GUIDELINES FOR FINAL EVALUATION

CHILD SURVIVAL AND HEALTH GRANTS PROGRAM USAID/GH/HIDN/NUT

Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 I. Submission Instructions ................................................................................................... 4

II. Overview: Purpose, Evaluation Team, Process, Scope of Work ................................... 6 A. Purpose of the Final Evaluation........................................................................................ 6 B. The Evaluation Team ....................................................................................................... 7 C. The Final Evaluation Process ........................................................................................... 8 D. The Evaluation Teams Scope of Work ............................................................................ 9 Checklist of Final Evaluation Details ......................................................................................... 10 III. The Final Evaluation Report............................................................................................ 11 A. Preliminary Information .................................................................................................. 11 B. Overview of the Project Structure and Implementation: .................................................. 12 C. Evaluation Assessment Methodology and Limitations .................................................... 12 D. Data Quality and Use ..................................................................................................... 13 E. Presentation of Project Results ...................................................................................... 14 F. Discussion of the Results ............................................................................................... 14 G. Discussion of Potential for Sustained Outcomes, Contribution to Scale, Equity, Community Health Worker Models, Global Learning, and Dissemination/Information Use............................................................................................................................. 16 H. Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 19 IV. Specific Reporting Requirements Innovation, New Partner, Expanded Impact, and Tuberculosis ........................................................................................................................... 20 V. Required Annexes ........................................................................................................... 24 Annex 1: Results HighlightEvidence Building ........................................................................ 24 Annex 2: List of Publications and Presentations Related to the Project..................................... 25 Annex 3: Project Management Evaluation ................................................................................ 25 Annex 4: Workplan Table.......................................................................................................... 27 Annex 5: Rapid CATCH Table* ................................................................................................. 28 Annex 6: Final KPC Report ....................................................................................................... 28 Annex 7: CHW Training Matrix (sample) .................................................................................. 29 Annex 8: Evaluation Team Members and their Titles ................................................................ 30 Annex 9: Evaluation Assessment methodology......................................................................... 30 Annex 10: List of persons interviewed and contacted during Final Evaluation ........................... 30 Annex 11: Final operations research report (required for Innovation grants) ............................. 30 Annex 12: Special reports (optional) ......................................................................................... 30 Annex 13: Project Data Form .................................................................................................... 30 Annex 14: Grantee Plans to Address Final Evaluation Findings............................................... 30 Annex 15: Grantee Response to Final Evaluation Findings (optional) ....................................... 30

July 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Introduction
This version of the final evaluation guidance for Child Survival and Health Grants Program (CHSGP) grants was revised in May 2011 in order to incorporate themes that are current priorities for USAID and specific to CSHGP. In addition to assessing project results, the guidelines emphasize how the implementation process helped lead to project results. Due to USAIDs renewed emphasis on evaluation, it is particularly important for this report to include a thorough explanation of the evaluation process and methodologies. These guidelines for final evaluations reflect the evolution of CSHGP, which now includes categories for innovation, with an operations research (OR) element; new partner; tuberculosis; and the final expanded impact projects, as this category will end this year. CSHGP does not currently receive family planning funds. The following are specific changes to the guidance: y y Addition of a section on the evaluation process Addition of a section on evaluation assessment methodology and limitations o Requirement that the following be included in an annex:  Evaluation team scope of work, including timeline of activities  Brief descriptions of information gathering methodologies, such as: key informant interviews; focus group discussions; or facility record review  Data collection instruments, including interview guides  Names of places visited  Documents reviewed Section on special reporting for Innovation Grants o Requirement that final OR report be included as an annex Increased guidance for discussing scale for Expanded Impact projects Elimination of the Family Planning section because currently there are no active projects that received family planning (FlexFund) funding Instructions to discuss aspects that were not so successful

y y y y

July 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

I. Submission Instructions
A. Please complete the Final Evaluation (FE) Report by following the guidance provided in Sections III and IV, as well as the guidance provided for specific annexes, outlined in Section V. B. FE Report body should not exceed 40 pages (excludes annexes, cover page, and table of contents) C. The report and all annexes should be in English or accompanied with a translation. D. Use a 12-point font that is clearly legible. E. On the FE Report cover page, please include the following: y y y y y Name of organization Project location (country and district(s)) Cooperative agreement number Project beginning and end dates Date of report submission

F. On the cover or on the next page, include the names and positions or affiliations of those involved in writing and editing the FE Report. G. The FE Report is due at USAID CSHGP (GH/HIDN/NUT) 60-90 days after the end date of the cooperative agreement. Please refer to your agreement document for the required timeline for your final evaluation. CSHGP suggests that projects allow sufficient time for fieldwork, writing, and editing. Failure to submit a FE Report on time to CSHGP (GH/HIDN/NUT) could result in a material failure, as described in 22 CFR 226.61. If there are circumstances beyond the grantees control that have had an impact on the ability to complete the FE Report on time, contact CSHGP as soon as possible. H. The CSHGP Project Data Form should be reviewed, updated and included with the FE Report submission as an annex. This form is located on the MCHIP PVO/NGO Support website at http://www.mchipngo.net and was originally completed by the grantee during the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) development stage. The information included on this data form is used by the CSHGP to provide accurate updates on active projects, key staff, project objectives and major activities and reflect the current project situation. Rapid CATCH indicators from the final Knowledge Practices and Coverage (KPC) survey should be updated on the form. MCHIP and CSHGP use this information to analyze the successes of the CSHGP projects, including using the Lives Saved Calculator to estimate child mortality changes, which are disseminated widely. Since this form provides a lasting electronic record of the project it is important to ensure that the projects activities are accurately represented, and that end-of-project survey results are recorded completely and accurately. I. Send the CSHGP (address below) two paper copies (one original and one copy) of the Final Evaluation Report, and one electronic copy (CD) of the Final Evaluation Report in Microsoft Word. The original hard copy of the Final Evaluation Report should be double-

May 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

sided and unbound. The copy of the report should be double-sided and bound. Any annexes that are available in hard copy only should be scanned and included on the version submitted on CD. Nazo Kureshy USAID/GH/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Room 3.6.80 Washington, DC 20523-3700 nkureshy@usaid.gov J. Send one electronic copy (CD) and one paper copy of the Final Evaluation Report to the MCHIP PVO/NGO Support Team. The copy of the report should be double-sided and can be unbound. Any annexes that are available in hard copy only should be scanned and included on the version submitted on CD. Please send these documents to: Deborah Kumper MCHIP PVO/NGO Support Team ICF Macro 11785 Beltsville Drive Calverton, MD 20705 dkumper@icfi.com K. Send one, double-sided, unbound copy of the Final Evaluation Report to the relevant USAID Mission. http://www.usaid.gov/locations/missiondirectory.html In accordance with USAID AUTOMATED DIRECTIVES SYSTEM (ADS) 540.5.2, please submit one electronic copy of the Final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). Please include the Cooperative Agreement number on the electronic Final Evaluation Report submission. Electronic documents can be sent as email attachments to docsubmit@usaid.gov. For complete information on submitting documents to the DEC, see http://www.dec.org/submit.

July 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

II.

Overview: Purpose, Evaluation Team, Process, Scope of Work

A. Purpose of the Final Evaluation

The purpose of USAIDs Child Survival and Health Grants Program (CSHGP) is to contribute to sustained improvements in child survival and health outcomes, particularly within vulnerable populations, by supporting the innovative, integrated community oriented programming of private voluntary organizations/non-governmental organizations (PVOs/NGOs) and their incountry partners. CSHGP grants offer unique opportunities to demonstrate the links between specific delivery strategies and measured outcomes. The final evaluation serves a variety of purposes and is aimed at a variety of audiences, with program contributions to global initiatives such as the Global Health Initiative and Feed the Future1. It is important that the evaluator consider these different perspectives when conducting the evaluation and when writing the report.

The Final Evaluation Report is a stand-alone document.

The final evaluation document is the only record of the overall project results and how they were obtained. It is important for evaluators and the grantee to understand that this report will be read by a range of stakeholders who are not familiar with the project, so the evaluator should include enough details about the project for this to be a stand-alone document. In cases where interesting results are presented without sufficient supporting evidence, it will be difficult to include these results as part of the accomplishments of the CSHGP program, or to highlight the accomplishments of specific projects with USAIDs diverse stakeholders.

The final evaluation serves the following purposes: y y y To determine the extent to which the project accomplished the results that were outlined in the DIP and to present the evidence of these accomplishments. To describe key factors that contributed to what worked or did not work regarding some or all aspects of the program and to inform future program actions. To provide a record of how these results were obtained, so USAID can share these results with others outside of the CSHGP programincluding U.S. Congressand incountry partners and the PVO grantee understand what should be done if they want to reproduce these results. To demonstrate how this project contributes to global learning about community-based health programming.

The final evaluation provides an opportunity for all project stakeholders to take stock of accomplishments to date and to listen to the beneficiaries at all levels: including mothers and

For more information on these two initiatives, link to http://www.usaid.gov/ghi and http://www.feedthefuture.gov

July 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

caregivers, other community members and opinion leaders, health workers, health system administrators, local partners, other organizations and donors. The evaluation will be used by the following audiences: y y y y y USAID (CSHGP, Missions) CSHGP Grantees Local partners (MOH, district health team, local organizations) International global health community, as the final evaluations will be posted for public use on http://www.mchipngo.net Other stakeholders

In addition to reviewing project results, USAID/CSHGP extracts information from the portfolio of all CSHGP grants in order to present the key accomplishments of the program, including the number of estimated lives saved based on KPC results, to understand best practices and lessons learned and to explain how CHSGP contributions are important to the global health community. USAID Missions are critical partners for centrally-funded CSHGP projects. The USAID Mission represents and carries out the Agencys strategy for health at the country level, seeking to strengthen MOH efforts and policies through complementary health programming to maximize overall impact at the country level. Mission bilateral programs are vehicles for achieving scale of proven interventions. USAID Missions can provide a forum for exploring opportunities to achieve scale at the country-level. USAID missions will review the FE reports to determine how results contribute to fulfilling the Missions strategic plan. In cases where CSHGP grantees have demonstrated synergies with Mission priorities, Missions have sometimes co-funded these projects or taken on funding for projects once the CSHGP cycle has ended. The final evaluation provides the grantee and local stakeholders an additional opportunity for the project to benefit from the outside perspective of a consultant. This outside perspective provides the grantee and local partners information on accomplishments and areas for improvement, so that future work can take advantage of these experiences. In-country partners who may be continuing project work require a record of what was done as a basis for their future activities. The PVO/NGO can also use the evidence produced from this grant in future programming both in the same country and in other parts of the world.

B. The Evaluation Team

Participation: Although the external evaluator leads the evaluation process, CSHGP encourages the participation of grantee headquarters (HQ) and field project staff, representatives from project partners, USAID Mission staff, government health service personnel, and community members in planning and conducting the evaluation. Representatives from other PVOs/NGOs, USAID Mission Bilateral programs (including Cooperating Agencies), and other stakeholders may be invited. The Lead Evaluator: The grantee identifies a candidate for the Team Leader and proposes this to the CSHGP for approval prior to the evaluation. The Team Leader serves as the lead author and editor of the evaluation report and should be someone who is not currently an employee of

July 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

the grantee organization, nor been involved in the implementation of the specific child survival project. The lead evaluator should be objective, should possess strong evaluation skills and experience relevant to the technical area, and must understand how community-based programs are implemented. The candidate should also have sound facilitation skills, as the evaluation process requires reaching out to key stakeholders and program staff for input and cooperation for a successful program evaluation. Additional Team Members: Additional members may include others that the grantee selects from their organization, its partners, the USAID Mission, and other organizations. Including representatives from partner organizations, such as the Ministry of Health (MOH), in the evaluation process increases their understanding of findings and can influence future programming. It is strongly recommended that the HQ backstop participate as a member of the Final Evaluation team, so that (s)he is well positioned to assist the organization in addressing any recommendations that may emerge.

