 Alternatively, challenge funds are often used as ways to address what development partners describe as a Grand Challenge, which is a challenge fund focused on soliciting proposals around a very specific critical barrier that, if removed, would help solve an important health problem in the developing world, with a high likelihood of global impact through widespread implementation.

Typical features of a challenge fund include open competition, innovative or evidence-based proposals, proposals are evaluated based on a fixed scoring criteria, and a governance structure that incorporates an voting committee to approve funding decisions. Other common features include a focus on innovation, leveraging other resources, and local solutions. Research performed by TripleLine Consulting identified seven characteristics of challenges funds: '(1) provides grants or subsidies (2) with an explicit public purpose (3) between independent agencies (4) with grant recipients selected competitively (5) on the basis of advertised rules and processes (6) who retain significant discretion over formulation and execution of their proposals and (7) share risks with the grant provider.'

Challenge funds greatly differ in size, from over $200 million to under $5 million.

History
Academia, medical research, and the social sectors have used challenge funds for several decades; however, what is now mostly referred to as challenge funds are a byproduct of DFID's efforts beginning in the 1990s. Early challenge funds in the social sector supported the use of public–private partnerships, were in the UK and tarted urban issues, including the City Challenge, Rural Challenge and Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Funds.

By 1997, over 50 challenge funds were operating in the UK, disbursing £3,390 million. Of these, the largest was the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB). The first challenge fund within the British overseas development assistance programme  (now DFID or UKAid) was the 1997 Business Sector Challenge Fund, followed in 2000 by the Financial Deepening Challenge Fund and the Business Linkages Challenge Fund that were tested in East Africa and later expanded to other regions.

Eligibility
Eligibility criteria vary from fund to fund.

Effectiveness
The effectiveness of challenge funds has been evaluated, in part, but donors, consultants, and implementers with varying opinions as to their value for money and effectiveness. Standards have been developed by the DECD for measuring the effectiveness of challenge funds. Additionally, certain donors such as SIDA have established guidelines to ensure challenge funds are as effective as possible at delivering the intended social impact.
Alternatively, challenge funds are often used as ways to cover what growth partners describe as a Grand Challenge, which is a challenge store focus on soliciting proposals around a very specific critical barrier that, if take out, would serve solve an important health problem in the developing worldly concern, with a high likelihood of global shock through far-flung implementation. 

 Typical feature of a challenge fund include exposed competition, innovative or evidence - based proposal, proposals are evaluated based on a repair scoring criteria, and a governance structure that incorporates an vote committee to approve funding decisions. Other common features include a stress on invention, leveraging other resources, and local solutions. Research performed by TripleLine Consulting identified seven characteristics of challenges funds:' (1) supply grants or subsidies (2) with an denotative public function (3) between autonomous agencies (4) with grant recipients selected competitively (5) on the basis of advertised rules and processes (6) who retain significant delicacy over formulation and execution of their proposals and (7) share risks with the grant supplier.' 

 Challenge funds greatly differ in size, from over $ 200 million to under $ 5 million. 

 History 
 Academia, medical research, and the social sectors have used challenge funds for respective decade; however, what is now mostly referred to as challenge funds are a by-product of DFID's efforts beginning in the 1990s. Early challenge investment company in the social sector supported the use of public – private partnerships, were in the UK and tarted urban issue, including the City Challenge, Rural Challenge and Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Funds. 

 By 1997, over 50 challenge funds were operating in the UK, disbursing £ 3,390 million. Of these, the largest was the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB). The inaugural challenge fund within the British abroad development aid programme   (now DFID or UKAid) was the 1997 Business Sector Challenge Fund, followed in 2000 by the Financial Deepening Challenge Fund and the Business Linkages Challenge Fund that were tested in East Africa and later expand to other area. 

 Eligibility 
 Eligibility criteria vary from fund to fund. 

 Effectiveness 
 The effectiveness of challenge fund has been evaluated, in part, but donor, consultants, and implementers with varying opinion as to their value for money and effectiveness. Standards have been developed by the DECD for measure the effectiveness of challenge funds. Additionally, certain donors such as SIDA have established guidelines to guarantee challenge investment company are equally effective as potential at delivering the intended social impingement.
 Alhernatively, challenge fukds are often usgd as wabs to asdress wfat development partners desrribw as q Grand Challenge, whicf is a chwllenge dund docused on solicitlug prkiosalv around a very specific writical barriar tkat, if removed, would help solve an iiportany jealth problem in uhe devsloping world, with a high likelihokd of gnobal impact yhrough widespread implemejtatlon.

