Africa: FY 2017 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting: Malian Refugees in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and Niger; Nigerian Refugees in Niger; Refugee Returnees in Mali, Senegal, or Cote d’Ivoire

Funding Opportunity Announcement

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

January 24, 2017


Funding Opportunity Number: PRM-PRMOAPAF-17-007-058648 / PRM-PRMOAPAF-17-007

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 19.517 – Overseas Refugee Assistance Programs for Africa

Announcement issuance date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Proposal submission deadline: Friday, April 7, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. noon Eastern Daylight Time. We are unable to consider proposals submitted after this deadline.

**ADVISORY: All applicants must submit proposals through the website Grants.gov NOT through GrantsSolutions.gov. Please note that if you apply on the GrantSolutions.gov site, your application will be disqualified. PRM strongly recommends submitting your proposal early to allow time to address any difficulties that may arise.**

If you are new to PRM funding, the Grants.gov registration process can be complicated. We urge you to refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines “New to PRM Funding” section for information and resources to help ensure that the application process runs smoothly. PRM also strongly encourages organizations that have received funding from PRM in the past to read this section as a refresher.

Full Text of Notice of Funding Opportunity

A. Program Description

This announcement is designed to accompany PRM’s General NGO Guidelines which contain additional information on PRM’s priorities and NGO funding strategy with which selected organizations must comply. Please use both the General NGO Guidelines and this announcement to ensure that your submission is in full compliance with PRM requirements and that the proposed activities are in line with PRM’s priorities. Submissions that do not reflect the requirements outlined in these guidelines will not be considered.

Current Funding Priorities:

(a) Proposed activities should primarily support Malian refugees in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, or Niger; Nigerian refugees in Niger; and/or refugee returnees in Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, or Senegal, as outlined below. Because of PRM’s mandate to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees and victims of conflict, for Burkina Faso, Mauritania, or Niger, PRM will consider funding only those projects that include a target beneficiary base of at least 50 percent refugees. If programming in Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, or Senegal, at least 50 percent of the beneficiaries must be refugee returnees.

(b) Each proposal may only address activities in one country, except for proposals including Mali. Proposals that include refugee returnees in Mali must include activities that are linked to activities benefiting Malian refugees in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, or Niger. Organizations that submit proposals which cover activities in Mali and one neighboring state – Burkina Faso, Mauritania, or Niger – must demonstrate operational presence in both Mali and the other country. Except for proposals involving Mali, applicants seeking funding for programs in more than one country must submit more than one proposal.

Country-specific Provisions:

(a) Burkina Faso and Mauritania: Proposed activities should primarily support

Malian refugees living in Burkina Faso (in camps or those who have been transitioned or are in the process of transitioning out of camps as part of UNHCR “localization” efforts) or Mauritania (Mbera Camp only) and must focus on one or more of the following sectors:

(i) Protection, including child protection and/or addressing gender-based violence;

(ii) Livelihoods, in particular programs that foster refugees’ economic well-being/self-sufficiency and may be transferable to Mali for returning refugees; and/or

(iii) Education (with priority given to primary and “catch-up” programs).

(b) Niger: It is strongly recommended, but not required, that organizations wishing to work with both Malian and Nigerian refugees in Niger submit a single proposal which covers activities benefiting both populations. Organizations are not required to work with both Malian and Nigerian refugees.

(i) Malian refugees living in camps, zones d’accueil des réfugiés, or those who have been transitioned or are in the process of transitioning out of camps as part of UNHCR “localization” efforts. Activities must focus on one or more of the following sectors:

a. Protection, including child protection and/or addressing gender-based violence;

b. Livelihoods, in particular programs that foster refugees’ economic well-being/self-sufficiency and may be transferable to Mali for returning refugees; and/or

c. Education (with priority given to primary and “catch-up” programs).

(ii) Nigerian refugees in the Diffa region living in current or planned refugee camps or outside of camps. Priority will be given to programs that can also demonstrate benefit to affected host communities and/or Nigerien returnees displaced by the conflict in Nigeria. Proposals must focus on one or more of the following sectors:

a. Protection (including addressing gender-based violence, child protection, assistance for unaccompanied and separated minors, and/or prevention of recruitment by armed groups and ensuring civilian character of refugee sites);

b. Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) only for refugees living outside formal refugee camps;

c. Health (including malnutrition, reproductive health, maternal and child health, and/or mental health and psychosocial support) only for refugees living outside formal refugee camps;

d. Emergency shelter assistance only for refugees living outside formal refugee camps; and/or

e. Livelihoods, in particular programs that foster refugees’ economic well-being/self-sufficiency.

(c) Mali: Proposals that include refugee returnees in Mali will only be considered if the submission includes activities that are linked to activities benefiting Malian refugees in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, or Niger. Priority will be given to proposals which demonstrate a plan that allows program activities to follow returning refugees from the country of asylum to Mali. Programs benefiting Malian refugee returnees must focus on one or more of the following sectors:

(i) Protection; including child protection and/or addressing gender-based violence

(ii) Livelihoods, in particular programs that foster refugees’ economic well-being/self-sufficiency that are linked with similar programs in Burkina Faso, Mauritania, and/or Niger; and/or

(iii) Social Cohesion and/or Community Reconciliation (including any activities that serve to foster positive relations between the local population and returning refugees).

