Table 1.

Summary findings: CRS- GHS partnership

Region of location	Upper East (Talensi- Nabdam and Kassena-Nankana West Districts)	Form of involvement (initiation, contribution of partners and management of the collaboration)	Advantages	Disadvantages
Interviews conducted	2 NGO 2GHS	- Dubbed “CIMACS” - Initiated by GHS with CRS as an expert partner/and funder. - An MOU signed. - GHS supported with health facilities and personnel. - CRS trained Traditional Birth Attendants (TBAs) and community volunteers in social mobilization skills, provided logistics/incentives to attract pregnant women to deliver in health centres. - Program officers of CRS and focal persons of GHS shared equally in program management and regularly exchanged project progress information. - GHS held review meetings at sub-district, district and regional; quarterly, half yearly and annual basis, to evaluate progress with CRS/stakeholders. - CRS maintained monitoring and evaluation systems e.g. conduct of baseline studies; mid- term and end-of-project evaluations. - Quarterly and annual reports generated and shared with GHS/ donors as a requirement for continued support. - GHS required to keep records of CRS support (material and cash) and to render accounts periodically.	Improvement in maternal and child health indicators-e.g. antenatal registration (25 %); antenatal clinic attendance (22 %); exclusive breastfeeding (25 %); institutional deliveries (55 %); [35] and increased drug and immunization uptake.	- Occasional tendency for some GHS staff to provide somewhat unreliable data not useful for effective programming; - Occasional non-disclosure of full budget lines by GHS - Lack of synchronization of each other’s timetables; - CRS’ eagerness about timelines to demonstrate program performance to donors.
Driver of Collaboration	High under-five and maternal mortality recognized by GHS; - Need to attract pregnant women to deliver in government health centres rather than with TBAs.
Time Frame	2009–2011