INFORMATION NOTE First Call for Proposals – Review Process and Outcomes Introduction In July 2016 the nascent Global Fund to End Violence Against Children issued its first call for proposals for projects that focus on preventing online child sexual abuse and exploitation (online CSEA). By December 2017 all the legal and administrative details were resolved so that the proposal review process could be launched. The review panel (Roster of Experts) was convened in January 2017 and the Fund Steering Committee met in February to consider the panel’s recommendations. This information note outlines the outcomes of the review and decisions by the Fund Steering Committee. It is organized as follows: Introduction 1. Criteria and methodology for selection of Expert Review Panel 2. Proposal Screening, Review and Ranking Process 3. Funding Decisions by the Fund Steering Committee ANNEX: Analysis of proposal outcomes

1. Criteria and methodology for selection of Expert Review Panel A total of 37 individuals applied for membership on the Fund Roster of Experts. The Fund Unit reviewed the 37 applications of the applications to identify those candidates who best met the selection criteria (see below). Shortlisted candidates were assessed against the selection criteria – not against each other using a double-blind review method for consistency and fairness. The Fund Unit also sought diversity in expertise, geography, experience, and language skills. Applicants were also screened to determine any potential or perceived conflicts of interest; these were managed during the review process. Roster of Experts Selection Criteria o Minimum ten years of relevant and recent work experience. o Expert knowledge of “on-line” violence, with a particular focus on sexual exploitation. o Experience in one or more of the following areas: prevention of violence against children; policy and governance; criminal justice and victim support; social welfare; industry engagement; child safeguarding; and finance and budgeting. o Knowledge of latest scientific evidence, guidance and/or research on violence against children. o Proven experience in reviewing grant applications or programs in a national or international context. o Experience in program management including the design, implementation, or monitoring and evaluation of child violence programs in a developing country context. Ten qualified individuals were identified to participate in the January 2017 review session, comprising the ‘Expert Review Panel’ (the ‘panel’).

First Call for Proposals – Process & Outcomes • • •

INFORMATION NOTE

Six women and four men Geographic spread: Europe (7), South Africa (1), Brazil (1), Uganda (1) Diverse backgrounds and knowledge: o Most have substantial online child protection programme experience o Several have significant project evaluation experience o Several have industry backgrounds or significant dealings with online companies

2. Screening, Review and Ranking Process In order to protect the integrity of the process, the Fund Unit and reviewers used only the material included in applications to assess applicants’ program quality, and they did not conduct any background checks on the applicants or their projects. Furthermore, they made every effort to disallow personal prior knowledge and experience from their individual assessments and group deliberations. The process used to screen, review and rank proposals is depicted in Graphic 1. Notes on the process are provided below. Graphic 1: Fund Proposal Screening, Review and Ranking Process

1- Fund Unit screens proposals for eligibility; assigns eligible proposals to review pairs A total of 237 proposals were submitted to the Fund’s online portal by the 4 September 2016 deadline (an additional 29 proposals were received after the deadline or were incomplete). Fund Unit staff determined eligibility by assessing applications against the Essential Criteria (see Box 1 on next page), identifying 95 eligible proposals. Reviewers were paired (‘review pairs’) and assigned proposals based on area of expertise, language and geographical experience and reported conflict of interest. 2- Independent review of eligible proposals An online portal was established allowing reviewers to independently read review and score each submission based on the ‘Review Criteria’ established by the Fund’s Steering Committee, shown in Box 2. 3- & 4- Review pairs identify strongest proposals At the start of the in-person review, each review pair met to discuss the proposals they had reviewed and identify the strongest proposals. The resulting 26 shortlisted proposals were Global Fund to End Violence Against Children – 24 March 2017

-2-

First Call for Proposals – Process & Outcomes

INFORMATION NOTE

discussed in plenary by the full panel. Box 1: Essential Criteria One-Country Proposals The country of operation must have: Signed the UNCRC Optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography 2. Signed up to the WePROTECT Statements of Action or be able to signal strong intent to do so, with signup secured before funds are disbursed. 3. Completed or committed to carrying out a national assessment in line with WePROTECT Model National Response 4. Clear commitment to evidence programme outcomes in line with the WePROTECT Model National Response For civil society organizations only: 5. Been active for at least 3 years 6. Previous auditing records 7. A reference from one previous donor 1.

Transnational Proposals The organization must have: A demonstrable track record of successfully delivering activity to prevent and tackle online child sexual exploitation regionally and internationally 2. Signed up to the WePROTECT Statements of Action or be able to signal strong intent to do so, with sign-up secured before funds are disbursed 3. Proposed activity to enhance regional and international capacity to develop at least one of the capabilities within the WePROTECT Model National Response 4. Clearly demonstrated how activity will coordinate with other partners already developing capacity in the proposed capability For regional proposals only: 5. Clearly demonstrated how the activity will enhance any existing nation state programmes in region, and, where possible, have support of those nation states’ government champions 1.

Box 2: Proposal Review Criteria 1. Contextual challenges and the need to intervene – Proposals should be grounded in rigorous and documented evidence, clearly outlining the need for action at the national, sub-national or transnational level. 2. Coordination at the national or transnational level - Coordination between key actors at the national or transnational level is key to delivery of effective OCSE programming. 3. Likelihood of impact and results - In this category the reviewer made a judgment of the overall probability of successful delivery of the program and the chance that the predicted impact and results will be realised. With this in mind, the reviewer will identify whether there is a wellarticulated monitoring and evaluation plan and whether the program is likely to deliver value for money. 4. Alignment with WePROTECT– Proposals should recognize the WePROTECT Model National Response and demonstrate alignment with its interventions.

5- Group decision on weighted criteria Based on the discussion of all 26 shortlisted proposals, the panel as a group developed a weighted scoring methodology to prioritize proposals with the greatest chance for success. Only published information provided to applicants in the call for proposals was used to develop these weighted criteria, to ensure that applications were fairly assessed by metrics known to applicants. See Box 3 for an explanation of the weighted scoring methodology agreed by the review panel. 6- & 7- Review pair scoring of proposals using weighted criteria Each review pair met separately to revisit their respective proposals and agree on scores based on the agreed weighted criteria. This generated a ranked list of the 26 proposals.

Global Fund to End Violence Against Children – 24 March 2017

-3-

First Call for Proposals – Process & Outcomes

INFORMATION NOTE

Box 3: Weighted criteria for overall proposal ranking Main category weighting Context and need – 50% Most proposals included satisfactory information about context, but data were thin. The panel felt that the lack of existing data in the field should not count against applicants so this category was weighted lower than others. Impact and Results – 100% The panel agreed that those projects with the greatest chance for impact and results should be prioritized, especially in this first funding round. Therefore this category was given full weight.

Coordination – 75% The panel agreed that strong and wide coordination is critical for impact, which was stressed in application materials. Therefore this category was given substantial weight.

Sub-category weighting Relevance – 35% Need – 65% Most proposals adequately demonstrated the overall relevance of the project in the context of the implementation area. Proposals were uneven in their explanation of why a particular approach was most appropriate, so ‘need’ was weighted higher. Quality of approach/methodology – 35% Implementation plan – 35% The approach and plan were most critical considerations in this category, so these were given most weight. Risk assessment and mitigation strategy – 20% Application materials did not provide clarity on the kind of information requested under ‘risk’ so this was given less weight. Organizational capacity – 10% Applicants that did not follow word count limits included more relevant information on this topic. To avoid punishing rule-abiding applicants, the panel weighted this criterion lower. Key partners – 50% Mechanism for coordination – 50% Reviewers considered that applicants should have a mechanism, or a plan for one, to coordinate with partners. Information on this was not specifically requested in the applications, so reviewers gave equal weighting to both factors.

WeProtect Alignment – 0% All proposals that reached this stage of the review process were well aligned with the WeProtect Model National Response so the panel decided that scoring this category would not aid the ranking process. Budget – 75% Appropriateness – 70% Budget was not one of the four main Value for money – 30% categories, but the panel felt it should The panel considered budget ‘appropriateness’ - whether receive a unique score with substantial the budget was consistent with the project’s aims and weighting. Since ‘value for money’ was activities – a valuable metric. Given the difficulty in included under ‘Impact and Results’, the assessing value for money in contexts where local costs panel agreed that applicants were (labour, supplies) are not known, this criterion received less adequately informed of this metric. weighting. Monitoring & Evaluation – 75% No sub-categories M&E was not one of the four main Most proposals fell short on information provided about categories but the panel felt it is a critical monitoring plans; few proposals mentioned plans for component of successful programmes. evaluation and learning. Therefore the panel decided to give Since ‘monitoring & evaluation’ plans were a single score for both monitoring and evaluation. The requested under ‘Impact and Results’, the existence of an evaluation plan was captured in an overall panel agreed that applicants were higher score in this category. adequately informed of this metric.

