A Case Study

of
World Health Organisation
1.Introduction
This report presents an in-depth research of a non-profit organisation and its management
control system. For this purpose evidence is drawn from an international non-profit
organisation World Health Organisation (WHO). The report will analyse WHOs
background, planning, budget systems and performance management. The report comprises
five main sections: World Health Organisation, WHOs planning, WHOs budgeting system,
WHOs performance management, and finally recommendations for overcoming any
weaknesses in the organizations management control system.

2.World Health Organisation

World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN)
regarding international public health. WHO was established on 7 April 1948, a date which is
now celebrated and marked every year as World Health Day. Its headquarter is in Geneva,
Switzerland. Near 8000 people work for the Organization at its headquarters, 6 regional
offices, and in 150 countries (WHO, 2015a). WHO has 6 regional offices at its headquarters
in Geneva, Switzerland and the Global Service Centre in Malaysia. WHO has 194 Member
States which support and coordinate its efforts to assist multiple sectors of the government
and partners, including funding and foundations, bi- and multilaterals, public sector and civil
society organizations by supporting their national health strategies and policies, for attaining
their health objectives (WHO, 2015b). WHO performs following key responsibilities:

1. provide leadership on such matters as are critical to health, and engage in partnerships
at areas requiring joint action;
2. shape the research agenda and stimulate the generation, translation and dissemination
of valuable knowledge;
3. set standards and norms and promote and monitor the implementation of its agendas
and programmes;
4. articulate evidence-based and ethical policy options;
5. provide technical support, catalyse change, and build sustainable institutional
capacity; and
6. monitor the health situation and assess health trends (WHO, 2015c).
2.1 WHO structure and governance
The World Health Assembly is WHOs supreme decision-making body which generally
meets annually in Geneva in May. Delegations from all 194 Member States attend this annual
meeting. The main function of this meeting is to determine the Organizations policies. The
Health Assembly performs other important tasks including the appointing of the Director-
General, supervising the Organizations financial policies, reviewing and approving the
proposed programme budget, and instructing further action on important matters in the light
of the reports of the Executive Board (EB). The EB comprises 34 members who hold
technical qualifications in the health field (WHO, 2015d). The EB members are elected for a
term of three years. The main EB meeting is held in January for deciding and agreeing upon
the agenda for the forthcoming Health Assembly, and adopts resolutions for forwarding to the
Health Assembly. A second shorter EB meeting is held in May, immediately after the Health
Assembly meeting, to discuss more administrative matters. The EBs main functions are to
advise the Health Assembly, facilitate its work, and implement and put into practice its
policies and decisions (WHO, 2015b). Figure 1 presents WHO regions, budgets, and staffing
levels.

Figure 1: WHO Regions, Budgets, and Staffing Levels

2.2 WHOs constitution
WHOs Constitution was approved and adopted by the International Health Conference held
from 19 June to 22 July 1946, in New York. The Constitution was signed by the
representatives of 61 States on 22 July 1946 and enforced on 7 April 1948. The WHO
Constitution held great significance because of the breadth and scope of the agenda it set for
the new organization, compared to the very restricted scope of the international sanitary
conventions (WHO, 2015d). The new Constitution holds a very wide definition of the
meaning of health, including both mental and social wellbeing. The Constitution, in
consistence with the high ideals of the UN Charter, asserts highest attainable standard of
health being a fundamental human right; health being fundamental to world security and
peace; and most importantly the recognition that health is dependent on social measures and
not just on the provision of health services (WHO, 2015a).

2.3 WHOs Key Areas

WHO works in the following key areas:

2.3.1 Health systems

WHOs priority in the area of health systems is to move towards universal health coverage
for which it works in collaboration with global health partners, policy-makers, civil society,
the private and public sectors, and academia for supporting countries in developing,
implementing and monitoring strong national health plans (WHO, 2015e). Along with this,
WHO also supports countries for assuring the availability of people-centred health services at
equitable basis and at an affordable price; to facilitate access to effective, safe and affordable
health technologies; and to strengthen evidence-based policy-making and health information
systems (WHO, 2015b).

2.3.2 Non-communicable diseases

WHO is committed to provide health services for combating the non-communicable diseases
(NCDs), including stroke, heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes, and
mental health conditions, along with injuries and violence. All these afore mentioned diseases
and conditions are collectively responsible for causing more than 70% of all deaths world
over, in which eight out of 10 such deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries
(WHO,2015a). It is difficult for the health sector to bear and control the consequences of
these diseases and the solutions need more than a system for preventing and treating the
diseases. Hence WHO is providing assistance to the countries in this regard (WHO, 2015c).

2.3.3 Promoting health through the life-course

WHO is making serious efforts to promote good health through the life-course and for this
purpose it is taking measures for addressing social determinants of health and environment
risks, as well as human rights, equity and gender (WHO, 2015e).

2.3.4 Communicable diseases

WHO is actively working with countries for increasing and sustaining access to prevention,
treatment and care for communicable diseases like tuberculosis, HIV, malaria, and neglected
tropical diseases; and also for reducing vaccine-preventable diseases (WHO, 2015e).

2.3.5 Preparedness, surveillance and response

WHO is also committed towards the provision of assistance during emergencies. WHOs
operational role during emergencies includes: to coordinate and lead the health response for
supporting the countries, undertake risk assessments, identify priorities and set strategies,
provide critical technical guidance, supply and financial resources and also to monitor the
health situation (WHO, 2015f). Moreover, WHO also provides help to the countries for
strengthening their national core capacities regarding emergency risk management for
preventing, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies caused by any
hazard posing a threat to human health security (WHO, 2015e).

2.3.6 Corporate services

WHO also provides corporate services that enable tools, functions and resources for making
all the health related work possible, such as assisting corporate Member States in
policymaking, helping to disseminate health information, and building services or providing
the space and the required tools for meeting the public health goals (WHO, 2015f).

3. WHOs Planning
Several key planning instruments are responsible for managing the process of planning,
resource mobilization and resource allocation in WHO: the General Programme of Work
(GPW), the Medium-term Strategic Plan (MTSP), the Programme Budget (PB) and the
Country Cooperation Strategies (CCS). GPW, MTSP and PB are implemented at the global
level and CCS is developed regarding individual country perspectives and hence
implemented (WHO, 2015g).
3.1 The planning framework
WHO programmes involve long-term strategic planning. WHO programmes and plans are
priority-based and are based on planning framework (WHO, 2015h). Figure 2 provides a
schematic representation of WHOs current planning framework. It shows the relationship
between the WHOs country cooperation strategy and the national health plan and priorities at
country level.

Figure 2: WHO Planning Framework

3.2 WHOs planning process

The WHO planning process involves seven steps:

STEP 1. Situation analysis: It involves developing a situation analysis that is based
on a review of successes, health system barriers, and promising practices. It also involves the
identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the initiatives taken to implement the
programmes successfully (WHO,h).
STEP 2. Objectives, milestones and priority-setting: This step regards providing national
objectives, goals, and strategies for a time span of three to five years, based on the situation
analysis and on priority- setting done in Step 1 (WHO, 2015h).
STEP 3. Planning strategies: It outlines the means (how) by which national health
objectives which were set in Step 2 will be achieved (WHO, 2015h).
STEP 4. Links to national health plans and global goals and targets: This step links the
strategies adopted by the national health sector during Step 3 for meeting both the national
and regional goals and targets WHO, 2915h).
STEP 5. Setting an activity timeline and monitoring and evaluation framework: It
involves establishing a timeline for achieving the milestone and main activities, and
developing a national monitoring and evaluation framework for all the national health
programmes (WHO, 2015h).
STEP 6. Costs, financing and financing gaps: This step involves linking the financing and
costing assessments to the relevant planning cycle as well as to the planning and budgeting
cycles of the Ministry of Health (MoH). This step helps in identifying resource mobilization
strategies, financing gaps, and cost-benefit analysis, along with a re-evaluation of the plan
compared against the available resources (WHO, 2015h).
STEP 7. Putting the programme into action: The last step is related to outlining the
detailed annual work plans and linking these plans to national planning and budgeting cycles
at both national and sub- national levels of the health system. This step involves annual,
midterm and final review of the programme for adjusting the strategy in the light of the
lessons learned (WHO, 2015h). WHOs planning process has been presented in figure 3.
 Figure 3: WHO Planning Process

4. WHOs Budgeting System

WHOs budgetary process is initiated by WHO administration and approved annually by
members of the World Health Assembly. The process is priority-based and delineates WHOs
priority areas each year. A few key trends regarding WHOs global functions can be
highlighted through looking at the budgets over previous years, for instance, the 2006-2007
programme budget shows an emphasis on specific diseases and essential health interventions
in which Fifty-one percent of the budget allocations were reserved for health interventions for
areas that ranged from HIV/AIDS to mental health and substance abuse, and included
response measures and epidemic alert. Another step taken was shifting the resources from
headquarters to the regions (WHO, 2015g). Twenty-two percent of the budget allocation was
for effective support of member states, which also included WHOs core presence in
countries. Since there is a primary allegiance between the WHOs regional directors and
Ministries of Health from the countries they serve compared to their allegiance to WHO
headquarter, efforts directed towards strengthening WHOs country offices show that WHO is
less global and more operational. All these signs point towards more funding, more
autonomy, and more power being given to WHO regional offices at the expense of any
support of this kind for WHO headquarter functions and staff which appear to be given less
priority in budgeting and funding (WHO, 2015g,h).

Thirteen per cent of the 2006-2007 programme budget was allocated for health systems,
policies, and products, including areas of work that ranged from social protection and health
financing, health evidence, information, and research policy to policy-making for health.
Lastly, eleven percent budget was allocated to the determinants of health, including related
areas of work that ranged from women and health, and gender to health promotion,
communicable disease research and tobacco (WHO, 2015d).

However, the 2008-2009 budget was the first budget to not have been based on priority and
formed the basis of the Medium Term Strategic Plan (2008-2013). The Medium Term Plan
helped in informing the WHOs results-based framework and ensured the continuity in
objectives as well as a structure which reflected the country and regional needs in a better
way. In the 2009-2010 budget, WHO priority areas for the coming two-year period were
illuminated and it comprised the next stage in the Strategic Plan. Figure 4 presents the
budgets of the regional offices (WHO, 2015h).

Figure 4: Budgets of the Regional Offices

4.1 Regular budget contributions
The regular budget contributions for WHO usually come from the Ministries of Health.
However, the extra budgetary contributions typically come from Ministries of Foreign Affairs
or development agencies which is the source of possible disjunction between the priorities
existing between the two funding streams (WHO, 2013a,b).

4.3 Budget reforms 2014 and current budgetary situation

WHO was in deep financial trouble for three years from 2011 to 2013, with a US$300-
million deficit. After the budget reforms presented in the World Health Assembly in May
2014, the Organization has been heading towards a better financial stand and its future has
started looking healthier (WHO, 2013c). Along with the budgetary reforms, the Organization
also took action for pruning and prioritizing its work which had been spreading too thinly
during the past many years. Both the streamlining reforms and the budget have helped in
putting the Organization on the right track at multiple levels. However, the assembly
approved a $3.98 billion budget for 201415 which shows zero growth on the WHOs $3.96-
billion budget for the year 201213, with a slight decrease taking inflation into account
(WHO, 2013c; 2015g). WHO 2014-15 budget distribution has been attached in the Appendix.

The Organization has been forced to making a number of hard choices because of the
budgetary and financial freeze, for instance the 2014-2015 budget breakdown shifts away
from infectious diseases, with a $72-million cut, while taking expenditure down to $841
million. However, works on non-communicable disorders e.g., cancer and cardiovascular
disease received a $54-million increase, taking it to $318 million (WHO, 2015g). The
changes have played a role in correcting the inappropriate skew in the organizations budget
which had been sitting there for a many years. These changes also help in tying the
Organizations work with UN-wide plans for a global drive for reducing the burden of non-
communicable diseases, especially through the reinforcement of health-care systems in
poorer countries where such diseases are commonly neglected. Hence, when there is no
increase in the budget, it becomes inevitable to have cuts in some sectors to allow other
sectors to grow (WHO, 2015h).
WHO budget involves details of a financial architecture which was included in budgeting
process for combating the plagued condition faced by the Organization regarding control of
money. The Organization used to have total control of only a small part of its budget and the
monies that came from the membership fees of its 194 member states. (WHO, 2013c) Even in
the 2014-15 budget, the bulk 77% is coming from voluntary contributions from member
states and other donors. The changes brought up through budget reforms have made the
voluntary contributions fixed commitments rather than pledges and also allowed WHO the
right of moving up to 5% of one budget line to another with the aim to provide flexibility to
address unforeseen needs. This has rendered WHO the ability to manage its finances and also
to clarify to the public how much money the WHO receives and where that money is spent or
used (WHO, 2015g).

4.2 Financing and Funding

WHO has undertaken the extensive reforms for ensuring that the Organization becomes well-
equipped for meeting the increasingly complex health challenges of the 21st century. In order
to meet these challenges, the Organization is working for improving the flexibility, alignment,
transparency and predictability and transparency of its financing, and also for reducing its
vulnerability with the ultimate aim to have a fully funded Programme Budget (Butler, 2013).
Figure 5 presents the sources and distribution of WHOs funds, figure 6 presents the WHOS
Funding over time 12th General Programme of Work 2014-2019, figure 7 presents an
overview of WHO funding - Approved Programme Budget 2014-2015 and figure 8 presents
distribution of funds available for 2014-2019 (WHO, 2015g).
 Figure 5: Source and Distribution of Funds

Figure 6: Funding over time 12th General Programme of Work 2014-2019

 Figure 7: Overview of Funding - Approved Programme Budget 2014-2015

Figure 8: Distribution of Funds Available for 2014-2019

5 Performance Management
Fowler (1990) posits that performance management (PM) is a system or technique, the
totality of the day-to-day activities of all managers which helps the organization of work to
achieve the best possible results. PM is regarded as an essential tool for the success of an
organization, However, it is difficult to develop and implement a suitable PM model in an
international non-profit organization like WHO which has its offices scattered all over the
world. Hence, a traditional PM model will not prove suitable for WHO which has been facing
a number of PM challenges since it was established. Despite all the odds and challenges,
WHO makes maximum efforts to develop and implement effective PM tools (Abdel-Azim
and Abdelmoniem, 2015).

The performance management development system (PMDS) is used by WHO as a generic

tool for appraising performance. However, the former paper-based process has been replaced
with an electronic version (ePMDS). Performance management and appraisal is mandatory
for all staff. It includes two reviews: a mid-term and an end-of-cycle (Martinez, 2001; GAO,
2012). However, the quality of the PMDS has been questioned because of the behavioural
and cultural factors which influence management and leadership, and the apprehensions
regarding the negative feedback whether it is given cautiously or otherwise. Another issue is
the possibility of overrating of the staff performance by supervisors. To control these issues
management is required to do more analytical work for comparing the aggregated results of
the individual PMDS with the general performance of the staffs corresponding units (Ruger,
2008).

WHO renders great importance to stronger and more effective technical and policy support to
countries. However, in order to have successful execution of this support, WHO needs to
make improvements to its work at all levels, not only at country level but it also needs to
include its normative work in this support. By far, WHO has been successful in making
progress in its attempt to enhance delegated authority to country offices (Abdel-Azim and
Abdelmoniem, 2015). WHO has also decided to shift the focus of its future developments to
enhancing the leadership role of the Heads of WHO offices at all levels, particularly to enable
the Heads gain a more authoritative role to facilitate policy dialogue across various levels,
including different parts of governments, non-governmental organizations and civil society,
and all the other in-country health partners. For managing the performance, WHO has
improved its staffing and selection processes with the aim to get the best candidates for the
jobs; to develop an attractive career path and to harmonize with UN grading at country level;
and intensive mandatory training for heads of WHO offices for enhancing their leadership
qualities to lead policy dialogue and negotiation and diplomatic skills (WHO, 2015 d,e).

WHO lacks in the provision of opportunities for managers for motivating or rewarding a staff
members good performance. Similarly, there are limited opportunities available in the
Organization for sanctioning unsatisfactory or bad performance. Another issue is the frequent
use of continuing contracts which is impeding the attempts to separate of staff who are
continuously and consistently failing to meet the Organizations performance expectations
(Butler, 2013). On the contrary, there are also practically no means available for promoting
the staff showing excellent performance. This situation calls into question the reclassification
of posts in a number of cases for promoting the staff, particularly at the regional level. This
process is both costly and time-consuming and also leads to the formation of top-heavy
structure through the establishment of new senior-level positions. It is required to devise an
effective strategy to manage and overcome this issue (Smith, Mossialos and Papanicolas,
2008).

Professional development and training is one of the most important aspects for improving and
managing an organizations performance (Martinez, 2001). In this regard, in order to develop
a learning culture, the learning and staff development programmes in WHO are structured
around certain priorities, including:

1. Induction and Orientation

2. Management Training
3. Performance Management and PMDS
4. Core Competencies,
5. GSM and Language Training (WHO, 2013a).

