Your search found 2 Results
General lessons learned from evaluations of MCH/FP projects in Botswana, Malawi, Swaziland and Zambia.
New York, New York, UNFPA, 1984 Dec. iv, 41 p.4 maternal-child health/family planning (MCH/FP) projects were evaluated by the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) in the Southern Africa Region between 1981-1984. The projects were in Botswana, Malawi, Swaziland and Zambia. An overriding finding at the time of the Evaluation Missions was the acceptance of family planning (child spacing) by all 4 governments, when at the onset of the projects, family planning was either not included in the project documents or was included only as a minor contributant to the MCH programs. The intervention by UNFPA was very important for the acceptance and promotion of family planning activities by the governments. The Evaluation Missions concluded that there were 3 primary reasons for the successful intervention: UNFPA has a broad mandate to provide assistance in MCH and FP, a commitment to development projects in line with the governments' priorities, and the ability to fund projects very quickly, facilitating project implementation. Each of the 4 projects is assessed in terms of population policy changes, MCH/FP program strategy and serive delivery, organization of the MCH/Fp unit, health education, training, evaluation and research systems, and administration and management. Essential factors affecting the project are outlined and recommendations made. The last section discusses general lessons derived from the MCH/FP projects evaluated. 5 areas are identified where similar problems exist to varying degrees in all the projects evaluated. These are: training of medical personnel in FP (the main MCH/FP service provider in these projects was the nurse/midwife); supervision of personnel and the supply and distribution of contraceptives; research and evaluation, especially regarding the sociocultural setting of target populations and the inadequacy of existing service statistics and other sources of data; project monitoring (technical and financial) and finally project execution by the World Health Organization (WHO). Specifically in regard to the recruitment of experts, the provision of supplies and equipment, and the provision of funds for local costs, WHO execution has been deficient.
Evaluation of the regional advisory services in population education and communication in Sub-Saharan Africa of FAO, the ILO and UNESCO, 1978-1982.
New York, New York, United Nations Fund for Population Activities [UNFPA], 1983 Jun. iv, 64 p.This evaluation was conducted to assess alternative modes of providing regional population education and communication (PEC) advisory services in the African Region in the future, in addition to assessing past performance of existing projects. In the absence of specific and measurable project objectives, as well as uniform, reliable and comparative data for the different projects included in this evaluation, it was not possible to determine exactly the quantity and quality of the achievements of the regional advisory projects over the period under review. Nevertheless, it is concluded that the achivements had been relatively limited, partially because of inherent difficulties associated with the provision of advisory services in the region (e.g., distances, inter-and intra-country communication problems) but more so because of weaknesses in the formulation and implementation of the regional advisory projects. These weaknesses include: 1) differing views on the part of the Executing Agencies and the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) about the functions of the regional advisors which underlie the rather vaguely defined functions presented in the project documents; 2) insufficient planning of the regional advisory teams' activities; and 3) recruitment difficulties which led to vacancies and high turnover as well as to the hiring of partially qualified advisors. Furthermore, the present arrangement for the delivery of regional PEC advisory services, e.g., separate agency teams and advisors located in different countries, impedes the effective delivery of services because the advisors under this arrangement cannot function as 1 team. It is recommended that the functions of the regional PEC advisors in Africa be concentrated on assistance to country project formulation, advice on country project management and systemenatic particiaption in country project monitoring and evaluation. Recommended regional PEC advisory services are 1 team for PEC in the non-formal sector and another team for population education in the formal sector. Other recommendations deal with the role of Headquarters vis a vis regional follow-up and monitoring/supervision of regional advisors, other in-country activites and need for resident country advisors.