Other Publications

This Aidspan working paper (No. 02/13) describes the trends in the procurement costs of selected HIV, TB and malaria commodities, as reported through the Global Fund's price and quality reporting (PQR) system. The analysis includes a comparison of PQR costs to the costs reported by the Global Fund’s centralised voluntary pooled procurement (VPP) system.

This Aidspan working paper (No. 01/13) describes the opinions and experiences of government and non-government principal recipients as related by them in a survey conducted by Aidspan in December 2012. Topics covered include communications, relationships, the grant implementation process, reporting systems and capacity building.

This report provides an analysis of pledges and contributions made to the Global Fund for the period 2011–2013. For each donor, it includes a "Global Fund Donor Score," the methodology for which was developed by Aidspan.

A new Aidspan report, written by David McCoy and Nele Jensen, discusses the limitations of the methodologies used by the Global Fund to quantify lives saved through programmes that it supports.

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.

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.” 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.