A Toolkit for
Evaluating the
Impact of HIV/AIDS
Programming on
Children in Africa
Jenifer Chapman, PhD
MEASURE Evaluation/Futures
Group
Stepping back for a minute
 HIV/AIDS Programming = President’s Plan for
AIDS RELIEF (PEFPAR)
 Interagency effort
 Introduced by President Bush in 2003
 Largest Commitment in history by any nation
to combat a single disease
 Reauthorized in 2008 for $48 billion
PEPFAR I and II
 First phase of PEPFAR (2003-2008) focus on
emergency response—program reviews, simple
evaluations, operations research
 Second phase of PEPFAR (2009-2013) focus on
sustainability, better attribution, program
outcomes and impact
PEPFAR Mission & Goal (OVC)
 Mission: To mitigate the social, emotional and
economic impacts of HIV/AIDS on children and to
reduce their risk and vulnerability while
increasing their resilience
 A goal: To care for 5 million orphans and
vulnerable children
 10% funding earmark for OVC
What is an “OVC”?
 A child infected or affected by HIV
 And what does that really mean?
 PEPFAR 1 vs. PEPFAR 2

And how do we “care” for them?
Guidance!
 6+1 areas of
programming
 Health, Education,
PSS, Protection,
Food & Nutrition,
Shelter & Care, HES
PEPFAR’s
approach to
OVC
programming
OVC Programs, under PEPFAR, aim to:
 Improve the wellbeing of children and families
 Strengthen families as primary caregivers of children
 Support the capacity of communities to create
protective, caring environments
 Build the capacity of social service systems to protect
the most vulnerable
Implementation
 Community-based programs
 Focus: case management (social work)
 Home-visiting by community based volunteers
(beneficiaries are targeted)

 Community-wide interventions (HES, Kids Clubs)

 6+1 domains of programming (health, PSS, etc.)
 Referral networks
Evaluating PEPFAR’s contribution
 Reviews of the OVC portfolio found that despite
great investment, we know little about impact and
“what works”
Not so long ago…
 Few evaluations conducted at program level
 Outcomes monitoring at case management level
(good, but led to problems in evaluation practice)
 Studies carried out were challenged:
 Tool misuse, low data quality, inadequate
measurement and poor choice of constructs, no
comparability of measures, unethical practices
 Poor availability of information for decision making
The State of Evaluation Practice was:
A proposed solution
Standardized questionnaires for use in a survey of
children ages 0-17 years and their adult caregivers
The purpose
 Standardize population-level child and caregiver wellbeing data beyond what is available from routine
surveys
 Produce actionable data to inform programs and
enable mid-course corrections
 Enable comparative assessments of child and
caregiver well-being and household economic status
across a diverse set of interventions and regions
But what do we measure?
 Developing country
context
Focus on PEPFAR OVC programs
 Indicators need to reflect
& be amenable to change
by PEPFAR program
intervention
 HH interventions led by
home visitors
 Community interventions
 Low direct funding per
target, focus on linkages
 Often inadequate
services in vicinity
Who are these tools for?
 Local and international
research institutions
and other implementing
organizations with
evaluation agenda
 USAID Forward –
supporting local
researchers
So, where to start…
 Two step, participatory process:
 Build consensus around core impact indicators for
PEPFAR-funded OVC programs
 Develop OVC program evaluation (survey) tools
Distilling the core indicators
 Our starting point: 6+1 domains of PEPFAR OVC
programming
 Step 1: Extensive literature search
 Step 2: Gaps (HES, PSS) filled through targeted
research
 Result: >600 child/HH wellbeing
questions/indicators
 Step 3: Analysis against 8 criteria
 Result: shorter list of questions for discussion
19
Inclusion criteria
1. Measures impact/outcomes
2. Amenable to change from program interventions
3. Relevant across a wide range of interventions
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

20

Contributes to a holistic vision of child wellbeing
Verifiable through another source
Easy to implement
Relevant across different regions / countries
Relevant or easily adapted across age and sex
Finalizing the core indicators
 External working group: solicited review from 49
stakeholders

