Funding and Expenditures within the Jordanian Family Planning Program: Government and NGO Activities

Publication date: 1998

FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE JORDANIAN FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM: GOVERNMENT AND NGO ACTIVITIES PRELIMINARY RESULTS, NOT FOR QUOTATION William L. Winfrey, Ph.D. Issa Almasarweh, Ph.D. The POLICY Project in Collaboration with the National Population Commission January 27, 1998 The authors are interested in receiving comments from people knowledgeable about particular results contained in the paper. All reviewers of this document should keep in mind that these are preliminary results, they should not be quoted. Similarly, the results are not final. We invite updated and improved information from all interested parties. Please send correspondence to: Dr. Issa Almasarweh Resident Advisor, The POLICY Project National Population Commission The Queen Alia Fund Amman, Jordan The POLICY Project is a USAID funded Project (USAID Contract CCP-C-00-95-00023-04) Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 2 Introduction The family planning program in Jordan has seen recent success. More women are using family planning services as a wider range of service providers become partners in the Jordanian family planning program. The Ministry of Health (MOH), the Royal Medical Services (RMS), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the Jordan University Hospital (JUH) have upgraded their family planning services. Also, a wide range of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including the Jordanian Association for Family Planning and Protection (JAFPP), the Queen Alia Fund (QAF), the Soldiers Family Welfare Society (SFWS), Arab Women's Organization (AWO) and the Noor Al-Hussein Foundation (NAF) are expanding their service delivery capabilities. Evidence of this increased capacity is the increase in modern contraceptive prevalence from 26.9 percent in 19901 to 32.8 percent in 1996.2 The family planning program comprises many parts. The most obvious component is service delivery. Other Components are also important, especially for a program in the process of growing; (1) information, education and communication (IEC), which attracts new clients and helps ensure the proper use of family planning services; (2) training, which builds an army of knowledgeable health care providers and community activists; (3) research and evaluation, which guarantees that best practices are known, program success is measured, and deficiencies are identified; (4) policy development and coordination, which ensures that all the pieces fit together in a coherent whole; and finally, (5) administration which provides overall management. The National Population Commission (NPC) is an NGO charged with coordinating the policy and implementation of population activities in Jordan. Its mandate for coordination includes governmental, nongovernmental and commercial sector organizations. Increasingly, the NPC is growing into its role as the coordinator of the family planning program. It has shepherded the process of writing a national family planning strategy and is responsible for its continuing revision. It is currently in the process of developing an implementation plan for the strategy. To develop this strategy, NPC must understand how the various pieces of the family planning program fit together. Part of this understanding is knowing how program resources are mobilized. This study is a step toward understanding resource flows in the family planning program. Methodology Expenditure information is available only with delay. For example, the Government of Jordan (GOJ) does not present finalized expenditure information until at least one year after any given fiscal year. In April 1997, the most recent information available for the GOJ and the JAFPP was for fiscal year 1995. This study therefore presents information centered on 1995. 1 Zou'bi, Abdallah, Sri Poedjastoeti and Mohamed Ayad. 1992. “Jordan Population and Family Health Survey 1990.” Department of Statistics, MOH, and Macro International. 2 The Jordan Living Conditions Survey (1996): Tables for Groupwork. Results from the JUH/NPC KAP survey will soon be available. Preliminary indications show that prevalence has increased even further. Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 3 A description of the funding and expenditures of family planning3 in Jordan is complicated. The basis for this study is fiscal year 1995; therefore, only organizations active in Jordan at that time are included.4 Among the groups funding the family planning program are the GOJ, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) and the European Community (EC). Another important source of family planning program funding is the people of Jordan, who pay user fees at the JUH and NGOs. In addition, they pay for family planning services in the commercial sector. However, this study will not discuss user fees or payments in the commercial sector.5 Finally, UNRWA funds and provides family planning services for a large number of Palestinian