Monitoring & Evaluation
Download
1 / 23

Presentation outline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 156 Views
  • Updated On :

Monitoring & Evaluation Aspects for Round 6 "Targets & Indicators Table" + M&E Self Assessment Checklist. Presentation outline. Performance Based Funding (PBF) Round 6 Documents: M+E requirements for complete proposal The M+E framework & relevance to R6

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Presentation outline' - weldon


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

Monitoring & Evaluation

Aspects for Round 6

"Targets & Indicators Table"

+

M&E Self Assessment Checklist


Presentation outline l.jpg
Presentation outline

  • Performance Based Funding (PBF)

  • Round 6 Documents:

    • M+E requirements for complete proposal

    • The M+E framework & relevance to R6

  • Possible Tools & Lessons Learned

    • Some tools for R6 M&E guidance

    • Introduction of "M&E Self Assessment checklist"

    • Looking back at some common challenges

      Appendix - Moving to a Grant Agreement


1 a pbf importance of m e l.jpg
1(a). PBF - Importance of M&E

We adhere to Performance Based Funding model Some key intended outcomes

Long term Ensure investments are made where impact on the diseases can be achieved

Strategy level Provide incentives to focus on results and timely implementation

Implementation level Help countries identify:

  • Effective efforts for early replication & scale-up; or

  • Take early corrective actions


1 b pbf diagrammatically link between funding performance l.jpg
1(b). PBF Diagrammatically – Link between Funding & Performance

Performance Based Funding

Programmatic monitoring

Financial monitoring

 Regular disbursements of funding depend on programmatic and financial performance

PBF/050106/1


1 c pbf key principles l.jpg
1(c). PBF - Key Principles

  • Country ownership &leadership

  • Harmonization with existing systems

  • Coordination with technical partners

  • Simplicity - small set of relevant indicators for reporting on performance


2 a round 6 m e requirements l.jpg
2(a). Round 6 – M&E Requirements

Very similar framework to Round 5

Number of key sections to be completed:

Sections: 4.3.1- Component executive summary

4.6 - Component Strategy

4.9 - Description of the plan for M&E of program & how it fits in with the national M&E framework

5.6 - M&E budget summary (functional split of budget)

+ Attachment A – mandatory on per-component basis

Why?

Attachment A is the Applicant’s statement of the expected performance and impact over proposal term


2 b round 6 m e framework l.jpg
2(b). Round 6 – M&E Framework

Focusing a little more on section 4.9 

The proposal should:

  • Form an integral part of the national strategic plan

  • Build on and strengthen the existing M&E system

  • Showconsistency between goals → objectives → strategies (SDAs) → selected indicators

Indicators/milestones selected for

reporting should be supported by

a detailed Work Plan and Budget


2 c building measurement framework l.jpg
2(c). Building Measurement Framework

Not a Global Fund system – as Indicators and measurement tools have been developed with relevant partners for all levels

Impact

System effects

Grant performance

Operational performance

Expected overall impact of contribution of Global Fund resources if

performance meets outcomes anticipated from grant agreements


2 d round 6 indicator selection guidelines suggest l.jpg
2(d). Round 6 – Indicator selection Guidelines suggest

  • Simplified set of indicators

    Focus is multi-agency M&E Toolkit – Jan 06 version

    Around 12 to 18 indicators (depends on circumstances)

  • No 'Global Fund Indicators' – even the 'Top 10'

  • Use a simple M&E framework

    • On short-term: indicators focusing on SDAs for the diseases

    • On long-term: behavior change or decrease in disease morbidity and mortality

  • Good balance between routine data collection & surveys


2 e round 6 indicator selection lessons from earlier rounds l.jpg
2(e). Round 6 – Indicator selection:Lessons from earlier Rounds

  • Reporting on performance, important to have:

    • Someindicators that can be reported on quarterly and/or 6 monthly(depends on existing measurement framework);and

    • Many that can be reported by months15-18 month of Phase 1 (Important for Phase 2 process)

  • Select standard impact and outcome indicators to monitor longer-term achievements and performance outcomes

  • Avoid duplication – use existing in-contry indicators, data collection systems and planned surveys(e.g. from earlier GF grants or national systems)


2 f round 6 mapping goals objectives sdas and main activities tb hypothetical example l.jpg
2(f). Round 6 – Mapping Goals, Objectives, SDAs and Main Activities(TB hypothetical example)

Impact indicator

TB prevalence rate

Goals

To reduce morbidity and

mortality due to TB

Outcome indicator

Case detection rate

Treatment success rate

Objectives

To increase case detection &

treatment success rate

To intensify effective NTP

partnership and collaboration

Service

delivery areas

Timely detection and

quality treatment of cases

MDR-TB

PPM DOTS

Number of new smear positive TB cases detected

Main activities

Detection and treatment

of TB cases

Number & % of new smear positive

TB cases successfully treated

Maintain adequate drug

and laboratory supply

Number of health facilities strengthened to provide

TB diagnosis and treatment

Number of lab technicians trained

Capacity building of

service providers

Number of health center staff trained in DOTS


3 a some possible tools for m e for round 6 l.jpg
3(a). Some Possible Tools for M&E for Round 6

A number of tools are available to assist Applicants, including…

  • Multi-agency M&E Toolkit (Jan 2006)

  • Proposal Form & Guidelines

  • FAQ on Global Fund Website (see "Tools")For example, includes, a tool from "Health Metrics Network" for M&E & HIS gaps which is of particular relevance to HSS

    Also – from 2 June 2006, country-owned "M&E Self Assessment Checklist"


3 b possible tools m e self assessment checklist l.jpg
3(b). Possible Tools – M&E Self Assessment Checklist

Goal enhance country ownership of gapassessment & solution identification

Objectives  and Relevance to R 6

  • Better identify M&E capacity gaps

  • Guide investments in M&E before grant signature

  • Help identify key strengths required of an effective PR

  • Ensurenew resources contribute to strengthening of the National systems(avoid parallel reporting systems)

  • Improve quality of programmatic data to enhance planning & support performance based funding


3 b possible tools m e self assessment checklist14 l.jpg

M&E Checklist

1.M&E Plan

2.Data managementcapacities of the PR

3.Data collection & reporting systems per Program Area (e.g., ARV)

3(b). Possible Tools – M&E Self Assessment Checklist

The M&E self-assessment Checklist assesses 3 areas:

  • To assess the strength of the M&E Plan (for the program for Global Fund grant – but not Global Fund only)

  • To assess the capabilities of the PR to manage data related to the implementation of the Grant.

  • To assess the strengths of the data-collection and reporting systems per Program Area, including the ability to report valid, accurate and high quality data related to implementation.


3 b the m e self assessment checklist timing for round 6 l.jpg
3(b). The M&E Self Assessment Checklist – Timing for Round 6

Expected "go live" date is Friday 2 June 2006

  • Will be on R6 documents page

  • Not a required part of proposal

    However

  • may help find & effectively plan for capacity gaps

  • Will be required for Grant signature (PR obligation)

    And  Could be "annual model" for all programs from all donors – to better achieve harmonization


3 c recap some c ommon pitfalls from earlier rounds l.jpg
3(c). Recap – some common pitfalls from earlier Rounds

  • Lack of consistency between the goal → objectives → service delivery areas → indicators

  • Poor indicator selection - Main objectives of proposal not monitored

  • Too many indicators – especially low level

  • Discrepency between targets set at the time of grant signing & performance reported

  • Not built on existing M&E and HIS systems, therefore difficult & too costly to monitor indicators



Appendix l.jpg
Appendix

Moving to a Grant Agreement

  • Submission of a M&E plan

  • Role of LFA in Assessment of M&E capacity

  • Implementing the Grant Performance system

  • Key actors inside the Global Fund


4 moving to grant agreement l.jpg
4. Moving to Grant Agreement

(a) Submission of M&E Plan

(b) Assessment of M&E capacity by LFA

For Round 6 – M&E Self Assessment is 1st step

Harmonization with existing GF grants (if any):

  • Use standard indicators among grants

  • Combine M&E plans if possible/required

  • Match new baselines for impact and outcome indicators with existing grant(s)

  • Align disbursement requests and progress updates


4 a moving to a grant agreement submission of m e plan l.jpg
4(a). Moving to a Grant Agreement Submission of M&E Plan

When PRs are at this stage

- there are some “key messages”

  • There are no Global Fund specific indicators

  • Recommended indicators: standard global indicators approved by partners

  • Adapted to fit in the GF framework

  • Stick to targets in the proposal

  • Only use indicators relevant to proposed activities - standard definitions and increased use of GF Top 10

  • Countries can use national indicators if they better capture program activities

  • Move from output towards outcome and impact indicators

  • Strengthen network and collaboration with partners: broker role in filling M&E demand


4 b moving to grant agreement role of lfa l.jpg
4(b). Moving to Grant AgreementRole of LFA

The role of the Local Fund Agent includes:

Before Grant Agreement:

  • Assessing PR/Repeat PR’s M&E capacity and Plan

  • Ensuring that selected indicators/targets can be routinely reported and are supported by the Work Plan and Budget

    After Grant Agreement:

  • Carrying out on-site data verification

  • Critical analysis of performance and recommendations


4 c implementing the grant performance system l.jpg
4(c). Implementing the Grant Performance System

Grant lifecycle

6 Mth

12 Mth

16 Mth

18 Mth

2 Year Phase 1 end

Grant Start

10mth

24mth

3 Mth

9 Mth

15 Mth

Performance tools

Annual

Review

Grant Agreement

CCM Request for continued funding

Grant Scorecard

Grant Proposal Form

Disbursement Request/ Progress Update

Annex A

Attachment 3

Attachment 2

Attachment 1

Grant Performance Report

Performance data in real time


4 d key actors inside the global fund l.jpg
4(d). Key actors Inside the Global Fund

Key actors: FPM, SIE and Legal

Support operations team in ensuring regular reporting-selection of indicators

Review the M&E Plan and assess PR M&E capacity based on LFA assessment report

Analyse performance of key indicators (people reached by services, coverage, outcome, impact)

SIE

Role


ad