 Finalized core set of 12 child and 3 household
measures

21
Developing the tools
 Tools drafted with
strong stakeholder input
 Draft tools piloted in
Zambia and Nigeria
 Cognitive interviews to
test key concepts (e.g.
social support)
 Household pre-test of
full tools, procedures
Structure and content
1. Caregiver questionnaire (including questions on
household)
2. Child questionnaire (ages 0-9 years),
administered to caregiver
3. Child questionnaire (ages 10-17), administered
to child with parental consent & child assent
Caregiver questionnaire
Sections

Core questions

Section 1: Household
schedule

•
•

Household schedule* (10)
Changes in household
composition (4)

Section 2: Background
Information on Caregiver
and Household

•
•
•
•

Demographic information* (7)
Work* (3)
Access to money (3)
Shelter (1)

•

Section 3: Food Security

•

Household food security (6)

•

Section 4: Caregiver Wellbeing and Attitudes

•
•
•

General health (2)
Caregiver support (4)
Parental self-efficacy (1)

•

Basic HIV/AIDS knowledge* (7)
HIV testing* (3)
Attitudes to condom educ (1)

•

Section 5: HIV/AIDS Testing, •
Knowledge, Attitudes
•
•
Section 6: Access to HIV
Prevention, Care & Support
*DHS, bold=core indicator

•

Household access to services
(1)

Optional modules

•

•

Household Economic Status
(forthcoming)
Progress out of Poverty
Index or similar (country
specific)
Dietary Diversity (1)
Perceptions and experience
of child discipline, violent
discipline (forthcoming)
Gender roles and
decisionmaking power* (9)
HIV/AIDS attitudes* (4)
Child questionnaire (ages 0-9)
Sections

Core questions

Optional modules

Section 1: Child Health and
Welfare

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Confirm demographics (5)
General health & disability (4)
Birth certificate (2)
Vaccinations (11)
Fever (<5 years)* (1)
Diarrhea (<5 years)* (1)
Experience of neglect (2)
Slept under mosquito net* (1)
HIV testing experience* (2)

•
•
•

Section 2: Education and
Work

•

Section 3: Food
Consumption
Section 4: Access to HIV
Prevention, Care & Support

•

School attendance*,
progression/repeats, drop-outs,
missed school days (5+ years) (9)
Work for wages (2)
Early childhood stimulation (2)
Food consumption (2+ years) (8)

•

Child access to services (1)

Section 5: Anthropometric
Measures (of Children)

•

Weight*, Height*, MUAC

•
•

*DHS, bold=core indicator

•

Fever: extended* (4)
Diarrhea: extended* (3)
Health for children
living with HIV/AIDS
(forthcoming)

Dietary diversity (1)
Child questionnaire (ages 10-17)
Sections

Core questions

Section 1: Background
Information on Child
Section 2: Diary
Section 3: Education

•
•
•
•

Section 4: Chores & Work

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Confirm demographics* (5)
Identity of caregiver (1)
Daily log (6)
School attendance*,
progression/repeats, dropouts (9)
Chores (3)
Work (7)
Food consumption (8)
Alcohol consumption (3)
Birth certificate (2)
General health & disability (3)
General support (4)

•
•

Basic HIV/AIDS knowledge* (7) •
HIV testing * (3)
•

Section 8: Sexual Experience
Section 9: Access to HIV
•
Prevention, Care & Support
Section 10: Anthropometric
•
Measures: Weight and Height

•

Section 5: Food & Alcohol
Consumption
Section 6: Health, Support &
Protection

Section 7: HIV Testing,
Knowledge, and Attitudes

Child access to services (1)
Weight, Height, MUAC

Optional modules

•

Dietary diversity (1)

•

Health for children living with
HIV/AIDS (forthcoming)
Perceptions/experience of
violence (forthcoming)
Child development knowledge (6)
HIV/AIDS attitudes and beliefs (4)

•

Sexual behavior (13-17 yrs) (5)
Lessons from piloting
 Access to money
 Social support (and PSS generally)
 The importance of validating translations and
pre-testing
 Addressing child headed households
You said a toolkit?
 Tools & Manual
 Template protocol with
consent/assent forms
 Methodological guidance

