Annual Review - Summary Sheet
This Summary Sheet captures the headlines on programme performance, agreed actions and learning
over the course of the review period. It should be attached to all subsequent reviews to build a complete
picture of actions and learning throughout the life of the programme.
Title: Partnership for Supplies Security to Support the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition
Secretariat (RHSC)
Programme Value: £4m
Programme Code: 203663
Review Date: 03/2015
Start Date: 09/2012
End Date: 03/2016
Summary of Programme Performance
2014
2015
Year
A
A
Programme Score
Medium Medium
Risk Rating
Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review
The RHSC is a coalition of a large group of organisations aiming to improve market functioning and
address supply side barriers to delivering affordable, quality reproductive health commodities. It
celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2014 at its largest General Membership meeting in Mexico with 340
participants from 51 countries represented. It welcomes a broad membership of government, private
sector, NGOs, faith based organisations, donors, multilateral agencies and more.
In 2014, the RHSC saw a new Terms of Reference as well as an updated Strategy for 2015 – 2025 that
is still to be completed. The strategy lays out six levers of change where the RHSC can add most value:
neutrality, convening power, brain trust and ability to broker partnerships, diverse resource base,
and a respected name. It also puts forth four strategic pillars - availability, quality, equity, and choice
- upon which the new vision rests, and identifies a host of strategic pathways through which Coalition
members, either individually or collectively, can bring about desired changes.
In addition, 2014 saw the following successes for the RHSC:
-
-
-
-
Contribution to leveraging $125,950,544 in-kind and in-cash to support its own work and the
cause of RH commodity security more broadly.
Launching of the ‘Take Stock’ campaign to combat reproductive health commodities being out of
stock at health facilities, developing a commonly agreed set of indicators to measure these stock
outs and averting stock outs in Nepal, Burma and four West African countries.
Consolidating and institutionalising efforts for more harmonised, coordinated global
procurements through initiatives such as Coordinated Supply Planning and the Global Visibility
Project.
Completion of a host of analytical documents and briefs including a ground breaking publication,
“Market Shaping for Family Planning”, designed to help make sense of this misunderstood
concept as well as a new interactive online platform, “supplypromises.org”, that details nearly 140
supply-related commitments made by governments and development agencies over the last
decade, shares lessons on their implementation, and offers guidance on the formulation of new
commitments.
Assumed leadership of the newly formed Family Planning Technical Resource Team (TRT)
under the UN Commodities Commission (CoLSC).
Resolved 202 queries to the Coordinated Assistance for Reproductive Health Supplies (CARhs)
group.
Maintained an active role in FP2020, including the RHSC Director being a co-lead on the
FP2020 market dynamics working group
Awarded seven Learning and Professional Training Opportunities (LAPTOP) scholarships
totalling US$ 13,000 to recipients from 7 countries.
Relaunched the Innovation Fund to support small, innovative pilots in countries.
1
-
Actively channeling joint feedback from the SRHR community into the consultation process for
the new Global Financing Facility. This is supported by DFID and Norway only.
RHSC has also taken on the implementation of certain programmes on the ground in 2014, for example
the campaigns mentioned above, rather than just playing a convening role.
Although the RHSC has scored an A overall and a huge amount of critical work has been done, two
outputs are progressing more slowly – those focused on stock outs and commitments (3 and 4).
Ensuring achievements on outputs 3 and 4 requires special focus from RHSC in the year ahead.
Plans are in place for output 3 to progress in 2015 but the next steps for output 4 are less clear.
This review was carried out by a DFID Health adviser and programme manager from the Sexual
Reproductive Health and Rights team. Consultations were carried out with DFID Health Services Team,
CHAI, USAID (2 people) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Key feedback was also obtained
during the general membership meeting in Mexico in October 2014.
Summary of key recommendations for the next year
1. Develop a mechanism of more regular communication with DFID throughout the year. This would be
best done as phone calls with all RHSC donors to ensure we are all on the same page.
2. Outline a plan with DFID to ensure output 4 gets back on track, including countries of focus.
3. Continue maximising the linkages between other DFID funded related programmes including RMNCH
Trust Fund, FP2020, PMNCH and the Global Programme for RH Commodity Security.
4. Ensure the governance arrangements are clear as RHSC takes on a new role as an implementer
instead of just a convenor.
5.
All relevant stakeholders to discuss the role of the FP2020 Market Dynamics WG vis a vis the
RHSC.
6. RHSC to make the criteria for assessing ‘innovation’ for the Innovation Fund, more explicit.
7. Revisit the theory of change in light of the new strategy.
8. Change the wording of output 4.2 (see below) and move this to output 3 where it is a better fit. Add
wording to output 4.4 (see below).
A. Introduction and Context (1 page)
DevTracker Link to
Business Case:
DevTracker Link to
Log frame:
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1203663/documents/
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-1203663/documents/
Outline of the programme
DFID is providing up to £4 million from 2012/13- 2015/16 to support the Reproductive Health Supplies
Coalition (RHSC). The Coalition has been in existence for over ten years. This funding is part of a multipronged approach to improving coordination and reducing the fragmentation of effort and complexities
around reproductive health commodity supply and complements other work done through FP2020 and
the Global Programme for RH Commodity Security.
RHSC is a global partnership aiming to provide a forum for bringing together key stakeholders working in
this field in a ‘safe, informal space’ to foster ideas, innovation and drive action. The aim is to
improve market functioning and address supply side barriers to delivering affordable, quality reproductive
health commodities. Stakeholders range from bilateral and multilateral agencies, private sector
manufacturers both large and small, local non-governmental organisations and governments. Since the
start of DFID’s funding to the Coalition, membership has grown from 220 to 340 organisations. The
RHSC operates through a secretariat of 15 staff based in Washington, Brussels and Peru (1 person).
This team backstops 3 volunteer working groups on supply strengthening, advocacy & accountability
and market shaping as well as four caucuses focused on specific relevant issues of interest (maternal
health supplies, new and underused technologies, generic manufacturers and technology). In terms of
Secretariat time, 50% is spent on core support to the membership and the direction of the organisation
and the other 50% is split between the broad issues of market shaping, stockouts and commitments.
2
The RHSC now has 8 donors (BMGF, UNFPA, USAID, Norway, Netherlands, Packard Foundation and
MacArthur Foundation), some of whom fund specific activities for example, the Maternal Health supplies
Caucus was funded by Packard Foundation, the Taking Stock campaign is funded by the Gates
Foundation and the Innovation Fund is funded by DFID and Norway. The RHSC is governed by an
Executive Committee made up of donors, multilaterals and CSOs that are prominent in the field of RH
supplies. DFID has never been on the Executive Committee except for a short period when a DFID
Adviser was Chair prior to us funding the coalition.
The RHSC conducted an external evaluation in 2012, leading to a revision of its strategy and terms of
reference. These are now focused on 4 pillars of Quality, Choice, Availability and Equity, each with a
pathway for change identified. Since the evaluation, the RHSC has also ensured strong technical
personnel are in place to backstop the working groups and caucuses.
This programme will contribute to preventing over 30 million unintended pregnancies, and over 50,000
women’s deaths, as well as making global savings worth over $350 million from 2013 to 2018, through
its contribution to convening funding, procurement and forecasting efforts to meet implant demand and
volume guarantees.
Expected results for this funding period (2013-2016) include:

Improved global market dynamics for contraceptives and other commodities, with price reductions
and /or quality improvements and increased volumes realised in two product areas by 2016
(implants, injectables and a maternal health medicines). Savings generated for DFID’s commodity
budget will be worth at least double the spending on this project (ie: over £8 million).

Commitments to commodity security will be made and implemented through sustained, multi-sectoral
(public and private sectors) collective action. There will be a 10% aggregate increase in national
spending on global procurement and distribution across selected sentinel countries, between 2013
and 2016.

There will also be improved advocacy and attention on national and local stock-outs, so that by 2016,
at least one nation-level policy change to avert contraceptives stock-outs will be adopted in each of
the selected low-income countries, and per year, over 100 short term national supply crises will be
addressed.
B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS (1-2 pages)
Annual outcome assessment
On Track. The outcome of the programme is that the RHSC made a contribution to the increased
availability of a broad range of affordable, high-quality reproductive health supplies. Progress has been
good overall and specific indicators are summarised below:
Indicator
1. Sufficient production
volumes of quality assured
contraceptive implants and
injectables (DMPA) achieved
to meet estimated demand.
Milestone 2014
Actual production capacity of:
Implants: 6.3 million units
Injectables: 142 million units
Procurement demand forecast for:
Implants: 6.3 million units
Injectables: 127 million units
3
Achieved 2014
In 2014 there was enough global
production volume capacity to meet
demand for injectables. With implants, one
quality assured supplier was not able to
meet requested purchase orders from
donors within a reasonable timeframe
(taking up to 12 months).
Production volumes (volume shipped)
Implants: 14.3 million units
Injectables: 2014 shipment volume figure
will become available in 2015. From
UNFPA and USAID data, all orders for
quality assured injectables in 2014 were
fulfilled within a reasonable timeframe.
2. Value for money
increased (price
reductions/quality improved)
in high-priority, quality
assured products
(injectables, implants,
emergency contraception
(EC), female condom, a
new contraceptive method
(e.g. hormonal IUD),
reproductive health
medicines, and other health
products) in the global
market or by country,
through better coordinated
procurement; cost savings
generated.
No milestone set for 2014.
Baseline (2012):
Initial unit price ($US):
Injectables: 0.78c
Emergency Contraception: 0.40c
Implanon implant: $16.50.
N/A – promising developments in 2014
include an innovation grant from RHSC to
FHI360 to pilot a low cost hormonal IUD
that will culminate in price reductions and
controls.
Also in 2014, the RHSC has facilitated the
bringing together of stakeholders in Latin
America including manufacturers and
others to discuss the complex pricing of
Implanon NXT in these countries and a
price reduction for the public sector. A
survey has been conducted, revealing a
complex landscape with multiple products,
price variations and uneven access to
implants.
Overall output score and description: A
Output 1 – A+. RHSC members supported by RHSC Secretariat to pool expertise and collectively
deliver results. Very good progress on this continues.
Output 2 – A. Global market dynamics improved, leading to improved availability, affordability,
information, and quality of RH products. Consistently good progress in this complex area. Playing a
central role.
Output 3 – B. Stockouts and emergency supply issues monitored and reduced in selected
countries. Slower progress although some key progress for example in agreeing common stock out
indicators. With the onset of a new ‘Taking Stock’ campaign, progress could accelerate.
Output 4 – B. Commitments to RH commodity security at the national and global levels fulfilled.
Progress achieved in just one country.
Key lessons
 With the revision of their strategy, the RHSC now has a clearer focus and idea of where its levers of
change lie. Teasing out these attributes was not fully possible at the set up of the coalition, but with
a decade of experience to draw on, they were able to identify the unique assets it offers to its
members and the broader RH supply community.

The General Membership Meetings were recognised as levers of change in their own right. At the
Coalition General Meeting in Mexico City, they introduced a number of new features to increased
networking among members; for outreach to audiences that could not be physically present; and for
encouraging communication among groups that in some cases would be barred by the regulations of
their own organizations from doing so.

RHSC came to appreciate the sensitivities, weighted associations and indeed perceived ownership
over the topic of market shaping. They used the ‘neutral space’ they provide to provide members a
forum to candidly address their differences and create common market shaping for family planning
vocabulary.

In achieving community-wide consensus around a suite of indicators to measure stockouts, RHSC
learned the value of engaging a diverse group of members and influential actors in the development
and field-testing of the indicators themselves.

In building the Global Compendium of Supplies Commitments and trying to understand why
governments make commitments in the first place, RHSC have come to appreciate both the
opportunities and limitations of this now increasingly used development tool. They realised how
difficult it is to tease out from broad RH commitments, actionable items relating to commodity security
and saw how susceptible commitments are to attrition and turnover at country- and especially
government- level. The compendium showed that government officials are often seldom aware of the
promises made by their predecessors; and in many cases, if forged by previous governments, these
are viewed negatively.
4
Key actions
1. Develop a mechanism of more regular communication with DFID throughout the year – RHSC to
inform DFID of the options by end of April 2015.
2. Outline a plan to get output 4 back on track (see under output 4) – RHSC to present to DFID by
end of April 2015.
3. Revisit the theory of change in light of the new strategy – RHSC to do by end of March 2015
4. Make logframe changes as outlined below – RHSC to send to DFID by end of March 2015.
Has the logframe been updated since the last review?
No, but we recommend that the generation of new supply commitments, currently Output Indicator 4.2
be linked to the stockouts efforts of Output 3, where the generation of commitments forms an integral
part of the Take Stock campaign. As such, we propose that Output Indicator 4.2 be rewritten as: “New
commitments made by RHSC members and partners to resolve stockouts”, and that the indicator be
moved under Output 3. More detail is provided below under Output 4.
Also, under Output indicator 4.4 we would like to clarify what is implied by “select RHSC focus countries”
by adding-in the following text: % change in annual expenditures of government funds (in US$) on
contraceptive procurement for the public sector, in the most recent complete fiscal year, in countries
where the RHSC can claim some attribution.
5
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)
Output Title
RHSC members supported by RHSC Secretariat to pool expertise and collectively
deliver results
Output Score
Output number per LF
1
A+
Risk:
Low
Impact weighting (%):
25%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N
Indicator(s)
Milestones
Progress
1.1 Total resources, in-kind and incash ($US), leveraged in support of
both RHSC's own work and the
cause of RH commodity security
(including supplementary project
support and newly mobilized
resources resulting from RHSC
efforts, independent of the
Secretariat's own operating costs),
by source.
1.2 Each year, high-priority issues
advanced (e.g. innovative funding
and procurement mechanisms,
WHO Task-shifting guidelines;
Market Segmentation Toolkit, etc.)
by RHSC's seven implementing
mechanisms (working groups,
caucuses, regional forums).
1.3 New partnerships established
across sectors to address critical
supply-related issues in the areas of
quality, choice, equity, and access.
1.4 Innovation Fund grants
implemented and results and
lessons learned documented,
disseminated, and used.
Leveraged funds maintained or
increased from previous project
year.
Exceeded. 77% increase in
leveraged funds from $70,973,655
in 2013 to $125,950,544 in 2014.
Includes cost savings of $119m,
largely from reduction in implant
costs as well as leveraged funds of
$6.9m. (see details in Annex 1).
At least 1 priority issue substantially
advanced by each of RHSC's
implementing mechanisms (IMs).
Achieved. 1 priority issue
substantially advanced by each of
RHSC's IMs1 e.g the Coordinated
Supply Planning in bullet 2 below.
At least 2 partnerships established.
Exceeded. 7 new partnerships
established (see bullets below).
At least 5 grants issued per year.
Exceeded. Seven grants awarded.
The IF awarded more than
$1,037,229 to seven memberorganizations, and obligated
another $602,373 to another five
(see Annex 2).
Key Points
 A large amount of funds have been leveraged by RHSC, some from the implant price reductions.
RHSC has contributed to these savings but they cannot be wholly attributed to the coalition as
the input of other organisations had a significant impact. The role of the coalition in bringing
organisations together makes this inevitable.
 Coordinated Supply Planning (CSP) is a key success for RHSC in 2014. The CSP improves
supply forecasting through better coordinated planning among all the key global procurers. It has
formalised the data sharing relationship between USAID and UNFPA, and approved a five-year joint
forecasting methodology for implants and injectables. This methodology relies on data sources
1
The RHSC working groups and caucuses have advanced the following issues in 2014: Coordinated Supply
Planning between USAID and UNFPA to avert supply/demand imbalance (system strengthening working group);
the channeling of information to the Global Financing Facility preparation (Advocacy and accountability WG);
seven briefs produced on the market challenges associated with misoprostol, oxytocin and magnesium sulphate
and market shaping strategies (MH supplies caucus); increased shipment data from manufacturers to address
information gaps (market dynamics approaches WG and generic manufacturers caucus); a single family planning
technical resource team was forged from three former teams, under the UN Commision for Life Saving
Commodities (new and underused technologies caucus); the Latin American forum (ForoLac) developed a
methodology to help identify and prioritise marginalized populations with the greatest need and established a
national advocacy group of NGOs; the West African forum (SECONAF) co-hosted a regional workshop on ‘Total
Market Approaches for Family Planning”.
6






developed and/or maintained by the RHSC, including the Procurement Planning Monitoring Report
(PPMR) database, Reproductive Health Interchange (RHI), UNFPA GPRHCS data, and data from
the Global Markets Visibility Project (see below). There is agreement among CSP members to
update forecasts semi-annually.
Jointly with CHAI, the RHSC succeeded in getting major contraceptive manufacturers to contribute
historic shipment data to a Global Markets Visibility Project.
A DPMA (injectable contraceptive) Advisory subgroup has been set up with RHSC guidance to
share information and address supply/demand imbalances.
The Coordinated Assistance for RH Supplies group (CARhs) is the oldest coalition institution and
flags critical supply issues. In 2014, the CARhs negotiated an in-kind donation from UNFPA of more
than 1.1 million oral contraceptives and 550,000 units of DMPA to avert stock outs in Nepal and
Burma.
Under the auspices of the RHSC, key papers on public health supply chain systems have been
published by members, webinars held and conference panel sessions co-hosted.
The Innovation Fund was relaunched this year as a stronger resource that is more accessible to all
members, especially those in developing countries. Funded by DFID and Norway, the current IF
grantees are running new and innovative projects. Some feedback received suggested, however,
that the criteria for assessing ‘innovation’ within the fund should be made more explicit.
RHSC highly successfully harnessed the opinions of RH stakeholders to feed into the design of the
new Global Financing Facility being developed by the World Bank, USAID, CIDA and Norway.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant): None
Recommendations: Work on this output continues to be very strong and the RHSC’s essential
contribution is clear as a platform, a convenor, a home for key data and a driver. Specific
recommendations:
-
-
-
RHSC could strengthen the linkages to other related programmes funded by DFID for example
the RMNCH Trust Fund, FP2020, the Global Programme on Reproductive Health Commodity
Security to ensure DFID’s investments are maximising benefits from each other. This is
especially relevant for the new FP2020 civil society accountability progamme due to start in 2015
for example where there may be mutual benefits to working together.
RHSC is clear that it’s mandate covers a broad range of RH products, beyond just family
planning. The maternal health supplies caucus (specifically funded by a donor) for example
explores the market needs to improve the supply of key maternal health products. RHSC could
explore further avenues of RH support beyond family planning (maternal health, safe
abortion, sexual health etc.) within their existing budget. This was also suggested by one of
the external experts contacted as part of this review.
The criteria for assessing ‘innovation’ within the Innovation Fund should be made more
explicit.
7
Output Title
Global market dynamics improved, leading to improved availability, affordability,
information, and quality of RH products.
Output Score
Output number per LF
2
A
Risk:
Medium
Impact weighting (%):
25%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
Y/N
Indicator(s)
2.1 Global demand planning
mechanisms/model used by key
stakeholders to achieve VfM in
manufacturing, procurement, and
supply decisions.
2.2 Common understanding of
market shaping and effective
interventions implemented at local,
regional, and global levels (including
FP2020) achieved.
2.3 Total funds mobilized (in $US)
for donor-funded procurement of
health commodities, through Pledge
Guarantee for Health, annually.
Milestones
Mechanisms/tool for updating and
disseminating market data for
implants to select stakeholders
developed and institutionalized
within key procuring agencies.
Country-level market shaping
activities successfully implemented
and documented in at least 1 RHSC
country.
Progress
Achieved. See points on CSP made
under output 1.
$20.0 M in total funds mobilized for
donor-funded procurements by
PGH.
2.4 Instances of procurement
policies/guidelines/practices
optimized to ensure high-quality and
secure supply of FP products in
select RHSC countries.
Country-level procurement
optimization activities (those that
ensure procurement is taking place
in the most efficient and effective
way) successfully implemented and
documented in at least 1 RHSC
country.
Exceeded. $26.1M in total funds
mobilized for donor-funded
procurement of health commodities:
$12.5M mobilized from the Calvert
Foundation and EcoBank to accelerate
delivery of health commodities through
providing credit.
$10M mobilized from USAID and SIDA
to be used for health supplies.
$3.6M mobilized for the procurement of
rotavirus vaccines for Syrian refugees
in Jordan.
Achieved. An initiative to optimise
procurement practices was launched in
India with financing from the Innovation
Fund. Coalition member, Pregna
International Ltd, has established an ecommerce portal through which private
sector health providers can purchase a
steady supply of affordable RH
products.
Achieved. Through the Innovation
Fund, RHSC implemented and
documented 3 country-level market
shaping interventions2.
Establishment in Senegal of a new
Steering Committee chaired by the
Director-General of Senegal’s MOH,
which aims to improve the quality of RH
medicines3.
The three market shaping interventions are: 1) A crowdsourcing campaign - “One Mama at a Time” – hosted on
the Kangu.org web site, enabling individual donors to contribute toward safe birth services for women in Bolivia,
Guatemala, and Mexico. 2) The introduction and commercialization in Kenya of a low-cost levonorgestrel
intrauterine device. To date the IF grant recipient completed a market assessment on the potential demand for a
more affordable LNG-IUD. The results of the analysis is informing the development of a product introduction and
commercialization strategy for LNG20 IUD in Kenya. 3) An analysis of emergency contraception point-of-sale price
data from 75 developing countries to document inequities in access to EC, and follow-on market segmentation
studies in the DRC and Nigeria.
2
3
Other Steeering Committee members include UNFPA, USAID, WAHO, the Senegalese social marketing organization
ADEMAS, and a few representatives from the NGO and commercial sectors.
8
Key Points
 This year the Coalition completed a guide on Total Market Approaches (TMAs) and a Market
Shaping for Family Planning comprehensive review. The latter draws on recent market
shaping initiatives to understand this increasingly used but all too often misunderstood term. The
report builds on the Coalition’s membership of more than 40 market dynamics specialists who
helped identify key elements of a healthy market, contributed to a new conceptual framework for
understanding the logic of market shaping, and identified structural tensions and tradeoffs that
often arise from the implementation of market shaping efforts.
 The RHSC hosted a six webinar series on priorities for market shaping work including
procurement and product bundling, marketing to youth, market segmentation, USAID’s Market
Shaping Primer.
 The RHSC co-hosted a regional West Africa workshop on Total Market Approaches.
 The Pledge Guarantee for Health (PGH) is an innovative financing mechanism that aims to
leverage private sector funding to maximise the impact of donor funding. By providing low-cost,
short term credit to traditional donor aid recipients in situations where donor funds are delayed or
there are short term gaps, PGH and its partners make global health supplies more accessible
and affordable for developing countries. The uptake of PGH has been limited however due to a
lack of credit. With the new commitments to credit outlined above, PGH now predicts that this
could accelate the delivery of up to $400 million of life-saving health supplies over the next four
years, a quarter of which are expected to be for reproductive health purposes.

Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant): A focus
on ensuring smooth, effective working with FP2020 was made. The executive director of RHSC has
been a co-chair of the FP2020 Market dynamics working group and has tried to ensure a clear
division of roles (the latter having a shorter term 2020 focus) as well as complementarity.
Recommendations:
- The need for two working groups on market dynamics i.e. RHSC and FP2020 continues to
remain unclear. Despite a ‘2020’ focus for the latter group, questions remain about the
effectiveness of having two groups and possible duplication of effort, especially as different
groups exist to specifically discuss the ongoing implant and other volume guarantees. All
relevant partners need to continue discussing this with all partners and could consider placing the
FP2020 market dynamics working group under the overall umbrella of the RHSC as a
implementing mechanism.
9
Output Title
Stockouts and emergency supply issues monitored and reduced in selected countries.
Output number per LF
3
Output Score
B
Risk:
Medium
Impact weighting (%):
25%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N
Indicator(s)
3.1 Relevant RHSC member
organizations (as identified by the
Stockout Advisory Group) using a
"consensus" definition of stockouts
increased.
3.2 Frequency and duration of
method stockouts reduced in
intervention sites in RHSCsupported countries.
Milestones
Plans put in place for relevant
RHSC member organizations to
incorporate a consensus definition
of stockouts in their M&E systems.
Frequency and duration of method
stockout levels reduced in
intervention sites in at least 1
RHSC-supported country.
3.3 Supply crises addressed through
the Coordinated Assistance for
Reproductive Health Supplies
(CARhs) group, chaired by the
RHSC Secretariat.
100-150 issues where CARhs
added value identified.
3.4 National policies/guidelines/
strategic plans aimed at averting
contraceptive stockouts adopted in
select RHSC-supported countries.
At least 2 civil society networks that
meet regularly in 2 RHSCsupported countries formed,
expanded, or strengthened to
support and advance policy
changes to avert contraceptive
stockouts.
Progress
Achieved. Common suite of
indicators (including a single
universal indicator) for measuring
stockouts was developed, fieldtested, and adopted by the FP2020
Performance, Monitoring &
Evidence Working Group.
Coalition launched “Take Stock”, a
new global campaign to reduce
stockouts at the facility level. (see
below)
Delayed. Baseline data on
frequency and duration of method
stockouts to become available from
Uganda in second quarter of 2015.
Major stockouts of DPMA and
implants averted including in Nepal,
and four West African countries,
leading to savings of $250,000,
attributed to CARhs.
Exceeded. CARhs addressed 202
separate supply issues. 11 supply
issues were either expediting or
postponing shipments or, in 2
cases, cancelling shipments,
thereby saving an estimated
$629,000 in product that would
otherwise have expired due to
overstock
Delayed but work described below
in Uganda, Cameroun and DRC
underway.
At least 1 national
policy/guidelines/plan adopted.
Key Points
 The work on common indicators to measure stock outs in output 3.1 is potentially
groundbreaking as long as they are taken on by all organisations.
 The new “Take Stock” global campaign aims to reduce to reduce stockouts at the facility level by
forging a community-wide set of tools for addressing stockouts and by inspiring global action. The
campaign aspires to mobilize the world’s largest bilateral, multilateral, and providers of RH services
to report stockout data to FP2020 on an annual basis—using the common set of indicators and the
universal indicator mentioned above. Since the launch of the campaign in October, the Coalition has
partnered with the communications firm, GMMB to develop the Take Stock brand identity and the
campaign communications platform. It will be deployed to key target audiences in March and DFID
will get updates on progress during regular calls to be set up with RHSC.
10




RHSC has supported an initiative in Uganda (implemented through the Coalition for Health
Promotion and Social Development) to increase community awareness of contraceptive choice, and
reduce stockouts in health facilities in two districts. The project will also aim to generate the evidence
base needed by national stakeholders to champion the issue of contraceptive choice as a
fundamental right.
The RHSC also partnered with Christian Connections for International Health (CCIH) to address
contraceptive supply chain bottlenecks and reduce stockouts in FBOs in Cameroun and the DRC,
testing whether integration of procurement with essential medicines is better than separate
procurement.
