IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/wbk/wbpubs/26678.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Comparison of the Monitoring and Evaluation Systems of the World Bank and the Global Fund

Author

Listed:
  • Cheryl Cashin

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to document the approaches of the World Bank and the Global Fund to monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and to systematically and objectively compare the principles and objectives of the M&E systems and how these systems are implemented and used in practice at the country level. The report also discusses the relationship of the M&E systems to the two different business models of the World Bank and the Global Fund. The first goal is to identify whether and how the conclusions that emerge from their M&E systems on the effectiveness of their respective global health activities can be compared. The second goal is to contribute to the ongoing process of identifying good practices for developing M&E policies for global health programs, setting up M&E frameworks, planning and programming evaluations, and using M&E results more effectively to manage programs and strengthen the health policy process in partner countries. The report is organized as follows. Section two summarizes the World Bank's stated policies and approach to monitoring and evaluation. Each element of standard M&E systems framework; system of indicators and performance measurement; data collection and analysis; feedback and use of monitoring findings; and evaluation is described for the World Bank's approach in this section. Section three summarizes the Global Fund's stated M&E approach and policies according to the same structure. Section four compares the application of the approach to M&E of the two agencies in Burkina Faso, Lesotho and Russia. Section five provides a summary of the comparison between the two approaches to M&E. Section six identifies conclusions and lessons learned.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheryl Cashin, 2012. "Comparison of the Monitoring and Evaluation Systems of the World Bank and the Global Fund," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 26678, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbpubs:26678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/26678/726060NWP0Box30IC00GFR0WP0april2012.pdf?sequence=1
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margaret Chan & Michel Kazatchkine & Julian Lob-Levyt & Thoraya Obaid & Julian Schweizer & Michel Sidibe & Ann Veneman & Tadataka Yamada, 2010. "Meeting the Demand for Results and Accountability: A Call for Action on Health Data from Eight Global Health Agencies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brianne Riehl & Hisham Zerriffi & Robin Naidoo, 2015. "Effects of Community-Based Natural Resource Management on Household Welfare in Namibia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    2. Carr-Hill, Roy, 2013. "Missing Millions and Measuring Development Progress," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 30-44.
    3. Susan L. Greco & Anna Belova & Jin Huang, 2016. "Benefits of Decreased Mortality Risk from Reductions in Primary Mobile Source Fine Particulate Matter: A Limited Data Approach for Urban Areas Worldwide," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(9), pages 1783-1802, September.
    4. Amanda Glassman, Denizhan Duran, 2012. "An Index of the Quality of Official Development Assistance in Health - Working Paper 287," Working Papers 287, Center for Global Development.
    5. Peter Byass & Osman Sankoh & Stephen M Tollman & Ulf Högberg & Stig Wall, 2011. "Lessons from History for Designing and Validating Epidemiological Surveillance in Uncounted Populations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Lavinia Bianco & Salvatore Raffa & Paolo Fornelli & Rita Mancini & Angela Gabriele & Francesco Medici & Claudia Battista & Stefania Greco & Giuseppe Croce & Aldo Germani & Simona Petrucci & Paolo Anib, 2022. "From Survey Results to a Decision-Making Matrix for Strategic Planning in Healthcare: The Case of Clinical Pathways," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-30, June.
    7. Odgerel Chimed-Ochir & Diana Arachi & Tim Driscoll & Ro-Ting Lin & Jukka Takala & Ken Takahashi, 2020. "Burden of Mesothelioma Deaths by National Income Category: Current Status and Future Implications," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-13, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbpubs:26678. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tal Ayalon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.