Strengthening the capacity of African
faith-based organisations to monitor and
evaluate their responses to HIV
www.tearfund.org/hiv
‘There is a paucity of quality data
available. The programs are there
but documentation is a problem.’ 1
Tearfund is an
evangelical Christian
relief and development
agency working with local
partner organisations
to bring help and hope
to communities in need
around the world.
Tearfund has over twenty
years experience of
working through churchbased partners in the
Photo Richard Hanson Tearfund
response to AIDS.
Author
Dr David Mundy
Many of the distinctive contributions of faith-based responses to HIV are intangibles, such as dignity for the
dying or prayers with the sick, and therefore difficult to monitor or evaluate.
Front cover photo
Mike Webb Tearfund
Inside front cover photo
Richard Hanson Tearfund
Tearfund contact: Alice Fay
Email: alice.fay@tearfund.org
Website: www.tearfund.org/hiv
There is growing recognition among international
Edited by Maggie Sandilands
Designed by Wingfinger Graphics
can play a critical role in poverty reduction, particularly
© Tearfund February 2007
development agencies that faith-based organisations
in the response to AIDS.
However, one of the challenges faced is a weakness
in monitoring, evaluation and reporting. Lack of
documentation may fuel concerns around quality and
1 Parry S (2002) Responses of the churches to
HIV/AIDS: Three Southern African countries
Harare and Geneva, (WCC) World Council of
Churches, Ecumenical HIV/AIDS initiative in
Africa, Southern Africa Regional Office
2 Taylor N (2006) Working together? Challenges
and opportunities for international development
agencies and the church in the response to
AIDS in Africa Tearfund, London
good practice, and prevent effective cooperation with
international donor agencies to scale up responses. 2
Summary
Without a reliable evidence base of quantitative and
INPUTS
qualitative data for faith-based responses to HIV, it
The resources required for the programme included:
is difficult for organisations to share learning and
■ mentors who had the knowledge, skills and experience to
good practice. Accurate information on the progress
support participants’ learning in monitoring and evaluating
responses to HIV. Each consultant attended three
three-day workshops and made four one-day mentoring
visits to each participating organisation to which they were
assigned.
of project activities and number of beneficiaries is
needed to ensure that responses are effective. Good
MER enables organisations to be accountable to
stakeholders, including beneficiaries and donors.
■ access to materials (e.g. PACT manual Building
Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Systems for
HIV/AIDS Programs) for participants.
This case study documents a pilot programme run by
Tearfund to strengthen capacity around monitoring,
evaluation and reporting (MER) for partner organisations
responding to HIV. It involved 23 participants,
representing 14 faith-based organisations in east, central
and southern Africa. These organisations work either
directly with communities to respond to HIV, or indirectly
by providing support to community-based organisations
responding to HIV.
■ access to funds for participants to implement tools and
techniques to improve for monitoring and evaluation
within their organisations. While these funds should
normally be part of the participating organisations’
budgets for MER, many had made no provision and so
a ‘small project’ fund (US $1,250 per organisation) was
made available.
■ a programme manager with the knowledge, skills and
experience to design and deliver the programme.
The programme aimed to work with staff responsible
for managing the design and implementation of their
organisations’ responses to HIV, to:
■
increase knowledge and skills for monitoring, evaluation
and reporting of these responses
■
build more effective structures and processes to support
monitoring, evaluation and reporting of responses to
HIV within participating organisations.
The total cost of the programme was approximately £75,000,
which was funded in part by Irish Aid.
This ongoing support and encouragement for
participants throughout the programme and the
emphasis on putting learning into practice were decisive
factors in enabling participants to move from conceptual
knowledge of MER to actually integrating MER within
their work.
Photo Layton Thompson Tearfund
The 12-month programme (October 2005 – October
2006) comprised three three-day workshops, with
mentoring support for participants, both in person and
through email, available between the workshops to support
distance learning.
Good MER enables organisations to be accountable to beneficiaries.
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
1
Context
Many faith-based organisations, with limited financial
and human resources, view monitoring, evaluation
and reporting as time-consuming and expensive. They
often see it as simply a requirement of external funding
agencies, rather than integral to their work. However,
quality monitoring and evaluation systems are vital to
ensure effective planning and project implementation,
to provide accountability and to demonstrate and
measure the impact of responses.
Organisations working to respond to the AIDS pandemic
are often stretched by the growing demands to deliver
quality services to those in need. Strong MER systems are
needed to ensure they can track progress and use their
resources most effectively. MER provides managers with a
tool to gain necessary and timely information on the
progress of project activities. This allows them to compare
what was planned with what is actually happening, and to
adapt to needs. MER also promotes organisational learning.
This pilot programme to develop capacity in MER represents
a strategic response to feedback from Tearfund partner
organisations which indicated they found MER difficult.
Most viewed it as an external demand and did not see the
benefits to their work. They felt overwhelmed by the complex
range of indicators available, and unsure which to use.
This programme aimed to change attitudes to MER within
organisations, from an add-on to a core activity. It was
designed to enable participating organisations to construct
quality monitoring, evaluation and reporting systems that are
straightforward, affordable, efficient, and, most importantly,
useful to the management and operations of the organisations
themselves.
Participants’ learning focused on setting realistic objectives for
their responses to HIV, developing indicators and means of
assessment which are relevant to these objectives, and
establishing effective systems to collect and analyse data for
these indicators.
‘Monitoring and
evaluation of the impact
of HIV work is weak.
This needs to be stepped
up with the use of tools
to measure both the
processes (quality of
service delivery) and
the outcomes’
Photo Fiona Perry Tearfund
Consultant, Kenya, April 2005
To plan effective responses to HIV, organisations need to have access to accurate information.
2
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
Programme
This programme aims to strengthen organisational
■
take at least one working day every fortnight to work on
the assignments
■
recommend and implement, in discussion with their
line manager, changes to structures and processes for
monitoring and evaluation within the organisation
■
pass their own learning on to other staff in the
organisation.
capacity in monitoring and evaluation for responses
to HIV. It comprised three regional workshops with
mentoring support, both in person and through email,
available between the workshops to participants to support
distance learning and help them to implement their action
plans. The programme was arranged as a series of four
phases: an initial pre-programme phase and three phases
within the twelve-month period of the actual programme.
Pre-programme phase
Preparation for the programme involved three elements.
DEVELOPING RESOURCES
Existing published monitoring and evaluation materials were
adapted to be relevant to the context, to the participating
organisations and to Tearfund’s institutional framework for
monitoring and evaluation of responses to HIV.
The programme was largely based on the PACT manual
Building Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Systems for
HIV/AIDS Programs (PACT 2005). This useful resource
provides practical tools and techniques to support results-based
monitoring, evaluation and reporting, such as practical criteria
to assess indicators, and baseline data collection tools such as
sample questionnaires. It also provides a checklist for reviewing
MER systems, which was used as a self-assessment tool by
the participants throughout the programme. Permission was
obtained from PACT to reproduce the MER manual freely. The
entire manual (in English) was made available to participants
on CD Rom at Workshop 1 and key sections were adapted for
use during all three workshops.
SELECTING PARTICIPANTS
This programme involved 23 participants, representing 14
faith-based organisations from Democratic Republic of Congo,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, and Zambia. Participants
were selected by their organisations. A commitment was
required from the director of each organisation that the person
attending the programme would be able to:
■
Ideally there would be at least two people from each
participating organisation to ensure that the knowledge and
skills developed are retained. This would include both a
senior manager and a programme manager to ensure both
organisational commitment to MER and capacity to deliver
MER at project level. The selection and nomination process
took approximately eight weeks.
SELECTING MENTORS
A key aspect of the programme was mentoring support for
participants to help them to put their learning into practice.
As mentoring support by the programme manager from a
distance (e.g. by email) would not be as effective as face-toface discussions, it was decided that regionally-based mentors
would be required to visit participants in their workplaces.
Given the number of participants and their geographical
distribution it was decided that three mentors would be
required: one for east Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda:
five participating organisations, eight participants), one
for the Democratic Republic of Congo (four participating
organisations, eight participants), and one for southern
Africa (Malawi and Zambia: five participating organisations,
seven participants).
As well as proven experience in development work involving
responding to HIV, and work with churches, mentors need
to have good communication skills and be able to build
relationships of trust and respect. Key personal qualities of
a good mentor include patience, understanding, sensitivity,
and the ability to manage confrontation.
The mentors met together with the programme manager
for induction on the afternoon before the first day of
Workshop 1. This provided an opportunity for introductions
and an overview of the programme and their responsibilities.
However, it was felt that it would be helpful to spend more
time at the outset explaining the mentoring concept and
self-directed learning process underpinning the programme.
participate in the complete programme, including attending
three workshops, as well as the periods of mentoring
support and the assignments
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
3
MENTORING
Phase 1
Workshop 1 and Mentoring visits 1 and 2
A distinctive feature of this programme, and key to its success,
was the mentoring available to participants throughout the
12-month programme. The mentors attended the workshops
and supported participants through four on-site visits and email
correspondence.