WHO allocates special budget for providing learning and development opportunities to its
staff. However, during the past few years there have been budget cuts for such
programmes due to the financial crunches faced by the Organization. For instance, in the
2010-2011 biennium the training budget of US$ 29 million was reduced to 23 million;
and for the 2012-2013 biennium, the training budget was further cut to US$ 14 million,
with a reduction of 39 per cent (WHO, 2013c). Due to the priority being given to global
initiatives, there has to be made budget reduction in staff training which ultimately results
in less support provided to the staff at the country level. Hence, the significant gap
between the Organizations promising intentions against available financial resources
raises serious concern as the resource cuts have negatively affected the training
 opportunities, by limiting them in particular at the country and regional levels (WHO,
2015g).

5.2 Risk Management

It is impossible for any business or organization to escape risk, particularly financial risk.
Along with financial risk, an organization is also susceptible to business risk which involves
adverse effects on prices and securities due to changes in the overall economic climate. Due
to such unexpected risks, it is in the best interest of the stakeholders to disclose the risk
timely. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), which is a systematic approach to manage risk
internally and externally helps in addressing all the key risks faced by a company at an
enterprise level (Shortreed, Hicks and Craig, 2003). Risk management framework can be
devised for defining an organizations processes and the timing and order of processes that
the organization will use for managing risks. In this regards, WHO is regarded as an
organization that is both accountable and manages the risks effectively by developing and
implementing its ERM tool (Smith, Mossialos and Papanicolas, 2008). For this purpose,
WHO has set out strategies for making improvements in the following areas:

1. internal control framework;

2. accountability framework;
3. risk management;
4. conflict of interest;
5. transparency and disclosure policy (WHO, 2015h)

Along with the strategies to manage risks, WHO also established the Office of Compliance,
Risk Management and Ethics (CRE) in January 2014. CREs objective is to pursue excellence
at all levels of WHO in an efficient, effective, accountable and transparent way. CRE is
working towards improving accountability and transparency through developing and
managing an enhanced corporate risk framework, compliance, and improved emphasis and
focus on the Organizations ethical values (WHO, 2015i).

5.3 Accountability
For accountability, WHO performs both internal and external audit; and has an independent
expert advisory oversight committee (IEAOC) (Clift, 2003; WHO, 2015h).
5.3.1 Internal audit
The Office of Internal Audit and Oversight (IAO) is responsible for doing the internal
audit, and for inspecting, to monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of and
review, evaluate and oversee all the systems, activities, operations, processes and
functions in the Organizations internal control system, use of assets, financial
management and also for investigating a misconduct and any other irregular activities in
the Organization (WHO, 2015h).

5.3.2 External audit

The External Auditor is responsible for performing oversight of WHO's operations,
particularly its financial risk management and the efficacy of the Organization's internal
control system in general (WHO, 2015h).

5.3.3 Independent Expert Advisory Oversight Committee (IEAOC)

The independent expert advisory oversight committee (IEAOC) was established by the EB
for reporting to and advising the Programme, Budget and Administration Committee
(PDAC). Moreover, it also helps the EB to fulfil their oversight advisory responsibility
and enables them to advise the Director-General on issues within the boards mandate,
when requested (WHO, 2015f).

6.Recommendations
Some of the recommendations for WHO to improve its management control system are:
WHO should:

1. frame a less priority and balanced budget;

2. shift budget allocation and spending decisions to the head office;
3. improve the predictability and flexibility of its financing, funding and budgeting;
4. try to find more sources of funding;
5. make cuts at less priority areas to manage budget deficit;
6. give more autonomy, and more power to WHO headquarter functions and staff
compared to regional offices regarding budgeting and funding;
7. set up a financing dialogue with donors in which donors should make publicly
their the funding commitments that are aligned with the Organizations budget;
8. strengthen its accountability, and transparency systems through internal control
framework and conflict of interest policy;
9. improve technical and policy support to member states;
 10. increase the capacity of its audit and oversight office;
11. improve monitoring and reporting;
12. establish an information disclosure policy;
13. improve and enhance its human resource through providing continuous
professional development and training;
14. need to take initiative toward the importance of providing training and
development to the staff in the wake of low financial resources;
15. adopt e-learning method for providing training and development to the staff at low
cost;
16. develop a stronger link between performance appraisals and learning and use the
information thus obtained in planning training activities in a better and more
systematic way;
17. improve its monitoring and evaluation system;
18. Improve reward management system;
19. restructure and improve management infrastructure by bringing in and implementing
better reforms.

