Target-setting

Programmatic targets in the Performance Framework should be based on the comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the epidemiological situation, as described in the Concept Note. Targets should be consistent with the National Strategic Plan and Programmatic Gap Tables.

The targets in the Performance Framework usually reflect the coverage levels expected to be achieved with the Global Fund grant funding. For certain indicators, Global Fund Country Team might request that targets are set based on all available funding (from the GF and other donors). The information on whether the targets are tied to the GF funding, or all funding should be included in the indicator comments.

When setting targets, countries also need to consider current and anticipated constraints to scaling up programmes. Progress can be hindered by challenges such as a lack of skilled human resources, infrastructure, facilities, equipment and systems that support the provision of services, as well as human rights barriers. Defining the problem and taking into consideration the health system and community system constraints and human rights barriers, is critical to the development of the most appropriate and technically responsive set of interventions and targets. Measures to overcome these obstacles should be addressed through health and community systems strengthening activities in collaboration with the relevant technical partners.

Key considerations for target-setting:

• Targets should be realistic but should also demonstrate increasing coverage commensurate with the volume of resources being allocated. It is not necessary to have a target for each period. They should be included according to the frequency of their measurement. For example, if surveys are conducted in years 1 and 3, targets should be provided for those years only and the report due date should be realistic, taking into account the time required to conduct the survey and make survey reports available. As survey results may not always become available within the lifetime of a grant, reporting timeframes beyond the grant end date may be included in the Performance Framework. See guidance on reporting such indicators in the Reporting chapter.
• Proposals including two or more PRs for the same disease component should prepare one consolidated Performance Framework (PF) for all PRs during the Funding Request stage. The consolidated PF should indicate the names of all the implementing entities against each coverage indicator. During the Grant Making stage, each PR will complete a PR-specific PF and targets will be split based on discussions with the Global Fund Country Team and other PR in line with the scope of their activities.
• If after the start of implementation any of the targets needs to be revised, the PR should provide the rationale for doing so—for example, referring to the results of a recent programme review or a survey which indicate considerable changes to the epidemiological situation. The Global Fund Secretariat shall review and decide whether to approve revised targets based on the evidence and rationale furnished by the PR. If the proposed change significantly changes the programme from what was originally approved (e.g. resulting a significant reduction in targets or a shift in programme strategy/focus), the updated PF will be submitted by the Secretariat to the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for approval. Refer to the section “Programmatic Revision” for further detail.
• Since targets are expected to be consistent with the National Strategic Plan (NSP), UNDP, as the PR or potential PR, should participate and contribute to the process of NSP development and target-setting. Past performance and existing contextual factors should be taken into account during target-setting.
  • Countries tend to be optimistic and are inclined to choose targets on what they would like to achieve under ideal circumstances. However, the Global Fund bases its evaluation of programmes on whether they achieve their set targets. Therefore, targets must be ambitious but feasible. When targets set in the PF are not aligned with the NSP targets, adequate explanation must be provided in the Comment section of the PF (insufficient funding, subnational coverage…)
• The PR should ensure that the indicators can be monitored for reporting. The Programme and M&E Specialists should be a part of the budget review to ensure that a reasonable budget is allocated to relevant activities for achievement of the targets.
• If there is no data collection system to obtain a baseline for specific indicator(s) or there is no baseline for some other reason (e.g. a new intervention), the targets in the PF can be left as “to be confirmed” until the system is in place and first baseline results become available. This is particularly recommended for indicators covering activities with many variables which can affect performance (e.g. unreliable information about population size estimation, lack of other data for predicting percentage coverage with specific intervention, a new activity that depends on co-funding from other donors or is otherwise not under the grant control)

Practice Pointer

If the target is set as “to be confirmed” during a specific reporting period, it is essential to confirm it and get the Performance Framework revised accordingly at least 4-6 weeks before the end of the reporting period. Failure to define the target may result in the performance rated as 0%, even if activities are implemented.

• While in the Performance Framework targets can be set as a percentage alone, projections of numeric targets are needed to support quantification of health products required for these activities for the PSM part of the budget. Also, during the reporting process, the denominator, the numerator and the corresponding percentage (automatically calculated) must be reported. The achievement rate (performance) will be calculated comparing the achieved result (in percentage) to the target set as a percentage.
• To the extent possible, please make sure that the baseline selection, target-setting and results-reporting are done based on the same data source.
• Situations in which pharmaceutical products going through international transit were not maintained at the level recommended by the manufacturer, thereby making the quality of the products doubtful and in some cases unsuitable for use. In cases where loss is confirmed, the insurance can cover it;
• It is essential to include in the 'Indicator comments' field any relevant information on the interventions, target groups (e.g. how are 'migrants' defined), explain the target-setting assumptions, define the numerator and the denominator about sources of funding (if not fully GF-funded activity), and how the results will be collected and reported etc.

Note: During the Funding Request stage, countries are also required to present Programmatic Gap Analysis for priority modules per disease. These tables are intended to help countries identify the gaps in selected priority modules, set targets and reprioritize accordingly.