MER Essential Survey
Indicators
Jenifer Chapman, PhD & Lisa Parker, PhD
February 2, 2015
Learning outcomes
 You will become familiar with the indicators and
think about what they mean for your programs
 You will know how to get the data
 You will better understand how to choose
programs for outcomes monitoring from your
country HKID portfolio
MER Essential Survey Indicators
 Move to outcomes, linked to program goals
 Mandatory
 Every two years
9 Essential Indicators
 Representing holistic measures of child and
family wellbeing
 Linked to broader HIV response goals
 Linked to broader child protection response goals
 Vetted by broad stakeholder community
Indicator criteria
 Amenable to change due to PEPFAR OVC
programs in a 2 year period
 Easy to measure by trained data collectors
 Relevant over time and place
 Indicators including questions that could be
validated were prioritized
 Many pilot tested
HIV status
Percent of children whose primary caregiver
knows the child’s HIV status
Rationale: If HIV status is unknown, child will
not access care & treatment (proxy for testing)
Source: PEPFAR OVC TWG
Nutrition
Percent of children <5 years of age who are
undernourished
Rationale: linked to infant morality and longterm child health and development
Source: World Health Organization
Health
Percent of children too sick to participate in
daily activities
Rationale: PEPFAR supports critical linkages
to health services to improve functional wellbeing
Source: MEASURE Evaluation
Legal protection
Percent of children who have a birth certificate
Rationale: Required to access essential services
Source: DHS
Education: School attendance
Percent of children regularly attending school
Rationale: Important for child development;
children in school are less likely to acquire HIV
Source: UNESCO
Education: Progression in school
Percent of children who progressed in school
during the last year
Rationale: More education is linked to better
HIV awareness, higher contraceptive use,
improved child well-being (among others)
Source: MEASURE Evaluation
Early childhood development
Percent of children <5 years of age who
recently engaged in stimulating activities with
any household member over 15 years of age
Rationale: Early childhood stimulation is linked
to long term child health and development
Source: MICS
Perception of violence
Percent of caregivers who agree that harsh
physical punishment is an appropriate means of
discipline or control in the home or school
Rationale: Perception of violence is linked to
use of violence; children experiencing violence
show greater HIV risk behaviors
Source: MEASURE Evaluation
Household economic resilience
Percent of households able to access money to
pay for unexpected household expenses
Rationale: Resilience to economic shocks is
linked to poverty, which impacts child and
family well-being
Source: MEASURE Evaluation
Disaggregation
 By sex
 By age group (where relevant):
 0-4 years
 5-9 years
 10-14 years
 15-17 years
Let’s discuss (30 mins)
What questions do these indicators raise for
you with respect to program implementation?

Hint: how does this affect targeting beneficiaries?
Feedback
What did you discuss?
Getting the data
 Figuring out which
programs
 Figuring out which
approach:
1. Outcomes monitoring
2. Evaluation
 Figuring out who will
collect the data
Which programs?
 Appropriate proportion of budget
 Agency representation
 Appropriate program scope and timeline
 Strategic effort
 Paying heed to other data collection efforts
*Countries with total HKID funding of <1M USD/year are
exempt from requirement
So we might have data from
multiple programs in one country?
 Yes. They cannot be aggregated.
What approach?
Outcomes monitoring vs. Evaluation
Considerations
 The information you need
 Why you need it
 When you need it
Note that we have developed data collection tools
for both approaches
Evaluation
Outcomes monitoring
Outcomes may be attributed Attribution cannot be
to program*
established
Data valid at population
level
Data may be valid at local
level*
Larger number of indicators
3-5 years usually
Very limited number of
indicators
Every 2 years
Complex sampling
Simpler sampling
Complex analysis
Simpler analysis*
Higher cost
Lower cost
Methods for outcomes monitoring
Cluster sample surveys
vs.
Lot quality assurance sampling (LQAS)
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Cluster
sampling
• Sample large enough
for sub-group analyses
• Simpler sampling
design
• No weighting*
• Statistician needed for
sample size calculation
• More expensive (larger)
Lot quality
assurance
sampling
• Provides information
• Sampling frame needed
valid at supervision area
for each SA
(SA) level
• Sample size will need to
• May be cheaper
be increased for some
depending on number
indicators
of SAs
• Values need to be
weighted
Data
collection
tool
Which partner?
 Surveys must be undertaken by appropriate
institution, that is NOT providing services under
program
 Proven institutional capes:
 Survey design and sampling (all methods)
 Ethical and safe data collection
 Data management and analysis
When?
APR FY15
And again in two years.
Implications for your work (30 min)
 What programs might require outcome
monitoring in your country?
 What are your next steps?
Feedback
Where can I find out more?
Go to our website:
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/
our-work/ovc
Email: Jenifer Chapman:
[email protected] or
Lisa Parker:
[email protected]
The research presented here has been supported by the
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
through the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) under the terms of MEASURE
Evaluation cooperative agreement AID-OAA-L-14-00004.
Views expressed are not necessarily those of PEPFAR,
USAID or the United States government.
MEASURE Evaluation is implemented by the Carolina
Population Center at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill in partnership with Futures Group, ICF
International, John Snow, Inc., Management Sciences for
Health, and Tulane University.