Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Using Data to Support the Most Vulnerable: An OVC Information Needs Framework

1,044 views

Published on

The "Using Data to Support the Most Vulnerable: An OVC Information Needs Framework" webinar, organized by the HIV/AIDS Monitoring and Evaluation Network (AIMEnet), presented the OVC Information Needs Framework. MEASURE Evaluation's Molly Cannon and Lisa Parker led the one-hour webinar.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Using Data to Support the Most Vulnerable: An OVC Information Needs Framework

  1. 1. Using Data to Support the Most Vulnerable: An OVC Information Needs Framework Molly Cannon, Lisa Parker AIMEnet Webinar September 10, 2015
  2. 2. Objectives Learners will be able to: • List different types of information needs of community based OVC programs • Discuss the importance of data collection tools being driven by a specific information need • Give examples of different tools available to assess different types of OVC program information needs
  3. 3. PEPFAR OVC Guidance (2012) “Programming for children orphaned and made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS contributes to the achievement of an AIDS-free generation by responding to the social (including economic) and emotional consequences of the disease on children, their families, and communities that support them.”
  4. 4. 4 Volunteer Home Visitors CBO Sectors that Address Child Vulnerability
  5. 5. M&E Challenges 1) Disconnect 2) Collecting information on every child at every encounter • Ethics • Burden • Data quality 3) Massive amounts of data – issues related to data management, backlog of information, databases
  6. 6. Why an Information Needs Framework? • There are many different types of information needs that stakeholders have • Information needs/questions require different tools and methods or “tools fit for purpose” • With new reporting requirements and guidance, the framework can help us see how the pieces fit together
  7. 7. What is the Framework? • 10 different information needs related to OVC programs  Illustrative questions  Recommendations on methods  Who collects the information  How frequently • Color coded to illustrate information needs of different users
  8. 8. EXAMPLES OF FRAMEWORK APPLICATION
  9. 9. Uganda – Vulnerability Index • Existing national tool developed for multiple purposes • Aimed to assess vulnerability by core program areas • Based on aggregated scores, determined level of vulnerability
  10. 10. Uganda – Vulnerability Index Assessment in 2014 revealed challenges: • Purpose of tool is unclear • Tool does not appear to capture the most vulnerable • Data quality issues • Cost/sustainability/ logistical concerns for repeat administration • Program may not be able to address all needs identified
  11. 11. Uganda Vulnerability Index • Revised the tool • Using the framework, clarified information gap = Targeting/Prioritization • Prioritized vulnerability indicators for enrolment • Created guidance for users on how to use information for stated purpose • Currently pre-testing
  12. 12. Child Status Index (CSI) The CSI was designed as a simple, cost-effective, comprehensive tool to be used by low-literate (and often volunteer) community home visitors to capture a child’s status and well-being across 6 domains. *O’Donnell K, Nyangara F, Murphy R, Nyberg B. Child Status Index. A Tool for Assessing the Well-Being of Orphans and Vulnerable Children—Manual. [MS-08-31a]. Chapel Hill, NC: MEASURE Evaluation; 2009.
  13. 13. Clarification Regarding Usage of the CSI Information Gathering Purpose Recommended for Use Targeting No (NOT RECOMMENDED) Case Management Yes (PRIMARY USE) Program Monitoring Yes (APPROPRIATE USE) Evaluation No (NOT RECOMMENDED)
  14. 14. Targeting (NOT RECOMMENDED) 1. Difficult to get accurate CSI scores first time used 2. General criteria for inclusion may be easier than undertaking a needs assessment for each child 3. Not appropriate to use aggregate scores across CSI factors
  15. 15. Case Management (PRIMARY USE) 1. Individualized method for assessing a child’s well-being to guide decision making 2. Home visitors can work with caregivers to identify resources for addressing concerns 3. Allows home visitors to follow up on the status of children and determine if further action needed.
  16. 16. Monitoring (APPROPRIATE USE) CSI provides simple monitoring information regarding: • Who is being served • The kinds of services provided • Individual contact history • Change over time
  17. 17. Evaluation (NOT RECOMMENDED) CSI requires users to identify children’s needs and status relative to their local community It cannot be used as an indicator or comparator for national or multi- country standards
  18. 18. Q&A
  19. 19. Contact Information Molly Cannon: Molly.Cannon@thepalladiumgroup.com Lisa Parker: Lisa.Parker@thepalladiumgroup.com Ashley Garley: Ashley.Garley@icfi.com
  20. 20. MEASURE Evaluation is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under terms of Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-L-14-00004 and implemented by the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership with ICF International, John Snow, Inc., Management Sciences for Health, Palladium Group, and Tulane University. The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States government. www.measureevaluation.org

×