Está en la página 1de 31

Contents
Contents.....................................................................................................................................2 Introduction................................................................................................................................3 Overview: Purpose, Evaluation Team, Process, Scope of Work...............................6 Purpose of the Final Evaluation...................................................................................................6 The Evaluation Team...................................................................................................................7 The Final Evaluation Process......................................................................................................8 The Evaluation Team’s Scope of Work .......................................................................................9 Checklist of Final Evaluation Details..........................................................................................10 The Final Evaluation Report....................................................................................................11 Preliminary Information..............................................................................................................11 Overview of the Project Structure and Implementation:.............................................................12 Evaluation Assessment Methodology and Limitations...............................................................12 Data Quality and Use ................................................................................................................13 Presentation of Project Results .................................................................................................14 Discussion of the Results ..........................................................................................................14 Discussion of Potential for Sustained Outcomes, Contribution to Scale, Equity, Community Health Worker Models, Global Learning, and Dissemination/Information Use.............16 Conclusions and Recommendations..........................................................................................19 Specific Reporting Requirements — Innovation, New Partner, Expanded Impact, and Tuberculosis............................................................................................................................20 III.Required Annexes...............................................................................................................24 Annex 1: Results Highlight—Evidence 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*..................................................................................................29 Annex 6: Final KPC Report........................................................................................................29 Annex 7: CHW Training Matrix (sample)...................................................................................30 Annex 8: Evaluation Team Members and their Titles.................................................................31 Annex 9: Evaluation Assessment methodology.........................................................................31 Annex 10: List of persons interviewed and contacted during Final Evaluation...........................31 Annex 11: Final operations research report (required for Innovation grants) .............................31 Annex 12: Special reports (optional) .........................................................................................31 Annex 13: Project Data Form ....................................................................................................31 Annex 14: Grantee Plans to Address Final Evaluation Findings...............................................31 Annex 15: Grantee Response to Final Evaluation Findings (optional) ......................................31

July 2011

2 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 USAID’s 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: • • 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

• • • •

July 2011

3 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP

including using the Lives Saved Calculator to estimate child mortality changes. The FE Report is due at USAID CSHGP (GH/HIDN/NUT) 60-90 days after the end date of the cooperative agreement. include the names and positions or affiliations of those involved in writing and editing the FE Report. which are disseminated widely. MCHIP and CSHGP use this information to analyze the successes of the CSHGP projects. and that end-of-project survey results are recorded completely and accurately.61. as described in 22 CFR 226. The report and all annexes should be in English or accompanied with a translation. H. The information included on this data form is used by the CSHGP to provide accurate updates on active projects. outlined in Section V. E. This form is located on the MCHIP PVO/NGO Support website at http://www. G. Use a 12-point font that is clearly legible.I. CSHGP suggests that projects allow sufficient time for fieldwork. writing. 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. Please complete the Final Evaluation (FE) Report by following the guidance provided in Sections III and IV. key staff. The CSHGP Project Data Form should be reviewed. Failure to submit a FE Report on time to CSHGP (GH/HIDN/NUT) could result in a material failure. On the cover or on the next page. D. as well as the guidance provided for specific annexes. please include the following: • • • • • Name of organization Project location (country and district(s)) Cooperative agreement number Project beginning and end dates Date of report submission F. contact CSHGP as soon as possible.mchipngo. FE Report body should not exceed 40 pages (excludes annexes. If there are circumstances beyond the grantee’s control that have had an impact on the ability to complete the FE Report on time. On the FE Report cover page. and one electronic copy (CD) of the Final Evaluation Report in May 2011 4 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . B.net and was originally completed by the grantee during the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) development stage. cover page. I. Since this form provides a lasting electronic record of the project it is important to ensure that the project’s activities are accurately represented. and table of contents) C. Submission Instructions A. and editing. Please refer to your agreement document for the required timeline for your final evaluation. updated and included with the FE Report submission as an annex. Send the CSHGP (address below) two paper copies (one original and one copy) of the Final Evaluation Report.

Please include the Cooperative Agreement number on the electronic Final Evaluation Report submission. Please send these documents to: Deborah Kumper MCHIP PVO/NGO Support Team ICF Macro 11785 Beltsville Drive Calverton. For complete information on submitting documents to the DEC. see http://www.usaid. Send one. 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. July 2011 5 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP .html In accordance with USAID AUTOMATED DIRECTIVES SYSTEM (ADS) 540.gov J. http://www. double-sided. MD 20705 dkumper@icfi.5.gov. The copy of the report should be double-sided and bound.gov/locations/missiondirectory.Microsoft Word. unbound copy of the Final Evaluation Report to the relevant USAID Mission.6. DC 20523-3700 nkureshy@usaid.dec. Send one electronic copy (CD) and one paper copy of the Final Evaluation Report to the MCHIP PVO/NGO Support Team. Electronic documents can be sent as email attachments to docsubmit@usaid. Any annexes that are available in hard copy only should be scanned and included on the version submitted on CD. please submit one electronic copy of the Final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).com K. The original hard copy of the Final Evaluation Report should be doublesided and unbound.org/submit.2.80 Washington. Nazo Kureshy USAID/GH/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Room 3.

or to highlight the accomplishments of specific projects with USAID’s diverse stakeholders. by supporting the innovative. • 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 1 For more information on these two initiatives. Congress—and incountry partners and the PVO grantee understand what should be done if they want to reproduce these results. link to http://www. integrated community oriented programming of private voluntary organizations/non-governmental organizations (PVOs/NGOs) and their incountry partners. it will be difficult to include these results as part of the accomplishments of the CSHGP program. To provide a record of how these results were obtained. The final evaluation serves a variety of purposes and is aimed at a variety of audiences. It is important that the evaluator consider these different perspectives when conducting the evaluation and when writing the report. The final evaluation document is the only record of the overall project results and how they were obtained. In cases where interesting results are presented without sufficient supporting evidence. Evaluation Team. so the evaluator should include enough details about the project for this to be a stand-alone document.usaid. 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.Overview: Purpose. CSHGP grants offer unique opportunities to demonstrate the links between specific delivery strategies and measured outcomes. To demonstrate how this project contributes to global learning about community-based health programming. The Final Evaluation Report is a stand-alone document.feedthefuture. Scope of Work Purpose of the Final Evaluation The purpose of USAID’s Child Survival and Health Grants Program (CSHGP) is to contribute to sustained improvements in child survival and health outcomes. The final evaluation serves the following purposes: • • • 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. Process.gov July 2011 6 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . so USAID can share these results with others outside of the CSHGP program—including U. particularly within vulnerable populations. with program contributions to global initiatives such as the Global Health Initiative and Feed the Future1.S. 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.gov/ghi and http://www.

mchipngo. health system administrators. and community members in planning and conducting the evaluation. This outside perspective provides the grantee and local partners information on accomplishments and areas for improvement. The USAID Mission represents and carries out the Agency’s strategy for health at the country level. CSHGP encourages the participation of grantee headquarters (HQ) and field project staff. representatives from project partners. Missions have sometimes co-funded these projects or taken on funding for projects once the CSHGP cycle has ended. 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 7 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . so that future work can take advantage of these experiences. Representatives from other PVOs/NGOs. local organizations) International global health community. In-country partners who may be continuing project work require a record of what was done as a basis for their future activities. Missions) CSHGP Grantees Local partners (MOH. The final evaluation provides the grantee and local stakeholders an additional opportunity for the project to benefit from the outside perspective of a consultant. USAID missions will review the FE reports to determine how results contribute to fulfilling the Mission’s strategic plan. as the final evaluations will be posted for public use on http://www. including the number of estimated lives saved based on KPC results. district health team. USAID Missions can provide a forum for exploring opportunities to achieve scale at the country-level. The Evaluation Team Participation: Although the external evaluator leads the evaluation process. government health service personnel. The evaluation will be used by the following audiences: • • • • • USAID (CSHGP. USAID Mission staff. health workers. The Lead Evaluator: The grantee identifies a candidate for the Team Leader and proposes this to the CSHGP for approval prior to the evaluation. local partners. USAID Missions are critical partners for centrally-funded CSHGP projects. other community members and opinion leaders. seeking to strengthen MOH efforts and policies through complementary health programming to maximize overall impact at the country level. In cases where CSHGP grantees have demonstrated synergies with Mission priorities. to understand best practices and lessons learned and to explain how CHSGP contributions are important to the global health community. USAID Mission Bilateral programs (including Cooperating Agencies). and other stakeholders may be invited.net Other stakeholders In addition to reviewing project results.caregivers. Mission bilateral programs are vehicles for achieving scale of proven interventions. 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. other organizations and donors. USAID/CSHGP extracts information from the portfolio of all CSHGP grants in order to present the key accomplishments of the program.

as the evaluation process requires reaching out to key stakeholders and program staff for input and cooperation for a successful program evaluation. such as the DIP.the grantee organization. The grantee is responsible for developing the grantee. For examples. and other organizations. Grantees should spend time organizing the evaluation before the consultant begins work. the providers. 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. sustainability assessments. If the evaluator is not involved in quantitative data collection. i. 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. The grantee should gather together basic project documents. the USAID Mission. and any special studies such as Operations Research and send them to the consultant to review before traveling to the country. health facility assessments. The grantee Remember: MCHIP is available chooses a lead evaluator. scopes of work. and must understand how community-based programs are implemented. The grantee should discuss with the consultant site visits and interviews that the evaluation team will conduct. its partners.e. Midterm report. such as the Ministry of Health (MOH). Additional Team Members: Additional members may include others that the grantee selects from their organization. MCHIP scope of work. also be consistent with what was collected at baseline. the grantee should review the date and budget from the DIP and make specific plans for the final evaluation. and these should evaluation process. observations of clinic health care at the end of the report. The survey should also contain information for resources who can provide indicators specific to the project’s results that are not valuable inputs into the included in the Rapid CATCH indicators. The candidate should also have sound facilitation skills. Including representatives from partner organizations. The grantee is suggestions for: evaluation required to complete a final KPC survey with Rapid designs. It is strongly recommended that the HQ backstop participate as a member of the Final Evaluation team. 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. During the early part of the final year of the project. should possess strong evaluation skills and experience relevant to the technical area. and CATCH indicators that are the same as those collected at final KPC survey preparations. baseline and provide a comparison of baseline to final USAID missions are also values. KPC report. so that (s)he is well positioned to assist the organization in addressing any recommendations that may emerge. However. Site visits can include. The lead evaluator should be objective. Annual reports. grantee should not alter the actual report. community members. nor been involved in the implementation of the specific child survival project. although this process involves dialog with can review and provide evaluation team and stakeholders. who must be approved by as a technical resource for the USAID. grantees should ensure that these assessments are finished and analyzed before the evaluator begins work. and interviews with partners. and clients of health July 2011 8 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . as to clarify any of the findings. in the evaluation process increases their understanding of findings and can influence future programming. The grantee should also perform other relevant studies to compare with baseline information.

