Care Group
Technical Advisory Group
(TAG) Meeting
2010 TAG Goal
Assess various enablers and barriers
to the use of sustainable Care Groups
at scale in various settings and
...
Objectives
1. Review the evidence base regarding the Care Group
approach
2. Explore experiences with national adoption and...
Output
• Position paper that reviews the
implications of current innovations, scale
up and research on Care Groups in Titl...
Introductions
Large Group:
• Name
• Organization
• Country (if not US)
Triad:
• Experience with Care Groups
Questions on national adoption
and scale
1. What do we know about merging traditional CGs into government
structures?
2. W...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Care Group Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meeting

360 views
264 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
360
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • What is a TAG – opportunity to bring experienced practitioners and researchers together to explore and answer key implementation questions
    Differentiate from SOTA
    Closed, invitation only meeting
    Concrete outputs
    Previous CG TAG 2010
  • Most of the work at this point was with sub-national programs with up to 220,000 beneficiaries
    Environment with increased focus on government CHWs and how Care Group volunteers and structure could complement and extend this
    Scale experience was mainly with Rwanda integrating CGs and government CHWs; Burundi starting to experiment with less-resource intensive model with CHWs supervising CGs

    Outputs:
    Key messages for scale up including barriers and enablers, roles and responsibilities
    Recommendation for step-by-step facilitators guide to be developed to support scale up (FH CG Training Manual for Program Design and Implementation available now)
    Research and information gaps
    Advocacy and communication – packaging the definition, minimum criteria and outcome data for consistent messaging; differentiation of approach and when it should be considered;
  • Why now – session at CORE 2013 Spring meeting brought out recent peer-reviewed journal articles and that results coming in from various experiences and OR efforts in next year; Expansion of experience beyond CSHGP to Title II programming and FAFSA-2 evaluation with CGs as promising model
    Therefore opportune time to bring people together to discuss implications.
    CORE then applied for TOPS microgrant
    Very happy to be able to bring in several field-based implementers

    Agenda topics – emerged from discussions with steering committee (and USAID) and focused on topics where there was enough evidence base to facilitate good discussion and consensus building; omitted interesting experiences without enough experience to draw conclusions – these could lend themselves well to webinars with a larger audience

    Steering committee:
    Karen LeBan, CORE
    Mary DeCoster, TOPS
    Jennifer Burns, IMC
    Alexandra Rutishauser-Perera, IMC
    Jennifer Weiss, Concern Worldwide
    Henry Perry, JHU
    Carolyn Wetzel, FH
    Tom Davis, Feed the Children
    Cindy Pfitzenmaier, PCI


  • Potentially directed at donors on effectiveness of CGs and rationale for further investment (to be developed into a submission to a peer-reviewed journal)

    Sharon Tobing will be taking notes
    Henry Perry will write a position paper


  • Care Group Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meeting

    1. 1. Care Group Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meeting
    2. 2. 2010 TAG Goal Assess various enablers and barriers to the use of sustainable Care Groups at scale in various settings and develop guidance for the design of “at scale” Care Group programs.
    3. 3. Objectives 1. Review the evidence base regarding the Care Group approach 2. Explore experiences with national adoption and scaling up especially in the food security context 3. Explore the implications of recent innovations and evaluations for programming efforts 4. Identify recommendations for effective training and quality control approaches to ensure that Care Groups maintain a participatory, peer learning environment for achieving behavior change 5. Identify next steps, including recommendations for a research agenda and opportunities for informing donor and implementer audiences about experiences with Care Groups in various contexts and sectors
    4. 4. Output • Position paper that reviews the implications of current innovations, scale up and research on Care Groups in Title II programs and other programs.
    5. 5. Introductions Large Group: • Name • Organization • Country (if not US) Triad: • Experience with Care Groups
    6. 6. Questions on national adoption and scale 1. What do we know about merging traditional CGs into government structures? 2. What specific issues are problematic for MOH and need to be resolved in order to facilitate national adoption (ex. who serves as the promoter, who pays the promoter)? 3. How do the Care Groups relate to other national Community Health Worker programs? 4. At what point do the modifications for national adoption evolve into a different approach from Care Groups? What are the implications of this (if any)? 5. How do we build MOH capacity to implement and expand Care Groups? 6. What would be the role of NGOs as the MOH incorporates Care Groups? 7. What is the vision for Care Group scale-up? 8. What are the overall recommendations related to national adoption and scale-up?

    ×