refugees. As mentioned earlier, service delivery is only one component of the family planning program. The MOH pursues IEC activities in collaboration with USAID, UNFPA, JAFPP, the Marketing of Birth Spacing Project and the NAF. The NPC has also recently begun coordinating IEC activities in collaboration with USAID. Family planning service delivery training is handled primarily by JUH, USAID and UNFPA, in collaboration with the MOH and JAFPP. The largest amount of research and evaluation is conducted by the Demographic Analysis Research Unit of the Department of Statistics, Jordan University6 and institutional contractors to USAID.7 Policy coordination is primarily the responsibility of the NPC. Finally, all expending institutions have elements of administration.8 Table 1 contains a relatively complete list of both funding and expending organizations. 3 This study limits its analysis to family planning and does not consider the broader agenda of reproductive health. 4 The World Bank has played a large role in organizing funding for the MOH in the past. Currently, the World Bank is between loans. The World Bank and the Government of Japan (through the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, JICA) are likely to play a large role in health services funding, including family planning and reproductive health in the near future. 5 An examination of expenditures in the commercial sector would require a detailed survey of commercial sector providers. A separate survey is beyond the scope of this study. 6 Jordan University, here, refers to both the traditional faculty of the university and the medical faculty attached to the Jordan University Hospital. 7 Among these contractors are Family Health International, the Futures Group International, Georgetown University, Macro International, Pathfinder, the United States Bureau of Census and University Research Corporation. 8 The funding organizations such as UNFPA and USAID also have administrative roles. Examples of expenditures are directors' salaries, support staff and operation and maintenance of local missions. These administrative expenditures, however, are ignored in this study. Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 4 The original goal of this study was to quantify all the sources for funding and expenditures on family planning activities in Jordan. The intent was for each expending organization to be able to identify the purposes for which it used expenditures10 and to classify the types of expenditures made. These types of expenditures would include, for example, salaries, transportation, rental, construction,11 equipment purchases, commodity purchases, and so forth. In the best of circumstances, we would be able to complete a matrix like the one presented in Table 2 for each expending organization. Although it was not possible to complete such matrices for every organization making expenditures in support of family planning12, it was possible to estimate the percentage of funding and expenditures made on program components (e.g., service delivery, training, etc.). 9 UNICEF does not fund any family planning activities directly, but indirectly through programs such as the baby friendly hospital initiative where exclusive breastfeeding is promoted. 10 As discussed, possibilities include service delivery, IEC, training, research and evaluation, policy development and administration. 11 For lack of information, we decided not to include depreciation expenses on buildings and equipment. Instead, we included the full expenditure amounts on all construction and durable equipment including vehicles. Organizations responsible for providing premises will have their funding underestimated to the extent that already constructed buildings are used. On the other hand, to the extent to which new construction is being undertaken, expenditures will be overestimated. In the case of the GOJ, it is impossible to know which is the larger effect as they are currently in the process of building and renovating several facilities including hospitals. 12 Future versions of this paper may include complete matrices for JAFPP, the MOH and JUH. TABLE 1: Listing of Funding and Expending Organizations in the Jordanian Family Planning Program Funding Organizations Expending Organizations Current Government of Jordan (GOJ) United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) United States Agency for International Development (USAID) United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) European Community (EC) International Planned Parenthood Federation/London (IPPF) People of Jordan UNICEF9 Envisaged Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) The World Bank UNICEF Ministry of Health (MOH) Royal Medical Services (RMS) Ministry of Planning, Department of Statistics, Demographic Analysis Research Unit (DOS) Ministry of Education (MOE) Ministry of Information (MOI) Jordan University Hospital (JUH) Jordan Association for Family Planning and Protection (JAFPP) United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Queen Alia Fund (QAF) Noor Al-Hussein Foundation (NAF) Arab Women's Organization (AWO) Soldiers Family Welfare Society (SFWS) USAID Institutional Contractors Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 5 This study used the following steps: • Identified funding and expending organizations. • Defined qualitatively the "flows" of expenditures from sources of funding to expenditors. • Gathered information from both sources of funding and expenditors about the quantities of money spent and the purposes to which they were spent We were not able to gather perfect information from any one organization. Some organizations keep better records than others, and some are more forthcoming with information than others.13 • Developed "rules" for allocating expenditures between family planning and other purposes and among the various purposes to which expenditures are put. Family planning is an artificial category for record keeping in organizations in which family planning activities are pursued as part of an integrated program of public health. Health professionals are assigned to broad uses. For example, Ob/Gyn doctors in the MOH are charged with dealing with a wide range of health conditions, only one of which is family planning.14 To determine the percentage of certain activities devoted to family planning, we used a wide range of sources, including service statistics, sample surveys and discussions with key informants.15 • Placed individual expenditure items into matrices similar to Table 2. 13 This observation is not meant to imply that some organizations were more helpful than others. The information we required for this study is not necessarily consistent with normal bookkeeping processes for any organization. We cannot expect organizations to divert valuable time and labor to reorganize their reporting systems to answer questions for our study. 14 This observation applies to research organizations as well. Surveys are rarely completely focused on family planning only. Economies of scale in survey research are achieved when several researchable topics are examined in a single survey. 15 A separate technical appendix discusses in some detail the methods for allocating expenditures within organizations and across functions. TABLE 2: Summary Of Total Family Planning Expenditures Expenditure type Service Support IEC Administration Training Research and Evaluation Salaries and Wages (total) Commodities and Supplies Total Maintenance and Operation Capital outlay Other Unallocated DIRECT TOTAL EXPENDITURES Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 6 Often item by item, expenditure items were placed, after proper adjustment, into individual matrices for each of the organizations. • Aggregated expenditures and funding into program matrices. Once all expenditures were identified by their funding source and component within the project, matrices of total program funding and expenditures were created by summing across the relevant matrices. A particular issue is how to handle the funding by donors. Donor projects are not implemented smoothly. The initial stages of projects (or programs) see very little expenditures as systems are set up for administrating the project. As the project matures, expenditures become much larger. Therefore, in the case of UNFPA and USAID, we have calculated an average over several years of funding by these organizations.16 16 In the case of the UNFPA, the years are 1994, 1995 and 1996. In the case of USAID, the average was taken over 1994 and 1995. Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 7 RESULTS Funding and Expenditures This study found that approximately $5.7 million were spent on family planning in Jordan in 1995.17 The chart at the right presents a breakdown of expenditures by organizations that made the expenditures. The MOH makes more than one-third the expenditures on family planning. The next largest spender is the JUH, followed closely by the JAFPP and the RMS. None of the other expenditors on family planning spend more than 10 percent of the total amount. 17 Currently, the commercial sector is not included in this study. In 1990, the commercial sector provided 55% of family planning services in Jordan. Depending on the quality of the data that come from the KAP survey, an estimate of commercial sector expenditures may be made. Percentage Distribution of Expenditures by Type of Expending Organization MOH 33% JUH 17% Other Government 12% Other NGOs 5% JAFPP 15% UNRWA 4% USAID Institutional Contractors 6% RMS 8% Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 8 The flip side of this issue is an examination of where the funding comes from. The Government of Jordan is by far the largest funder of family planning with 47 percent of the total. USAID and UNFPA are the next largest funders of family planning with approximately 20 percent and 11 percent of the total respectively. IPPF makes a contribution of 5 percent (of which all goes to JAFPP). We also note that the 11 percent represented by the "People of Jordan/Self-Funding” is largely cost recovery and users fees instituted by JAFPP and the Jordan University Hospital18. Appendix