Despite challenges, health of cials in the countries presented in this report have found innovative ways to mobilize funding, channel resources and build partnerships to respond effectively to HIV. Some of the factors key to success have included:

• ƒ  Inclusion of community representatives in the panels that review and select grant recipients—this helps to ensure that the funded organizations have the trust of and connection to key populations, and strengthens community ownership of the process.
• ƒ  Creating quasi-governmental organizations to receive government funding and redirect it to nongovernmental organizations, in particular nongovernmental organizations working with stigmatized or criminalized key populations.
• ƒ  Maintaining rigorous standards for grant recipients, while investing in capacity- strengthening to ensure that organizations doing good work have a chance to succeed, grow and become mentors of other peer groups.
• Standardizing procurement, costing and monitoring and evaluation processes to reduce corruption and ensure good-quality programming across a decentralized service delivery process.
• Mobilizing private funders for community HIV programmes.
• Calculating the costing of programmes realistically, including overheads and administrative costs, so the community component of the national response is fully funded.
• Facilitating collaboration among nongovernmental organizations working in the HIV response, while supporting regular dialogue between governments and nongovernmental organizations.

To reach the Fast-Track Targets, there is a need for expanded programmes and increased investments in community mobilization and community-based service delivery. As the domestic share for nancing the response to HIV is increasing, and in some cases international funding is in transition, it is hoped that examples such as the ones presented in this report can support governments to overcome administrative challenges and ensure domestic funds can reach community-based organizations to deliver services, advocacy and participation in decision-making and accountability.

All 6 examples can be useful for EECA countries as guides and best practices in planning their own programs and the transition of community interventions funding to government owned, though we have looked more precisely and translated only the key findings of the Moldovan example. To get acquainted with other country examples, please see the full text of the report in English.