Implementing Multiple Gender Strategies to Improve HIV and ... - ICRW

• Low: Collecting or planning to collect gender indicators.
• Medium: Conducted/conducting analysis on gender indicators (results may be pending).
• High: Program has demonstrated positive change in gender indicators (based on either
qualitative or quantitative data).
4. Community involvement:
• Low: Community members are involved in establishing program objectives, goals, or project
descriptions.
• Medium: Community members are involved in program design, implementation, feedback.
• High: Community members express ownership, as demonstrated through contribution of
community resources or clear financial support.
5. Feasibility for replication and/or scale-up:
• Low: Planning to replicate or exploring possibilities.
• Medium: Evidence indicates program is suited for replication/scale-up; 19 lessons for
replication/scale-up are available.
• High: Program or part of the program has been replicated and/or scaled up.
A team of five ICRW technical experts rated programs systematically and consistently according to
the criteria listed above. The team first rated three programs together as a group to ensure common
understanding of the rating process and to refine the criteria for evaluation. Once clear definitions had
been determined, each program was rated by one team member who assigned a score of one (low)
to three (high) for each of the five criteria. The maximum cumulative score for each program was 15
points. Twenty-five percent of programs, randomly selected, were rated by two team members to
measure inter-rater reliability and ensure consistent assessment of all programs. Discrepancies in
ratings were resolved as a group, and all final scores were discussed as a group. Of the 63 programs
assessed, 11 were excluded because they did not meet the minimum criteria for inclusion in the
compendium, leaving a total of 52 that were considered for inclusion.
COMPILATION
Of these 52 programs, 32 scored at least eight out of fifteen points and were considered for inclusion;
however, in order to ensure that all sub-Saharan Africa countries where PEPFAR resources are
concentrated were represented, one program that scored less than eight was included, and two
programs that scored more than eight but were from countries with large numbers of similar programs
were excluded. As a result, this compendium includes 31 programs. The 21 programs that were not
included are listed in Appendix 3.
The research team wrote a detailed description of each program selected for the compendium, using
information available through program reporting. Program representatives then had multiple
opportunities to review and revise descriptions to ensure accuracy and clarity.
Finally, the compendium was sent to a panel of international expert reviewers, who were asked to
consider the following:
• Completeness of the compendium (in terms of programs represented)
• Validity of compendium findings
• Usefulness of compendium content
19 Evidence of suitability for replication or scale-up may include factors such as strong track record of
obtaining funding, long-term established relationships with partner or other implementing
organizations, strong community involvement/buy-in, investment by governmental authorities, and
strong program documentation.
6