Care Groups: Lessons Learned, Project Evaluations 2009-2011 Tom Davis Senior Director of Program Quality Improvement Food for the Hungry
Spread of Care Groups <ul><li>Twelve years ago, only two PVOs (WR and FH) using the model. Now…. </li></ul><ul><li>20 or more organizations </li></ul><ul><li>16 or more countries </li></ul>
Organizations known to be using Care Groups: ADRA Africare American Red Cross CARE Concern Worldwide Catholic Relief Services Curamericas Emmanuel International Food for the Hungry GOAL International Aid International Medical Corps International Rescue Committee Medical Teams Interenational Pathfinder PLAN Salvation Army World Service Save the Children World Relief World Vision
Countries where Care Groups are known to be in use: Bolivia Burundi Cambodia DRC Ethiopia Guatemala Haiti Indonesia Kenya Liberia Malawi Mozambique Niger Philippines Rwanda Uganda Zambia
Reduction in U5MR (BLSC, updated ) <ul><li>U5MR across projects </li></ul>
Estimated Lives Saved Across Care Group Projects For modeling, factors in budget amt. vs. 3M.
Comparisons <ul><li>Evidence that Care Groups have routinely outperformed the average U5MR reduction of CSHGP projects (by 67%). (Note: CSHGP includes CGs) </li></ul><ul><li>Care Group projects save on average 49% more lives than the average CG project (7% more if removing outliers) , ranging from 88% to 492% of the average. 5 of 9 projects outperformed the average number of lives saved. </li></ul><ul><li>… but some evidence of under-estimation of lives saved when using the LIST and BLSCs as compared to direct measurement: </li></ul><ul><li>37% U5MR reduction (BLSC) for FH/Moz CSHGP, 30% with LIST, but 81% reduction in U2MR by direct community measurement by CGVs (retros. study pending). </li></ul><ul><li>7% U5MR reduction (BLSC) for FH/Moz DAP (only 4 indicators “fit” with BLSC), but 73% reduction in U5MR for same period from retrospective mortality study (JHU). </li></ul><ul><li>33% U5MR reduction for WR/Moz (Vur II, BLSC), 42% reduction in retrospective study (published), and 62% U5MR reduction from direct community measurement. </li></ul><ul><li>Possible reasons for differences: CGs affect many indicators, and usually many MCH interventions, but not all indicators measured in KPCs (so BLSC and LIST may not capture all changes). We need to do better measurement. </li></ul>
E X A M P L E No RH intervention … but RH impact (through promoting antenatal care during maternal nutrition module).
Closing <ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>Important to continue to focus on cost per life saved and to find ways to boost project populations. </li></ul><ul><li>CORE’s role is important in providing a structure that enables PVOs/ NGOs / other practitioners to share and diffuse lessons learned and innovations, and to equip them to take lessons learned out to a broader audience (e.g., national MOHs, multilaterals). (CORE’s involvement in TOPS Project will help with this.) </li></ul><ul><li>Application of BCC lessons to other sectors? </li></ul>
The preceding slides were presented at the CORE Group 2010 Fall Meeting Washington, DC To see similar presentations, please visit: www.coregroup.org/resources/meetingreports