2010 review of Gavi's Independent Review Committees: their design, execution and results
The Review of Gavi Independent Review Committees, which covers the period 2006-2009, was completed by the Consulting Company HLSP in March 2010 and was presented to Gavi's Programme and Policy Committee meeting (PPC) in May 2010 for discussion.
The IRC model is a system of peer review undertaken by a committee of independent technical experts. It is a desk-based assessment of written funding applications and progress reports submitted to Gavi by eligible countries, and takes place in Geneva, mainly on a bi-annual basis for each Committee. The IRCs serve a dual role for Gavi:
- they safeguard the independence of funding recommendations, and strengthen the accountability and transparency of the Alliance's decision making;
- by advising the Executive on funding applications, they are integral to Gavi's process of resource allocation.
Questions addressed by review
- Design: to what extent is the design of the IRC and related processes (e.g., terms of reference, composition, role of Secretariat and partners, processes for reaching decisions) fit for purpose?
- Execution: to what extent have the management of the IRC by the Secretariat and the conduct of the pre-review by WHO and UNICEF been appropriate and effective? Furthermore, to what extent has the IRC appropriately executed its internal work processes in reaching decisions?
- Results: to what extent have IRC decisions regarding country applications and Annual Progress Reports and recommendations regarding policies been robust, independent, appropriate and well justified?
A mix of quantitative and qualitative methods are used to investigate different information and data sources. Methods include: documentary review, stakeholder interviews (including country consultation), participant observation of the Committees, Committee self assessment, a 'benefit of hindsight' review of grants, a mapping of IRC related processes, and an examination of other relevant peer review models for comparative and benchmarking purposes.