We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
The Global Fund's paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique.
- Authors
Warren, Ashley; Cordon, Roberto; Told, Michaela; de Savigny, Don; Kickbusch, Ilona; Tanner, Marcel
- Abstract
Background: The Global Fund is one of the largest actors in global health. In 2015 the Global Fund was credited with disbursing close to 10 % of all development assistance for health. In 2011 it began a reform process in response to internal reviews following allegations of recipients' misuse of funds. Reforms have focused on grant application processes thus far while the core structures and paradigm have remained intact. We report results of discussions with key stakeholders on the Global Fund, its paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique. Methods: We conducted 38 semi-structured in-depth interviews in Maputo, Mozambique and members of the Global Fund Board and Secretariat in Switzerland. In-country stakeholders were representatives from Global Fund country structures (eg. Principle Recipient), the Ministry of Health, health or development attach's bilateral and multilateral agencies, consultants, and the NGO coordinating body. Thematic coding revealed concerns about the combination of weak country oversight with stringent and cumbersome requirements for monitoring and evaluation linked to performance-based financing. Results: Analysis revealed that despite the changes associated with the New Funding Model, respondents in both Maputo and Geneva firmly believe challenges remain in Global Fund's structure and paradigm. The lack of a country office has many negative downstream effects including reliance on in-country partners and ineffective coordination. Due to weak managerial and absorptive capacity, more oversight is required than is afforded by country team visits. Incountry partners provide much needed support for Global Fund recipients, but roles, responsibilities, and accountability must be clearly defined for a successful long-term partnership. Furthermore, decision-makers in Geneva recognize incountry coordination as vital to successful implementation, and partners welcome increased Global Fund engagement. Conclusions: To date, there are no institutional requirements for formalized coordination, and the Global Fund has no consistent representation in Mozambique's in-country coordination groups. The Global Fund should adapt grant implementation and monitoring procedures to the specific local realities that would be illuminated by more formalized coordination.
- Subjects
MOZAMBIQUE; GLOBAL Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, &; Malaria; MEDICAL care financing; GRANTS in aid (Public finance); MEDICAL care; PUBLIC health
- Publication
Globalization & Health, 2017, Vol 13, p1
- ISSN
1744-8603
- Publication type
Article