the grantee should solicit input about the evaluation with partners including the Mission before the SOW is finalized. While these Final Evaluation Guidelines identify a core set of components to be addressed. The Evaluation Team’s Scope of Work The grantee is responsible for developing the Scope of Work (SOW) for the evaluation team. July 2011 9 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . USG stakeholders/USAID Mission) Travel out of the country Drafting and finalizing report Special Note: Participation by national counterparts and evaluators in the design and execution of the evaluations is encouraged. active partner engagement. The report should address all evaluation questions in the SOW. Stakeholders should have discussions about these findings and how they could be useful for future activities. The grantee should also plan for dissemination of final evaluation findings. It is important for the evaluation team to familiarize itself with the project’s results framework in order to understand what the project planned on achieving. The distribution of level of effort should be negotiated with the external evaluator based on the context of each particular project: • • • • • • • • 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. Key components to a successful evaluation process are field visits. The entire evaluation process usually requires approximately 25 days and a typical SOW workplan for an evaluator includes the following activities (see below). partners. 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. As such. KPC). and/or USAID. CSHGP does not have to approve the evaluation SOW. Debriefing meetings should be set up with key staff from the PVO grantee.g. The main responsibility for writing the Final Evaluation report lies with the lead consultant (or Evaluation Team Leader). The grantee may also respond to the findings and recommendations made by the Evaluation Team Leader in an annex.care providers. The information needs and evaluation questions of the primary partners should also be integrated into the evaluation SOW. using studies done prior to the evaluation team’s work (e. the grantee and the Evaluation Team Leader should tailor the evaluation to needs and questions specific to the project. though the grantee may be called upon to participate in writing select portions of the narrative or annexes. as noted earlier in these guidelines. and triangulation of information collection from different sources by the evaluation team.

Include a description of limitations of conclusions and suggestions c. For quantitative methods: 1. Description of dissemination and Use of findings including: i. iii. group meetings) that will reach communities. Understand program 2. Demonstrate that conclusions and recommendations are based on findings iii. Development of the Final Evaluation process should: a. internet. July 2011 10 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . how groups or individuals were chosen ii. How MTE. methodologies. Details about the Evaluation Methodology i. FE. The Final Report should include: a. For all methods: 1. practical and specific recommendations. newsletters. Involve key stakeholders. Description strengths and limitations b. Action-oriented. The evaluator should: a. Site selection.The grantee should plan ahead to disseminate the findings through existing communication channels (local media. sampling methods. Use a participatory process to define FE goals and plans 3. sample sizes. Results presentations that: i. questionnaires. In addition. Include mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative) 4. Are organized by project strategic objectives or intermediate results ii. the grantee can ask the evaluation team to identify opportunities to disseminate findings. policymakers. Site selection. This can be included in the scope of work. Checklist of Final Evaluation Details 1. Evaluation methodology design should a. malaria). interview guides. Description of how gender considerations were part of project implementation E. How dissemination and use of FE results will occur after the project ends d. and organizations who were involved in or affected by the project. especially the Ministry of Health and USAID b. For qualitative methods: 1. with defined responsibility for action. Not have any conflict of interest b. Have research and facilitation skills c. OR (if applicable) results have been used ii. dates of surveys (year/month) data was collected for both baseline and FE (helps in interpretation of seasonally affected indicators such as diarrhea.

as well as other key results such as demonstrated increases in organizational or community capacity. and must include: • • • Brief description of the project and its goal and objectives. excluding the summary table. Include brief details of any aspects of program Table 1: Summary of Major Project Accomplishments that did not work as originally envisioned Project Objective #1: To improve use of ORT for children under 5 and briefly highlight steps taken to address Project Inputs Activities Outputs Outcome these problems. and should also include relevant annexes.The Final Evaluation Report Preliminary Information The full body of the evaluation report should be preceded by an acronym list. but should only include information for major 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 Increased maternal health knowledge of ORT services (from X% to Y %) 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%). July 2011 11 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . The Executive Summary must be no longer than 3 pages. health services improvements. Brief summary of main conclusions and recommendations Please include a Summary table (see Table 1. activities. and policy changes achieved through the project and potential for sustainability and replication. including: Key Findings/Results from the comparison of the baseline and final evaluation surveys. The main accomplishments of the project. and executive summary. The table of contents should follow the headers of this section. This table should not be an exhaustive list. table of contents. and outputs that contributed to successful outcomes of the projects. approaches. including measured improvements in health outcomes. and strategies used. Brief overview of technical interventions. right) of the primary inputs.