C. The Final Evaluation Process

Planning for the Final Evaluation begins during the DIP when a preliminary date is identified and sufficient budget is reserved by the grantee for the evaluation. During the early part of the final year of the project, the grantee should review the date and budget from the DIP and make specific plans for the final evaluation. The grantee Remember: MCHIP is available chooses a lead evaluator, who must be approved by as a technical resource for the USAID. The grantee is responsible for developing the grantee. For examples, MCHIP scope of work, although this process involves dialog with can review and provide evaluation team and stakeholders. The grantee is required suggestions for: evaluation to complete a final KPC survey with Rapid CATCH designs, scopes of work, and indicators that are the same as those collected at baseline final KPC survey preparations. and provide a comparison of baseline to final values. The USAID missions are also survey should also contain information for indicators resources who can provide specific to the projects results that are not included in the valuable inputs into the Rapid CATCH indicators, and these should also be evaluation process. consistent with what was collected at baseline. The grantee should also perform other relevant studies to compare with baseline information, i.e. health facility assessments, sustainability assessments. If the evaluator is not involved in quantitative data collection, grantees should ensure that these assessments are finished and analyzed before the evaluator begins work. Grantees should spend time organizing the evaluation before the consultant begins work. The grantee should gather together basic project documents, such as the DIP, Annual reports, Midterm report, KPC report, and any special studies such as Operations Research and send them to the consultant to review before traveling to the country. The grantee should discuss with the consultant site visits and interviews that the evaluation team will conduct. Then arrangements should be made for meetings with key stakeholders including community members Special note: If the grantee feels the need and for site visits. Site visits can include, as to clarify any of the findings, the grantee relevant: observations of Community Health should write a response to the evaluation Workers (CHWs) and their community findings that can be included as an annex interactions; observations of clinic health care at the end of the report. However, the providers; and interviews with partners, grantee should not alter the actual report. community members, and clients of health

July 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

care providers. Debriefing meetings should be set up with key staff from the PVO grantee, partners, and/or USAID. The grantee should also plan for dissemination of final evaluation findings. During the evaluation, the grantee monitors the process to ensure that logistics run smoothly and makes sure that the final evaluation report is submitted in a timely manner. Stakeholders should have discussions about these findings and how they could be useful for future activities.

D. The Evaluation Teams Scope of Work

The grantee is responsible for developing the Scope of Work (SOW) for the evaluation team. CSHGP does not have to approve the evaluation SOW. While these Final Evaluation Guidelines identify a core set of components to be addressed, the grantee and the Evaluation Team Leader should tailor the evaluation to needs and questions specific to the project. The information needs and evaluation questions of the primary partners should also be integrated into the evaluation SOW. As such, the grantee should solicit input about the evaluation with partners including the Mission before the SOW is finalized. The report should address all evaluation questions in the SOW. The main responsibility for writing the Final Evaluation report lies with the lead consultant (or Evaluation Team Leader), though the grantee may be called upon to participate in writing select portions of the narrative or annexes. The grantee may also respond to the findings and recommendations made by the Evaluation Team Leader in an annex, as noted earlier in these guidelines. Key components to a successful evaluation process are field visits; active partner engagement; and triangulation of information collection from different sources by the evaluation team, using studies done prior to the evaluation teams work (e.g. KPC). It is important for the evaluation team to familiarize itself with the projects results framework in order to understand what the project planned on achieving. The entire evaluation process usually requires approximately 25 days and a typical SOW workplan for an evaluator includes the following activities (see below). The distribution of level of effort should be negotiated with the external evaluator based on the context of each particular project: y y y Review project documents prior to travel to the country Travel time to the country and to the project site Team planning meetings with key PVO and partner staff to explain the purpose of the evaluation and with the evaluation team to organize specific activities Field work and data collection: site visits and interviews (key informants and/or focus groups) Data analysis and additional interviews In-country debriefing preparation and presentation (include relevant Ministry, USG stakeholders/USAID Mission) Travel out of the country Drafting and finalizing report

y y y

Special Note: Participation by national counterparts and evaluators in the design and execution of the evaluations is encouraged.

y y

July 2011

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

The grantee should plan ahead to disseminate the findings through existing communication channels (local media, newsletters, internet, group meetings) that will reach communities, policymakers, and organizations who were involved in or affected by the project. In addition, the grantee can ask the evaluation team to identify opportunities to disseminate findings. This can be included in the scope of work.

Checklist of Final Evaluation Details

1. The evaluator should: a. Not have any conflict of interest b. Have research and facilitation skills c. Understand program 2. Development of the Final Evaluation process should: a. Involve key stakeholders, especially the Ministry of Health and USAID b. Use a participatory process to define FE goals and plans 3. Evaluation methodology design should a. Include mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative) 4. The Final Report should include: a. Details about the Evaluation Methodology i. For qualitative methods: 1. Site selection, interview guides, methodologies, how groups or individuals were chosen ii. For quantitative methods: 1. Site selection, sampling methods, sample sizes, questionnaires; dates of surveys (year/month) data was collected for both baseline and FE (helps in interpretation of seasonally affected indicators such as diarrhea, malaria). iii. For all methods: 1. Description strengths and limitations b. Results presentations that: i. Are organized by project strategic objectives or intermediate results ii. Demonstrate that conclusions and recommendations are based on findings iii. Include a description of limitations of conclusions and suggestions c. Description of dissemination and Use of findings including: i. How MTE, FE, OR (if applicable) results have been used ii. How dissemination and use of FE results will occur after the project ends d. Description of how gender considerations were part of project implementation e. Action-oriented, practical and specific recommendations, with defined responsibility for action.

July 2011

10

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

III. The Final Evaluation Report

A. Preliminary Information
The full body of the evaluation report should be preceded by an acronym list, table of contents, and executive summary. The table of contents should follow the headers of this section, and should also include relevant annexes. The Executive Summary must be no longer than 3 pages, excluding the summary table, and must include: y y y Brief description of the project and its goal and objectives. Brief overview of technical interventions, approaches, and strategies used. The main accomplishments of the project, including:

Key Findings/Results from the comparison of the baseline and final evaluation surveys, including measured improvements in health outcomes, as well as other key results such as demonstrated increases in organizational or community capacity, health services improvements, and policy changes achieved through the project and potential for sustainability and replication. Include brief details of any aspects of program Table 1: Summary of Major Project Accomplishments that did not work as originally envisioned and Project Objective #1: To improve use of ORT for children under 5 briefly highlight steps taken to address these Project Inputs Activities Outputs Outcome problems. Brief summary of main conclusions and recommendations Please include a Summary table (see Table 1, right) of the primary inputs, activities, and outputs that contributed to successful outcomes of the projects. This table should not be an exhaustive list, but should only include information for major achievements of the project. Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.
ORS supplies Radio Time Newspaper space IEC and BCC Materials Trainers Launch media campaign to educate mothers Train health professionals in ORT Training (together with staff at district health staff at district health system) Monitoring and supervision Refresher meetings 15 media campaigns completed100 health professionals trained Increase in Percentage of children age 0-23 months with diarrhea in the last two weeks who received oral rehydration solution (ORS) and/or recommended home fluids (from x% to y%).

