The end-2016 data on the Global Fund’s corporate key performance indicators (KPIs) show good results for most of the KPIs, including two where the Fund showed particularly strong performance. The targets for 10 of the 15 KPIs were achieved or surpassed. The targets for four KPIs were not met, and it appears the Fund will not achieve parts of the target for a fifth KPI.
You are here
After a months-long review process involving a number of bodies within the Global Fund, the Board has approved 29 of the 37 targets it declined to accept at its last meeting, revising just five targets, and postponing approval of three targets until later this year. The decision was taken on 20 March by electronic vote.
See the table at the end of this article for a summary of the 2017-2022 KPI targets.
Since the Global Fund established key performance indicators (KPIs) and targets several years ago, they have been challenging for the Secretariat to generate, update and report on. They have also been challenging for the Board to oversee.
When, on 15 June, The Global Fund Board adopted a new key performance indicator (KPI) framework (see GFO article in this issue), it also approved 12 strategic KPIs. The strategic KPIs form the top tier of a three-tiered framework. This article contains a description of the strategic KPIs.
Following a review of why The Global Fund was at risk of not meeting five corporate key performance indicators (KPIs) in the coming year, the Board has approved 10 targets for 2016, two of which have been revised since they were first proposed in November last year.
While eight of the Global Fund’s 13 key performance indicators for which results are available are performing well, the organization is at risk of not meeting the indicators for the other five. This information was contained in a report on KPIs provided to the Board at its meeting on 16-17 November.
There are 16 indicators in all, but the Board paper provided results for only 13 of them.
Kenya in 2013 formally decentralized a series of governance responsibilities to its 47 counties, including the provision of health care. But while the original goal of devolution was to improve efficiency in service delivery and permit greater ownership and engagement at the local level, in the health sector this has not translated as well as anticipated.