Some partners raised the issue that, for the first time, RHSC will actually be implementing
programmes such as the taking stock campaign. This is a new realm for the Coalition and certain
decision-making and governance processes need to be clarified e.g. what is the role of the executive
committee in deciding what work RHSC bids for and takes on.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant): The
impact on stock outs was expected by this year. Baselines have been delayed but, through CARhs,
there has been some definite impact in this area.
Recommendations:
- RHSC should push ahead with the baselines for the work to measure the impact on stock outs.
- There is some potential lesson learning and cross over with DFID’s new FP2020 Civil
Society accountability programme that will run in 9-10 FP2020 commitment countries – close
links should be maintained.
- The decision-making processes and governance around RHSC implementing programmes
itself should be clarified.
11
Output Title
Commitments to RH commodity security at the national and global levels fulfilled.
Output number per LF
4
Output Score
B
Risk:
Medium
Impact weighting (%):
25%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N
Indicator(s)
Milestones
Progress
4.1 Progress on existing
EWEC/FP2020 commitments and
commodity-related provisions of UN
CoLSC country workplans made in
select RHSC-supported countries.
4.2 New commitments to improve
commodity security (as of 2013)
made by RHSC member
National advocacy action plans
developed and implemented in at
least 2 RHSC select countries.
Delayed. National advocacy plans
developed for Uganda, and
implementation will commence early
2015.
Results of successful sector-wide
approaches disseminated.
Delayed.
4.3 New global policies (e.g.
agreements, policies, and technical
guidelines developed by donors, UN
agencies, or through the UN
negotiating process) with provisions
for strengthening RH commodity
security enacted.
4.4 Actual expenditure of
government funds (in $US) on
contraceptive procurement for the
public sector increased in the most
recent complete fiscal year in select
RHSC focus countries.
At least 5 new commitments to
improve commodity security made
across RHSC members.
1 new global policy with provisions
for strengthening RH commodity
security enacted.
Actual expenditure of government
funds on contraceptive procurement
for the public sector increased by
5% over the last 5 years in select
RHSC countries.
Achieved. In the summary report of
the GFF global consultation
(PMNCH) SRHR was the only
health specific sector, singled out
for emphasis among the report’s
nine priorities and responses from
the SRHR community were high
due to mobilisation by the RHSC.
The RHSC has played a vocal role
in mobilizing its members to
successfully negotiate a place for
RH supplies within the post-MDG
global framework.
Partially achieved. The government
of Uganda actual expenditure for
the procurement of RH commodities
increased 174% from US$2.4M in
FY2010/2011 to US$6.5M in
FY2014/2015. This could be clearly
attributed to the RHSC.
Key Points
 The Coalition assembled a national alliance of more than 60 local partners in Kampala, Uganda last
April to define priorities and accelerate progress toward achieving national commitments to RH
commodity security. This will be taken forward through two local NGOs.
 Output 4.2 was developed under the premise that the fulfilment of supply commitments at national
level would ultimately have a ripple-effect, prompting other countries to issue new supply-related
commitments of their own. Lessons drawn from the Commitments Compendium and our experience
in Uganda have highlighted a number of challenges associated with this premise, particularly the
degree to which mobilizing national FP commitments takes time and the complex array of factors
that motivate countries and organizations to make commitments in the first place. For these
reasons, this commitments initiative will take a different path in the future. RHSC will help
countries fulfil existing commitments and work more actively with partners engaged in similar efforts
under FP2020. But for new commitments, they see greater opportunities arising out of the Take
Stock initiative, which focusses explicitly on encouraging partner agencies to adopt the new suite of
stockout indicators, invest in appropriate training, and expand reporting to FP2020.
 The Coalition also played a vocal role in efforts to ensure a place for RH supplies within the
post-MDG global framework and called on its member governments for support. Belgian
responded to the call and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Cooperation replied
officially to the Belgian SRHR Working Group, in which RHSC staff has membership and
12

involvement, stating their commitment to CPD and the Working Group’s call for a negotiated
outcome.
Output 4.4 only reports on countries where RHSC can calim attribution and this will be added to the
logframe wording in future.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant):
Recommended particular attention be paid to this off track output.
Recommendations:
This output is still off track again this year and requires special focus going forward. To allow DFID to
track progress on this in more detail in the future, the RHSC should:
-
-
Outline a plan with DFID for developing further national advocacy plans beyond Uganda.
Clearly outline the new approach to ensuring commitments are kept to by countries and
organisations in future i.e. using the Taking Stock initiative. Outline which countries will be
involved and when action is expected to happen.
Expand work on this output beyond Uganda and specify which countries will be focused on.
13
D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1 page)
Key cost drivers and performance
DFID support to the Coalition Secretariat is via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to PATH as the
administrative support centre. Total funding is £4m for the period 2012/13 to 2015/16. Funding is
unrestricted and is paid quarterly in arrears based on statements of actual expenditure. To-date
(31/12/14) £2.2 m has been disbursed and a break down is given in table 1 below.
Table 1: RHSC expenses by category for all funders and DFID
RHSC 2014
Expenses
Percentage
Category
of total
All funders (see
Annex 3 for details)
Personnel
$2,588,210
39%
Consultants
RHSC 2014
Expenses
DFID funding
Percentage
of total
$789,234
36%
174,655
3%
78,178
4%
1,362,187
20%
992,004
45%
Innovation Fund*
608,817
9%
39,527
2%
Secretariat travel
433,802
6%
83,448
4%
Meetings & participant travel
765,628
11%
69,988
3%
Operations
758,877
11%
168,173
8%
$6,692,177
100.00%
$2,220,552
100.00%
Subagreements
Total
The Subagreements (with implementing partners of specific RHSC-led activities such as the Taking
Stock campaign) and Innovation Fund lines represent actual funds disbursed to partners but
commitments made exceed $4.1m to around 30 organisations. The large proportion of personnel costs
reflect the nature of the coalition in needing strong technical staff to backstop the work of members, the
high cost of living in Brussels and the need to provide locally competitive salaries. These costs are high
(36% of DFID funds) but are balanced by the savings realized in having a centrally located office in
Brussels, including reduced travel costs and better networking with partners and members based in
Europe.
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case
Economy and Efficiency: The business case expected a ceiling of indirect costs of 17% and travel costs
to be at reasonable levels. If operation costs only are considered, RHSC is well under this ceiling. The
RHSC as a whole spends 17% on travel but only 7% of DFID funds have been used for this.
Costs are driven down and economies of scale achieved by having a larger organisation, PATH,
providing administrative support to the secretariat. PATH supports in areas of financial and awards
management and human resources. RHSC has been able to inexpensively post staff in Latin America
and Africa based in PATH offices and to outsource small activities to PATH, without needing to hire
expensive consultants. RHSC benefits from PATH’s corporate rates and has, when necessary,
leveraged institutional support to cover funding shortfalls. PATH's policy of limiting overheads on
funding pass-throughs; its ability to issue sub awards with minimal bureaucracy, and its capacity to deal
effectively with the low overhead limits of many donors, especially multilateral agencies, is a real driver
of economy and has allowed ideas to materialise into action quickly for the RHSC.
Effectiveness: RHSC’s contribution to cost savings for DFID’s RH commodity budget and global spend
in 2014 is summarised below:
- $ 250,000 saved as a result of the West African Health Organisation’s role in the successful
transfer of 200,000 vials of Noristerat injectables from Burkina Faso to Benin, facilitated by
CARhs.
- $626,000 saved in cancelled shipments of contraceptive products that otherwise would have
expired due to overstock.
14
-
-
-
$118m in total cost savings to procurers - the Coalition and its members continued to feel the
effect of resources it leveraged through cost savings resulting from reductions in the price of
implants in 20134.
$200,000 in total cost saving to NGOs in Sierra Leone – International NGOs continued to feel the
effect of savings on demurrage cost, resulting from an Innovation Fund grant to MSI Sierra
Leone5.
Almost $7m additional resources, in-kind and in-cash ($US), leveraged by the Coalition in
support of both Coalition's own work and the cause of RH commodity security (Annex 1).
Sustainability: At the time of the business case, the Pledge Guarantee for Health was thought to be a
possible route for sustainability if fees could be charged on the loans given. This now is unlikely to raise
enough funds so the RHSC remains dependant on donor assistance. The diverse donor base does
provide some security.
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money
The programme is representing good value for money. DFID’s investment of £1.2m per year is leading
to considerable savings of $7m in leveraged funds and a contribution towards the cost savings of
approximately $119m. As a large contributor to the RHSC, DFID could reasonably claim 25% of these
results. The business case predicted global savings worth $350m by 2018 and this seems on track.
Quality of financial management
Financial management and reporting meet DFID project management requirements. The RHSC is
hosted by PATH, giving the Consortium a legal platform and access to the technical and administrative
expertise of its host organisation, yet a degree of operational autonomy. All funding received by RHSC is
channelled through PATH. PATH hosts RHSC, providing office facilities, administrative staff, human
resource functions, financial and contract management. As part of the hosting arrangement, RHSC is
subject to the same robust audit and financial management processes as required by PATH for all of its
departments and hosted partnerships. The RHSC also uses PATH’s management accounting system .
The use of the system, and funding limits within it, are governed by PATH rules and regulations.
Date of last narrative financial report
Date of last audited annual statement
July 2014
29th May 2014
4
In 2014, the estimated recurring cost savings to procurers as a result of the Jadelle and Implanon/Nexplanon
price reductions was: $38million: Recurring cost savings to procurers as a result a decrease in the price of
Jadelle® in January 2013 ($9.5 drop in price per unit x 4 million units sold at the new price); and $80 millions:
Recurring cost savings to procurers/donors as a result a decrease in the price of Implanon in May 2013 ($8 drop in
price per unit x 10 million units sold at the new price).
5
In 2013 the Coalition awarded $40,000 Innovation Fund grant to MSI Sierra Leone to change national importation
policies allowing for annual savings by UNFPA, USAID and two other national NGOs of $200K. MSI engaged the
MOH and its National Revenue Authority to help develop new guidelines that circumvent cumbersome duty free
applications, thereby eliminating demurrage charges. The Parliament approved the new policy, which now enables
NGOs to receive same-day clearance of their goods and save an estimated $200K annually.
15
E: RISK (½ page)
Overall risk rating: Medium
The risk table below is updated from the business case.
Risk
Political commitments for
increased commodity
supply not forthcoming
Update
DFID and the Netherlands support the UNFPA
Global Programme for Commodity Security and, as
yet, no other donors are involved. The other main
procurer remains USAID. In addition, country
commitments towards commodity supply have not
been forthcoming and national advocacy plans are
not in place. This has increased the risk level to
Medium.
Probability
Medium
Impact
High
RHSC Secretariat unable to
support needs of members
and loses confidence of
stakeholders
Stakeholder’s confidence in RHSC seems to be
increasing.
Low
High
RHSC unable to continue to
deliver significant gains in
VfM (eg due to fewer
opportunities)
There continue to be opportunities for market
shaping for existing and new products (e.g. a
hormonal intrauterine device, maternal health
products).
Low
High
RHSC’s new country level
activities to raise
awareness and reduce
stock-outs are overambitious with regard to
results
Secretariat Director or staff
resignation
Progress in this area has been slower than other
areas but is steady. The risk level has been
increased to Medium however.
Medium
High
This is possible but not expected over the next four
years. DFID will work with the Executive Committee
to ensure succession planning.
Medium
High
Financial risk such as fraud,
mismanagement of funds or
poor value for money
The Coalition is hosted by PATH and subject their
rigorous financial management processes and
fraud prevention policy. DFID will track VfM
indicators annually.
Low
Low
Overview of programme risk
The risk levels around political commitments and also reducing stock outs have been increased to
Medium (see outputs 3 and 4 for explanation).
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
The recommendations from outputs 3 and 4 address the main risks for the programme.
F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (½ page)
Delivery against planned timeframe
On the whole, the programme is being implemented against the planned timeframe and some activities
are carried out that are not fully reflected in the DFID logframe. However certain key activities on
monitoring stock outs and securing national commitments have been delayed. These are complex areas
and some delay is not surprising but focus is needed going forward. The logframe is being revised to
take into account the findings of the 2012 evaluation and a new strategic direction (see previous
comments).
Performance of partnership (s)
The partnership is performing well and the success and excellent attendance at the RHSC Forum in
Mexico provided a visible example of the strength of the partnerships and also the value of having such
16
an open space for discussion. 2014 also saw the approval by the Coalition’s Executive Committee (EC)
of the Coalition’s new Terms of Reference (TOR) and Strategy. The updated TOR offers a more
effective operational framework for managing a larger and more mature organization; while the Strategy
(2015-2025) focuses on outcomes that a voluntary global network can achieve.
Asset monitoring and control
The only assets that RHSC has are IT and telecommunications equipment. This equipment is registered
with PATH, and monitored by PATH IT services.
G: CONDITIONALITY (½ page)
Update on partnership principles (if relevant) : Not applicable
H: MONITORING & EVALUATION (½ page)
Evidence and evaluation
The RHSC commissioned an independent evaluation of its work in 2012. This showed the value of the
coalition but recommended some changes for the future to ensure continued member commitment,
increased funding to the coalition and to ensure impact further along the supply chain i.e. at country
level. A key recommendation was to hire more technical, senior staff to drive change as well as redo the
strategy and terms of reference for the RHSC. From this evaluation, a new strategy and terms of
reference for the RHSC was developed as described above. A repeat evaluation is planned for 2016.
The new Strategy subsumes the Coalition’s current guiding logframe and workplan under the DFID
grant; it does not change the assumptions, activities, and expected results under the DFID grant. Built on
the results of extensive member-wide consultations on the development of a theory of change, the new
Strategy identifies actions within the Coalition’s manageable interest that could lead toward the goals set
out within each of the Coalition’s four strategic pillars: availability, quality, equity, and choice.
Lastly in 2014, work got underway on an outline of a new M&E Framework that aligns the goals of the
existing log frame for the Coalition’s core grants – including that of the DFID grant to the Coalition - with
those of the four strategic pillars. It is an exercise that has already been initiated within the Coalition
Secretariat and that has been greatly aided by the fact that so many of our new pathways build on work
currently underway.
Monitoring progress throughout the review period
DFID monitors the RHSC on non-financial matters between annual reviews through ad hoc, sometimes
infrequent, exchanges. This should be formalised to a quarterly update, possibly with other donors to
ensure all are on the same page.
This review was carried out by a Health Adviser and Programme Manager in the Sexual and
Reproductive Health and Rights team of Policy Division. In carrying out this annual review, discussions
took place with the health adviser specialising on market dynamics and supplies as well as staff from
BMGF, USAID and CHAI as a form of triangulation and gathering new information.
Overall, the feedback received was highly positive of the need for and the actions of the RHSC. All
recognised the convening, facilitating and fostering role played by the coalition and all stated that certain
momentous agreements such as the implant volume guarantee were only possible because of the safe
space provided by the RHSC to all parties. Where small concerns were raised, these have been
reflected in the text above. One interviewee praised the culture created by the RHSC and the director
where ‘Every Person is Important, Every Matter is Important and Every Voice is Important’, leading
to an inclusive and varied environment.
17
Annex 1: Cost savings and resources leveraged
Table 1: Total resources leveraged in support of both RHSC's own work and the cause of RH commodity security
in 2014
Contribution
Category
Source
(US$)
Funds leveraged by the A&A WG to undertake advocacy activities
Templeton
around female condoms, emergency contraception, and implants in
450,000
Foundation
Nigeria and Senegal.
Financial support provided by the Mexico MOH for the 15th General Government of
75,000
Membership Meeting.
Mexico
Support for one participant from the Philippines to attend and
Packard
5,000
present at the 15th General Membership Meeting in Mexico City.
Foundation
Support for SECONAF's annual membership meeting and resource
DSW
34,000
mobilization training in Dakar, Senegal.
Equilibres et
3,500
Populations
Funds leveraged for the QuRHM meeting in Dakar, Senegal.
UNFPA
62,460
To co-organize a webinar series (6 webinars between June and
September 2014) on strengthening management information
UNFPA
30,000
systems in the LAC region.
To translate into French WHO’s Task-Shifting Guidelines
MSI
300
Support for two SECONAF members to attend the 15th General
Hewlett
10,000
Membership Meeting in Mexico City.
New funding leveraged by CARhs for emergency shipments of
54,000 units of Jadelle to avert stockouts in 4 West African
USAID
459,000
countries.
To support the participation of select country government officials
UNFPA
30,000
in the SECONAF TMA Regional Workshop.
i+solutions
6,000
PATH
40,000
Support for 15 participants from the LAC region to participate in the
Coalition 15th Membership Meeting and Foro LAC meeting in Mexico UNFPA
37,500
City.
Funds leveraged from donors who contributed toward maternal
Financing for
health care services for women participating in Kangu’s “One Mama
Development
6,784
at a Time” campaign, a crowdsourcing campaign targeting
(F4D), Kangu
marginalized women in need of antenal and safe delivery services.
Value of five-year loan guarantee to PGH ($50 million) to be used
for RH supplies ($12.5 million), amortized over five years ($2.5
USAID, SIDA
2,500,000
million per year).
Value of credit facility provided to PGH ($50 million) to accelerate
Calvert Social
delivery of RH supplies ($12,500,000), amortized over the four years Investment
625,000
left under the USAID and SIDA loan guarantee agreement.
Foundation
EcoBank
2,500,000
Total
6,874,544
Table 2: Cost savings resulting from Coalition efforts
Estimated cost savings (by CARhs) as a result of WAHO's role in the successful transfer of
200,000 vials of Noristerat injectables from Burkina Faso to Benin in 2014
Redundant orders cancelled by the CARhs in 2014
Subtotal cost savings (2014)
Recurring cost savings as a result a decrease in the price of Jadelle® in January 2013 ($9.5
drop in price per unit x 4 million units sold at the new price).
Recurring cost savings as a result a decrease in the price of Implanon in May 2013 ($8
drop in price per unit x 10 million units sold at the new price).
18
250,000
626,000
876,000
38,000,000
80,000,000
Recurring savings on demurrage cost for international NGOs, resulting from Innovation
Fund grant to MSI Sierra Leone
Subtotal cost savings (recurring)
Total cost savings
200,000
118,200,000
119,076,000
Annex 2: Innovation Fund Awards, 2014
IF Recipient
FHI360
ICRH
Pregna
Financing for
Development
Pharma
Systems Africa
ICEC
Purpose
Pilot the introduction and commercialization in Kenya of LNG20 IUD, a low-cost
levonorgestrel intrauterine device;
Investigate the relationship between family planning (FP) provider motivation
and the quality of services in Mozambique;
Establish an e-commerce portal to reduce the costs of purchasing RH supplies for
healthcare providers in Maharashta, India;
Enable donors to crowdfund high-quality RH services for marginalized women in
Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico using an innovative philanthropic platform;
Strengthen pharmaceutical supply chain management training in Liberia;
Analyze emergency contraception point-of-sale price data from 75 developing
countries to document inequities in access to EC.
Bioforce
Train Ministry of Health (MOH) health agents at the central level and in three
regions in Burkina Faso to act as health logisticians and carry out health logistics
functions.
Abt Associates
Test and revise indicators on total market approaches (TMA) and develop a tool
for assessing government capacity to act as a steward in developing a TMA
EngenderHealth Roll out the Client-Oriented, Provider-Efficient (COPE) for Contraceptive Security
tool in 10 districts in Malawi, with the goal of increasing availability of
contraceptive methods at the facility and community levels
IntraHealth
Strengthen human resources for RH commodity management through the
piloting of an e-learning course and mentoring of supply chain managers in the
North Rift region of Kenya.
i+solutions
Work with a faith-based educational institution to train masters-level students in
supply chain management and integrate this e-learning course into university
curriculum in Mozambique
Civil Society for Engage champions within the Nigerian parliament to advocate for increased
Family Planning financial support from the government for RH supplies
in Nigeria
Annex 3: Other sources of financial support to the RHSC
Donor
Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation
DFID
Hewlett Foundation
MacArthur Foundation
Norad
UNFPA
Amount
Received or Potential
$9,000,000 Received award for four-year period for RHSC core operating
activities and three initiatives
$6,135,000 Received award for four-year period for RHSC core operating
activities and three initiatives
$275,000 Received for two-year period for SECONAF activities under RHSC
Secretariat core operating activities.
