Care Group Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meeting
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like576 views
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting aimed to assess enablers and barriers to scaling up sustainable Care Groups in various settings. The objectives were to: 1) review the evidence on Care Groups; 2) explore experiences scaling up nationally, especially for food security; 3) explore implications of innovations and evaluations; 4) identify recommendations for effective training and quality control; and 5) identify next steps like a research agenda. The output would be a position paper reviewing implications of innovations, scale up, and research on Care Groups in food security programs. Questions focused on merging Care Groups into government structures, issues for national adoption like promoter roles and payment, how Care Groups relate to other community health programs, and recommendations for national adoption and scale
Care Group Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meeting
- 1. Care Group Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Meeting
- 2. 2010 TAG Goal Assess various enablers and barriers to the use of sustainable Care Groups at scale in various settings and develop guidance for the design of “at scale” Care Group programs.
- 3. Objectives 1. Review the evidence base regarding the Care Group approach 2. Explore experiences with national adoption and scaling up especially in the food security context 3. Explore the implications of recent innovations and evaluations for programming efforts 4. Identify recommendations for effective training and quality control approaches to ensure that Care Groups maintain a participatory, peer learning environment for achieving behavior change 5. Identify next steps, including recommendations for a research agenda and opportunities for informing donor and implementer audiences about experiences with Care Groups in various contexts and sectors
- 4. Output • Position paper that reviews the implications of current innovations, scale up and research on Care Groups in Title II programs and other programs.
- 5. Introductions Large Group: • Name • Organization • Country (if not US) Triad: • Experience with Care Groups
- 6. Questions on national adoption and scale 1. What do we know about merging traditional CGs into government structures? 2. What specific issues are problematic for MOH and need to be resolved in order to facilitate national adoption (ex. who serves as the promoter, who pays the promoter)? 3. How do the Care Groups relate to other national Community Health Worker programs? 4. At what point do the modifications for national adoption evolve into a different approach from Care Groups? What are the implications of this (if any)? 5. How do we build MOH capacity to implement and expand Care Groups? 6. What would be the role of NGOs as the MOH incorporates Care Groups? 7. What is the vision for Care Group scale-up? 8. What are the overall recommendations related to national adoption and scale-up?
Editor's Notes
- #2: What is a TAG – opportunity to bring experienced practitioners and researchers together to explore and answer key implementation questions Differentiate from SOTA Closed, invitation only meeting Concrete outputs Previous CG TAG 2010
- #3: Most of the work at this point was with sub-national programs with up to 220,000 beneficiaries Environment with increased focus on government CHWs and how Care Group volunteers and structure could complement and extend this Scale experience was mainly with Rwanda integrating CGs and government CHWs; Burundi starting to experiment with less-resource intensive model with CHWs supervising CGs Outputs: Key messages for scale up including barriers and enablers, roles and responsibilities Recommendation for step-by-step facilitators guide to be developed to support scale up (FH CG Training Manual for Program Design and Implementation available now) Research and information gaps Advocacy and communication – packaging the definition, minimum criteria and outcome data for consistent messaging; differentiation of approach and when it should be considered;
- #4: Why now – session at CORE 2013 Spring meeting brought out recent peer-reviewed journal articles and that results coming in from various experiences and OR efforts in next year; Expansion of experience beyond CSHGP to Title II programming and FAFSA-2 evaluation with CGs as promising model Therefore opportune time to bring people together to discuss implications. CORE then applied for TOPS microgrant Very happy to be able to bring in several field-based implementers Agenda topics – emerged from discussions with steering committee (and USAID) and focused on topics where there was enough evidence base to facilitate good discussion and consensus building; omitted interesting experiences without enough experience to draw conclusions – these could lend themselves well to webinars with a larger audience Steering committee: Karen LeBan, CORE Mary DeCoster, TOPS Jennifer Burns, IMC Alexandra Rutishauser-Perera, IMC Jennifer Weiss, Concern Worldwide Henry Perry, JHU Carolyn Wetzel, FH Tom Davis, Feed the Children Cindy Pfitzenmaier, PCI
- #5: Potentially directed at donors on effectiveness of CGs and rationale for further investment (to be developed into a submission to a peer-reviewed journal) Sharon Tobing will be taking notes Henry Perry will write a position paper