Annual Report 2006 - The Global Fund

44
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems, the Global Fund has
developed and introduced three complementary tools to assess and
strengthen national data systems.
The Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Strengthening Tool
provides a framework and methodology for countries and local
partners to assess M&E systems and develop together a costed
action plan to improve the national systems that can be fully or
partially financed through the grant. A systems-strengthening
exercise or similar method should be carried out by every
recipient country.
The LFA On-Site Data Verification Tool guides LFAs to
perform “spot-check” data verifications at selected service delivery
points. This entails re-aggregating data from primary records and
comparing recounted numbers with results contained in summary
reports at the national level. The Global Fund recommends that LFAs
perform an On-Site Data Verification of selected grant indicators at
least once a year for every grant.
Independent Data Quality Audits provide a detailed
methodology for a more rigorous assessment of data quality and data
management systems. The Global Fund recommends this to be
carried out in five to ten percent of all grants per year on a stratified
random basis or as triggered by grant- or country-specific data
quality concerns.
Initial results from these new tools have shown significant
variations in the reliability of results reported by countries. When
important inconsistencies have been found, the response has been
rapid. For example, funding for the Nigeria HIV grant was
discontinued, partly because ARV patient results could not be
verified. In most cases, these assessments led to the incorporation of
M&E strengthening measures as a condition for going forward with
the grants, together with the allocation of resources to ensure systems
strengthening and capacity building.
Conclusions from implementing the LFA On-Site Data Verification in
32 grants during 2006:
The findings strengthen the overall confidence in Global Fund
results. The data quality is reasonable (94 percent of grants evaluated
have strong or average data quality with 70 percent reporting within
a ten percent error margin). Additionally, 54 percent under-reported
results and 46 percent over-reported results, indicating no evidence of
purposely inflated results reported to the Global Fund.