Increased maternal health knowledge of ORT services (from X% to Y%)

July 2011

11

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

B. Overview of the Project Structure and Implementation:

Provide a brief overview of the project, its structure, and its main strategies for implementation. More detailed documentation may be provided in the annexes. This should include the following: y y y Project goal and objectives (include the projects Results Framework if available) Project location Estimated project area population and the population broken down by children under five and women of reproductive age. Disaggregate children under five in the following categories: under 12 months, 12-23 months, and 24-59 months. Technical and cross cutting interventions: Please describe technical interventions, and principal messages communicated as well as the key program strategies employed (i.e. behavior change, community mobilization, training, policy dialogue/advocacy, etc) Project design: Please describe the overall strategy and project approach employed by the project, which could include details on delivery modalities, packages of interventions, phasing and sequencing of activities, and so on. Please include any specific problems or gaps the interventions were designed to address. Partnerships/collaboration: Please discuss partnerships with groups that played major or supporting roles in project activities. Relevant groups include USAID missions bilateral programs, national/local government (MOH), international/local NGOs, the media, communities, and MCHIP country programs (when present). Other relevant programs: Please list other programs being implemented within the program area by organization, and their respective interventions (i.e. food security, nutrition programs) and duration (if known). Please describe this projects collaboration with the USAID Mission, particularly related to the role this project played in contributing to the Missions overall health objectives.

In an annex, please highlight changes to the project since the DIP by presenting the workplan table from the DIP, but adding an extra column explaining what was achieved, dropped (with brief rationale) or changed2. In addition, please include activities that were added to the project after DIP submission and label them as such.

C. Evaluation Assessment Methodology and Limitations

The final evaluation is a comprehensive approach to assessing project accomplishments and challenges. Along with assessing improvements in outcomes (i.e. skilled attendance at birth, measles vaccination), evaluators look into issues such as: stakeholder and partner opinions on the importance of the project; the communitys perspective of the project; the process of project implementation; how the project addressed contextual factors that changed over the life of the project (i.e. deteriorating security situation, change in government); the effectiveness of the overall project strategy; and lessons learned for future activities. This comprehensive approach involves collecting both quantitative and qualitative information. Baseline assessments are repeated at the end of the project. Specifically, USAID requires that the KPC survey be repeated at the end of the project and in general the KPC survey is completed by the grantee
2

If significant changes were made since the DIP, the evaluator may choose to provide a brief discussion in the narrative of this section Overview of Project

July 2011

12

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

before the evaluation team begins its work. The evaluation team uses KPC results as one part of the comprehensive project assessment. In this section give a brief overview of assessment methodologies used by the evaluation team and for assessments carried out by the grantee prior to the work of the evaluation team. Explain any limitations on information collected. Examples of limitations are: inability to collect final information from part of the project area due to security problems; some indicators were not collected correctly at baseline; key personnel at the health facility were away at a training session and could not be interviewed. In order to help the reader understand details of the evaluation process used by the evaluation team, the following additional information must be included in an annex: y y y y y y Evaluation team scope of work, including timeline of activities Brief descriptions of information gathering methodologies, such as: key informant interviews; focus group discussions; or facility record review Names of key informants interviewed Data collection instruments, including interview guides, data extraction guides, and questionnaires Names of places visited Documents reviewed

USAID requires the inclusion of the final KPC report as an annex to the final evaluation report. Other assessments conducted by the grantee should also be included as annexes.

D. Data Quality and Use

Please present an explanation of the quality of data that is presented in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) table in Section IV, as well as any other evidence presented to support results in this evaluation report. As part of this explanation, review baseline and final assessments and answer the following: y y Were there any problems with the quality of baseline and final assessment performed by the project and how do these problems affect findings? Specifically, list any discrepancies found in the way questions were asked, indicators defined and methodologies implemented between baseline and final KPC surveys. Describe how these discrepancies affect decisions on future activities

In addition the following questions may be useful to guide the assessment of data quality and use: y Did the project utilize an appropriate mix of quantitative and qualitative techniques to inform decision making and measure results? How has the mix of these techniques served to strengthen or weaken the evidence presented here? To what extent are project achievements based on data from the MOH/DOH HIS, and what is your assessment of the quality of that system. Was there a systematic way of collecting, reporting and using data at all project levels? How effective was the system to measure progress towards project results? Cite examples of how project data was used to make management decisions.

y y

July 2011

13

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

E. Presentation of Project Results

CSHGP Projects set forth an M&E plan at the time of their DIPs, which should be the tool used to track progress toward objectives. This table outlines all objectives, indicators, data sources, baseline measures, and targets. The FE report should clearly present data to support whether the project met the objectives it set out to meet in this plan, as well as any other unanticipated achievements that emerged over the life of the project. Presentation of Progress toward Objectives Insert the M&E matrix from the DIP (or updated version, as appropriate) to illustrate the life of project achievements against stated objectives. Please include all project objectives in this matrix. An example (Table 2) is included below: Table 2: M&E Matrix Example Objectives
Increase EBF

Indicators
% infants <6 months of age that were exclusively breastfed in the last 24 hours

Data Source
KPC

Baseline Value
40

Final Value
70

Final Target
80

Strengthen institutional capacity of local organizations to implement effective child health activities

% of community structures coordinating and implementing activities based on an approved Standard Health Plan

CHC Assessment tool

80

70

Please note that grantees are required to provide data on the Rapid Catch Indicators as an annex (see Annex 5) both in this FE Report and on the CSHGP data form at http://mchipngo.net/projects.

F. Discussion of the Results

This section should attempt to link the outcomes achieved to specific activities, and assess the extent to which the activities, partners, and contextual factors combined to influence the outcomes. In addition, each grantee organization makes critical design choices for its project that can have impacts on the achievement of overall project results. Please consider the overall project design and the extent to which it influenced results. 1. Contribution toward Objectives For each objective, please include details on how project implementation led to its achievement, contextual factors that influenced implementation and partners that contributed to select results. Evaluators may focus on the critical results achieved rather than all results achieved if the team opts to do so. For objectives/indicators for which there was a negative trend, the evaluation team should try to identify and discuss the factors responsible for

July 2011

14

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

lack of progress in these areas. If the project generated other notable achievements that can be supported by evidence and contribute to the project goal, but that may have not been part of the original objectives or activities, please present and discuss those achievements in this section. For each objective, provide details on how implementation of strategies and key activities led to the select results. In cases where success in various indicators is the result of the same actions, please group them together and provide one explanation, followed by any additional information specific to an intervention area. For notable outcomes that can be supported by evidence and contributed to the overall goal or specific objectives, discuss how those were achieved. For example, special operations research3 or other studies are often conducted to examine issues that may cut across project objectives; additional funding is contributed by other donors to help advance a successful intervention; or the project received local press coverage, verbal recognition from local or national government officials, or achieved a policy outcome. This section should give attention to the cross-cutting strategies that made important contributions to the results achieved so that the reader has a clear understanding of which result(s) they influenced and how that influence occurred. Examples of cross-cutting approaches include: y y y y y y y y y Social and behavior change activities, including community mobilization and outreach strategies; Community partnership-building; Strategies to increase access to health services, including gender and health equity; Capacity building; Human resources strategies, such as skill based training and supervision; Health systems strengthening; Quality assurance; Information management system strengthening; Policy dialogue and advocacy at local or national levels.

2. Contextual Factors To the extent possible, comment on the local context and how it influenced the relationship between activities and outcomes. Factors such as ethnicity, climate, culture, religion, population density, current policy environment, quality of infrastructure, nature of livelihoods, education, gender norms, management structure and others can serve to facilitate or to impede project activities and the achievement of results. It is similarly important to understand the role of other complementary activities being carried out by other donors/programs in the project area, whether there may have been additional resources or influx of commodities from other donors in the project area (i.e. ITN distribution campaign in the district with Global Fund resources); or other grantee-related or unrelated projects running in the same region which might have shared resources or built off common platforms including food aid, education, child sponsorship, water and sanitation, agriculture or micro-enterprise. Discussion of these factors, as relevant, by the evaluation team can provide useful information to others who may want to replicate parts of the model from this program in different settings. 3. Role of key partners Discuss various partners roles and responsibilities where relevant to the strategies and key activities, and discuss the outcomes of that collaboration. This can be presented in table form if the evaluation team would like, as illustrated on the following page.
3

If operations research was conducted, please summarize the results of those studies and include the full study write up(s) in an annex.

July 2011

15

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Partner

Role in Project

Result of Collaboration

4. Overall Design Factors that Influenced Results Examples of some of these choices might include a training or supervision approach, targeting of vulnerable groups, packaging of certain interventions, phasing the introduction of interventions, and others. Please comment on how successful these design choices were and the extent to which they may have contributed to overall results.

G. Discussion of Potential for Sustained Outcomes, Contribution to Scale, Equity, Community Health Worker Models, Global Learning, and Dissemination/Information Use
CSHGP recognizes the concerted efforts many grantee organizations place on consideration of sustainability, replication or scale; attention to equity; meeting local needs through community health workers; and or contributing to global learning in their CSHGP projects. In fact, many of these themes are a central element of and focal point for grantees and their partners from the design stage. To the extent that the project focused on these areas, and that there is supporting evidence to suggest an important accomplishment or key learning, please use the guiding questions below to discuss these issues. Feel free to integrate the discussion of these areas into the overall presentation and discussion of project results. If these issues are presented or discussed elsewhere in the report, it is not necessary to re-state them. 1. Progress Toward Sustained Outcomes

CSHGP projects often focus on ensuring that sustained health outcomes (e.g. healthy behaviors, service delivery improvements, improved coverage rates) remain past the life of the project. Please present any evidence generated from the project which suggests the potential for sustainability in any specific areas, and which factors will be critical to these elements continuing after the project ends. The following questions are offered to guide the evaluators review of progress toward sustained health outcomes: y If the project used a formal sustainability design methodology (e.g., the Sustainability Framework) at the DIP stage, provide a status update on how the project progressed from the beginning of the project. What new insights have been gained through project implementation? How have the sustainability strategy and M&E plans evolved? Were the sustainability goals and objectives that were articulated in the DIP met? How did the initial sustainability plan (if there was one) evolve through the implementation of the project? What is the status of the phase-out or transition plan, and is it on schedule? After the project, will there be any continuing technical and management assistance?

July 2011

16

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Have the approaches to building financial sustainability-- (e.g., local level financing, cost recovery, resource diversification, corporate sponsorships) been successful? How has the project built demand for services or mobilized the community to influence decision-making on health services provision, participate in decentralization through community or local government structures? What has the PVO done to strengthen a local partner or organization with a larger and lasting reach to carry on activities after the project has been completed? What has the project done to strengthen the health system, including the health information system, so that activities can be carried on after the project has been completed? Will any components of the project be continued/supported by the USAID Mission or bi-lateral program after the CSHGP funding ends? Were there policy changes or new policies to enable sustainability and funding? Was there institutionalization or integration with non-health sectors?

y y

2. Contribution to replication or scale up The CSHGP recognizes that projects may make important contributions to replicating or scaling up proven interventions over the life of the project, through building a foundation for scale from the beginning, playing a catalytic role with government or other partners, and/or engaging in policy dialogue or advocacy activities. Expanded Impact Projects were designed to contribute to scaling up, and detailed guidance for discussing this in the Final Evaluation is included in Section V of these guidelines. Those projects that were not awarded as Expanded Impact, but which have nonetheless made important contributions to scale, should also use the guidance in Section V to inform the discussion of their results. 3. Attention to Equity Improving equity is central to the Program and many projects have addressed inequity. Please use the following questions to guide the discussion of the projects contribution to equity, as relevant:
y y y y y y What types of equity were addressed by this project and how were they determined? (socioeconomic equity, gender equity; ethnic identity, geographic equity, etc) How did the project build off of existing government platforms or strategies for ensuring equity? How did the projects use evidence of inequities in the project area to target interventions and activities to the most disadvantaged sub-populations? Did the project specifically measure improvements in equity within the project area? If so, please explain. What results did these strategies yield? How did the project address factors of gender inequity that affect womens abilities to improve her health and/or that of her family. Examples of these factors include: power and decision making structures within the family and community; different access to resources between women and men; and cultural acceptability of health services for women. Role of Community Health Workers

4.

