Scholarlink

<p>Although African universities and research institutions are well-placed to advance research and development (R&amp;D) through their skilled workforce, innovation potential, and contributions to evidence-based decision-making, insufficient funding constrains their performance. This review aimed to examine the distribution of institutions engaged in the Good Financial Grant Practice (GFGP) evaluations across Africa, analyze comparisons between self-assessments and external reviews conducted as part of the GFGP framework, and identify institutional capacity strengths and weaknesses. We reviewed GFGP assessment reports of institutions supported by the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC). A total of 100 institutions were subjected to a selection criterion, where only 32 institutions across 17 African countries met the criteria. The extracted data included institutional self-assessments, including their assessment levels and external auditors’ assessments. We carried out descriptive analysis of the quantitative data via Stata version 17. We used correlation to determine whether a relationship existed, and an independent-samples test to check whether the self-assessment and external review means were significantly different. The independent sample <i>t</i>-test comparing institutional self-assessment and external review scores revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (<i>t</i> = 5.46, <i>p</i> = &lt;0.001) and a Pearson correlation of 0.62. External reviews showed that Platinum-rated institutions had the greatest variability in scores (SD = 16.80). The review identified the common capacity strengths across the tiers, which include the presence of a financial manual and a financial management system. We also found that most African institutions face challenges such as bribery, corruption, and fraud, as well as limited procurement procedures that hinder their good grant practices. This finding underscores the need to institutionalize independent external reviews as a mandatory complement to self-assessments, particularly for high-performing institutions, to reduce bias, detect hidden capacity gaps, and ensure consistent, risk-informed funding and oversight decisions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A review of African institutions’ capacity strengths and weaknesses on good grant practices

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月11日

查看全文
  • Patrick Amboka,
  • Alypio Nyandwi,
  • Gift Dzombo,
  • Winnie Chepkemoi,
  • Nickson Ochengo,
  • Janet Moraa Peter,
  • Kevin Kiiru,
  • Gael Ekobono,
  • Alphonsus Neba,
  • Florah Karimi,
  • Joseph Gichuru Wang’ombe

摘要

Although African universities and research institutions are well-placed to advance research and development (R&D) through their skilled workforce, innovation potential, and contributions to evidence-based decision-making, insufficient funding constrains their performance. This review aimed to examine the distribution of institutions engaged in the Good Financial Grant Practice (GFGP) evaluations across Africa, analyze comparisons between self-assessments and external reviews conducted as part of the GFGP framework, and identify institutional capacity strengths and weaknesses. We reviewed GFGP assessment reports of institutions supported by the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC). A total of 100 institutions were subjected to a selection criterion, where only 32 institutions across 17 African countries met the criteria. The extracted data included institutional self-assessments, including their assessment levels and external auditors’ assessments. We carried out descriptive analysis of the quantitative data via Stata version 17. We used correlation to determine whether a relationship existed, and an independent-samples test to check whether the self-assessment and external review means were significantly different. The independent sample t-test comparing institutional self-assessment and external review scores revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (t = 5.46, p = <0.001) and a Pearson correlation of 0.62. External reviews showed that Platinum-rated institutions had the greatest variability in scores (SD = 16.80). The review identified the common capacity strengths across the tiers, which include the presence of a financial manual and a financial management system. We also found that most African institutions face challenges such as bribery, corruption, and fraud, as well as limited procurement procedures that hinder their good grant practices. This finding underscores the need to institutionalize independent external reviews as a mandatory complement to self-assessments, particularly for high-performing institutions, to reduce bias, detect hidden capacity gaps, and ensure consistent, risk-informed funding and oversight decisions.