The Global Fund: What Next for Aid Effectiveness and Health Systems Strengthening?.

by David McCoy, Carlos Bruen, Peter Hill and Dominique Kerouedan

20 April 2012

This 20-page report describes how the Global Fund has evolved and how it has engaged with aid effectiveness and health systems strengthening. The report also discusses current commentaries on the future direction of the Global Fund and advances recommendations that the authors believe should inform discussions about the Fund's challenges.

Submission to the UK House of Commons International Development Committee for Its Evidence Session on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

by Bernard Rivers

17 April 2012

This 11-page document reviews the tumultuous events of 2011 at the Global Fund, and provides Aidspan's perspective on what needs to change going forward.

The Global Fund and Community Systems Strengthening: The Wrong Organisation for the Right Job? Or the Right Organisation Doing the Job Wrongly?

by Josef Decosas and David McCoy

27 February 2012

This 9-page document provides a critique of the Global Fund's approach to strengthening community systems.

Aidspan Review of a Study on the Costs and Health Impact of Continued Global Fund Support for Antiretroviral Therapy

by David McCoy

31 October 2011

This 10-page document reviews a published academic study on the long-term costs and health impact that would result if the Global Fund continues its support for programmes providing antiretroviral therapy to 3.5 million people. The document provides a summary of the study's design and methodology, and then presents and discusses the study's findings.

Aidspan Critique of the Report of the High-Level Independent Review Panel

13 October 2011

This document contains an Aidspan critique of "Turning the Page from Emergency to Sustainability: The Final Report of the High-Level Independent Review Panel on Fiduciary Controls and Oversight Mechanisms of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.”

The Aidspan critique is divided into two parts. Part One, entitled "COMMENTARY: The Report of the High-Level Panel – Strong and Thought-Provoking, but with Worrying Flaws" first appeared in Global Fund Observer Issue 160 on 13 October 2011. Part Two, entitled "Item-by-item Analysis of the Recommendations of the High-Level Panel," and written by Dr David McCoy, provides a critique of each of the recommendations in the High-Level Panel Report.

Aidspan Review of a Study on the Effect of Investment in Malaria Control on Child Mortality

by David McCoy

19 September 2011

This ten page document reviews a study by two Global Fund researchers on the impact of Global Fund grants for malaria prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. The review suggests that while the study provides some indication of the value and impact of investment in malaria control, there is a need to further debate the best way to approach performance and impact measurement of official development assistance for malaria control.

Aidspan Review of a Study on Factors Influencing Performance of Global Fund-Supported TB Grants

by David McCoy

24 August 2011

This seven page document discuses a study by a team of researchers from the Global Fund who examined the association between (a) various grant and country-related characteristics, and (b) the "performance" of TB grants (where performance was measured in terms of the percentage attainment of the targets that were set for a list of nine major TB output indicators). The review summarises the study's assumptions and findings, reviews its strengths and weaknesses, and discusses some broader issues regarding appropriate target-setting and effective performance management.

Aidspan Report: What Readers Think about Global Fund Observer

by Charles Marwa

23 August 2011

This report provides a summary of the feedback from readers of Global Fund Observer in response to a survey Aidspan conducted in the first half of 2011. More than 10% of subscribers responded to the survey. The report provides demographic information on subscribers, as well as opinions of readers on the shape, size and frequency of GFO; the content of GFO; and what readers would like to see more of.

Aidspan Report: Key Strengths of Rounds 8, 9 and 10 Proposals to the Global Fund

by David Garmaise

6 June 2011

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Global Fund applicants on key attributes of a strong proposal. The report is based on an analysis of the strengths of all approved Rounds 8. 9 and 10 proposals, as identified by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) when it reviewed the proposals. The report will be of interest to applicants preparing proposals for Round 11.

Please note: Since Aidspan published this report, the Global Fund has re-designed its website. Consequently, for now at least, the links in this report to full copies of proposals from Rounds 8, 9 and 10 do not work. To find a copy of a full proposal cited in this report, you will have navigate through the Global Fund’s website. Let’s say that you are looking for a Round 9 TB proposal from Ruritania (a ficticious country). Go to the Global Fund homepage at www.theglobalfund.org, and select “Ruritania” from the “Select Location” drop-down menu under “Grant Portfolio.” Once on the country page for Ruritania, you will find Round 10 proposals for which grants have not been signed (if there are any) at the bottom of the page. To find proposals from Rounds 8 and 9, and any Round 10 proposals for which grants have been signed, click on “Country portfolio” in the menu on left-hand side of the Ruritania page, right under the name “Ruritania.” Then look for a Round 9 TB grant and click on it. This will take you the page for that grant; in the bottom right-hand corner, you will find “Original Proposal.”

Aidspan Report: Key Strengths of Round 8 and 9 Proposals to the Global Fund

by David Garmaise

31 January 2010

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Global Fund applicants on key attributes of a strong proposal. The report is based on an analysis of the strengths of all approved Round 8 and 9 proposals, as identified by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) when it reviewed the proposals.

This report is available in English, French, Spanish and Russian.

Aidspan Report: Key Strengths of Round 8 Proposals to the Global Fund

by David Garmaise

13 February 2009

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Global Fund applicants on key attributes of a strong proposal. The report is based on an analysis of the strengths of all approved Round 8 proposals, as identified by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) when it reviewed the proposals.

Note: An updated version of this report, which cites some Round 9 proposals, is available separately on this page. However, this earlier report cites some Round 8 proposals that have not been included in the updated version.

This report is available in English, Spanish, French and Russian.

Aidspan Report: An Analysis of Global Fund Grant Ratings

by Bernard Rivers

3 November 2008

This Aidspan report presents an analysis by Aidspan of Global Fund grant ratings. Its key finding is:

"Global Fund grants have shown distinct improvements in performance over the past three years. Each year, International NGOs have performed significantly better, on average, than any other PR type. Non-international NGOs have performed slightly less well, on average, than Ministries of Health, but they have steadily improved, from being the least well-performing PR type (out of ten) in 2006, to being the second best in 2008. Overall, Ministries of Finance have been the least well-performing PR type, and UNDP the second least well-performing."

This report is available in English only.

Aidspan Report: Do Global Fund Grants Work for Women? An Assessment of the Gender Responsiveness of Global Fund-Financed Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa

by Angela Kageni and David Garmaise

30 July 2008

This Aidspan report examines the extent to which proposals to the Global Fund that were submitted by countries in sub-Saharan Africa in Rounds 1-7, and that were accepted for funding, included services and activities that were gender-responsive. (Programmes are said to be gender-responsive when they provide services specifically for women, promote equal access for women to services provided to both men and women, or include activities addressing other factors that contribute to gender inequality.)

The document also reports on what results have been achieved for gender-related services and activities in Global Fund grants in five focus countries - Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Finally, the report examines (a) how the lack of sex-disaggregated data hampers efforts to measure the impact of programmes on women; and (b) the role of the Global Fund in promoting gender-responsiveness.

The findings of this report should be useful to CCMs, PRs, the Global Fund, women's groups, providers of technical support, and others with an interest in promoting the gender-responsiveness of programmes addressing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.

This report is available in English only.

Aidspan White Paper: Scaling Up to Meet the Need: Overcoming barriers to the development of bold Global Fund-financed programs

by Bernard Rivers

21 April 2008

If the Global Fund is to achieve the continued rapid growth that it is planning for, it has to examine closely, and address, some significant growing pains that are becoming increasingly apparent. Some of these growing pains exist within developing countries; others exist within the Fund itself.

Accordingly, this white paper tackles three linked questions:

1. What problems at the country level are preventing adequate scale-up to meet the need? (Example: Many implementing countries have weak health systems, limited capacity, and insufficient health workers.)
2. What problems at the Global Fund level are preventing adequate scale-up by the countries? (Example: Some of the GF's rules for grant implementers are too burdensome, or they are enforced in too rigid a manner. The transaction costs of dealing with the GF are too high.)
3. What should be done about these problems? (Example: On an open-ended basis, the GF should have just one "single-stream grant" for each country/disease/PR combination, extendable and expandable as and when agreed.)

In the five years since Aidspan was founded, this is easily the most substantive report we have published on problems affecting the Global Fund and on recommendations to address those problems.

This white paper is available in English only.

Aidspan White Paper: Providing Improved Technical Support to Enhance the Effectiveness of Global Fund Grants

28 March 2008

This Aidspan white paper tackles two linked questions: What problems arise in the provision of adequate, timely, appropriate and effective Technical Support (TS) to projects financed by the Global Fund? And what can be done about these problems? These issues were discussed at the first "Global Fund Round Table", organized in 2007 by Aidspan. The meeting consisted of a private "conversation" between twenty leaders representing government, civil society and multilateral agencies. Participants agreed that Aidspan would produce this white paper, based in large part on problems that were discussed at the Round Table, and including recommendations generated before and after the Round Table by Aidspan and others.

The white paper discusses three main problem areas:

• TS needs are usually identified and met too late in the Global Fund grant cycle.
• TS that is provided often does not meet grantee needs. In particular, it usually does not build local capacity.
• TS is under-funded, and GF partners do not collaborate sufficiently regarding TS provision.

This white paper is available in English only.

Aidspan Documents for In-Country Submissions

4 December 2007

Aidspan has prepared four documents to assist CCMs with the process of soliciting in-country submissions for possible integration into the CCMs' country consolidated proposals:

1. A sample Template for In-Country Submissions
2. A Guidance Note for Completing the Template for In-Country Submissions
3. A sample Template for In-Country Submissions (annotated version)
4. A Cover Note for CCMs on the Aidspan Documents for In-Country Submissions

The first two documents - the Template and the Guidance Note - are designed to be used by organisations in-country that are submitting applications to a CCM. CCMs can adapt these documents and then include them in their calls for submissions. The third document - the annotated version of the Template - is intended to be used solely by CCMs. It contains suggestions for CCMs concerning ways in which they can adapt the Template to meet their particular needs. The fourth document - the Cover Note - provides CCMs with detailed information on the purpose and use of the first three documents.

Note: Although the Aidspan documents for in-country submissions have been designed for use by CCMs, they are equally applicable to Sub-National Coordinating Mechanisms (Sub-CCMs), and can be adapted for use by Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) and Regional Organisations (ROs).

The Aidspan documents for in-country submissions are available in English, French, Spanish and Russian.