(d) Senegal: Programs benefiting Senegalese refugee returnees to the Casamance region must focus on one or more of the following sectors:

(i) Shelter and/or

(ii) Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)

(e) Côte d’Ivoire: Programs benefitting Ivoirian refugee returnees in Côte d’Ivoire living in Bloléquin, Danane, Duékoué, Guiglo, Man, San-Pédro, Séguéla, Soubré, Tabou, Tai, Touba, Toulépleu, Zouan-Hounien, and/or Abidjan and surrounding areas, should focus on one or more of the following sectors:

(i) Protection, including child protection and/or addressing gender-based violence;

(ii) Livelihoods, in particular programs that foster refugees’ economic well-being/self-sufficiency;

(iii) Shelter; and/or

(iv) Social Cohesion and/or Community Reconciliation (including any activities that serve to foster positive relations between the local population and returning refugees)

Competitive proposals should:

• Include a well-developed plan for training and building the capacity of local staff and service providers as well as building refugee self-sufficiency;

• Include a transition plan for long term sustainability of programming and an exit strategy; and

• Address gaps in services for the most vulnerable including women, children, people living with disabilities, the elderly, and LGBTI refugees.

B. Federal Award Information

Proposed program start dates: June 1, 2017 – September 1, 2017

Duration of Activity: For proposals involving livelihoods activities for Malian refugees only, program plans for up to two years (24 months) will be considered. (Note: For the purposes of this announcement, a two-year plan is not the sum of two stand-alone one-year plans with Year 2 proposing to essentially duplicate Year 1; rather, it is one plan of up to twenty-four months of programming with a breakdown of activities and budgets between the first and second years of the overall two-year program plan. Applicants are encouraged to carefully consider whether livelihoods projects should be one- or two-years in duration to accomplish the project goals.) Applicants may submit multi-year proposals with activities and budgets that do not exceed two years (24 months) from the proposed start date and must have an end date of no later than July 31, 2019. Actual awards will not exceed one year (12 months) in duration and activities and budgets submitted in year one can be revised/updated each year. Continued funding after the initial 12- month award requires the submission of a noncompeting single year proposal and will be contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. In funding a project one year, PRM makes no representations that it will continue to fund the project in successive years and encourages applicants to seek a wide array of donors to ensure long-term funding possibilities.

For all other proposals, program plans should not exceed 12 months ­and must have an end date of no later than July 31, 2018. To meet the required end date, proposed programs may be less than 12 months.

Funding Limits: Project proposals outside of the funding limits below will be disqualified:

• Proposals benefiting one refugee population in one country must not request less than $200,000 or more than $700,000.

• Project proposals for Niger for activities benefiting both Malian and Nigerian refugees must not request less than $200,000 or more than $1.4 million.

• Project proposals for activities benefiting Malian refugee returnees in Mali and Malian refugees in either Burkina Faso, Mauritian, or Niger must not request less than $200,000 or more than a total of $1 million.

• Project proposals for activities benefiting Senegalese refugee returnees in Senegal must not request less than $200,000 or more than $500,000.

• Project proposals for activities benefitting Ivoirian refugee returnees in Côte d’Ivoire must not request less than $200,000 or more than $1.5 million.

C. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants: (1) Nonprofits having a 501(c)(3) status with IRS, other than institutions of higher education; (2) Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) status with IRS, other than institutions of higher education; and (3) International Organizations. International multilateral organizations, such as United Nations agencies, should not submit proposals through Grants.gov in response to this Notice of Funding Opportunity announcement. Multilateral organizations that are seeking funding for programs relevant to this announcement should contact the PRM Program Officer (as listed below) on or before the closing date of the funding announcement.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: Cost sharing, matching, or cost participation is not a requirement of an application in response to this funding announcement.

3. Other:

(a) Proposals must have a concrete implementation plan with well-conceived objectives and indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and reliable, time-bound, and trackable (SMART), have established baselines, and include at least one outcome or impact indicator per objective; objectives should be clearly linked to the sectors.

(b) Proposals must adhere to relevant international standards for humanitarian assistance. See PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of sector-specific standards including guidance on proposals for projects in urban areas.

(c) PRM strongly encourages programs that target the needs of vulnerable and underserved groups among the beneficiary population (women; children; adolescents; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTI) individuals; older persons; the sick; persons with disabilities; and other minorities) and can demonstrate what steps have been taken to meet the specific and unique protection and assistance needs of these vulnerable groups effectively. See gender analysis requirements below in D.2.(c).

(d) PRM will accept proposals from any NGO working in the above mentioned sectors although, given budgetary constraints, priority will be given to proposals from organizations that can demonstrate:

• a working relationship with UNHCR and/or current UNHCR funding, and/or a letter of support from UNHCR for the proposed activities (this letter should highlight the gap in services the proposed program is designed to address);

• a proven track record in providing proposed assistance both in the sector and specified location;

• evidence of coordination with international organizations (IOs) and other NGOs working in the same area or sector as well as – where possible – local authorities;

• a strong sustainability plan, involving local capacity-building, where feasible;

• where applicable, adherence to PRM’s Principles for Refugee Protection in Urban Areas; and

• an understanding of and sensitivity to conflict dynamics in the project location.

D. Application and Submission Instructions

1. Address to Request Application Package:

(a) Application packages may be downloaded from the website www.Grants.gov.

2. Content and Form of Application:

(a) PRM strongly recommends using the proposal and budget templates that are available upon email request from PRM’s NGO Coordinator (PRMNGOCoordinator@state.gov). Please send an email, with the phrase “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line, to PRM’s NGO Coordinator to receive an automated reply with the templates.

Page limits: Single-year proposals using PRM’s templates must be no more than 15 pages in length (Times New Roman 12 point font, one inch margins on all sides). If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 10 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total however annexes cannot be relied upon as a key source of program information. The proposal narrative must be able to stand on its own in the application process. For multi-year funding application instructions, see section (e) below. Proposals exceeding the page limit cannot be considered.

(b) To be considered for PRM funding, organizations must submit a complete application package including:

• Proposal narrative reflecting objectives and indicators for each year of the program period.

• Budget and budget narrative for each year of the program period.

• Signed completed SF-424.

• Risk Analysis.

(c) Additionally, organizations must submit the following documents as part of their proposal package, if applicable:

• Organizations applying for livelihoods project funding must include both a market analysis and a beneficiary competency/capacity assessment as part of the proposal package. Please see the General NGO Guidelines for more details.

• Most recent Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable or a de minimis rate calculation if the applicant elects to use the de minimis rate, if applicable.

• NGOs that have not received PRM funding since the U.S. government fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 must be prepared to demonstrate that they meet the financial and accounting requirements of the U.S. government by submitting copies of 1) the most recent external financial audit, 2) proof of non-profit tax status including under IRS 501 (c)(3), as applicable, 3) a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, and 4) an Employer ID (EIN)/Federal Tax Identification number, as applicable.

• Organizations that received PRM funding in FY 2016 for activities that are being proposed for funding under this announcement must include the most recent quarterly progress report against indicators outlined in the cooperative agreement. If an organization’s last quarterly report was submitted more than six weeks prior to the submission of a proposal in response to this funding announcement, the organization must include, with its most recent quarterly report, updates that show any significant progress made on objectives since the last report.

(d) In order to be considered a competitive proposal, the proposal narrative should include the following information:

• Focus on outcome or impact indicators as much as possible. At a minimum, each objective should have one outcome or impact indicator. Wherever possible, baselines should be established before the start of the project.

• Include Specific information on locations of projects and beneficiaries (GPS coordinates if possible) to increase PRM’s ability to track the impact of PRM funding.

• Outline how the NGO will acknowledge PRM funding. If an organization believes that publicly acknowledging the receipt of USG funding for a particular PRM-funded project could potentially endanger the lives of the beneficiaries and/or the organization staff, invite suspicion about the organization’s motives, or alienate the organization from the population it is trying to help, it must provide a brief explanation in its proposal as to why it should be exempted from this requirement.

• The budget should include a specific breakdown of funds being provided by UNHCR, other USG agencies, other donors, and your own organization.

• Applicants whose proposals address gender-based violence (GBV) through their projects must estimate the total cost of these activities as a separate line item in their proposed budgets (see PRM’s budget template).Proposals and budgets must include details of any sub-agreements associated with the program.

• PRM partners must complete a gender analysis in the proposal narrative that briefly explains (1) Experiences of men, women, boys, and girls with a focus on the different familial roles, community privileges, and gender dynamics within the target population; (2) associated risks and threats experienced by women, girls, and other vulnerable populations based on their gender; (3) power imbalances and needs that arise based on gender inequalities that exist within the family or community; and (4) proposed responses that will address the above and mitigate any gender differences in access, participation, or decision-making that may be experienced by at-risk groups, particularly women and girls. The gender analysis should aim to specify and target specific at-risk sub-populations of women and girls, in particular women and girl heads of households, out-of-school girls, women and girls with disabilities, women and girl survivor of violence, married girls, and adolescent mothers, as well as people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex (LGBTI) who are often unaware of and excluded from programs and services and who may be the hardest to reach based on their gender.

• Summarize the risk analysis in the security and risk management section of the proposal narrative.

(e) We will ask applicants to submit the following documents before a cooperative agreement is finalized:

• Copy of the organization’s Code of Conduct.

• Copy of the organization’s Security Plan.

• Copy of the organization’s Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) framework.

• Completed PRM Award Data Sheet.

(f) Multi-Year Funding: Applicants proposing multi-year programs should adhere to the following guidance:

Applicants may submit proposals that include multi-year strategies presented in one year (12-month) cycles for a period not to exceed three years (36 months) from the proposed start date. Fully developed programs with detailed budgets, objectives and indicators are required for each year of activities. Applicants should use PRM’s recommended multi-year proposal template for the first year of a multi-year application. Multi-year funding applicants may use PRM’s standard budget template and should submit a separate budget sheet for each project year. Multi-year proposal narratives and budgets can be updated yearly upon submission of new noncompeting single year proposal narrative template with an updated budget, each year.

Page limits: Multi-year proposals using PRM’s multi-year template must be no more than 20 pages in length (Times New Roman 12 point font, one inch margins on all sides). If the applicant does not use PRM’s recommended templates, proposals must not exceed 15 pages in length. Organizations may choose to attach work plans, activity calendars, and/or logical frameworks as addendums/appendices to the proposal. These attachments do not count toward the page limit total however annexes cannot be relied upon as a key source of program information. The proposal narrative must be able to stand on its own in the application process. Proposals exceeding the page limit cannot be considered.

Multi-year applications selected for funding by PRM will be funded in one year (12- month) increments based on the proposal submitted in the initial application as approved by PRM. Continued funding after the initial 12- month award requires the submission of a noncompeting single year proposal narrative and will be contingent upon available funding, strong performance, and continuing need. Follow-on funding applications must be submitted by the organization no later than 90 days before the proposed start date of the new award (e.g., if the next project period is to begin on September 1, submit your application by June 1). Follow-on year applications are submitted in lieu of responding to PRM’s published call for proposals for those activities. Late submissions will jeopardize continued funding.

Organizations can request single-year and multi-year funding proposal narrative templates by emailing PRM’s NGO Coordinator with the phrase “PRM NGO Templates” in the subject line.

3. Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number and System for Award Management (SAM)

(a) Each applicant is required to: (i) be registered in SAM before submitting its application; (ii) provide a valid DUNS number in its application; and (iii) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active PRM award or an application or plan under consideration by PRM. No federal award may be made to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the PRM award is ready to be made, PRM may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a PRM award and use that determination as a basis for making a PRM award to another applicant.

(b) Proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov (not via GrantSolutions.gov). Grants.gov registration requires a DUNS number and active SAM.gov registration. If you are new to PRM funding, the Grants.gov registration process can be complicated. We urge you to refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines “New to PRM Funding” section for information and resources to help ensure that the application process runs smoothly. PRM also strongly encourages organizations that have received funding from PRM in the past to read this section as a refresher. Applicants may also refer to the “Applicant Resources” tools and tips page on Grants.gov for complete details on requirements.

(c) Do not wait until the last minute to submit your application on Grants.gov. Organizations not registered with Grants.gov should register well in advance of the deadline as it can take up to two weeks to finalize registration (sometimes longer for non-U.S. based NGOs to get the required registration numbers). We also recommend that organizations, particularly first-time applicants, submit applications via Grants.gov no later than one week before the deadline to avoid last-minute technical difficulties that could result in an application not being considered. PRM partners must maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which they have an active federal award or an application under consideration by PRM or any federal agency.

(d) When registering with Grants.gov, organizations must designate points of contact and Authorized Organization Representatives (AORs). Organizations based outside the United States must also request and receive an NCAGE code prior to registering with SAM.gov. Applicants experiencing technical difficulties with the SAM registration process should contact the Federal Service Desk (FSD) online or at 1-866-606-8220 (U.S.) and 1-334-206-7828 (International).

(e) Applications must be submitted under the authority of the Authorized Organization Representative at the applicant organization. Having proposals submitted by agency headquarters helps to avoid possible technical problems.

(f) If you encounter technical difficulties with Grants.gov please contact the Grants.gov Help Desk at support@grants.gov or by calling 1-800-518-4726.

(g) It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure the appropriate registrations are in place and active. Failure to have the appropriate organizational registrations in place is not considered a technical difficulty and is not justification for an alternate means of submission.

(h) Pursuant to U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001, stated on OMB Standard Form 424 (SF-424), the Department of State is authorized to consolidate the certifications and assurances required by Federal law or regulations for its federal assistance programs. The list of certifications and assurances can be found here.

(i) In accordance with 2 CFR §200.113, Mandatory disclosures, the non-Federal entity or applicant for a Federal award must disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. Non-Federal entities that have received a Federal award including the term and condition outlined in Appendix XII—Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM. Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 2 CFR §200.338 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment. (See also 2 CFR part 180, 31 U.S.C. 3321, and 41 U.S.C. 2313.)

4. Submission Dates and Times

Announcement issuance date: Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Proposal submission deadline: Friday, April 7, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. noon Daylight Eastern

5. Intergovernmental Review – Not Applicable.

6. Funding Restrictions. Federal awards will not allow reimbursement of Federal Award costs without prior authorization by PRM.

7. Other Submission Requirements

(a) PRM Standardized Indicators: In an effort to streamline the proposal writing/reviewing process and better measure the impact of the Bureau’s work, PRM requires the use of standardized indicators for projects in the protection, child protection, health, mental health and psychosocial support, WASH, nutrition and food security, education, livelihoods, and emergency shelter sectors, as well as projects that include local government capacity-building and core relief items (non-food items). Applicants must fill in numerical and/or percentage targets for each indicator. Sphere standards should be used as targets, unless otherwise noted. Proposals must include all standardized indicators that apply to the program. Please refer to PRM’s General NGO Guidelines for a complete list of all standardized indicators that must be included.

(b) Branding and Marking Strategy: Unless exceptions have been approved by the designated bureau Authorizing Official as described in the proposal templates that are available upon email request from PRM’s NGO Coordinator, at a minimum, the following provision will be included whenever assistance is awarded:

• The Recipient shall recognize the United States Government’s funding for activities specified under this award at the project site with a graphic of the U.S. flag accompanied by one of the following two phrases based on the level of funding for the award:

1) Fully funded by the award: “Gift of the United States Government”

2) Partially funded by the award: “Funding provided by the United States Government”

Exemptions from this requirement may be allowable but must be agreed to in writing by the Grants Officer.

All programs, projects, assistance, activities, and public communications to foreign audiences, partially or fully funded by the Department, should be marked appropriately overseas with the standard U.S. flag in a size and prominence equal to (or greater than) any other logo or identity. The requirement does not apply to the Recipient’s own corporate communications or in the United States.

The Recipient should ensure that all publicity and promotional materials underscore the sponsorship by or partnership with the U.S. Government or the U.S. Embassy. The Recipient may continue to use existing logos or program materials; however, a standard rectangular U.S. flag must be used in conjunction with such logos.

The U.S. flag may replace or be used in conjunction with the Department of State seal, the U.S. embassy seal, or other DOS program logos.

Sub non-Federal entities (sub-awardees) and subsequent tier sub-award agreements are subject to the marking requirements and the non-Federal entity shall include a provision in the sub non-Federal entity agreement indicating that the standard, rectangular U.S. flag is a requirement.

In the event the non-Federal entity does not comply with the marking requirements as established in the approved assistance agreement, the Grants Officer Representative and the Grants Officer must initiate corrective action with the non-Federal entity.

