Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, has published an evaluation conducted by CEPA of Gavi’s health system strengthening (HSS) support to Nepal through a pooled funding mechanism. The aim of the evaluation was to identify the key advantages and disadvantages of provision of support through the pooled fund and highlight essential lessons that could be useful to guide Gavi’s future HSS support in Nepal and other countries.
CEPA carried out a comprehensive evaluation to assess the design, relevance, engagement approaches and results achieved by Gavi’s HSS support through the pooled funding mechanism in Nepal. In particular, our review encompassed the following:
- Design and relevance – an assessment of the relevance of Gavi’s HSS support to Nepal in terms of Gavi’s own mandate and national plans/priorities, as well as alignment with the IHP+ criteria;
- Implementation and governance – a review of the efficiency and efficacy of the implementation of the NHSP-II and pooled funding mechanism including issues such as management, coordination and reporting – covering the roles and performance of the Nepalese government and other in-country partners, as well as Gavi and its partners;
- Results – an assessment of the achievements made under the Gavi HSS grant and NHSP-II in improving health system outcomes and immunisation performance.
The review also considered a number of “cross cutting” issues including how experience and results might have differed if Gavi had provided “traditional” earmarked funding as compared to contributing to the pooled funding mechanism; specific features of the Nepalese health system (and broader country-specific factors) that might have driven the success or failure of the pooled funding mechanism; and specific features of Gavi and its HSS window that may have supported the success or failure of funding to Nepal.
We employed a mixed-methods approach for the evaluation comprising document and data review, stakeholder consultations, field visits to Nepal (Kathmandu and three districts) and comparator analysis.
The evaluation was delivered in partnership with Health Research and Social Development Forum (HERD): a local research firm.
CEPA’s evaluation report can be found here.