1. Session 5 Data, Indicators, and Performance Management
Emily Sonneveldt Track20, Avenir Health
Dr. Josephine Kibaru-Mbae Government of Kenya
Dr. Zeba Sathar Population Council, Pakistan
Dr. S.K. Sikdar Government of India

2. Session Outline│4 Components
Starting with a quiz…….
Monitoring FP2020 Progress
Producing annual estimates for FP2020 report
Using data for decision-making

3. Two Sided Focus Comparability, Reporting Global Data
Focused, Process Oriented
Country Data

4. However, global progress depends on acceleration in country
Why Data?
Global Level
How contraceptive use in progressing in the 69 countries
- Including information on quality, equity, and impact
However, global progress depends on acceleration in country
Country Level
Advocating for resources, monitoring progress, improved program focus/efficiency
FP2020 provides an opportunity to have progress estimates more frequently
Materials available to support monitoring country level progress towards national strategies
Ensure that we are not missing opportunities to use data and engage other stakeholders

5. Monitoring FP2020 Progress
Track20 Project
5 years ( )
Funded by Gates Foundation
Provides annual estimates for key FP indicators for all FP2020 countries
July 2012 London Summit pledges
120 million additional users by 2020
Not collecting new data, using existing data in new, innovative ways

6. Core Indicators All women Modern contraceptives Not process indicators
Indicators Reported Annually for all Track20 Countries
Indicator 1. Contraceptive Prevalence Rate, Modern Methods (mCPR), All Women
Indicator 1b. % distribution of users by method
Indicator 2. Number of additional users
Indicator 3. Percentage of women with an unmet need for modern contraception
Indicator 4. Percentage of women whose demand for contraception is satisfied by a modern method
Indicator 5. Annual expenditure on family planning from government domestic budget
Indicator 6. Couple-Years of Protection (CYP)
 Indicator 7: Number of unintended pregnancies
Indicator 8: Number of unintended pregnancies averted due to contraceptive use
Indicator 9: Number of maternal deaths averted due to contraceptive use
Indicator 10: Number of unsafe abortions averted due to contraceptive use
Indicators Reported in Years with a DHS
Indicator 11: Percent of women who were provided with information on family planning during their last visit with a health service provider
Indicator 12: Score on Method Information Index
Indicator 13: Percent of women who make family planning decisions alone or jointly with their husband/partner
Indicator 14: Adolescent birth rate
Indicator 15: Percentage informed of permanence of sterilization
All women
Modern contraceptives
Not process indicators

7. Annual Monitoring│Main Issues
New methodologies to produce annual estimates
Family Planning Estimation Tool (FPET)
Incorporates all data (survey, HMIS)
Introduces confidence intervals around estimates
Adoption of methodologies that are flexible to incorporate data from multiple sources that are on different timelines

8. Annual Estimations

9. Family Planning Estimation Tool- Country Variations
This is the first point you want to make
This is the second point you want to make
This is additional info you want to share
This is also relevant information
This is the third point you want to make
EMILY

10. Methodological Issues Related to Measuring Change
Rolling Baseline:
Annual estimates, starting at 2012, will be recalculated on an ongoing basis as new data become available
This is true for mCPR and all indicators that are calculated based on mCPR
Why?
New mCPR values from surveys (that change trends before and after the new data point)
New revisions of population estimates (released every two years)
Each time new data are released, estimates for the number of modern method users will be refined, for current and previous years
EMILY
The methodology we use to estimate the number of additional users of modern methods of contraception has two important components, both of which confer advantages related to data quality
and accuracy. The first is the designation of 2012 as the baseline year or starting point for our calculation—the point at which we appropriately set the number of additional users at zero. For each reporting period, we will compare the total number of users in the current year to the total number of users in the baseline year (2012). The difference between the two totals is the number of
additional users.
The second component is the use of a “rolling” baseline, by which we mean we will recalculate our annual estimates (starting with 2012) on an ongoing basis as new data become available. Continuously incorporating new data improves our ability to monitor progress, so that by 2020 our estimates for all years (2012 to 2020) will represent the most comprehensive and accurate data
available.
Calculations of the number of additional users depend on mCPR and the population of women of reproductive age (WRA). There is often a lag time of a year, and sometimes longer, before
the surveys used to calculate mCPR are released. In addition, updated population estimates (including WRA) often include retrospective modifications of past estimates based on newly released census data and other sources. Consequently, as new data become available, they affect not only current year estimates but those calculated in previous years as well.
The advantage of using rolling estimates is seen by comparing the estimate of the number of users of modern contraception that was calculated for the London Summit on Family Planning in 2012 (258 million) to the updated estimate for 2012 that we use now (265 million). Our calculation incorporates new DHS surveys and updated population estimates for 2012 that were not available two years ago, and as a result we now consider the total number of users in 2012 to be 7 million greater than we previously thought. Were we to use the old estimate for 2012, this discrepancy could be misconstrued as an increase of 7 million additional users since 2012.
SOURCE
NUMBER OF USERS IN 2012
London Summit
258 M
2013 Report (first report)
263 M
2014 Report (second report)
265 M

11. Producing Annual Estimates

12. Consensus Meetings│Annual Reviews
Countries that have pledged a commitment to FP2020, intent is to have estimates produced in country.
Started last year
Hope to expand this year
Opportunity for governments to pull together partners and review data, analysis, and annual progress

13. Consensus Meetings│Agenda
Discussion of FP data availability and quality
Review calculations for all indicators
FP2020, country indicators
Compare indicator estimates with expected progress
Agree on data improvement activities for upcoming year (accessibility, quality, use)

14. Data for Decision-Making

15. Using the Data
Added effort towards annual estimates needs to be linked to in-country decision making
FP2020 report, analysis that contextualizes progress and highlights indicators
Track20 supported products
Finding and leveraging opportunities to integrate these data into ongoing activities and processes

16. Data: Disaggregation to Analyze Equity
Countries in which users of modern contraception in the poorest wealth quintile account for:
Less than 5% of all users of modern contraception
5-10% of all users of modern contraception
10-15% of all users of modern contraception
15-20% of all users of modern contraception
Cameroon
nigeria
Benin
Dr Congo
Ethiopia
Kenya
Liberia
Mali
Mozambique
Senegal
Sierra leone
uganda
Bolivia
Burkina faso
Comoros
Cote d’ivoire
Ghana
Guinea
India
Lesotho
Madagascar
Malawi
Nepal
Niger
Pakistan
Tanzania
Timor-leste
Bangladesh
Burundi
Cambodia
Egypt
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Philippines
Rwanda
Sao tome and principe
Zambia
zimbabwe
EMILY

17. Data: Method Skew
Commitment making Countries in which 40-60% OF THE METHOD MIX IS DOMINATED BY ONE CONTRACEPTIVE METHOD
Commitment making Countries in which ≥60% of the method mix is dominated by one contraceptive method
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Kenya
Liberia
Malawi
Myanmar
Niger
Rwanda
Sierra leone
Dr Congo
Ethiopia
India
Mauritania
zimbabwe
*Keep on hand*
In the Progress Report, we categorize countries according to the number of modern methods that account for 20% or more of their method mix.
In 37 of the FP2020 countries, 20% or more of the method mix is accounted for by either zero or one modern method (“zero” implies traditional method dominance) – DR Congo is the example we use here.
India is standing in for the countries where 1 method accounts for 20% or more of the mix.
We look in the report at extreme method skew that builds at one method 40-60% they would show high skew.
Burkina Faso is one of the twenty-seven countries with method mix profiles in which two modern methods account for 20% or more of the mix.
And in four countries, the method mix profile is slightly more diverse, with 20% or more of the method mix being accounted by three methods. Mozambique is one of the four countries.

18. Country Specific 2020 Objectives
Setting country-driven mCPR objectives for 2020
Required modifying strategy in three potential categories:
End year- many countries have strategies that end before 2020
Transform from total CPR to modern CPR
Transform from married women to all women