7.Conclusion
The findings of this report clearly show that being an international non-profit organization,
WHO has its offices scattered all over the world. Hence, a traditional management control
systems will not prove suitable for WHO which has been facing a number of management
challenges at various levels since it was established. Despite all the odds and challenges,
WHO makes maximum efforts to develop and implement effective management control
system. It is recommended that WHO should pay more focus on implementation of the recent
reforms introduced in 2014 and monitor and evaluate them continuously for improving its
management control system.
References
Abdel-Azim, M. H., and Abdelmoniem, Z. (2015). Risk management and disclosure and their
impact on firm value: The case of Egypt. International Journal of Business, Accounting, &
Finance, 9(1), 30-43.

Butler, D. (2013). World Health Agency Gets a Grip on Its Budget. Retrieved 26 April 2015
from

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-health-agency-gets-a-grip-on-its-budget/

Clift, C. (2013). The Role of the World Health Organization in the International System.
Chatham HoAmran, A., Rosli Bin, A., & Hassan B.M. (2009). Risk Reporting: an exploratory
study on risk management disclosure in Malaysian annual reports. Managerial Auditing
Journal, 24(1), 39-57. Retrieved 26 April 2015 from

http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Global
%20Health/0213_who.pdf

Fowler, A. (1990) Performance management: The MBO of the 90s? In Personnel

Management. July 1990.

Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2012). WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION:

Reform Agenda Developed, but U.S. Actions to Monitor Progress Could be Enhanced.
Retrieved 27 April 2015 from http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592842.pdf

Martinez, J, (2001). Assessing quality, outcome and performance management. World Health
Organization Department of Organization of Health Services Delivery Geneva Switzerland.
Retrieved 28 April 2015 from http://www.who.int/hrh/documents/en/Assessing_quality.pdf

Ruger, J.P. and Yach. D. (2008). The Global Role of the World Health Organization.
Retrieved 26 April 2015 from

http://www.ghgj.org/Ruger%20and%20Yach_The%20Global%20Role%20of%20WHO.pdf
Shortreed, J., Hicks, J., and Craig, L. (2003). Basic frameworks for risk management: Final
report. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Network for Environmental Risk
Assessment and Management (NERAM).

Smith, P.C., Mossialos, E. and Papanicolas, I. (2008). Performance measurement for health
system improvement: experiences, challenges and prospects. World Health Organisation:
Europe.

WHO (2012). WHO reform: programmes and priority setting. Retrieved 26 April 2015 from
http://www.who.int/dg/reform/consultation/WHO_Reform_1_en.pdf?ua=1&ua=1

WHO (2013a). Review of management, administration and decentralization in the World

Health Organization, report by the Joint Inspection Unit. Retrieved 27 April 2015 from

http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB132/B132_5Add6-en.pdf

WHO (2013b). WHO-UNICEF Guidelines for Comprehensive Multi-Year Planning for

Immunization. Retrieved 27 April 2015 from

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/100618/1/WHO_IVB_14.01_eng.pdf?ua=1

WHO (2013c). Programme Budget 2014-15: Overview of financing. Retrieved 27 April

2015 from https://extranet.who.int/programmebudget/Financing

WHO (2015a). About WHO. Retrieved 28 April 2015 from http://www.who.int/about/en/

WHO (2015b). Who we are. Retrieved 26 April 2015 from http://www.who.int/about/who-

we-are/en/

WHO (2015c). What we do. Retrieved 26 April 2015 from http://www.who.int/about/what-

we-do/en/

WHO (2015d). Governance of WHO. Retrieved 26 April 2015 from

http://www.who.int/about/governance/en/

WHO (2015e). Collaborations and partnerships. Retrieved 26 April 2015 from

http://www.who.int/about/collaborations/en/

WHO (2015f). Governance. Retrieved 26 April 2015 from

http://www.who.int/governance/en/
WHO (2015g). Finance and accountability. Retrieved 27 April 2015 from
http://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/en/

WHO (2015h). Cost effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE). Retrieved 27

April 2015 from http://www.who.int/choice/en/

WHO (2015i) Planning, requesting medicines and reporting. Retrieved 28 April 2015 from
http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/preventive_chemotherapy/reporting/en/
 Appendix

World Health Organization 2014-15 Distribution as at 31 December 2014

Programme Area Distributions and Projections Globally (US$ thousand)

Funding Projected Funds

Shortfall funding Available
Category and Programme Programme Funding / subject to incl. Expenditure
Area Budget Available (surplus) approval* Projections rate

PENDING DECISION ON 0 325,176 0 69,131 394,307

DISTRIBUTION

Assessed Contributions 0 55,764 0 0 55,764 0%

Reserve

Core Voluntary 0 81,453 0 29,100 110,553 0%

Contributions Account
Reserve

Other 0 187,959 0 40,031 227,990 0%

COMMUNICABLE 806,712 735,086 71,626 50,318 785,404

DISEASES

HIV/AIDS 125,685 120,280 5,405 192 120,472 51%

Tuberculosis 110,928 104,098 6,830 0 104,098 54%

Malaria 95,447 98,292 (2,845) 426 98,718 48%

Neglected tropical diseases 152,119 155,356 (3,237) 20,849 176,205 42%

Vaccine-preventable diseases 322,533 257,060 65,473 28,850 285,911 41%

 Programme Area Distributions and Projections Globally (US$ thousand)

Funding Projected Funds

Shortfall funding Available
Category and Programme Programme Funding / subject to incl. Expenditure
Area Budget Available (surplus) approval* Projections rate

NONCOMMUNICABLE 319,986 237,944 82,042 2,152 240,096

DISEASES

Noncommunicable diseases 175,529 121,620 53,909 1,550 123,170 33%

Mental health and substance 39,573 32,403 7,170 0 32,403 40%

abuse

Violence and injuries 35,486 27,946 7,540 82 28,028 47%

Disabilities and 18,689 15,776 2,913 38 15,814 36%

rehabilitation

Nutrition 50,710 40,199 10,511 481 40,680 40%

PROMOTING HEALTH 395,057 367,725 27,332 25,865 393,590

THROUGH THE LIFE-
COURSE

Reproductive, maternal, 242,050 251,398 (9,348) 20,908 272,306 52%

newborn, child and
adolescent health

Ageing and health 9,883 7,111 2,772 0 7,111 33%

Gender, equity and human 14,764 13,763 1,002 0 13,763 36%

rights mainstreaming

Social determinants of health 28,587 16,469 12,118 0 16,469 31%

Health and the environment 99,773 78,983 20,789 4,957 83,940 38%
 Programme Area Distributions and Projections Globally (US$ thousand)

Funding Projected Funds

Shortfall funding Available
Category and Programme Programme Funding / subject to incl. Expenditure
Area Budget Available (surplus) approval* Projections rate

HEALTH SYSTEMS 551,433 498,197 53,236 10,420 508,617

National health policies, 129,542 137,696 (8,154) 7,095 144,791 43%

strategies and plans

Integrated people-centred 153,829 95,792 58,037 962 96,754 39%

health services

Access to medicines and 152,385 165,145 (12,761) 2,363 167,508 47%

health technologies and
strengthening regulatory
capacity

Health systems, information 115,678 99,564 16,114 0 99,564 42%

and evidence

PREPAREDNESS, 317,652 252,310 65,343 11,992 264,301

SURVEILLANCE AND
RESPONSE

Alert and response capacities 100,028 79,110 20,918 1,397 80,506 40%

Epidemic-prone and 81,619 73,137 8,483 0 73,137 47%

pandemic-prone diseases

Emergency risk and crisis 103,972 77,078 26,895 10,050 87,128 41%
management

Food safety 32,033 22,985 9,047 545 23,530 37%

 Programme Area Distributions and Projections Globally (US$ thousand)

Funding Projected Funds

Shortfall funding Available
Category and Programme Programme Funding / subject to incl. Expenditure
Area Budget Available (surplus) approval* Projections rate

EMERGENCIES 904,900 1,454,882 (549,982) 51,549 1,506,431

Polio eradication 700,400 939,348 (238,948) 26,233 965,581 76%

Outbreak and crisis response 204,500 515,534 (311,034) 25,316 540,850 137%

CORPORATE 681,459 593,944 87,515 199 594,142

SERVICES/ENABLING
FUNCTIONS

Leadership and governance 222,533 198,042 24,491 150 198,192 43%

Transparency, accountability 43,447 27,020 16,427 49 27,068 31%

and risk management

Strategic planning, resource 41,237 28,768 12,469 0 28,768 34%

coordination and reporting

Management and 328,920 302,895 26,025 0 302,895 47%

administration

Strategic communications 45,323 37,219 8,103 0 37,219 40%

Total 3,977,200 4,465,263 (162,887) 221,625 4,686,888