 Data analysis guide
 Data collector training
manual and materials
Now….
 Evaluation and data use are high on the agenda
 We have standardized tools/measures and
guidance for evaluating OVC
programs/interventions with global buy-in
 Tools misuse is being corrected
 More information available for decision making

The State of Evaluation Practice is:
Where can I find out more?
Go to our website:
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/
our-work/ovc
Keep in touch on ChildStatusNet:
http://childstatus.net/
Email:
Jenifer Chapman:
jchapman@futuresgroup.com
Janet Shriberg: jshriberg@usaid.gov
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-00-08-0000300. 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.
Questions?

A Toolkit for Evaluating the Impact of HIV/AIDS Programming on Children in Africa

  • 1.
    A Toolkit for Evaluatingthe Impact of HIV/AIDS Programming on Children in Africa Jenifer Chapman, PhD MEASURE Evaluation/Futures Group
  • 2.
    Stepping back fora minute  HIV/AIDS Programming = President’s Plan for AIDS RELIEF (PEFPAR)  Interagency effort  Introduced by President Bush in 2003  Largest Commitment in history by any nation to combat a single disease  Reauthorized in 2008 for $48 billion
  • 3.
    PEPFAR I andII  First phase of PEPFAR (2003-2008) focus on emergency response—program reviews, simple evaluations, operations research  Second phase of PEPFAR (2009-2013) focus on sustainability, better attribution, program outcomes and impact
  • 4.
    PEPFAR Mission &Goal (OVC)  Mission: To mitigate the social, emotional and economic impacts of HIV/AIDS on children and to reduce their risk and vulnerability while increasing their resilience  A goal: To care for 5 million orphans and vulnerable children  10% funding earmark for OVC
  • 5.
    What is an“OVC”?  A child infected or affected by HIV  And what does that really mean?  PEPFAR 1 vs. PEPFAR 2 And how do we “care” for them?
  • 6.
    Guidance!  6+1 areasof programming  Health, Education, PSS, Protection, Food & Nutrition, Shelter & Care, HES
  • 7.
  • 8.
    OVC Programs, underPEPFAR, aim to:  Improve the wellbeing of children and families  Strengthen families as primary caregivers of children  Support the capacity of communities to create protective, caring environments  Build the capacity of social service systems to protect the most vulnerable
  • 9.
    Implementation  Community-based programs Focus: case management (social work)  Home-visiting by community based volunteers (beneficiaries are targeted)  Community-wide interventions (HES, Kids Clubs)  6+1 domains of programming (health, PSS, etc.)  Referral networks
  • 10.
    Evaluating PEPFAR’s contribution Reviews of the OVC portfolio found that despite great investment, we know little about impact and “what works”
  • 11.
    Not so longago…  Few evaluations conducted at program level  Outcomes monitoring at case management level (good, but led to problems in evaluation practice)  Studies carried out were challenged:  Tool misuse, low data quality, inadequate measurement and poor choice of constructs, no comparability of measures, unethical practices  Poor availability of information for decision making The State of Evaluation Practice was:
  • 12.
    A proposed solution Standardizedquestionnaires for use in a survey of children ages 0-17 years and their adult caregivers
  • 13.
    The purpose  Standardizepopulation-level child and caregiver wellbeing data beyond what is available from routine surveys  Produce actionable data to inform programs and enable mid-course corrections  Enable comparative assessments of child and caregiver well-being and household economic status across a diverse set of interventions and regions
  • 14.
    But what dowe measure?  Developing country context
  • 16.
    Focus on PEPFAROVC programs  Indicators need to reflect & be amenable to change by PEPFAR program intervention  HH interventions led by home visitors  Community interventions  Low direct funding per target, focus on linkages  Often inadequate services in vicinity
  • 17.
    Who are thesetools for?  Local and international research institutions and other implementing organizations with evaluation agenda  USAID Forward – supporting local researchers
  • 18.
    So, where tostart…  Two step, participatory process:  Build consensus around core impact indicators for PEPFAR-funded OVC programs  Develop OVC program evaluation (survey) tools
  • 19.
    Distilling the coreindicators  Our starting point: 6+1 domains of PEPFAR OVC programming  Step 1: Extensive literature search  Step 2: Gaps (HES, PSS) filled through targeted research  Result: >600 child/HH wellbeing questions/indicators  Step 3: Analysis against 8 criteria  Result: shorter list of questions for discussion 19
  • 20.
