Recommended Readings, June 20, 2009

by Alanna Shaikh · 2009-06-20 08:52:00 UTC
Topics:

(photo credit: gadl)

Some great evaluations have come out in the past few days, taking on some of the sacred cows of global health.

We saw a new evaluation of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Impressively, it was commissioned by the global fund itself. The evaluation is not kind; the Center for Global Development Blog has an excellent summary of the report. One thing that comes up in the evaluation is the failure of the Country Coordinating Mechanism to oversee implementation of grants. Based on my own experience with the CCM, that's dead on. You can't expect what is basically a group of disparate volunteers to add unpaid oversight of complex grants to their workload.

Next, the Lancet published a major story on health resource flows. It looked at who funds global health and what that funding supports. The article takes a new approach to estimating global health aid, looking at disbursements rather than commitments, and also at aid from US based NGOs. The Center for Global Development, however, has noticed some weaknesses in the methodology. (Yes, that is two CGD links in two paragraphs. That's because their global health policy blog is amazing. They are especially good on things like this - summarizing and analyzing new reports on global health.) Myself, I wonder if the report doesn't double count some aid. If USAID gives money to World Vision for a health program, does that funding get counted as USAID funding and World Vision funding?

The Lancet is clearly on a roll; they also have a fascinating article on who influences global health. Conclusion:  the UN's influence is shrinking and that's not a good thing.

Alanna Shaikh
PREVIOUS STORY:
World Refugee Day Live - Saturday!
NEXT STORY:
Campaign about Apple Factories in China Gains Wide and Diverse Support

COMMENTS (0)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.