Community Health Workers (CHWs) of various types often play a critical role in the successes of CSHGP projects. Much effort is focused on mobilizing, building, strengthening and supporting

July 2011

17

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

cadres of community-based health workers to better address the needs of communities. The CSHGP and the larger global health community are interested in CHW models and how they can be replicated and scaled up. Please present, as relevant, the projects model for building the capacity of CHWs, and how that model contributed to the overall project objectives and results. Include information on specific roles of CHWs, and motivational factors and/or remuneration packages for CHWs. Please include a discussion of the type of supervision received by community health workers, how effective that supervision model was, and how CHWs will continue to receive supervision once the project ends. Please also discuss whether the CHWs that the project engaged are government cadres, whether the grantee organization built a new cadre of health workers, or a combination. At a minimum, please complete the CHW matrix to be included as Annex 7.
5. Contribution to Global Learning

Please highlight important lessons learned or promising practices that emerged from the project that would benefit the larger global development community. Please discuss whether certain components of this project should be replicated or considered for scale up, the types of input and support, and at what levels, would be required. In addition, please comment on which aspects of this project show promise for contributing to learning regarding the service delivery strategies for high-impact interventions and what, if any, additional information/evidence would be useful to document these strategies. USAID is particularly interested in learning that contributes to the advancement of the core principles of the Global Health Initiative4, Feed the Future Initiative5, and/or the USAID Forward reform agenda6. In addition, the MCHIP Project, USAIDs Flagship Project for Maternal and Child Health, is interested in learning related to scaling-up proven interventions; approaches to addressing equity issues in order to reach the most vulnerable populations; innovative approaches to maximize the efficiency and performance of community health workers; and practical lessons about smart integration (e.g., when integrating two or more interventions yields a greater value than would have been achieved by delivering these interventions separately). The evaluation team is encouraged to frame contributions to learning that emerge from this project in terms of the most relevant themes noted above.
6. Dissemination and Information Use

CSHGP projects aim at generating and using the knowledge learned from implementing their programs. The grantee should document how the information has been used to improve the program during implementation and if they have used or have plans to use the findings from the final evaluation. There should be wider dissemination and discussion of the findings to project stakeholders who were involved or affected by the project. Also, highlight instances where the project has used information from their program data as evidence to get additional resources from an external funder. Include any program experiences or results that have been disseminated to other stakeholders beyond program staff (i.e. MOH, other NGOs), and if there are any plans to diffuse and use the program results elsewhere.
The seven principles underlying the foundation of GHI are the following: Implement a woman- and girl-centered approach; Increase impact through strategic coordination and integration; Strengthen and leverage key multilateral organizations, global health partnerships and private sector engagement; Encourage country ownership and invest in country-led plans; Build sustainability through health systems strengthening; Improve metrics, monitoring and evaluation; and Promote research and innovation. A public consultation document focusing on the GHI may be accessed at: http://www.usaid.gov/ghi/ 5 Feed the Future (FtF) is part of the USGs determined strategic and analytical approach to accelerate progress toward the Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty and suffering from hunger by 2015. More information on FtFs strategy and principles can be found at http://www.feedthefuture.gov/ 6 Additional information focusing on the USAID Forward reform agenda can be found at: http://forward.usaid.gov/about/overview
4

July 2011

18

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

H. Conclusions and Recommendations

This section presents the main conclusions based on this final evaluation. 1. Based on the data from the baseline and final assessments presented in the summary chart and results discussion, present the overall conclusions regarding the evidence about what worked and what did not as a result of this project, as well as its contributions locally, nationally, and globally. 2. Present the most important recommendations that are supported and based on specific set of key findings generated through this project. Recommendations can be put forward to the grantee, the CSHGP, or other collaborating partners as appropriate. 3. In an optional Annex, grantee HQ representatives may present a short section on how they intend to address recommendations made by the evaluation team, and how they will communicate the best practices and lessons learned from the project to the broader development community.

July 2011

19

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

IV. Specific Reporting Requirements Innovation, New Partner, Expanded Impact, and Tuberculosis
Currently there are four categories of CSHGP grants: Innovation, New Partner, Expanded Impact, and Tuberculosis. In addition to the guidance in Section III, grantees are required to address the questions/issues raised in the relevant sections below, and should seek to integrate the discussion of these issues into the body of their repots. Grantees that have made important contributions to scaling up their programs should be sure to review the guidelines for Expanded Impact projects, which offer more detailed guidance on questions to consider related to scaling up. A. Innovations Grantees: Contribution to Improved Program Delivery and Global Learning Operations research is a key component of innovation grants. The final report of this research must be included as an annex to the final evaluation. In addition to the final OR report, please provide a brief summary of the innovation, research questions asked, study design, key findings, how results have been used, including a discussion of the relevance of these results at the country and global levels. Also include recommendations about the innovation, whether it should be replicated, scaled-up, re-tested or terminated.

B. New Partner Grantees: Changes in Grantee Organization Capacity

Please present evidence of how participation in the CSHGP provided an opportunity for the organization to strengthen its institutional (technical and organizational) capacity in specific areas. Describe measures taken by the grantee organization to strengthen capacity in specific areas and discuss how they strengthened the project. If the grantee conducted an organizational assessment during the DIP phase, please comment on any progress or changes since that assessment referring to appropriate indicators in the projects monitoring and evaluation plan. C. Expanded Impact Grantees: Contribution to Scale/Scaling Up

Expanded Impact programs are intended to take proven interventions or strategies to scale subnationally or nationally, attaining a broader impact by collaborating with other partners including PVOs, implementing agencies, private sector, and regional and national governments. For purposes of understanding the process of scaling up, the evaluation should go beyond discussing project results. It should provide the audience with an understanding of the individual components of the intervention and the underlying logic of how they fit together. The evaluation team should explain how project specific activities contributed to scale and what other activities and events in country also contributed. The team should assess whether all of the activities were really necessary to produce the outcomes, and to make suggestions for simplifying the model. The evaluation should also explain whether and what foundations for future scale up have been laid. In the years since the Expanded Impact grants were awarded, the global thinking and consensus around how to achieve scale has developed. Steps to achieving scale-up of an intervention or package of interventions have been more clearly delineated. These steps include: July 2011 20 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

1) a pre-introductory phase in which government officials and partners are unaware or uninterested to building initial consensus; 2) a second phase in which definitive decisions are made and consensus is built to motivate policy change; 3) an introduction phase that moves from motivating to implementation in which tools, guidelines, curricula, logistics and procurement are considered; 4) an early implementation where the intervention is rolled out in limited geographic areas; 5) an expansion phase that involves moving from limited implementation to expansion geographically, as well as institutionalizing and sustaining an activity. The CSHGP would like to demonstrate how Expanded Impact grantees have contributed to this body of global knowledge and experience. The questions below are to be used as a guide for this component of the final evaluation process. The goal of the questions is to elucidate the process of achieving scale in a particular context and contribute to global learning. The questions do not have to be rigidly followed, but used to explore and understand the implementation process as well as the gaps and challenges.
If others are to replicate or expand the intervention, they will need to know what the activities of the project were; how those activities were implemented; and whether the project experience suggests simpler or different ways to deliver these interventions in the future.

