HIV Prevention
U.S. Bilateral vs. GF Funding-- the right question?
Laurie Garrett has a new (August 4th) post regarding U.S. funding for HIV. She details the debate over the U.S.' allocation of funds to Global Fund versus via bilateral and NGO channels.
GHD held an event on July 15th in Vienna to discuss strategies to sustain HIV service delivery at scale. Thinking about that question, I wonder if the argument Garrett brings up could be further (or more meaningfully?) deepened by thinking not just about how much money or to whom countries like the U.S. give for HIV, but rather *how* the U.S. (and donors in general) give to HIV.
What changes to funding processes and relationships should the global community consider to best set up HIV implementers for success? Is the "more money" question sufficient to make a lasting impact on HIV, or do we need new strategies?
Interested community members can find Garrett's article here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/22766/messy_politics_of_donor_support_for_hiv....
Attached resource:
