Post on 07-Jun-2015
360o Stakeholder Assessment
Dr Rose Leke, Vice-Chair Global Fund Technical Evaluation Reference Group
Global Fund Partnership Forum3rd July 2006
360o Assessment Objectives
To obtain high-level guidance on priorities and issues to be
addressed in the Five-Year Evaluation, specifically as they relate to
the three proposed overarching evaluation questions
To obtain a focused analysis of stakeholder views on Global Fund
performance, reputation, strengths and weaknesses
The final report will include the discussions and recommendations of the Partnership Forum.
The Global Fund 360o Stakeholder Assessment was initiated at the request of the Technical Evaluation Reference Group (TERG) as a priority initial study for the Five-Year Evaluation. Its objectives are:
Overarching Questions for theFive-Year Evaluation and 360o Review
1. Organizational Efficiency of the Global Fund
2. Partner Environment effectiveness
3. Impact on the three diseases
360o Stakeholder Survey Recipients
CCM members
Local Fund Agents
Principal Recipients
Board members
Private sector focal points
Donor constituency representatives
UNAIDS Country Coordinators
RBM Partnership Board
Partnership Forum invitees
Partnership e-Forum registrants
Civil society mailing list
Stop TB distribution list
WHO/HIV country staff
WHO/HIV consultants with proposal development experience
The Online Stakeholder Survey was sent in four languages to the following recipients, and links to the survey were placed on the English,
French, Spanish and Russian Global Fund homepages:
Key stakeholder groups: Related partnership fora:
Strong regional representation - 32% of responses were received in Russian, Spanish or French
4
9
14
16
4
14
14
19
31
0 20 40
Other
Asia/Pacific
Americas
Europe
North Africa and Middle East
Latin America/Caribbean
Eastern Europe/Central Asia
Asia Pacific
Sub-Saharan Africa
Percent of Respondents
DevelopingCountry
DevelopedCountry
Response: over 900 completed interviews
Faith-based organizations
2%
Community-based
organizations4%
Donor government,
bilateral, other donor,
foundation, 8%
Non-governmental organizations
34% Private Sector10%
Recipient Government
13%Multilateral
15%
Other7%
Academic Institution
7%
Response by Sector
31
3
7
7
15
29
37
0 20 40
No formal involvement
TRP
LFA
Board
Technical support provider
PR / SR
CCM member
Percent of Respondents
Respondent involvement with Global Fund
69% of respondents reported formal involvement with the Global Fund via one or more of the following means
Survey Tool
EXAMPLE Poor Fair Good Very good
Excellent Don't know
Attribute •1 •2 •3 •4 •5 •9
1 •Efficiency in disbursing funds
2 •Transparent sharing of information
3 •Supporting programs that reflect country ownership
The questionnaire included 23 attributes. Each item was rated as to its:
• Importance
• Performance of the Global Fund
Supporting programs that reflect country
ownership
Importance of principles
The most important principle according to all sectors:– People affected by the three diseases are reached by programs
receiving Global Fund support.
Other principles ranked among the most important by all sectors:
– Transparent sharing of information
– Efficiency in disbursing funds
– Priority given to most affected and at risk countries / communities
– Focus on funding proven and effective interventions
Global Fund Performance: Organizational Efficiency
Three out of four respondents rated the overall efficiency of the Global
Fund as good, very good or excellent
All sectors rated Global Fund performance highest on:
– “Supporting programs that reflect country ownership”
– “Funding is based on achievement of measurable results”
– “Focus on funding proven and effective interventions against the three diseases”
All sectors rated Global Fund performance lowest on:
– “Effectiveness of LFA model for financial oversight”
– “Alignment of GF monitoring requirements with national M&E systems”
– “Flexibility in use of funds to support programs”
– “Mobilization of private sector resources”
Global Fund Performance: Partner Environment
Half of respondents rated the effectiveness of the partnership system in supporting grant implementation in countries as fair or poor
All sectors rated Global Fund performance lowest on:
– “Effectiveness of technical support through partners for grant implementation”
– “Effective strengthening of health systems capacity through grants for the three diseases”
“Strengthening partnerships between government and civil society”
– Recipient governments ranked partnerships between government and civil society very high, while civil society and other stakeholders had a much lower ranking
Global Fund Performance: Coverage & Impact
Around 90% of respondents believe:
– That programs financed by the Global Fund are reaching people
living with or affected by HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria (coverage)
– That the Global Fund will make a substantial contribution to the
reduction in the burden (illness and death) of the three diseases
(impact)
All sectors rated Global Fund performance highest on:– “Priority given to most affected and at risk countries / communities”
Variation by stakeholder group
69
51 5148
42
31
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
RecipientGovernments
NGO/CBO/FBO
AcademicInstitution
Private Sector Donorgov/Bilat/
Foundation
Multilaterals
Global Fund Reputation Index by Sector
Public sector average
Rep
uta
tio
n I
nd
ex
Summary of main findings
1.1. Recipients consistently rated Global Fund performance Recipients consistently rated Global Fund performance most favorably, while Multilaterals were least positive.most favorably, while Multilaterals were least positive.
2.2. All agree that private sector funding has not been All agree that private sector funding has not been effectively raised, but most gave this lesser importance.effectively raised, but most gave this lesser importance.
3.3. Recipient governments feel that they have meaningful Recipient governments feel that they have meaningful partnerships with civil society, civil society is less partnerships with civil society, civil society is less positive.positive.
4.4. Major concerns were raised regarding technical Major concerns were raised regarding technical assistance.assistance.
5.5. LFA oversight was rated lowest.LFA oversight was rated lowest.
6. The most positive ratings were given by respondents who are closely involved with the Global Fund.
Major issues – points for discussion
1.1. Recipients like the Global Fund. Multilaterals don’t.Recipients like the Global Fund. Multilaterals don’t.
2.2. All agree that private sector money has not been All agree that private sector money has not been effectively raised, but most gave this lesser importance.effectively raised, but most gave this lesser importance.
3.3. Recipient governments feel that they have meaningful Recipient governments feel that they have meaningful partnerships with civil society, civil society doesn’t agree.partnerships with civil society, civil society doesn’t agree.
4.4. Technical assistance is not providing good service.Technical assistance is not providing good service.
5. People who are involved with the Global Fund, like the Global Fund. People who don’t know the Global Fund, are skeptical.