2
Submitted July 22, 2008 
A. Strategic Objectives and Intermediate Results
1. What progress has the project made toward accomplishing its 
 results and expected end-of-project status? 
What progress has GHFP made toward achieving project 
intermediate results? (B1) 
The Strategic Objectives of GHFP are 1) to enhance the health sector cadre 
worldwide and 2) to strengthen staff capacity to lead and manage. During the 
course of the first two years of the program, GHFP has made significant progress 
toward both Strategic Objectives. 
SO #1 Enhancing health sector cadre worldwide
GHFP focuses on three Intermediate Results (IR) in SO#1 to achieve a 
continuous enhancement of the health sector cadre throughout the world. 
These IRs are: 1) Health professionals are recruited, developed, and supported, 
2) GHFP internships are implemented, and 3) Diversified workforce is improved. 
IR1.1 Health professionals recruited, developed, supported
Since the program was inaugurated on July 3, 2006, a total of 125 Global Health 
Fellows have been recruited, including 62 transition fellows, 13 new fellows in 
Year One and 50 new fellows in Year Two. GHFP has placed fellows in 26 
different countries and 34% currently work overseas. GHFP has played a key 
role in providing a large pool of technical experts who are committed to 
strengthening USAID’s health leadership throughout the world and implementing 
its vision. 
To increase the pool of qualified fellowship applicants and facilitate timely 
placements, GHFP implemented an intensive outreach strategy. Outreach is 
strategically targeted toward those venues that are most likely to generate 
fellowship applicants for GHFP, including schools of public health, professional 
conferences, and relevant employment fairs. 
For example, during Year Two GHFP conducted 53 outreach presentations 
including sites such as University of California at Berkeley and Emory University 
and career fairs at the Boston University School of Public Health and the 
Association for Schools of Public Health Career Services Council among others. 
In addition, GHFP has implemented outreach presentations at Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-serving Universities, such as Florida 
International University and the University of South Florida. These face-to-face 
3
outreach activities have been supplemented by GHFP’s re-designed website 
which announces all position openings and also enables online applications. 
The bi-annual fellows’ survey (IR1.1) results reflect the effectiveness of GHFP’s 
support system (IR 1.1). The survey results show that the percentage of fellows 
who agree that GHFP support services are satisfactory increased from 74.4% in 
2007 to 82.7% in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of fellows who reported that 
the GHFP website is relevant to their needs increased from 25.6% in 2007 to 
54.9% in 2008. Among those fellows affiliated with a University partner, the 
percentage who agreed or strongly agreed that this affiliation was beneficial 
increased from 57.1% in 2007 to 68.9% in 2008. 97.4% of the Fellows 
interviewed in 2007 and 100.0% of the fellows interviewed in 2008 reported that 
they would recommend GHFP to others. 
IR1.2 GHFP internships implemented
GHFP took over the Global Health Bureau Washington, DC Summer Internship 
Program (IR 1.2), and supported six interns during summer 2007. In 2008, nine 
new interns were recruited; these interns are currently on location in 
Washington, DC. To promote the internship program, GHFP outreach activities 
now specifically incorporate information about the internship program and its 
activities. For example, during Year Two, GHFP conducted a presentation about 
the internship program at the Harvard School of Public Health that was attended 
by 41 participants. GHFP’s full-service website, which was implemented at the 
end of Year One, also promotes the internship program and enables online 
submission of applications. The appeal of the internship program is perhaps best 
illustrated by the fact that over 600 applications were received for the nine 
available internship positions in 2008. Undoubtedly, the extensive outreach and 
the easy online application system played key roles in this high demand for the 
internship program. The GHFP website already enables potential applicants for 
the 2009 GHFP internships to sign up for the internship listserv. 
As is the case for the fellows, GHFP develops and supports the interns. In line 
with these efforts, GHFP created professional development opportunities for the 
interns including a program of professional development activities consisting of 
technical presentations and participation in key events such as the USAID 
PHuNdamentals course. 
IR 1.3 Diversified workforce improved
Rethinking the Diversity Initiative (IR 1.3) led to changes in approach and 
implementation. To increase the likelihood of a successful result within the 
program’s reasonable scope of work, GHFP re-visioned the program’s Diversity 
Initiative with three distinct areas of focus: Representation, Retention and 
Promotion. To implement this new vision, GHFP integrated its recruitment 
activities aimed at enhancing the diversity of the candidate pool into the 
4
program’s overall outreach strategy. At the end of program Year Two, these 
efforts resulted in a diverse candidate pool for fellowships, with over 40% of 
fellowship applicants self-identifying as an ethnic or racial minority over a 12-
month period (May 2007-2008, n = 1126). Yet from this same applicant pool, 
only 19% of the selected finalists self-identified as an ethnic or racial minority (n 
= 43), speaking to the need for developing influence with Agency decision￾makers regarding the desirability and importance of a diverse workforce. This 
challenge also carries forward into retention and promotion, which are directly 
linked to a strong commitment towards and action to create and sustain 
diversity in the workforce. To that end, GHFP will be strategically integrating 
information regarding the benefits of diversity in the workforce in its 
communications with Onsite Managers and fellows and finding opportunities to 
integrate diversity into its professional development activities. 
SO#2: To strengthen staff capacity to lead and manage
GHFP has also made major progress toward the Strategic Objective of 
strengthening staff capacity to lead and manage (SO2). During the first two years, 
GHFP implemented 22 training activities aimed at developing and improving 
essential PHN skills and knowledge (IR 2.1). During the course of Year 2, GHFP 
implemented the following workshops: Working Smarter, not Harder (twice); 
Modern Business Writing (twice); PHuNdamentals for Success (twice); Annual 
Workplan/Individual Development Plan Sessions (four times); Working in the 
USAID Context, for the Avian Influenza Unit (twice), and the GHFP Intensive 
Leadership course. In addition, the following technical exchanges were held: Data 
Certainty for Performance Management, Social Marketing: Does it Work? and 
Child Health: The Next Generation. Approximately 300 people attended these 
events.1
 Post-event evaluation surveys indicate that participants typically 
reported that the events were highly relevant to their work, and that both the 
course content and instruction were of high quality. 
In addition to the above, GHFP helped organize the LAC, ANE, and AFR State￾of-the Art conferences, as well as GHFP ANE and AFR Regional Fellows 
Meetings. Post-event surveys indicate that nearly all sessions were highly useful 
for the participants, and that the session content and speakers were very good. 
At this time, a post-event, on-the-job survey is being implemented. 
