Similar to Monitoring and Evaluation at the Community Level: A Strategic Review of MEASURE Evaluation, Phase III Accomplishments and Lessons Learned (20)
Sustaining the Impact: MEASURE Evaluation Conversation on Health Informatics
Monitoring and Evaluation at the Community Level: A Strategic Review of MEASURE Evaluation, Phase III Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
1. Monitoring and Evaluation
at the Community Level
A Strategic Review of MEASURE Evaluation,
Phase III Accomplishments and Lessons
Learned
Cristina de la Torre & Kirsten Unfried
2. Objectives
Describe MEASURE Evaluation contributions
Document best practices, innovative
approaches, and lessons learned
Identify gaps
Develop recommendations for future support
for community-level M&E systems
3. Community M&E
Global
National
District
Health facility
CBO/NGO
Community
Community
M&E
activities
Service delivery point
4. Methods
Desk review & search project
databases
Activity lead survey
Internal consultations and
discussions
Synthesize information using
the MEASURE Evaluation
framework
5. Project accomplishments
50+ activities in multiple countries
Mostly HIV and OVC-related
Emphasis on the production of data
Support reporting systems, develop indicators and
tools, train in data collection, promote data quality
Less attention to data use
System strengthening (M&E plans, M&E skills)
6. Key Challenges
Not unique to CBIS, but more pronounced at this level
Low M&E capacity
Lack of resources for M&E at the CBO level
Poor data quality
Over-burdened community workers
No demand for data
Data for reporting purposes not for decision-making
Data is not accessible in practical way to those who
could use it
7. Best practices
Involve stakeholders in all planning activities
(TWG)
Obtain feedback from community workers
Intensive capacity building, supervision,
mentoring, and data quality checks
Participatory M&E to facilitate data use
Simple and minimalistic tools
9. Data for whom? For what purpose?
Better understand the types of
decisions around community
services
Client management
Program management
Reporting
May not collect the most
useful data
Global
National
District
Health facility
CBO/NGO
Community Service delivery
Community indicators lacking for non-HIV
10. Data collection ≠ data accessibility
Data in a format that can easily be interpreted
Need better solutions
Dashboards, DHIS2, mHealth, mapping can help
Innovative low-tech solutions can too
Family folders, posters, “decision days”
11. Guidance for the integration of
community information systems
Integrate community data into national RHIS
Integrate CBIS across health areas
Integrate CBIS across sectors
The same CW tracking health, food security,
nutrition, education etc.
12. Capacity Building (CB)
CB needs to happen at all levels
CB strategies need to be adjusted to the target
audience based on their skill-set and M&E
responsibilities
Training vs mentoring
Need to better share CB strategies and curricula
13. What constitutes a strong CBIS?
We have pieces but not the big picture
Respond to information needs of multiple
stakeholders
Consensus and prioritization of indicators
Data collected needs to help verify, support and
improve the work carried out by CWs.
Alignment of M&E plans
Realistic assessment of the skills and resources
OVC case studies should be replicated more broadly
14. CBIS strategic approach needed for
the MEASURE Evaluation project
Coordinate efforts
Contribute to a learning agenda
Prioritize efforts
Ensure the exchange of information and M&E
materials (e.g. training curricula)
15. The research presented here has been supported by the
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
through the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) under the terms of MEASURE
Evaluation cooperative agreement GHA-A-00-08-00003-
00. Views expressed are not necessarily those of
PEPFAR, USAID or the United States government.
MEASURE Evaluation is implemented by the Carolina
Population Center at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill in partnership with Futures Group, ICF
International, John Snow, Inc., Management Sciences for
Health, and Tulane University.