measles vaccination). More detailed documentation may be provided in the annexes. community mobilization. Technical and cross cutting interventions: Please describe technical interventions. how the project addressed contextual factors that changed over the life of the project (i.e. dropped (with brief rationale) or changed2. and their respective interventions (i. Along with assessing improvements in outcomes (i. • • • • In an annex. training. skilled attendance at birth. which could include details on delivery modalities. the community’s perspective of the project. 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 . This should include the following: • • • Project goal and objectives (include the project’s Results Framework if available) Project location Estimated project area population and the population broken down by children under five and women of reproductive age. evaluators look into issues such as: stakeholder and partner opinions on the importance of the project.e. Please describe this project’s collaboration with the USAID Mission.achievements of the project. Other relevant programs: Please list other programs being implemented within the program area by organization. and so on. the effectiveness of the 2 If significant changes were made since the DIP. phasing and sequencing of activities. international/local NGOs. and principal messages communicated as well as the key program strategies employed (i.e. but adding an extra column explaining what was achieved. Disaggregate children under five in the following categories: under 12 months. the media. and 24-59 months. and MCHIP country programs (when present). change in government). its structure. particularly related to the role this project played in contributing to the Mission’s overall health objectives. In addition. Evaluation Assessment Methodology and Limitations The final evaluation is a comprehensive approach to assessing project accomplishments and challenges. behavior change. Partnerships/collaboration: Please discuss partnerships with groups that played major or supporting roles in project activities.e. the process of project implementation. packages of interventions. policy dialogue/advocacy. nutrition programs) and duration (if known). communities. etc) Project design: Please describe the overall strategy and project approach employed by the project. Relevant groups include USAID mission’s bilateral programs. 12-23 months. national/local government (MOH). deteriorating security situation. please highlight changes to the project since the DIP by presenting the workplan table from the DIP. food security. Overview of the Project Structure and Implementation: Provide a brief overview of the project. please include activities that were added to the project after DIP submission and label them as such. Recommen-dations need to be supported by a specific set of findings. Please include any specific problems or gaps the interventions were designed to address. and its main strategies for implementation.

and what is your assessment of the quality of that system. review baseline and final assessments and answer the following: • • Were there any problems with the quality of baseline and final assessment performed by the project and how do these problems affect findings? Specifically. or facility record review Names of key informants interviewed Data collection instruments. list any discrepancies found in the way questions were asked. some indicators were not collected correctly at baseline. as well as any other evidence presented to support results in this evaluation report. This comprehensive approach involves collecting both quantitative and qualitative information. 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 before the evaluation team begins its work. Baseline assessments are repeated at the end of the project. and lessons learned for future activities. 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. such as: key informant interviews. focus group discussions. 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: • 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. Specifically. July 2011 13 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . 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. indicators defined and methodologies implemented between baseline and final KPC surveys. Examples of limitations are: inability to collect final information from part of the project area due to security problems. data extraction guides. Explain any limitations on information collected. 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. key personnel at the health facility were away at a training session and could not be interviewed. including timeline of activities Brief descriptions of information gathering methodologies.overall project strategy. Other assessments conducted by the grantee should also be included as annexes. 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: • • • • • • Evaluation team scope of work. including interview guides. As part of this explanation. The evaluation team uses KPC results as one part of the comprehensive project assessment.

This table outlines all objectives. as well as any other unanticipated achievements that emerged over the life of the project. In addition. Discussion of the Results This section should attempt to link the outcomes achieved to specific activities. Presentation of Progress toward Objectives Insert the M&E matrix from the DIP (or updated version. Please include all project objectives in this matrix. partners. which should be the tool used to track progress toward objectives. Presentation of Project Results CSHGP Projects set forth an M&E plan at the time of their DIPs. Please consider the overall project design and the extent to which it influenced results.net/projects. each grantee organization makes critical design choices for its project that can have impacts on the achievement of overall project results. 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 % of community structures coordinating and implementing activities based on an approved Standard Health Plan Data Source KPC Baseline Value 40 Final Value 70 Final Target 80 Strengthen institutional capacity of local organizations to implement effective child health activities CHC Assessment tool 3 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. baseline measures. and targets. indicators. data sources. The FE report should clearly present data to support whether the project met the objectives it set out to meet in this plan. Contribution toward Objectives July 2011 14 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . and contextual factors combined to influence the outcomes. 1. 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. as appropriate) to illustrate the life of project achievements against stated objectives. and assess the extent to which the activities.• Was there a systematic way of collecting.

