1. The Role of Implementing Partners in Measurement of OVC Programs
Molly Cannon
PEPFAR OVC Forum
Johannesburg, South Africa
February 3, 2015
Good afternoon, today we have a great opportunity to hear about the role of Implementing partners in measurement of OVC programs. We’ve heard so much from USG HQ and Country Offices, and about all of the new guidance, but we haven’t yet had the opportunity to hear the IP perspective, though at the end of the day – it’s the programs that Ips implement that this is really all about. I’d like to first share with you a bit about where this session fits into the framework session by reporting back from the first day activity where we placed our colored post-it notes onto the different types of questions that mapped back to information needs. Molly, from CDC, suggested tallying this information and presenting it back – so thanks for the great idea.

2. I’d like to share this slide, which is a summary of what we did on Day 1 and the Framework, to show you where this ties in and the relevance to IPs. While there is very much information in this slide and you had to prioritize the stakeholder needs, I think this helps us think through some interesting information:
Not everyone needs or uses the same information and for some information types, many different stakeholders are interested in the information.
Some information needs are primarily of interest to one stakeholder group. For example – starting at the bottom, it’s mostly the national governments interested in the situation analysis information – or who needs services in a given area as it helps them plan and determine where IPs will work and serve; it’s mostly home visitors and CBOs interested in targeting specific children and HH in a given community; while it’s home visitors mostly interested in case management information; IP’s mostly interested in program monitoring, and government mostly interested in EA.
So, we’ve heard a lot about these different areas of the framework, but for this session – we’re primarily focusing on program monitoring, a core function of the IPs.

3. Session Outline
Purpose: To understand what it takes to build an IP M&E system; consider ways in which IPs can work to streamline data capture; and work to ensure data use at the service delivery level.
Orientation to the topic (10)
Panel discussion with brief Q&A and key insights (45)
Reflection walk/discussion (20)
Sharing insights (15)
I am happy today to be able to facilitate a session on the IP perspective with respect to measurement of OVC programs. If we refer back to the Information Needs Framework, all of the information gathered relates back to the USG funded projects and implementing partners. Having the opportunity to hear their perspective is useful in helping identify the best approaches for Missions to work with IPs in rolling out the new guidance.

4. Learning about M&E of OVC Programs
National Systems
Assessments
Through our work in Nigeria, Cameroon, and Tanzania with national M&E systems, as well through various assessments such as the CSI assessments that involved collecting information about OVC programs in numerous SSA countries, community based information case studies in Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia, and through work related to OVC programs in Uganda and Mozambique, there has been a lot of information learned about OVC programs. We won’t be going into all the details of these assessments in this session, but we will be highlighting a few key points that we’ve learned about such systems.

5. What we know… Different models for PEPFAR OVC programs
Different demands for data (IPs and CBOs)
Advances in M&E systems

6. What we know… M&E of OVC programs is complex and not standardized
Identifying indicators, developing forms
Rolling out forms
Data capture and data quality mechanisms
Analysis and use

7. What we know… Home visitors collect the majority of information
Numerous forms used that often include
Repetitive information
Data elements that are not used or may not be appropriate
Data reported more frequently than needed
Often, the primary focus of data is on reporting and review of data on data quality

8. Consequences Disconnect
Collecting information on every child at every encounter
Ethics
Burden
Data quality
Copious data
I’m sorry, didn’t you already ask me about that last time you were here?
When you have a data collection system that supports reporting purposes more than supporting decision making at the local level (in the case of OVC programs) it leads to a few things:
A disconnect between information needs of the project and those who are required to collect the information
Collection of repetitive information on the same child and household by the same person
When this occurs, it presents three potential problems – an ethical issue of continuing to ask families and children about their situation, particularly when there is no direct outcome or benefit to the household
It may create a burden – on caregivers who get frustrated by answering the same questions and on the volunteers who after all, are volunteers.
Finally, this can have an effect on data quality – since the people collecting the information are often not using it directly, they may not pay as much attention to completing forms accurately, on time, etc.
Copious amounts of data that are just not used

9. Balance
Clearly program M&E is needed – but how do Missions and IPs work together to ensure a balance of good quality data for programmatic decision making while ensuring home visitors have the time and support they need for case management? We’re going to hear from some of our panelists now about their experiences…

10. Panelists As each panelist speaks, jot down your own thoughts about:
What is relevant to your work with IPs
Given what you have learned in this workshop, what advice or guidance might you give to IPs in terms of developing M&E systems?
Brief Q&A after each panelist