The evaluation team should follow the thematic flow of the Final Evaluation Guidelines, with a focus on presenting the project results as measured. These themes include organization of the intervention and human resources, community mobilization, behavior change communication, capacity building approach, health systems strengthening, policy and advocacy, sustainability, and contextual factors. However, additional guiding questions (suggested below) should also be used, as relevant and applicable, to discuss the results and the process and to offer recommendations for additional scale-up and/or replication.
Specific Expanded Impact Questions: 1. Please describe the potential opportunities that you saw for program expansion or scale up at the beginning of your project that defined your scale-up plan then e.g. existing national champions, scheduled national conferences/events, MOH policy etc 2. What were the (most significant bottlenecks to scaling up your intervention in the country? Briefly describe what the program did to address these bottlenecks. 3. To what extent has the intervention(s)/strategy been incorporated into strategy, policy, and programmatic decisions at the district level or above? Did the grantee contribute to advocacy necessary to adopt a policy change? How effective was advocacy to support scaling up and what were the lessons learned? What modifications to the intervention made/make policy adoption more likely and implementation more feasible? 4. 5. Are the steps for correctly performing the intervention(s) incorporated into service delivery guidelines? If not, where is the country in this process? Are related guidelines, tools, curricula, job aids specific to the intervention developed and approved? If not, where is the country in this process?

July 2011

21

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

6. 7. 8. 9.

Are the relevant commodities on the essential drug list? If not, where is the country in the process of ensuring consistent supply of necessary commodities? Are CHWs or the health worker cadre necessary for the intervention authorized to carry out the intervention? If not, where is the country in this process? Is the intervention tracked by indicators in the national HMIS? If not, where is the country in this process? Clearly describe the projects contribution to scaling up, and present any available evidence to demonstrate the (cost) effectiveness of the strategy. You can provide a measure of cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit in terms of the unit cost (overall cost of the intervention) over some denominator (per beneficiary, per death avoided, per population). Note: Make sure to use overall costs of the intervention and not the project. These are not the same thing! Do you have any reason to believe that costs would increase or decrease at scale? Discuss what was scaled-down to scale-up (in other words, what was simplified in order to scale up interventions) in this project, and whether this was the appropriate choice based on the lessons learned from implementation. In further scaling up this intervention, what would you recommend to be the most cost-effective package of components to be scaled up based on the evidence and capacity available? To what extent are all of the components or sub-activities needed, and which ones might be dropped with minimal loss of impact? In cases where multiple organizations partnered together to implement the project, please discuss any key lessons learned about such partnerships that would benefit such approaches in the future. As relevant, please discuss how the project utilized strategic networks or partnerships to reach beneficiaries at the district, regional, or national levels. If the intervention was adopted nationally, what percent of districts are currently covered with this intervention? As relevant, please discuss how the grantee partnered with Mission-funded bi-lateral programs to support implementation of national strategies in geographic regions that were not covered by other partners. Also, if relevant, describe how the project linked with, built upon, or created synergies with other development activities or the work of other funders or partners to expand access and coverage of its interventions. To what extent is the intervention scalable by the public health system? What kind of systems strengthening might be required to improve the likelihood of successful implementation by the public health system at scale? What are the challenges to scaling up this intervention in this context? Did the grantee strengthen the health system at the district or higher level in such a way that it has the capacity to carry out proven interventions at the same scale at which the project operated?

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

In the section described earlier on Recommendations and Conclusions, Expanded Impact projects should consider making targeted recommendations on the following topics: y y y Recommend whether the scaling up methodology used was effective in terms of reaching scale sustainably and equitably. Recommend modifications to the interventions that may make policy adoption more likely and implementation more feasible, if that has not yet occurred; Identify system strengthening interventions that could improve the likelihood of successful achievement of scale by the government system, including an assessment of the importance of the system strengthening implemented by the project.

July 2011

22

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

D. Tuberculosis Grantees Grantees should report on the monitoring indicators and benchmarks agreed upon in their DIPs, using the M&E and Workplan tables described earlier in this guidance. In addition, please discuss how, if at all, participation in the CSHGP provided an opportunity for the organization to strengthen its institutional capacity in Tuberculosis.

July 2011

23

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

V.

Required Annexes

Annex 1: Results HighlightEvidence Building

The CSHGP is interested in innovative ideas, promising practices, and best practices that are emerging from its grantee community, for the purpose of providing practical and evidence-based examples to its stakeholders who want to learn about the contributions of the project to international health. These stakeholders include USAID leadership within the Bureau for Global Health as well as other parts of the agency, in addition to USAID Missions, other donors, and the U.S. Congress. For the purposes of establishing a common language for defining grantee contributions, the CSHGP has adopted the following general definitions for innovative ideas, promising practices, and best practices. We are interested in learning more about grantee contributions that may fall into any of these categories.

Innovative ideas: These are practices that show creative solutions to common community health problems and may demonstrate effectiveness, but have no evidence base yet. These are ideas that a grantee may be testing and trying to further document the process for replication and the evidence of effectiveness. Promising practice: An approach, activity, or strategy that has worked within one organization and shows evidence-based promise during its early stage for becoming a best practice with long term sustainable impact. A promising practice must have some objective basis for claiming effectiveness and must have potential for replication among other organizations and in other settings. Best practice: These are practices with evidence of both effectiveness and ease of replication, and are often supported by peer reviewed literature and international standards.

Considering these definitions, please provide a one-page highlight of an innovative idea, promising practice, or best practice that is being advanced by this project, providing as much evidence as possible at the time of this report. Each highlight should include the following information: y y y y y y y The problem being addressed (e.g. low immunization coverage) A short description of the project and context, so that this highlight can be a stand alone document. The projects input to address it (technical assistance, logistics support, training, partnerships etc.) The magnitude of the intervention (number of direct beneficiaries, percentage of population covered by CSHGP, etc.) Some quantifiable or specific results (immunization increased from X% to X% in XX districts, a new policy enacted, or some other impact-oriented result). Challenges encountered and how they were overcome. How these solutions are sustainable (integrated into existing systems, aligned with existing policies or influencing new policies, institutionalization of new approaches, etc.)

May 2011

24

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Annex 2: List of Publications and Presentations Related to the Project

If project team members have published any papers that highlight project results, or presented the project at any major conferences or during the life of the project, please include a list of these papers/presentations as an annex to this report. The grantee should, as feasible, include any relevant papers published as an annex to the Final Evaluation report.

