A new report published by Aidspan suggests that countries may not be using data optimally to inform grant implementation. Implementers of Global Fund grants collect and use data for several different purposes, depending on the type of implementer. State Principal Recipients collect data to measure strategic impact, whereas non-state implementers appear to collect data mainly to meet reporting requirements.
Les pays d'Afrique occidentale et centrale fixent de nouveaux objectifs ambitieux pour décembre 2017
⇒ Doubler la couverture de ART en 2017.
- Double the coverage of ART in 2017.
An audit of Global Fund grants to Kenya has found that the management of financial and fiduciary risks, and the management of health services and products risks has been generally effective.
However, the OIG said that there was room for improvement in the management of programmatic and performance risks, as well as governance, oversight and management risks. (In OIG parlance, these were rated “partial plan to become effective.”)
An audit report on Haiti, recently released by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), has revealed significant issues with the performance of the Société Générale Haitienne de Banque (also known as Fondation Sogebank), a non-profit foundation which has served as the principal recipient (PR) for all but one of the Global Fund grants in Haiti.
Among the 436 grants that were reviewed to the end of 2009 in preparation for a decision on continued funding, 78% have performed well (i.e., received a rating of A or B1). This is one of the findings of "The Global Fund 2010: Innovation and Impact," a report on results released by the Global Fund on 8 March 2010. Grants are rated on the following scale:
Local Fund Agents (LFAs) perform work of very variable quality, yet the Fund provides little guidance regarding what it expects of them, according to a report released last month by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Global Fund grants where the Principal Recipient (PR) is not a government entity are somewhat more likely to perform well, according to a recent statistical analysis published in The Lancet.
The Global Fund has permanently terminated two grants to Uganda because of unsatisfactory performance. The grants were a Round 2 malaria grant and a Round 2 TB grant. Uganda will lose about $16 million as a result of this action.
This is the second time that the Fund has taken action regarding these grants. In 2005, the Fund temporarily suspended all of Uganda's grants while problems with financial management were investigated.
In June 2004, Richard Feachem, the Fund's Executive Director, informed the board, "We have developed the so-called 'Executive Dashboard', an IT-based tracking and reporting tool, which will allow us to monitor progress against agreed targets on an ongoing basis and intervene early when there are signs of slippage."