E. Application Review Information

1. Criteria: Eligible submissions will be those that comply with the criteria and requirements included in this announcement. In addition, the review panel will evaluate the proposals based on the following criteria:

(i) Problem Statement/Analysis

(ii) Program Description

(iii) Gender Analysis

(iv) Objectives and Indicators

(v) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

(vi) Accountability to Affected Populations

(vii) Coordination

(viii) Sustainability and Capacity-Building

(ix) Management and Past Performance

(x) Budget

2. PRM will conduct a formal competitive review of all proposals submitted in response to this funding announcement. A review panel of at least three people will evaluate submissions based on the above-referenced programmatic criteria and PRM priorities in the context of available funding.

3. Department of State Review Panels may provide conditions and recommendations on applications to enhance the proposed program, which must be addressed by the applicant before further consideration of the award. To ensure effective use of limited PRM funds, conditions or recommendations may include requests to increase, decrease, clarify, and/or justify costs and program activities.

4. New PRM Award Data Sheet: Prior to award and upon final negotiation, PRM will ask the selected NGOs to fill out and submit a PRM Award Data Sheet to capture a subset of information from the proposal.

F. Federal Award Administration Information

1. Federal Award Administration. A successful applicant can expect to receive a separate notice from PRM stating that an application has been selected before PRM actually makes the federal award. That notice is not an authorization to begin performance. Only the notice of award signed by the grants officer is the authorizing document. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified following completion of the selection and award process.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. PRM awards are made consistent with the following provisions in the following order of precedence: (a) applicable laws and statutes of the United States, including any specific legislative provisions mandated in the statutory authority for the award; (b) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); (c) Department of State Standard Terms and Conditions of the award; (d) the award’s specific requirements; and (e) other documents and attachments to the award.

3. Reporting

Successful applicants will be required to submit:

(a) Program Reports: PRM requires program reports describing and analyzing the results of activities undertaken during the validity period of the agreement. A program report is required within thirty (30) days following the end of each three month period of performance during the validity period of the agreement. The final program report is due ninety (90) days following the end of the agreement. The submission dates for program reports will be written into the cooperative agreement. Partners receiving multi-year awards should follow this same reporting schedule and should still submit a final program report at the end of each year that summarizes the NGO’s performance during the previous year.

The Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR) is a standard, government-wide performance reporting format. Recipients of PRM funding must submit the signed SF-PPR cover page with each program report. In addition, the Bureau suggests that NGOs receiving PRM funding use the PRM recommended program report template and reference this template as being attached in block 10 of the SF-PPR. This template is designed to ease the reporting requirements while ensuring that all required elements are addressed. The Program Report Template can be requested by sending an email with only the phrase “PRM NGO Templates” (without the quotation marks) in the subject line to PRMNGOCoordinator@state.gov.

(b) Financial Reports: Financial reports are required within thirty (30) days following the end of each calendar year quarter during the validity period of the agreement (January 30th, April 30th, July 30th, October 30th). The final financial report covering the entire period of the agreement is required within ninety (90) days after the expiration date of the agreement. For agreements containing indirect costs, final financial reports are due within sixty (60) days of the finalization of the applicable negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (NICRA).

Reports reflecting expenditures for the recipient’s overseas and United States offices should be completed in accordance with the Federal Financial Report (FFR SF-425) and submitted electronically in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Payment Management System (HHS/PMS) and in accordance with other award specific requirements. Detailed information pertaining to the Federal Financial Report including due dates, instruction manuals and access forms, is provided on the HHS/PMS website.

For more details regarding reporting requirements please see PRM’s General NGO Guidelines.

(c) Audit Reports: When a recipient-contracted audit is not required because the Federal award amount is less than the $750,000 threshold, the Department may determine that an audit must be performed and the audit report must be submitted to the responsible grants office(r) for review, dissemination, and resolution as appropriate. The cost of audits required under this policy may be charged either as an allowable direct cost to the award, or included in the organizations established indirect costs in the award’s detailed budget.

G. PRM Contacts

Applicants with technical questions related to this announcement should contact the PRM staff listed below prior to proposal submission. Please note that responses to technical questions from PRM do not indicate a commitment to fund the program discussed.

PRM Program Officer: Naveed Malik (MalikNA@state.gov, +1-202-453-9308) Washington, D.C.

Regional Refugee Coordinator: Skye Justice (JusticeSS@state.gov, + 221 33 879 4049) U.S. Embassy, Dakar, Senegal.



The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Read More

Opening 2017 Session, Non-Governmental Organization Committee Recommends Consultative Status for 21 Groups, Defers Action on 13 Others

Opening its regular session for 2017, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommended 21 organizations for special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and deferred action on the status of 13 others.

The 19-member Committee vets applications submitted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), recommending general, special or roster status on the basis of such criteria as the applicant’s mandate, governance and financial regime. Organizations enjoying general and special status can attend meetings of the Council and issue statements, while those with general status can also speak during meetings and propose agenda items. Organizations with roster status can only attend meetings.

At the start of the meeting, the Committee adopted its agenda (document E/C.2/2017/1) and programme of work. It re-elected by acclamation Jorge Dotta (Uruguay), on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States as its Chair; and Ceren Hande Ozgur (Turkey), on behalf of the Western European and other States Group. It postponed the election of its remaining Vice-Chairs.

Navid Hanif, Director of the Office for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said among the critical issues on the Committee’s agenda was the timely realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Widely acknowledged that the 2030 Agenda could only be achieved through a broad range of partnerships, including with civil society, the Committee played a critical role in opening the doors to them. Civil society’s interest to be part of the 2030 Agenda process could be seen by the exponential growth, with new applications rising to 747 in 2016 from 143 in 2009.

