Exercises — Chapter 21: International and Multilateral Funding

Work these with a real or imagined cross-border project. Even if your work is purely domestic, do Parts A and M — the logframe discipline and the partnership-and-power lens strengthen any results-focused proposal and any collaboration.

How to use these: Part A checks recall; Part B applies the chapter to concrete international-funding decisions; Part C asks you to create at the level a real applicant must (a logframe, a partnership design); Part M interleaves earlier chapters. Answers to selected exercises (★) are in the back matter.

Part A — Recall and Understand

A1. ★ State the chapter's threshold concept in your own words. What is the "fundable unit" in international funding, and how is that different from domestic funding?

A2. Name the four main international funding channels and give a one-line description of each.

A3. List four ways crossing borders adds complexity beyond a domestic proposal.

A4. ★ What is localization (locally led development), what drives it, and how does it change the partnership calculus for (a) an international organization and (b) a local organization?

A5. Define the logical framework (logframe): its results chain and the three things specified for each level. How does it relate to the Chapter 10 logic model?

A6. What are cross-cutting issues, and why must they be integrated rather than appended? Name four.

A7. Define: bilateral aid agency, multilateral body, consortium / lead partner, value for money, safeguarding (PSEAH), concept note.

Part B — Apply

B1. ★ Real or decorative? For each partnership, say whether it's genuine or decorative local partnership, and how to improve it: - (a) An INGO leads, holds 90% of the budget and all decisions; a local NGO delivers training for a small fee and appears in the "local partner" box. - (b) A local organization leads, holds meaningful budget and decision authority; an international partner provides fiduciary support and global learning. - (c) An INGO designs the whole project, then recruits a local partner to "validate" it after the fact. - (d) A consortium co-designs the project with the local partner from the start, with the local partner's market knowledge shaping the approach.

B2. Read the sub-world. A funder issues a call. How would your proposal differ if the funder is (a) a cross-border research program versus (b) a bilateral development grant versus (c) a humanitarian fund? Name what each most rewards.

B3. ★ Build a results chain. For a cross-border project idea, write the four-level results chain (activities → outputs → outcomes → impact), making each level follow plausibly from the one below.

B4. Currency and compliance. A three-year project is funded in one currency and spent mostly in another. List the financial and compliance risks you'd plan for, and how you'd resource them in the budget and staffing.

B5. Integrate, don't append. Take a project and show how you'd weave gender equality and social inclusion through the problem analysis, activities, indicators, and outcomes — rather than adding a token paragraph.

Part C — Analyze and Create

C1. ★ Build a logframe. For your project, construct a logframe: the results chain, plus for each level an indicator (with baseline → target), means of verification, and key assumptions/risks. Align the budget and MEL plan to it. This goes in your "My Proposal" document.

C2. Design the partnership. Map the partnership your project needs: who leads, who delivers, how budget and decisions are shared, and — explicitly — how local organizations hold genuine leadership. Write the one-paragraph case you'd make to a funder that this partnership is real, not decorative.

C3. ★ Concept note. Draft a two-to-three-page concept note for a cross-border project: problem, approach, partnership, results (logframe summary), and budget — written to a specific (real or composite) funder's priorities, with cross-cutting issues integrated.

C4. Localization self-audit. Whether you're international or local, honestly audit a project (yours or a composite) against the localization principle: who designed it, who leads, who holds the money, whose knowledge shaped it, who gets credit? Name two concrete changes that would shift power toward those closest to the problem.

C5. Value-for-money case. For your project, sketch a value-for-money argument: how your design achieves meaningful results per dollar (consider economy, efficiency, effectiveness, equity). Show it's about impact per cost, not just low cost.

Part M — Mixed and Interleaved Review

M1. ★ (Ch 20 + 21) SBIR added a second test (commercial potential). What does international funding add beyond the technical plan that an applicant must satisfy? Name at least three layers.

M2. (Ch 10 + 21) Compare the logic model and the logframe. What does the logframe add, and why do those additions matter for accountability across borders?

M3. ★ (Ch 18 + 21) How does international funding's partnership logic echo the foundation relationship-as-system idea, and how is it different (consortium, cross-border accountability, localization)?

M4. (Ch 13 + 21) For an international grant, organizational capacity includes fiduciary capacity across borders and the lead's responsibility for partners. Revise a capacity argument to address managing a multi-partner, multi-currency award.

M5. (Ch 14 + 21) How do sustainability and the cross-cutting "sustainability" requirement connect? Why is "what happens after the funding" especially fraught in international development?

M6. (Ch 16 + 21) Trace Hernandez from a domestic NIH R01 to an international research consortium. What changes about the team, the accountability framework, the compliance, and the partnership — and what stays the same?

🪞 Metacognitive check-in. This chapter asked you to examine your own position in a system shaped by power and history — uncomfortable work, especially if you come from a wealthy country or a large international organization. Notice whether you're tempted to treat localization as a box to tick or a threat to manage, rather than a genuine rebalancing to engage. The discomfort isn't a sign you're doing it wrong; for international funding in this era, sitting with it honestly is part of doing it right.