BGH M&E Working Group Updates Siân Curtis. Brief History: PRH M&E WG 2004 evaluation of OPRH M&E recommended establishing a CA M&E WG OPRH M&E WG.
Published byModified over 5 years ago
Presentation on theme: "BGH M&E Working Group Updates Siân Curtis. Brief History: PRH M&E WG 2004 evaluation of OPRH M&E recommended establishing a CA M&E WG OPRH M&E WG."— Presentation transcript:
Brief History: PRH M&E WG 2004 evaluation of OPRH M&E recommended establishing a CA M&E WG OPRH M&E WG established in early 2005 Vision Community of practice of people working in M&E of OPRH projects to learn from each other, share experiences, and collectively address common problems in order to strengthen the M&E of OPRH programs. Objectives Raise level of understanding of and increase commitment to M&E Improve the technical quality of M&E
Brief History: Expanding to BGH 2007 USAID review of M&E in the agency included recommendation to establish a BGH M&E working group. Suggestion to expand OPRH group to all BGH offices Discussed with PRH M&E WG in November 2007 Informational meetings held with HIDN and OHA in July 2008 to gauge interest in BGH M&E WG Conclusion: Interest in establishing a BGH M&E WG but with some caveats
Opportunities for BGH M&E WG Information sharing/exchange of M&E ideas between offices and between projects Two-way communication between BGH and CAs on M&E issues Training and skill building Coordination between M&E initiatives in different offices and between global, USG, and CA levels Potential forum to influence M&E thinking in BGH and more broadly
Challenges for BGH M&E WG Managing the potential size and diversity of interests of the group Maintaining clear mandate Balance in office interests/issues Membership – balance between inclusiveness and manageability Logistics Engaging field perspective and participation Networking the networks Funding (and time) for participation
Lessons Learned from PRH M&E WG Requires active participation from across CAs and USAID Consistency in participation important Rotate technical leadership of meetings Plenty of coffee breaks! Time and funds are constraints to producing specific products There is benefit in meeting to exchange information and experience but can be a challenge to keep momentum High demand for skills building
Proposals for Structure One full annual meeting, possibly with office or element- specific break out sessions More frequent smaller meetings for special topics, task forces, or focus areas Open space at full meeting to get ideas for future activities Rotating secretariat to handle logistics and organization Steering committee with USAID/CA balance Flexibility for offices to determine who should participate in the WG and steering committee
Next Steps Invite HIDN and OHA CAs to November PRH M&E WG Identify Steering Committee (SC) members Initial tasks for SC Develop TOR for WG, including how it relates to other M&E WG Plan first WG meeting Develop draft scope of work for the WG and determine funding needs Working Group meeting Finalize and approve TOR and scope of work Identify initial activities/meeting topics
MEASURE Evaluation is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through Cooperative Agreement GPO-A-00-03- 00003-00 and is implemented by the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina in partnership with Constella Futures, John Snow, Inc., Macro International, and Tulane University. Visit us online at http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure.