Clarity of objectives, indicators and targets

The project is briefly outlined in Section 2 above. The only defining project document is the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Workplan for 2006-2009. In this document there is no statement of project goal or purpose, thus no indicators at that level, no clear Program Area objectives (with indicators) and no targets. If this is indeed the equivalent of a design document there are serious weaknesses in the overall logic, statement of objectives to be achieved and indicators that will measure their achievement. The absence of a logical framework (or equivalent), particularly with respect to the distinction between outputs and outcomes, and articulation of indicators and means of verification, may have almost certainly contributed to identified weaknesses with ongoing project monitoring and evaluation, discussed further in Section 3.7.

One finds that project terminology changes throughout quarterly reporting and AAPs, which only further contributes to confusion. The ET has, with assistance from the CHAI management, put together what is probably now the accepted Program Area objectives (see Annex 6). They still lack indicators and targets.

Appropriateness of management and institutional arrangements

A Funding Agreement was signed in July 2006 between the government of Australia and CHAI. This outlined the terms and conditions of the arrangement between AusAID and CHAI for the implementation of CHAI in PNG. This agreement states that “the parties agree to monitor the Program against the Program Milestones and evaluate it against the Program Outcomes.” The defining document against which this occurs is the Program Workplan 2006- 2009. As noted above there is no stated objective/outcome in this document (or any documents subsequent to this) for the whole project (and associated indicators). Outcomes or objectives for each of the AoC are not articulated (thus no indicators provided). It is therefore impossible for this part of the agreement to be adhered to. The elements of the project have also changed over time, and these changes have not been documented systematically. Had there been a monitoring matrix developed at the start of the project these problems could have been avoided. With such a document in place it would have been very easy to document changes so that donor and partners (and evaluators) were abreast of any changes to the project profile.

The Funding Agreement is further compromised by the description of the reporting requirements (Attachment B) which at no time specifies that the project must report systematically against all activities that are part of each of the AoC (or subsequent Program Areas), or on any indicators of outcomes (even though it states it must report on progress of the Program against the Annual Plan).

Effectiveness