please group them together and provide one explanation. If the project generated other notable achievements that can be supported by evidence and contribute to the project goal. July 2011 15 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . the evaluation team should try to identify and discuss the factors responsible for lack of progress in these areas. Capacity building. education. Examples of cross-cutting approaches include: • • • • • • • • • Social and behavior change activities. Information management system strengthening. education. Quality assurance. including gender and health equity. comment on the local context and how it influenced the relationship between activities and outcomes. For objectives/indicators for which there was a negative trend. verbal recognition from local or national government officials. For example. nature of livelihoods. whether there may have been additional resources or influx of commodities from other donors in the project area (i. including community mobilization and outreach strategies. Policy dialogue and advocacy at local or national levels. 2. 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. 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. Health systems strengthening. For each objective. discuss how those were achieved. Factors such as ethnicity. or the project received local press coverage. child sponsorship. please include details on how project implementation led to its achievement. additional funding is contributed by other donors to help advance a successful intervention. Human resources strategies. ITN distribution campaign in the district with Global Fund resources). or achieved a policy outcome.e. gender norms. but that may have not been part of the original objectives or activities. please summarize the results of those studies and include the full study write up(s) in an annex. such as skill based training and supervision. Community partnership-building. quality of infrastructure. agriculture or micro-enterprise. Strategies to increase access to health services. special operations research3 or other studies are often conducted to examine issues that may cut across project objectives. It is similarly important to understand the role of other complementary activities being carried out by other donors/programs in the project area. climate. Evaluators may focus on the critical results achieved rather than all results achieved if the team opts to do so.For each objective. In cases where success in various indicators is the result of the same actions. For notable outcomes that can be supported by evidence and contributed to the overall goal or specific objectives. provide details on how implementation of strategies and key activities led to the select results. as relevant. population density. 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. current policy environment. religion. Discussion of these factors. 3 If operations research was conducted. followed by any additional information specific to an intervention area. please present and discuss those achievements in this section. Contextual Factors To the extent possible. management structure and others can serve to facilitate or to impede project activities and the achievement of results. water and sanitation. culture. contextual factors that influenced implementation and partners that contributed to select results.

meeting local needs through community health workers. Discussion of Potential for Sustained Outcomes. 1. as illustrated on the following page. targeting of vulnerable groups. and others.g.3. and discuss the outcomes of that collaboration. service delivery improvements. Overall Design Factors that Influenced Results Examples of some of these choices might include a training or supervision approach. improved coverage rates) remain past the life of the project. The following questions are offered to guide the evaluator’s review of progress toward sustained health outcomes: • If the project used a formal sustainability design methodology (e. Equity.. and or contributing to global learning in their CSHGP projects. Feel free to integrate the discussion of these areas into the overall presentation and discussion of project results. Please present any evidence generated from the project which suggests the potential for sustainability in any specific areas. Global Learning. the Sustainability Framework) at the DIP stage. phasing the introduction of interventions. 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? • July 2011 16 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . and that there is supporting evidence to suggest an important accomplishment or key learning. and Dissemination/Information Use CSHGP recognizes the concerted efforts many grantee organizations place on consideration of sustainability. Please comment on how successful these design choices were and the extent to which they may have contributed to overall results. Partner Role in Project Result of Collaboration 4. healthy behaviors. Contribution to Scale. replication or scale. it is not necessary to re-state them. Role of key partners Discuss various partners’ roles and responsibilities where relevant to the strategies and key activities.g. packaging of certain interventions. please use the guiding questions below to discuss these issues. To the extent that the project focused on these areas. many of these themes are a central element of and focal point for grantees and their partners from the design stage. In fact. This can be presented in table form if the evaluation team would like. attention to equity. Community Health Worker Models. Progress Toward Sustained Outcomes CSHGP projects often focus on ensuring that sustained health outcomes (e. If these issues are presented or discussed elsewhere in the report. provide a status update on how the project progressed from the beginning of the project. and which factors will be critical to these elements continuing after the project ends.

(e. including the health information system. Expanded Impact Projects were designed to contribute to scaling up. Please use the following questions to guide the discussion of the project’s contribution to equity. and detailed guidance for discussing this in the Final Evaluation is included in Section V of these guidelines. but which have nonetheless made important contributions to scale. Those projects that were not awarded as Expanded Impact. 3.g. Examples of these factors include: power and decision making July 2011 17 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . playing a catalytic role with government or other partners. gender equity. through building a foundation for scale from the beginning. and/or engaging in policy dialogue or advocacy activities. ethnic identity. cost recovery. geographic equity. 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? • • • • • 2. resource diversification. should also use the guidance in Section V to inform the discussion of their results. Attention to Equity Improving equity is central to the Program and many projects have addressed inequity. as relevant: • • • • • • What types of equity were addressed by this project and how were they determined? (socioeconomic equity. corporate sponsorships) been successful? How has the project built demand for services or mobilized the community to influence decision-making on health services provision.• • • What is the status of the phase-out or transition plan.. please explain. will there be any continuing technical and management assistance? Have the approaches to building financial sustainability-. and is it on schedule? After the project. local level financing. 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. 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. 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. What results did these strategies yield? How did the project address factors of gender inequity that affect women’s abilities to improve her health and/or that of her family.

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.. In addition. and how that model contributed to the overall project objectives and results. whether the grantee organization built a new cadre of health workers. In addition. innovative approaches to maximize the efficiency and performance of community health workers. and/or the USAID Forward reform agenda6. is interested in learning related to scaling-up proven interventions. Feed the Future Initiative5. the project’s model for building the capacity of CHWs. Improve metrics.g. At a minimum. 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. would be required. monitoring and evaluation. additional information/evidence would be useful to document these strategies.usaid. 4 The seven principles underlying the foundation of GHI are the following: Implement a woman. A public consultation document focusing on the GHI may be accessed at: http://www. Please include a discussion of the type of supervision received by community health workers.usaid. the MCHIP Project. Include information on specific roles of CHWs. global health partnerships and private sector engagement. and at what levels. and how CHWs will continue to receive supervision once the project ends. Role of Community Health Workers Community Health Workers (CHWs) of various types often play a critical role in the successes of CSHGP projects.gov/ghi/ 5 Feed the Future (FtF) is part of the USG’s 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.gov/about/overview July 2011 18 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . Strengthen and leverage key multilateral organizations. USAID is particularly interested in learning that contributes to the advancement of the core principles of the Global Health Initiative4. building. Please discuss whether certain components of this project should be replicated or considered for scale up. Much effort is focused on mobilizing. different access to resources between women and men. The CSHGP and the larger global health community are interested in CHW models and how they can be replicated and scaled up.structures within the family and community. as relevant. 4. 5. or a combination. Build sustainability through health systems strengthening. approaches to addressing equity issues in order to reach the most vulnerable populations. and cultural acceptability of health services for women. the types of input and support. and motivational factors and/or remuneration packages for CHWs.feedthefuture. strengthening and supporting cadres of community-based health workers to better address the needs of communities. how effective that supervision model was. please complete the CHW matrix to be included as Annex 7. Please also discuss whether the CHWs that the project engaged are government cadres. and Promote research and innovation. There should be wider dissemination and discussion of the findings to project stakeholders who were involved or affected by the project. Increase impact through strategic coordination and integration. Encourage country ownership and invest in country-led plans.gov/ 6 Additional information focusing on the USAID Forward reform agenda can be found at: http://forward. when integrating two or more interventions yields a greater value than would have been achieved by delivering these interventions separately). More information on FtF’s strategy and principles can be found at http://www. and practical lessons about smart integration (e. Please present. USAID’s Flagship Project for Maternal and Child Health.and girl-centered approach. 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. Dissemination and Information Use CSHGP projects aim at generating and using the knowledge learned from implementing their programs. 6. if any. The evaluation team is encouraged to frame contributions to learning that emerge from this project in terms of the most relevant themes noted above.

or other collaborating partners as appropriate. present the overall conclusions regarding the evidence about what worked and what did not as a result of this project. Present the most important recommendations that are supported and based on specific set of key findings generated through this project. and globally. Based on the data from the baseline and final assessments presented in the summary chart and results discussion. 3. grantee HQ representatives may present a short section on how they intend to address recommendations made by the evaluation team. Include any program experiences or results that have been disseminated to other stakeholders beyond program staff (i. the CSHGP. Recommendations can be put forward to the grantee. 1. other NGOs). July 2011 19 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP .Also.e. MOH. nationally. and if there are any plans to diffuse and use the program results elsewhere. and how they will communicate the best practices and lessons learned from the project to the broader development community. Conclusions and Recommendations This section presents the main conclusions based on this final evaluation. In an optional Annex. as well as its contributions locally. 2. highlight instances where the project has used information from their program data as evidence to get additional resources from an external funder.

The evaluation should also explain whether and what foundations for future scale up have been laid. and Tuberculosis Currently there are four categories of CSHGP grants: Innovation. and to make suggestions for simplifying the model. key findings. Steps to achieving scale-up of an intervention or package of interventions have been more clearly delineated. Expanded Impact Grantees: Contribution to Scale/Scaling Up Expanded Impact programs are intended to take proven interventions or strategies to scale subnationally or nationally.Specific Reporting Requirements — Innovation. For purposes of understanding the process of scaling up. Also include recommendations about the innovation. Grantees that have made important contributions to scaling up their programs should be sure to review the guidelines for Expanded Impact projects. These steps include: July 2011 20 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . C. B. which offer more detailed guidance on questions to consider related to scaling up. please provide a brief summary of the innovation. please comment on any progress or changes since that assessment referring to appropriate indicators in the project’s monitoring and evaluation plan. scaled-up. New Partner. The team should assess whether all of the activities were really necessary to produce the outcomes. private sector. 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. re-tested or terminated. The evaluation team should explain how project specific activities contributed to scale and what other activities and events in country also contributed. Describe measures taken by the grantee organization to strengthen capacity in specific areas and discuss how they strengthened the project. how results have been used. Expanded Impact. A. research questions asked. attaining a broader impact by collaborating with other partners including PVOs. and Tuberculosis. Expanded Impact. In addition to the guidance in Section III. In the years since the Expanded Impact grants were awarded. including a discussion of the relevance of these results at the country and global levels. Innovations Grantees: Contribution to Improved Program Delivery and Global Learning Operations research is a key component of innovation grants. implementing agencies. the evaluation should go beyond discussing project results. The final report of this research must be included as an annex to the final evaluation. study design. whether it should be replicated. It should provide the audience with an understanding of the individual components of the intervention and the underlying logic of how they fit together. and should seek to integrate the discussion of these issues into the body of their repots. In addition to the final OR report. grantees are required to address the questions/issues raised in the relevant sections below. If the grantee conducted an organizational assessment during the DIP phase. the global thinking and consensus around how to achieve scale has developed. and regional and national governments. New Partner.

