Global Fund Shows Its Performance Has Improved Modestly

Author:

David Garmaise

Article Type:

Article Number: 1

ABSTRACT In 2009, only 47% of the Global Fund's Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) achieved 90% or more of their target, down from 60% in 2008. But overall, the Fund's KPI performance was modestly up over 2008.

In 2009, only 47% of the Global Fund’s Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) achieved 90% or more of their target, down from 60% in 2008. But overall, the Fund’s KPI performance was modestly up in 2009 over 2008.

This is based on an analysis by the Fund of 26 KPIs that had been set by the Board in 2008. Some of the KPIs cover performance by Global Fund grant recipients; others cover performance by the Secretariat.

Details are shown in the following table:

Based on this data, the Global Fund concluded that in 2009, 84% of KPIs met or exceeded their targets (i.e., received an A rating) or performed adequately (i.e., received a B1 rating), compared to 77% in 2008 and 70% in 2007; and that only 12% of KPIs performed below expectations (i.e., received a rating of B2 or C), compared to 17% in 2008 and 18% in 2007.

Examples of strong 2009 performance include the following:

• Programmes supported by the Global Fund exceeded the targets established for the top 10 output and service indicators by an average of 5%.
• 35% of all funding provided by the Global Fund went to civil society organisations as implementers, compared to a target of 30%.
• Contributions to health systems strengthening in Round 9 were $738 million, ahead of the target of $650 million.
• Operating expenses of the Secretariat were 2.2% of grants under management and 5.3% of total expenditures, against respective targets of “under 3%” and “under 10%.”
• 77% of Global Fund staff rated their professional satisfaction and motivation as “high” or “very high” in a staff survey, against a target of 70%.

Examples of underperformance in 2009 include the following:

• The proportion of grants reporting complete information through the Price and Quality Reporting (PQR) system was 88%, against a target of 100%.
• The average time between proposal approval and first disbursement for Round 8 was 10.4 months, compared to a target of eight months. (In Rounds 6 and 7, the average time was 11 months. The Secretariat says that an improved approach has been put in place for Round 9.)
• The average time from Secretariat receipt of a disbursement request to actual disbursement of the payment was 42 calendar days, much worse than the target of 21 days. (The Secretariat says that several initiatives are being implemented to accelerate disbursements, including revising forms and guidelines to reduce the number of times that reports go back and forth among the PR, the LFA and the Secretariat.)
• Only one percent of staff (6 staff out of 576) were from affected communities, compared to a target of two percent. (The Secretariat says it will launch a campaign in 2010 to encourage applications from people living with HIV/AIDS.)
• Only 1.3% of money given to the Fund came from the private corporate sector, as against a target of 4%.

The one KPI that was not measured in 2009 had to do with staff performance management – specifically, the percentage of staff rated below expectations in their performance evaluations.

For 2011, an indicator has been added that measures the percentage of Global Fund-supported programmes that report, at the time of grant renewals, increasing or stable government expenditures for health or for the disease in question. As well, the Secretariat has been asked by a Board committee to work with civil society to develop performance measures for community systems strengthening.

Information for this article was taken from www.theglobalfund.org/en/performance/kpi/2009, and from “Key Performance Indicators: Year-End Report on Results for 2009,” available at www.theglobalfund.org/documents/performance/Paper_on_KPI_Framework_2009.pdf.