1. SCORE Annual Review 2016 17-21 October 2016 Venue: Jinja – Nile Resort
John Paul Nyeko
MEL Manager

2. How project performance is monitored in SCORE
Based on Project Performance Management Plan (PMP) developed at the start of the project.
SCORE PMP had a total of 29 indicators of performance
Draft revised PMP now has 27 Indicators

3. How project performance was monitored in SCORE
Our indicators included;
Project customized indicators, drawn from expected project outcomes
PEPFAR indicators; standard indicators for SCORE’s kind of work
Feed The Future Indicators

4. Performance against annual and cumulative targets

5. Proportion of Index children whose vulnerability level Decreases
Project life target = 80%
Looks at % of children who score less than 40 in VAT. Denominator is 8318, households in VAT 4 including graduated households. However over 70% have had reduced vulnerability scores.

6. Percentage of HH whose Economic Vulnerability Decreased
Project life target = 80%
‘proportion of children whose total VAT score for section C is lower than their same score for the previous VAT round. Project life is calculated looking at a baseline (entry VAT) against an end line VAT –checking for decreases

7. Percentage of VCHH with Premiums paid
Project life target adjusted= 10%
Number of VC households with insurance cover-Field officer data collection form column 5.

8. Percentage of VSLAs Functioning after one year of Formation
Project life target = 90%
The number reporting who were registered more than 12 months ago that are still saving (numerator, using VSLA ID codes, date of formation)-Date of formation on VSLA registration
FOVA

9. Percentage of VCHH Provided with Market oriented skills
Project life target = 60%
The number of HH participating in either activity 1.3.1, or out of the total number of HH

10. Percentage of VCHH with access to Market
Project life target = 60%
Problem indicator…we have defined it in such a way that we include all PMGs and any other HHs involved in VCD activities.-HHs that appear on that register. Activities done under PMGs are all geared toward ensuring stronger market inclusion/market access. All members on that register have a code and are entered in the PMG entry screen in the SCORE database.

11. Percentage of VCHHs that show Good feeding practices
Project life target = 86%
VAT 17-HHs that consume all three types of foods at least three times a week divided by all VC HHs

12. Prevalence of stunted children under five years of Age
Project life target = 10%
No Target for year 1, 38.5% is the baseline figure. There were 275 children under five, of which 14 were stunted. Z score less than -2 (14/275)

13. Percent of Underweight among vulnerable children supported under 5 years
Project life target = 5%
24.2% was the baseline figure, there is no target for year2, therefore used the baseline figure as the target for year 2. Of the 273 children in this age group, about 8 were underweight. Used -2 (8/273)

14. Project life target = 12 months
Average number of months with uninterrupted adequate food for VC and their households
Project life target = 12 months

15. Percentage of OVC accessed to be severely Malnourished that are put on Nutrition
Project life target = 80%

16. Percentage of VCHH applying production Techniques acquired Through FFS
Project life target = 80%
Column 4 of FSN 7-Households with members trained in FFS who are applying their skills divided by HH with members trained in FFS – count household codes appearing on this form – Not in the HH survey tool

17. Percentage of FFS registered at the Sub County
Project life target = 100%
Calcuated out of all FFS groups in database. Some may have dropped off, so it may be different from what Francis has.

18. Percentage of VCHHs who have accessed child Protection Services
Project life target = 60%
HHs referred for at least one or all of child protection (CS3.1), legal support (CS3.2) and birth registrations (CS3.3). NAT question

19. Percentage of VCHHs Actively Seeking Critical services
Project life target = 60%
Percent that respond affirmatively to having sought 3 or more critical services as defined in the NAT (health care, child protection, financial services, education, extension work)

20. Percentage of reported cases followed to conclusion
Project life target = 60%
The case management register shows the status of the case from the start to conclusion.

21. Percentage of VC children trained in life skills
Project life target = 100%
Assumption is each IP will handle two groups of about 80. Therefore 43 Implementing Partners will handle an estimated 3440 individuals annually. Based on about 6718 individuals.

22. Percentage of VCHH accessing Critical services through Referrals
Project life target = 60%

23. Percentage of local Implementing partner providing appropriate Quality and Sustainable care to VCHHs
Project life target = 100%

24. Number of Rural HHs benefiting Directly from USG Interventions
Project life target = 20000
I think the target shouldn’t be on the total HHs, it should be on the rural HHs- active households. Joshua include newly enrolled.

25. Number of People with saving Accounts or insurance policy as a result of USG Assistance
Members of VSLA groups and those with premiums-members of HHs that have at least one member.

26. Number of people trained in child health and nutrition through USG- supported programs
BCC on nutrition- Focus on individuals benefitting from sub training category activities including – cooking demonstrations and – nutrition education.

27. Number of Vulnerable HHs benefiting Directly from USG Assistance
Project life target = 20000
All SCORE HHs, included only those that have VAT 4 for now.

28. Summary of performance

29. Plans Actualizing CLA agenda
Profiling of graduated beneficiary cohorts 1,2 and 3
Study on Resilience (Africhild Center collaboration)
Study on links between apprenticeship and Life skills
Publications on Parenting and Life Skills (MUK Collaboration)
Study on Mental Health
Study on the effect of community skills
Study on Risk Vs Vulnerability
Study - CSO and their role in reaching the last mile
Study– Does implementing a tailored responsive plan matter?
Does the Community play group model of ECD result into cognitive, emotional, social and language (native) development for children?