    Inclusion criteria 1. Measuresimpact/outcomes 2. Amenable to change from program interventions 3. Relevant across a wide range of interventions 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 20 Contributes to a holistic vision of child wellbeing Verifiable through another source Easy to implement Relevant across different regions / countries Relevant or easily adapted across age and sex
  • 21.
    Finalizing the coreindicators  External working group: solicited review from 49 stakeholders  Finalized core set of 12 child and 3 household measures 21
  • 22.
    Developing the tools Tools drafted with strong stakeholder input  Draft tools piloted in Zambia and Nigeria  Cognitive interviews to test key concepts (e.g. social support)  Household pre-test of full tools, procedures
  • 23.
    Structure and content 1.Caregiver questionnaire (including questions on household) 2. Child questionnaire (ages 0-9 years), administered to caregiver 3. Child questionnaire (ages 10-17), administered to child with parental consent & child assent
  • 26.
    Caregiver questionnaire Sections Core questions Section1: Household schedule • • Household schedule* (10) Changes in household composition (4) Section 2: Background Information on Caregiver and Household • • • • Demographic information* (7) Work* (3) Access to money (3) Shelter (1) • Section 3: Food Security • Household food security (6) • Section 4: Caregiver Wellbeing and Attitudes • • • General health (2) Caregiver support (4) Parental self-efficacy (1) • Basic HIV/AIDS knowledge* (7) HIV testing* (3) Attitudes to condom educ (1) • Section 5: HIV/AIDS Testing, • Knowledge, Attitudes • • Section 6: Access to HIV Prevention, Care & Support *DHS, bold=core indicator • Household access to services (1) Optional modules • • Household Economic Status (forthcoming) Progress out of Poverty Index or similar (country specific) Dietary Diversity (1) Perceptions and experience of child discipline, violent discipline (forthcoming) Gender roles and decisionmaking power* (9) HIV/AIDS attitudes* (4)
  • 27.
    Child questionnaire (ages0-9) Sections Core questions Optional modules Section 1: Child Health and Welfare • • • • • • • • • Confirm demographics (5) General health & disability (4) Birth certificate (2) Vaccinations (11) Fever (<5 years)* (1) Diarrhea (<5 years)* (1) Experience of neglect (2) Slept under mosquito net* (1) HIV testing experience* (2) • • • Section 2: Education and Work • Section 3: Food Consumption Section 4: Access to HIV Prevention, Care & Support • School attendance*, progression/repeats, drop-outs, missed school days (5+ years) (9) Work for wages (2) Early childhood stimulation (2) Food consumption (2+ years) (8) • Child access to services (1) Section 5: Anthropometric Measures (of Children) • Weight*, Height*, MUAC • • *DHS, bold=core indicator • Fever: extended* (4) Diarrhea: extended* (3) Health for children living with HIV/AIDS (forthcoming) Dietary diversity (1)
  • 28.
    Child questionnaire (ages10-17) Sections Core questions Section 1: Background Information on Child Section 2: Diary Section 3: Education • • • • Section 4: Chores & Work • • • • • • • Confirm demographics* (5) Identity of caregiver (1) Daily log (6) School attendance*, progression/repeats, dropouts (9) Chores (3) Work (7) Food consumption (8) Alcohol consumption (3) Birth certificate (2) General health & disability (3) General support (4) • • Basic HIV/AIDS knowledge* (7) • HIV testing * (3) • Section 8: Sexual Experience Section 9: Access to HIV • Prevention, Care & Support Section 10: Anthropometric • Measures: Weight and Height • Section 5: Food & Alcohol Consumption Section 6: Health, Support & Protection Section 7: HIV Testing, Knowledge, and Attitudes Child access to services (1) Weight, Height, MUAC Optional modules • Dietary diversity (1) • Health for children living with HIV/AIDS (forthcoming) Perceptions/experience of violence (forthcoming) Child development knowledge (6) HIV/AIDS attitudes and beliefs (4) • Sexual behavior (13-17 yrs) (5)
  • 29.
    Lessons from piloting Access to money  Social support (and PSS generally)  The importance of validating translations and pre-testing  Addressing child headed households
  • 30.
    You said atoolkit?  Tools & Manual  Template protocol with consent/assent forms  Methodological guidance  Data analysis guide  Data collector training manual and materials
  • 31.
    Now….  Evaluation anddata use are high on the agenda  We have standardized tools/measures and guidance for evaluating OVC programs/interventions with global buy-in  Tools misuse is being corrected  More information available for decision making The State of Evaluation Practice is:
  • 32.
    Where can Ifind out more? Go to our website: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/ our-work/ovc Keep in touch on ChildStatusNet: http://childstatus.net/ Email: Jenifer Chapman: jchapman@futuresgroup.com Janet Shriberg: jshriberg@usaid.gov
  • 33.
    The research presentedhere 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-00-08-0000300. 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.
  • 34.

