Mbn hiv/aids evaluation final report Team of consultants

4.2 To what extent and how successfully did each CFA perform in enabling the different counterparts to contribute to the fight against HIV/AIDS and to cope with the HIV/AIDS epidemic?

The work of the CFAs is characterised by partnership relations with organisations in the South, the so-called counterparts. Although financial support (ex. budget support) constitutes the core input of these relations, the CFAs try to establish some kind of partnership with their counterparts. The dialogue and mutual visits are one of the most important instruments to that end. The CFAs support mainstreaming processes and try to convince their counterparts to work on internal mainstreaming, concretely by developing and implementing a HIV/AIDS workplace policy in order to cope with the impact of HIV/AIDS on their own organisation. Linking and learning initiatives (and sometimes extra funding) have been facilitated to improve the HIV/AIDS competence of the counterpart.

To analyse the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of CFA’s funding strategies, policies and practices to the fight against HIV/AIDS, it will be important to take a look at the implications of the HIV/AIDS epidemic regarding the relationship between the CFAs and their counterparts. And to analyse to what extent the counterparts deal with HIV/AIDS internally and in their programmes and activities.
The following judgement criteria have been formulated to assess the processes and outputs of the partnership relationships:

• 
  JC1: The issue of HIV/AIDS is incorporated in the dialogue between CFA and counterpart
  
• 
  JC2: Improved HIV/AIDS competence of counterparts to deal with staff susceptibility and organisational vulnerability to HIV/AIDS (internal mainstreaming)
  
• 
  JC3: Improved HIV/AIDS competence of counterparts to adapt new and existing programmes to the context of HIV/AIDS and contribute positively to the wider response to HIV and AIDS (external mainstreaming - only relevant for generalist organisations)
  

A difference has been made between “high prevalence regions” and “low prevalence regions” and between “AIDS-focussed organisation” and “generalist organisations”. Some judgement criteria are, for example, only relevant for generalist organisations or need to be adapted (through formulation of adequate indicators) when used for counterparts situated in low incidence regions.