Capacity development work is often built around one-off
interventions, such as a training workshop, but this approach
has led to little lasting change either for individuals or for
organisations.
Mentoring is a process where one person helps another person
to develop and learn in a safe and sympathetic relationship.
It provides participants with on-going support to apply their
learning practically to the actual problems they face in their
organisation. The success of the process depends on this
relationship, which should be honest, non-judgemental and
confidential. It is important that from the start there is a clear
understanding of the purpose, expectations and time frame
for the mentoring. The learning process is directed by the
participant, who sets the goals, which the mentor supports and
encourages them to achieve. They do this by:
Listening / counselling – helping the participant to explore the
consequences of potential decisions
Coaching – showing the participant how to do a particular task
Facilitating – creating opportunities for the participant to use
new skills
Networking – referring the participant on to other people who
can help them to achieve their goals.
Being interested – may be the mentor’s most important role.
Two sessions at Workshop 1 (Uganda, October 2006) were
used to introduce the concept and process of mentoring, with
supporting resources. The mentoring process was structured
around personal learning contracts developed by participants.
These set out the focus and strategy for learning, and provide a
framework for review. The four mentoring visits, lasting one or
two days for each participating organisation, were scheduled to
occur between the three workshops.
These visits provided opportunities for participants to meet
with their mentors, discuss learning and to review and revise
the learning contracts. After each visit, both the mentors and the
participants completed feedback forms, to monitor the process.
Throughout the programme, feedback from participants about
the mentors was positive, indicating that the mentors were
providing valuable support for participants’ learning.
4
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
October 2005 to February 2006
The intended learning outcomes for Phase 1 were that
through attendance at the Workshop 1 and engagement in
self-directed learning with mentoring support, participants
would develop:
■
knowledge of, and ability to use, good practice
indicators for responses to HIV.
■
skills to assess and improve existing structures and
processes within their organisations to use and
document indicators for responses to HIV.
WORKSHOP 1
The focus of the first three-day workshop (held in Uganda,
17–19 October 2005) was the organisational benefits
of good quality MER. Participants learned basic tools
for MER, such as using appropriate indicators. The
workshop was interactive, with participants encouraged to
use the knowledge and skills presented in the workshop
to reflect on their own programmes and thus create a
personal agenda for learning. A framework for monitoring
and evaluation of responses to HIV was presented and
discussed.
The PACT self-assessment checklist for MER was then
presented, and used by participants to identify their
organisations’ strengths and weaknesses in responses to
HIV. Based on their self-assessment, participants were
supported by their mentors in the development and
implementation of action plans to build on the strengths
and to address the weaknesses. Key elements of the
action plan include identification of the participant’s own
learning needs, and how the participant will pass their own
learning on to other staff in the organisation.
Much of the reflection was done in small groups, in which
participants worked together with each other and with
their mentors. This enabled participants and mentors to
get to know one another. At the end of the first workshop
participants were asked to agree with their mentors the
dates and venues for the first two mentoring visits.
One of the participating organisations, ACET (Uganda),
took responsibility for organising the logistics of the
workshop; this included booking an appropriate venue,
arranging airport transfers, sending an invitation letter to
participants, and reimbursing participants for any reasonable
expenses incurred in attending the workshop. To ensure that
ACET (Uganda) had sufficient funds to settle accounts,
Tearfund provided an advance to cover anticipated costs.
CASE STUDY
In Zambia, Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ)
has recognised the need to build the capacity of area
coordinators and church leaders in MER so that churches
responding directly to HIV have the capacity to undertake
MER to support their own work. As a result, 50 envisioned
church leaders from six provinces, 13 co-ordinators and 20
volunteers have been trained in MER, and 20 church leaders
and 13 co-ordinators have been involved in developing
indicators to support churches in MER.
Phase 2
Workshop 2 and Mentoring visits 3 and 4
March 2006 to September 2006
The specific learning outcomes for Phase 2 were that
participants develop:
■
knowledge of appropriate structures and processes to
support good practice MER for responses to HIV
■
skills to assess and improve existing structures and
processes supporting MER for responses to HIV.
Church leaders have been trained in qualitative methods
of data collection such as focus group discussions and
interviews, and area coordinators have been trained to use
questionnaires. EFZ has developed a monitoring system
which builds on the tools developed at community level.
However, challenges remain: the wide coverage of EFZ
makes consultations difficult, and EFZ is aware that MER
activities can increase the burden on churches which are
already stretched in responding to AIDS.
WORKSHOP 2
The focus of the second three-day workshop was on specific
tools and techniques to improve the effectiveness and quality
of monitoring data. These included indicators, monitoring
tools and evaluation processes. The workshop was based
on a participatory learning approach using a case study
developed specifically to review indicators and to identify
criteria for evaluation. Participants were encouraged to
reflect on their own learning and achievements by reviewing,
and developing further, their personal action plans.
The second workshop was held as three separate ‘regional
workshops’ in Kenya (1–3 March 2006) for participating
organisations in east Africa, in Malawi (6–8 March 2006) for
those in southern Africa, and in the Democratic Republic
of Congo (10–12 April 2006) for those in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. For each regional workshop one
participating organisation took responsibility for organising
the logistics. At the end of each regional workshop,
participants were asked to agree with their mentors the dates
and venues for the final two mentoring visits.
Phase 3
Workshop 3 (Review)
October 2006
The primary purpose of the third workshop (Uganda,
2–4 October 2006) was to provide an opportunity for
participants to share their learning, to celebrate their
achievements, and to show their commitment to quality
MER of their responses to HIV.
The focus of this workshop was peer-review. Participants
were asked to make a short presentation on what difference
the 12-month programme had made to their organisations.
They demonstrated what changes had been made within
their organisations for monitoring and evaluation of
responses to HIV, and how these changes were contributing
to increased effectiveness and efficiency of those responses.
Changes included:
■
training staff in MER
■
identifying the reporting requirements for different
stakeholders
■
reviewing project objectives
■
developing indicators for monitoring responses to HIV.
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
5
The workshop also included an overview of a reporting
framework that brought together all the concepts presented
during the programme, a consideration of how to sustain
quality MER systems for HIV, and a review of the
programme. The UNAIDS ‘Practice Note’ template was
introduced as a tool for documenting lessons learnt and
good practice identified.
■
The difficulty of retaining programme staff who become
very marketable once they have acquired MER knowledge
and skills.
■
The need for organisations to ensure that there are
sufficient resources for MER. For many organisations this
means that MER activities must be properly costed and
these costs reflected in project budgets.
Again, ACET (Uganda) took responsibility for organising
the logistics.
CHALLENGES
Participant feedback
Without exception, the presentations made by participants
at the third workshop revealed that, through the programme,
there had been significant changes both to the participants
and to their organisations. Many participants noted
that before the programme started they were unaware of
the inadequacies of their organisations’ monitoring and
evaluation. As one participant put it, ‘We found that we
had to start from an early starting point; we weren’t as good
as we thought we were’. Through the programme their
attitudes to MER had changed and this was reflected in their
organisations’ approaches.
Key feedback from participants’ presentations included:
■
The importance of MER as a basis for organisational
learning.
■
The need for at least one senior manager to champion
MER within an organisation.
■
The importance for all management positions within
an organisation to include responsibility for MER – it
needs to be ‘normal’ business for the whole organisation,
not just one or two individuals with specific technical
responsibilities for MER.
■
The need for flexibility when working within church
networks, such as adapting monitoring tools for use
by member churches for church-based monitoring and
evaluation. These tools need to be relevant to the needs of
church networks, member churches, and congregations.
They should empower churches and congregations to take
responsibility for identifying development opportunities
within their communities.
■
6
The importance of involving beneficiaries in MER so
that beneficiaries are empowered to contribute to project
management.
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
Participants identified the following key challenges to the
programme:
Workload Participants’ heavy workloads make it difficult for
some of them to engage in the programme.
Budget Some organisations have limited budgets to support
MER activities. Small project grants were therefore necessary
to enable them to develop specific tools or techniques to
support their MER activities.
Motivation In some cases the participants’ engagement in the
mentoring process is constrained by lack of motivation caused
by poor remuneration and little support for monitoring and
evaluation within their organisation.
Sustainability In some organisations it may be difficult to
sustain the gains made through the programme because the
resources required are absent.
Staff retention Four of the original participants have since left
their organisation, with only one successor able to continue
with the programme.
