Study Details

The Africa Multi-country AIDS Program 2000-2006: Results of the World Banks Response to a Development Crisis


Gorgens-Albino M.  Mohammad N.  Blankhart D.  Odutolu O. 





Web Link

View PDF


Global Monitoring and Evaluation Team (GAMET)
World Bank


HIV/AIDS services, health systems strengthening, Governance, access, vulnerable groups, funding, civil society

Study Type

This study reviews input, output, and outcome-level results to which the Multi-country AIDS Programme (MAP) contributed.


The aim of this study is to review whether MAP was implemented as designed. The aim is not to evaluate MAP or assess its impact. The study sets out to answer two questions: a) what has MAP done? b) how should MAP measure and report results in the future? It presents results that answer the first question, and provides a Results Scorecard and Generic Results Framework as a response to the second question.


The study draws on secondary data analysis, interviews with World Bank Task Team Leaders, and analysis of data from country feed-back forms.


The principal assertion of the Report is: MAP is in the process of achieving the input and output results it set out to achieve. Although the report does not measure the effect of MAP on outcome and impact indicators, it nevertheless also asserts: MAP has made a contribution to improved outcomes. In support of this assertion, the report provides a detailed table of outcomes to which MAP has contributed.

An important component of the Report is the Results Scorecard (a set of key indicators that all Bank-funded projects will be required to report on) and a Generic Results Framework (an expanded set of indicators from which projects can choose). Two points are emphasised. First, that because of measurement and attribution difficulties, HIV prevalence is considered an inappropriate project indicator. Second, the Scorecard is concordant with, UNGASS, Millennium Development Goals & IDA indicators.

Conclusions /

The Report hints at a number of challenges facing MAP:

  • MAP is only now beginning to focus on vulnerable groups, but more needs to be done in this area
  • M&E needs to be strengthened
  • Measuring results is difficult because a) concerns noted above about using prevalence as a measure, b) difficulties and costs of estimating numbers of new infections
  • Funding has increased but it still falls well short for a comprehensive response
The report concludes: "the MAP has helped build political leadership, created an institutional environment at the national and sub-national levels in which the national HIV response can thrive, set the foundation for significant resource mobilization, and financially supported many sectors to become involved in the response to HIV".

Sponsored by DFID, Danida, Irish Aid