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.

Where Have We Come From?

620 views

Published on

A brief history of earlier contributions to M&E

Published in: Economy & Finance, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Where Have We Come From?

  1. 1. Where Have We Come From? A Brief History of Earlier Contributions to M&E Jane T. Bertrand Director, Center for Communication Programs Johns Hopkins University Collaborator on Evaluation: 1991-2001
  2. 2. MEASURE Evaluation <ul><li>Evolved from the rich history of family planning program evaluation </li></ul>
  3. 3. A quick review of the evolution of family planning programs <ul><li>1950-60s: Asia takes the lead in promoting FP </li></ul><ul><li>1960s: Latin America develops IPPF affiliates </li></ul><ul><li>1970s: growing acceptance of FP in Asia, LAC </li></ul><ul><li>1980s: widespread expansion of FP </li></ul><ul><li>1990s: funding shifts toward Africa </li></ul><ul><li>Recognition that the “medical model” won’t reach sufficient numbers gave birth to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Community based distribution, social marketing </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Rationale for FP and implications for program evaluation <ul><li>Demographic (especially in Asia) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on “achieving numbers” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Catalyst to economic development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Debates over contribution of FP vs. economic development to lowering fertility </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Maternal/child health </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Desire to show effects of FP on maternal and infant mortality/morbidity </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Factors driving M&E: family planning versus HIV/AIDS <ul><li>Unique to FP in the early days: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore and show latent demand: KAP surveys </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inform the debate on FP programs vs. socio-economic development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrate benefits for MCH </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Train researchers from developing countries to drive FP movement worldwide </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Strong demography programs, scholarships </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Factors driving M&E: c ommon to FP (then) and HIV/AIDS (now): <ul><li>Ample funding </li></ul><ul><li>Need to “demonstrate numbers” </li></ul><ul><li>Need to justify spending to Congress </li></ul>
  7. 7. Growth of programs led to need for data and management tools <ul><li>K-A-P surveys to measure/track response to FP </li></ul><ul><li>World Fertility Surveys 1973-1984 </li></ul><ul><li>Contraceptive prevalence surveys (CDC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Started in 1975: El Salvador </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Started in 1985 in El Salvador; 226 surveys total </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Efforts to launch computerized MIS systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To track service statistics </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Need for data between DHS surveys <ul><li>Service statistics – often problematic: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance targets led to inflated statistics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“Users” – extremely difficult to capture without duplication </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Couple-years of protection (CYP): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed in 1980s, used widely in 1990s </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discredited after Cairo </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Not client-centered, too narrow/demographic </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. USAID funding for family planning program evaluation <ul><li>1970s: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>U of Chicago: FP evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CDC: contraceptive prevalence surveys, MIS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1980s: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operations research (Columbia Univ, Population Council, URC, Tulane) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Westinghouse/Macro International for DHS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CDC: reproductive health, young adult surveys </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. USAID’s interest in an “evaluation project” in the early 1990s <ul><li>FP existed in most developing countries </li></ul><ul><li>Need to demonstrate effects on reducing fertility </li></ul><ul><li>Need for better management tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Desire for consistent indicators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Desire for annual measurements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Desire to advance the field of program evaluation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New tools, improved methodologies/applications </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. The EVALUATION Project: 1991-97 <ul><li>Prime: UNC at Chapel Hill </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Director: Dr. Amy Tsui </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CTO: Dr. Krista Stewart </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Subs: Tulane University, The Futures Group </li></ul><ul><li>Focus: entirely on family planning </li></ul><ul><li>Implication of university involvement: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“Strong science” coupled with strong TA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strengthened evidence base (manuals, articles) </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Key achievements of the EVALUATION Project <ul><li>Advanced the health facility survey concept </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed method to link health facility with household surveys </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developed spatial analysis tools for health program evaluation and planning </li></ul><ul><li>Sought methods to control the bias of targeted resources in assessing program impact </li></ul>
  13. 13. Key achievements of the EVALUATION Project <ul><li>Provided TA in selected countries: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>India, Morocco, Paraguay, Tanzania, Uganda </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developed consensus among CAs on indicators for all areas of FP through working groups: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Training, IEC, commodities, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy, service delivery, operations research, management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Produced several manuals ( Indicators for FP Program Evaluation) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Standing joke: <ul><li>“The EVALUATION Project doesn’t evaluate programs” </li></ul><ul><li>Not a POP-Tech (evaluating other CA programs) </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluations conducted with implementing agencies to develop/test tools, build capacity </li></ul>
  15. 15. The MEASURE Evaluation Project: 1997-2003 <ul><li>Partners: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Prime: UNC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subs: JSI, Macro, Tulane </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Directors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr. Amy Tsui (1997-99) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr. Ties Boerma (1999-2002) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr. Si â n Curtis (2002-present) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. The MEASURE Evaluation Project continued to advance the field <ul><li>Developed methodologies for measuring: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sustainability, quality of care (QIQ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PLACE methodology (HIV hot spots) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maternal mortality from a census </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity in the health sector </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developed widespread consensus/African network to harmonize approach to HIV evaluation </li></ul>
  17. 17. Acknowledgements <ul><li>Reviewing and contributing to this presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr. Amy Tsui </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr. Si â n Curtis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Credits for photos: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Photoshare, Center for Communication Programs </li></ul></ul>

×