Glossary and Methodology

This page explains the glossary of some of the terms used and methodology used to create Aidspan's perfomance rating tool.

Glossary

Regions  - Aidspan uses the regions as defined by the Global Fund - see www.theglobalfund.org  ??
 

Type of PR  = type of Principal Recipient

CS/PS  = Civil society/ private sector;  

CS/FBO  = civil society/ faith-based organization

NGO  = civil society/ nongovernmental organization

CS/PS - PS  = civil society/private sector organization

CS/PS - OTH  = civil society - other (ie non of the above)

GOV - MOF  = Government - Ministry of Finance (or equivalent)

GOV - MOH  = Government - Ministry of Health (or equivalent)

MO - OTH  = Multilateral organization - other than UNDP

MO - UNDP  = Multilateral organization - United National Development Programme

Methodology

The Global Fund uses the performance-based funding model to ensure that funding decisions are based on a transparent assessment of results against time-bound targets. The Fund uses a ratings scale to score grants over reporting periods to detail how well or not a grant is doing. The ratings scale used is defined as follows:

A - best

B1 - adequate

B2 - inadequate but potential demonstrated

C - unacceptable

*There are extra ratings of A1 and A2 which were used in the earlier periods of the Fund but are no longer in use.

Aidspan has assigned weights to these ratings to calculate averages and to allow the tabulation of the ratings on graphs. This weighting is defined below:

A1 - 4

A - 3.5

A2 - 3

B1 - 2

B2 - 1

C - 0

Using this weighting algorithm, one can ideally approximate how well a grant or country is doing over time by plotting the weights on a line graph. The graphs show trends which can help predict potential problems in the lifetime of a grant lifecycle, or review the history of grants or a single grant.  

Below we give a detailed walkthrough of a fictitious country X performance to show how we use the weighted algorithm for the performance ratings.

Country X (2010)

Using the weights for the various ratings, the graph for Grant A would end up looking like the image below:

Using the weights for the various ratings, the graph for Grant B would end up looking like the image below:

If the two grants were to be combined and get the averages for the reporting periods, so as to get the pattern/trend of how all the grants of Country X were doing, the procedure would be as follows:
 
Reporting period 1 (JAN - MAR) = (B2 + A1) / 2 = (1 + 4) / 2 = 2.5
Reporting period 2 (APR - JUN) = (A1 + B1) / 2 = (4 + 2) / 2 = 3
Reporting period 3 (JUL - SEP) = (C + B2) / 2 = (0 + 1) / 2 = 0.5
Reporting period 4 (OCT - DEC) = (A2 + C) / 2 = (3 + 0) / 2 = 1.5
 
The final graph would look like the image below: