rapid catch indicators lunch roundtable_10.12.12

Select KPC Results for Projects

that ended in 2011

October 12, 2012

Projects by country

2

Technical intervention areas and

levels of effort (LOE)

3

PVO/NGO CountryStart

YearNUT PCM CDD MAL MNC CS HIV

CARE Nepal 2007 5% 5% 5% 75% 10%

Concern Rwanda 2006 30% 35% 35%

GOAL Ethiopia 2007 25% 25% 25% 25%

Wellshare Tanzania 2006 15% 15% 20% 35% 15%

Plan Nepal 2007 100%

PSI Malawi 2006 100%

RI Niger 2007 30% 20% 20% 30%

Save Malawi 2006 100%

TOTAL 8% 6% 25% 13% 46% 2% 1%

CATCH Indicators with LOE moved

4

PVO Country #

Reported #

Stat Sig %

Stat Sig

Concern ** Rwanda 6 6 100 %

RI Niger 11 9 82 %

PLAN Nepal 4 2 50 %

Wellshare * Tanzania 11 5 45 %

CARE Nepal 10 4 40 %

SC Malawi 5 2 40 %

GOAL Ethiopia 11 4 36 %

PSI Malawi 4 0 0 %

CATCH indicators in M&E plan moved

5

PVO Country #

Reported #

Stat Sig %

Stat Sig # >=

TargetConcern Rwanda 4 4 100% 2

SC Malawi 4 3 75% 1

RI Niger 8 5 63% 6

Wellshare Tanzania 8 4 50% 5

PLAN Nepal 2 1 50% 2

CARE Nepal 5 2 40% 3

GOAL Ethiopia 15 4 27% 9

PSI Malawi 0 0 - 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Co

vera

ge (

%)

Baseline Endline

Relief International:

Targeted CATCH/Key Indicators

6

Concern Worldwide:

Targeted CATCH Indicators

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Child ITN Soap POU ORS/ RHS AntiMs <2days

ARI Care-seeking

Co

vera

ge (

%)

Baseline Endline

Infant and Young Child Feeding:Results from 2010 & 2011

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nepal (CARE)

Liberia (MTI)

Ethiopia (GOAL)

Peru (INMED)

Niger (RI)

Cambodia (IRD)

Covera

ge (

%)

Baseline Endline

Newborn postnatal visit within 3 days:Results from 2010 & 2011

9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nepal(CARE)

Liberia(MTI)

Kenya(HR)

Cambodia(IRD)

Kenya(AMREF)

Tanzania(Wellshare)

Nepal(PLAN)

Malawi(SC)

Covera

ge (

%)

Baseline Endline

DHS for comparison

10

CountryDHS

year 1

DHS

year 2

Ethiopia 2005 2011

Malawi 2004 2010

Nepal 2006 2011

Niger 2006 N/A

Rwanda 2005 2010

Tanzania 2004-05 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

Goal

(Ethiopia)

Save

(Malawi)

CARE

(Nepal)

Plan

(Nepal)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)

Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC

4+ Antenatal Care Visits:

A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)

11

0

20

40

60

80

100

Goal

(Ethiopia)

Save

(Malawi)

CARE

(Nepal)

Plan

(Nepal)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Relief

(Niger)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)


2+ Maternal Tetanus Toxoid Vaccinations:


12

Skilled Birth Attendance:


13

0

20

40

60

80

100

Goal

(Ethiopia)

Save

(Malawi)

CARE

(Nepal)

Plan

(Nepal)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Relief

(Niger)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)


0

20

40

60

80

100

Goal(Ethiopia)

Save (Malawi)

CARE (Nepal)

Plan(Nepal)

Wellshare (Tanzania)

Relief(Niger)

Co

vera

ge (

%)


Breastfeeding within 1 Hour:


14

0

20

40

60

80

100

CARE

(Nepal)

Plan

(Nepal)

Goal

(Ethiopia)

Save

(Malawi)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Relief

(Niger)

Co

ve

rag

e (

%)


