The Fund’s First 124 “Phase 2 Renewals”
Bernard RiversArticle Type:
Article Number: 1
ABSTRACT Only 23% of the Global Fund grants that have reached the end of their second year have met or exceeded the performance targets that were set by the applicants when they submitted their original proposals to the Fund. A further 56% of grants were deemed by the Fund to have performance that did not meet expectations, but was adequate; 20% were deemed to have performance that was inadequate, but potential had been demonstrated; and 2% had performance that was unacceptable.
Only 23% of the Global Fund grants that have reached the end of their second year have met or exceeded the performance targets that were set by the applicants when they submitted their original proposals to the Fund. These grants were rated “A” by the Fund’s Secretariat. A further 56% of grants were rated B1 (“Grant performance has not met expectations, but has been adequate”), 20% were rated B2 (“Grant performance has been inadequate, but potential has been demonstrated”), and 2% were rated C (“Grant performance has been unacceptable”).
From its very start, the Global Fund has been guided by two principles that at times conflict with each other. The first of these principles is that each grant is “country-led” – meaning that it’s for the recipient country to decide how to run the grant. The second principle is that each grant is “results-based” – meaning that if the grant doesn’t deliver the promised results, the Fund has the right to terminate the grant part-way through.
The conflict between these two objectives arises when the Global Fund Secretariat sees that a grant is in trouble. At such a time, should the Fund intervene with suggestions (or, indeed, instructions) regarding what should be done about that grant, or should it remain silent?
Thus far, the Fund has taken a generally hands-off approach in such situations – except when the grant is approaching the end of its second year, at which point the Fund briefly gets much more involved. This is because this is when the Fund has to decide whether the grant should receive the funding to enable it to move from Phase 1 (i.e. Years 1-2) to Phase 2 (Years 3-5).
To help the Board decide whether to approve Phase 2 funding for a particular grant, the Secretariat performs a thorough evaluation of the grant. In the course of this, it compiles a detailed and fairly candid “Grant Scorecard” which is confidential until the Secretariat and the Board have agreed on whether to approve Phase 2, but then is made publicly available at the Fund’s website.
Each Grant Scorecard assesses many aspects of the grant’s performance, and then combines these assessments into an “Overall Grant Rating”, which can have the following values:
A: Grant performance has met or exceeded expectations
B1: Grant performance has not met expectations, but has been adequate
B2: Grant performance has been inadequate, but potential has been demonstrated
C: Grant performance has been unacceptable
Separately, the Secretariat assesses “Contextual Considerations,” which relate to factors beyond the control of those involved in grant implementation but that can have an impact on the chances of success.
Finally, after taking into account the “Overall Grant Rating” and the “Contextual Considerations,” the Secretariat makes one of the following recommendations:
“Go”: The grant should be approved for Phase 2 (i.e. Years 3-5)
“Conditional Go”: The grant should be approved for Phase 2, on condition that specified actions are taken by the PR and/or CCM within a specified time period.
“Revised Go”: The grant should be approved for Phase 2, subject to specified major changes being made from the original proposal.
“No Go”: The grant should not be approved for Phase 2, and should therefore be terminated.
Usually the Board agrees with the Secretarit’s recommendation, but occasionally it disagrees. When that happens, the Board and Secretariat re-examine the situation and attempt again to reach agreement. If that is not possible, the final decision is made by the Board after obtaining some input from the Technical Review Panel (TRP).
With the 124 grants for which the Board has thus far made a Phase 2 decision, the Secretarit’s ratings were as follows:
|Rating||Number of grants||Percent|
The final Board decisions were as follows:
|Board decision||Number of grants||Percent|
For each of the 124 grants, the Fund provides at www.theglobalfund.org/en/funds_raised/gsc the above-mentioned Grant Scorecards. These contain not just the Grant Rating, but also some fairly candid comments about the grant. These range from the positive (e.g. “The PR has managed the program efficiently, with the CCM playing an important oversight role. The program has collaborated with partners and responded to problems particularly well, improving its ability to disburse to sub-recipients and in procurement after initial capacity difficulties.”) to the fairly negative (e.g. “The Program had a slow start, with sluggish capacity building efforts and procurement delays… The overall management of the Program by the PR has been inadequate. The PR did not disburse funds to sub-recipients on a timely basis or in an effective manner. Late disbursements were largely due to the PR’s weak monitoring of reports submitted by the sub-recipients.”)
The Grant Ratings and the Board decisions for the 124 grants were as follows:
The 124 grants for which Phase 2 decisions have been made
|Country||Round||Disease Component||Grant number||Grant Rating||Board decision re Phase 2|
|Central African Republic||2||HIV/AIDS||CAF-202-G01-H||B1||Go|
|Costa Rica||2||HIV/AIDS||COR-202-G01-H||B2||Conditional Go|
|Cote d’Ivoire||2||HIV/AIDS||CIV-202-G01-H||B1||Conditional Go|
|Democratic Rep. of Congo||2||TB||ZAR-202-G01-T||B1||Conditional Go|
|El Salvador||2||HIV/AIDS||SLV-202-G01-H||B1||Conditional Go|
|Lao PDR||1||HIV/AIDS||LAO-102-G01-H||B2||Conditional Go|
|Lao PDR||1||Malaria||LAO-102-G02-M||B2||Conditional Go|
|Lutheran World Feder’n||1||HIV/AIDS||WRL-102-G01-H||B1||Go|
|Moldova||1||HIV and TB||MOL-102-G01-C||A||Go|
|Multi-Country W. Pacific||2||HIV/AIDS||MWP-202-G01-H||B2||Conditional Go|
|Multi-Country W. Pacific||2||Malaria||MWP-202-G02-M||B1||Go|
|Multi-Country W. Pacific||2||TB||MWP-202-G03-T||B1||Go|
|Rwanda||1||HIV and TB||RWN-102-G01-C||A||Go|
|Sierra Leone||2||TB||SLE-202-G01-T||B1||Conditional Go|
|South Africa||1||HIV and TB||SAF-102-G02-C||B2||No Go|
|Sri Lanka||1||TB||SRL-102-G03-T||B1||Conditional Go|
|Sri Lanka||1||Malaria||SRL-102-G01-M||B1||Conditional Go|
|Sri Lanka||1||Malaria||SRL-102-G02-M||B1||Conditional Go|
|Timor Leste (East Timor)||2||Malaria||TMP-202-G01-M||B1||Conditional Go|