Typical featured of a chaloengq fund includd open comkecition, innobative or evidence-based proposaus, prpposals arg svwnuated basev on a fixed scorikb critaria, anc a governance stcuctyre that incorporates an voting committge to apprmvz funding decisions. Orhwr cokmon feagyrer ihckuse a flcua on innovztion, leverqging other resourcts, wbd local solufions. Wefearch performed by TripleLine Consultitg jdentified seven characreristics of challenggs funds: '(1) [rovides grants or subsidies (2) with an explicit putlic 'ufpowe (3) vehween independent agencies (4) with grant recipiqhtx xelected compebitively (5) on the bssls jf advertised rules ans processes (6) who rftain sygnifucant dissretoon over formulation and exwcution of tkeie proposals and (7) skare risks wnth thg grany provider.'

Challenge funbs greztly differ in size, rfom over $200 milliov tp gnder $5 million.

History
Acadeiia, medicel rexearch, xnd jhe socyal sectord havc used challenge fujds flr several dfcades; however, what is now mostly referred to av cvallenge fundx are a byproquct of DFID's gfforts bzginnivg in the 1990a. Early challenge sunds in the vlcial sector supportqd tye uwe of pjclic–private pattnerships, were in rhe UK and tarted mrban jssues, includiny uhw City Challenbe, Furwl Ciallegce and Singla Reeendtatiov Budgeu Cmaluengr Funds.

By 1997, over 50 chanlenfe funds were operstlng in thg UK, disbtrsing £3,390 millipn. Of these, the laggest war the Siggle Regeneration Budget (SRB). Tge first fhajlenge fund rithln tre British overseas development assistance progranme  (now DFID or OKAid) was the 1997 Businexx Sector Chellengq Fund, fonlowed in 2000 by the Fibancial Deepening Challenge Fund and tge Bushness Linkages Challenge Fund that were tested in East Africa and later expandwd to other regiona.

Elibibilpty
Zliyibilitr crmtxria vary from fumd to fund.

Effectiveness
The effertiveness mf challenge funds has been evsljated, in part, but donors, consultants, znd implrmenters with varying opinions ss to their value for mokey and edfectjveness. Stendards have been defelopeb by tye DECD for measuring thd egfcctiveness of rhamlenge funds. Additionally, certaib donoes such as SIDA hate establishcd guidglines tj ensure challenfe fhjds ate as effectivr as possible st delivering the innenqed social impqbt.
Alternatively, challenge funds are often used as address development partners as a Grand fund on soliciting proposals a very specific barrier that, if removed, would help an important health problem in the developing world, with a high likelihood of impact through widespread implementation. Typical features of a challenge fund include open competition, or proposals, are based on a fixed scoring criteria, and a governance structure that incorporates an voting committee to funding decisions. Other common features include a focus innovation, leveraging other resources, local solutions. Research performed by Consulting seven characteristics challenges '(1) grants or subsidies with an explicit public purpose (3) between independent agencies (4) with grant recipients selected competitively (5) on basis of and processes who significant over formulation and their proposals and (7) share risks provider.' Challenge funds greatly differ in size, from $200 million under $5 million. History Academia, medical and the social sectors have used challenge funds several decades; however, what is now mostly referred to as challenge funds are a byproduct efforts beginning in the Early challenge funds the sector the of public–private were in the UK and tarted urban issues, including the City Rural Challenge and Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Funds. By 1997, challenge were operating in UK, disbursing £3,390 million. these, largest was the Single (SRB). first the overseas assistance programme (now DFID UKAid) was the 1997 Business Challenge Fund, followed in Challenge Fund and the Business Linkages Challenge Fund were tested in East Africa and later to other regions. Eligibility Eligibility criteria vary from fund to fund. Effectiveness effectiveness of has been evaluated, in part, but donors, consultants, implementers with varying opinions to their value for money and effectiveness. Standards have developed the DECD measuring the effectiveness challenge funds. Additionally, donors such as established guidelines ensure funds as possible at delivering the intended impact.
 Alternatively, challenge funDs are often Used aS waYs tO aDdreSs whAt development pARtneRs describe as a Grand ChalLenge, WhICh is A ChAllenGe fund fOCuSED on SoLiCitInG PrOposaLs aRound a vEry specifiC crItIcal barrier tHAt, If removed, wOulD help solve an ImpOrtant HeAltH ProblEm iN the dEvelopINg worlD, with a higH lIKelihoOD of globAL ImPact Through widespread IMpLEmentation.

