CCM Scorecard & Country CCM Shadow Reports 2016-2017
Effective Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) are a vital part of the Global Fund architecture at country level. CCMs are responsible for submitting requests for funding and for providing oversite during implementation. With the introduction of the Global Fund’s New Funding Model (NFM) in March 2014, CCMs play an even more important central role, convene stakeholders to engage meaningfully in inclusive country dialogue, agree on funding split, and participate in the development of National Strategic Plan (NSP) discussions for the three diseases at country level. With the enhanced responsibility, the NFM also introduced more rigorous CCM assessment processes. Previously, CCMs submitted a self-assessment attached to their proposal. Now, CCM assessments are conducted by an external evaluator – either the International HIV/AIDS Alliance or Grant Management Solutions. Further, CCMs are also mandated to have a performance improvement plan to accompany their assessment, ensuring that areas of weakness are addressed in an open and transparent manner.
Despite the importance of CCMs in Global Fund decision-making at country level, studies have flagged issues with CCM membership balance, poor representation and limited constituency feedback., Further, the recent audit report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found several persistent shortcomings with CCM performance:
10% of the 50 countries reviewed did not have the required oversight committee;
more than half of the countries did not have specific information on roles, timelines, and budget in their oversight plans, or they had oversight plans that were outdated;
62% of the CCMs were non-compliant with the requirement of seeking feedback from non-CCM members and from people living with and/or affected with the disease;
more than half of the 45 CCMs that have oversight bodies did not adequately discuss challenges with the PRs to identify problems and explore solutions;
58% of the CCMs had not shared oversight reports with country stakeholders and The Global Fund Secretariat in the previous six months; and
26% did not share the oversight reports with relevant stakeholders in a timely manner that could have ensured well-timed remedial action.
In light of the OIG CCM Audit, and the enhanced role of CCMs in country level disease governance in the Funding Model, there is a need for a wide range of stakeholders to be empowered to demand improved CCM performance. While the move to have an external evaluator to conduct CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans is an improvement, the fact that these CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans are not public is an obstacle to accountability. Vested stakeholders and communities must be able to use CCM assessments and improvement plans as accountability mechanisms to demand better performance.
About the research
AAI and EANNASO will collaborate as a technical team supporting in-country civil society to complete research and the development of 2 types of reports.
The Country CSO CCM Shadow Reports
These reports drill down into issues at country level and assess CCM performance from the perspectives of both CCM members as well as the perspective of other stakeholders such as principal recipients and sub recipients. The report is based on the GFATM CCM Audit Progress Assessment Tool but also include various other questions that are seen to be lacking in the existing audits by Geneva. The reason why the research is considered a shadow reporting exercise is that methodologically and in terms of content we are hoping to build and improve on the methods being used by Geneva at this time. Shadow reports are used to supplement and/or provide alternative information to that which was submitted in the original reports. In this work, our aim is the same: to supplement and/or provide alternative information to that found in the original CCM audits.
The CCM Scorecard
A comparative analysis that ranks the participating countries against each other in terms of their performance. Using the AAI Scorecard methodology, data from the Country CCM Shadow Reports is analysed and countries are graded on their performance, as a means to uncover best and worst practice, who is ahead, who is falling behind, and other similarities and differences that might make for good entry points for advocacy.
Long term: More accountable CCMs.
Medium term: Increased transparency around CCM performance and improvement plans.
Short term: Empowered civil society and community groups who can do effective shadow reporting.
The OIG CCM Audit reveals persistently poor CCM performance in a number of areas.
Transparency is limited, as CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans are not currently made public.
Current CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans lack questions that speak to quality of performance such as meaningful engagement, use of documentation and information, etc.
Civil society needs to be further engaged with the CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans in order to hold stakeholders accountable.
Civil society watchdogs and affected communities must have the tools, knowledge and information they need to hold CCMs accountable.
Civil society watchdogs need to be able to measure the performance of their CCM members who represent them.
The Civil Society CCM Scorecard and Country CCM Shadow Reports will not duplicate the Global Fund supported Eligibility and Performance Assessments (EPAs). This is because whilst EPAs are consultant facilitated self-assessments of CCMs that are largely driven by the Global Fund to facilitate accountability using a top down approach; the Civil Society CCM Scorecard and Country CCM Shadow Reports will be undertaken by civil society in country, using a bottom up approach. In addition, the Civil Society CCM Scorecard and Country CCM Shadow Reports will seek to interview both CCM members as well as implementing partners (principal recipients (PRs) and sub-recipients (SRs)) interact with CCM. The research for the Civil Society Scorecard and the Country CCM Shadow Reports will be facilitated by civil society resident in country so the exercise will both empower civil society and sustain the culture of demanding accountability from CCMs in country and can be replicated across other grant implementers.
Nine countries participated in the research: Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
 Oberth, G. (2012). Who is Really Affecting the Global Fund Decision Making Process?: A Community Consultation Report. AIDS Accountability International. Cape Town, South Africa. Online at http://aidsaccountability.org/?page_id=8094
 Tucker, P. (2012). Who is really affecting the Global Fund decision making processes? A Quantitative Analysis of Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs). AIDS Accountability International. Cape Town, South Africa. Online at http://aidsaccountability.org/?page_id=8094