Preliminary Results of “360-degree Stakeholder Assessment” Released

Author:

Bernard Rivers

Article Type:

Article Number: 4

ABSTRACT In a recently-completed survey about the Global Fund, recipient governments had a high opinion of the Fund, but multilaterals agencies were much less sure. In addition, recipient governments ranked their own partnerships with civil society very high, yet civil society gave a much lower ranking to the same relationship. And major concerns were raised regarding the provision of technical assistance by partners.

In a recently-completed survey about the Global Fund, recipient governments had a high opinion of the Fund, but multilaterals agencies were much less sure. In addition, recipient governments ranked their own partnerships with civil society very high, yet civil society gave a much lower ranking to the same relationship. And major concerns were raised regarding the provision of technical assistance by partners.

Preliminary results of the Global Fund’s “360-degree Stakeholder Assessment” were presented early this week to participants at the Partnership Forum in Durban. The assessment was conducted as an initial step in an evaluation of the Fund’s first five years that will look into the organisational efficiency of the Fund, the effectiveness of support activities by the Fund’s partners, and the impact that the Global Fund has had on the three diseases.

An online stakeholder survey was sent to recipients representing all stakeholder groups. Links to the survey were also placed on the English, French, Spanish and Russian Global Fund web pages. Nine hundred completed responses were received: about two-thirds from developing countries, and one-third from developed countries; about two-thirds in English, and one-third in other languages; about 40% from civil society, 15% from multilateral agencies, 13% from recipient governments, and 32% from others.

Three out of four respondents rated the overall efficiency of the Global Fund as good, very good or excellent. Respondents gave the Fund their highest ratings for:

• Supporting programs that reflect country ownership
• Basing funding on the achievement of measurable results
• Focusing on funding proven and effective interventions against the three diseases

Global Fund performance was rated lowest on:

• Effectiveness of the Local Fund Agent (LFA) model for providing financial oversight
• Alignment of GF monitoring requirements with national M&E systems
• Flexibility in use of funds to support programmes
• Mobilization of private sector resources