3. Funding Decisions The Fund Steering Committee reviewed the shortlist of the 26 strongest proposals. Given the Fund’s financial envelope for this funding round (US$10 million), the Steering Committee

Global Fund to End Violence Against Children – 24 March 2017

-4-

First Call for Proposals – Process & Outcomes

INFORMATION NOTE

decided to fund the top 15 projects that together reached the ceiling of available funding. See Box 4 for a list of approved projects. The Steering Committee reached this decision based on the objective and rigorous review process outlined above. Furthermore, the Committee agreed that projects included in this funding round would accelerate progress – and generate evidence and learning – in Latin America and Southeast Asia, regions that have significant challenges, and opportunities. The Steering Committee was also satisfied that a number of applicants which had received funding for online work in 2015-16 – in particular those in Albania, Jordan, Namibia and Uganda – met the criteria for continuation. At the same time, the Steering Committee noted the underrepresentation in other regions such as Middle East and North Africa, Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa. Further, the Committee was concerned about the lack of transnational and research-focused projects in this funding round, given the cross-border nature of online CSEA, and need for more data and evidence on the problem and potential solutions. These issues will be considered as the Steering Committee considers the parameters for its Second Call for Proposals which will likely be announced before the end of June 2017. Box 4: List of projects approved for funding in the first round Organization

Type

1 Capital Humano y Social - CHS Alternativo

CSO

2 ChildFund Australia

CSO

3 Corporación Colombiana de Padres y Madres- Red PaPaz4 International Justice Mission 5 Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) 6 Oficina de defensoria de los derechos de la infancia a.c.

CSO CSO CSO CSO

7 PANIAMOR Foundation

CSO

8 Plan International UK

CSO

9 Save the Children Sweden

CSO

10 South Asia Initiative to End Violence Against Children – SAIEVAC

CSO

11 UNICEF Albania

UN

12 UNICEF Regional Office East Asia/ Pacific

UN

13 UNICEF Jordan

UN

14 UNICEF Namibia

UN

Project Title “Colaboración intersectorial e interdisciplinario para prevenir y responder a la realidad de la ESNNA en línea en Perú” Swipe Safe: Helping Young People Make the Most of the Online World Fortalecimiento de capacidades para la protección de la niñez frente a la explotación sexual en línea en Colombia Ending online sexual exploitation of children in Cebu, Philippines IWF Reporting Portal Project for 30 Least Developed Countries Effective legal representation of child victims of online sexual exploitation Costa Rica says NO to online child sexual exploitation and abuse Cyber-Safe Spaces for Children and Youth in the cities of Manila and Quezon City Combatiendo la explotación y el abuso sexual contra niños, niñas y adolescentes en entonos virtuales del Perú Strategic Response to Online Child Sexual Exploitation (OCSE) Safer and Better Internet for Children and Youth in Albania Strengthening regional commitment and collaboration to end online CSEA in East Asia and the Pacific Targeting online sexual exploitation of children in Jordan End Violence - Tackling Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Namibia

Global Fund to End Violence Against Children – 24 March 2017

Location Peru Vietnam Colombia Philippines Multiple–Asia & Africa Mexico Costa Rica Philippines Peru

Multiple–Asia Albania Multiple–Asia Jordan Namibia

-5-

First Call for Proposals – Process & Outcomes

INFORMATION NOTE

Box 4: List of projects approved for funding in the first round Organization 15 UNICEF Uganda

Type UN

Project Title Children in Uganda are Safe Online

Global Fund to End Violence Against Children – 24 March 2017

Location Uganda

-6-

First Call for Proposals – Process & Outcomes

INFORMATION NOTE -- ANNEX

ANNEX -- Analysis of proposal outcomes Type of proposal

Type of applicant

Regional breakdown

Global Fund to End Violence Against Children – 24 March 2017

-7-