PARTNERS’ WORKSHOP 1 OUTPUT

Areas of concern: Project Development

Good practice

• NGOs and POs are tapping experts in project development and those NGO and PO doesn’t have knowledge should tap experts either from academe and non-

academe experts

• Existing project formats and guidelines and grant guidelines

• Orientation of POs and NGOs on grant guidelines and guidelines

• Process allows dialogue and discussions (i.e. budget etc.)

Need improvement

• Open minded in assessing project and opposed to messiahnic complex and too

much pride

• Make it three years in approval and not 1 year

• Assist POs and NGOs in developing project proposals

Areas of concern: Project Development

Need to start

• Assist/Link/Provide partners need in best practice (i.e. link with FPE partners

institutions)

• Require POs and NGOs to include experts (non-EAP) from the academic as

member of their research team to have quality research

Need to stop

• Approved project proposal with unsound methodology and not involving EAP

in project development

• No reasons have been communicated to partner(s) why the project was

disapproved

• Delayed communications on the status of the project

Areas of concern: Monitoring and Evaluation

Need improvement

• Gawing 6 months ang reporting and not 3 months

• Monitoring and evaluation should be done 2x a year

• Mentors involved in M&E should do it more frequently-every month

Need to start

• Standardize the indicators

• Hire additional project development staff that should be different from person

doing the M&E

• Project partners need FPE to visit, check their implementation from time to

time; mentoring is crucial to POs but hindered by lack of staff

• The EAP assisting the NGO in project development should also do the M&E in

tandem with FPE staff to check if the project is properly implemented

• Mentoring and technical assistance tapping EAP members

• Identify areas of expertise that can be shared

• Develop mechanisms in mentoring and the provision of technical assistance

Areas of concern: Reportorial Requirements

Good practice

• The simplified chart matrix for reporting is fine/ okay

• Less paper requirements, start accepting e-copy of reports as basis for

assessment and processing for the next tranche

Areas of concern: Financial Matters

Good practice

• Orientation before the project starts and mentoring/ coaching during the

project implementation

• Faster processing of projects tranche, friendly accommodating finance staff

Need improvement

• The 10 per cent retention is too much1

Areas of concern: Mentoring and technical assistance

Good practice

• Open communication and transparency

• Being realistic and practical balancing goals and knowing the limitations at the

same time

• Being open for improvement

Need improvement

• Use power of technology and animation. This will leverage the effort pf the

project development unit group in mentoring indigenous people of the

standard how to’s of the things they need to learn: a lecture program that

can be replicated not just by the indigenous people but also students and

young professionals for general awareness

General Recommendations:

• Fund releasing every six months

• Explore partnerships with government through MOU/MOA defining roles of

the agency and FPE in terms of mentoring and technical assistance on

scientific area of expertise; and conduct of joint activities such as conferences,

forum/advocacy undertakings

• More publication from research grants

• Pursue partnerships with funding agencies who are into social enterprise

• Shorten the query channel partners and members of the organization can

contact each other more easily like a Facebook/ email group account where

everyone can talk/discus urgent and updated ideas/questions with each other.

Not every 2 years-faster communications

• Upon submission of report release of retention tranche

General Recommendations:

• Assist partners in assessing funding windows for social enterprise

• Review counter-parting requirements in grants

• Cumulative scoring system in project evaluation must be modified/stopped use tiers of graduated/ hierarchal criteria • Higher cap on funding