7414MED - Project Proposal Critique: Health Improvement in Africa

This document presents a comprehensive critique and evaluation report of two project proposals submitted in response to a Health Improvement call by Griffith UniBank. The proposals, focusing on Country X (addressing Ebola) and Country Y (addressing malnutrition and HIV/AIDS), are assessed based on criteria such as background relevance, project objectives, implementation arrangements, budget, monitoring and evaluation plan, and risk assessment. Each section of both proposals receives a score and detailed justification. Country X receives a score of 81/100, while Country Y scores 86/100. The report recommends funding both projects, highlighting their relevance to public health, sound objectives, well-reasoned methodologies, and overall strong structure, while also noting minor limitations in risk assessment and stakeholder engagement. The analysis underscores the importance of these projects in addressing critical health needs in the respective African countries and globally.

Project proposal critique and evaluation report: in response to Health Improvement call made by the Griffith UniBank
By: …………………………………. (Your name)
Please complete this overall critique and evaluation report following your individual proposal critique. Please provide a score for each section of
each plan, as well as comprehensive justification for each score using the statements provided as a guide. Please then make a clear
recommendation – 1, 2 or 3 with detailed justifications for your recommendation. You may recommend both are funded if justification supports
this.
Section Proposal for Country X Proposal for Country Y
Score Justification Score Justification
Background and relevance
 The proposed project aims to address a
clearly demonstrated public health need.
 The proposal is based on a comprehensive
situational analysis.
 The underlying causes of the public health
problem are identified.
 The target population are explicitly
identified and necessary background
provided by relevant and up to date
scientific knowledge
 The proposal highlights the ways in which
the proposed project is complimentary to
the existing country priorities and
initiatives.
13/1
5
 Project proposal has clearly
demonstrated the public health
need which is to contain Ebola
virus.
 Comprehensive situational analysis
have been executed thoroughly for
sector, country and institutional
context.
 Underlying causes Ebola have been
mentioned but not thoroughly
enough. Points have been deducted
for this reason
 Target population have been
identified explicitly whom are
mothers and children.
 Proposal also highlights how the
proposed project complimentary to
the country’s need.
12/1
5
 Proposal aims have clearly addresses
the public health need which is to
prevent malnutrition and HIV.
 Situational analysis have been executed
thoroughly for country, sector and
industrial context.
 Underlying cause for malnutrition is
not clearly mentioned. Points have
been deducted for this.
 Target population for HIV and AIDS
have not clearly mentioned. Points
have been deducted for this.
 Proposal goals are complimentary to
county’s priorities and initiatives as the
country’s initiative is also to lower the
HIV/AIDS infection rate.
Project objectives, design and beneficiaries,
 Outcomes clearly defined, realistic and
measurable.
 The goal of the project logically flows from
the problem.
 Programme logic of the proposed project is
clear.
22/2
5  Outcomes are well defined,
measurable and realistic in detailed
manner.
 Goal has been logically derived
from the flaws to handle the health
need.
22/2
5  Realistic, measurable and well defined
outcome have been determined for this
project.
 Problem oriented goal has been
selected to tackle the health need.
 Programme logic of the proposal is

 Proposed methods suggested for the project
are well described
 The proposal clearly articulates how the
proposed project addresses the health
problem.
 Programme logic is clear and well-
articulated and in accordance with
the health need.
 Suggested methods are well-
defined and clearly described.
 Does not clearly describes how the
proposal address the health, only
implied. Points have been deducted
for this reason.
interconnected between malnutrition
and HIV/AIDS.
 Proposed methods have been clearly
mentioned in detail.
 Proposal does not clearly emphasises
on how it would affect the health
problem. Points have been deducted
for this.
Engagement, implementation arrangements
and sustainability
 Organisational arrangements for
implementation are clearly described. The implementing organisations have
demonstrated sufficient knowledge and
experience to implement the project. Approaches to stakeholder engagement
and communication are outlined.
 The proposed project is informed by
project implementation knowledge. Considerations and plans for the
sustainability of the project are outlined.
11/1
5
 Implementation arrangements have
been outlined clearly with
organisational structure with the
previous lessons learned from
HIV/AIDS epidemic.
 PCU will hire relevant people with
technical knowledge and there will
also be a steering committee.
 No mention of stakeholder
engagement. Points have been
deducted for this reason.
 Project will be handled by
professionals with knowledge and
sustainability of the project have
been considered.
12/1
5
 Organisational arrangements for
implementation have been clearly
mentioned which will be handled by
DNHA and NAC.
 NAC have experience with handling
this kind of project and DNHA have
experience handling project although
they have not implemented in UniBank
project. Points have been deducted for
this.
 Project will be handled by experience
professionals and sustainability of the
project were also considered.
 No mention of stakeholder
engagements. Points have been
deducted for this.
Budget
 The budget is comprehensive and
accounts for all costs directly related to
the project.
 The budget has a clear justification.
 The budget adds up correctly.
 The budget accounts for the Monitoring
and Evaluation of the project.
 The budget clearly indicates any other
funding sources contributing to the
project outcomes.
9/10
 The budget is detailed and all the
costs are related to the budget
which is USD 15 million. Total cost
sums up correctly and has clear
justification for each category. The
budget also takes monitoring and
evaluation cost into account. No
clear mention whether there will be
any other funding source or not.
Points have been deducted due to
this reason.
8/10
 All cost of the budget are directly
related to project. This project proposal
will be co funded by GFATM and CIDA.
IDA financing portion will be USD 80
million. Clear mention of how the
funding will be divided between
parties. However, there is no allotment
for monitoring and evaluation of the
project. Points have been deducted
owing to this.

