Presented at the 2017 American Evaluation Association Conference

1. Adventures in Tracking Orphan and Vulnerable
Children Outcomes:
Presenters:
Lisa Parker
Walter Obiero
Susan Settergren
MEASURE Evaluation, Pallad
Jenifer Chapman
CoVida/Palladium
Session Chair:
Christine Fu, USAID
November 9, 2017
American Evaluation Associa
Conference
PEPFAR Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting
(MER) Essential Survey Indicators

2. Outcome indicators measuring household and
child well-being
• Designated as “Essential Survey Indicators” (ESI)
Purpose:
• To obtain snapshot of program outcomes at a point in
time AND
• To assess changes in outcomes among orphans and
vulnerable children (OVC) program beneficiaries over
time
The purpose

3. 9 MER Essential Survey Indicators
1. Percent of children whose primary caregiver knows child’s HIV status
2. Percent of children <5 years of age who are undernourished
3. Percent of children too sick to participate in daily activities
4. Percent of children who have a birth certificate
5. Percent of children regularly attending school
6. Percent of children who progressed in school during the last year
7. Percent of children <5 years of age who recently engaged in
stimulating activities with any household member over 15 years of age
8. Percent of caregivers who agree that harsh physical punishment is an
appropriate means of discipline or control in the home or school
9. Percent of households able to access money to pay for unexpected
household expenses

4. How will the data be used?
• Support:
• Strategic portfolio development
• Targeting
• Programming
• Implementation
• Resource allocations
• Provide evidence to the U.S. Congress
• Triangulated with other OVC data

5. MER Supplement
www.measureevaluation.org/res
ources/publications/ms-14-90

6. MER implementation to date
Completed:
• Botswana
• Cameroon
• Kenya (MEASURE Evaluation)
• Lesotho (MEASURE Evaluation)
• Malawi
• Mozambique (MEASURE
Evaluation and CoVida)
• Namibia (MEASURE Evaluation)
• Nigeria (MEASURE Evaluation)
• Rwanda (MEASURE Evaluation)
• South Africa
• Swaziland
• Tanzania (MEASURE Evaluation)
• Uganda
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe
Upcoming:
• DRC (MEASURE
Evaluation)
• Haiti (MEASURE
Evaluation)

7. PEPFAR OVC programs
• Building national systems of care
• Strengthening the capacity of families and
communities to care for vulnerable children
• Developing and targeting need-based OVC
responses sensitive to diversity of sub-populations
within the larger OVC population (e.g., adolescent
girls)
Objectives:

8. Evolution in PEPFAR OVC programming
• Geographic prioritization
• Changes in beneficiary
recruitment
• More rapid graduation of
OVC households
• Greater variability of
implementation models
across projects/countries
• Focus on ensuring that HIV+
children are being served and
their outcomes monitored
Photo credit: Lisa Marie Albert

9. Country examples
Country # of projects
and
mechanisms
PEPFAR
agencies
represented
Range in number
of beneficiaries
served
Geographic
location
Kenya 3
MEASURE
Evaluation
USAID, CDC,
DOD
1,600-110,000 Western Kenya
Nigeria 5
MEASURE
Evaluation
USAID and
CDC
8,800-300,000 Central, Southern
States
Mozambique 1
CoVida
USAID 300,000 Country-wide

10. Design

11. Sampling

12. Implementation

13. Analysis and reporting

14. Data interpretation and use

15. Challenges in applying standardized guidance
• Diverse project context/service delivery models
• Project beneficiary records
• Changes in project design/implementation
• Changes in evaluation/M&E guidance
• Diversity of contexts on the ground—
missions/implementing partners/country
• Multiple stakeholders

16. Frequently Asked Questions
www.measureevaluation.org/res
ources/publications/sr-17-140

17. OVCImpact.org

18. On the horizon
• Planning for time point 2
• Implementation of revised guidance and continued learning
• Monitoring of shifts in PEPFAR OVC programming
Photocredit:LisaMarieAlbert

19. Questions?
For any MER Essential Survey Indicator
questions please send e-mails to:
ovcimpact@thepalladiumgroup.com

20. This presentation was produced with the support of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) under the terms of MEASURE Evaluation
cooperative agreement AID-OAA-L-14-00004. MEASURE Evaluation is
implemented by the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill in partnership with ICF International; John Snow, Inc.; Management
Sciences for Health; Palladium; and Tulane University. Views expressed are not
necessarily those of USAID or the United States government.
www.measureevaluation.org