Concepto y fases de un Plan de prevención

At the global level, MICS data, particularly from MICS 2 and 3 onwards, has proved essential for State of the World’s Children reports, country reporting on the status of children to the UN and the completion of global indicator data bases. There has been less use of MICS data in national monitoring country. Through each series, the complexity of the survey has increased.

Access to MICS data for research and further analysis is tracked only at the global level; the majority of requests are from undergraduate students and staff in developed country universities and international agencies. Anecdotally, the use of data at country level is patchy but improving. Ownership of MICS 1 and 2 data was an issue in some areas. Some countries disagreed with the data produced where it was less positive than official sources and not all allowed access by others to the data.

The main lesson learned is that UNICEF can and does deliver a global household survey of high quality on a relatively low budget, despite lack of continuity in planning and funding and competing priorities. The data is not maximally used and the survey tool is becoming increasingly complex and time consuming. MICS has given UNICEF credibility in terms of defining global indicators for children; the organization can speak from a point of technical knowledge in indicator measurement and has been able to significantly affect global indicator definitions.

UNICEF has moved from a five-yearly to a three-yearly survey series commencing in 2010 with MICS 4. This raises issues of country office capacity and time, cost and how to manage an operation of this size. Mapping of the rapidly changing external environment is central. MICS offers many opportunities but also some risks and the main one is loss of institutional memory as the country teams and RO advisors change.

The indicators MICS measure are now central to and match the monitoring specifications of progress against WFC goals, UNICEF’s Medium Term Strategic Priorities (MTSP’s), PRSPs, MDGs and others. The external environment is changing with UN reform, the growth of globally comparable data sets, and the increased drive for results measured by indicators.

149

• MICS is increasing in size and in some ways is becoming ‘a victim of its own success’ - the number of modules is growing to match the interest areas and data needs of various key interests and processes (international, UNICEF, UN, country level). As with all household survey series it is under increasing

pressure from the increasing number of indicators that can or should be included.

• The MICS questionnaire is getting longer and more complicated. The interview time has increased, the statistical analysis is more complex, and the analysis of results provides greater possibilities for analysis of results. MICS3 is also more demanding in terms of fieldwork organization, sampling, customization of questionnaires and so on.

• Compared to other similar international household survey programs, MICS3 tools are still relatively simple – in terms of the length of questionnaires, the way and detail with which indicators are measured, and the options that it provides to participating countries to tailor the questionnaires to their needs, by deleting and choosing not to include modules. International household survey programmes such as DHS, LSMS, WHS use larger questionnaires.

• The survey uses an indirect approach to mortality estimation rather than a birth history approach; the reasons behind this decision are best discussed in detail elsewhere.

• A greater range of age groups has been introduced in the survey. The age range surveyed extends outside UNICEF’s ‘traditional’ group of children and child-bearing women. This enables a more comprehensive and family centred perspective and is noted in the newer areas in MICS 3 such as disability and child discipline. While some of these groups may not have been used in previous MICS, they are target groups of UNICEF.

• There is increasing tension between keeping the original indicators (so allowing comparison over a long time frame), and modifying them to suit newer global indicator development (bringing in more relevant indicators for development in areas such as MDGs). There is also tension between providing globally comparable data and answering questions that countries set themselves.

150

• MICS is extending beyond the original national and sub-national representative sampling – for example MICS 3 in Serbia and Montenegro oversampled Roma in settlements.

• There are several options for incorporation of the MICS indicators into other national data monitoring processes including other household surveys such as DHS, population censuses and standard of living surveys. At some stage middle-income countries will probably need to ‘graduate’ from MICS towards their own national systems.

• MICS is getting more expensive. Funding sources are increasingly varied and include UNICEF, other UN agencies, governments, and donors.

151

Part B The BIH MICS 2000 survey

3.15 Overview

This section contains a description of the BiH MICS 2000 survey.a The author’s role in the survey is presented, followed by the survey timelines. The approach that was taken to interviewee consent and the government approval and release of the BiH MICS 2000 survey data is documented. The overall design of the survey is described, focusing on the modifications to the global MICS 2 approach. Particularly relevant design features were related to governance and management, resources, sample size calculations, construction of the sampling frame, questionnaire design, training, fieldwork, data entry and analysis. These sections are expanded from the national survey report. Finally, the specific definitions used and methods of calculation for each of the 32 indicators measured in the BiH MICS 2000 survey that are used in this study are described.b