Given Hapunda

25 governmental organisations, private foundations and the South African government. loveLife was established to cut new HIV infections and teenage pregnancies among young people between 15-24 of age in half, within five years. At the time, HIV prevalence among young women as tracked through antenatal clinical surveys had jumped from 0,7% in 1990 to 22,8% in 1998, and it was estimated that 55-60% of all HIV infections were happening among young women, before they reached 25 (loveLife, 2009). Although there are few reliable estimates of youth incidences from the exact time that loveLife started, not allowing for a clear baseline, the South African National HIV Incidence, Prevalence and Behaviour Survey 2012, which was able to analyse trends between previous surveys conducted in 2002, 2005, and 2008, presented convincing evidence that HIV incidence declined steadily over the three inter-survey periods among the youth aged between 15–24 years, 2.8% in 2002–2005, 2.3% in 2005–2008, and 1.5% in 2008–2012. The decline in incidence was more noticeable among young females aged between 15–24 years, from 5.3% in 2002–2005 to 2.1% in the period 2008–2012. This change was statistically significant at 60% reduction in HIV incidence (Shisana et al ., 2014). Combining a national multimedia campaign with sustained outreach in marginalised communities, structural support to health, sports and recreation, education and social development, and service provision through a clinical network and national call centre, loveLife interacts with about 79% of South African youth through multi-media platforms each year (HSRC, 2008). loveLife programmes specifically target 12-19 year-olds, and measures its impact in terms of HIV infections averted in the 15-24-year-old age category. In recent years, it has become increasingly important for the organisations to demonstrate outcomes and impact of their work. The request for an increasing focus on results is both externally (to meet donor requirements) and internally-driven (for programme management, programme review and design). From its inception loveLife M&E systems were firmly grounded in the traditional M&E systems where there was a heavy leaning on tracking activities and few evaluations. With a growing number of both international, corporate and government funders, loveLife’s M&E system had to be responsive to the demands of all funders for evidence to show that the programmes were making a difference in the life of the young people participating in these programmes. No longer were the funders interested in numbers of young people attending or participating in loveLife programmes but the output, outcome and impact results of these programmes. Funders were interested in knowing the benefits and real difference these programmes were making. Against this background, loveLife streamlined Results-Based M&E Systems into programme operations. These systems sought to access systematically, whether programmes were leading