1. BGH M&E Working Group Updates Siân Curtis

2. Brief History: PRH M&E WG  2004 evaluation of OPRH M&E recommended establishing a CA M&E WG  OPRH M&E WG established in early 2005  Vision  Community of practice of people working in M&E of OPRH projects to learn from each other, share experiences, and collectively address common problems in order to strengthen the M&E of OPRH programs.  Objectives  Raise level of understanding of and increase commitment to M&E  Improve the technical quality of M&E

3. Brief History: Expanding to BGH  2007 USAID review of M&E in the agency included recommendation to establish a BGH M&E working group.  Suggestion to expand OPRH group to all BGH offices  Discussed with PRH M&E WG in November 2007  Informational meetings held with HIDN and OHA in July 2008 to gauge interest in BGH M&E WG  Conclusion: Interest in establishing a BGH M&E WG but with some caveats

4. Opportunities for BGH M&E WG  Information sharing/exchange of M&E ideas between offices and between projects  Two-way communication between BGH and CAs on M&E issues  Training and skill building  Coordination between M&E initiatives in different offices and between global, USG, and CA levels  Potential forum to influence M&E thinking in BGH and more broadly

5. Challenges for BGH M&E WG  Managing the potential size and diversity of interests of the group  Maintaining clear mandate  Balance in office interests/issues  Membership – balance between inclusiveness and manageability  Logistics  Engaging field perspective and participation  Networking the networks  Funding (and time) for participation

6. Lessons Learned from PRH M&E WG  Requires active participation from across CAs and USAID  Consistency in participation important  Rotate technical leadership of meetings  Plenty of coffee breaks!  Time and funds are constraints to producing specific products  There is benefit in meeting to exchange information and experience but can be a challenge to keep momentum  High demand for skills building

7. Proposals for Structure  One full annual meeting, possibly with office or element- specific break out sessions  More frequent smaller meetings for special topics, task forces, or focus areas  Open space at full meeting to get ideas for future activities  Rotating secretariat to handle logistics and organization  Steering committee with USAID/CA balance  Flexibility for offices to determine who should participate in the WG and steering committee

8. Next Steps  Invite HIDN and OHA CAs to November PRH M&E WG  Identify Steering Committee (SC) members  Initial tasks for SC  Develop TOR for WG, including how it relates to other M&E WG  Plan first WG meeting  Develop draft scope of work for the WG and determine funding needs  Working Group meeting  Finalize and approve TOR and scope of work  Identify initial activities/meeting topics

9.  MEASURE Evaluation is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) through Cooperative Agreement GPO-A-00-03- 00003-00 and is implemented by the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina in partnership with Constella Futures, John Snow, Inc., Macro International, and Tulane University.  Visit us online at http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure.