Top Banner
360 o Stakeholder Assessment Dr Rose Leke, Vice-Chair Global Fund Technical Evaluation Reference Group Global Fund Partnership Forum 3 rd July 2006
15
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

360o Stakeholder Assessment

Dr Rose Leke, Vice-Chair Global Fund Technical Evaluation Reference Group

Global Fund Partnership Forum3rd July 2006

Page 2: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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:

Page 3: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 4: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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:

Page 5: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 6: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 7: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 8: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 9: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 10: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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”

Page 11: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 12: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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”

Page 13: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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

Page 14: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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.

Page 15: Gfatm pf2006 day2 stakeholder_assessment

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.