The document provides select results from KPC surveys for projects that ended in 2011. It includes data on technical intervention areas and levels of effort by country for different NGOs. It then shows KPC indicators with levels of effort moved, indicators included in M&E plans, and targeted indicators for Relief International and Concern Worldwide. Graphs compare results over time for various health indicators like infant and young child feeding practices and newborn postnatal visits. The document concludes by comparing KPC and DHS data for several countries between 2006/2007 and 2011 for indicators like antenatal care, skilled birth attendance and breastfeeding practices.

1. Select KPC Results for Projects
that ended in 2011
October 12, 2012

2. Projects by country
2

3. Technical intervention areas and
levels of effort (LOE)
Start
PVO/NGO Country NUT PCM CDD MAL MNC CS HIV
Year
CARE Nepal 2007 5% 5% 5% 75% 10%
Concern Rwanda 2006 30% 35% 35%
GOAL Ethiopia 2007 25% 25% 25% 25%
Wellshare Tanzania 2006 15% 15% 20% 35% 15%
Plan Nepal 2007 100%
PSI Malawi 2006 100%
RI Niger 2007 30% 20% 20% 30%
Save Malawi 2006 100%
TOTAL 8% 6% 25% 13% 46% 2% 1%
3

4. CATCH Indicators with LOE moved
# # %
PVO Country Reported Stat Sig Stat Sig
Concern ** Rwanda 6 6 100 %
RI Niger 11 9 82 %
PLAN Nepal 4 2 50 %
Wellshare * Tanzania 11 5 45 %
CARE Nepal 10 4 40 %
SC Malawi 5 2 40 %
GOAL Ethiopia 11 4 36 %
PSI Malawi 4 0 0%
4

5. CATCH indicators in M&E plan moved
# # % # >=
PVO Country Reported Stat Sig Stat Sig Target
Concern Rwanda 4 4 100% 2
SC Malawi 4 3 75% 1
RI Niger 8 5 63% 6
Wellshare Tanzania 8 4 50% 5
PLAN Nepal 2 1 50% 2
CARE Nepal 5 2 40% 3
GOAL Ethiopia 15 4 27% 9
PSI Malawi 0 0 - 0
5

6. Relief International:
Targeted CATCH/Key Indicators
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Baseline Endline
6

7. Concern Worldwide:
Targeted CATCH Indicators
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Child ITN Soap POU ORS/ RHS AntiMs ARI Care-
<2days seeking
Baseline Endline
7

8. Infant and Young Child Feeding:
Results from 2010 & 2011
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Nepal Liberia Ethiopia Peru Niger Cambodia
(CARE) (MTI) (GOAL) (INMED) (RI) (IRD)
Baseline Endline
8

9. Newborn postnatal visit within 3 days:
Results from 2010 & 2011
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Nepal Liberia Kenya Cambodia Kenya Tanzania Nepal Malawi
(CARE) (MTI) (HR) (IRD) (AMREF) (Wellshare) (PLAN) (SC)
Baseline Endline
9

10. DHS for comparison
DHS DHS
Country
year 1 year 2
Ethiopia 2005 2011
Malawi 2004 2010
Nepal 2006 2011
Niger 2006 N/A
Rwanda 2005 2010
Tanzania 2004-05 2010
10

11. 4+ Antenatal Care Visits:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare
(Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
11

12. 2+ Maternal Tetanus Toxoid Vaccinations:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare Relief
(Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
12

13. Skilled Birth Attendance:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare Relief
(Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
13

14. Breastfeeding within 1 Hour:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Goal Save CARE Plan Wellshare Relief
(Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Tanzania) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
14

15. Exclusive Breastfeeding 0-5 months:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
CARE Plan Goal Save Wellshare Relief
(Nepal) (Nepal) (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Tanzania) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
15

16. Underweight:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
50
40
Coverage (%)
30
20
10
0
Goal Save PSI CARE Plan Relief
Ethiopia (Malawi) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Nepal) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
16

17. Pneumonia Care-seeking:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
CARE Concern Wellshare
(Nepal) (Rwanda) (Tanzania)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
17

18. ORS/RHF:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 - 2011)
80
60
Coverage (%)
40
20
0
Goal PSI CARE Concern Wellshare Relief
(Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Nepal) (Rwanda) (Tanzania) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
18

19. Point-of-Use Water Treatment (2006/7 – 2011)
80
60
Coverage (%)
40
20
0
CARE Concern GOAL PSI Relief Wellshare
(Nepal) (Rwanda) (Ethiopia) (Malawi) (Niger) (Tanzania)
Baseline (%) Endline (%)
19

20. Soap at the Place for Hand Washing (2006/7 – 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Nepal Rwanda Niger Tanzania PSI GOAL
(CARE) (Concern) (Relief) (Wellshare) (Malawi) (Ethiopia)
Baseline Endline
20

21. Child ITN use:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
100
80
Coverage (%)
60
40
20
0
Concern Wellshare Relief
(Rwanda) (Tanzania) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
21

22. Appropriate fever treatment:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
60
40
Coverage (%)
20
0
Concern Wellshare Relief
(Rwanda) (Tanzania) (Niger)
Baseline DHS Endline DHS Baseline KPC EndlineKPC
22

23. ANY QUESTIONS?
Thank you!
www.mchipngo.net
www.mchip.net
Follow us on:

24. Detailed baseline and endline KPC
survey information
Sampling Endline
PVO BL Den BL Dates EL Den Notes
Method Dates
CARE Cluster 660 3/2008 660 3/2011 30 villages x 11 HHs x 2 districts
BL: 6 dist x 5 SAs x 95 HHs
120 (well)
Concern LQAS 570 2-3/2007 6-7/2011 EL: 6 dist x 20 HH (well), 61-74 HH (sick)
395 (sick) Well-child (0-23 mo); Sick-child (0-59 mo)
GOAL LQAS 114 2/2008 114 8/2011 6 SAs x 19 communities
35 SAs x 19HHs
532 (2 dist) 2/2008 (2 dist) 532 (2 dist) Parsa: 13 SAs=247 (2007 CATCH)
PLAN LQAS 6-7/2011
133 (Bara) 6/2006 (Bara) 133 (Bara) Sunsari: 15 SAs=285 (2007 CATCH)
Bara: 7 SAs=133 (2000+ CATCH)
3-stage stratified cluster sampling
PSI Cluster 300 2-3/2007 391 6-11/2010 Baseline KPC survey in Salima District
Endline data extracted from 2010 DHS in Salima District
BL: 30 clusters x 11HH from 453 villages in target district
Relief Cluster 330 1/2008 358 9/2011
EL: 30 clusters x 12HH from 61 focus villages
BL: 30 Clusters x 10 HHs
EL: 45 Clusters x 10 HHs
Save Cluster 300 2/2007 450 6/2011(?)
Over-sampled 15 clusters in Ekwendeni catchment area
(22 from Ekwendeni area, 23 from non-Ekwendeni area)
BL: 34 clusters x 10HHs
Wellshare Cluster 340 2-3/2007 390 6/2011
EL: 30 clusters x 13HHs
24

25. FE KPC Best Practices
 Inclusion of BL and MT (if applicable) data
 Denominators and CIs for all %s (including BL and MT – not just EL)
 Comparison to baseline
 Possible explanations for changes or lack of change
 Tabulation tables as an annex
 Correct population-weighting
 DHS comparison (if applicable/possible)
 Dates that data were collected (including BL)
 Summary of any changes/recalculations that were made to BL data
since DIP/initial submission
 Any differences in sampling methodology (BL vs. EL vs. MT)
25

26. Wellshare
Reported MNC Indicators
100 Baseline
90 Final
EOP Target
80
TDHS 2010
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ANC Skilled AMSTL Newborn Cord Care PPC PPC EBF
Visits Provider Wrapped (Mother) (Newborn)
26

27. CARE Plan
• CB-NCP (only Doti) • CB-NCP
• BPP/Safe Motherhood Package • FCHV-led Pregnant Women’s Groups (subset
• National c-IMCI strategy of mothers’ groups)
• Birthing center establishment • Strong engagement of VDCs
• FCHV-led mothers’ groups • Birthing center establishment
• Involvement of mothers-in-law and husbands
(decision makers)
• SATH in marginalized communities
• Leveraged other CARE projects
Wellshare Save
• VHC establishment • IMNC training manual
• Long distance drivers – em trans & health ed • CBMNC package
• Health advocates in 2 marginalized tribes • KMC expansion
• AFYA 1-2-3 BCC campaign • ENC promotion (agogo)
(3 key messages / intervention area)
• TBA/CORPs-led community activities
• TBA-led Survive & Thrive
Groups, registers, home visits 27
• TBAs repositioned

28. Concern Relief
• CHW peer support groups • Women’s health groups
• CHW home visits w/ counseling • Home visits
• Community mobilization database • HW & CHW HH/C-IMCI training
• IMCI bulletin • TBAs repositioned as delivery companions
• Infrastructure development
GOAL PSI
• Adapted care groups • Social marketing + behavior change
• CGV home visits • Targeted outreach communications
• CGV referrals & follow-ups • Communication material development
• Worked at health post level – capacity, • Helped with zinc inclusion in EDL
supportive supervision, QOC
28

29. [KU1]Will definitely remove but I think it would be useful to share internally to show what grantees are/aren’t reporting
[OB2]I think you can remove this section.
Summary of information included
in/missing from KPC reports
PVO Information provided in KPC Report
CARE Did not calculate weighted averages/did not explain why; no explanation for change (or lack thereof) in indicators; compared to
baseline; provided tables with denominators; also did capacity assessments of HFs, HWs, and FCHV but didn’t seem to link them all
together
Concern Provided some potential explanations for indicators within intervention areas and also compared them to baseline; did not discuss
other CATCH indicators at all; provided CIs with estimates; denominators in a separate table; pop weighted SAs!
GOAL Provided some potential explanations; provided both denominators and CIs; compared to MTE and BL (but neither had CIs);
reported in database as one area but showed disaggregated results in FE (2 woredas) having small denominators (57 each); did not
pop weight SAs
PLAN Did not provide potential explanations – just #s, decision rule tables, and recommendations by SA for low-performing indicators;
provided tables with estimates compared to MTE & BL but without CIs or Denominators (needed to go into the decision rule table
to figure them out); Did not pop-weight SAs!
PSI Used 2010 DHS data in their final KPC report. The conducted a TRAC survey in 2011 but did not use it in their FE report.
Did not provide explanations for change or lack of change. Did not even include all CATCH indicators in the final KPC report, which
was very short (4 pages?).
Relief Provided some potential explanations; provided tables with denominators; compared to baseline in discussion
Save Did not provide explanations – just #s and summaries; provided tables with denominators and weighted averages with CIs, as well
as baseline % and denominator (would have been nice to see CI also); compared #s to baseline; database can accommodate design
Wellshare Provided Access file with KPC data; Also provided tabulation tables in their final KPC report; Provided BL & EL numerators, denominators, and
CIs in indicator tables; Also compared to 2010 DHS; Did not include possible explanations for changes in the indicators in the KPC report – some
in FE narrative.
29

30. Health Facility Delivery:
A comparison of KPC and DHS data (2006/7 – 2011)
90
Baseline DHS
80 Endline DHS
Baseline KPC
70 EndlineKPC
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Save CARE Plan Wellshare
Malawi Nepal Nepal Tanzania
30