However, he went on to say, budget constraints had significantly affected the capacity of the Office for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination. The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) had approved then withdrawn temporary resources, leaving the NGO Branch severely strained to keep pace with the growth in its work programme. But, we now seem to have finally reached our limit, he said. We simply cannot absorb the inflated workload and guarantee the delivery of the full complement of applications and quadrennial reports. It also means that there will be a backlog in the submission of applications to the Committee resulting in inordinate delays for NGOs in obtaining consultative status.

Reiterating the Committee’s important work, he said it was in the United Nations larger interest to ensure expeditious conclusions and decisions on NGO applicants, particularly in the context of the 2030 Agenda and the need to forge partnerships with civil society in the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Mr. Dotta echoed that message, saying the adoption of the 2030 Agenda had provided a new impetus for the engagement of civil society representatives in the United Nations work in economic and social fields. The scope of the work was large, with record numbers of applications, he said, emphasizing that he would do his utmost to ensure efficiency in the Committee’s efforts.

In 2017, the Committee would consider 289 new applications, in addition to 235 applications deferred from previous sessions, 360 quadrennial reports of NGOs in general and special consultative status and 90 quadrennial reports deferred from earlier sessions. The Committee also considered a special report contained in a letter by the Permanent Mission of Turkey.

Marc-Andre Dorel, Acting Chief of the Non-Governmental Organization Branch of the Office for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination, drawing attention to the large number of applications, pledged to provide any assistance required during the session.

The Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations will meet again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 31 January, to continue its session, which runs from 30 January to 8 February.

General Statements

During a discussion on whether a member of civil society could make a statement before new applications were considered, the Committee could not reach a consensus. Representatives, among them those from the United Kingdom, United States, Greece and the European Union, believed there was value to hear civil society members speak before new applications were considered.

Other Committee members, including those from India and the Russian Federation, disagreed, with China’s representative saying, we just don’t have the time.

ALEXANDER LOMAIA, of the Secretariat, pointed out that there was an allocated time at the end of each meeting, which could provide an appropriate opportunity for civil society representatives to make a statement.

Special Reports

CEREN HANDE OZGAR (Turkey) said a letter dated 23 January 2017 had been circulated among Committee members, requesting the withdrawal of consultative status of three organizations: Kimse Yok Mu Dayanisma ve Yardimlasma Dernegi; Gazeteciler ve Yazarlar Vakfi; and Turkiye Isadamlari ve Sanayciler Konfederasyonu. Those organizations had been found to have had links with the Fetullahist Terrorist Organization, which had staged a failed coup attempt on 15 July against the constitutional order in Turkey. The Turkish Grand National Assembly had approved a law on 23 July 2016 that organizations had been dissolved. Hence, the basis of their consultative status had ceased to exist.

Representatives of Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Burundi, China, Sudan and Venezuela supported the proposal.

The representative of the United States requested more information and a response from the NGOs before the discussion continued.

The Committee then decided against the United States’ proposal of postponing action on recommending to the Economic and Social Council the withdrawal of consultative status of the three above-mentioned NGOs, with 2 in favour (Israel, United States) to 14 against, with 2 abstentions (Russian Federation, Uruguay) and 1 absent (Greece).

The representative of Cuba said that in the future, there should be clarifications on rules of procedure.

The representative of Nicaragua expressed concern about the vote, adding her support for Turkey’s request.

The representative of Azerbaijan asked for clarification on the vote at hand.

The Committee then took action on the request that had been proposed by Turkey to recommend the withdrawal of consultative status of the three above-mentioned NGOs.

The representative of the United States asked for separate votes on each NGO.

The representative of Sudan said the request was for withdrawing status for all three, together.

The Committee then decided to recommend the withdrawal of consultative status of Kimse Yok Mu, with 16 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (United States, Uruguay) and 1 absent (Israel).

The representative of the United States expressed concern about a crackdown on civil society groups.

The Committee then took up consideration of the request to recommend the withdrawal of consultative status from the Journalists and Writers Foundation, which was listed in Turkey’s request as Gazeteciler ve Yazarlar Vakfi.

The representative of the United States said that NGO was operational. It was based and operated in New York, in the United States.

The representative of Turkey said consultative status had been granted to Gazeteciler ve Yazarlar Vakfi, which could be found in the list of NGOs with consultative status with the Council, contained in document E/2015/INF/5.

A representative of the Secretariat noted a discrepancy in the United Nations database with the name of the organization. He further noted that the official decision of the Council prevailed on whether or not to withdraw consultative status.

The Committee then decided, by a vote of 16 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), to recommend to the Economic and Social Council the withdrawal of consultative status of Gazeteciler ve Yazarlar Vakfi/Journalists and Writers Foundation.

The Committee then took action on the Turkiye Isadamlari ve Sanayciler Konfederasyonu.

The representative of the United States reiterated its grave concern on crackdowns on NGOs. Because the NGO in question did not exist, she said her delegation would abstain from voting.

The Committee then agreed to recommend the withdrawal of consultative status from Turkiye Isadamlari ve Sanayciler Konfederasyonu, by a vote of 16 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (United States, Uruguay) and 1 absent (Israel).

A representative of the Secretariat provided clarification on rules of withdrawing status of an NGO, citing article 56 of resolution 1996/31, which stated that before losing status, an NGO must be consulted on the proposed decision and have the opportunity to speak before the Committee.

A representative of the Secretariat said the next steps would be to provide reasons in writing for the Committee’s decision.

The representative of Turkey said the case at hand concerned organizations that were no longer in existence. Therefore, the reasoning did not apply to the current situation.

The representative of the United States said the provisions of Article 56 applied to the situation at hand.

The representative of India said a perspective was needed because the decision of the Committee to withdraw status was based on the fact that the organizations did not exist.

Mr. DOTTA said Article 56 could not be ignored.

The representative of India asked that if the Secretariat would communicate with the NGOs, to whom would they address the communication.

A representative of the Secretariat said it would use the names and addresses in the database.

The representative of Pakistan asked for clarification on the issue.

The representative of Turkey reiterated that the decision taken was based on the fact that the organizations no longer existed. Other articles in the resolution, Article 15, for instance, that said the withdrawal of consultative status and the decisions on the matter were the prerogative of Member States.

A representative of the Secretariat said ultimately, the Economic and Social Council decided on those matters.

The representative of India said a letter would be written by the Secretariat to an address that no longer existed. What Turkey’s delegate had pointed out, he said, was that the NGO Committee should decide on a recommendation and the Council should then take a decision on the matter. There was no reason to write to a non-existing entity. Nowhere in resolution 1996/31 did it address this particular situation. As such, the Committee must decide how to go forward.

The representative of Azerbaijan said in a similar case involving an NGO in his country, the status had been immediately withdrawn.

The representative of the United States reiterated that the Committee’s role was to make a recommendation, with the Council having to make a decision. Applying resolution 1996/31 was relevant to the decisions facing the Committee today and must be followed through.

The representative of China said the Committee had already made a decision on the withdrawal of status for the three organizations based on the allegations of the delegation of Turkey. China respected resolution 1996/31, but a decision had already been made, he said, agreeing with India’s proposal.

The representative of Cuba said the situation was marked by a legal vacuum with regard to organizations that ceased to exist. Therefore, he expressed concerns about to whom a letter about consultative status could be addressed. Indeed, one of the organizations was operating in the United States. However, the question remained about who should be addressed.

Mr. DOTTA said if there was a legal vacuum, the Committee should find a way to proceed.

The representative of the United States reiterated that the decision was to proceed to decide whether or not to recommend the withdrawal of consultative status. There was no legal vacuum, he said. The action of recommending withdrawal of status, in fact, treated the concerned organization as an NGO.

The representative of Turkey proposed that the issue would be put to a vote by the Committee, particularly that Article 56 of resolution 1996/31 did not apply to the current situations because the NGOs did not, in fact, exist.

The representative of the United States said such a proposal would, in fact, have a subsidiary body override the role of the parent body. Such a vote would be beyond the competence of the Committee, he said.

The representative of Turkey asked whether the article in question gave authority to the Committee to make such decisions.

The Committee resumed consideration of Turkey’s proposal after a five-minute-long suspension.

The representative of Turkey said her proposal was a request that delegations voted in favour of deciding that the Committee could not contact the three organizations that had ceased to exist.

The representative of the United States said the proposal was inconsistent with Article 56. He moved for a decision to be taken that the Committee lacked the competence to decide on the proposal by Turkey.

The Committee then rejected the United States proposal, by a vote of 2 in favour (Israel, United States) to 14 against, with 1 abstention (Uruguay) and 2 absent (Greece, Guinea).

Taking up Turkey’s proposal, the Committee voted by 13 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Russian Federation, Uruguay) and 2 absent (Greece, Guinea).

The representative of Venezuela, speaking in explanation of position, said his delegation had voted, but fully supported resolution 1996/31. If NGOs maintained their legal status, Article 56 of that resolution could be applied.

Special Consultative Status

The Committee recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to the following nine organizations:

Association des Femmes pour la Paix et Encadrement des Familles (AFPEFAM) (Cameroon);

African Development Assistance Consult (Democratic Republic of the Congo);

African Green Foundation International (Nigeria);

African Woman and Child Feature Service (Kenya);

Agence de Developpement Economique et Social (Chad);

Agro Professional Care Foundation-Yola (Nigeria);

Al Baraem Association for Charitable Work (Lebanon);

Ashiana Collective Development Council (Pakistan);

Association Gabonaise pour les Nations Unies (AGNU) (Gabon).

The Committee postponed consideration of the following six organizations:

AMPHTS (Syria) � as the representative of the United States asked for financial details.

Action pour la promotion du developpement (Congo) � as the representative of South Africa asked for disaggregated data and details on funding.

African Women Chartered Accountants Forum NPC (South Africa) � as the representative of South Africa asked for details on funding sources.

Association Marocaine de Planification Familiale (Morocco) � as the representative of Nicaragua asked who funded the organization.

Association M’zab prevention routiAre et developpement (Morocco) � as the representative of Iran asked for further explanation of its activities.

Association Nationale des Echanges Entre Jeunes (Algeria) � as the representative of Nicaragua asked for details on funding sources.

Interactive Discussion

During a question-and-answer session this afternoon, NGO representatives faced questions posed by the Committee.

A representative of the organization United Zo Organization (USA) offered to answer any questions Committee members might have.

The representative of India asked for details on activities in India.

The representative of United Zo Organization (USA) said his group worked with, but were not affiliated with, organizations in India and Malaysia.

The Committee then granted special consultative status to United Zo Organization (USA).

A representative of the organization Mandala Transformation Foundation said her cross-cultural group was helping orphans in Uganda who lacked access to clean water and medicine.

The representative of South Africa asked for details on the Uganda project, considering that the application had shown no expenditures.

The representative of the Mandala Transformation Foundation said due to funding shortages, limited support for the orphans was available, including deliveries of shoes and socks.

The Committee then granted special consultative status to the Mandala Transformation Foundation.

