Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Integrated Community Case Management Program Review_Marsh_10.11.12
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Integrated Community Case Management Program Review_Marsh_10.11.12

  • 3,478 views
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,478
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. COMMUNITY CASE MANAGEMENT : A REVIEWOF 22 CSHGP PROJECTS SINCE 2000David Marsh, Laban Tsuma, Katherine Farnsworth,Kirsten Unfried, Elizabeth Jenkins CORE Fall Meeting FHI Conference Center Washington, DC – October 12, 2012
  • 2. BACKGROUND
  • 3. Scope of ReviewAs part of the Program Learning Agenda ofCSHGP:• Highlight patterns of learning related to CCM in through landscape review and in-depth case studies• Make practical recommendations, especially for active grantees
  • 4. METHODS
  • 5. Studies• Landscape “overall” survey (n=22)• Indicator survey (n=22)• Benchmark maps (n=4)• Case studies (n=3)
  • 6. Sampling (landscape and indicator)• CSHGP projects since October 2000: 152• Projects with some effort controlling pneumonia, malaria and/or diarrhea: 123• Selection criteria • Curative interventions delivered in the community. • Level of effort • >35% level of effort (completed) • no minimum (on-going) • Excluded controlling diarrheal disease only • Level of documentation of CCM and context: “high”
  • 7. Framework* (landscape, cases) Unintended Outcomes (Good and Bad) GOAL: Mortality/Morbidity Improved Outcome Evaluation External Factors Objective 1: Use of Objective 2: Health Interventions Improved System Strengthened IR 1 IR 2 IR 3 IR 4 Access Quality Demand Policy improved improved improved enabled Process Evaluation Processes to improve Processes to improve Processes to improve Processes to improve access quality demand policy Other or cross-cutting processes*Marsh, DR, Hamer DH, Pagnoni F, Peterson S, AJTMH, 2012 (in press). IR=Intermediate Result
  • 8. Variables & data collection (landscape)• Identification (NGO, country, • First teams, then years)• National CCM strategy (age a single group, syndromes, treatments, researcher CHW)• Project context (mortality, population, ecology, settlement • 68-item data characteristics, baseline coverage, extraction form non-CCM interventions supported, representativeness of impact area)• Project strategies and • DIP, MTE, FE, approaches (to increase access to, quality of, demand for, or the research protocol, enabling of the environment for publication services delivering CCM)• Results (CCM-related mortality; From intervention coverage, use, access, quality, demand, environment) framework
  • 9. Validation: expert vs. intern (landscape) Rwanda Ethiopia 40 35 34 29 28 35 30 30 25 25 18 20# 20 15 # 15 15 10 10 6 5 5 1 0 5 0 0 0 N=68 N=68
  • 10. Analysis (landscape)• Themes (11), each with lead analyst• Tabulated each variable • Quantitatively: present, absent, not known, or not clear • Qualitatively: documented findings from “present” information• Researcher meetings for consensus on conclusions• Stratified projects into • Completed • On-going, pre-mid-term evaluation • On-going, post-mid-term evaluation
  • 11. Indicator survey (n=22)• Reviewed M&E tables in Detailed Implementation Plans• Compared CCM indicators (phenomena, not definitions) to current recommendations• Calculated: • “Indicator yield” (% projects with the indicator) • “Indicator density” (% indicators within a project)
  • 12. Benchmark mapping (n=4)• Selection criteria: promising cases with knowledgeable informants• Respondent: headquarters and country NGO staff• Assessed all 68 benchmarks for status of national CCM program (yes/partial/no)• Assessed NGO role in all national “yes/partial” achievements• Vetted by independent national expert: UNICEF, MCHIP, MOH• Experimented with displays
  • 13. Benchmarks for Community Case Management: Component x Program Phase* Component Advocacy and Planning Pilot and Early Implementation Expansion/Scale-up a) Mapping CCM partners conducted b) Technical advisory group (TAG) established, including community1: Coordina-tion f) MOH CCM leadership established h) MOH leadership institutionalized leaders, CCM champion & CHW representationand Policy c) Needs assessment and situation analysis conductedSetting d) Stakeholder meetings held to define roles and discuss policies g) Policy discussions (if necessary) completed i) Stakeholder meetings regularly held e) National policies and guidelines reviewed e) Long-term strategy developed for sustainability and a) CCM costing estimates made based on all service requirements c) Financing gap analysis completed2: Costing and financial viabilityFinancing b) Finances secured for CCM medicines, supplies, and all program d) MOH funds invested in CCM f) MOH investment sustained in CCM costs a) Roles defined for CHWs, communities and referral service e) Role and expectations of CHW made clear h) Process for update and discussion of role/expectation providers to community and referral service providers for CHW in place b) Criteria defined for CHW recruitment3: Human c) Training plan developed for CHW training and refreshing (modules, f) CHWs trained i) CHWs refreshedResources training of trainers, monitoring and evaluation) g) CHW retention strategies j) CHW retention strategies reviewed and revised d) CHW retention strategies (incentive/motivation) developed (incentive/motivation) implemented k) Advancement, promotion, retirement offered a) Medicines and supplies (i.e., RDTs) included in essential drug list and consistent with national policies4: Supply chain e) Medicines and supplies procured g) Stocks of medicines & supplies monitored at all levels b) Quantifications completed for CCM medicines and suppliesmanagement c) Procurement plan developed for medicines and supplies d) Inventory control and resupply logistic system developed f) Systems implemented h) Systems adapted and effective a) Plan developed for rational use of medicines (and RDTs) d) Good quality CCM delivered g) Timely receipt of CCM is the norm5: Service e) Guidelines reviewed and modified based onDelivery and b) Guidelines developed for case management and referral h) Guidelines reviewed and modified by experience pilotReferral c) Referral and counter referral system developed f) Systems implemented i) Systems working6: Communi- a) CSM strategies developed for policy makers, local leaders, health d) CSM plans implementedcation and providers, CHWs, and communities g) CSM plan and implementation reviewed and refinedSocial b) CSM content for materials (training, job aids etc) developed e) Materials producedMobilization c) Messages, materials and targets for CCM defined f) CHWs deliver messages d) Supervision every 1-3 months, with a) Supervision checklists and other tools developed g) CHWs routinely supervised for QA and performance7: Supervision & reviewing reports, monitoring of dataPerformance e) Supervisor visits community, makes home h) Data from reports and community feed-back used for b) Supervision plan establishedQuality visits, coaches problem solving and coachingAssurance f) CCM supervision is part of supervisors i) Yearly evaluation includes individual performance and c) Supervisors trained and equipped with supervision tools performance review coverage or monitoring data8: M & E and a) Monitoring framework developed for all components with e) Monitoring framework tested & modified h) Monitoring & evaluation on-going through HMIS data information sources accordinglyHealth b) Registers and report forms standardized f) Registers and forms reviewedInformation i) OR and external evaluations of CCM performed as c) Indicators and standards for HMIS and CCM surveys defined g) All levels trained to use framework,Systems necessary d) Research agenda for CCM documented and circulated *Proposed "Milestone Indicators" in yellow (TRAction) Omitted: CCM Target areas defined. Omitted: CHW deployed with initial drug kit Proposed "Implementation Strength Indicators" in blue (JHU, IIP)
  • 14. Case studies (n=3)• Selection criteria: • Good documentation (Ethiopia, Rwanda) • Unusual context (post-conflict in Sierra Leone) • All 3 completed projects with benchmark map• 46-item “fill-in-the-blanks” template, • Like a hospital discharge summary with recognizable sections and expected content • Health context; project objectives; CCM context; strategies and approaches to improve access, quality, demand and environment; CCM tools; results, “special accomplishments”
  • 15. Case studies’ grammar• Active voice• Parallel structure• Extreme word economy• Heading and sub-headings• Quantitative findings “with a human face”• In short: “clear, concise, consistent, coherent, conventional, complete, and courageous”**”Good First Drafts: Training for Better Writing,” Hanoi, 2008
  • 16. Case study template: paragraph 1Situation XXXi has a high under five mortality rate (XXXii [XXX]iii), with manypreventable child deaths due to pneumonia (##iv%), malaria (##%) and diarrhea(##%). Baseline levels of coverage of curative interventions were XXXv and XXX forcare-seeking for and treatment of ARI needing assessment, XXX for treatment ofdiarrhea with ORS, and XXX for treatment of fever/malaria (XXXvi). Thus, XXX’svii #-year “XXXviii Project” (20##-20##ix) aims/aimed to improve the health and survivalof ##,000 children under five years of age through increasing the use of highimpact treatment interventions delivered through the Community CaseManagement Strategy (CCM).i Name of countryii Level of under five mortalityiii Source of U5MRiv Proportionate mortality value – from MGD reportv Indicator valuesvi Source of indicator values.vii Name of NGOviii Name of projectix Project dates
  • 17. Case study template: paragraph 1aSituation Name of country has a high under five mortality rate (levelof under five mortality [source of U5MR]), with many preventablechild deaths due to pneumonia (proportionate mortality value%),malaria (ditto%) and diarrhea (ditto%) (source). Baseline levels ofcoverage of curative interventions by were indicator value% andditto% for care-seeking for and treatment of ARI needingassessment, ditto% and ditto% for treatment of diarrhea with ORSand zinc, and ditto% for treatment of fever/malaria (source ofindicator values, date). Thus, name of NGO’s duration-year “name ofproject Project” (project dates) aims/aimed to improve the healthand survival of number of children under five years of age throughincreasing the use of high impact treatment interventions deliveredthrough the Community Case Management Strategy (CCM).
