Transcript IHP+Results - International Health Partnership

Lessons from
Health Sector
Performance
Reporting &
Monitoring
Geneva, 5th October 2012
Strengthening Accountability to Achieve the Health MDGs
Results Framework
Performance Monitoring & Evaluation of the
IHP+
2. Transparent
Information from
Performance
Reporting &
Monitoring
Why monitor?
3. Mutual Accountability
Processes with Forum
for Discussion
AVAILABILITY
COLLECTION
UTILIZATION
DEMAND
HEALTH RESULTS
THROUGH
STRENGTHENED HEALTH
SYSTEMS
1. Mechanism for
Participation, based on
IHP+ Global and Country
Compacts
Reflecting on 5 Years of
Monitoring
August 2008
May 2010
April 2011
October 2012
1
NOT YET PARTICIPATING IN IHP+RESULTS FOR
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORTING OR SELF
REPORTING & ACCOUNTABILITY
2
PARTICIPATING IN IHP+RESULTS
GOVERNMENTS OF:
Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire,
Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Pakistan,
Vietnam, Zambia.
GOVERNMENTS OF:
DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS:
Canada, Finland, France, Italy, Portugal, International
Labour Organisation (ILO), Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation .
DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS:
4
ENSURING HEALTH SECTOR AID
EFFECTIVENESS COMMITMENTS ARE
SYSTEMATICALLY AND ROUTINELY MONITORED
3
TAKING STEPS TO USE IHP+RESULTS
REPORTING TO STRENGTHEN MUTUAL
ACCOUNTABILITY
This represents the end goal of a virtuous
cycle.
1. Mechanism for
Participation, based on
IHP+ Global and Country
Compacts
2. Transparent
Information from
Performance
Reporting &
Monitoring
How information has been
collected & managed
MAR - JUL 2010
Developed and/or agreed by IHP+ signatories.
Reviewed in July 2011.
FEB - APR 2012
Questionnaire based on Standard Performance Measures.
Data collected and used as basis for ratings.
MAY - JUL 2012
Draft scorecards discussed with participating
signatories.
AGENCY PROFILE
C OUNTRI ES WHERE THE AGENCY IS DEMONSTRATING PROGRESS
COUNTRIES WHERE THE AGENCY IS NOT REPORTING PROGRESS
EXPECTED RESULTS
RA TING
C om m itm en t s
a re d o c um en te d
a nd m u tu ally a g re ed.
S u p p o rt i s b as e d on
cou ntr y pl an s & s tra te gie s,
in c lu di ng to s tr en g th e n
H ea lt h S y s te m s .
F un d in g co m m itm e nts
a re lo n g - term .
F un d s are d is b u rse d
p re d ict ab ly , a s c o m m itte d.
OVER ALL PROGRESS
An I
HP
+ C ountryCompact orequi
val
ent has been sig
ned i
n1
7
%
ofI
H P+ countr
i
es w her
etheyexis t.
Tar
get= 1
00
%.
I
nsuf
f
i
ci
entdataha
s been pr
ovi
ded to ena
blear
ati
ngf
orthi
s
Sta
ndar
dP
erf
orm anceMeasur
e.
Targ
et= H alvethe% ofai
d
f
low s not r
epor
ted on budget(
w ithatleast 85 % reported on
I
nsuf
f
i
ci
entdataha
s been pr
ovi
ded to ena
blear
ati
ngf
orthi
s
Sta
ndar
dP
erf
orm anceMeasur
e.
Targ
et= 5 0%
I
n 20091
0
0% ofheal
ths ectora
idw as provi
dedthr
ough
pr
ogr
a
m meba
s ed a
ppr
oa
ches -no changef
r
om 1
0
0%.
Tar
get=
6 6%
I
n 20091
0
0% ofheal
ths ectora
idw as provi
dedthr
oughmulti
yea
rcommi
tments -nochangef
r
om 1
0
0%.
Tar
get= 9
0%
I
n 20093% ofhealths ectorai
ddi
s bursements w er
enot
r
eleas edaccor
di
ngto a
gr
eed schedules -adecr
ea
sef
rom 1
9%
i
n 2005.
Ta
r
get= H alvethe% ofhea
lths ectora
i
d notdi
sbursed
wi
thi
n thecalendaryearf
orw hi
chitw a
s s chedul
ed.
I
nsuf
f
i
ci
entdataha
s been pr
ovi
ded to ena
blear
ati
ngf
orthi
s
Sta
ndar
dP
erf
orm anceMeasur
e.
Targ
et= Onethir
dreducti
on i
n
the% ofhealths ectorai
dto thepubl
ics ectornotusi
ngna
ti
onal
pr
ocur
ements ystems.
C ou ntr y s y s tem s fo r
p ro c u r em e n t & pu blic
fina n c ia l m a nag em en t
a re us ed & s tre n g th e n e d .
IHP+
GLOBAL
COMPACT
STANDARD
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
I
n 20091
0
0% ofheal
ths ectora
iddi
d notus ena
ti
onal
a
publi
c
f
in nci
alm a
nagements ystems -no cha
ngef
r
om 1
00% .
