|
A monitoring and evaluation plan will be appended to the PI project proposal once the Performance Needs Assessment is finalized and interventions are selected and sequenced. The following is a sample monitoring and evaluation plan for a PI project aimed at improving provider performance through selection, training and supervision.
Baseline Context: What is the contraceptive discontinuation rate in the area (as a proxy to insufficient quality of services provided)? What is the community context in which the PI project will operate?
Needs: What is the difference between desired and actual provider performance? What changes in provider and organizational performance are needed to increase service access and quality?
Inputs: Have correct, sufficient and appropriate PI interventions been designed? Are there sufficient human and financial resources and leadership support to design and implement them?
Processes/Implementation: How well is the PI project proceeding: are all inputs, processes and outputs on track and are milestones being met? What is the quality of training and supervision processes being implemented? To what extent are key stakeholders providing support and involvement needed to achieve results?
Outputs: Have service providers acquired new knowledge and skills as a result of training? Have supervisory visits and work environment improvements taken place?
Effects: To what extent did the indicators showing the difference between desired and actual performance change as a result of the interventions we implemented? To what extent has worker performance improved? Do service providers apply skills and knowledge to solve problems and improve service delivery as a result of project interventions? To what extent do selection, training and supervisory systems operate as desired?
Impacts: To what extent have desired strategic results been achieved? How satisfied are clients with performance improvements? Are there changes in the contraceptive continuation rates? How sustainable is the PI process?
Focus/Objective | Indicators (illustrative) | Methodology/ Instruments | When | Person(s) responsible/involved | ||||||||||
Baseline Context | ||||||||||||||
To assess the community context and FP/RH behavior in the project area and how it supports or hinders delivery of community-level FP/RH services |
|
DHS/special studies Assessment Interviews with membersleaders during PNA |
Before project interventions are selected and sequenced | PNA team with local service providers | ||||||||||
Needs | ||||||||||||||
To identify desired and actual service provider performance related to FP/RH service delivery; gaps between desired and actual performance; and causes of these performance gaps. |
Provider performance baseline:
|
Interviews with providers during PNA Observation of providers Client exit interviews |
Before project interventions are selected and sequenced | PNA team | ||||||||||
To identify desired and actual organizational performance related to RH service support; gaps between desired and actual performance; and causes of these performance gaps. |
Organizational performance:
|
Program records | Before project interventions are selected and sequenced | PNA team | ||||||||||
Inputs | ||||||||||||||
To assess the extent to which resources are adequate to design, implement and evaluate selection, training and supervision/job aids systems for the two years of the pilot project |
General: 30 percent funding from the MOH, 20 percent funding from WB and 50 percent funding from the mission
|
Program records |
Project coordinator (with assistance from PI leader and other members of the implementation team) | |||||||||||
Selection system:
|
MOU | |||||||||||||
Training system:
|
Interviews | |||||||||||||
Supervision system:
|
Expert/user review Interviews |
Before curriculamaterials are finalized and copied | ||||||||||||
Processes | ||||||||||||||
To assess the quality of training |
|
Document reviews Participant reaction forms |
At the time of training | Training team (with PI Leader and project coordinator) | ||||||||||
To assess the quality of supervision |
|
Project records and interviews with providers | Six to eight months after training | Project coordinator and PI team | ||||||||||
To assess project implementation (timing or quality of deployment/use of inputs) |
|
Document review (curricula, protocols, project implementation plans) Interviews during project review |
Prior to implementation target dates and/or on a yearly basis | Project coordinator (with assistance from PI leader and other members of the implementation team) | ||||||||||
Outputs | ||||||||||||||
To assess immediate outcomes of training and non-training activities |
|
Comparison of scores to cut-off points Comparison of actual with planned visits On-site assessments Observations |
End of training and six to eight months after providers return from training | Training team and project coordinator | ||||||||||
Effects | ||||||||||||||
Provider Performance To evaluate the extent to which provider performance has improved and performance gap has been closed as a result of project interventions |
|
Interviews with providers Observation Record review Exit interviews |
Follow up six to eight months after providers have received training and supervision | Local consultant or supervisors (with selected members of PI project implementation team) | ||||||||||
Organizational Performance Evaluate the extent to which organization uses training and supportive system to deploy the right person for the right job and ensure learning and conducive job environment |
|
Program records Interviews Biodata forms |
At start and end of project (comparative) | PI implementation team (with trainers and supervisors) | ||||||||||
Impact | ||||||||||||||
To evaluate increase in service utilization and expansion |
|
Service statistics and special studies | At start and semi-annually | Project coordinator | ||||||||||
To evaluate increased sustainability of performance support systems (selection, training and supervision) |
|
In-depth interviews to leaders Institutional reviews Travel logs/records |
At start and end of project (comparative) | Project coordinator or hired consultant |