Study Details

Partners in Impact: Results Report 2007


Low-Beer D. 


May 2007



Web Link

View PDF


Global Fund (GF)


HIV/AIDS services, health systems strengthening, human resources, Governance, funding, civil society

Study Type

Internal evaluation.


To identify and summarise the strengths and weaknesses to date of the Global Fund expressed in terms of results, performance, partnerships, and impact.


Methods are not discussed in this document.


This internal evaluation paints a positive picture of Global Fund performance to 2007 and highlights, amongst other things, the need to respond more effectively to the ‘cross-cutting’ challenges of capacity-building, reform of aid architecture, and performance-based funding .

  • The evaluation found that by the end of 2006 the Fund had signed 410 grants (worth $5.3bn, of which 3.24bn had been dispersed); 770,000 people were receiving HIV treatment; 2m receiving TB treatment under DOTS; and 18m insecticide treated nets had been distributed.
  • The GF saw itself as performing well in funding prevention, treatment and care.
  • Well-performing grants compensated for grants with problems. This allowed the GF to absorb a certain level of risk (for example, poor performance in early investments in Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya) and still achieve positive results overall.
  • Performance-based funding did not penalize poorer countries.
  • 90% of GF financing was predictable; 74%, according to the GF, followed a programme approach (meaning that funds were geared towards maximising efficiency, minimising transaction costs, and minimising procedural burdens of national country programmes); 62% was aligned with country cycles (thereby supporting the principle of country ownership).
  • 74% of GF partners had Monitoring and Evaluation systems in place
  • There were signs that child mortality, and mortality in working populations was reducing in some countries.

Conclusions /

  • Implement more responsive technical support to programmes (make the money work harder)
  • Respond to cross-cutting challenges:
    • Improve capacity-building through health system and structural reform
    • Make overall aid architecture more efficient and effective
    • Maintain focus on performance-based funding
  • Provide a more systematic approach to partnering with civil society and private sector.
  • Implement a Fourth One transparency of financial inputs into health programs to strengthen performance-based funding.
  • Impact must be central. This would require greater focus on partnership and a program approach in-country.


Further information can be obtained from Aisling Walsh or from Neil Spicer, or from any of the individual country researchers.

Last Updated: Friday 16th November 2007