عربي | 中文 | English | Español | Français | Русский
Navigate ToNavigate To

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

header_btn_en

Performance Based Funding

Home > Performance Based Funding > In Action

  • In Action

    “Performance-based funding ensures that funding follows performance.”  
     FundingDecisionPerformance 
    Funding decisions based on performance (at Grant Renewal) 
    The above figure shows the percentage of funds earmarked in the original proposal for Grant Renewal that has actually been committed to grants following the performance assessment conducted towards the end of the second year of implementation (Grant Renewal process).  The graph demonstrates that the well-performing grants in the Global Fund’s rating scale (A and B1 rated) have received a much higher percentage of their original amount, compared to B2 and C rated grants (poorer-performing grants).The above figure shows the percentage of funds earmarked in the original proposal for Phase 2 that has actually been committed to grants following the performance assessment conducted towards the end of the second year of implementation (Phase 2 review process). The graph demonstrates that the best-performing grants in the Global Fund’s rating scale (A and B1 rated) have received nearly their entire Phase 2 amounts, while B2 and C rated grants (poorer-performing grants), have received less.

     

    “Performance-based funding does not disadvantage poorer countries.” 
     PoorlyPerformingGrantsWealthLevel 
    Percentage of poorly performing grants according to level of wealth  

    The above figure shows that the poorer countries receiving Global Fund grants do not have more poorly performing grants (rated B2 or C) compared with wealthier countries. 

    The performance of grants is measured via country-owned targets which are ambitious yet realistic for specific national realities and contexts.  As a result, the Global Fund’s performance-based funding approach does not disadvantage countries with the lowest income levels or weaker health and community systems (performance is measured in relative terms against the unique targets established by the countries).  The above figure shows that the poorer countries receiving Global Fund grants do not have more poorly performing grants (rated B2 or C) compared with wealthier countries.

    The performance of grants is measured via country-owned targets which are ambitious yet realistic for specific national realities and contexts. As a result, the Global Fund’s performance-based funding approach does not disadvantage countries with the lowest income levels or weaker health and community systems (performance is measured in relative terms against the unique targets established by the countries).

  • Performance-based funding creates incentives for countries to improve performance

    Performance category*   Country and disease Adjustment made by grant recipient
    A      Niger, Malaria Partnered with International Red Crescent (and other local partners) to further accelerate insecticide-treated bed net delivery to protect populations from malaria.
    B1    Malawi, HIV Human resources identified as the bottleneck to improving results; US$ 40 million of the budget re-allocated to this area to improve capacity.
    B2   Mali, HIV Procurement bottleneck identified; UNDP and UN provided technical support to build local capacity.
    Ethiopia, Malaria Government focused on problems and sought technical support from UNICEF; grant became A-rated and delivered ten million insecticide-treated bed nets to protect people from malaria.
    C    Senegal, Malaria Grant stopped, Country Coordinating Mechanism reformed, civil society involved, and new grant signed which proved successful. Country benefited from clear performance evaluation, even with a C-rating.
    Nigeria, HIV Grant stopped, rebuilt monitoring and evaluation system and new grant signed which proved successful. Country benefited from clear performance evaluation, even with a C-rating.

    * A Meets or exceeds expectations, B1 Moderate, B2 Inadequate but potential demonstrated, C Unacceptable 

  • "In China, everyone says we should copy the very clear targets, timetables and financial support from the Global Fund... the national system wants to copy this... they see it as a leading element to allow strategic planning and improve the culture of management."

    Scaling Up for Impact: Results Report. Geneva, Global Fund, March 2009.

  • "Money is there for results, it is uncomfortable, it is not just for meetings, it is percolating through our systems, people are beginning to ask for results at all levels, it is good and has also widened the partnerships, it ensures we have focus to achieve real things not a small bit of everything, but results."

    Scaling Up for Impact: Results Report. Geneva, Global Fund, March 2009.

  • In Ethiopia, the threat of losing a large malaria grant spurred the rapid distribution of 2 million insecticide-treated bed nets and the strengthening of management systems to enable further scale-up in the ensuing years: "What made the difference is that you [the Global Fund] gave us a clear warning that we were in the red zone, that we could lose our money if we didn't deliver results. We looked at it, we could focus, and we both saw the problem, and that was the adjustment we made to get the results. Performance-based funding helped us think through implementation."

    Investing in Impact: Mid-Year Results Report. Geneva, Global Fund, June 2006.

  • "If sub-recipients see their results falling into the red, they telephone us and we talk it through and find solutions. Equally important, we feed back to the Country Coordinating Mechanism our performance and we have a mature debate, not just on politics but implementation and progress, real grant issues."

    Partners in Impact: Results Report. Geneva, Global Fund, February 2007.


© 2012 The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria