Page 1

2012 PARTNER SCORECARD FOR World Health Organisation



WHO is the directing & coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, setting norms & standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries.


Burkina Faso Burundi











Senegal Sierra Leone



Mauritania Mozambique




An IHP+ Country Compact or equivalent has been signed by the agency in 100% of IHP+ countries where they exist. Target = 100%.

Commitments are documented and mutually agreed.

El Salvador

100% 2005/7 2011

In 2011 40% of health sector aid was reported by the agency on national health sector budgets - an increase from 21%. Target = 50% reduction in aid not on budget (with ≥ 85% on budget).

85% 2005/7 2011

Support is based in country plans and strategies, including to strengthen Health Systems.

In 2011 83.1% of capacity development was provided by the agency through coordinated programmes - a decrease from 92.9%. Target = 50.0%.

50% 2005/7 2011

In 2011 80% of health sector aid was provided by the agency through programme based approaches - an increase from 79%. Target = 66%.

66% 2005/7 2011 90%

In 2011 8% of health sector aid was provided by the agency through multi-year commitments - an increase from 0%. Target = 90%.

Funding commitments are long-term.

2005/7 2011

71% In 2011 96% of health sector aid disbursements provided by the agency were released according to agreed schedules - an increase from 94% in 2006. Target = 71%.

Funds are disbursed predictably, as committed.


In 2011 14.5% of health sector aid provided by the agency used country procurement systems - a decrease from 16.5%. Target = 33.0% reduction in aid not using procurement systems (with ≥ 80% using country systems).

2005/7 2011

80% 2005/7 2011

Country systems for procurement and public financial management are used and strengthened.

In 2011 66% of health sector aid provided by the agency used national public financial management systems - an increase from 47%. Target = 33% reduction in aid not using PFM systems (with ≥ 80% using country systems).

80% 2005/7 2011

In 2011 the stock of parallel project implementation units (PIUs) used by the agency in the surveyed countries was 0.0 - no change from 0.0. Target = 66% reduction in stock of PIUs.

2005/7 2011

Resources are being managed for Development Results.

Mutual accountability is being demonstrated.

In 2011 national performance assessment frameworks were routinely used by the agency to assess progress in 100% of IHP+ countries where they exist. Target = 100%.

Lower values are better

100% 2005/7 2011

In 2011 the agency participated in health sector mutual assessments of progress in 100% of IHP+ countries where they exist. Target = 100%.

100% 2005/7 2011


Civil Society meaningfully engaged.

target achieved

progress made towards achieving target

In 2011, evidence exists in 100% of IHP+ countries that the agency supported civil society engagement in health sector policy processes. Target = 100%.

2005/7 2011

no progress or regression

data not provided

*Performance is assessed in only Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda. Budget support is also not counted. The rating may therefore not fully reflect progress, and could be an underestimate.

measure not applicable

indicates agreed target

In addition to providing support to the development of country compacts, WHO aligns its activities with national priorities through the negotiation of biennial work plans with the government and the formulation of medium-term country cooperation strategies consistent with the country Health Policy, Strategy or Plan

The poor performance on aid reported on budget is partly explained by the sensitivity of the indicator to the governments’ policy of either including or excluding aid in the budget and to delays in WHO reporting aid due to different planning cycles. The participation of WHO in capacity development programmes that are coordinated and in line with national plans and in programme-based approaches is above the target, but the indicators only partially capture the organization’s main mandate of technical cooperation.

Most of WHO funding commitments are linked to its budget biennial cycle and its component of assessed contributions. This explains why WHO commitments are not spread over a longer period. The WHO General Programme of Work and the Medium Term Strategic Plan provide, however, a longer strategic and planning horizon that increasingly guides the formulation of country programme budgets.

WHO's policy is to use central procurement for most goods -medicines, medical equipment, vaccines, etc.- for economies of scale and better quality assurance, while local procurement systems are used for local goods. Overall, the use of Direct Financial Contributions, through national PFM systems, is increasing. WHO manages its programmes at country level in close collaboration with the government, without setting up parallel implementation units.

In addition to internal review processes, WHO uses national performance assessment frameworks where they are in place. Only two country offices, Burundi and Djibouti reported that such frameworks do not exist yet.

Joint annual sector reviews, country compact monitoring exercises and regular coordination mechanisms are increasingly used at country level for tracking sector progress and promoting mutual accountability of partners against commitments to improve health aid effectiveness. WHO provides support in organising reviews and participates in them, promoting the inclusion of all stakeholders.

All WHO country offices provide support in the form of technical and/or financial assistance or advocacy to civil society activities; this support, however, varies broadly in terms of type and volume.

HOW TO INTERPRET THIS SCORECARD Expected Results reflect key commitments that were made by IHP+ signatories in the IHP+ Global Compact. Each expected result has corresponding standard performance measures to track progress over time. The progress of all agencies is rated against these mutually agreed expectations. Rating symbols illustrate whether the Agency has achieved , is working towards , or has not achieved its targets over the most recent annual reporting cycle. Details of these independent assessments undertaken by the IHP+Results Consortium can be found online in the North-South Observatory for IHP+Results ( Target describes the aggregate data on which the Rating is based, with a comparison of 2011 and baseline performance. Overall Progress shows a two-bar graph with the aggregate data for the agency in question across all the countries for which health sector support has been reported. In most cases, the agreed target for each standard performance measure (SPM) is shown as a red line. Scorecard ratings are aggregates of performance across a number of countries. Aggregates might hide variations in the agency's performance. Disaggregated data can be found at NB: The ratings presented here are based on self-reported data. IHP+Results has taken steps to triangulate this data using other sources. More details are vailable at

Design licensed with Creative Commons with some restrictions, 2010

This additional information is reported by the Organisation to explain what specific actions it is taking to implement its IHP+ commitments to the 8 Expected Results, or to qualify its measures of progress.

Produced by the independent North-South Consortium for IHP+Results, mandated by IHP+ Global Compact signatories. See