Data from the Fellows’ Survey further show that the percentage of fellows 
reporting that GHFP provided them with state-of-the-art information increased 
from 25.6% in 2007 to 59.6% in 2008. The data further reveal that the likelihood 
that fellows actually use the state-of-the-art information provided to them has 
increased substantially. In 2007, of the ten fellows who reported receiving such 
information, four reported using it (40.0%). By contrast, in 2008 this was the 
 
1
 People who participated in more than one event are double-counted. 
 
5
case for 27 out of the 31 Fellows (87.1%). Regarding GHFP’s mandate to 
support organizational development, the program conducted a comprehensive 
analysis of the GH structure that assessed the overall GH staffing level, workload 
and cross-cutting functions being performed throughout the Bureau. For 
individual GH offices and divisions, GHFP designed and implemented ten 
planning/teambuilding retreats in Washington, DC and two in the field 
(USAID/Afghanistan and East Timor). The organizational retreats ranged from 
short half-day events with 15 participants to a complex two-day event for 
seventy. Each of these activities included pre-retreat interviews as well as post￾event follow-on work. The program also arranged for five consultancies to assist 
GH offices in Washington with a variety of organizational challenges ranging from 
developing new program areas to design efforts. A sixth consultancy – a family 
planning program design effort – was fielded for USAID/India
2. Is the underlying rationale for the project still relevant and valid? If 
not, should changes be made, and if so, how?
The 2006 Request for Applications (RFA) stated: 
“In spite of increased demand, a dearth of professional development 
opportunities exists for individuals with limited field and work 
experience. The challenge is to provide opportunities for individuals at 
the junior-, mid- and senior-level to improve their skills and knowledge of 
the field while supporting the implementation of USAID programs…. 
By continuing to support fellowships and internships, USAID is assured of 
a “pipeline” of professionals who can fill critical positions as senior 
leaders begin to retire… 
The three fellows programs are now being combined to provide a 
“pathway” for health professionals across all technical areas in global 
health. This combined program of fellowships, internships, and 
professional and organizational development assistance will provide for 
greater efficiency and will also encourage new approaches.” 
This 5 - 10 year cooperative agreement was meant to improve Global Health 
program results by: 
(1) Increasing efficiency by combining three fellowship programs 
(2) Building a pipeline for the next generation of global health professionals 
(3) Supporting the performance of individuals and organizations doing health￾related work within USAID. 
When the RFA was written in 2005, USAID had forecast a significant human 
capacity shortfall due to retirements and previous staffing freezes. A 2008 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee report indicated that for USAID, “Staffing 
is … an issue – more than half of USAID personnel are not specialists – …. and a 
third of the agency’s most seasoned staff are on the verge of retirement.” 
6
Three years later, the rationale remains strong for one, combined, larger 
fellowship program with substantial outreach to all levels of potential interns and 
fellows. The program has evolved to include undergraduate, entry level, mid￾level, senior and uniquely skilled senior technical advisors. The professional 
development activities have increased in number of activities, participant 
numbers, and support to field-based fellows. Organizational development 
support remains a key intervention for the program. 
3. Provide a summary of key issues/challenges and recommendations 
that have been resolved and/or implemented over the last two 
years? What issues are still outstanding?
Key issues/challenges and recommendations that have been resolved and/or 
implemented over the last two years: 
ƒ Streamlined the GHFP partnership to enhance cost-effectiveness and 
implementation efficiency. 
ƒ Revised the fellows’ compensation package to address the GH Bureau’s 
desire for comparability with Agency compensation standards while 
maintaining a competitive, attractive package. 
ƒ Modified and tightened Letter of Agreement clauses to include non￾disclosure understanding and more flexibility in negotiations with 
Missions. 
ƒ Refined the coaching program to enhance cost-effectiveness while 
maintaining limited availability for GH staff on a demand-driven basis. 
ƒ Clarified distinction between the mentoring and coaching programs 
offered through GHFP. 
ƒ Improved the personalized service and support provided to Onsite 
Managers (OSMs) through increased one-on-one contact, a dedicated 
OSM Express and GHFP web portal focused on this constituents’ needs, 
and development and provision of reference materials and tools to 
inform OSM fellow-related decision-making and support. 
ƒ Dramatically decreased the GHFP allocable cost subsidy of Bureau-wide 
training events, while increasing the quality and quantity of delivery. 
ƒ Revised fellows’ individual professional development (PD) policies and 
enhanced management support for PD activities. 
Outstanding issues: 
• Keeping the balance between short and long term goals. It takes 
patience and an investment to keep “growing” the field but the current 
staffing crisis has fostered a focus on getting known people on board and 
a disinterest in international and/or NGO based internships which would 
support more mid-career switchers to enter the field. Reshuffling 
current global health professionals does meet urgent staffing needs but 
7
may hinder the more strategic goal of new blood and greater diversity in 
the workforce. 
• Funding for and implementation of an overseas internship program aimed 
at enhancing the long-term diversity of global health professionals. 
ƒ Providing professional development support to overseas fellows at an 
equitable degree to domestic fellows. 
ƒ Providing mentoring specific to working in the USAID context. 
ƒ Increasing diversity of fellows and interns through activities targeted to 
increase the demand for and support of a more diverse GH workforce. 
ƒ Funding for and implementation of a Foreign Service National (FSN) 
professional development program based on the articulated needs of the 
population, health and nutrition FSNs. 
ƒ Approving GHFP’s revised cost share strategy. 
ƒ Obtaining clarity regarding the mutual and complementary roles of PDMS 
and GHFP in professional development implementation. 
ƒ Funding for diversity training aimed at creating a workplace environment 
conducive to supporting a diverse workforce. 
ƒ Balancing the short term need for staffing versus the long-term goals for a 
diversified, well-trained and appropriately experienced global health 
workforce. 
B. Intermediate Results
1. What progress has GHFP made towards achieving project 
 intermediate results?
Because the Strategic Objectives and Intermediate Results are closely related, 
questions A1 and B1 are being answered together. The response for both 
questions is posted under Question A1. 
C. Project Implementation
1. Are work plans realistic and consistent with the SO and IRs as 
related to the approved results framework? Are activities 
consistent with the work plan? Are there shortfalls or delays in the 
project implementation? If so, why? 
GHFP’s annual workplan is a succinct 14-page document that uses the approved 
Results Framework as its basic structure. The GHFP Results Framework is 
comprised of the PDMS Activity Objective, the GHFP Program Vision, two 
Strategic Objectives, 5 Intermediate Results and 16 Sub-Results. 
In the table below the numbers (in green) alongside each Intermediate Result 
and Sub-Result of the approved Results Framework represent the number of 
related activities taken directly from the GHFP Year Three Workplan. Many 
activities address multiple results. 
8
In Year One, GHFP focused on addressing the challenges of transitioning fellows, 
hiring new fellows, managing senior staff turnover, right sizing the subcontractor 
team, and expanding the program systems. Year One workplan activities that 
were deferred were to “develop non-USAID site placements strategy and 
system,” “create and implement Diversity Initiative” and “research mission 
interest in the FSN exchanges.” Year Two had many accomplishments including 
recruiting and supporting 43 new fellows and implementing a robust professional 
development program. Deferred activities include implementing the 
international internship program, the FSN professional development program 
and moving forward with the Diversity Initiative. For the past two years, the few 
workplan activities that were delayed or deferred are a reflection of scarce staff 
resources and changing expectations and priorities which resulted in less USAID 
advocacy and funding. 
2. Does the project have an internal monitoring and evaluation plan? 
If yes, does the plan include indicators and data sources at the 
input, process, output, and outcome levels? Are data being 
collected? How are data used and what trends have emerged under 
each result area? 
9
To assess the progress of GHFP and to measure its impact, performance 
monitoring indicators were developed for the main program objectives, as well 
as for the intermediate results that will contribute to the achievement of those 
objectives. To that effect, GHFP developed a Performance Monitoring Plan 
(PMP), as well as a more detailed internal Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan. 
The goal of the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) is to clarify how GHFP plans 
to collect and use project performance data. The PMP identifies a select number 
of comparable indicators that can be collected regularly over the course of the 
project. The focus of the PMP is on those indicators that are within GHFP’s 
manageable interest, and that can be measured and communicated; are objective 
and credible. Consistent with the principles that have been used to select U.S. 
Foreign Assistance Performance Indicators, the PMP includes indicators that 
require only limited additional investment of time and resources and that can be 
easily collected as part of the established GHFP performance management 
system. The PMP was developed using a participatory process that involved all 
GHFP partner organizations. The final agreed upon version was submitted to 
USAID in June 2007. 
Because the PMP may not capture every single GHFP activity and its outcomes, 
the PMP is supplemented by a more extensive series of custom monitoring 
indicators that are used to evaluate specific activities such as individual 
professional development events. The M&E plan is a living document that will be 
updated as needed. For example, if GHFP is invited to implement a new type of 
activity, then indicators may be added to monitor progress on that activity. 
The data for indicators for our evaluations are derived from four main sources: 
1) recruitment and performance records, 2) a bi-annual survey of fellows, 3) an 
annual survey of GHFP alumni, and 4) post-event evaluations of PD and OD 
activities. 
Recruitment and performance data are collected continuously. The development 
of the new GHFP website, which enabled a switch from paper applications to 
online applications, ensures that the recruitment manager can now readily access 
this information. A survey of fellows is scheduled to be conducted at intervals of 
roughly six months (allowing flexibility to accommodate the fellows’ work and 
travel schedules). Data collection for the first wave of the Fellows Survey started 
in Fall 2007, while data collection for the second survey wave started in Spring 
2008. A total of 40 fellows were interviewed in Fall 2007, and thus far 52 fellows 
have been interviewed during the second survey wave. The Alumni Survey is 
scheduled to be conducted at one-year intervals. To ensure that the survey 
includes a sufficiently large number of alumni to enable analysis, the first wave of 
the Alumni Survey has been scheduled for Summer 2008 (and will be reported 
on in the Year Two Results Review). All professional development and 
organizational development (PD and OD) events are evaluated using a post￾event survey. 
10
The data indicate that GHFP has made significant progress towards its Strategic 
Objectives to enhance the health sector cadre worldwide and to strengthen staff 
capacity to lead and manage, as well as toward its stated Intermediate Results. 
Illustrative data have been summarized in above sections. 
3. Is GHFP demonstrating the expected ability to provide technical 
assistance? 
The senior management of GHFP have years of experience working with 
the Agency’s structure, its programmatic goals and its operating systems. 
This understanding informs the management practices of GHFP, resulting in 
the program demonstrating – and often exceeding – the ability to provide 
technical assistance to USAID across its three program result areas. 
Result Area One
Under Result Area 1, the GHFP RFA anticipated up to 75 fellowships per 
year as a maximum capacity for the program. In the program’s first two 
years, GHFP’s experienced staff fielded 125 individual fellowships with its 
current peak of 78 concurrent, active fellowships with up to 105 on board, 
in recruitment or being planned. GHFP has demonstrated its significant 
facility to recruit and hire talented technical experts across the spectrum of 
public health disciplines to meet the needs of the Agency. Throughout its 
recruitment efforts, GHFP works with USAID hiring managers to find the 
most suitable candidates for its fellowships and employs efficient and 
effective processes to hire and place candidates quickly. GHFP’s ability to 
meet the needs of the Agency is evidenced by the number of requests the 
program has fielded for new fellowships and its ability to deliver quality 
candidates in a short period of time to take on critical technical work for 
the Agency. 
To support this ever growing cadre of fellows, GHFP developed support 
systems and processes that complement USAID’s own systems and are 
responsive to the Agency’s human resource management needs. These 
support systems include a transparent performance management process, 
individualized program support provided by GHFP’s program coordinators, 
an online management system accessible to USAID managers and fellows, 
and a user-friendly, fellows-specific Intranet with program resources and 
guides covering all aspects of administrative support. 
Result Area Two
Within the very limited funding that GHFP has been provided for Result 
Area 2, the program has demonstrated its capacity and enthusiasm for 
creating and providing opportunities for individuals of diverse backgrounds 
to gain exposure to international heath programs and build their skills. In 
program Year One, without full funding for RA2, GHFP integrated activities 
11
focused on increasing participation of historically underrepresented groups 
in global health into program-wide activities such as outreach, recruitment, 
internships and professional development opportunities. GHFP anticipates 
funding in program Year Three, plus the use of cost share, to more 
robustly implement activities under this result area to ensure that 
opportunities for individuals from these historically underrepresented 
groups are more widely available. These activities will include the much￾anticipated professional development for Foreign Service Nationals. 
Result Area Three
GHFP’s ability to provide technical assistance under Result 3, 
“Organizational development assistance and professional development 
opportunities for current staff provided to USAID” has exceeded previous 
GH fellowship programs and the anticipated delivery under this new award. 
Resources include experienced GHFP staff and a partner, Management 
Systems International (MSI), who can make available a large cadre of full￾time and consultant experts with deep USAID operational experience. 
Evaluation data (to be reported in Year Two Results Review) indicate that 
these resources provide high-quality, cost-effective technical assistance 
capacity which has proven to be flexible, creative and responsive to the 
needs of the GH Bureau and its field colleagues. 
The number of training activities conducted and increasing number of 
participants who complete GHFP-sponsored training are both evidence of 
GHFP’s training capacity and quality. In program Year Two, GHFP 
conducted 16 training events at its training facility, attracting close to 300 
participants. In post-event evaluations, these trainings each received ratings 
over four on a five point Likert scale with five being “excellent,” speaking to 
the quality of the instruction and the appropriateness of the topic to the 
audience. These results highlight GHFP’s familiarity with the GH staff’s 
professional development needs and the program’s familiarity with 
management training trends in the public sector marketplace. 
GHFP’s organizational development work started slowly but has been 
increasingly active in the last year. GHFP conducted two PHN teambuilding 
retreats in the field and were instrumental in the design, preparation and 
execution of three highly successful SOTA conferences. In Washington, 
GHFP conducted nine team-building or planning retreats including a two￾day office wide retreat for the Office of HIV/AIDS (OHA). Each of these 
events was considered effective in addressing the development needs of the 
recipient unit. 
GHFP’s flexibility and responsiveness have been proven repeatedly over the 
first two years of the program. While unanticipated in the RFA, GHFP 
supported five technical consultancies for the GH Bureau and one Mission. 
12
Several of these consultancies came with very little notice and were 
delivered upon quickly and produced high-quality results. 
4. Is GHFP responsive (to) the Missions’ needs regarding OD support 
relating to the PD requirement and Mission needs? If a process is 
in place that takes into account the field OSM perspective, please 
describe. Does the GHFP appropriately implement MOUs? 
Identifying Missions’ needs for organizational development support
GHFP is very responsive to Mission requests for OD support, but identifying and 
being able to respond to true needs is more challenging. Missions that host 
fellows are more likely to know of our OD capabilities. We provide information 
in the OSM Express and on www.ghfp.net about our OD expertise but, due to 
the very contextual and confidential nature of this work, we have been 
conservative about advertising specific past performance. Presence at the 
SOTAs has been helpful. For example, we had three requests for OD assistance 
in Africa post-SOTA. Through the course of conducting a regional fellows’ 
meeting in Africa another OD request was generated. We believe that there is 
unmet need for organizational support in the PHN sector and that Missions 
would welcome the program’s services as well as those from PDMS. GHFP 
would like to collaborate with PDMS in the development of a new outreach 
strategy to expand GH OD and PD support to the field. A starting point for this 
would be to identify a short-list of focus Missions undergoing significant changes 
in PHN staffing or leadership. 
Ensuring equity in the provision of PD for field-based fellows
In Program Year One, we recognized the disparity in access to PD events 
between GH and field fellows and have been looking for ways to address the gap. 
In Program Year Two, GH fellows had access to 11 different types of skills 
training or PD activities at GH; these are development opportunities unavailable 
to fellows in the field. To address this disparity we currently require field 
fellows to participate in one multi-day PD event in DC once every two-year 
fellowship. As we’ve been proactive about this in the field fellow’s Letter of 
Agreement (LOA), the issue of required PD attendance for field-based fellows 
has yet to be raised by any OSMs. 
For most new2
 field fellows this simple requirement is met by coming to 
Washington to attend the GH orientation course “PHuNdamentals for Success.” 
There is anecdotal evidence that, while not skill training per se, this orientation 
course is critical to staff members’ performance within their first year of USAID 
work and OSMs in Washington, DC and in the field have been supportive of this 
time investment. The PHuNdamentals is a success story of how GHFP assisted 
 
2
 For fellows who have recent experience working inside USAID, we’ve waived this requirement. 
This has been the case for several fellows in PY1 and 2. 
13
PDMS in taking ownership of a highly rated and comprehensive course that for 
years had been organized outside of GH. Currently the only other multi-day PD 
event sponsored by GHFP is the Annual Intensive Leadership course (conducted 
by the Center for Creative Leadership). The three-day course was attended by 
several field-based fellows who recommended the course enthusiastically. The 
Intensive Leadership course is an example of the type of PD experience that 
fellows simply could not access in the field. 
Another significant way to address the disparity of access to PD for field fellows 
is the short Regional Fellows’ Meetings that GHFP began implementing in 
Program Year Two. The model for the Regional Meeting is a two-day workshop 
that includes a full day of PD training (including two or more skill topics from the 
most highly-rated Washington workshops conducted at GHFP) and a full day on 
annual work planning and fellowship support (another fundamental PD support 
made readily available to Washington, DC-based fellows). Both the ANE and 
Africa Regional Meetings in 2008 were highly rated by the 16 fellows who 
participated in the meetings. The latter also provided a cost-effective 
opportunity for GHFP staff to conduct two Mission site visits. The venue was 
chosen to be within less than one day’s travel to/from post and no OSM 
objected to fellows’ participation. A post-meeting survey of attendees and their 
OSMs is under way. 
Assessing field OSM perspectives in providing GHFP services
GHFP’s contact with an overseas onsite manager (OSM) begins with the request 
for a fellow. In response to a request, GHFP’s recruitment team provides the 
potential OSM with documentation regarding: 
ƒ The program’s fellowship levels, 
ƒ Sample budgets and letters of agreement, 
ƒ Recruitment and hiring processes, and 
ƒ Agency guidance regarding the role of the fellow. 
GHFP follows up on this initial information sharing with individualized contact 
(usually via phone) to answer any questions the OSM may have regarding GHFP. 
The OSM serves as the primary USAID contact during the recruitment and 
hiring phase of the fellowship cycle. OSM opinions, suggestions and criticisms 
are all critical information for the management of the program. Throughout the 
recruitment phase, GHFP remains in regular contact with the OSM to ensure 
he/she is informed of progress and is comfortable with that progression. 
During the subsequent hiring phase the OSM’s input is critical to ensuring that 
the fellowship is established with good will and faith on the part of all parties. 
Once the fellow is “on program” contact with the OSM tends to be less 
frequent, however GHFP has put in place procedures that maintain a proactive 
stance. GHFP settled on a system of six-month check ins with the OSMs to 
ensure that any potential issues identified in the fellows’ first six months are 
redressed immediately and that the OSM understands that GHFP stands by to 
14
support them in their management and oversight of the fellow. The program 
looks forward to expanding these contacts in Program Year Three. 
Implementing letters of agreement (LOA)
At the outset of the program, GHFP employed memorandums of understanding 
(MOUs) – modeled on a previous fellowship program’s MOUs – to document 
agreement between the program, the host organization, the funding unit (if 
different than the host organization), and the fellow regarding the fellow’s 
support at post. Based on feedback from participating host organizations and 
USAID’s legal counsel, GHFP modified its standard memorandum of 
understanding. Now referred to as a letter of agreement (LOA), the LOA is a 
tool used by GHFP to establish rapport with the host organization – specifically 
the Executive Officer’s team – while clarifying roles and responsibilities amongst 
the parties to the agreement. Using the LOA as a means to establish a 
communications pathway with the host organization has been useful in enhancing 
relationships between GHFP and the host organizations. GHFP will continue to 
refine the LOA in response to changing USAID and other host organization 
support policies and procedures. 
