The Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) Process

The coming of age of a Detailed Implementation Plan process is the DIP workshop and most of our efforts are geared towards it.

Phase Pre -requisite/Preparation

Pre Workshop Guideline for DIP shared with CO Data: SA, BL, HFA , ASA, WASH, FR/Barrier Presentations readyAgenda, Invitations , Venue

Workshop Participation, consultation and learning, consensus,

Post Workshop Document the DIP and share with partners (minus budget)

What is done in the USAID and other donor DIP workshops?

• revise, if necessary, and refine program goals, objectives/results, indicators and targets;

• strategize on major interventions;• determine critical project tasks and activities;• clarify roles and responsibilities of

implementing groups; • prioritize planned activities with partners.

Post plenary – multitude of small groups – participation is best elicited if done by special topic area and/or area of interest.

In country – DIP write up• Heavy lifting by ACD/HSC/PM/M&E/Advocacy• Backstop is expected to assist as needed• Programming begins

Atlanta plus team• Peer review of DIP CO by CO - ? Webex• Suggest possible changes – • Finalize DIP – Firm deadline for Atlanta

Atlanta team• Work on future reports/strategies• Stepping back

What happens after the workshop?

What is worth emulating from CSHGP guidelines

• Level of effort LOE • Targets• Maps • Large number of usable tools – or some variation• Reach out to partners and key players • Consensus and buy in• Comprehensive package of usable tools guidelines

and tables• Post DIP CO leads the implementation

Possible Incremental Improvements• LOE by different time frames and sub LOE by sectors• Strategize by most doable, measurable and effective

strategies (possible think biggest bang for buck) • One time big tent activity – or pre/post smaller group

activities?• Priorities – whose? Question have we spent enough time

for good inputs and consensus?• Outcome – Identify best thinkers/implementers – rope

them for different committees• Advisory committees – by development sector? Else sub

committees• Agree in DIP to update targets if indicated (greater

achievement bias)

Time for Questions

Borrowable Concepts - 1

Beneficiary Population Number

Infants: 0-11 months 5,193

Children: 12-23 months 5,193

Children: 24-59 months 15,580

Children 0-59 months 25,966

Women 15-49 years 28,561

Total Population 129,830

Illustration of Beneficiary Calculation for Project

Example – Rwanda child survival

Borrowable Concepts - 2

Target to be achieved

Current Status End of Project Target to be achieved

Stunting – 36% 18%Home Based ECD Center (10%)

100%

Example – Rwanda child survival

Borrowable concepts 3 Level Of Effort (LOE)

• Agriculture – 40%• IYCF – 40%• Wash – 10%• Anemia – 10%

Example for illustrative purpose only

Borrowable Concepts – 4 Management and Human Resource Table

Position Number Responsibilities LOE AffiliationMother Leaders

CHWs

1157 Share MCH and ECD messages Report to CHWs new pregnancies, cases of malnutrition,

30% Community Volunteer

Example – Rwanda child survival

Borrowable Concepts – 5 Training Plan

# Level Intervention Content Venue (subdistrict namesO

Duration

Trainees Total #

Trainers

1.

2.

Sector

Sector

Community Health

ECD

Train Binome on C-IMCI training Module

Child Stim/n ML

Nyarubaka, Kayenzi, Musambira et Karama

Nyarubaka

5 days

3 days

208 CHW binôme

1500 ML

CARE staff, MOH

Contractor

Example – Rwanda child survival

Borrowable concept 6 Facilities/Systems Assessments

• Health Facility AssessmentFrom lowest level till district level1) HW staffing and expertise level per HC2) Supplies and equipment – IFA availability in past one year3) HR – training status –Nepal – CARE does most training.

• Agriculture Sector From lowest level till district level

• Wash Sector Assessment From lowest level till district level

Borrowable Concept 7 Research/Evaluation PlanPlan Methodology Timeline Responsible

Phase one: Home-based ECD Assessment

- Reflection session - Documentation of lessons learned

August 2011

Project staff

Phase Two: Barrier Analysis

- FGD- Key informant interviews- Coverage analysis in select communities

August-October

2011

Project staff

Phase Three: Feasibility Trial

Trials of Improved Practices (TIPs)

October-January

2011

Project staff

Scale up - Reflection session - Documentation of lessons learned

January 2012

Project staff

Final evaluation - Survey among mothers of children < 24 months (KAP and anthropometric Survey)

- ECD assessment - CHW survey

August 2012

Project staff with external consultants

Domain ActivityIntervention area

Comparison area

CHW MLs CHW MLNutrition

Growth monitoring and promotion X X X N/A

Screening and referral for malnutrition X X X N/A

Maternal HealthMobilize pregnant women for ANC X X N/A

risk signs during pregnancy and referral X X N/A

Birth preparation plan X X N/A

Borrowable Concept 8 Difference in Roles and Responsibilities in Intervention and Comparison Areas

Time for Questions

Thanks