World Vision on a journey to evaluate Child Well-Being

The evolution of our framework from a set of few indicators to a compendium of indicators linked to Child Well-Being

Outcomes and Aspirations

Overall Objectives• Participants will be better able to

describe and assess the pros and cons of a standardized versus a more flexible approach to measuring results.

• Participants will be better able to explain WV’s framework for measuring effectiveness around child protection and participation.

• Participants will have a list of resources and practical tools to use in their work.

Who is World Vision• Child focused, community based, faith-based

organization dedicated to working with children, families, and their communities worldwide to reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty and injustice.

• The overarching goal is: the sustained well-being of children within families and communities, especially the most vulnerable.

• Working in nearly 100 countries

• Three main ministry tracks: Humanitarien Emergency Affairs (HEA), Development and Advocacy.

How do we keep ourselves accountable and measure

comparable progress across our programs?

Working in nearly ~100 countries, in different contexts (Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America,

Asia Pacific, East-West-South Africa), in several sectors, with different funding streams, with programs that have different program cycle duration (6 months

to 15 years)…

• 13 standardized Indicators measured across all programs in all countries

• Measured every three to five years

• Mixture of of qualitative and quantitative indicators

– 30 x 30 cluster survey for quantitative

– Focus Group Discussion; Wealth Ranking exercise; Document Reviews; Participatory group discussions for the qualitative indicators

Transformational Development Indicators (TDI)

A set of standardized Indicators (2000-2007)

For details please refer to Handout #1 (TDIs, definitions & Measurement Process)

Strengths and Weaknesses of Using Standardized Indicators

Advantages for using standardized indicators:

1. Standard Indicators across the organization are easier to aggregate and disaggregate

2. Building capacity across national offices is easy (same training package, software, processes, etc.)

3. Regular data obtained at the organization level (measurement every three to five years)

Disadvantages for using standardized indicators:

4. Indicators were not representative and/or relevant of all the NOs and the programs implemented.

5. The measurements were done separately, in addition to the baselines and evaluation measurements, resulting in community fatigue.

6. The measurements were done for the organization not for the programme.

How is it possible to measure context specific child well-being

in such diverse socio-cultural settings?

Working in nearly ~100 countries, in different contexts (Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, East-West-South Africa), in several sectors, with different funding streams, with programs that

have different program cycle duration (6 months to 15 years)…

• Four impact categories (referred to as aspirations) • 15 outcomes organized in the four impact categories• Compendium of Indiccators (as a menu for programs

to choose)– Approx. 250 indicators organized as summary or

high level, context specific and national level indicators

Child Well-Being Outcome Indicators

A flexible approach with a menu of Indicators (2009 – presently)

For details please refer to Handout #2 (Child Well-Being Framework)

Summary Indicator:•1-3 for every CWBO•High level•Measures impact•Relevant in all contexts

Context specific:•5-30 for every CWBO•Menu of indicators•Measures outcomes•Select as relevant for programme & context

National level:•Relevant for advocacy•Measures policy outcomes•Only select if relevant

Strengths and Weaknesses of a Flexible Menu of Indicators

Advantages for using a flexible menu of indicators:

1. Indicators are reflective of the local programs while still linked to national strategies, organizations’ aspirations and desired CWB Outcomes.

2. Programs are able to adjust based on results more quickly.

3. Standard Indicators are aligned to the industry indicators (e.g. WHO, UNICEF).

Disadvantages for using a flexible menu of indicators:

4. Program alignment and accounting for contribution is possible while aggregation of results is not.

5. M&E became more complex (no longer one size fits all and several pieces are still not figured out)

6. The compendium keeps expanding as the NO-s keep requesting more “context specific” indicators –which require more time to validate prior to be part of the compendium.

Navigating –where to find more about CWB?

Go to: http://www.wvi.org/guidancefordevelopmentprogrammes Then to: Programming ToolsThen to: DME: Measuring Child Well-Being