Ta
r
get
= Onethir
dreducti
on i
n the% ofheal
thsectora
idto thepubli
c
s ectornotusi
ngna
ti
onalPFM s ystems.
I
nsuf
f
i
ci
entdataha
s been pr
ovi
ded to ena
blear
ati
ngf
orthi
s
Sta
ndar
dP
erf
orm anceMeasur
e.
Targ
et= tw othi
rdreducti
on i
n
thestockofpara
llelPI
Us.
R es o u rc e s a re b e ing
m a nag ed fo r D ev e lo p m ent
R es u lt s.
M u tua l ac c o un ta b ility is
b ein g d em o ns tra te d .
QUESTIONNAIRE
RATING
C iv il S oc ie ty ac tive ly
e ng ag ed.
I
n 2009na
ti
onalperf
or
ma
ncea
s sessm entf
r
a
mew ork
s w er
e
used toassess prog
ress i
n0
% ofI
HP
+ countri
es -no cha
nge
f
rom 0
% Ta
rget= 1
00% .
I
n 2009G AVIpar
tici
patedin healthsectorannualmutual
assess ments ofprog
ress i
n0
% IH P+ countri
es nochangef
rom
0%.
Ta
rget:1
0
0%.
I
n 2009,
evi
denceexi
sts i
n1
00% ofI
HP
+ countri
es ofsupportto
ci
vi
lsoci
etyenga
gementi
n healthsectorpoli
cypr
ocess es .
Tar
get = 1
00%
SCORECARD
How this Information
has been used (or
not!)
3. Mutual Accountability
Processes with Forum
for Discussion
Development agencies
HQ-level reviews; Country sector reviews
National governments
Govt Reviews; Country sector reviews; Compact
Reviews
Civil Society
The IHP+ network
Parliamentarians (Nigeria); IHP+ Civil Society
Consultative Group; Busan side-event.
Key contributor to TT HATS (Busan)
Accountability meetings
Southern Civil Society Forum (Ghana, Feb 2011),
Action for Global Health (Paris, May 2011; Madrid,
June 2011)
Researchers
Center for Global Development paper on QuoDAH
(May, 2011); Globalization & Health paper (July
2012)
General Public
Lancet article and letter.
What change has IHP+Results
contributed to
 Some evidence of increasing cooperation to deliver more
effective aid (but not yet at level of collaboration)
 Information is now available
 Voluntary Participation is increasing
 Greater Transparency with Performance Reports, Scorecards and
Web Data
 Discussions are being had about aid in the health sector (some
country-led), with power shift in conversations
 Other: Conceptual positioning of IHP+ as an aid effectiveness
intervention; Sectoral perspective on aid effectiveness (TTHATS);
Alignment for COIA etc
What have been the challenges?
➔ Lack of appropriate use of the IHP+Results mechanism and
information products, to improve coordination or to inform
collaborations between partners
➔ Not collecting and reporting the right Information at the right time
➔ Participation for the wrong reasons (cooperative compliance
rather than learning) and incentives are not compelling
➔ Transparency without data integrity because information is not
systematically validated, or being questioned
➔ Discussions not taking place at the right levels, with the right
people (mutual accountability and review mechanisms are not in
place or being routinely used)
➔ Lack of capacity within partner institutions?
What we have learned
PROCESS
(PARTICIPATION):
1.Voluntary participation seems
to work
2.Some sense of compliance
(cooperation) driving
participation, rather than learning
3.Transaction costs are heavy
and will continue to be if
reporting has value
4.Triangulation is important for
credibility, but how important –
can we ever reach truth?
5.Locating the process at
country level remains the
aspiration
6.NB: Monitoring must adapt and
evolve
MEASURES
(TRANSPARENCY)
1. Paris Indicators a good
strategic choice
2. Some indicators need
attention: not appropriate,
not useful (procurement,
PBAs, capacity building)
3. Some definitions need
attention (‘active’)
4. Lack of qualitative
information weakens
potential for learning &
improvement
5. Framework needs to be
able to detect & report
unanticipated changes
6. Targets need to be better
defined (lowest common
denominator vs
aspiration?)
7. IAG
USE (FORUM FOR
DISCUSSION)
1.Limited discussion of reports
and scorecards
2.Prospects for use in 2012/13
are better – key to future
demand for monitoring
3.Civil society role in promoting
use is important – IHP+ needs to
better resource CSOs to engage
4.Important to articulate the
value of monitoring aid
effectiveness to health results
5.Use and accessibility are
connected – scorecards have
been valuable in this regard
2. Transparent
Information from
Performance
Reporting &
Monitoring
How to improve?
3. Mutual Accountability
Processes with Forum
for Discussion
AVAILABILITY
COLLECTION
UTILIZATION
DEMAND
HEALTH RESULTS
THROUGH
STRENGTHENED HEALTH
SYSTEMS
1. Mechanism for
Participation, based on
IHP+ Global and Country
Compacts
Questions on Future Monitoring
1) What needs to be done to stimulate demand
for future monitoring?
2) How should specific technical issues
relating to information relevance, validity &
availability be addressed (and by whom?)
3) How can better use be made of the
information – especially through collaborative
discussions & by country level decisionmakers?