Peace Corps Programs for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC)

Claire Nussbaum ‘19, Woodrow Wilson SchoolPeace Corps Office of Global Health and HIV

Funded by CHW under the Health Grand Challenge program

Results

Activities: Beneficiaries:

Duration of activities: Work with orphanages:

Methods• Analysis Tools Used: Excel, NVivo, Tableau• Coded activity descriptions into categories based on key research questions• Summarized coded data and created visualizations (shown in Results)

Objective of the StudyTo evaluate whether the OVC-directed services Peace Corps Volunteers are providing in the field actually align with both the OVC indicator criteria and programmatic goals of the agency.

ConclusionsActivities:• Relatively little work with orphanages, primarily in South Africa• Still too many one time activitiesBeneficiaries:• Successful emphasis on youth and caregivers• Many activities targeting non-OVC specific populations• General data quality issues

Next Steps• Adjust reporting tool based on data quality findings• Work with Volunteers to ensure their activities are more in line with indicator criteria and agency goals• Future interns or program specialists may use this research method format to review other indicators or project areas

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank the following organizations and advisors for their assistance during this internship:§ Princeton Health Grand Challenge§ Peace Corps OGHH§ Salewa Oyelaran (OGHH)§ Anne Schwartz (OGHH)

Introduction• Worked with the OVC Program Specialist within the Office of Global Health and HIV which oversees programming and training of Peace Corps Volunteers working in the health sector• Conducted a comprehensive analysis of all of the programs serving OVC over the past 4 years

PostName

0 100 200 300 400

NumberofRecords

Botswana

Cameroon

Ethiopia

Ghana

Guyana

Lesotho

Malawi

Mozambique

Namibia

Nicaragua

Rwanda

SouthAfrica

Swaziland

Tanzania

Uganda

Ukraine

Zambia

108

56

15

8

1

432

99

75

149

7

3

138

409

7

20

28

26

Ongoingvs.onetimeactivities

PostName

YearofReportingPeriodFY

2015 2016 2017 2018

Botswana

Cameroon

Ethiopia

Ghana

Guyana

Lesotho

Malawi

Mozambique

Namibia

Nicaragua

Rwanda

SouthAfrica

Swaziland

Tanzania

Uganda

Ukraine

Zambia 50.0%

66.7%

80.0%

50.0%

23.2%

20.0%

0.0%

22.9%

11.6%

35.0%

23.3%

100.0%

0.0%

38.5%

48.4%

0.0%

94.7%

72.2%

0.0%

24.6%

21.3%

50.0%

100.0%

27.3%

33.3%

71.4%

18.5%

66.7%

53.1%

57.4%

40.0%

75.0%

50.0%

14.8%

31.7%

50.0%

100.0%

14.8%

0.0%

44.4%

25.8%

100.0%

0.0%

44.4%

20.0%

46.3%

37.0%

100.0%

60.0%

18.9%

29.5%

0.0%

80.0%

57.4%

38.2%

53.3%

26.9%

0.0%

100.0%

30.8%

67.6%

51.0%

PostName

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

percentageonetime/total

Botswana

Cameroon

Ethiopia

Ghana

Guyana

Lesotho

Malawi

Mozambique

Namibia

Nicaragua

Rwanda

SouthAfrica

Swaziland

Tanzania

Uganda

Ukraine

Zambia

50.5%

80.0%

50.0%

63.5%

87.5%

27.3%

74.1%

84.8%

Percentonetime/total

Duration

onetime

ongoing

2015 2016 2017 2018

YearofReportingPeriodFY

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

NumberofRecords

Lesotho

Mozambique

Malawi Namibia

SouthAfrica

Cameroon

Swaziland

Tanzania

PostName

Cameroon

Lesotho

Malawi

Mozambique

Namibia

SouthAfrica

Swaziland

Tanzania