1 / 14

ICAP’s Post-MCAP M&E System and the Enhanced URS

ICAP’s Post-MCAP M&E System and the Enhanced URS. Outline. ICAP’s current M&E system Changing M&E needs M&E system enhancements URS 2.0 demonstration Timeline and next steps . ICAP’s Current M&E System. ICAP-NY M&E system established to support MCAP and other

sissy
Download Presentation

ICAP’s Post-MCAP M&E System and the Enhanced URS

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ICAP’s Post-MCAP M&E System and the Enhanced URS

  2. Outline • ICAP’s current M&E system • Changing M&E needs • M&E system enhancements • URS 2.0 demonstration • Timeline and next steps

  3. ICAP’s Current M&E System • ICAP-NY M&E system established to support MCAP and other • centrally-identified priorities (PMTCT, TB/HIV, HTC, lab) • Collects information generated by service delivery programs • Indicators reported at the facility-level • ICAP country M&E systems: • Reporting required for broad portfolio of service delivery and other TA programs • Aggregate data management systems highly variable in terms of comprehensiveness, data checking, and dissemination capabilities.

  4. Changing landscape for reporting and data dissemination • Shift from focus on a single grant from one donor to multiple grants from multiple donors • Different levels of support (eg, facility, district) • New countries with distinct portfolios • Shift from reporting by ICAP-NY to CDC-Atlanta to in-country reporting • Expansion to new areas (e.g., capacity building, INCI/NEPI, SGBV, surveillance)

  5. What Enhancements are Needed? • Readily accepts data for different funding mechanisms at all levels of support (site, district and national levels) • Accepts PEPFAR Next Generation Indicators (NGI); easy addition of new program areas/indicators as needed • Ensures high quality data through automated user-defined data checks • Allows for timely and efficient program monitoring pre-programmed and user-defined reports

  6. Central Unified Reporting System (URS) • Current URS -> Web-based repository of routinely collected aggregate facility-level indicators • Data collection: On-line data entry or import • Data use: Pre-programmed dashboards and summary reports filterable by facility, province/district, and country • Limitations: • Data collection: Specific service delivery program areas only; based around the facility as the central unit of reporting • Data use: No user-defined queries • Data quality: Comprehensive data check review done externally

  7. Changes to URS- Phase 1 • Allow for tracking of diverse funding sources within in and across countries • Tailor reported indicators for a given funding source with varying periodicity: accept universe of PEPFAR indicators as well as indicators used by the country • Enable tracking of technical assistance or capacity building activities at different levels (site, province, district) • Static dashboards for key program areas • View data by multiple administrative levels • Increased security

  8. Planned Changes to URS- Phase II • Improved features: • Off-line data entry • Full array of dashboards and reports filterable by administrative levels • More flexible user-defined reports • Customized data checks • Maps • Automated generation of analysis files • Expanded use of URS as repository for other M&E resources

  9. Support for country aggregate Systems • Developing guidance document outlining key requirements for high-quality, flexible aggregate databases • Assessing existing aggregate systems and providing support to country teams to enhance existing systems • Supporting development of new country aggregate databases for diverse stakeholder audiences • eg, DHIS in Kenya, DRC, Mali, others

  10. Definitions • Funding source: Discrete funding mechanism for activities in one or more countries (eg, MCAP follow-on for country X, CHAT CS, NEPI) • Organizational unit: Beneficiary of the service delivery or technical assistance is provided (eg, a specific region, country, province, district, or facility) • Program area: Service delivery or technical assistance focus (eg, care and treatment, PMTCT, TBHIV, capacity-building, MCH, ) • Indicator: Variable used to measure achievement (eg, number of patients; number of trainings; number of DMT/HMT meetings)

  11. Demonstration

  12. URS Implementation Timeline • Phase I – April 2012 • Setup, data entry/import, dashboards • Phase II – June/July 2012 • Enhanced user-friendliness and efficiency : Off-line data entry, pre-programmed and user-defined reports, data checks • Formal launch will be for the April-June report in July 2012

  13. Next Steps • Jan-March 2012 report: • Enter data as usual in current URS (revised import instructions with new indicators to be shared this week) • Testing URS 2.0: conduct manual data entry or import into new system • Document feedback so that we can ensure the system meets your needs. Emailto your NY SI Unit contact and Deborah Horowitz - dsh2104@mail.cumc.columbia.edu

  14. Thank you!

More Related