A representative of the organization Congregation of the Mission said his group had been founded 400 years ago in France.

The representative of Pakistan asked why expenditures were about $300,000 more than earnings.

The representative of the Congregation of the Mission said the organization maintained general and national budgets.

The representative of Cuba said there was no project expenditure in Part III of the application, whereas Part I described ongoing projects.

The representative of the Congregation of the Mission said the organization developed projects for communities.

The Committee then postponed consideration of that organization pending the receipt of further information.

A representative of the organization EUROGEO said his group had made the requested correction to its website.

The representative of China said that there were mentions on the website of workshops and a registration form that had mentioned China and Taiwan under the list of countries. He asked that Taiwan was deleted under that list.

A representative of the organization EUROGEO said the change had been made and Taiwan did not exist on the website any longer.

The representative of China said Taiwan was indeed on the website now.

The representative of Cuba asked about expenditures.

The representative of EUROGEO said expenditures included materials.

The Committee then postponed consideration of that organization pending the receipt of further information.

Special Consultative Status

The Committee then recommended that the Economic and Social Council grant special consultative status to the following 10 organizations:

Association Respect Cameroun (Cameroon);

Association Solidarite pour les Personnes Vivant le Veuvage (Democratic Republic of the Congo);

Association Un Monde Avenir (Cameroon);

Association de l’education environnementale pour les futures generations (Tunisia);

Association for Promotion Sustainable Development (India);

Association for Rural Area Social Modification, Improvement and Nestling (India);

Association nationale du civisme (Democratic Republic of the Congo);

Association of Christian Counsellors of Nigeria (Nigeria);

Association pour le developpement culturel (ADEC) (Chad);

Avabe Initiative for Community Development (Nigeria).

The Committee postponed consideration of the following five organizations:

Association d’assistance aux grands handicapes A� domicile (Tunisia) � as the representative of South Africa asked for details on financial information.

Association de la continuite des generations (Tunisia) � as the representative of South Africa asked for disaggregated data and financial details.

Association de lutte contre la pauvrete (Mauritania) � as the representative of Mauritania asked for names of individuals in the organization and for funding details and the representative of Greece asked for information on the organization’s members.

Association organisation populaire pour l’enseignment des droits humains (Mauritania) � as the representative of Mauritania asked about details of projects and their related budget.

Association pour l’A�ducation et la Sante de la Femme et de l’Enfant (AESFE) (Mauritania) � as the representative of Mauritania asked for more details on projects being undertaken.

Source: United Nations

Read More

South Africa’s Soothsayers Busy Predicting AFCON Soccer Results

JOHANNESBURG � A thunderstorm rages east of Johannesburg. Rain hammers the corrugated iron roof of a small house in a bleak township. An elderly woman, strings white beads around her wrinkled neck, head and wrists, sitting on a cement floor in a corner of a room.

These days, she makes a good living predicting the results of soccer matches.

In South Africa, there’s great anticipation among soccer fans ahead of the semifinals later this week of the 2017 African Nations Cup. The AFCON tournament is currently on the go in Gabon. But supporters of the so-called ‘beautiful game’ aren’t the only ones watching. Some South African sangomas, or traditional healers, who claim links to ancient spirits, are doing good business predicting likely winners.

Eighty-five-year-old Nozo Zintoyinto from the Xhosa ethnic group is one such sangoma. She has been doing it for more than 60 years.

Zintoyinto explains that a deceased ancestor appeared to her in a dream when she was a teenager and called on her to be a sangoma. Then a senior traditional healer trained her to interpret signs from the spirits, to heal people and also to forecast the future.

Zintoyinto’s services are not free and, lately, she says, business is good.

I don’t know much about soccer. But since this AFCON thing started, lots of men have been coming to me. They ask me to predict the results of games. Then they go to the betting places to put bets on the teams I think will be the winners.

Zintoyinto shakes a handful of seashells and throws them on an orange blanket on the floor. She says her ancestors help her interpret events based on how the shells land.

The shells told me before the AFCON competition that Ivory Coast and Senegal would not do well. I told this to one of my clients who then put one hundred rand (about $7.00) each on Ivory Coast and Senegal being knocked out. That is what happened so the man, he won a lot of money.

Cameroon to face Egypt?

But, Zintoyinto quickly adds, neither she, nor the spirits, are infallible. She says some ancestors are mischievous, and some make mistakes. So whatever prophecy she delivers should only be used as a guide.

You must remember, the shells are always correct. They are the connection with my ancestral spirits. But sometimes I must admit I don’t interpret the shells 100 percent right. Because when I’m busy with the shells, the ancestors are making a lot of noise in my mind, Zintoyinto says.

The first AFCON semi-final on Wednesday features outsiders: Burkina Faso against the competition’s most successful team, Egypt. The Pharaohs are bidding for their eighth tournament win.

The spirits are showing me players dressed in red. They are celebrating. They have light skins. They are not black Africans, Zintoyinto says. Her words point to a victory for Egypt.

In Thursday’s semi-final, one of the title favorites, Ghana’s Black Stars, will face off against Cameroon’s Indomitable Lions. Both are four-time competition winners, but soccer analysts have labeled Cameroon the underdogs.

The ancestors are shouting a lot. They are disagreeing about this match. But most are telling me Cameroon will win, Zintoyinto says.

So, according to the sangoma, it’ll be a Cameroon versus Egypt in the final match but which team will prevail?

Zintoyinto smiles, shakes her head slowly and says: That’s too far in the future. Come see me on Friday. Then I will tell you.

Source: Voice of America

Read More