A Program of CIFAL Atlanta
Hosted by Emory Rollins School of Public Health
Atlanta, GA, June 19-23, 2005
• Workshop Home

Session 1: Discussion about Self Assessment Process in Cities

Delegations: Curitiba and Mexico City

Curitiba: In 2003 had opportunity to perform a self evaluation in Curitiba with several other cities, committee municipal with NGO’s, Health Organizations, with adaptation of the self evaluation was very significant to share with others vision to share with ideas.

Question: Was PLWA part of the committee?

Curitiba: Yes, the group was very diverse with PLWA. Sex workers and the municipality shared important moments in the life of the community in the fight against AIDS. Curitiba worked in conjunction with education and other institutions that participated in the evaluation. SUI universal health care, the important thing is that there is universal healthcare that participates fiscally, organizationally with the municipality. 25% of health workers, other 25% divided by administration and civil service. In that council are commissions that presented the evaluation.

Mexico: In Mexico we worked with the health secretariat, PLWA were involved at the national level, clinic users, the only in the nation that works with PLWAH as well as activists on HIV/AIDS. On the third day, we worked with the Mexican social security administration, hygiene, programs of diagnosis and prevention, and the people working in the program. We were able to work in a very open manner, communication was fluid, doing this evaluation helped us find out where we are published. It always helps to see how others are working at the state and secretariat levels. It helps us, as a first exercise, to build bridges for people affected with AIDS, people living with AIDS, and government.  We were able to join the work of both the government and PLWA. When we thought the civil organizations were at a higher level, we are at a good level but it was a reality to see ourselves on equilibrium.

Difficulties

Mexico: Some difficulties were with the written text that we had to modify to fit our programs and our language.  Another difficulty in Mexico was that the convocation time was very short. We would have liked to listen to more groups and joined different activities.

Curitiba: We had the experience of the former evaluation and used the feedback to work on this one. In Curitiba there was difficulty in adapting the matrix to their reality. Some times they were in between the levels in the matrix.

Question: What would you do different next time?

Curitiba: More time go deeper, in comparison with all actors, look for more information, it is necessary to go deeper and be more representative.

Mexico: In Mexico we would have liked to have done this evaluation at the local level because the representatives were going to do the evaluation at the last minute and would prefer further discussion and then sharing.            

Question: Who was involved and how did they feel?

Mexico: In Mexico, it was a very interesting exercise because it involved all sectors, for example the HIV program with all its departments and the state organizations like the institute for the woman.  It was really enriching. We felt very motivated to continue to perform these types of evaluations where all actors were involved, something that had never been done in the capital.

Curitiba: Curitiba saw that CIFAL corrected some of the issues with the Matrix but prefer to go deeper. This methodology was not surprising since it had been done before, however it was interesting it involved all organizations. The health systems in Brazil and the principal actors in health such as health for workers, private health, the municipality, and the customers, were involved.  In Curitiba, there are 90 health organizations and the municipality which had local conferences and had themes that were structured.

This was a normal process and it was not surprising because Curitiba had worked with this in 2003.  There was another self assessment and now they bettered the process because they used the new self evaluation.

Question: What did you learn?

Mexico: Mexico learned that it is necessary to self evaluate to learn about errors, growth, goals, and we learned that the tools were useful, noble, and could help the state. For us the experience was the part of evaluation, we are not used to self evaluation; this allowed us to dedicate time to important points and made us see that we need to evaluate ourselves periodically.

Curitiba: We were able to visualize our strong points and our weak points. It helped to search in forums like these to find help with our weak points.

Highlight on the self assessment process

Curitiba: For Curitiba the theme was the sharing of the work with all the actors, more time to listen and share in a collective manner so that we can learn, listen and speak.  

Mexico: Mexico would also like to share with not only the successes but also the challenges.