Table One presents a matrix that relates these two pie charts in a detailed manner (i.e., exactly who is funding whom.) 18 Although the Ministry of Health has cost recovery and user fees for many of its activities, they are not currently applied to family planning. Percentage Distribution of Funding by Funding Organization GOJ 47% UNFPA 11% USAID 20% EC 2% People of Jordan/Self funding 13% UNRWA 4% IPPF 5% Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 9 Expenditures made in Jordan are relatively large. Table 3 is a comparison of expenditures per user for several countries where expenditure studies have recently been conducted. Comparisons of these sorts are problematic because data collection methods and data availability vary from country to country.19 Even allowing for variability, the Jordan program appears relatively expensive. Several caveats should be kept in mind while interpreting Table 3 and the following discussion: • The commercial sector provides a large percentage of service delivery in Jordan. However, they do not contribute to other elements of the program from which they directly or indirectly benefit.20 Among these publicly funded elements are IEC, training, research and evaluation. • Jordan is in the process of a large expansion effort. Expansion efforts have large upfront costs in terms of training, infrastructure development and equipment purchases. • In general, health services are relatively expensive in Jordan. A recent health sector review by the World Bank states, "Health expenditures in Jordan are high by any standard. In 1994, health expenditures in Jordan were an estimated 332 million JD, 7.9 percent of GDP."21 • Family planning services are relatively medicalized in Jordan. Furthermore, the Jordanian program uses physicians often (as opposed to nurses or midwives). • MOH facilities are underutilized.22 • Low postpartum follow-up. 19 These studies were all conducted under the aegis of USAID projects, in most cases the Evaluation Project. Difficulties in comparisons exist for the following reasons: 1. Programs differ in the degree of verticality in the provision of services. 2. Each of the studies used idiosyncratic methods (depending on data availability) for allocating expenditures within health budgets and within the family planning program. 3. Programs are at different levels of development. 4. Personnel costs differ according to service delivery standards and wage costs in the various countries. 20 The most obvious example of this is the Marketing of Birth Spacing Project, which supports the commercial sector but is funded publicly. 21 The World Bank. 1996. "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: Health Sector Study." Human Resources Division. Middle East Department. Middle East and North Africa Region. 22 Obermeyer, C.M., and J. Potter 1991. “Maternal Health Care Utilization in Jordan: A Study in Patterns and Determinants.” Studies in Family Planning, 22(3): 177-87. Table 3: Comparison of Expenditures per User Worldwide Total Expenditures (millions of dollars) Expenditur e per user Jordan 1995 (1) 5.7 $55.60 Kenya 1993 (2) 23.1 $25.01 Ecuador 1990-94 (3) 6.1 $14.13 Bangladesh 1986-90 (3) 68.3 $13.05 Ghana 1993 (3) 7.1 $27.25 Ivory Coast 1994 (3) 4.5 $54.13 Philippines 1994 (3) 48.6 $21.34 Sources: (1) Appendix Table One and estimate of users based on Census and Survey results from the Spectrum Model (2) National Council for Population and Development, Kenya. 1995. "Family planning financial resource requirements (1993-2010)." (3) USAID/Evaluation Project Meeting. "Results from Evaluation Project Study of Methodology for Estimating Expenditures and Costs of Family Planning Services." Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 10 Funding for the Various Components of the Program The figure at the right presents the breakdown of expenditures within the Jordanian family planning program. Service delivery accounts for most of the expenditures in the family planning program. However, IEC, training and research and evaluation each receive from 8 to 16 percent of the funding within the family planning program. The percentage of family planning expenditures made on service delivery23 is low relative to other countries where expenditure studies have been carried out. Ivory Coast is the exception where service delivery accounts for only 47 percent of expenditures made on family planning. Interestingly, Ivory Coast makes expenditures per user which are roughly similar to those made by Jordan. Table 4: Comparison of Functional Uses of Expenditures % Service Delivery Training Research, Evaluation and Policy IEC Admini- stration Other24 Jordan 1995 59 11 16 8 5 1 Philippines 1994 79 3 2 8 8 1 Bangladesh 1986-90 88 4 2 3 2 0 Ecuador 1990-94 83 2 2 4 9 0 Ghana 1993 89 2 0 1 7 0 Ivory Coast 1994 47 4 1 13 34 0 23 This is not to say, however, that the amount spent on service delivery is small. The actual amount spent on service delivery per user is actually higher than any of the other country studies (i.e., 0.68 x $44.87 = $30.51) 24 These include expenditures for which we could not