acceso a mujeres y niñas de nuestra región a minimizar las iniquidades y la desigualdades , es bien sabido que en países de renta media y alta, también viven un gran número de población pobre que no tiene acceso a salud y hay políticas publicas deficientes. Con esa propuesta de distribución de fondos nos sacan de forma directa de la IPPF y ademas no mide efectivamente el desempeño de las AM
I’m writing on this topic these days, totosite, but I have stopped writing because there is no reference material. Then I accidentally found your article. I can refer to a variety of materials, so I think the work I was preparing will work! Thank you for your efforts.
Dear immortals, I need some wow gold inspiration to create.