  • 18. RESULTS
  • 19. Sample• 22 Projects (10 completed, 12 on-going) • 20 in sub-Saharan Africa and malaria-endemic• High mortality (U5MR: 180 vs. 166 in completed vs. on-going)• Levels of effort to control pneumonia, malaria and diarrhea (56.2% completed; 53.4% on-going)• CCM more common in on-going than completed projects (# projects commencing per year: 2.4 vs. 1.7)
  • 20. Timelines of Reviewed Projects SC/Malawi CWI/Sierra LeoneRed = on-going CHS/Benin WV/South SudanBlack = completed SC/Zambia = mid-term evaluation CWI/Niger MTI/Uganda CFI/Honduras CWI/Burundi WV/Afghanistan ERD Uganda SC/Ethiopia-2 CWI/Rwanda MCDI/Madagascar PLAN/Cameroon CRS/DRC SC/Mali WR/Mozambique IRC/Sierra Leone IRC/DRC CFI/Senegal SC/Ethiopia 2000 2005 2010 2015
  • 21. 0% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% ORS Zinc Antimalarial CWI Rwanda (07-11) Antibiotic Pneumonia CS ORS Zinc Antimalarial MCDI (07-n/a) Antibiotic Madagascar Pneumonia CS ORS Zinc Antimalarial PLAN (06-10) Antibiotic Cameroon Pneumonia CS ORS Zinc Antimalarial CRS DRC (06-10) Antibiotic Pneumonia CS ORS Endline Zinc Antimalarial IRC DRC (03-07) Antibiotic Pneumonia CS ORS Zinc Antimalarial IRC (04-08) Antibiotic (06-08) Sierra Leone Baseline Pneumonia CS ORS Zinc SC Antimalarial Mali (05-09) Antibiotic Pneumonia CS ORS Zinc CFI Antimalarial Senegal (02-06) Antibiotic Pneumonia CS ORS Zinc SC Antimalarial Coverage (%) of Curative Interventions by Indicator and Country Ethiopia (01-06) Antibiotic Pneumonia CS ORSThousands of lives saved! But that’s not today’s topic. Zinc Antimalarial WRC (04-09) Antibiotic Mozambique Pneumonia CS
  • 22. n=51 indicators
  • 23. KeyFig 2E: CCM National Benchmarks: Rwanda* 1a. Mapping 5a. Rational med use 1b. TAG est’d 5b. CCM guidelines 1c. Needs ass’d 5c. Referral guidelines Component Advocacy and Pilot and Early Expansion and 1d. Stakehold mtgs 5d. CCM implemented Planning Implementation Scale Up 1e. Policy rev 5e. Guide rev p pilot 1f. MOH lead est’d 5f. Systems impl 1g. Pol rev done 5g. Timely CCM use1. Coordination 1h. MOH lead inst 5h. Guide rev @ scale& Policy Setting a b c d e f g h i 1i. Regular mtgs 5i. Systems working 2a. Costing 6a. CSM strategy 2b. Finances had 6b. CSM content2. Costing & 2c. Gap analysis 6c. CSM messages a b c d e fFinance 2d. MOH invested 6d. CSM plan 2e. Long fin’l strat 6e. CSM materials 2f. MOH inv sust’d 6f. CHWs deliver3. HumanResources a b c d e f g h i j k 3a. CHW role def 6g. CSM plan rev 3b. Recruit strat 7a. Sup’n tools 3c. Training strat 7b. Sup’n strategy 3d. Retain strat 7c. Sup’rs trained4. Supply Chain a b c d e f g h 3e. Role commun 7d. Sup’n q 3mManagement 3f. CHWs trained 7e. Sup’n @ comm 3g. Retain impl 7f. Sup’r perf rev 3h. Role rev 7g. Sup’n w QA5. Service Del. & a b c d e f g h i 3i. Refresher trg 7h. Data usedReferral 3j. Retain rev 7i CHW perf rev 3k. CHW career 8a. M&E framework6. Communic. & 4a. Meds on ED lst 8b. Register/report a b c d e f g 4b. Quantification 8c. IndicatorsSocial Mobil. 4c. Procur’t plan 8d. Research agenda 4d. LMIS dev’d 8e. Framework rev7. Supervision & 4e. Meds procured 8f. Docs rev a b c d e f g h i 4f. LMIS impl 8g. Framework trgPerformance QA 4g. Stock monit. 8h. Monitoring impl 4h. LMIS effective 8i. OR/eval impl8. M&E and HIS a b c d e f g h i Green=achieved; yellow=partially achieved; red=not achieved* Reported by Rose Luz, Concern Worldwide, Kigali, Rwanda, April 19, 2012
