SMC Distribution Data Capture PAUL SNELL DATA COORDINATOR

SMC Distribution Data Capture PAUL SNELL, DATA CO-ORDINATOR, LSHTM JANUARY 2015

On-Line Capture of distribution data § At Dakar each country reported that : ◦ Data were to be entered at district level ◦ District level entry could be done using internet § This has proven not to be the case with some countries unable to use the online forms to enter data § The online system was developed to assist capture, but appears to have been not well-received: ◦ the entry of both Tally and Eo. C data may be problematic ◦ The data are being provided at the Health Centre level, losing the Village granularity

Countries Responses - MC Nigeria ◦ First to use online system ◦ Problems in getting all data entered (Many forms remain un-entered) Tchad ◦ All levels of staff trained ◦ Data captured appears to be more consistent than Nigeria Burkina Faso ◦ Using their own spreadsheets to enter data ◦ Still waiting for data to be delivered so that they can be added to the online system by PS

MC Countries Eo. C Forms Entered Tally Forms Entered Cycle 1 Nigeria Tchad Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 1 Cycle 4 1373 715 239 141 Nigeria 290 299 284 270 Tchad Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 176 60 12 0 55 55 44 52 Indexed to cycle 1 Nigeria 100% 52% 17% 10% Nigeria 100% 34% 7% 0% Tchad 100% 103% 98% 93% Tchad 100% 80% 95%

Countries Responses – CRS 2015 The Gambia ◦ full digital collection, migration, management and reporting through e. Valuate Niger, Mali and Guinea ◦ paper collection, and migration, management and reporting through Excel These data are being tested for migration and will be fully available before end of January ◦ ◦ Eric has been supporting the gathering of these data Data delivered to PS electronically PS testing data for migration Eric asked about a system to allow spreadsheet data to be added directly on-line – see later.

Countries Responses – CRS planned 2016 The Gambia, Niger ◦ full digital collection, migration, management and reporting through e. Valuate; Mali, Guinea ◦ paper collection and digital migration, management and reporting through e. Valuate

Regional View of data § PS has only recently added the facility to allow a regional view of data entered so far. (only Nigeria and Tchad data available) § This overview is being extended to include CRS data ◦ CRS and MC use different forms for the SMC distribution data, so extension is not a simple process. § PS will extend the capabilities of the regional reporting to provide some key indicators from the data provided, which will be available to those with overview permissions. ◦ Review of Harriet’s suggested reporting template

Improving the system – some questions (1) § CRS and MC use different tools for monitoring ◦ Is this necessary? If not, we should move towards a single set of tools for both partners. § CRS will implement e. Valuate across all countries in 2016. ◦ Should PS develop an automated system to process these data into the online system? ◦ The resources required to do this could be quite large and it may not be a good use of these resources. A manual upload may be just as useful and easier to provide.

Improving the system – some questions (2) § Is the On-Line Data Capture system actually useful? ◦ Do countries have resources to enter the data – both technical and personnel § If we do continue to use this system – how do we ensure the data are entered – in terms of both quantity and quality? § MC have requested the development of an off-line system in Excel to allow districts to enter data which can then be delivered to the online system. This should be deliverable, although how to monitor the completeness of this process needs consideration.

Reviewing the online system – additional (1) § The intention was that by getting data into the system Cycle by Cycle the data would inform country teams of any issues (at district or even HC level) § This year majority of data are being delivered at the end of Round – thus losing this ability § CRS have the e. Valuate system in place to allow them to monitor their processes independently and effectively

Reviewing the online system – additional (2) § MC – do we push to get data in (as in Nigeria, albeit with the problems mentioned)? ◦ What needs to change on the ground to make this effective? ◦ Where are data entered? ◦ Who enters the data? ◦ Who manages the process on the ground? § MC – or do you need to develop another way to monitor the process of distribution?

Some lessons § Had the system been in place earlier it would have provided an opportunity to monitor the quantity and quality of data in a dynamic manner § We need to consider the resources required to maintain these data. ◦ If the resources are not there, this system will always miss the mark and opportunities will be lost. § The system for year 2 should be in place BEFORE the first country starts Cycle 1. We have the opportunity to do this. § There will be other considerations beyond my remit, and partners need to agree what is needed so that the distribution data are gathered and disseminated appropriately for the project.

Conclusions and next steps (1) 2015 was not a complete success ◦ Most countries did not use system live ◦ Reporting was limited ◦ Partly owing to lack of data ◦ Problems were very visible and MC were able to act on data

Conclusions and next steps (2) Opportunity to make 2016 better Develop off-line system (PS) ◦ Only use where internet connectivity is an issue ◦ Manage off-line data flow – from paper to delivery to PS – identify who is responsible CRS to make data available cycle by cycle in 2016 Development of online reporting tools to make data available to project in a timely fashion (PS) ◦ Including the report provided by Harriet