they will need to know what the activities of the project were. 3.1) a pre-introductory phase in which government officials and partners are unaware or uninterested to building initial consensus. capacity building approach. and whether the project experience suggests simpler or different ways to deliver these interventions in the future. Are the steps for correctly performing the intervention(s) incorporated into service delivery guidelines? If not. existing national champions. 5) an “expansion” phase that involves moving from limited implementation to expansion geographically. 5. The CSHGP would like to demonstrate how Expanded Impact grantees have contributed to this body of global knowledge and experience. policy and advocacy. health systems strengthening. The evaluation team should follow the thematic flow of the Final Evaluation Guidelines. 3) an “introduction” phase that moves from motivating to implementation in which tools. 4) an “early implementation” where the intervention is rolled out in limited geographic areas. curricula. community mobilization. to discuss the results and the process and to offer recommendations for additional scale-up and/or replication. but used to explore and understand the implementation process as well as the gaps and challenges. with a focus on presenting the project results as measured. 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. The goal of the questions is to elucidate the process of achieving scale in a particular context and contribute to global learning. where is the country in this process? July 2011 21 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . as relevant and applicable. logistics and procurement are considered. To what extent has the intervention(s)/strategy been incorporated into strategy. scheduled national conferences/events. how those activities were implemented. as well as institutionalizing and sustaining an activity. If others are to replicate or expand the intervention. policy. The questions do not have to be rigidly followed. tools. 2) a second phase in which definitive decisions are made and consensus is built to motivate policy change. However.g. The questions below are to be used as a guide for this component of the final evaluation process. curricula. job aids specific to the intervention developed and approved? If not. additional guiding questions (suggested below) should also be used. sustainability. where is the country in this process? Are related guidelines. These themes include organization of the intervention and human resources. What were the (most significant bottlenecks to scaling up your intervention in the country? Briefly describe what the program did to address these bottlenecks. guidelines. MOH policy etc 2. and contextual factors. 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. behavior change communication.

where is the country in this process? Clearly describe the project’s contribution to scaling up. 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. 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. what percent of districts are currently covered with this intervention? As relevant. 9.6. or created synergies with other development activities or the work of other funders or partners to expand access and coverage of its interventions. and present any available evidence to demonstrate the (cost) effectiveness of the strategy. regional. 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. per death avoided. In further scaling up this intervention. Are the relevant commodities on the essential drug list? If not. please discuss any key lessons learned about such partnerships that would benefit such approaches in the future. please discuss how the project utilized strategic networks or partnerships to reach beneficiaries at the district. Note: Make sure to use overall costs of the intervention and not the project. Identify system strengthening interventions that could improve the likelihood of successful achievement of scale by the government system. what was simplified in order to scale up interventions) in this project. July 2011 22 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . 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. As relevant. 8. 12. Expanded Impact projects should consider making targeted recommendations on the following topics: Recommend whether the scaling up methodology used was effective in terms of reaching scale sustainably and equitably. 13. 11. where is the country in this process? Is the intervention tracked by indicators in the national HMIS? If not. if that has not yet occurred. In the section described earlier on Recommendations and Conclusions. if relevant. per population). 14. 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. including an assessment of the importance of the system strengthening implemented by the project. 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. 7. If the intervention was adopted nationally. built upon. Recommend modifications to the interventions that may make policy adoption more likely and implementation more feasible. and whether this was the appropriate choice based on the lessons learned from implementation. and which ones might be dropped with minimal loss of impact? In cases where multiple organizations partnered together to implement the project. or national levels. describe how the project linked with.

July 2011 23 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . if at all. participation in the CSHGP provided an opportunity for the organization to strengthen its institutional capacity in Tuberculosis. Tuberculosis Grantees Grantees should report on the monitoring indicators and benchmarks agreed upon in their DIPs. please discuss how. In addition.D. using the M&E and Workplan tables described earlier in this guidance.

Considering these definitions. Required Annexes Annex 1: Results Highlight—Evidence Building The CSHGP is interested in innovative ideas. Each highlight should include the following information: • The problem being addressed (e. A promising practice must have some objective basis for claiming effectiveness and must have potential for replication among other organizations and in other settings.) • The magnitude of the intervention (number of direct beneficiaries. . “promising practices”.) • Some quantifiable or specific results (immunization increased from X% to X% in XX districts. 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. logistics support. These are ideas that a grantee may be testing and trying to further document the process for replication and the evidence of effectiveness. etc. • Challenges encountered and how they were overcome. partnerships etc. the CSHGP has adopted the following general definitions for “innovative ideas”. or some other impact-oriented result). Congress. activity. please provide a one-page highlight of an innovative idea. promising practices. training. other donors. • Promising practice: An approach. so that this highlight can be a stand alone document. promising practice.III. or best practice that is being advanced by this project. 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. • The project’s input to address it (technical assistance. and “best practices”. and are often supported by peer reviewed literature and international standards. a new policy enacted. For the purposes of establishing a common language for defining grantee contributions.S. 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. in addition to USAID Missions. and the U.g. and best practices that are emerging from its grantee community. • Best practice: These are practices with evidence of both effectiveness and ease of replication. but have no evidence base yet. percentage of population covered by CSHGP. These stakeholders include USAID leadership within the Bureau for Global Health as well as other parts of the agency. low immunization coverage) • A short description of the project and context. providing as much evidence as possible at the time of this report.

include any relevant papers published as an annex to the Final Evaluation report. or presented the project at any major conferences or during the life of the project. training. Management issues include: planning. In the case that any one of these areas affected the project either by creating efficiencies that led to success or that posed challenges. institutionalization of new approaches. to continue project operations that are intended to be sustainable? . supervision. logistics. Planning • • 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 grantee’s and its partner’s experience with this project. within the field 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 • • • Was the supervisory system adequate? Is the supervisory system fully institutionalized and can it be maintained? Is there evidence that the project’s approach to strengthening supervisory systems has been adopted beyond the project? Human Resources and Staff Management • Are essential personnel policies and procedures of the grantee and partner organizations in place. technical and administrative support. etc. aligned with existing policies or influencing new policies.) Annex 2: List of Publications and Presentations Related to the Project If project team members have published any papers that highlight project results. The questions listed below are suggestions of points to consider in these management areas.• How these solutions are sustainable (integrated into existing systems. please include a list of these papers/presentations as an annex to this report. please provide explanations and discuss any lessons learned. information management. The grantee should. at HQ. but the evaluator is not required to respond to them all. with partners and with the community. etc. personnel management. financial management. as feasible. Annex 3: Project Management Evaluation This section provides space for the evaluator to discuss project management issues. The evaluator should explore the areas described below as part of the evaluation.

vehicles.• Describe the morale.e. etc. To what extent did the project strengthen other existing data collection systems (i. • Discuss the adequacy of the grantee’s and partners’ financial management and accountability for project finances and budgeting. cohesion and working relationships of project personnel and how this affected project implementation. headquarters staff. etc. The following are points that can be considered. mini survey focus groups. 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? • • Logistics • • What impact has logistics (procurement and distribution of equipment. and outcomes. government)? Do the project staff. to solve problems or test new approaches? Give examples of the research.) 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 • • • • How effective was the system to measure progress towards project objectives? Was there a systematic way of collecting. • Describe the level of staff turnover throughout the life of the project. 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. supplies. and the impact it has had on project implementation. local level partners. • 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. explain why. reporting and using data at all project levels? Cite examples of how project data was used to make management or technical decisions. such as was there timely transfer of funds to field activities or were there enough funds to cover key activities. If the project budget was adjusted. use of data. and the community have a clear understanding of what the project has achieved? • • .

Annex 4: Workplan Table Copy the workplan from the DIP. in terms of planning. and technical support. human resources. An example is provided below. Keep the column for Objectives and Activities. natural disaster disrupted training and project was unable to facilitate it at another time. financial management. information management. Describe how the grantee organization (HQ and field management) will share and internalize these lessons.• How have the project’s monitoring and impact data been used beyond this child survival project? Technical and Administrative Support • • Discuss types and sources. timeliness. which are not covered by these guidelines. Add two columns with these headings: Objective Met and Activity Status. Activity Status . supervision. training. but remove other columns. 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. logistics. Approximately how much time has been devoted to supporting this project? • Management Lessons Learned List the overall management lessons learned. Other Issues Identified by the Team Discuss additional issues identified by the team during the course of the evaluation. 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. and utility of external technical assistance the project has received to date.

.

cfc?method=tools_mande for guidance. midterm evaluation (MTE) (if collected) and final estimates. Indicate with an “*” those final estimates that are significantly different from the corresponding baseline estimates. You can see the confidence intervals on the project data form. Contact MCHIP SO3 team if you have any questions.net/controllers/link. 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 40 MTE Estimate 50 Final Estimate 70* *Note: The Rapid CATCH table is not required for TB Grantees Annex 6: Final KPC Report See http://www.Annex 5: Rapid CATCH Table* This table should display Rapid CATCH baseline. If the confidence intervals for the baseline and final estimates do not overlap. Statistical significance can be ascertained by analyzing the confidence intervals. . then the estimates are significantly different.mchipngo.

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 30 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. Birth Asphyxia. Management of danger signs for Hypothermia. LBW Supervision Technical and counseling skills re: Hypothermia. Birth Asphyxia. LBW Supervision Technical and counseling skills re: Hypothermia.

focus group discussions. journal papers. presentations or analyses produced by the project.Annex 8: Evaluation Team Members and their Titles Annex 9: Evaluation Assessment methodology Please include the following information: • Evaluation team scope of work. please include special reports. including interview guides • Names of places visited • 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. Annex 13: Project Data Form Updated and printed from http://mchipngo. or facility record review • Data collection instruments.net/projects/ Annex 14: Grantee Plans to Address Final Evaluation Findings Annex 15: Grantee Response to Final Evaluation Findings (optional) May 2011 31 Final Report Guidelines USAID/HIDN/NUT/CSHGP . including timeline of activities • Brief descriptions of information gathering methodologies. such as: key informant interviews.