  • 24. KeyFig 2F: Rwanda Benchmarks: NGO Role* 1a. Mapping 5a. Rational med use 1b. TAG est’d 5b. CCM guidelines 1c. Needs ass’d 5c. Referral guidelines Component Advocacy and Pilot and Early Expansion and 1d. Stakehold mtgs 5d. CCM implemented Planning Implementation Scale Up 1e. Policy rev 5e. Guide rev p pilot 1f. MOH lead est’d 5f. Systems impl 1g. Pol rev done 5g. Timely CCM use1. Coordination 1h. MOH lead inst 5h. Guide rev @ scale& Policy Setting a b c d e f g h i 1i. Regular mtgs 5i. Systems working 2a. Costing 6a. CSM strategy 2b. Finances had 6b. CSM content2. Costing &Finance a b c d e f 2c. Gap analysis 6c. CSM messages 2d. MOH invested 6d. CSM plan 2e. Long fin’l strat 6e. CSM materials 2f. MOH inv sust’d 6f. CHWs deliver3. HumanResources a b c d e f g h i J k 3a. CHW role def 6g. CSM plan rev 3b. Recruit strat 7a. Sup’n tools 3c. Training strat 7b. Sup’n strategy 3d. Retain strat 7c. Sup’rs trained4. Supply ChainManagement a b c d e f g h 3e. Role commun 7d. Sup’n q 3m 3f. CHWs trained 7e. Sup’n @ comm 3g. Retain impl 7f. Sup’r perf rev 3h. Role rev 7g. Sup’n w QA5. Service Del. &Referral a b c d e f g h i 3i. Refresher trg 7h. Data used 3j. Retain rev 7i CHW perf rev 3k. CHW career 8a. M&E framework6. Communic. & 4a. Meds on ED lst 8b. Register/reportSocial Mobil. a b c d e f g 4b. Quantification 8c. Indicators 4c. Procur’t plan 8d. Research agenda 4d. LMIS dev’d 8e. Framework rev7. Supervision & 4e. Meds procured 8f. Docs revPerformance QA a b c d e f g h i 4f. LMIS impl 8g. Framework trg 4g. Stock monit. 8h. Monitoring impl 4h. LMIS effective 8i. OR/eval impl Green=achieved; yellow=partially8. M&E and HIS a b c d e f g h i achieved; red=not achieved; dark green=NGO helped achieve national benchmark*Reported by Rose Luz, Concern Worldwide, Kigali, Rwanda, April 19, 2012
  • 25. Case Study 1*: Community Case Management Saves Lives in a Post-ConflictSetting: Kono District, Sierra Leone, 2003-2008Situation Sierra Leone had a high under five mortality rate (284/1000 [UNICEF, 2003]), withmany preventable child deaths due to pneumonia, diarrhea and malaria (proportionatemortality: 26, 20, and 12%, respectively) (WHO, 2006). Baseline levels of coverage forcurative interventions were 20% for care-seeking for treatment of ARI needing assessment,70% for treatment of diarrhea with ORS, and 24% for treatment of fever/malaria (KAP,2003). Thus, International Rescue Committee’s 5-year “Kono Child Survival Project” (2003-2008) aimed to improve the health and survival of 17,000 children under five years of agethrough increasing the use of high impact treatment interventions delivered through theCommunity Case Management (CCM) strategy.CCM Context The impact area, Kono District in Eastern Province, was the center of theSierra Leone Civil War (1991–2002), which resulted in infrastructure breakdown anddisplacement of thousands. Health services were interrupted, and coverage rates remainedlow during the rebuilding process. The CCM package included curative interventions for sickchildren under five years of age: cotrimoxazole for pneumonia/ARI, oral rehydrationsolution (ORS) and zinc for diarrhea, and artemisinin-combination therapy (ACT) formalaria. The community health workers who delivered CCM were an official, unsalaried,low literate, generally male cadre.*1044 words
