Performance of Australian Aid 2015-16May 2017 read more
This Performance of Australian Aid report assesses the performance and results of the Australian aid program in 2015-16.
This includes a positive review of the multilateral aid provided to The Global Fund.
Operational and implementation research within Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria grants: a situation analysis in six countries
Publisher: Globalization and Health (2017 13:22)
The Global Fund provides substantial resources for malaria and TB surveys, and supports OR/IR if such support is requested and the application is well justified. We observed considerable variations from one country to another and between programmes with regards to need, demand, absorption capacity and funding for OR/IR related to malaria and TB. Important determinants for the extent of such funding are the involvement of national research coordination bodies, established research agendas and priorities, human and technical research capacity, and involvement of relevant stakeholders in concept note development. Efforts to disseminate OR/IR findings were generally weak, and the Global Fund does not maintain a central OR/IR database. When faced with a need to choose between procurement of commodities for disease control and supporting research, countries tend to seek research funding from other donors. The Global Fund is expected to issue more specific guidance on the conditions under which it supports OR/IR, and to adapt administrative procedures to facilitate research.
Independent Multi-country Review of Community Engagement in Grant Making & Implementation Processes
Published by MSMGF (The Global Forum on MSM & HIV), this review synthesizes good practices and proposes a series of strategic actions for the Global Fund in efforts to expand and enhance meaningful community engagement in all phases of its grants.
Diseases like HIV, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria disproportionately affect certain groups as a result of social and economic inequities that persist worldwide. These groups are often criminalized and experience human rights abuses, seriously compromising their access to health services. HIV disproportionately affects men who have sex with men, transgender people, sex workers, and people who use drugs, whereas TB can affect miners and healthcare workers. Communities that are disproportionately affected by diseases should be invited and supported to actively engage with Global Fund processes.
MOPAN Assessment: Global Fund 2015-16
The 2016 MOPAN 3.0 assessment finds that the Global Fund provides strong global leadership for the response to HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. While this assessment reveals some areas where performance could be strengthened and improved, the overall conclusion is that the Global Fund fully meets the requirements of an effective multilateral organisation. It is fit for purpose and able to adapt to future needs.
Investing in Community Responses: A case for funding non-service delivery community actions to end AIDSFebruary 2017 read more
Greater investment in community responses is needed to end AIDS. UNAIDS suggests that investments in community mobilization should increase threefold to 3%, and spending on social enablers should reach 8% of total expenditure by 2020. However, a recent survey showed that 40% of organizations tasked with implementing community activities reported a funding decrease since 2013. Two thirds expected flat or declining funding in the future. PEPFAR reduced its investments in community-based care, treatment and support by 12.6% from 2013 to 2014. The Global Fund’s Technical Review Panel has expressed concern that the majority of concept notes are not including funding requests for the community systems strengthening module at all. An investment case for community responses is needed to motivate the necessary levels of funding.
To make the investment case, a review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted and complemented by case examples. The findings were categorized in terms of evidence of impact and return on investment in three areas of community responses: (1) networks and linkages; (2) advocacy and influence; and (3) monitoring and accountability. Service delivery components of community responses were excluded from this analysis.
A significant return on investment was found in all three areas of community responses examined. Community networks of key populations were found to increase coverage of services and improve health outcomes for these groups. Linkages at community level, such as adherence clubs and anti-retroviral treatment (ART) refill groups, produced cost-savings in ART provision, as well as reduced total HIV program costs overall. Community advocacy was found to bring additional funding to the response as well as reduce the prices of medicines. Indicators on open and inclusive dialogue spaces were statistically significant predictors of how responsive HIV and TB funding decisions are to the needs of affected communities. In case law, law reform, and policy, developments came about directly as a result of community advocacy. Lastly, community-based monitoring increased accountability, and boosted uptake and quality of services, as well as increased domestic investments in HIV. This investment case presents compelling evidence that there are both allocative and technical efficiencies to be realized by investing more money in strengthening community responses.
Who pays for cooperation in global health? A comparative analysis of WHO, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine AllianceJanuary 2017 read more
Publisher: The Lancet
In this report we assess who pays for cooperation in global health through an analysis of the financial flows of WHO, the World Bank, the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. The past few decades have seen the consolidation of influence in the disproportionate roles the USA, UK, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have had in financing three of these four institutions. Current financing flows in all four case study institutions allow donors to finance and deliver assistance in ways that they can more closely control and monitor at every stage. We highlight three major trends in global health governance more broadly that relate to this development: towards more discretionary funding and away from core or longer-term funding; towards defined multi-stakeholder governance and away from traditional government-centred representation and decision-making; and towards narrower mandates or problem-focused vertical initiatives and away from broader systemic goals.
The Case for U.S. Investment in the Global Fund and Global HealthJanuary 2017 read more
Publisher: Friends of the Global Fight
This issue brief highlights the extraordinary return on investment from U.S. support for the Global Fund. The brief illustrates how, as an innovative public-private partnership, the Global Fund is challenging the status quo in the way the world fights disease, saving millions of lives, and producing economic, security and humanitarian gains for the U.S. in the process.
Equitable Access InitiativeDecember 2016 read more
Publisher: The Global Fund
The Equitable Access Initiative (EAI) was launched in early 2015 by the heads of multilateral organizations engaged in global health: GAVI, the Global Fund, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNITAID, the World Bank and WHO. The purpose was to consider alternatives to GNI as a framework to assess countries’ need for external financial support for health. Currently, the convening organizations use GNI in different ways to determine key policies, including eligibility and co-financing policies.
A high level panel was established with co-chairs Pascal Lamy, former head of the World Trade Organisation, and Donald Kaberuka, former head of the African Development Bank. At the first EAI Expert Panel Meeting in February 2015, Panel members and the nine convening organisations were in agreement that the World Bank’s GNI per capita country classification system, designed for World Bank lending decisions, was being used far more broadly in health-related decisions. The conveners of the Initiative commissioned four expert academic groups to develop options for a new health framework.
Based on the analyses of the four analytical teams and the co-convenors, as well as extensive consultations, this report explores a health framework that can account for health need, income levels, and health funding considerations, which could inform different stages of decision-making by the convening organizations’ governing bodies or other bilateral and multilateral organizations involved in external financial support for health.
2016 Regional Concept Note: Development in The Global Fund’s (new) funding model: Observations from the second windowDecember 2016 read more
In February 2016, a second round of regional concept notes were submitted to the Global Fund. In this paper, ICASO and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance present the findings of six case studies of regional concept note (RCN) development experiences in Asia, West Africa, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA).
How We Engage – Eight Case Studies of Effective Community EngagementNovember 2016 read more
Publisher: The Global Fund
Civil society involvement – in advocacy, in governance, and in the design, delivery and monitoring of programs – is critical to the effort to save lives and respond to AIDS, TB and malaria. Since 2014, the Global Fund has been working directly with community-based organizations and representatives of people living with the diseases and of key populations to ensure timely and effective engagement. These eight case studies demonstrate how expanded dialogue and increased participation has led to more focused and responsive programming – and more impact on the diseases.