Child Survival & Health Grants_ Jenn Wiess_10.14.11
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•297 vues
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Child Survival & Health Grants_ Jenn Wiess_10.14.11
Similaire à Child Survival & Health Grants_ Jenn Wiess_10.14.11 (20)
Plus de CORE Group
Plus de CORE Group (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Child Survival & Health Grants_ Jenn Wiess_10.14.11
- 1. Working in Consortium to Implement Child Survival Programs: The KabehoMwana Experience in Rwanda Presented by: Jennifer Weiss, MPH Health Advisor, Concern Worldwide CORE Fall Meeting 2011
- 2. Project Overview Implemented from 2007 – 2011 in six districts in Rwanda (20% of the country) Target population: 300,000 children under five Technical interventions: malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia
- 6. Lead for overall program and partner relations
- 7. Technical lead on quality assurance
- 8. Lead agency and budget holder for two of 6 districts
- 9. Technical lead on monitoring and evaluation
- 10. Lead agency and budget holder for two of 6 districts
- 11. Lead on community mobilization
- 13. Integrated Partnership Management Structure Team Leader (Concern) Quality Assurance Manager (Concern) Community Mobilization Manager (World Relief) M&E Manager (IRC) Ngoma and Kirehe Districts Gisagara and Nyaraguru Districts Nyamagabe and Nyamasheke Districts
- 14. “The EIP is the best consortia model I have ever seen.” - USAID Rwanda Chief of Mission
- 15. EIP Principles of Partnership Mutual respect and trust Ownership for all agencies Interdependence and compatibility Accountability and transparency Learning Communication Decision by consensus
- 16. Principles of Partnership in Action Aligning HR policies of three organizations from the start – difficult and bumpy process at beginning, but very necessary Transparency with budgets and decision making Communication: District level weekly coordination meetings, bi-annual retreats
- 17. Partnership Influence on Program Impact Size of program: 20% of country! Ability to quickly and effectively train and provide supervision for proven interventions (CCM) Learning laboratory For key innovations, such as adapted Care Group model, IMCI Bulletin
- 18. Partnership Influence on Program Impact Increased resources: All three agencies secured match funding for nutrition intervention Active case finding and referral Health facility training in CMAM PD Hearth Community Kitchen
- 19. Partnership Influence on Program Impact Relationships with the MOH Greater coordination and collaboration as MOH only has to liaise with one partner instead of three Stronger voice for advocacy, evidence-building Representation at TWGs
- 20. Partnership Management Pros and Cons Pros Cross-organizational capacity building Creative problem solving Increased resources and flexibility to address program gaps and enhance programming Match funding Technical backstop collaboration Cons At national and field levels, project primarily known as KabehoMwanaor “EIP”; and secondarily identified with Concern Less visibility for WR and IRC Increased reporting burden Coordination issues (aligning policies, etc.) takes lots of time!
- 21. Lessons Learned Whole greater than the sum of its parts Working in consortium provided opportunities to not only reach high numbers of beneficiaries, but also facilitate program synergies and cross-learning Expanded Impact Program model combined with consortium approach maximizes potential for scale and program impact
- 22. Lessons Learned Despite deliberate branding, program known as “KabehoMwana” – while positive, this also contributed to decreased visibility of individual organizations (especially WR and IRC) Difficulties in securing future funding as a consortium Retreating to original districts, with holes in programmatic support Key factors: Transparency, communication, mutual respect, compromise!
- 23. MurakozeCyane! MURAKOZE CYANE!
Notes de l'éditeur
- All three NGOs had been a recipient of CSP grants in Rwanda and proven experience implementing HBM since 2005 in Rwanda.Demonstrated inter-agency collaboration and partnership with local health governments and communities
- Country program management team is based in Kigali, headed by the Team Leader (from Concern Worldwide) and supported by a team of Managers from each of the three NGOs:Community Mobilization Manager from World Relief: to ensure technical standards of the program for community mobilization approach and to lead the behavior change strategy and implementation, provide technical support to the district community mobilization teamsMonitoring and Evaluation Manager from IRC:to manage the baseline, mid-term and final evaluation surveys, refine the M&E monitoring system and framework, build district and staff capacity in the use of this system; and lead operational research activitiesQA Manager from Concern: To ensure technical standards of the program’s quality assurance activities at the community and health facility levels.The Lead Agency functions are to ensure cross-functionality of the team from the three NGOs and an appropriate level of technical and administrative oversight. The Project Officers from the Lead Agency in each of the districts carry a special role in terms of district representation, team management and coordination, implementation of activities, including budget administration and reporting.
- So, what made the consortium so successful?
- EIP widely lauded for playing key role in taking CCM to scale in Rwanda. How did partnership model contribute to program impact?
- Match funding key to success. Also allowed us to procure RDTs, and have greater flexibility to cover program gaps.
- Cons: financial reporting issues with delays due to having to wait for charges to be processed by partners rather than coming directly to us. Also role identification in the districts was sometimes confusing. The consortium was not registered as an entity so we had to report separately for overlapping areas of responsibility