  • 26. Strategies Strategies and approaches to increase access to CCM included: (1) village-selected CHWs, (2) extension of services to all villages served by Peripheral Health Units(PHUs), (3) referral registers to increase referral success to PHUs, and (4) retention ofCHWs through motivation including training and feedback. Approaches to assure CCMquality through medicine availability included: (1) working with the Ministry of Health andSanitation (MoHS) and UNICEF to develop a sustainable supply of ORS, zinc and ACT duringthe project and (2) subsidized ORS packets. Approaches to assure the CCM qualitythrough training included District Health Management Team (DHMT) and IRC staff trainingPHU staff in quality assurance and improvement. Approaches to assure the CCM qualitythrough supervision included: (1) monthly CHW meetings to problem-solve, (2) regularmeetings of CHWs with PHU staff to discuss monthly reports, and (3) on-site supervision ofCHWs by PHU and Project staff to assess competence and effectiveness. Strategies toincrease demand for CCM services included: (1) sensitization and community healtheducation and (2) multi-channel behavior change communication (radio, flashcards,posters, interpersonal communication, and skits). Strategies to enable the communityenvironment for CCM included: (1) working with community leaders and well-knowncommunity members and (2) partnerships with women’s groups for fundraising, eventorganization and CHW support. Strategies to enable the national environment for CCMincluded evaluating the impact of diarrhea prevention strategies and pricing on ORSdemand and use. Measures of success included indicators of use (% of children withdifficult breathing who receive correct treatment within 24 hours from authorizedproviders; % with diarrhea who receive zinc), quality (% of caretakers satisfied with qualityof diarrhea care at PHUs), and demand (% mothers who know at least two signs ofchildhood illness).
  • 27. Tools Key CCM forms used by CHWs – patient register, drug register and referral tickets – wereadapted for low-literate workers and included graphics. A referral ticket, a picture of therelevant danger sign, was given to the mother of the sick child to take to the health facility.CHW supervisors used a Quality of Care checklist to assess CHWs monthly. Supervisorsobserved supplies of drugs and other materials, evaluated CHWs’ ability to determine fastbreathing by using a respiratory timer and knowledge of danger signs and cut off points forfast breathing/pneumonia, and performed a compliance check (a visit to a child that wasrecently treated by the CHW). Each supervisor compiled a monthly report (a single formcontaining information from all his/her CHWs) drawn from the Quality of Care checklist. Ahealth facility monthly report aggregated supervisor reports for a health facility catchmentarea.Results Main quantitative results are presented in the table. Baseline values weresometimes unavailable because CCM was not initially a program strategy. Overall, the Projectdecreased rates of under-five mortality by half in Kono District (Table) as determined by amortality assessment completed by the Project.* The Project likely achieved this throughincreased treatment and increased household knowledge of and care-seeking for signs ofpneumonia, malaria, and diarrhea. What distinguished the Project was its post-conflict setting,collaboration with various levels of the health system, particularly the DHMT and localwomen’s groups, and the impact on the country’s health policy. Approval of the CCM strategyat the national level contributed to expansion in other areas of the country and bolstered thedecentralization of health services. The main challenges were the late addition of CCM (2007)into the project (and LOE) and the non-salaried CHW position, which jeopardized retentionand sustainability. This program experienced a stock-out of zinc beginning in April 2008because the existing supplies had expired and there were no new stocks available.
  • 28. Main Project Results Result Indicator Global Baseline EndlineQuality % caretakers satisfied with quality of diarrhea care at PHUsAssuredDemand % of mothers of children 0-11 mo who recognize rapid of difficult breathing Yes 7% n/aMobilized as a danger sign for childhood illness (#38)Use % of children 12-23 mo whose last bout of diarrhea was treated with ORS <20% >45%(Coverage) % of children less than five years of age whose diarrhea is treated with oral n/a 86%Increased rehydration fluids. (ORS) % of children with diarrhea who receive zinc n/a 57% % of children <5 who receive correct first-line treatment for fever within 24 Yes 11% 56% hours (#22) (MTE) % of children 0-23 mo who slept under a correctly treated bed net the 1% 83% previous night % of sick children who receive increased fluids 28% 46% % of children less than five years of age with difficult breathing who receive 42% 86% correct treatment within 24 hours from authorized providers (MTE) %of children 0-23 mo whose mother reports hand washing with soap/ash 13 30 before food preparation, feeding children, after defecation and attending to child who has defecated %of children 0-23 mo whose mother reports hand washing on 2 occasions 45 78Mortality deaths/1,000/month among children < 59 mo 6.1 3.1 deaths/1,000/month among children > 59 mo 2.7 3.2
  • 29. CONCLUSIONS
  • 30. Landscape review• Sought “what did we learn?” – a bit unfocused.• Missing data: difficult to attribute gaps to programs, documentation or research methods• Incommensurable data• Secondary data analysis informs experience but not the breadth of experience, quantitative levels of specific parameters or best practices• CCM best practices have advanced beyond most projects and documentation• Least satisfactory, but most time-consuming (by far), study
  • 31. Indicator survey• Sought discreet information, and we knew where to look (required DIP annex)• Good information yield (21/22 projects with information)• Indicator yield generally low, but some projects had high indicator density nearly testing half of all (51) indicators• Grantees can apply and test focused, even ambitious, innovations.
  • 32. Benchmark mapping• Sought much new information: 68 x 2 data points, and we knew whom to ask• Great information yield from key informants (4/4 projects with complete information)• Grantees can have national influence, which might have gone under-noticed without asking.• Validity of method and effectiveness of display are uncertain.
  • 33. Case studies• Sought much old, largely “hidden” information (46 items, some with 3+ sub-items), and we knew whom to ask• Required iterative dialogue with >1 informant.• Cases show, all in one place: • National and CCM context • Promising, perhaps “best,” practices (approaches) • National influence (IR-4) • Results (coverage, mortality)
  • 34. From this…
  • 35. From this… …to this!
  • 36. Recommendation 1 • Concise, structured project summaries (= “case study”) for all projects to: • Build capacity in systematic thinking and forceful writing • Highlight program learning • Apply and report on standard CCM indicators • Serve as an accessible, searchable archive • Easy to complete at “documentable moments” • Application, DIP, mid-term evaluation and final evaluation**PI completed a case study for SC/Ethiopia-2 during the final evaluation inAugust 2012 in about an hour – when details were “fresh”
  • 37. Recommendation 2• Benchmark mapping to: • Prompt grantee’s national-level thinking • Provide a context for grantee to engage MOH partner • Build capacity in health systems thinking • Highlight areas where grantee can contribute • Assign grantee attribution • Measure change (through multiple measurements)• Easy to complete at “documentable moments” • Application • DIP • Mid-term and final evaluation
  • 38. Recommendation 3• Develop a grantee documentation capacity- building strategy to: • Recognize “a story-line” • Document (“If it’s not documented, it never happened”) • Publish (“If it’s not published, it doesn’t matter”)
  • 39. Recommendation 4• Convene a Technical Advisory Group to codify best practices, using • CCM Essentials • Published experience and evidence • Accumulated incompletely or undocumented experience • This review