Monitoring and Evaluation for Round 6

1
Global Fund Monitoring Evaluation Framework
and requirements Regional Meeting for the East
Asia and Pacific 03-05 September 2007, Bali,
Indonesia

2
Presentation outline

• Performance Based Funding ME
• Harmonization and alignment
• Reporting requirements and common pitfalls

3
Performance Based Funding
Spend it
BG/111006/1
4
Performance Based Funding and ME

• Role of ME Help measuring impact, outcome,
  output, evaluate interventions, produce strategic
  information to demonstrate achievements and
  effective interventions.
• Some key intended outcomes of PBF
• Long term ? Ensure investments are made where
  impact on the diseases can be measured and
  achieved
• Strategy level ? Provide incentives to focus on
  results and timely implementation
• Implementation level ? Help countries
• Identify effective strategies for early
  replication scale-up or
• Take early corrective actions

5
Importance of Measuring Impact

• 1. Final evidence to show that what we are doing
  is actually useful
• Simplistic example
• - US 20,000,000 is an input that can show high
  commitment
• - 200 workshops is a process that can show high
  level of interventions
• - 1000 medical staff trained on delivering ART
  and 15000 people receiving ART is an output that
  can show high level of achievement
• - Decreased AIDS related deaths is the impact
  without which all of the above would make no
  sense

6
What impact are we measuring?

• Impact achievement is the country success to
  combat a disease(i.e. HIV, TB, Malaria)
• Not always possible, easy or cost-effective to
  single out each organizations or funds
  contribution to achieve impact (e.g. the Global
  Funds)

7
Importance of Measuring Impact

• 2. Increasingly relevant for PBF in the Global
  Fund
• Part of the attachments (Performance Frameworks)
• To qualify for RCC, demonstrate either-
  potential for measurable impact - evidence of
  achieved impact

8

• Harmonization and Alignment

9
Alignment

• The proposal to the Global Fund should form an
  integral part of the national strategic plan,
  based on gap analysis.
• At the last meeting (15th), the Board decided in
  principle, to establish new procedures that will
  allow applicants to submit national strategies
  for HIV/AIDS, TB or Malaria for Global Fund
  financing (National-Strategy Application)

10
Alignment

• The ME of the Global Fund proposal should be
  embedded in the National ME Plan.
• TGF proposal may include activities to strengthen
  the National ME System. A recommended 5-10 of
  programme funding can be allocated to ME.
• When the national ME plan does not exist or does
  not meet the Global Fund reporting requirements,
  then a specific ME plan for the GF project can
  be developed, fully aligned with national
  priorities and guidelines.
• When selecting indicators to monitor the grant,
  TGF strongly encourages countries to align with
  existing standard indicators and national
  reporting periods

11
Harmonization between global partners

•  Three Ones  principles
• ME toolkit with common indicators for 9 partners
• ME manuals in specific areas such as OVC, youth,
  etc.
• ME assessment tools
• ME Reference Groups
• UNGASS reporting
• Global electronic databases (CRIS, Devinfo,
  Health Mapper, etc.)

GP/111006/3
12

• Reporting requirements

13
ME requirements for grant signing
National ME PLAN
Specific ME plan (if needed)
M.E.S.S. Tool
LFA assessment
Attachment 1 / Performance framework
Secretariat review
14
Attachments / Performance Frameworks

• Attachments to Grant Agreements (or Performance
  Frameworks)
• are the legal statement of the expected
  performance and impact over proposal term
• They include - Reporting periods
• -Proposals goal and objectives
• Impact and outcome indicators with baseline, data
  source and targets over the full period
• - Output indicators with baseline, data source
  and targets over the specific period of the
  attachment (normally 1 or 2 years)

15
ME plan
A ME plan is typically a nationally agreed
document that describes the functioning of the
national (or global fund grant specific) ME
system and the mechanisms to strengthen it during
a determined period of time.

• Ideally it should include
• 1) List of indicators with baselines, data
  sources and targets (ME framework)

16
ME plan
2) Information on how data will be collected
(e.g. surveys, etc.), managed (e.g. data flow,
central database, etc.), analyzed, verified
(including data quality issues), used and
disseminated (e.g. production of strategic
information, triangulation exercises, etc.) 3)
Operational research and evaluation studies to be
carried out to complement the information
provided through indicators 4) ME structures
(e.g. staff, responsibilities, infrastructures,
Technical Working Group, etc.) with capacity
building plan 5) A action plan (or road map)
with budget
17
Harmonization between different Rounds (example)

• HIV R4 (5 years)

2005
06
07
08
09
Att. 3-4
Harmonize indicators (esp. impact/outcome) and
targets
Att. 1-2
2007
08
09
10
11

• HIV R6 (5 years)

18
Some common pitfalls

• Lack of consistency between the goal ? objectives
  ? service delivery areas ? indicators
• Poor indicator selection - Main objectives of
  proposal not monitored
• Poorly defined indicators and data sources
• Too many indicators

19
Some common pitfalls

• Discrepancy between targets set at the time of
  grant signing performance reported
• Overlap with existing grants not specified
• Double counting of results over different rounds
• Not built on existing ME and HIS systems,
  therefore difficult too costly to monitor
  indicators