130 likes | 247 Views
Improving health and protecting human rights for individuals, communities, and society. Reaching the un-reached: communities as generators of demand, and complementary deliverers of services at local level and to remote and key populations Melbourne, July 25 2014. Presenter:
E N D
Improving health and protecting human rights for individuals, communities, and society Reaching the un-reached: communities as generators of demand, and complementary deliverers of services at local level and to remote and key populationsMelbourne, July 25 2014 Presenter: Dasha Ocheret | dasha@harm-reduction.org
Whom do we reach? How often harm reduction services analyze who their clients are and whom they do not reach? ‘Contacted’ = contacted once a year? once during the Global Fund program cycle? Contacted through secondary needle exchange?
Donor’s perspective • EC-funded three year program in 6 countries of Eastern Europe • Main objective: to enroll 4,000 women into harm reduction services • Donor’s interest: high efficiency, low unit cost and clear reporting according to unified indicators 5
How did we involve the community to improve harm reduction programs’ efficiency? • 90ies: as unpaid workforce for rapid situation assessments • Beginning of 2000s: secondary needle exchange (unpaid outreach workers) • Mid-2000s: paid outreach workers, case managers and peer educators for ART • Late 2000s: monitoring of access to HIV services • Since 2014: improving allocative and technical efficiency of harm reduction programs 6
Questions to be asked • What services should be added on top of the standard WHO/UNAIDS/UNODC package to reach the unreached? • What services should be removed? • How to reduce costs of service provision? Operational management decisions (changing opening hours…), changing legislation framework (take-home methadone doses), negotiations with pharma (internazal naloxone), etc. 11
Case of Tajikistan • New Funding Model as ‘safe’ platform to pilot drug user involvement in funding allocation decision-making • Status quo: community leaders are asked which service they want • Naloxone, hepC treatment, legal support, expansion of methadone programs • Budget decisions are taken behind close doors • As a result: expansion of methadone programs 12
EHRN regional program • Community-based service monitoring: consultations with various sub-groups of PWID • Costing exercise: how much does it really cost? • Prioritization exercise: consultations with the community on • Allocation exercise: explicit rationing of resource allocation in • Advocacy for better service management and for supportive legal frameworks 13