GLOBAL FUND GRANTS ARE THREE MONTHS BEHIND SCHEDULE, ON AVERAGE

Author:

Bernard Rivers

Article Type:

Article Number: 1

ABSTRACT Global Fund grants are, on average, three months behind schedule. According to a detailed Aidspan analysis, the best performing grants, on average, are (a) those to countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia; (b) those for which an NGO is the Principal Recipient; and (c) those for which the Swiss Tropical Institute is the Local Fund Agent.

Global Fund grants are, on average, three months behind schedule, according to an analysis conducted by Aidspan, the NGO that publishes GFO.

At www.aidspan.org/grants, a Data Sheet and graph is shown for every grant, comparing the planned disbursement schedule with the actual disbursement schedule thus far. The Data Sheets shows how many months ahead of or behind schedule each grant currently is. Aidspan then assigns to each grant a Rating of A, B, C, D or N, as follows:

A: Grant is on or ahead of schedule

B: Grant is up to 3 months behind schedule

C: Grant is 3 to 6 months behind schedule

D: Grant is over 6 months behind schedule

N: Grant is too new for rating

Aidspan’s Data Sheets are entirely based on source data obtained from the Global Fund web site at www.theglobalfund.org. However, the Fund bears no responsibility for the analysis that Aidspan has performed using the data in question.

The main conclusions that can be drawn from the current ratings, based on Global Fund source data published through 5 May, are as follows.

Grants overall:

• Of the 311 grants, 45 (14% of the total) have an Aidspan rating of “A: On or ahead of schedule”
• 140 grants (45%) are rated “B: Up to 3 months behind schedule”
• 61 grants (20%) are rated “C: 3 to 6 months behind schedule”
• 60 grants (19%) are rated “D: Over 6 months behind schedule”
• 5 grants (2%) are rated “N: Too new for rating”

(Note: Grants that have not yet received their first disbursement are still rated. A grant that goes more than 9 months from grant approval without a grant agreement being signed is regarded by Aidspan as being behind schedule, as is a grant that goes more than one month from the grant agreement being signed without a disbursement being sent. However, once the first disbursement is sent, earlier delays are ignored. That is why the Zimbabwe Round 1 HIV grant, which went a record 36 months from grant approval to grant agreement, is now regarded as on schedule, having received its first disbursement within two weeks of the grant agreement being signed.)

Grants by region:

• Grants to Eastern Europe and Central Asia currently have the highest average rating; they are on average 1.2 months behind schedule.
• Grants to North Africa and the Middle East come next, being on average 2.0 months behind schedule.
• Grants to each of the four remaining regions of the world are on average between 3 and 4 months behind schedule.

Grants by disease component:

• There is no statistically significant difference in performance between grants for HIV/AIDS, malaria, or TB.

Grants by Principal Recipient (PR) type:

• Grants for which an NGO is the PR are on average 2.0 months behind schedule.
• Grants for each of the other governmental and non-governmental PR types average about 3.5 months behind schedule.

Grants by Round:

• The earlier the Round, the more the grants are behind schedule, on average. But this is not surprising, because the earlier grants have had more time in which to fall behind.

Grants by Local Fund Agent (LFA):

• The 10 grants for which the Swiss Tropical Institute is the LFA are on average 1.0 months behind schedule.
• The 18 grants for which UNOPS is the LFA are on average 1.9 months behind schedule.
• The 15 grants for which DTT Emerging Markets is the LFA are on average 2.6 months behind schedule.
• The grants for which PricewaterhouseCoopers (166 grants), KPMG (91 grants) and Crown Agents (4 grants) are the LFA are on average 3.2 to 3.4 months behind schedule.

Grants by PEPFAR country or not:

• Some observers have speculated that Global Fund grants to the 15 countries that receive PEPFAR grants from the US government might be performing less well because those countries are less crucially dependent upon Global Fund money, and/or because they are overwhelmed with having to administer both kinds of grant. However, the differences in grant performance turn out not to be statistically significant: Global Fund grants to PEPFAR countries are on average 3.3 months behind schedule, and grants to non-PEPFAR countries are on average 3.0 months behind schedule.

Grants by size:

• There is no obvious relationship between grant size and grant performance. Grants with a two-year value of under $5 million are on average 2.9 months behind schedule; grants worth $5 to $20 million are around 3.5 months behind schedule on average; and grants worth over $20 million are 2.4 months behind schedule on average.

Further information is available, below, in the article entitled “ANALYSIS: Additional Data Regarding Global Fund Grant Performance.” Yet further data, updated every two or three days, is available at www.aidspan.org/grants.