• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Innovations-Investment, Processes, and Outcomes_Kureshy_5.11.11
 

Innovations-Investment, Processes, and Outcomes_Kureshy_5.11.11

on

  • 611 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
611
Views on SlideShare
611
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 2011: Guidance and criteria for innovation category have been aligned with the principles and priorities of USAID’s broader strategies for innovation and research and strengthened to ensure that proposed innovative solutions represent bold, new ideas, designed with scalability and sustainability considerations in local/national health systems; and, the proposed research questions are relevant to key national and local stakeholder needs 2008 Clear description and presentation of innovation and a strong rationale for the capacity of the innovation to address key barriers (e.g. access, quality, equity, sustainability) to improving health outcomes, and its contribution to strengthening the health system and furthering national policy and/or strategy direction. ( 15 points ) Clear presentation of methodology to evaluate the innovation (e.g. feasibility, cost effectiveness, potential for scale up/replication) and an appropriate timeline. (8 points) Clear presentation of mechanisms to share evidence and utilize lessons with key stakeholders to inform replication and scale up of innovation. (5 points) 2009 Scoring for Innovation Section (30 points) – Innovation Category Innovation Category Applicants can earn up to 30 points for Innovation. All sub-criteria are weighted equally. Five main elements are considered:   Clear and focused description of the innovation; strong rationale for the capacity of the innovation to address critical delivery challenges and strengthen health systems. Demonstration of innovation’s potential contribution to global and/or national evidence base; to furthering national policy, and/or to be taken to scale by national programs. Proposed Operations Research (OR) design—including research question(s)—is adequate and appropriate to assess the innovation. Clear description of processes that applicant will engage in to influence national policy or national scale of innovation, based on results. Appropriate choice of “OR partner” or demonstrated capacity of applicant to conduct OR. 2010 Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Innovation – Innovation Category Innovation Category Applicants can earn up to 36 points for Innovation, the largest proportion of points to be earned in a single section and accounting for just over 1/3 of the total possible points (i.e. 100). Six main areas are considered, so please consider these in your assessment and consider the strengths and weaknesses of what is being put forward in this section:   Clear and focused description of the problem (operational barriers), including a rationale for its prioritization and relationship to programs and/or policies in-country. Clear description of prior efforts to research and address the identified problem within the proposed context and/or globally, including any major unanswered questions pertaining to the problem and proposed innovation. Demonstration that the proposed innovation is an appropriate solution for improving and scaling-up the delivery of high impact MNCH interventions and will adequately address the identified problem. OR objective(s), question(s), and other design components are clearly articulated, prioritized, and feasible for generating credible evidence for the innovation.

Innovations-Investment, Processes, and Outcomes_Kureshy_5.11.11 Innovations-Investment, Processes, and Outcomes_Kureshy_5.11.11 Presentation Transcript

  • Child Survival and Health Grants Program: INGO led Innovation and Operations Research (2008 – 2011) Nazo Kureshy, Team Leader, CSHGP Office of Health, Infectious Diseases and Nutrition Bureau for Global Health USAID
  • WHY INNOVATION?
    • 2008: CSHGP’s niche in Bureau for Global Health; Explicitly link CSHGP contributions to Bureau for Global Health’s mandate for Innovation and research; Leverage PVO entrepreneurship and creativity more explicitly
    • 2010/11: Key principle in GHI; Grand Challenges and a growing community of innovators in USAID; BEST country actions plans/ Mission interest and engagement for innovation/OR)
      • FY2011 RFA : Guidance strengthens and aligns the program’s primary focus (since FY08) on innovation and operations research with USAID’s broader strategies for supporting innovation and research through a set of grand challenges to advance transformational development
      • Committed to fostering cross-learning and coordination among USAID’s growing community of innovators
      • Mission interest in and funding for expanding CSGHP innovations (Nepal, Liberia)
  • CSHGP’s CURRENT PORTFOLIO OF INONVATION & OPERATIONS RESEARCH
    • Summarized in brief: “Testing innovations to improve and scale up high impact MNCH interventions in vulnerable communities: USAID’s partnership with 14 INGOs through the CSHGP in 16 countries
    • Reported in 3 Congressional Reports focusing on updates to USAID’s Research Strategy – 4 th currently in progress
  • INNOVATION & EVIDENCE: NUTS & BOLTS
      • Deliberate Flexibility in Design of Innovation
        • PVO/local and national stakeholder driven designs responsive to local challenges
        • Relevance beyond project area (national policy/program; global)
        • Illustrative areas for innovation and OR – no themes
          • Developed in collaboration with BGH technical teams to link CSHGP innovations to research and incorporate GCD challenge areas, as feasible
      • Integrated into an effective community oriented project platform (single or multi-district)
      • Focus on Evide nce & Use
        • Credible evidence (global/national/local), new partnerships for research, relevance/use through stakeholder engagement
  • DEFINITION
    • Innovation is defined as an approach or practice that introduces novel ways of addressing critical operational barriers to delivering (for improving the delivery and use of) high impact MNCH interventions to (in) vulnerable populations and strengthening health systems, ultimately leading to increased scale of these interventions and improved health outcomes.
    • Innovations require challenging existing paradigms in order to address an identified need (by key stakeholders) at national and global levels.
    •  
  • DEFINITION (CONTD.)
    • The proposed innovation should be an appropriate solution to a relevant public health challenge. It may include the following:
    • Introduction of a new approach or practice;
    • Substantial transformation of an existing approach or practice; and/or
    • Deleted: Adaptation of a successful approach or practice for a different context.
  • DEFINITION (CONTD)
    • FY 2011 RFA ADDITIONAL NOTES ADDED TO DEFINITION
    • Clearly differentiated from existing alternatives
    • Incremental solutions – not innovative proposed as project strategy rather than innovative solution
    • May integrate innovative approaches with low-cost products and technologies, as relevant and feasible (integrated innovations)
  • ANATOMY OF CSHGP’s EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR INNOVATION (2008-2011) 2008 2009 2010 2011 28 points 30 points 36 points 35 points *Rationale and capacity to address key barriers *Focused description /rationale for innovation * Contribution to evidence base/furthering policy/scale up *Problem/relationship to national context *Prior research * Appropriate solution *Problem/relevance/prior research * Unconventional * Potential for Impact, sustainability, scalability *Methodology to evaluate innovation *Mechanisms to share evidence *Proposed OR design, including research questions *OR partner/demonstrated capacity * OR objectives, questions, and other design components * OR questions only * Stakeholder engagement in research and use of information (USAID Mission)
  • Innovation/Evidence Building Niche?
    • Can frame with technical interventions and/or cross-cutting approaches lenses
    • Proof of concept (4) + refinement/evidence building for scale up (13); of 13, 6 have some new components within innovation model
    • Not a specific grand challenge but sets of relevant challenges for operationalizing a range of components in a community health system (delivery to utilization/participation) relevant to national/local policy and program context
    • Clustering in challenge areas, particularly relevant to community level inputs and packaging
  • Innovation Clustering/Contributions
    • Technology and mHealth
    • Developing new or improving community platforms for delivery and use (CHWs; community mobilization; behavior change; governance)
    • New practices in integration (within and outside of health)/Smart integration
    • New or low coverage interventions (CCM, community newborn care)
    • Equity
  • IDEAS ACROSS USAID INNOVATION MECHANISMS CSHGP Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) Grand Challenge: Saving Lives at Birth New teaming at community level for CCM Range of Task Shifting/Performance/Motivation Maternity Waiting Homes MHealth (Dimagi comm care app) Care Group model People’s Institute Model Simplified HFP-ENA model EONC network Inventory credit (bankers and farmers) E-bike Test for pre-eclampsia Mobile phones (Dimagi comm care app for maternal health; election fraud; mobile diagnosis) TBD
  • Tensions/Reflection Areas
    • CONTENT
    • Flexibility vs. Themes
      • Thematic Challenges for strengthening a cross-country learning potential (global vs. national)
    • Range: strengthening coordination and collaboration across community of innovators:
      • Integration of technology/other new comonents with cross-cutting approaches and community systems models
      • Energize range of ideas? Cross-learning?
    • Focus on credible evidence (national/global): sufficient process learning? Creativity with new methodologies? Culture of success and failure?
  • Tensions/Reflection Areas
    • CONTEXT
    • Integration of innovation within NGO project ($1.75, 4-5 years) – constraining? Cleaner division between smaller proof of concepts (with greater risk) and scale up?
    • Ideation vs. Sale: Novelty in Innovation/Risk vs. Evidence for scaling up promising/”safer” approaches and models
    • Priority countries or broader? Generalizeable vs. context specific solutions? Global vs. national?