$300,000 Received for two-year period (2013-2014) for MHS activities
under the RHSC Secretariat core operating activities
$1,300,000 Received for three-year period for RHSC Secretariat Innovation
Fund under core operating activities
$2,600,000 Received allocation for four calendar years 2013-2016 for RHSC
Secretariat core operating activities. UNFPA plans to award
$650,000 on an annual basis.
19
USAID
USAID
Other
Total Received and
Committed
$2,600,000 Received allocation for four calendar years 2013-2016 for RHSC
Secretariat core operating activities. Funds are allocated up to
$650,000 on an annual basis.
$760,000 Received additional funds for RHSC Secretariat LAC Fund under
core operating activities as well as funds for Pledge Guarantee
for Health under the Stockouts and Market Shaping Initiatives.
$256,000
23,226,000
20
Smart Guide
The Annual Review is part of a continuous process of review and improvement throughout the programme cycle. At
each formal review, the performance and ongoing relevance of the programme are assessed with decisions taken
by the spending team as to whether the programme should continue, be reset or stopped.
The Annual Review includes specific, time-bound recommendations for action, consistent with the key findings.
These actions – which in the case of poor performance will include improvement measures – are elaborated in
further detail in delivery plans. Teams should refer to the Smart Rules quality standards for annual reviews.
The Annual Review assesses and rates outputs using the following rating scale. ARIES and the separate
programme scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall output score taking account of the weightings and
individual outputs scores
Description
Outputs substantially exceeded expectation
Outputs moderately exceeded expectation
Outputs met expectation
Outputs moderately did not meet expectation
Outputs substantially did not meet expectation
Scale
A++
A+
A
B
C
Teams should refer to the considerations below as a guide to completing the annual review template.
Summary Sheet
Complete the summary sheet with highlights of progress, lessons learnt and action on previous recommendations
Introduction and Context
Briefly outline the programme, expected results and contribution to the overall Operational Plan and DFID’s
international development objectives (including corporate results targets). Where the context supporting the
intervention has changed from that outlined in the original programme documents explain what this will mean for
UK support
B: Performance and conclusions
Annual Outcome Assessment
Brief assessment of whether we expect to achieve the outcome by the end of the programme
Overall Output Score and Description
Progress against the milestones and results achieved that were expected as at the time of this review.
Key lessons
Any key lessons you and your partners have learned from this programme
Have assumptions changed since design? Would you do differently if re-designing this programme?
How will you and your partners share the lessons learned more widely in your team, across DFID and externally
Key actions
Any further information on actions (not covered in Summary Sheet) including timelines for completion and team
member responsible
Has the logframe been updated since the last review? What/if any are the key changes and what does this
mean for the programme?
C: Detailed Output Scoring
Output
Set out the Output, Output Score
Score
Smart Guide
i
Enter a rating using the rating scale A++ to C.
Impact Weighting (%)
Enter the %age number which cannot be less than 10%.
The figure here should match the Impact Weight currently shown on the logframe (and which will need to be
entered on ARIES as part of loading the Annual Review for approval).
Revised since last Annual Review (Y/N).
Risk Rating
Risk Rating: Low/Medium/High
Enter Low, Medium or High
The Risk Rating here should match the Risk currently shown on the logframe (and which will need to be entered on
ARIES as part of loading the Annual Review for approval).
Where the Risk for this Output been revised since the last review (or since inception, if this is the first review) or if
the review identifies that it needs revision explain why, referring to section B Risk Assessmen
Key points
Summary of response to iprogrammessues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
Recommendations
Repeat above for each Output.
D Value for Money and Financial Performance
Key cost drivers and performance
Consider the specific costs and cost drivers identified in the Business Case
Have there been changes from those identified in previous reviews or at programme approval. If so, why?
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case? Performance against vfm
measures and any trigger points that were identified to track through the programme
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money?
Overall view on whether the programme is good value for money. If not, why, and what actions need to be taken?
Quality of Financial Management
Consider our best estimate of future costs against the current approved budget and forecasting profile
Have narrative and financial reporting requirements been adhered to. Include details of last report
Have auditing requirements been met. Include details of last report
E Risk
Output Risk Rating: L/M/H
Enter Low, Medium or High, taken from the overall Output risk score calculated in ARIES
Overview of Programme Risk
What are the changes to the overall risk environment/ context and why?
Review the key risks that affect the successful delivery of the expected results.
Are there any different or new mitigating actions that will be required to address these risks and whether the
existing mitigating actions are directly addressing the identifiable risks?
Any additional checks and controls are required to ensure that UK funds are not lost, for example to fraud or
corruption.
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
Describe outstanding actions from Due Diligence/ Fiduciary Risk Assessment/ Programme risk matrix
Describe follow up actions from departmental anti-corruption strategies to which Business Case assumptions and
risk tolerances stand
F: Commercial Considerations
Delivery against planned timeframe. Y/N
Compare actual progress against the approved timescales in the Business Case. If timescales are off track provide
an explanation including what this means for the cost of the programme and any remedial action.
Performance of partnership
How well are formal partnerships/ contracts working
Are we learning and applying lessons from partner experience
How could DFID be a more effective partner
Smart Guide
ii
Asset monitoring and control
Level of confidence in the management of programme assets, including information any monitoring or spot checks
G: Conditionality
Update on Partnership Principles and specific conditions.
For programmes for where it has been decided (when the programme was approved or at the last Annual Review)
to use the PPs for management and monitoring, provide details on:
a. Were there any concerns about the four Partnership Principles over the past year, including on human
rights?
b. If yes, what were they?
c. Did you notify the government of our concerns?
d. If Yes, what was the government response? Did it take remedial actions? If yes, explain how.
e. If No, was disbursement suspended during the review period? Date suspended (dd/mm/yyyy)
f. What were the consequences?
For all programmes, you should make a judgement on what role, if any, the Partnership Principles should play in
the management and monitoring of the programme going forward. This applies even if when the BC was approved
for this programme the PPs were not intended to play a role. Your decision may depend on the extent to which the
delivery mechanism used by the programme works with the partner government and uses their systems.
H: Monitoring and Evaluation
Evidence and evaluation
Changes in evidence and implications for the programme
Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made
How is the Theory of Change and the assumptions used in the programme design working out in practice in this
programme? Are modifications to the programme design required?
Is there any new evidence available which challenges the programme design or rationale? How does the evidence
from the implementation of this programme contribute to the wider evidence base? How is evidence disaggregated
by sex and age, and by other variables?
Where an evaluation is planned set out what progress has been made.
Monitoring process throughout the review period.
Direct feedback you have had from stakeholders, including beneficiaries
Monitoring activities throughout review period (field visits, reviews, engagement etc)
The Annual Review process
Smart Guide
iii