develop allocation rules or did not fit into any category. Expenditures Made on Various Components of the Family Planning Program Service Delivery 57% Training 12% Research and Evaluation & Policy 17% Information, Education and Communication 8% Other 1%Administration 5% Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 11 The following four pie show the exact distribution of funding sources. The funding of service delivery is more evenly distributed, but the GOJ dominates, supplying 58 percent of the funding for service delivery. User fees implemented by JAFPP and JUH fund approximately 12 percent of family planning services. IPPF, USAID and UNFPA each provide approximately 6 to 8 percent of the funding for service delivery. The funding of support activities (training, IEC, research, etc.) is overwhelmingly funded by UNFPA and USAID. Most of the funding for training is provided by the GOJ, USAID and UNFPA. The GOJ, through its regular training budget and the JUH, provides approximately 26 percent of the funding for training. It should be noted that most of the training provided through USAID and UNFPA is directly related to family planning, whereas the training provided by the GOJ is more general. Distribution of Funding for Service Delivery GOJ 56% UNFPA 6% USAID 8% EC 3% IPPF 7% UNRWA 6% People of Jordan/Self funding 14% Distribution of Funding for Training GOJ 25% UNFPA 21% USAID 39% ALL OTHERS 5% Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 12 The funding for IEC is overwhelmingly funded by UNFPA and USAID. IPPF, the EC and the user fees of JAFPP also fund IEC activities under the auspices of JAFPP. The GOJ and UNRWA do not provide any explicit support for IEC activities.25 We should note, however, that the GOJ provides indirect support through at least one avenue: recently, the Marketing of Birth Spacing Project has begun to receive free air time on the national television channel.26 Research, evaluation and policy are funded by the GOJ, through the Department of Statistics, and by UNFPA and USAID. The large portion funded by the GOJ is primarily through the promised contribution to UNFPA-funded projects at the Department of Statistics. In recognition of the government collaboration, UNFPA, before it begins a project, asks the government or collaborating institution to quantify its expected inputs. The following table shows these amounts for a selection of UNFPA projects. 25 GOJ’s apparent lack of funding may be due to the government's budget and expenditure reporting system. There is no line item for IEC activities. In any case, it is clear that IEC activities are primarily funded by donors. 26 The value of this time was not included in this study because the free-of-charge advertisements began after the period examined in this study. Distribution of Funding for Information, Education and Communications UNFPA 28% USAID 47% EC 3% IPPF 7% People of Jordan/Self funding 6% GOJ = 0% UNRWA = 0% Distribution of Funding for Research and Evaluation & Policy USAID 34% UNFPA 13% UNRWA, EC and IPPF 0% GOJ 53% Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 13 Table 5 Expected Government Contributions to Selected UNFPA Projects Project Collaborating Institution Primary Functions of Project Estimated Average Yearly Contribution by the Government Support to the National Population Commission/General Secretary National Population Commission Policy 114,286 JD Population and Environment Awareness for Poor Families and Youth Arab Women's Organization IEC and Service Delivery 111,667 JD Strengthening and Expansion of MCH/FP Ministry of Health Service Delivery and Training $3,850,000 Population and Housing Census Department of Statistics/Ministry of Planning Research and Evaluation 1,184,960 JD The sums reported in Table 5 illustrate the important role of government in implementing projects. Neither UNFPA nor the GOJ actually audit government inputs to ensure that expected inputs reflect actual expenditures. Appendix Tables Appendix tables One and Two present overall matrices of funding and expenditures per year27 within the family planning program. The columns in Appendix Table One show the total funding within the family planning program by source. The rows in this table indicate the expenditures within the program. The column totals indicate total funding by a given entity. The row totals indicate the total expenditures made by a given organization. Any cell in the table indicates the particular funding that an expending organization has received (or that a funding organization has given). For example, following the column entitled GOJ down to the row entitled JUH indicates that $626,622 was spent. This means that the GOJ supplied $626,622 in funding to the JUH to provide family planning services. 27 All funding and expenditure figures reported are per year. Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 14 Appendix Table One Funding of and Expenditures Made on the Family Planning Program in 1995 Rows Indicate Expenditures, Columns Indicate Funding All Numbers are in Dollars Assuming an Average Exchange Rate of 1.7 JD/$ FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS GOJ UNFPA USAID EC IPPF UNRWA People of Jordan/Self funding TOTALS PERCENT MOH 1,035,974 191,728 614,115 1,841,816 32 RMS 465,524 12,524 478,048 8 JUH 626,622 355,774 982,396 17 DOS/DARU 501,984 92,279 594,263 10 MOE 1,926 1,926 0 MOI 43,904 66,987 110,891 2 NPC 31,286 37,324 17,515 86,125 2 JAFPP 52,919 141,332 115,060 293,399 247,834 850,545 15 QAF 8,398 8,398 0 NAF 97,474 11,512 108,986 2 AWO 90,023 90,023 2 SFWS 0 0 Zein El Sharaf Compound 17,667 17,667 0 Jordan University 0 0 UNRWA 202,123 202,123 4 USAID Institutional contractors 340,500 340,500 6 TOTALS 2,705,293 656,725 1,125,986 115,060 293,399 202,123 615,119 5,713,707 100 PERCENT 47% 11% 20% 2% 5% 4% 11% 100% Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 15 Appendix Table Two presents the funding made for various components of the family planning program. Once again the columns indicate funding source and the column totals are the same as in Appendix Table One. The rows indicate the purpose to which funding was put. For example, following the column entitled UNFPA down to the row entitled "Information, Education and Communication," we see the number 131,223. This indicates that UNFPA provided funding for $131,223 in IEC activities. Appendix Table Two Funding Made on Various Components of the Family Planning Program Disaggregated by Source of Funding $ FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS GOJ UNFPA USAID EC IPPF UNRWA People of Jordan/Sel f funding Total Percent Service Delivery 2,105,971 202,161 277,801 91,085 232,263 202,123 458,120 3,569,52 5 59 Training 181,197 145,762 266,223 3,586 9,144 0 91,654 697,565 11 Information, Education and Communication 43,904 131,223 226,954 12,665 32,296 0 27,280 474,322 8 Research and Evaluation & Policy 533,270 130,913 341,469 0 0 0 0 1,005,65 2 16 Administration 65,057 28,391 29,994 25,192 64,239 0 73,578 286,451 5 Other 0 18,276 8,558 7,188 18,330 0 15,483 67,836 1 Total 2,929,399 656,725 1,151,000 139,716 356,271 202,123 666,115 6,101,35 0 100 Percent 48% 11% 19% 2% 6% 3% 11% 100% Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 16 CONCLUSIONS Effective implementation of the Jordanian family planning program requires a good understanding of resource allocation within the program. All elements of an effective program must be sufficiently funded. If areas that are underfunded or underemphasized can be identified, the NPC, in its coordinating role, can help match resources with needs. Recently, the NPC was able to bring the JICA into the family planning program by brokering a collaboration among the MOH, the QAF and JICA. In 1995, the GOJ, USAID, IPPF and UNFPA were the largest sources of funding for family planning in Jordan.28 The GOJ and IPPF made large contributions to service delivery. USAID and UNFPA, although they made contributions to service delivery, are the primary funders of support activities, including training, IEC, research, evaluation and policy. It is hoped that the efforts of this report will begin a discussion of resource allocation within the family planning program. The numbers presented in this report are approximations at best. The results in this report are presented in the hopes that qualified people will comment on their accuracy. We also hope that reviewers will supply us with analytical insights that will help us to understand the limitations of the results. 28 Again keep in mind that the commercial sector has not been assessed in this report Preliminary Results, Limited Distribution: Not for Quotation, comments encouraged. 17 CONCLUSIONS Effective implementation of the Jordanian Family Planning Program requires a good understanding of resource allocation within the program. All elements of an effective program must be sufficiently funded. If areas which are underfunded or underemphasized can be identified, the National Population Commission, in its coordinating role, can help match resources with needs. Recently, the National Population Commission was able to bring the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) into the family planning program by brokering a collaboration among the MOH, the Queen Alia Fund and JICA. In 1995, the Government of Jordan, USAID, IPPF and UNFPA were the largest funders of family planning in Jordan.29 The Government of Jordan and IPPF made large contributions to service delivery. USAID and UNFPA, although they made contributions to service delivery, are the primary funders of support activities including training, IEC, research, evaluation and policy. It is hoped that the efforts of this report will begin a discussion of resource allocation within the family planning program. The numbers presented in this report are first approximations at best. The results in this report are presented in the hopes that qualified people will comment on their accuracy. We also hope that reviewers will supply us with analytical insights that will help us to understand the limitations of the results. 29 Again keep in mind that the commercial sector has not been assessed in this report

View the publication