Editor's Notes

  • #2 {"27":"I wouldn’t read through these if only 15 mins\n","28":"I wouldn’t read through these if only 15 mins\n","7":"PURPOSE OF SLIDE: To show a diagram of the social-ecological model emphasizing the different levels that OVC programming can impact to improve child and family wellbeing.\nNOTES:\nThe PEPFAR approach to children in the epidemic is based on a social-ecological model that considers the child, family, community and country contexts and recognizes the unique yet interdependent contributions of actors at all levels of society to the well-being of children affected by HIV/AIDS. \n \nThis version is an AIDS-sensitive version that considers the ultimate goal at each level of society in achieving an AIDS free generation.\n \nIt also seeks to emphasize that Families are the first line of support and defense for children. And that Even in the most resource-deprived settings, families and communities have critically important strengths. This should be recognized by programs and built upon to achieve the best outcomes for vulnerable children affected by AIDS. \n","2":"PEPFAR, originally introduced in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, remains the largest commitment in history by any nation to combat a single disease. In 2008, PEPFAR was reauthorized for  $48 billion over five years (2009 to 2013), with the goals of preventing 12 million new infections; treating 3 million people living with AIDS and caring for 12 million people, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children.     The Reauthorization Act seeks to transition the U.S. response from an emergency approach to a focus on sustainability, including health system strengthening and partnership building.  The legislation allows the program to serve as a platform for expanded responses to a broader range of global health needs.  The Act also supports the availability and accessibility of female condoms.  \n \n","30":"I could elaborate on any of these if time allows\n","8":"PEPFAR and OVC\n-10% earmark for children made vulnerable by HIV and AIDS\n-falls under Care and Support \n--focuses on the social and emotional consequences and important responses to epidemic\n--updated our guidance in 2012: based in ecological model and care and protection for children emphasizing\nStrengthen families as primary caregivers of children;\nSupport the capacity of communities to create protective and caring environments;\nBuild the capacity of social service systems to protect the most vulnerable; and\nAllocate resources for children according to need in the context of HIV/AIDS by integration with the broader PEPFAR platform and response\n","3":"In the first phase of PEPFAR, activities were more of an emergency nature with the goal of using available interventions to reduce mortality and alleviate suffering from HIV disease as quickly and effectively as possible. \nMany lessons have been learned through examination of programs, including simple evaluations and operations research. \n \nAs would be expected in an emergency context state-of-the-art monitoring, evaluation, and research methodologies were not fully integrated or systematically performed.\nIn its second phase of PEPFAR-, emphasis on sustainability, programs must demonstrate value and impact to be prioritized within complex and resource-constrained environments. \nNow there is a greater demand to causally attribute outcomes to programs. Better attribution can be used to inform midcourse corrections in the scale-up of new interventions or to re- evaluate investments in programs for which impact is less clear.\n","9":"Change model\n","26":"I wouldn’t read through these if only 15 mins\n"}