5. Is GHFP responsive to the needs of the Bureau for Global Health? 
What is GHFP doing to work across the Bureau?
Assessing needs through professional relationships with GH managers
A priority of the program’s senior management has been to develop, maintain 
and strengthen excellent working relationships with key managers and staff 
across the Bureau for Global Health. These relationships foster a sense of trust 
and information sharing which is critical to GHFP’s ability to understand and 
respond quickly and effectively to managers’ requests. GHFP is working to have 
more regular contact with Division Chiefs and Deputy Office Directors on a 
range of issues from new recruitments to fellowship support issues to specialized 
organizational and professional development activities. 
The Bureau-wide workforce analysis conducted by GHFP for the Front Office in 
Program Year One was an excellent opportunity for GHFP staff to establish 
working relationships with over 60 senior GH managers of the Bureau senior 
staff. The acquired insight into the Bureau’s management issues was critical given 
that no comprehensive management or training needs assessment had been 
undertaken in GH since 2002. Maintaining professional contact with these 
senior managers is crucial for the program’s harmonizing fellowship and 
professional development support across all six GH offices. These contacts, and 
our constant evaluation of GHFP fellowship support, PD and OD activities will 
enable us to stay current with the Bureau’s staffing, strategic and management 
needs. 
15
Percentage of PD participants by GH office
HIDN
31%
OHA
27%
PDMS
11%
PRH
26%
RCS
4%
SPBO
1%
GHFP’s POD activities reach across the Bureau
GHFP senior staff participates in every Training Advisory Group meeting that 
PDMS has convened since the inception of the program. GHFP also takes care 
to attend important public fora (such as the recent Global Health visioning 
series), and regularly seek feedback from Onsite Managers via semi-annual OSM 
meetings. GHFP’s ability to effectively work across the Bureau would be further 
enhanced by regular invitation to and attendance at open-Office meetings. 
GHFP’s acquired knowledge of staff 
interests and needs is reflected in 
the distribution of attendees among 
the GH technical offices in GHFP 
training activities. The pie chart on 
the left shows the percentage 
breakdown of participants from the 
six GH offices in GHFP PD events in 
Program Year Two. 
OD activities have also been 
distributed among the six offices. 
The Office of HIV/AIDS has been the 
most frequent user of these services 
and the Avian Influenza Unit in the 
Office of Health, Infectious Diseases 
and Nutrition has accessed GHFP’s 
technical assistance. 
GHFP’s OD approach is not limited to once-only workshops. GHFP is called 
upon frequently to help USAID managers or divisions work through staff, office 
or management issues. Managers trust that GHFP will be responsive, empathetic 
and most importantly, will provide that manager and his/her team the support 
they need to accomplish their work objectives. Recently, GHFP staff became 
aware of management challenges within an Office of HIV/AIDS division through 
fellows assigned there. POD staff, based on established relationships, were able 
to contact the team leader with an offer of organizational development 
assistance. This contact led to collaboration on a series of individual 
consultations and mini-retreats to address his team’s organizational issues. This 
is just one example where trusting relationships and sharing of needs between 
USAID and GHFP led to direct organizational improvement for the Agency. 
6. What efforts are GHFP making to collaborate with GH and field? 
How proactive is GHFP in anticipating and supporting fellowship, 
professional development and organization support? Is GHFP’s 
outreach and support to OSMs and Offices adequate? 
16
Awareness of GHFP as a high-quality program equipped to bring new talent to 
the Agency when needed is very high in the GH Bureau and the regional 
bureau’s health teams. In fact, many USAID staff are more aware of GHFP’s 
staffing capabilities then other aspects of its mandate. GHFP has the ability to 
provide more workforce planning assistance. Also, per request by the CTO, 
GHFP has not implemented an active outreach strategy to USAID Missions; 
awareness of GHFP within Missions is thus limited to where GHFP supports 
fellows, professional networks of GHFP staff, and those Missions whose staff 
have experienced fellowship programs elsewhere. GHFP welcomes the 
opportunity to conduct more active outreach to Missions through increased field 
contacts. 
GHFP pays careful attention to the GH Bureau’s and Mission needs regarding 
staffing, using its extensive networks within the Agency to uncover opportunities 
for placing fellows. The RFA stated that: 
“Placements may be located at USAID, host country governmental 
agencies, private voluntary organizations, academic institutions or 
other organizations consistent with the mandate of the program. 
Fellowship placements typically replace outgoing fellows and/or 
represent new requests. In both cases these requests are 
generated by the host organization or USAID.” 
GHFP is very responsive to these requests for new placements in USAID, 
evidenced by the program’s successful recruitment and placement of over 60 
new fellows in the first two program years. GHFP’s reputation for recruiting 
excellent candidates and placing them quickly has resulted in GHFP being the ‘go 
to’ mechanism for high quality recruitment within the GH Bureau and in Mission 
PHN offices. The number of requests from USAID Offices and Missions has 
increased over time while attrition has remained steady. 
Yet while the program has enjoyed increased requests for fellowships within 
USAID, requests for partner organization placements (those at host country 
governmental agencies, private voluntary organizations, etc. as referenced in the 
RFA) have not materialized. This situation is mainly due to the decision made by 
GH Bureau management soon after award that partner organization placements 
in Washington were no longer desired, and that partner organization placements 
in the field would be much less frequent than under previous programs and 
would require that Missions’ co-fund these placements at least 50% with the 
sponsoring Washington-based technical office. As a result, GHFP has placed only 
two fellows in partner organizations, significantly less as a percentage of total 
fellows than under the previous fellowship programs. Both of the current 
fellowships are under the Population, Health and Environment (PHE) initiative 
that uses the fellowship mechanism as one of its primary vehicles for PHE 
program implementation. 
17
GHFP takes a non-intrusive approach to managing and supporting its fellows. 
Each fellow is assigned a Program Coordinator who serves as the fellow’s 
primary point of contact. The Program Coordinator is tasked with orienting the 
fellow, supporting him/her through the fellowship for administrative support, 
professional development and performance management, and assisting the fellow 
with the transition off-program. This approach allows issues related to the fellow 
and his/her placement to be anticipated quickly or identified early and addressed. 
Through the Program Coordinators support to fellows’ professional 
development has been very proactive. Fellows’ access to PD is highlighted in the 
fellow’s orientation and when possible each fellow meets with the Deputy for 
Professional and Organizational Development. During the course of the 
fellowship, the Program Coordinator provides individualized support to fellows 
around PD resources and options. Fellows’ PD planning is also integral to the 
Annual Workplan and Individual Development Plan (AWP-IDP) that all fellows 
are required to prepare with their OSM and submit to GHFP. GHFP designed 
and piloted an AWP-IDP course for GHFP and collaborates with PDMS to 
facilitate this course quarterly. GHFP’s AWP-IDP forms were designed to 
mirror the form that PDMS is using with other non-direct hire personnel. 
