WG Time_M&E_Mutie_5.11.11


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

WG Time_M&E_Mutie_5.11.11

  1. 1. OVC TRACK<br />Applying the Child Status Index to Measure OVC Program Effectiveness<br />Rogers Mutie <br />World Concern Development Organization<br />Core Group Spring Meeting—M&E Working Group<br />May 11, 2011<br />
  2. 2. World Concern & the AHA Consortium <br />WC was the lead agency for the AERDO (now known as ACCORD) HIV&AIDS Alliance(AHA) in Kenya, Zambia & Haiti<br />The AHA consortium Track 1 implementing agencies: WC (lead), WR, CRWRC, WH, NCM, OB, TSA, FH, MAP, MAI/Lifewind)<br />AHA consortium implemented PEPFAR funded OVC Track 1 project from 2004 to 2010<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />2<br />
  3. 3. M&E Tools used<br />The Child Inventory Form/database-child’s baseline survey information<br />The Essential Services Tracking Form-records services delivered by date & type. Summarized every 6 months<br />The Quarterly Planning/Reporting Tool(QPR)-for process & output monitoring. Tracking activity targets reached under each strategic objective<br />All the above tools & the periodic reports generated tracked numbers reached, but could hardly tell us whether the intervention were making any difference in child wellbeing.<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />3<br />
  4. 4. The Child Status Index<br />Was developed by MEASURE Evaluation <br />It’s purpose-to asses individual children’s needs & monitor progress in 6 areas of child well being (Food & Nutrition, Shelter & Care, Protection, Healthcare, Psychosocial support & Education)<br />Each area has two indices and a rating(1-4) based on a predetermined criteria <br /> (1-Very Bad, 2=Bad, 3=Fair, 4=Good)<br />Scoring done after interviewing at least 3 informers e.g. the caregiver, the child & teacher in the case of education for example<br />Each child visited periodically (e.g. Every 6 months& data collected )<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />4<br />
  5. 5. CSI Implementation<br />We piloted in Kenya and Zambia with 200 OVCs per agency(total 1,800 children)<br />Trainings conducted in both countries project staff(especially field based staff, volunteers, local church pastors who would act as data collectors in their community<br />Training included role playing & site visits<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />5<br />
  6. 6. CSI implementation<br />1st visit (approx. 1,800) first visited and first round of data collected between late 2008 & early 2009. <br />2nd visit (to the same children)-done late 2009-early 2010 & using the same tool & data collectors (in most cases), 2nd round data collected<br />Both data sets aggregated to make an overall comparison & determine whether or not there were changes that took place within the year of implementation<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />6<br />
  7. 7. Some strengths of the CSI tool<br />Helps OVC project implementers to improve on qualitative aspects of reporting (impact, quality…)<br />Can help implementers to focus their services to what is actually needed & address emerging negative trends <br />It’s fairly cheap to implement & easy to understand with simple training<br />The CSI domains are consistent with the essential services – this maximizes on existing knowledge/understanding<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />7<br />
  8. 8. Some weaknesses with the tool<br />Each ranking has many “conditions” and in our opinion it can be a challenge to data collectors with limited education <br />Sometimes caregivers want to provide information that expresses what they think is the “right answer”. Sometimes they may down play impact for fear of losing services<br />Scoring depends on subjective judgement of the data collector. If different people collect data on each visit, scoring may change considerably making comparison difficult<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />8<br />
  9. 9. Some of the Findings- Kenya/Zambia<br />OVC Nutrition & Growth status- Kenya<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />9<br />
  10. 10. Some of the Findings-Kenya/Zambia<br />OVC Physical Health (wellness)-Kenya<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />10<br />
  11. 11. Some of the Findings-Kenya/Zambia<br />OVC Emotional Health Status-Kenya<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />11<br />
  12. 12. Some of the Findings-Kenya/Zambia<br />OVC Food Security Status - Zambia<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />12<br />
  13. 13. Some of the Findings-Kenya/Zambia<br />OVC Performance in School- Zambia<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />13<br />
  14. 14. Some of the Findings-Kenya/Zambia<br />OVC Shelter Status- Zambia<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />14<br />
  15. 15. Therefore with CSI, <br />We were able to,<br /> Evaluate the possible impact of the project on child well being at a lower cost<br /> Plan better resource allocation on areas of need<br /> Respond to emerging issues (over time, project would be able to arrest emerging negative trends early)<br />END<br />www.worldconcern.org<br />15<br />