1. Applying the UNAIDS HIV Prevention
Evaluation Guidelines in Ghana and
Rwanda: Initial Experiences, Lessons
Learned, and Next Steps
Heidi Reynolds
RA meeting
11 Jan 2012

2. Team
 Northern  Southern
hemisphere hemisphere
 Beth Sutherland  Ghana AIDS
 Drew Koleros Commission &
MARP TWG
 Jessica Fehringer
 Rwanda HIV
 Andrew Inglis prevention TWG &
 Heidi steering committee

3. Background
 2008 UNAIDS MERG called for guidance
evaluating HIV prevention programs
 Identified need for
 Evaluation unified with M&E system (for decision
making)
 Dynamic approach grounded in field realities
 Workshop then Think Tank in 2009
 2010 Guidance
 Need for application and experience
 Output: Develop evaluation plans

4. UNAIDS.
Strategic
Guidance for
Evaluating HIV
Prevention
Programmes.
June 2010
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/do
cuments/document/2010/12_7_MERG_Guidance_Evalu
ating%20HIV_PreventionProgrammes.pdf

5. Public health questions approach for HIV
monitoring and evaluation
Adapted from Operational Guidelines for Monitoring
and Evaluation of HIV Programmes for Sex Workers,
Men who have sex with Men, and Transgender
People.

6. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/publications/ms-11-49

7. Applying approach in different
contexts
 Rwanda  Ghana
 MDG 6 goal  2011 NSP with clear
 3 target groups MARP strategy and Op
Plan
 M/Eval TA (field
funding) to M&E plan  Major implementer and
and mid-NSP review GAC increasing central
guidance
 Multiple programs
and partners  Less M&E Plan
coordination and depends
on in-country processes

8. Steps in Rwanda and Ghana
 In-country orientation to approach
 Map M&E activities to staircase
 Develop program logic model
 Articulate major research questions, information
needs, decisions needed
 Identify gaps in indicators & data sources
 Dependent on country M&E processes
 Write evaluation plan
 M/Eval output
 Assign R&R, obtain funding and carry out evaluation

9. Levels of evaluation evidence

10. Lessons learned
 Need strong national coordinating body
committed to evidence based programming and
M&E and evaluation (country owned, led)
 This is a new way of thinking
 How M&E pieces fit together
 Plausibility evaluation
 Not “being evaluated” but info to improve national
program

11. Next steps
 Finalize research questions and decision needs
 Data mapping workshop (Rw)
 Write evaluation plan
 Will someone fund it? Will partners work together
to carry it out?

12. MEASURE Evaluation is funded by the U.S. Agency for
International Development and is implemented by the
Carolina Population Center at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership with Futures Group
International, ICF Macro, John Snow, Inc., Management
Sciences for Health, and Tulane University. The views
expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect
the views of USAID or the United States Government.

13. Discussion questions
 Would this approach have potential to be applied
in other countries?
 How does it complement and build on other
activities in our portfolio?
 Does it contribute to building “Evaluation oriented
M&E systems”?