To the best of our knowledge PDMS has been proactive in addressing the need 
for GH office OD during the annual Bureauwide budgeting process. Regardless, 
the program has developed a significant track record for conducting effective 
OD interventions. Support from the CTO to ‘get the word out’ would reflect 
well on PDMS’s ability to support its organizational development objectives. 
While GHFP’s communication with OSMs is necessarily frequent during the 
recruitment and placement phases, it tends to taper off after the fellowship 
begins. In recent months, GHFP has increased its focus on communicating 
directly with OSMs, recognizing that OSMs need continued support after the 
fellowship begins. GHFP intends to provide a light, non-obtrusive touch in these 
communications. Examples of GHFP’s on-program outreach to OSMs include: 
• GHFP’s USAID portal includes a range of program information and 
resources; 
• Periodic open meetings for Washington-based OSMs as fora for mutual 
information sharing and learning regarding the OSM’s challenges and 
sharing strategies to meet those challenges; and 
• Semiannual OSM Express to keep OSMs abreast of program 
developments and policies. 
Yet the challenge remains in keeping OSMs engaged with GHFP without 
overwhelming these busy managers with program information and requirements. 
GHFP will continue to work on its relationships with OSMs to ensure they are 
appropriately supported. 
18
7. Are reporting requirements being met at the activity level 
(fellowship, POD, funding including program reports specified in 
the work plan)? Are the reporting documents informative? Are 
reports submitted in a timely fashion? 
The reporting requirements are being met at the activity level for each key result 
area, including reports specified in the work plan, as described in the table 
below. It identifies the report, the receiver of the report, frequency, due date, 
content and results. The reports are used by program staff, Public Health 
Institute (PHI) Central Office, and USAID in making programmatic, 
administrative, and funding decisions, thus making them useful tools. The 
reports are submitted on time per due dates noted below. 
REPORT TO FREQUENCY DUE 
DATES 
CONTENTS AND RESULTS 
1. Annual Work 
Plan 
CTO, 
Project 
Director, 
PHI G/C 
Annually; 
form 
provided by 
GHFP 
approved by 
CTO 
June 30 Program activities by key result 
areas, status of fellowships, specify 
learning events and organizational 
development activities, funding 
needs for expected outcomes, 
staff travel plans, cost share plan, 
and timeline. 
2. Annual Results 
Review (same as 
Performance 
Monitoring Report) 
CTO, 
Project 
Director, 
PHI G/C 
Annually; 
form 
provided by 
GHFP 
October 31 Establish goals/results framework, 
identify challenges and problems, 
delays which impair the ability to 
meet objectives of program, 
statement of action taken, 
assistance needed to resolve the 
situation, results thus far, analysis 
& explanation of cost. 
3. Management 
Review (used for 
USAID/GH 
Portfolio Review) 
CTO, 
Project 
Director, 
PHI/GC 
Dates TBD, 
discretion of 
the CTO; 
questions 
provided by 
CTO 
July 2008 Questions selected by CTO. 
Typically, achievements, challenges 
and issues, and solutions to these 
issues. Reporting period 
determined by the CTO. 
4.Financial Status 
Report (SF-269A) 
USAID 
Procurement,
CTO, 
Project 
Director, 
PHI G/C 
Quarterly; 
Form SF 269-
A provided by 
USAID; 
PHI 
Accounting 
submits an 
original and 2 
copies 
No later than 
30 days after 
the end of 
each quarter 
The status of funds including 
ceiling, obligations, accruals, and 
pipeline by budget category line 
items required in the cooperative 
agreement. The report is used as 
documentation to drawdown 
funds from the DHHS/Payment 
Management System. 
5. Avian Influenza CTO, Project Quarterly; 25th day after The report includes voucher and 
19
(AI) Financial 
Reports 
Director, 
PHI/GC, 
HIDN/AI Unit
form 
provided by 
USAID/AI 
each quarter accrued expenditure data by 
country, funding source, and 
activity/focus areas. To meet 
Congressional reporting 
requirements associated with 
avian influenza funds. 
6. Baseline Reports CTO, 
Project 
Director, 
PHI/GC 
Quarterly; 
form 
provided by 
USAID 
February 15, 
May 15, 
August 15, 
November 15 
Monetary obligations per 
cooperative agreement 
modifications by Core Elements, 
OE, Field Support, and MAARD 
funds, reporting cumulative 
expenses to date, balance 
remaining, expenses for the past 
year, budget projections for the 
next year, actual/projected 
monthly expenses, and months of 
funding remaining. For USAID to 
confirm financial obligations and 
to track actual/projected expenses 
to date. 
7. Core & Field 
Support Quarterly 
Financial Status 
Reports 
CTO, 
Project 
Director, 
PHI/GC, 
OSM by 
Country 
Quarterly; 
form/data 
provided by 
GHFP 
February 15, 
May 15, 
August 15, 
November 15 
Financial data reported by 
Core/Elements and Field 
Support/Countries of funding 
source includes monetary 
obligations date, cumulative 
obligations to date, 
actual/projected expenses for the 
past twelve months, 
actual/projected monthly 
expenses; months of funding 
remaining; estimated funds 
remaining/required for current 
and next FY. Data is used to 
calculate future funding decisions. 
8. Pipeline Analysis 
& Other Financial 
Information (GAC, 
HIV/AIDS, MORA, 
RHAP/South Africa 
Financial Reports) 
CTO, 
Project 
Director 
Ad Hoc; 
form/data 
provided by 
USAID and/or 
GHFP 
As requested 
by USAID 
Same financial data reported in 
the Core & FS Quarterly Financial 
Status Reports (7). Requested 
information varies by funding 
source and/or per fellow. Data is 
used for future recruitment 
and/or funding decisions. 
9. Recruitment and 
Fellowship Update 
Report 
CTO, 
Project 
Director, 
Deputies 
Monthly; form 
provided by 
GHFP 
15th of each 
month 
Provides job titles of open and 
pending positions including 
location, GSA level, funding 
source, SOW status, length of 
fellowship, and dates position 
20
opened/closed. The fellowship 
update report lists all current, 
pending, and completed 
fellowships in DC and overseas. 
These reports are used to 
determine future recruitment and 
placement decisions. 
