A ''worth of money'' evaluation was published recently. It gave grades to the 3 top companies to which it contributes, these are: the global fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the World Bank.
However, the British authorities concentrated on UNESCO, objecting that it lacks shape. DFID (Department for International Development) is equal to the United States agency of development, moderating all the contributions and donation towards the health, disasters and cultures etc.
According to The New York Times, Britain is one of the most donating countries along with Norway, that donates huge as compared to its financial status. British authorities ranked UNESCO weak in organizational power.
Hours after the ratings were published, UNESCO along with its director was furious and said that they were misjudging and were overlooking and ignoring their achievements. The organizations were ranked on two facts. First, on how their plan matches the aims and goals of the government and second, on its organizational strength and power.
In 2011, the reviews were free of criticism or any doubts. However, in the current scenario, the author of the previous review and the former blunt Secretary Of State For International Development, Andrew Michell, was seriously concerned for the state of these companies.
He said that the waste of time and less commitment to reduce poverty will never be tolerated, strong actions will be taken and efforts will be made to improve these organizations. Mitchell Andrew gave little ratings to the organizations that were paying attention to labor, women, migration and development etc.
Priti Patel, the present international development secretary said that the quality will be improved regardless of the cost and what the outcomes may be. She was determined to bring these organizations back on track, making them better in terms of organizational practices specifically.
