The document provides criteria and scoring guidelines for assessing concept papers submitted for a training programme called JOBA. Applicants must submit a concept paper describing their proposed training institution or partnerships. The concept paper will be assessed based on 12 requirements including being a legal entity, having necessary certifications and management systems, and providing relevant skills training. Concept papers will be scored on a scale of 0 to 10 based on the extent to which the requirements are met. The selection criteria for funding will evaluate the proposed initiatives based on their pro-poor impact, inclusion of wrap-around support services, additionality compared to alternatives, sustainability beyond funding, innovation, and the organisation's commercial purpose and management capacity. Scoring guidelines ranging from 0 to 10 or

1. Impact Assessment Criteria Weighting
Pre-Selection of the Training Concept
Applicants will be required to submit a Concept paper which will
provide basic information on the proposed institution and/or its
intended partnerships with employers and other relevant partners. The
Concept Paper should attest to the training provider’s ability and
capacity to provide training in accordance with the aspirations of the
JOBA programme and that the requirements as detailed below are in
place.
1. The applicant must be a legal entity or has the intention to become
one.
2. The applicant must have a NUIT number as well as a tax compliance
certificate.
3. The concept is directly linked to the outcome and outputs of JOBA.
4. The concept is directly linked to a strategic plan of the applicant.
5. The concept includes ideas for revenue generation (third stream
income).
6. The concept includes the monetary or a description of ‘in kind’
contribution of the applicant.
7. The training provider is registered (or plans to register) and comply
with the requirements of the relevant regulatory body.
8. The potential applicant has an accounting system, budgeting and
financial reporting system, procurement and inventory management
system.
9. The potential applicant has a management structure and management
system which facilitates informed decision making.
10. The potential applicant has a system for monitoring and reporting
progress against their strategic goals.
11. The concept shows that the existing and/or proposed skills training is
relevant to the local labour market.
12. The proposed trainers are appropriately qualified and experienced
The concept note provides for facilities and equipment necessary to
deliver envisaged programmes.
Scoring
0 The Concept Paper does in no way address or show evidence
that the above requirements are met or that there are plans to
meet them in future.
5 (a) The training provider or the partnership meets the
majority of the requirements and there is potential that
the provider will meet most of the requirements but may
be uncertain to fully meet these before the project is
implemented or thereafter.

2. 10 There is a clear evidence that:
(a) Applicant shows evidence that they have a strategic plan
and that the proposal is aligned to it as well as linked to
the goals and objectives of JOBA.
(b) Applicants’ programme offering meets the legal
requirements of the country, are aligned to local needs
and are delivered by qualified and experienced trainers.
(c) The proposal shows that the applicant possesses
management capacity, adequate equipment and
facilities to deliver quality programmes.
(d) There is evidence that the applicant has in place
accounting and reporting systems to ensure proper
management and monitoring of their budget and
expenditure, and
(e) That the applicant is partly owned by Mozambicans.
SELECTION CRITERIA
a. Pro-Poor Impact / Women Empowerment
The main objective of the S4E is to catalyse investment, innovation and
partnerships which result in stronger, more inclusive ‘pro-poor’ growth in its
areas of operation. Initiatives should therefore clearly demonstrate their
potential to sustainably create enterprise, income earning and job opportunities,
particularly for households and communities historically excluded from
participating in the formal sector. This may be through direct employment, but is
more likely to be indirectly through skills development, SME linkages with
established firms, and/or enhanced local economic development - all made
possible through the proposed initiative. In interpreting proposals, reviewers
must look beyond unsubstantiated statements about ‘small enterprise, linkage
development and job creation’ to explore the logic chain that links the proposed
intervention to long-term, sustainable outcomes. These links must be plausible
and demonstrable, and should not rest on unrealistic assumptions. In addition,
the proposal should show the following:
1. The proposal is specifically aimed at providing access and enhancing
the future employability of women and other marginalised youth
2. The proposal includes strategies for maintaining high retention rates of
learners, especially young women
3. There is evidence that the training materials will be professionally
presented and gender sensitive
Scoring
0 No clear link between the proposed initiative and potential for
long-term sustainable enterprise and/or job creation; or this is
based on unrealistic assumptions. Pro-poor impact is entirely
incidental to the applicant’s main objective of expanding or
extending its existing operations. There are significant risks
20%

3. associated with the fulfillment of the pro-poor (Vs. the
commercial) objectives of the initiative.
5 (b) Potential for enterprise/job creation is significant but may
be uncertain, not fully evidenced or not sustainable
beyond the life of the project.
(c) Proposed initiative only creates enterprise/jobs linkages
through the simple expansion of an existing business or
as a result of an investment in an asset.
(d) Training is provided for, is relevant and is directly linked
to market demand.
(e) The proposal logic and results chain is clear and
compelling, but may need some development.
10 There is a clear, well-articulated and plausible link between the
proposed initiative and the potential for sustainable enterprise,
linkage and job creation, which ideally should extend beyond jobs
created through direct employment. Some or all of these
characteristics are evident:
b. Applicants can show evidence of job market analysis
and the potential for expansion of enterprises and jobs
as a result of the initiative.
c. Applicants make a clear distinction between temporary
and permanent linkages, enterprises and jobs.
d. The proposal contains clear elements of training, which
are directly linked to developing the skills base of
recipients, especially women and girls.
e. There is evidence that the initiative will have a positive
impact on long-term local economic development, and
broader income, linkage and employment opportunities
and multipliers
f. The linkage, enterprise and jobs-related logic chain
underpinning the initiative is strong
b. Wrap around services
The proposal includes employability components such as career counselling
(before, during and after training), literacy and life skills training, learner
mentoring, entrepreneurship, skills job search, workplace learning, follow up
support services, etc.
Scoring
0 a. The proposal provides for one element of the wrap
around services and is silent or weak on others
5 (a) T The proposal provides for one or two elements of the
wrap around services and is silent or weak on others
10 (a) The proposal provides for a comprehensive programme
of wrap around services to ensure the graduates can
easily be integrated or employed immediately upon
completing training
10%

4. c. Additionality
The Fund aims to catalyse activities that would not have taken place without the
incentives offered. Applicants should therefore prove that there investments
would not have taken place without S4E support, and/or that the pro-poor impact
of the investment will be measurably and proportionally bigger because of it.
This is to avoid applicants using public resources to pay for activities that would
have been undertaken anyway, or are being used merely to expand the
applicant’s core business mandate. It is important for S4E funding to avoid the
displacement or “crowding out” of private activity and investment through
unequal competition from private players, or distortionary activity by public
initiatives. Two key question in considering this criterion are: i) “would the
applicant have done this without S4E support, and if not, why not?”; and ii) “what
additional benefits (in the form of long term enterprise, linkage, job creation) are
associated with the proposed funding”. It is not in itself adequate for an applicant
merely to point to the non-availability of alternative sources of funding as a
justification for the proposed grant.
Scoring
0 (a) Applicant could and should obtain funding from other
sources, e.g., the commercial financial sector, other
government or donor sources designed to fund this type of
initiative.
(b) Evidence that this is a planned activity that is likely to
proceed anyway in the absence of the S4E.
(c) The initiative is already being funded in some way and S4E
support will simply displace this existing funding.
(d) The pro-poor impact (in terms of enterprise, linkage and job
creation) of the initiative is incidental, non-existent or
unsustainable.
(e) Initiative is of very little relevance to youth or women –
priority focus groups of the S4E
10 Although the applicant may be able to part-fund the initiative
through other channels (including own resources) or might
proceed without S4E support, the S4E grant will demonstrably
enable the initiative to be significantly extended, expanded or
leveraged. This additionality must be clearly reflected in terms of
additional enterprise, linkage, training or job creation impact or
potential.
(a) There is evidence that alternative funding channels have
been explored but have not been successful – for
reasons other than that the initiative is not plausible or
viable.
(b) The initiative has an innovative approach, which may be
perceived as being too risky by other funding
organizations
(c) There is a plausible link between S4E investment and
additional job- and enterprise- related outcomes.
(d) Initiative explicitly includes youth and/or women as
priority target groups.
10%

5. 20 The application clearly demonstrates that funding is not available
elsewhere for the initiative; without the S4E contribution it is
unlikely to go ahead, and the additional jobs-and enterprise-
related impact will not materialise.
(a) In the case of private sector applicants, commercial
returns are long-term or lower than the jobs-related
impact of the investment (i.e. there is a positive
externality); thus the required funding is unlikely to
materialise from the applicant’s own or commercial
sources.
(b) The highly innovative nature of the initiative makes it too
risky for usual funding sources, including shareholder
capital
(c) The applicant clearly demonstrates the reasons for the
failure of other funding channels to provide, and shows
the link between the S4E investment and the additional
impact beyond what would have been possible without
the S4E.
(d) Initiative explicitly targets youth and/or women as priority
(if not exclusive) target groups.
d. Sustainability beyond the funding requested
This criterion considers the sustainability of the initiative itself, as opposed to the
jobs created. Initiatives should be able to convincingly demonstrate their on-
going commercial and or funded sustainability - beyond the 2 - 3 year term of
the S4E grant. That is:
1. The proposal shows how the intervention to be supported by the grant
is sustainable beyond the life of the grant
2. The proposal supports the development of self-employed
entrepreneurs and therefore training should include entrepreneurship
modules
3. The applicant provides evidence of the financial viability of the lead
organisation(s) for implementing the intervention
Scoring
0 The initiative is unlikely to continue beyond the S4E grant, and will
not catalyse lasting investment, activity or support.
5 Sustainability of the initiative is based on plausible assumptions,
including some or all of the following:
(a) The initiative has other funding sources, or the S4E
investment will enable continued activity, but not
necessarily on the scale associated with the initial period
of the grant.
(b) There is a plausible revenue or activity-generating
mechanism that will enable the initiative to continue or
expand beyond the S4E grant - but this may depend on
factors not entirely in the applicant’s control
(c) Ideally, the initiative is a once-off intervention that will
catalyse and enable an increase in sustainable
15%

6. enterprise activity and employment that will be
maintained beyond the funding period.
10 There is strong evidence and a convincing case made in the
application that the initiative will be sustainable (i.e. self-funding
or commercially sustainable) beyond the period of S4E support.
(a) The applicant has a clear revenue or activity-generating
model that is already working for the initiative, though
may not be enough to sustain it currently without the
proposed S4E investment.
(b) The S4E investment will leverage the expansion,
adaptation, extension of a proven model, for which grant
funding is essential.
e. Innovation
Initiatives must be innovative in nature, or should aim to take existing, proven
initiatives or innovations to scale or into new areas. This involves risk and
adaptation, and requires more than just modular expansion or replication.
Applications should not be simple extensions of existing models, projects or
programmes that require continuous donor funding to survive.
1. The proposal shows how the proposed intervention is a model which
can potentially be replicated in other contexts
2. The proposal aims to implement innovative methods of training and/or
production
Scoring
0 Initiative is a simple extension of an existing initiative and the
funding requested will not add any new knowledge, insight or
learning.
5 (b) The innovation involves developing, adapting or
extending a product, concept or model in a way that
enhances its competitiveness, reach and/or impact, and
has a clear link to long term enterprise and job creation.
(c) There is clear potential for viability or replication beyond
the funding period
10 (b) Initiative represents a new and innovative approach
which (if successful) has the potential for large scale
replication, or represents a path-breaking initiative which
has the potential to result in large-scale, sustainable
linkage and job creation.
(c) Applicant clearly demonstrates that the initiative
represents a new approach and departs from other,
similar or tested initiatives.
(d) The initiative is credible and does not rest on heroic or
vague assumptions.
10%
f. Commercial Purpose / Management Capacity: 15%

7. Proposals need to be linked to the core mandate and objectives of the
applicant. In the case of private applications, the link should be to their core
business and should not relate merely to the creation or extension of its
philanthropic/CSR activities. In the case of public sector applicants,
applications should be rooted in a partnership(s) with private sector players
which clearly enhances the long-term viability, productivity and or sustainability
of a sector or industry. Applicants should have proven institutional and
practical capacity to implement their initiatives. A key consideration will be the
institutional strength and coherence of the proposed project, in relation to the
applicant’s core business and its demonstrated capacity. This should be
reflected in the business case underlying the proposal.
1. The proposal includes information on how the intervention will be
marketed and how learners will be recruited
2. The proposal shows how value for money will be achieved in terms of
the benefits accruing to beneficiaries
3. The proposal explains the HR systems (e.g. performance
management system, recruitment system, etc.)
4. The applicant proposes a system for collection and management of
data on learners, graduates and training programmes
5. The proposal includes a budget and schedule of payments for the
interventions
Scoring
0 Proposal is de-linked from the core business of the applicant and
is entirely reliant on grant or philanthropic funding to sustain itself.
There is no proven experience, record and capacity of the
applicant to implement the project – without extensive reliance on
outside (e.g. consulting) expertise. Poorly conceived application
with a vague or weak logic chain linked to implausible outcomes.
5 Sound application, with clear links to the commercial goals of the
business or a related partnership(s). There is clear cost- and risk-
sharing with the applicant which has a demonstrable track record
of success. There may be with some concerns about the
initiative’s viability or capacity to implement.
10 (a) Well-conceived and thought out application, clearly
linked to the applicant’s core business, strong evidence
of potential for success,
(b) Clear risk- and cost-sharing involved, geared towards
long-term profitability
(c) Applicant has demonstrated capacity to implement and
has a clear track record of implementing this type of
project
(d) Credentials and commitment of the applicant and the
implementing team are strong.