10. GHFP Security 
Action and Status 
Report 
CTO, 
USAID 
Security
Representative,
Project 
Director, 
Recruitment 
& 
Fellowship 
Team 
Monthly; form 
provided by 
GHFP 
1st of each 
month 
Provides security clearance status 
and updates for new candidates 
and fellows. The report includes 
a summary of security actions on 
Active Personnel Security 
Clearances (PCL), Pending 
Security Clearance Applications, 
USAID Employment 
Authorizations (EA), and Inactive 
Personnel Security Clearances 
(separated personnel). The 
report is used in hiring a fellow, 
scheduling security briefings, 
maintaining active security 
clearance status for staff/fellows, 
and transferring and terminating 
security clearances. 
8. How effective has the cost share agreement been? What has 
worked and what hasn’t worked? 
In the past two years, the program has changed from what was envisioned in the 
original proposal. The changes in large part have been required or at the very 
least strongly encouraged by the program staff at USAID, significantly and 
adversely impacting PHI’s cost sharing commitments. 
The three major changes that effect PHI’s cost sharing commitment are 
discussed below: 
• Reduction in the number of partners: The proposal originally required 
cost share for “learning institutions” and it was strongly implied in the 
RFA that the type of cost sharing being sought was for academic course 
work and other types of related continuing education and professional 
development programs. PHI is not an academic institution and therefore 
sought out partners to meet this requirement. 
21
PHI’s successful proposal included major partnerships with five 
organizations, three of which were academic institutions. USAID program 
staff strongly and consistently encouraged PHI to decrease its number of 
partners, indicating that this would be a performance expectation of PHI 
as the prime organization. PHI terminated its relationship with the 
University of Washington. During this time, the Diversity Initiative, the 
prime focus of United Negro College Fund-Special Programs (UNCF-SP) 
was dramatically diminished in its scope and emphasis. The Diversity 
Initiative has since been incorporated into PHI’s work, thus eliminating 
the partnership with UNCF-SP. 
The cumulative effect of these changes is to reduce the cost share PHI 
originally anticipated being generated by its partners and increasing the 
cost share of PHI. 
• NGO Contribution: The “junior” fellowship program formerly managed 
by the University of Michigan placed fellows at NGOs throughout the 
world. This type of fellowship was anticipated by USAID in the RFA and 
included as part of PHI’s proposal. PHI had anticipated capturing the 
non-governmental funds used by the NGOs to support these fellows as 
cost sharing. Again, this part of the program has significantly changed 
over the last two years thus greatly diminishing PHI’s ability to generate 
matching funds. 
• Expanding Program: As we enter the third year of the program, PHI 
anticipates the number of fellows supported by the cooperative 
agreement to be much larger than originally anticipated. Our initial 
proposal anticipated an on-going cadre of 75 fellows, and GHFP has 
supported over 100 fellows in Year Two. We anticipate it remaining at 
that level for the duration of the agreement. This is a 43% increase from 
our original proposal. While PHI is very pleased with the anticipated 
growth in the program, we are also concerned about the corresponding 
43% increase in cost sharing obligations. 
These changes place a significantly higher financial burden on PHI than what was 
originally proposed. PHI partners will still provide a minimum of a 2% cost share 
calculated on the awarded funds that they receive. The types of cost share 
provided by the partners will not change from the original proposal. 
PHI is formally requesting a reduction in the level of shared costs required by 
the referenced agreement from 2% to 1% of the federal cost and has pending 
approval with USAID/Office of Acquisition and Assistance. 
D. Process
1. Project Organizational Structure 
22
a) Is GHFP organizational structure efficient and cost effective? 
Have changes occurred that hindered and/or benefited 
project performance? If so, how? 
GHFP’s structure includes a bi-coastal organization with three partners. Work 
is grouped around three result areas as described in the RFA. This organization 
has proven to be efficient by placing people in locations that maximize 
communication and understanding: (1) finance and operational staff are next to 
the PHI central offices and can communicate and problem solve quickly; (2) 
Washington, DC based staff including the Project Director and two Deputies can 
interact easily with the CTO, other USAID staff, and DC-based fellows; and (3) 
partner staff based at the two major international health universities can access 
academic resources for the fellowship while the third, DC-based, partner 
provides technical talent and experience in coaching, professional and 
organizational development with little travel cost to the program. 
Towards the end of Year One, one significant change occurred. Subcontractor￾partnerships were revised reflecting USAID realities, resulting in the loss of 
United Negro College Fund Special Programs (UNCFSP) and the University of 
Washington. Their work was sorted among PHI and the partners without 
adding new staff. With decreased redundancy in the university partners and 
fewer resources going to Result Area Two which has been in flux, PHI was able 
to streamline systems and maximize use of current resources without loss of 
efficiency. 
b) Is there adequate collaboration, division of labor etc. among the 
different implementing partners? 
We believe that the partners provide crucial and significant contributions to the 
partnership. Each partner has specific tasks they lead and all partners participate 
together in bi-monthly conversations and bi-annual meetings to help plan and 
implement the program. Deeply familiar with USAID, they each provide creative 
solutions to challenges the program faces and take the lead in various areas. 
While PHI remains the sole fellows’ employer, the university partners, Harvard 
and Tulane, implement GHFP outreach activities for prospective fellows and 
interns, help with intern recruitment, maintain a faculty mentoring/community of 
interest moderator program, and provide technical experts to support 
professional development. Harvard has a special focus on organizing provocative 
presentations on various technical topics. Tulane leads both the alumni program 
and GHFP’s monitoring and evaluation system. Management Systems 
International supports both the professional and organizational development 
work. They provide organizational development experts for USAID office, 
division and Mission retreats, are leading the effort to update the CTO/TA 
modules, and provide training management support. 
23
As GHFP continues to improve and streamline processes, the partnership will 
also evolve. To serve fellows more efficiently, GHFP is now reviewing the role 
of the Program Coordinator. One possible outcome could be a more balanced 
sharing of fellows’ support among the three Program Coordinators (based at 
PHI, Harvard, and Tulane). This would happen only after discussions with the 
partners and moving some current, more operational, responsibilities to other 
staff. 
2. Project Management 
a) Are the current mechanisms for communication between 
CTO and GHFP appropriate and effective? 
Methods to access GHFP information and communicate about the program are 
abundant, varied, appropriate and generally effective. Communication channels 
include: 
(1) Bi-monthly, ninety-minute, agenda-driven CTO-Project Director 
meetings supported by phone calls and emails whenever necessary 
(2) Email and phone access directly to all three Deputy Directors. The 
Project Director is copied in on emails and briefed by the Deputy or 
CTO, as appropriate 
(3) Copies of bi-monthly Fellows Express and semi-annual OSM Express 
(4) Monthly PDMS-GHFP Professional Development meetings 
(5) As noted in “GHFP Program Reports” table included in workplan, all 
reports as required by the cooperative agreement 
(6) Special, 24/7 access to the GHFP virtual workspace which includes all 
financial and current workplan and reports; and the Fellows Management 
System containing details on each fellowship 
From GHFP’s perspective, it has been very helpful to have access to the USAID 
intranet and to receive copies of PDMS’ PHN sector-wide communications such 
as “Target.” 
b) What changes in the management relationship are needed or 
have been made to date to improve GHFP performance (e.g. 
communication between prime-and-sub-contractors, 
interactions between GHFP and USAID? 
Communication systems between the prime and subcontractor were set up in 
Year One. One change has been an increased partner presence in Washington, 
DC both to interact with fellows and work with PHI staff on team activities. No 
large changes are planned at this point though we remain vigilant that consistent 
contact and interaction remain a structured part of the program. 
Although data indicates that USAID staff has a generally positive view of the 
GHFP program and staff, our ultimate success with fellows/interns, professional 
24
and organizational development, depends on GHFP having deep knowledge of 
USAID’s needs and challenges, strengths and weaknesses. It is important that 
program staff interact as much as possible to diminish perceptional differences 
and understand our client. GHFP will continue to seek this access including the 
OK to attend Office meetings. With the commencement of Year Three, GHFP, 
with active PDMS support, would like to make this happen. 
c) What aspect of the project should be closely monitored over 
the coming months/years? 
GHFP’s current monitoring and evaluation system sufficiently documents key 
aspects of the project’s results, based on GHFP’s Results Framework. But GHFP 
works within the ever-changing environment of a Federal agency preparing for 
changes to come from a new Administration. Environmental scanning of this 
situation and how GHFP will need to adapt to continue meeting PHN sector 
needs should be closely monitored over the next few years. As much as 
possible, GHFP would like to be proactive in responding to whatever its 
donor/client faces. 
d) What agreement modifications, if any, are required in order 
for the CA to act on identified recommendations? 
GHFP supports a modification to the agreement, as follows: 
• Pending approval from OAA/USAID on the request to amend the GHFP 
Marking Plan and Branding Strategy. The proposed changes are the use 
of the conventional PHI business cards by staff, partners, fellows, or 
interns (domestic or mission based) without the USAID branding, and 
changes to the Partners’ configuration. 
3. Financial Management 
a) Given agreed upon budget, are funds allocated according to 
project priorities? 
The chart below reflects the total budget USAID approved Program Year One 
and Program Year Two of the work plan. The funds are allocated by key result 
area, and meets program activities and priorities except for the Diversity 
Initiative. The Diversity Initiative is one of the main program components, yet 
it did not receive funding. Per USAID’s request, PHI terminated its partnership 
agreement with UNCF-SP in Year Two. 
25
Global Health Fellows Program
PY 01 and PY 02 Budget by Key Result Areas
July 3, 2006 - June 30, 2008
$32,876,549
Overseas Fellows 
43%
Washington, DC
Fellows
48%
Organizational
Development
4%
Diversity 
Initiative
1%
Professional
Development
4%
b) Are project expenditures tracked and projected by line item 
and by country and element? If not, why? 
GHFP program obligations and expenditures are tracked and projected by 
budget line item, element, and by country as reflected in the Financial Status 
Report (SF0-269A), Baseline Report, and Quarterly Financial Status Report (refer 
to question C7). 
c) Is financial reporting useful for decision-making purposes, and 
submitted on time? 
GHFP extensively uses the financial reports described in question C7 in tracking 
and monitoring obligations, budgets, and expenditures by key result areas 
(recruitment and fellowship support, Diversity Initiative, professional and 
organizational development), by individual fellows, and by funding source (Core 
by elements, Field Support by countries). The reports are useful to GHFP and 
the client in financial analysis and forecasting to determine planned obligations 
for the next funding cycle. GHFP is incrementally funded and budgets are 
revised annually to reflect funds obligated to the program. As noted in the 
answer to question C7, GHFP submits the financial reports on time per 
scheduled due dates. 
d) Is the pipeline and ceiling appropriate (too large/too small) at 
this time in the project cycle? 
26
As of July 1, 2008, the pipeline is $7,253,190. The estimated planned monthly 
burn rate of $2,000,000 is sufficient to support the program activities through 
September 30, 2008. 
e) What modifications to the budget are anticipated, if any and 
why? 
GHFP supports a modification to the budget, as follows: 
• Increase the ceiling amount of the program. The number of fellows has 
increased from 75 fellows, as originally proposed, to over 100 fellows in 
Year Three. 
• Pending approval from USAID/OAA on the request to reduce the cost 
share level required by the agreement from 2% to 1% of the federal cost 
(refer to question C8). 
4. Level of Effort (LOE) Management 
a) Is the LOE tracked and projected in accordance with total 
project LOE? How well does the LOE track with financial 
expenditures?
GHFP’s financial management system monitors and tracks the level of effort 
(LOE) by assigning an activity number to each key result area, fellow, and 
funding source. For the past two years, the percentage of LOE for 
fellowships (RA1) is higher; Diversity Initiative (RA2), professional and 
organizational development (RA3) is lower than originally projected in the 
GHFP RFA, as noted on the table. 
KEY RESULT AREA (% per RFA) % of LOE 
Fellowships (80%) 91%
Diversity Initiative (5%) 1%
Professional and Organizational Development (15%) 8%
TOTAL 100%
In fellowships, GHFP anticipated up to 75 fellows per year. In Year Two, 
the number of fellows increased and GHFP supported over 100 fellows. 
The Diversity Initiative, the prime focus of partner UNCF-SP work, did not 
receive funding. As a result, PHI terminated its partnership agreement with 
UNCF-SP in Year Two decreasing the LOE in this area. The professional 
and organizational development activities started gradually in Year One, 
27
and expanded in Year Two with increasing requests for professional and 
organizational development from the GH offices and the field. 
b) Is the staffing appropriate for fulfilling project priorities? Is 
there an efficient and effective skill mix within the project to 
accomplish tasks?
Previous fellowship programs were a fraction of the size of GHFP but the 
current program has actually fewer staff than several of the previous programs. 
The surprising number of requests for GHFP fellows has strained current service 
delivery systems which remain effective but at high personal cost and with more 
complexity than necessary. Also, a majority of Deputy Director time is spent on 
direct service or technical work (pipeline analysis and reporting, counseling 
fellows, leading workshops), leaving little time for management and leadership 
activities or special initiatives. Over the next year, GHFP intends to rethink its 
traditional structure to build capabilities required to support USAID effectively 
over the long term. Examples of potential changes include rebalancing the three 
Deputy roles, focusing several fellowship support activities, eg, travel 
reimbursements and allowances, closer to PHI’s HR and Accounting office but 
within GHFP; increasing our targeted recruitment capability and more fully 
tapping into university partners’ contributions to fellows’ career development.