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
 It clearly describes the methods for the
M&E of the proposed project. Indicators are provided for M&E at all
levels of the hierarchy of the programme
logic which align with the SMART criteria It provides details for the M&E including
who will conduct the M&E, when, how
often, sources of data to be used, etc. It describes what will be done with the
results from the M&E.
20/2
5
 M&E methods have been described
clearly with detailed information in
table form.
 Indicators and levels of hierarchy
have been outlined clearly in the
proposal aligned with SMART
criteria.
 Detail mentioned of who, when and
how often the data will be collected.
 No planning or actions for the data
collected from M&E. Points have
been deducted because of this.
24/2
5
 Detailed methods for M&E have been
provided and handled by DNHA & NAC
for component A & B respectively.
 Levels of hierarchy and indicators have
been provided in detail in table format
which is in align with SMART criteria.
 Details have been provided in through
manner for who, when and how often
data will be collected.
 Plan for improvements have been
mentioned with the collected data.
Risk Assessment and management, including
environmental and social safeguards
 The proposal considers cross-cutting
issues such as gender, human rights, etc.
 Social and environmental considerations
are made, including the consideration of
vulnerable populations.
 Key risks to the proposed project are
clearly outlined
 Concrete plans to address key identified
risks (risk management) are provided.
6/10
 No proper plan or actions
mentioned to tackle human rights
situation that may arise. Although,
impact on gender has been
communicated. Points deducted
due to this reason.
 Environmental and social
considerations were made in the
proposal.
 Key risks have been clearly outlined
with substantial risk ratings.
 No action plan for risk management
in identified area. No points have
been given for this part.
8/10
 No action plan to handle issues like
gender and human rights. Points have
been deducted for this reason.
 Key risk areas have been assessed in
detail with overall moderate risk
ratings. Detailed risk ratings were also
provided for different category.
 The project will also consider social
accountability instruments to ensure
transparency.
 Project proposal has also provided with
measure to handle the key risk area.
Total Score 81/100 86/100
Recommendation(1, 2 or 3)
1- fund; 2 - reconsider if additional
information provided; 3- do not fund
1 1
Justification for recommendation
provided above. Consider the aspects of the
The proposal is well articulated,
structured and organised. The proposal
This proposal of country Y is well
organised, properly structured and well-

proposal assessed above in terms of their
inclusion/exclusion in the proposal, quality,
and logic/linkage.
Summarise the positive features and
limitations of each proposal in your
justification
has strong relevance for public health in
country X as well as in global health.
The objectives, reasoning, methodology
and linkage have been sound. Budget of
this proposal is proper and just. There
is a minor flaw in monitoring and
evaluation as the project does not
mentioned any plan for monitoring
data. Only limitation for this is risk
assessment. Risk has been assessed
correctly but not counter measures
have been provided.
Hence, this project proposal is
recommended for funding.
reasoned. The proposal is also very
relevant to public health as it deals with
mal nutrition and HIV/AIDS prevention.
The objectives, procedure and aim of this
proposal is well structured and very well-
reasoned. The project is a collaborative
project but clearly mentioned how the
money will be divided and handled. This
project proposal has got high score in
every evaluation criteria.
Therefore, this project proposal is
recommended for funding.

Summary of the assessment
The project proposal for both country X and country Y have been well structured, organised
and very much relevant to current health need of African population. Both project objectives
and goals are important to the respective country’s health need as well as global health. Both
project proposal have secured high evaluation score for their project proposal. Country X’s
evaluation score was 81 out of 100 while country Y’s evaluation score is 86 out of 100. Both
the proposal are very well structured, compact and organised in their aims, objectives, logical
reasoning and methodology. However, both the project has very little limitation and
weakness which, I believe, will not have significant effect in proper implementation of the
projects. Therefore, the recommendation for the projects as follows:
Recommendation for the project proposal of country X: Fund.
Recommendation for the project proposal of country Y: Fund.