Exclusive Breastfeeding 0-5 months:


15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Goal

Ethiopia

Save

(Malawi)

PSI

(Malawi)

CARE

(Nepal)

Plan

(Nepal)

Relief

(Niger)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)


Underweight:

A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

CARE

(Nepal)

Concern

(Rwanda)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)


Pneumonia Care-seeking:


17

ORS/RHF:


18

0

20

40

60

80

Goal

(Ethiopia)

PSI

(Malawi)

CARE

(Nepal)

Concern

(Rwanda)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Relief

(Niger)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)


Point-of-Use Water Treatment (2006/7 – 2011)

19

0

20

40

60

80

CARE (Nepal)

Concern (Rwanda)

GOAL (Ethiopia)

PSI (Malawi)

Relief (Niger)

Wellshare (Tanzania)

Co

vera

ge (

%)

Baseline (%) Endline (%)

Soap at the Place for Hand Washing (2006/7 – 2011)

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Nepal(CARE)

Rwanda(Concern)

Niger(Relief)

Tanzania(Wellshare)

PSI (Malawi)

GOAL(Ethiopia)

Co

vera

ge (

%)

Baseline Endline

Child ITN use:


21

0

20

40

60

80

100

Concern

(Rwanda)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Relief

(Niger)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)


Appropriate fever treatment:


22

0

20

40

60

Concern

(Rwanda)

Wellshare

(Tanzania)

Relief

(Niger)

Co

vera

ge

(%

)


Thank you!

www.mchipngo.net

www.mchip.net

Follow us on:

ANY QUESTIONS?

Detailed baseline and endline KPC

survey information

24

PVOSampling

MethodBL Den BL Dates EL Den

Endline

DatesNotes

CARE Cluster 660 3/2008 660 3/2011 30 villages x 11 HHs x 2 districts

Concern LQAS 570 2-3/2007120 (well)

395 (sick)6-7/2011

BL: 6 dist x 5 SAs x 95 HHs

EL: 6 dist x 20 HH (well), 61-74 HH (sick)

Well-child (0-23 mo); Sick-child (0-59 mo)

GOAL LQAS 114 2/2008 114 8/2011 6 SAs x 19 communities

PLAN LQAS532 (2 dist)

133 (Bara)

2/2008 (2 dist)

6/2006 (Bara)

532 (2 dist)

133 (Bara)6-7/2011

35 SAs x 19HHs

Parsa: 13 SAs=247 (2007 CATCH)

Sunsari: 15 SAs=285 (2007 CATCH)

Bara: 7 SAs=133 (2000+ CATCH)

PSI Cluster 300 2-3/2007 391 6-11/20103-stage stratified cluster sampling

Baseline KPC survey in Salima District

Endline data extracted from 2010 DHS in Salima District

Relief Cluster 330 1/2008 358 9/2011BL: 30 clusters x 11HH from 453 villages in target district

EL: 30 clusters x 12HH from 61 focus villages

Save Cluster 300 2/2007 450 6/2011(?)

BL: 30 Clusters x 10 HHs

EL: 45 Clusters x 10 HHs

Over-sampled 15 clusters in Ekwendeni catchment area

(22 from Ekwendeni area, 23 from non-Ekwendeni area)

Wellshare Cluster 340 2-3/2007 390 6/2011BL: 34 clusters x 10HHs

EL: 30 clusters x 13HHs

FE KPC Best Practices

Inclusion of BL and MT (if applicable) data

Denominators and CIs for all %s (including BL and MT – not just EL)

Comparison to baseline

Possible explanations for changes or lack of change

Tabulation tables as an annex

Correct population-weighting

DHS comparison (if applicable/possible)

Dates that data were collected (including BL)

Summary of any changes/recalculations that were made to BL data

since DIP/initial submission

Any differences in sampling methodology (BL vs. EL vs. MT)

25

Wellshare

Reported MNC Indicators

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ANC Visits

Skilled Provider

AMSTL Newborn Wrapped

Cord Care PPC (Mother)

PPC (Newborn)

EBF

Baseline

Final

EOP Target

TDHS 2010

27

CARE Plan

• CB-NCP (only Doti)

• BPP/Safe Motherhood Package

• National c-IMCI strategy

• Birthing center establishment

• FCHV-led mothers’ groups

• Involvement of mothers-in-law and husbands

(decision makers)

• SATH in marginalized communities

• Leveraged other CARE projects

• CB-NCP

• FCHV-led Pregnant Women’s Groups (subset

of mothers’ groups)

• Strong engagement of VDCs

• Birthing center establishment

Wellshare Save

• VHC establishment

• Long distance drivers – em trans & health ed

• Health advocates in 2 marginalized tribes

• AFYA 1-2-3 BCC campaign

(3 key messages / intervention area)

• TBA/CORPs-led community activities

• TBA-led Survive & Thrive

Groups, registers, home visits

• TBAs repositioned

• IMNC training manual

• CBMNC package

• KMC expansion

• ENC promotion (agogo)

28

Concern Relief

• CHW peer support groups

• CHW home visits w/ counseling

• Community mobilization database

• IMCI bulletin

• Infrastructure development

• Women’s health groups

• Home visits

• HW & CHW HH/C-IMCI training

• TBAs repositioned as delivery companions

GOAL PSI

• Adapted care groups

• CGV home visits

• CGV referrals & follow-ups

• Worked at health post level – capacity,

supportive supervision, QOC

• Social marketing + behavior change

• Targeted outreach communications

• Communication material development

• Helped with zinc inclusion in EDL

Summary of information included

in/missing from KPC reports

29

PVO Information provided in KPC Report

CARE Did not calculate weighted averages/did not explain why; no explanation for change (or lack thereof) in indicators; compared to

baseline; provided tables with denominators; also did capacity assessments of HFs, HWs, and FCHV but didn’t seem to link them all

together

Concern Provided some potential explanations for indicators within intervention areas and also compared them to baseline; did not discuss

other CATCH indicators at all; provided CIs with estimates; denominators in a separate table; pop weighted SAs!

GOAL Provided some potential explanations; provided both denominators and CIs; compared to MTE and BL (but neither had CIs);

reported in database as one area but showed disaggregated results in FE (2 woredas) having small denominators (57 each); did not

pop weight SAs

PLAN Did not provide potential explanations – just #s, decision rule tables, and recommendations by SA for low-performing indicators;

provided tables with estimates compared to MTE & BL but without CIs or Denominators (needed to go into the decision rule table

to figure them out); Did not pop-weight SAs!

PSI Used 2010 DHS data in their final KPC report. The conducted a TRAC survey in 2011 but did not use it in their FE report.

Did not provide explanations for change or lack of change. Did not even include all CATCH indicators in the final KPC report, which

was very short (4 pages?).

Relief Provided some potential explanations; provided tables with denominators; compared to baseline in discussion

Save Did not provide explanations – just #s and summaries; provided tables with denominators and weighted averages with CIs, as well

as baseline % and denominator (would have been nice to see CI also); compared #s to baseline; database can accommodate design

Wellshare Provided Access file with KPC data; Also provided tabulation tables in their final KPC report; Provided BL & EL numerators, denominators, and

CIs in indicator tables; Also compared to 2010 DHS; Did not include possible explanations for changes in the indicators in the KPC report – some

in FE narrative.

[KU1]Will definitely remove but I think it would be useful to share internally to show what grantees are/aren’t reporting

[OB2]I think you can remove this section.

Health Facility Delivery:


30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Save Malawi

CARE Nepal

Plan Nepal

Wellshare Tanzania

Baseline DHS

Endline DHS

Baseline KPC

EndlineKPC

rapid catch indicators lunch roundtable_10.12.12

Documents

stat sig relief

stat sig goal

stat sig plan

stat sig concern

stat sig nepal pwgs

comparison of kpc

dhs data

plan nepal