The selection and assessment process will take place in three stages:

1. Application and Pre-screening
2. Assessment
3. Final Selection and Negotiations of Terms of Support

The process can be understood at a glance in this diagram:

4. Selection and Assessment Process Summarized

Application and Pre-screening

The deadline for the submission of Expressions of Interest is August 19, 2008. An initial screening of applicants will be based on whether they are from one of the eleven countries highlighted above, and on whether their application is complete and has been submitted on or before the deadline.

Following this pre-screen, applicants will be screened based on the following eligibility criteria:

1. Applicant is an existing or newly formed non-governmental, not-for-profit organization legally founded and registered as an independent entity¹ in the country of operation. The institution should:

• be legally founded and registered in the country of operation;
• have and provide an audited financial statement (with the exception of newly formed institutions);
• have a Board of Directors and an executive that is accountable to the Board;
• be a non-governmental, non-for profit organization;
• be not simply the Secretariat for a larger network (though is likely to be a member of some research networks);
• not depend exclusively on the government for funding;

2. Applicant possesses a track record of rigorous research and analysis on national social and economic policy issues related to growth, equity and poverty reduction; this precludes institutions whose work is focused exclusively on one sector or policy issue. The institution should:

• carry out policy-oriented research;
• focus primarily on national-level policy issues;
• carry out “multi-sector” research on social and economic policy issues (as opposed to focusing exclusively on one sector);

3. Applicant is committed to using research to inform national public debate and to create spaces for discussion and new ideas. The institution should:

• have a minimum in-house capacity (it is not simply a “virtual” research centre that mobilizes expertise for particular projects);
• be non-partisan; and,
• demonstrate a commitment to publishing research findings in the public domain and contributing to public debate.

Top.

Assessment

Following this first step, the review panel will carry out an in-depth assessment of eligible applicants, based on the following four areas:

• Research Quality: evidence of the organization’s ability to undertake research that is robust and to share the results of its research with key stakeholders;
• Organizational Performance: evidence that the organization has the basic systems, resources, and management to succeed, and/or that it has the ability to understand its weaknesses and propose how to develop or improve these systems; and,
• Policy Linkages: evidence of the organization’s minimal level of understanding of the policy context within its field and desire to link with policymakers to share its results.
• Organizational motivation: evidence of the organization’s commitment to undertake organizational improvement, as well as to contribute to learning and exchange with other research institutes.

The following is a list of the kind of evidence sought for the above areas:

Research Quality

The institution:

• has a track record of rigorous and impartial research and analysis on social and economic policy issues related to growth, equity and poverty reduction; or has the potential to conduct such research and analysis;
• demonstrates a commitment to using research to inform public debate (not simply consulting and commissioned studies); and,
• demonstrates the ability, or at least the desire, to set an independent research agenda.

Organizational Performance

The institution has some basic level of, and/or has identified gaps in:

• strategic leadership;
• organizational structure;
• human resources;
• program, process and financial management;
• IT and other organizational infrastructure; and,
• Communications.

Policy Linkages

The institution:

• demonstrates at least a basic ability to assess policy contexts in order to identify opportunities for research and analysis and adapt programs to respond appropriately; and,
• is considered credible by some policy makers and is willing to expand contacts with government officials, media and other policy actors to identify key issues, share research results and stimulate policy debates.

Organizational Motivation

The institution:

• demonstrates ownership and commitment to improve;
• understands the rewards and demands of participating in this Initiative;
• demonstrates willingness to challenge current assumptions about how to do business; and,
• is willing to share ideas and information with other think tanks and with funding partners.

During this process the review panel may choose to contact the institution’s references; request an interview with the organization’s CEO or founder; and seek further information from the institution and/or from third-party sources.

A group of outside experts will carry out anonymous peer reviews of no more than three research products for each eligible applicant. These experts will review and assess the outputs based on potential policy relevance of the research, soundness of research design, technical sophistication of analysis, and effectiveness of presentation. These reviews will assist both the applicant and the Initiative to assess the quality of research the organization is currently producing. A review system will be developed for those organizations that may be too new to have yet produced any major research outputs.

Based on the above criteria and the peer reviews, 20-25 organizations will be endorsed to proceed to the next phase. All applicants will be notified by September 26th of whether or not they have moved on to the third stage of Final Selection and Negotiation of Terms of Support. The review panel will identify any organizations that have met the selection criteria but are not recommended to receive funding in this round. These organizations could potentially receive funding if the Initiative expands or if negotiations with a first-tier applicant are not successful.

Top.

Final Selection and Negotiations of Terms of Support

The 20-25 short-listed applicants will be invited to this third phase under the assumption that the majority of these organizations (16-20) will receive funding. This stage is envisioned as a discovery or explorative process of the current realities within potential partner organizations, in other words, the discovery of what is already working that needs to be augmented, and the initial articulation of what the organization wants and needs to do and become in order to succeed.

Members of the review panel will visit the shortlisted institutions to meet with its staff and together explore further the organizational needs to be addressed and how to begin approaching them. The result of this stage will be a clearer idea of how best to support each organization and greater clarity on the specific goals desired by each think tank and the Initiative.

The review panel will then prepare an appraisal package summarizing the full set of inputs (application, peer review, and institutional visits) for each shortlisted candidate organization, and provide recommendations to the Initiative’s International Advisory Group.

The International Advisory Group members will meet to carefully review each institution and its appraisal by the review panel. It will then recommend to the Initiative which organizations should receive funding.

All applicants will be notified of the results by December 20th and successful candidates will be invited to negotiate the terms of the grant agreements. These negotiations will draw on the results of the assessment phase.

Top.

Selection and Assessment Process Summarized

Top.

Next: Guidelines for Submitting Expressions of Interest
Back: About the Initiative

Back to Contents

1. Institutions may be linked to a university but will need to demonstrate their ability to set an independent research agenda and manage funds directly.