and drafting their applications and in supporting implementation. the united nations development programme, in particular, bears responsibility for supporting global fund-financed projects in a number of countries. as a result, the organisation is most accurately described as a financial supplement to the existing global health architecture rather than as a separate approach. the global fund secretariat in geneva, switzerland, employs about 1300 staff. there are neither offices nor staff based in other countries. in 2013, the global fund adopted a new way of distributing its funds in countries to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria. under this funding model, eligible countries receive an allocation of money every three years for possible use during the same three-year period. the total amount of all allocations across all countries depends on the amount contributed by governments and other donors through the "replenishment" fundraising during the same three-year period. the countries, through their country coordinating mechanism (ccm)), submit applications outlining how they will use the allocation, including selecting the main implementers of grants in countries called principal recipients (pr) to carry about programs within their respective countries. an independent technical review panel (trp) reviews the applications and there will be an iterative process towards the finalisation of the applications. once the applications are approved, the global fund provides funding to the principal recipients based on achievement toward agreed indicators and actual expenses. performance and expenses are periodically reviewed by a "local fund agent", which in most countries is an international financial audit company. governance board the global fund board is the supreme governing body of the organisation and embodies the partnership approach to global health and incorporates leading stakeholders in an inclusive and effective way. the core functions of the board include: strategy development; governance oversight; commitment of financial resources; assessment of organisational performance; risk management; and partnership engagement, resource mobilisation and advocacy. the board includes 20 voting members, with equal representation by implementers and donors. non-governmental organisations; communities living with and/or affected by hiv, tb and malaria; the private sector; and private foundations are also represented as voting members. there are also eight non-voting members, including the board chair and vice-chair; representatives of partner organisations including the world health organization and world bank; as well as the additional public donors constituency. the chair and vice-chair of the board (together the "board leadership") lead the board's strategic focus on its core functions. their primary role is to manage the affairs of the board, including ensuring that the board is organised properly, functions effectively, and meets its obligations and responsibilities. prior to the end of the term of the board leadership, an ad hoc board leadership nominations committee (blnc) is formed, and in 2018, for the first time, the blnc implemented a process which interviewed finalised candidates in person for the board leadership. the current board leadership is made up of dr donald kaberuka and lady roslyn morauta who assumed the tenures in may 2019, and the board extended the terms in october 2021 to the adjournment of the first board meeting in 2023. committees the work of the board operates through three committees where each constituency should be represented in at least one standing committee, which are the audit and finance committee (afc), ethics and governance committee (egc), and the strategy committee (sc). corruption and misuse of funds in january 2011, the associated press reported vast corruption in some programs financed by the global fund, citing findings of the global fund office of the inspector general – an auditing unit independent from the global fund secretariat – that up to two-thirds of funds in some of the reviewed grants were lost to fraud. the office of the inspector general report showed that systematic fraud patterns had been used across countries. the global fund responded to the story with a news release, stating, "the global fund has zero tolerance for corruption and actively seeks to uncover any evidence of misuse of its funds. it deploys some of the most rigorous procedures to detect fraud and fight corruption of any organization financing development." after the associated press story, a number of op-eds, including one by michael gerson published in the washington post in february 2011, sought to put the controversy surrounding the misuse of global fund grants in perspective. gerson stated, "the two-thirds figure applies to one element of one country's grant – the single most extreme example in the world. investigations are ongoing, but the $34 million in fraud that has been exposed represents about three-tenths of 1 percent of the money the fund has distributed. the targeting of these particular cases was not random; they were the most obviously problematic, not the most typical." global fund spokesman jon liden told the associated press, "the messenger is being shot to some extent. we would contend that we do not have any corruption problems that are significantly different in scale or nature to any other international financing institution." previous reviews of grants and the global fund had shown substantial misconduct in some programs, lack of adequate risk management, and operational inefficiency of the global fund. cases of corruption had also been found in several african countries such as mali, mauritania, djibouti, and zambia. sweden, the global fund's 11th-biggest contributor at the time (2011), suspended its us$85 million annual donation until the corruption problems were resolved. germany, the third-biggest contributor at the time, also blocked any financing until a special investigation was complete. funding was eventually restored. other cases of abuse of funds, corruption and mismanagement in a series of grants forced the global fund to suspend or terminate the grants after such dealings became publicly known in uganda, zimbabwe, philippines, and ukraine. in february 2011, financial times reported that the global fund board failed to act previously on concerns over accountability including on the conclusion of an external evaluation in 2009 that criticized the organization's weak procurement practices. warnings of inadequate controls had also been reported periodically. financial times also reported that its own review found that neither global fund staff nor "local fund agents" (the entities entrusted with audit-like tasks at the country level) had noticed the deficiencies reported by the inspector general. after pushing countries to reclaim stolen funds from the parties responsible and recovering only about half, the organization began in 2014 as a last resort reducing future grants by twice the amount of misappropriated funds. as of february 2016, this resulted in us$14.8 million of reductions (collectively) for bangladesh, guatemala, nigeria and sri lanka.. current status is reported to the global fund board at least annually. the global fund's office of the inspector general audited the recoveries process in 2020. in 2020, the global fund rejected kenya's application for us$114 million due to a lack of transparency in the selection of firms to manage the fund.