Annex 3: Project Management Evaluation

This section provides space for the evaluator to discuss project management issues, at HQ, within the field project, with partners and with the community. Management issues include: planning, financial management, information management, personnel management, supervision, training, logistics, technical and administrative support, etc. The evaluator should explore the areas described below as part of the evaluation. In the case that any one of these areas affected the project either by creating efficiencies that led to success or that posed challenges, please provide explanations and discuss any lessons learned. The questions listed below are suggestions of points to consider in these management areas, but the evaluator is not required to respond to them all.

Planning y y How inclusive was the project planning process and what effect did this have on the implementation process? To what extent was the DIP work plan practical? Based on the grantees and its partners experience with this project, what could be added to the DIP preparation and review process that would have strengthened implementation? What were the gaps in the DIP and how were they addressed by the project staff?

Supervision of Project Staff y y y Was the supervisory system adequate? Is the supervisory system fully institutionalized and can it be maintained? Is there evidence that the projects approach to strengthening supervisory systems has been adopted beyond the project?

Human Resources and Staff Management

y Are essential personnel policies and procedures of the grantee and partner organizations in place, to continue project operations that are intended to be sustainable? Describe the morale, cohesion and working relationships of project personnel and how this affected project implementation. Describe the level of staff turnover throughout the life of the project, and the impact it has had on project implementation.

y y

July 2011

25

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Have plans been developed to facilitate staff transition to other paying jobs at the end of the project?

Financial Management [to be completed with the field staff and lead evaluator] In this section only address broad areas of financial management, such as was there timely transfer of funds to field activities or were there enough funds to cover key activities. The following are points that can be considered.
y Discuss the adequacy of the grantees and partners financial management and accountability for project finances and budgeting. If the project budget was adjusted, explain why. Do the project implementers have adequate budgeting skills to be able to accurately estimate costs and elaborate on budgets for future programming? Are adequate resources in place to finance operations and activities that are intended to be sustained beyond this cooperative agreement? Was there sufficient outside technical assistance available to assist the grantee and its partners to develop financial plans for sustainability?

y y

Logistics
y y What impact has logistics (procurement and distribution of equipment, supplies, vehicles, etc.) had on the implementation of the project? Is the logistics system sufficiently strong to support operations and activities that are intended to be sustained?

Information Management
y y y y How effective was the system to measure progress towards project objectives? Was there a systematic way of collecting, reporting and using data at all project levels? Cite examples of how project data was used to make management or technical decisions. Is the project staff sufficiently skilled to continue collecting project data/information and to use it for project revisions or strengthening? Did the project conduct or use special assessments, mini survey focus groups, etc. to solve problems or test new approaches? Give examples of the research, use of data, and outcomes. To what extent did the project strengthen other existing data collection systems (i.e. government)? Do the project staff, headquarters staff, local level partners, and the community have a clear understanding of what the project has achieved? How have the projects monitoring and impact data been used beyond this child survival project?

y y y

July 2011

26

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Technical and Administrative Support y y Discuss types and sources, timeliness, and utility of external technical assistance the project has received to date. What assistance did the project need that was not available? How could grantee headquarters and/or USAID better plan for the technical assistance needs of grantee projects? Discuss grantee headquarters and regional technical and managerial support of the field project. Approximately how much time has been devoted to supporting this project?

Management Lessons Learned

List the overall management lessons learned, in terms of planning, training, supervision, human resources, financial management, logistics, information management, and technical support. Describe how the grantee organization (HQ and field management) will share and internalize these lessons.

Other Issues Identified by the Team

Discuss additional issues identified by the team during the course of the evaluation, which are not covered by these guidelines.

Annex 4: Workplan Table

Copy the workplan from the DIP. Keep the column for Objectives and Activities, but remove other columns. Add two columns with these headings: Objective Met and Activity Status. An example is provided below. Objectives/Activities Increase EBF Activity 1: Provide IEC materials for the ANC clinics on the benefits of breastfeeding for the mother and child Activity 2: Train 2 nurse-midwives at each of the 12 ANC clinic as leaders for breastfeeding support groups Objective Met yes Completed Incomplete; natural disaster disrupted training and project was unable to facilitate it at another time. Activity Status

July 2011

27

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Annex 5: Rapid CATCH Table*

This table should display Rapid CATCH baseline, midterm evaluation (MTE) (if collected) and final estimates. Indicate with an * those final estimates that are significantly different from the corresponding baseline estimates. Statistical significance can be ascertained by analyzing the confidence intervals. If the confidence intervals for the baseline and final estimates do not overlap, then the estimates are significantly different. You can see the confidence intervals on the project data form. Contact MCHIP SO3 team if you have any questions. An example of the Rapid CATCH table is provided below: Indicator % infants <6 months of age that were exclusively breastfed in the last 24 hours Baseline Estimate MTE Estimate Final Estimate

40

50

70*

*Note: The Rapid CATCH table is not required for TB Grantees

Annex 6: Final KPC Report

See http://www.mchipngo.net/controllers/link.cfc?method=tools_mande for guidance.

July 2011

28

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Annex 7: CHW Training Matrix (sample)

Project Area (name of district or community)
Dhoti and Kailali Districts

Type of CHW

Official government CHW or Grantee developed cadre

Government

Paid or Volunteer

Number Trained over life of project

Focus of Training

Female Community Health Worker

Volunteer

1893

Counseling and CB data collection/ analysis; Management of danger signs for Hypothermia; Birth Asphyxia; LBW Supervision Technical and counseling skills re: Hypothermia; Birth Asphyxia; LBW Supervision Technical and counseling skills re: Hypothermia; Birth Asphyxia; LBW

Dhoti and Kailali Districts

Maternal Child Health Workers

Granteedeveloped cadre

Paid

72

Dhoti and Kailali Districts

Village Health Workers

Government

Paid

72

May 2011

29

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

Annex 8: Evaluation Team Members and their Titles Annex 9: Evaluation Assessment methodology
Please include the following information: y Evaluation team scope of work, including timeline of activities y Brief descriptions of information gathering methodologies, such as: key informant interviews; focus group discussions; or facility record review y Data collection instruments, including interview guides y Names of places visited y Documents reviewed

Annex 10: List of persons interviewed and contacted during Final Evaluation Annex 11: Final operations research report (required for Innovation grants) Annex 12: Special reports (optional)
If applicable, please include special reports, journal papers, presentations or analyses produced by the project.

Annex 13: Project Data Form

Updated and printed from http://mchipngo.net/projects/

Annex 14: Grantee Plans to Address Final Evaluation Findings Annex 15: Grantee Response to Final Evaluation Findings (optional)

May 2011

30

Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP