Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines and Tools

Monitoring and evaluation plan guideline

The Global Fund requires a monitoring and evaluation plan at the time of grant signing. Normally, a Principal Recipient is required to submit only the national monitoring and evaluation plan (specific to a disease or for a combination of the three diseases, depending on the country context), as agreed by in-country partners for monitoring the national strategy to which the Global Fund-supported program contributes. The main contents of the plan and situations under which submission of a national monitoring and evaluation plan may not be feasible are described in the guideline.

1. Monitoring and evaluation plan guidelines
   English | Français | Español DOC - 210 KB
2. Annex E - Workplan and budget template
   English | Español | Français XLS -32 KB

Performance framework

The performance framework forms part of the grant agreement and is the legal statement of the performance expected over the lifetime of the grant.

It contains a summary of key indicators and targets, which are used to measure:

1. output and coverage on a routine basis;
2. outcome and impact in the longer term (from the end of year two).

All performance frameworks are disease-specific.

Performance Framework for year 1 and 2

English | Français | Español XLS - 150 KB

Performance Framework for year 3, 4 and 5

English | Français | Español XLS - 150 KB

Tool for the development of a Single Stream of Funding (SSF) consolidated Performance Framework for year 1, 2 and 3

English XLS - 315 KB

Rolling Continuation Channel (RCC) Performance Framework for year 6, 7 and 8

English XLS - 140 KB

Monitoring and Evaluation Manual

This manual provides a comprehensive set of guidelines on monitoring and evaluation standards and practices throughout the lifecycle of Global Fund grants. It is intended for the use of those working at country level as well as for Global Fund staff. Users may include Global Fund Principal Recipients, sub-recipients, country partners, fund portfolio managers, program officers, Local Fund Agents and consultants providing technical support in monitoring and evaluation at country level. Some guideline specifics may not apply to a given country context. In this case, consultation with the Global Fund is recommended.

The manual has four modules that present the cornerstones of monitoring and evaluation in Global Fund grants.

1. Performance-based Funding and Monitoring and Evaluation in Practice: Principles and Requirements
2. Completing the Performance Framework Template
3. Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
4. Carrying out a Monitoring and Evaluation Self-assessment
5. An Overview of PR Assessment and Data Verification

Monitoring and evaluation self-assessment

A periodic assessment (every two years) of national monitoring and evaluation systems is generally recommended to review the implementation status of the national monitoring and evaluation plan (if any), to identify weaknesses and to build on existing efforts. At the time of proposal submission, countries are recommended to submit their national monitoring and evaluation plan together with an action plan to address any challenges identified. These plans should be developed based on a thorough assessment process involving all stakeholders of the program within the country. This process allows countries to include in the proposal resources required for filling gaps in monitoring and evaluation. The Global Fund verifies the quality of both the monitoring and evaluation plan and the action plan before signing a new grant. Countries with active grants (excluding those that are in their last year of implementation) are recommended to perform a similar monitoring and evaluation assessment if the last one was conducted more than two years ago.

The requirement for monitoring and evaluation self-assessment is the first step in a system strengthening process which includes: i) periodic self-assessment of the national monitoring and evaluation system; ii) development or review of the monitoring and evaluation plan and action plan based on the results of the assessment; iii) implementation of the monitoring and evaluation plan/action plan; and iv) regular follow-up on implementation status of the monitoring and evaluation plan/action plan.

1. Monitoring and evaluation self-assessment tool (systems strengthening tool)
   English | Français PDF - 2.5 MB
2. Monitoring and evaluation self-assessment checklists (including M&E plan, Management Unit, data reporting systems per program area) Compressed Excel file - 64 KB
   English | French | Spanish

For countries that are planning implementation of an HIV M&E assessment, it is recommended to use the UNAIDS ONE tool. This tool has been developed by UNAIDS in collaboration with partners, including the Global Fund, on the basis of the Monitoring and evaluation self-assessment tool. It has been validated by the HIV Monitoring and Evaluation Reference Group (MERG) and is recommended by UNAIDS for the assessment of the HIV M&E system.

Other documents that were produced under the auspices of the HIV MERG and that provide guidance on HIV M&E systems strengthening include the M&E Assessment Guidance (Working Draft) and the Organizing Framework for a Functioning National HIV Monitoring and Evaluation System.

Local Fund Agent monitoring and evaluation assessment

Before signing a grant agreement with the entity nominated as Principal Recipient by the Country Coordinating Mechanism, the Global Fund engages a Local Fund Agent to assess whether the systems and capacities of the nominee meet the minimum requirements and to identify any critical gaps.

Monitoring and evaluation capacity is one of the five functional areas of the Principal Recipient to be assessed (the others are financial management and systems; program management; pharmaceutical and health product management; and sub-recipient management capacity).

1. Guide on Local Fund Agent Principal Recipient assessment and data verification PDF 184 KB

On-site data verification

On-site data verification is conducted by the Local Fund Agent during the program implementation period at least once a year for each grant (or per Principal Recipient per disease) to assess the quality of data reported by the Principal Recipient. The process involves performing data verifications for selected indicators at the service delivery points, reaggregating data from primary records and comparing recounted numbers with summary reports of results which have been collected at the national level. Between one and three program output indicators should be selected for data verification. The quality of reported data for each selected indicator is rated as A, B1, B2 or C. The Local Fund Agent will provide recommendations to the Principal Recipient to rectify data quality issues (if any).

1. Guide for Local Fund Agent on-site data verification PDF 136 KB
2. Local Fund Agent on-site data verification report template Word 119 KB

Data quality audit

The Data quality audit tool and methodology were developed by the Global Fund with its partners in order to i) assess the ability of monitoring and evaluation systems to collect and report quality data; and ii) verify the accuracy of reported data for key indicators at selected sites. The implementation of data quality audits is outsourced to external service providers to guarantee independence of both Global Fund grant management and the Local Fund Agent. Currently, grants are selected for audit through three mechanisms: stratified random sampling, purposive selection by the Secretariat and on country request. A data quality audit focuses on two or three of the Global Fund top 10 output indicators and 8 to 12 service delivery points for each indicator. The outcome of an audit will classify a grant as having either no, minor or major data quality issues. The Principal Recipient develops and implements a plan to rectify any issues identified. In exceptional cases where intentional data manipulation or fraud are observed, suspension or termination of Global Fund grants may be considered.

1. Data quality audit tool PDF - 1.4 MB

Framework for operations research

Operations research can be defined as any research, regardless of type, that produces knowledge with a practical application which can improve program implementation. The Global Fund encourages the inclusion of operational research in the HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria control programs it supports with a view also to tackling obstacles to scale-up. Programs are recommended to spend between 5 and 10 percent of their grant budget on monitoring and evaluation, which could include spending on relevant operational research.

A framework document has been developed to assist program implementers, policymakers, researchers and others to identify the steps needed to formulate research questions, conduct operational research and, ultimately, use the findings to improve health programs. The Framework for Operations and Implementation Research in Health and Disease Control Programs is the result of a collaborative effort between the Global Fund, the Special Program for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases and a number of international partner organizations. The purpose of the document is twofold: i) to standardize the practice of operational research across the international health community, and ii) to integrate operational research into health and disease control programs.

Any questions or comments on this document or on operational research in general, should be sent to OR@theglobalfund.org.

1. Framework for Operations and Implementation Research in Health and Disease Control Programs
   English | Français | Español | Русский PDF - 1.5 MB

Top 10 indicators

The document introduces the main indicators for routine Global Fund reporting and for medium-term outcome and impact. For the latter, it provides a list of indicators recommended for generalized epidemics and high-endemicity areas and for concentrated epidemic and low-endemicity areas.

English

Top 10 equivalent selection criteria

With the current rating methodology, the performance of a single top 10 indicator may affect the score of the rest of the (non top-10) indicators included in a Performance Framework. The concept of “top-10 equivalent” is introduced to allow grants with few or no “top-10” indicators to be scored without a strong bias in favor of the top-10 or not top-10 list.

Top 10 equivalent indicator needs to be very relevant to a specific grant and hence meet one (or both) of the following conditions:

1. It is a “people reached” indicator addressing one of the main target groups, while no other top 10 indicator could properly address the specific SDA AND the SDA plays a significant part in achieving the program’s goals.
2. It is a “system strengthening” indicator for a grant that only OR mainly addresses system strengthening and has a substantive amount of grant (10% and above; however depending on grant size) associated to the activities monitored. As much as possible these indicators should reflect the formulations included in the Toolkit.