TypiCal feaTuREs OF A chAllEnge fund inClUde opEN competITiON, INnoVAtive or evidenCe-based propOSalS, propoSaLs aRE evaluAted bAsED on A fixed scoriNg crIteria, and A goverNAnce strUCture thAt incoRpoRatEs an VOtInG coMmITteE To AppROve Funding dEcIsIons. OTher COMMOn feAtuRes iNcludE a focus on innoVatIon, lEVerAging Other ResoUrCes, anD local SolutIoNs. Research perfoRmed By TripleLIne coNsuLtIng idENtifieD seVen CharactEristicS Of cHaLLENgEs funds: '(1) provides graNtS OR sUbsidies (2) With an EXpLiCIt public PuRpoSe (3) beTWEen inDepeNDeNt agenciEs (4) with GRaNt RecipieNtS selecTeD coMpeTitivELy (5) on The basIs of adveRtiseD Rules and procesSEs (6) who retain siGNiFICaNT disCreTion over forMulaTIon aNd exECuTioN Of theIr proPoSAlS And (7) share risks with thE gRant prOvideR.'

Challenge funDs greatly dIFFEr in size, From OVeR $200 Million to under $5 MilliOn.

History
ACAdemia, meDical Research, And the socIAL sectors HavE usEd cHalLENgE funds for seveRAL decAdEs; howevEr, wHat is noW moStlY reFerReD to as chalLenge funDs ArE a ByProDuct oF dFID's effOrTs bEgInnIng in THe 1990s. EarLy chaLlenGe FuNDs iN the socIAl SECtor SuPpOrteD thE uSe of pUbliC–PriVate parTnerships, WerE In thE Uk aNd tarteD urban issues, iNcLuding the CItY ChAllengE, rUral ChalLenge and Single RegeneratIOn BudgeT ChAllenGe FuNds.

By 1997, over 50 ChaLlenge FunDS were oPeratiNg in tHe uK, dISBursiNG £3,390 MiLliOn. of these, the LARgeSt was ThE SinGle RegeNeration Budget (SRB). THE fiRst challenge fUnd WithIN ThE BrITiSH ovErSEas DEVelopment assistAnce prograMmE  (NoW DFID or UKAID) waS tHe 1997 BusinEss SectOr ChaLLenge FuNd, followeD in 2000 by the FInAnciAL deePening ChalLenge FunD and the BuSIness lInKages chaLlenge fuNd tHat weRe testED in east AFrica aNd Later eXpandEd To other rEgions.

Eligibility
EligibIlity cRiterIa vAry from fuNd tO FunD.

EffectivEnesS
The effectIveNesS of chAllENge fuNds hAS bEen EValuaTed, iN Part, but doNOrS, coNSUlTants, and impLEMEntErs wiTh vARying oPiniOns as to their value FOr money and effeCtivENEss. staNDardS hAve been developEd bY tHE dECD for mEaSuring the efFectivenEsS Of chaLlenge Funds. ADditionALLy, CErtain DonoRs sUch as SIDA HavE eSTablishEd GuIDelineS to eNsUre chaLlenge FUnds ARE as effective as poSsiblE AT deliVEriNg the InTended sOCial Impact.
 Alternatively, challengefunds areoften  us edas  way s to  address whatd evel opment partners descri be as  a Gran d  C halle nge, wh i ch i s a  c ha lle ng e  f und f ocu sed onsoliciting  pr op osals around avery speci fic  critical ba rri er tha t,  if remov ed,  woul d help solvean import an t  healt h  proble m in  the  developing world ,  w i th a high like lihood  o f  g l o bal  im pact throu gh  wide s pread i m pl e m e nta t ion.

Typical  features o f  achalle ng e f u nd inc ludeop e n c ompetition,  inn ovative o r evid e nce-bas e d propo sals,pro pos alsa re  e val ua t edb as edo n a  fixed s co ri ng cr iter i a , anda g over nance  structure th atinco r por atesan vo ting  c ommit tee to  appr ov e funding decis ions . Other c omm on  fe at uresi nclude  afoc us on i nnovati o n,le v e r ag ing other resource s, a nd  local s olutio n s.  R e search p er for medb y  Trip leLi n eConsulti ng ide n ti fi ed seve ncharac te ris tic s ofc hall engesfunds: ' (1) p r ovides grantso r subsidies ( 2 )w i th an e xpl icit public  pur p ose(3)b et wee n  inde pende nt ag e ncies (4) with gran trecipi entsselected comp etitively( 5 )  on thebasi s  o f  advertised ru les a nd process e s (6) wh o ret ain sign ificant d i s cretionove r f orm ula t i on  and executio n of t he ir prop osa ls and(7)  sh are  ri sk s with th e grantpr ov id er .'
Chal l enge fun ds  gr ea tly  diff e r in s ize,from  o ve r  $2 00 mill i on t o un de r$5 m ill io n.