The organisations which participated were:
AIDS Care, Education and Training (ACET), Brethren in Christ Church (BICC), Chisomo Children’s Club,
Choisir La Vie / Doctors on Call for Service (DOCS), Churches of Central Africa Presbyterian (CCAP),
The Deliverance Church AIDS Intervention Programme (TAIP), Evangelical Association of Malawi
(EAM), Evangelical Churches Fellowship Ethiopia (ECFE), Evangelical Association of Zambia (EFZ),
Full Gospel Believers Church (FGBC), Jubilee Centre, Lifeskills, Programme de Promotion des Soins
de Sante Primaire (PPSSP), Province of the Anglican Church of Congo (PEAC), STOP SIDA / Centre
Medical Evangelique (CME)
Key learning
Here are some of the key learning points and
Mentor involvement
recommendations that have emerged from this
The mentors met together only twice during the twelvemonth programme, at Workshop 1 and Workshop 3.
This reflected the expense required (e.g. air travel and
accommodation) if each mentor had attended each of
the regional workshops, or if a separate meeting had been
arranged specifically for the mentors. However, the mentors
all felt it would have been beneficial if they had met together
to share their experiences, to learn from each other, and to
provide feedback to the programme manager.
pilot process.
Engaging stakeholders
It is important that the most appropriate people from each
organisation participate in the programme: a senior manager
is necessary to ensure high-level commitment to MER within
the organisation, and the authority to introduce changes,
and a programme manager is essential to have capacity to
implement MER at the project level.
➤ To ensure commitment to organisational change through
participation in the programme, consider as participants a
director and a programme manager (or equivalent).
➤ To increase the opportunities for the mentors to be
involved in the management of the programme, and to
share learning, consider organising a one-day event for the
mentors and the programme manager around the time of
Workshop 2.
Funding
Schedule
Many participating organisations lacked the funds to develop
monitoring and evaluation structures and processes. Since
the practical application of the knowledge and skills acquired
was an integral part of the programme, it was agreed to
make a small project grant (US $1,250) available to each
organisation participating in the programme. The uses of
the grants included participative design of indicators, and
training project staff in monitoring.
The first mentoring visit was scheduled in November 2005,
which participants felt was too soon after the first workshop
to have allowed them to reflect on their learning from the
first workshop. The second mentoring visit in January 2006
was too close to the Christmas and New Year holiday for
them to have made significant progress in applying their
learning since the first mentoring visit.
➤ To ensure that resources are available in participating
organisations for developing MER systems, consider
making small project grants available from the outset, and
encourage organisations to budget for MER within their
project budgets.
Learning concept
The mentoring process – based on the concept of a selfdirected learning contract – was a key factor in transforming
participants’ attitudes to MER, and enabling them to put
their learning into practice within their organisations.
However, the concept was not fully understood by all the
participants. Some seemed to view the mentoring visit as
just another workshop, which the mentor facilitates. This
misunderstanding perhaps reflects the dominant approach
to learning with which most participants will be familiar: an
‘expert’ at the front ‘training’ them.
➤ To encourage participants to develop their skills as
learner, consider increasing the time explaining the
mentoring process and concept of learning that underpins
the programme.
➤ To provide participants with sufficient time to reflect
on, and apply, their learning, consider allowing six to eight
weeks between the workshops and mentoring visits, and
take national holidays into account.
Geographic constraints
Although it is helpful for networking and sharing learning
to have a breadth of organisations represented, the wide
geographic distribution of the organisations participating in
the programme increased travel costs both for attendance
at the joint workshops and for mentoring. As it was not
possible to find qualified mentors who lived within each of
the countries represented, mentoring costs were increased by
air fares and accommodation. Since participants and mentors
had to agree dates for mentoring visits in advance so that
flights could be booked, mentoring became a formal process
rather than a more spontaneous approach.
➤ To reduce travel and accommodation costs and to
facilitate mentoring, consider limiting participation in
the programme to organisations located in one or two
countries, and recruit mentors from these countries.
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
7
Impact
This programme produced an attitude change in
Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ)
– Zambia
participants towards the importance of monitoring,
EFZ formed a team of key church leaders to focus on
home-based care and prevention of HIV. They developed
monitoring tools, and trained these leaders in MER
for responses to HIV. Now the leaders understand that
monitoring is important for their own work, to ensure
the quality of what they do and to be accountable to the
church and the wider community. The leaders have in turn
taken these tools and are using them in their churches with
volunteers, to improve the quality of care provided and to
provide accountability for what they are doing.
evaluation and reporting for responses to HIV. This
change has been reflected within their organisations in
the way they carry out their activities.
Brethren in Christ Church (BICC) – Zambia
Working together with coordinators based in rural
congregations, BICC developed monitoring tools relevant
to their work. These include household assessment charts
which help the coordinators know how many households
are caring for orphans and the levels of support for these
orphans. BICC have found that these tools provide useful
information to senior church leaders who are then better
able to support the work on the ground.
Livingstonia Synod Aids Programme (LISAP)
– Malawi
LISAP has been successful in gaining funding from the
National AIDS Council as a result of putting together a
proposal that used tools developed during the programme.
The Deliverance Church AIDS Intervention
Programme (TAIP) – Uganda
■
developing Memoranda of Understanding (written
agreements of partnership) with partners so that the
expectations of both the partner and TAIP are made
explicit and can be reviewed and revisited through the
partnership. This increases mutual accountability.
■
developing indicators to accurately reflect its work in
strengthening the capacity of churches, and using these
indicators to assess its own work.
■
using a participative approach to assessing partners, which
involves providing written feedback to partners, outlining
their strengths as well as areas for development.
‘Partners are visibly encouraged and enthusiastic now
that they are able to quantify and demonstrate the
success of their work. For the first time they can actually
show the impact a project has. The quality of their
proposals has also increased significantly.’
Gary Swart, Head of Region, Southern Africa Region, Tearfund.
8
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
Photo Richard Hanson Tearfund
TAIP works with churches to strengthen their capacity to
respond to HIV. As a result of MER training, TAIP has
thought through how it works with partners, and made
some improvements. These include:
Resources
There is a wealth of statistical information available
about HIV for almost every country. Some of this
information will be directly relevant to projects,
particularly at the planning stage.
Demographic data
Many countries have HIV awareness and behaviour data
collected as part of the world-wide Demographic and Health
Survey (DHS), conducted by national statistics offices in
conjunction with Measure: www.measuredhs.com
The DHS database provides an easily accessible and
comprehensive source of information on HIV and AIDS
indicators. Tables for specific countries can be produced
from the DHS database.
Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS – www.un.org/ga/
aids/coverage/FinalDeclarationHIVAIDS.html, and the
Millennium Development Goals.
The Expanded Response Guide to Core Indicators for Monitoring
and Reporting on HIV/AIDS Programmes provides a list of
the USAID / PEPFAR indicators for monitoring the HIV
epidemic.
www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/TechAreas/
monitoreval/expandresponse.pdf
Useful websites
■
Demographic and Health Survey (DHS)
www.measuredhs.com
■
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
www.unaids.org
■
HIV epidemiological data are collected for almost every
country by UNAIDS and the World Health Organisation.
You can access reports from a variety of UN agencies
through the UNAIDS website: www.unaids.org/
World Health Organisation
www.who.org
■
United National Development Fund for Women
www.unifem.org
■
Using the search function on the home page, select
Epidemiology, estimates and projects as the topic and select
the country for which you want reports, and then click on
search.
Centre for Disease Control
www.cdc.gov
■
Family Health International
www.fhi.org
■
Millennium Development Goals
www.un.org/millenniumgoals
Epidemiological data
HIV Indicators
The main sources of data and statistical information are:
■
Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS)
www.measuredhs.com/aboutsurveys/dhs_surveys.cfm
■
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS)
www.measuredhs.com/hivdata/surveys/survey_detail.
cfm?survey_id=276
■
Reproductive Health Surveys (RHS)
www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Surveys/
■
Behavioural Surveillance Surveys (BSS)
www.fhi.org/en/topics/bss.htm
The indicators included in the DHS surveys are derived
from the UNAIDS National AIDS Programmes: a guide
to monitoring and evaluation – www.who.int/hiv/pub/
epidemiology/en/JC427-Mon_Ev-Full_en.pdf
This guide provides standardised indicators for measuring
the success of HIV programmes. Included are a number
of indicators to monitor the goals set at the UN General
Useful publications
■
Family Health International 2002
Evaluating Programs for HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care in
Developing Countries: a handbook for program managers and
decision makers
■
UNAIDS 2005
Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation of the National Response
for Children Orphaned and Made Vulnerable by HIV/AIDS
■
PACT, 2005
Building Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Systems for
HIV/AIDS Programs
www. pactpublications.org/pdfs/mer_manual.pdf
Monitoring and evaluation for HIV
9
This publication has been produced
with the support of Irish Aid
Strengthening the capacity of African
faith-based organisations to monitor and
evaluate their responses to HIV
www.tearfund.org
100 Church Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 8QE, UK
enquiry@tearfund.org
+44 (0)845 355 8355
Registered Charity No. 265464
17994 – (0207)