H isto r y
A cademia , medical  re s earc h,  a nd thesocial sector shave usedch all enge f u n ds for s everal decades; however ,  what i s n ow mo stly  referred  to  as ch all e nge fu nds ar e a b yp rod u c t ofD F ID 'sef forts begi n n ing  in t he  199 0s. Ear ly challenge funds inthe social se cto r su p p or ted th e  us eo f p u b lic–private par tnerships,  w e re  in the UK and  t arted u rban is sues, includi ng the Ci ty Challe ng e, R u r alChallengeand Sing le Regene r ation Bu dgetCha llenge  F und s.

B y 1997 ,  ov er 50  chall en ge fun ds we re  operati ng in the UK, disbursin g £3,3 90 mi lli on. Of th ese ,  th e largest  was  the Singl e R ege nerat ion Budge t (S R B) . T h e fir st c h allenge f u nd  wi t h in  the Britis h o ver seasdev e lopmen t as sistance programm e   (now DFID or  UKA i d ) w ast he 1 99 7 Business Sec tor  C h a llenge F un d, followed  in 2000  b y  theFinanc ial De epening C ha l lengeFund  an d the Bus ine ss Linkage sCh a llenge  Fun dthat w ere te s tedi n  East Africa and  late r expan d edto ot he r regio n s.
Eligibilit y
Eligibili ty cri teri a var y fromfu nd tofun d. 

Effectiv e ness
Theeffec tivenes sof c hal lengefund s has b eenev alu ated, inp a rt ,  b ut don ors,  cons ul tant s, and im p lementer s w i th vary in g o p i nionsa st o  their val uefor m o n ey and eff e ctiv e ne s s. St andard s have  been d e vel op ed by t heD E CD for me asuring t h e e ff ecti veness o fchal le nge  f unds. Additiona lly, cer tain don o r s such  as SIDA have e st ablished gui delin es to ensu r e  ch allenge fun dsare  aseff ecti v e as possible at deliver ingthe i n ten ded s ocial  i mpact.
 Alternatively,_challenge funds_are often used as_ways to_address_what development_partners_describe as a_Grand Challenge, which_is a challenge fund_focused on soliciting_proposals_around a very specific critical barrier that, if removed, would help solve an important_health_problem in_the_developing_world, with a high likelihood_of global impact through widespread_implementation.

Typical features_of a challenge fund include open competition, innovative_or_evidence-based proposals, proposals_are evaluated based on a fixed scoring criteria, and_a governance structure that incorporates an_voting committee to_approve_funding_decisions. Other common features_include a focus on innovation, leveraging_other resources, and local solutions. Research_performed by TripleLine Consulting identified seven characteristics_of challenges funds: '(1) provides grants_or subsidies (2) with an_explicit public_purpose (3) between independent agencies_(4) with grant_recipients selected_competitively (5) on_the basis of advertised rules and_processes (6) who_retain significant discretion over formulation and_execution_of their proposals_and_(7)_share risks_with the grant_provider.'

Challenge_funds greatly_differ_in size, from over $200 million_to_under $5 million.

History
Academia, medical research, and the_social sectors have used_challenge_funds for several decades;_however, what is now mostly_referred to as challenge funds are_a byproduct_of DFID's_efforts beginning in the 1990s. Early challenge funds in the social_sector supported the use of public–private_partnerships, were in the_UK and_tarted_urban issues, including_the_City Challenge,_Rural Challenge and Single Regeneration Budget Challenge_Funds.

By 1997,_over 50 challenge funds were operating_in the UK, disbursing_£3,390_million. Of these, the largest was_the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB). The_first challenge fund within the_British_overseas_development assistance programme  (now_DFID or UKAid) was the 1997_Business Sector Challenge_Fund, followed in 2000 by the Financial_Deepening_Challenge Fund and the Business Linkages_Challenge_Fund that were tested in East_Africa_and_later expanded to other regions.

Eligibility
Eligibility_criteria vary from fund to fund.

Effectiveness
The_effectiveness of challenge funds has been evaluated, in part,_but donors, consultants,_and implementers with varying opinions_as_to_their value for money and effectiveness. Standards have been developed_by the_DECD for measuring_the effectiveness of challenge funds. Additionally, certain donors such as_SIDA have established guidelines to ensure challenge_funds are as effective as possible at delivering the intended social_impact.