The Family Planning Effort Index: 1999, 2004 and 2009

Publication date: 2010

e THE FAMILY PLANNING EFFORT INDEX: 1999, 2004, AND 2009 MAY 2010 This publication was produced for review by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by John Ross and Ellen Smith of the Health Policy Initiative, Task Order 1. Suggested citation: Ross, John, and Ellen Smith. 2010. The Family Planning Effort Index: 1999, 2004, and 2009. Washington, DC: Futures Group, Health Policy Initiative, Task Order 1. The USAID | Health Policy Initiative, Task Order 1, is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development under Contract No. GPO-I-01-05-00040-00, beginning September 30, 2005. Task Order 1 is implemented by Futures Group International, in collaboration with the Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood (WRA), and Futures Institute. THE FAMILY PLANNING EFFORT INDEX: 1999, 2004, AND 2009 MAY 2010 The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments . iv Executive Summary . v Abbreviations . vi Background . 1 Methods and Data . 1 Results . 3 Discussion . 9 Conclusion . 10 Annex A. The Family Planning Effort Indices . 12 Annex B. Questionnaire . 13 Annex C. 2009 FPE National Component Scores, 81 Countries . 21 Annex D. Regional Component Scores: 1999, 2004, 2009 . 24 Annex E: Memorandum . 26 Annex F. Mean* Scores for Program Justifications, Emphases on Special Populations, Influences, and Quality, 81 Countries, by Region. 38 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for this study. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Context National programs to extend family planning to large populations began in the mid-1960s and now exist in most developing countries. They vary greatly in strength and coverage, as well as in the nature of their outreach. Periodic measures of their types and levels of effort have been conducted since 1972, showing increasing strength. These measures have been used as the only consistent assessment of program efforts, for all countries, over time. They have served to inform policy positions and resource allocations, as well as technical analyses of program impact on contraceptive use and fertility declines. Methods Questionnaires, completed by 10–15 expert observers in each of 81 countries, score 30 measures of effort, each on a scale from 1 to 10. Additional measures assess four general program characteristics. The 81 countries encompass 93 percent of the developing world population and all of the largest countries in each region. Results The latest measures show that the average program effort level has again increased, although by a small amount. Program effort as either a weighted or unweighted average across the developing world increased slightly from 1999 to 2004 and again in 2009. Policy positions are rated highest; service arrangements and actual access to contraceptive methods are rated well below that. The Asian region receives the highest scores and dominates the global averages due to China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Indonesia. However, all regions contain great diversity among country scores. Within the sub-Saharan Africa region, focus countries of the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)1 are of particular interest, as are historical differences between Anglophone and Francophone countries. On another subject, there are systematic differences between USAID population assistance “graduated countries,” most other Latin America countries, and severely disadvantaged countries. Conclusions Average program effort levels remain robust in general, despite concerns about diversion of resources to HIV/AIDS, donor fatigue, and other problems. However, average effort is still only at about half of the maximum, or about two-thirds of the level attained by the strongest countries. The profile of effort across the 30 indicators remains essentially the same as before but with sharp differences across the indicators and considerable selectivity in the contraceptive methods stressed. Regional differences remain much as before, with Asia strongest, sub-Saharan Africa weakest, and Latin America in between. Within sub- Saharan Africa, differences have narrowed considerably between Anglophone and Francophone countries, and PEPFAR countries in the Anglophone group show similar trends to non-PEPFAR countries, whether due to their dissimilar histories or to other factors. “Graduated” countries2 outperformed comparison countries during much of the past, but differences since 1999 are small between them and the comparison countries (most of Latin America). Separate questions in 2004 and 2009 show that program justifications rest more heavily on health than on fertility reduction, but adolescent and postabortion emphases rate rather low. Donor and domestic funding changes have been unfavorable—much more so than other influences such as the merging of family planning programs into broader health services. 1 Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia. 2 Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Indonesia, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Thailand, and Turkey. ABBREVIATIONS AIDS acquired immune deficiency syndrome FPE Family Planning Effort (Index) HIV human immunodeficiency virus IEC information, education, and communication IUD intrauterine device LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LTAM Latin America MENA Middle East and North Africa NP non-PEPFAR PEPFAR U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief SSAF-A sub-Saharan Africa—Anglophone SSAF-F sub-Saharan Africa—Francophone TFR total fertility rate vi 1 BACKGROUND National programs to extend family planning to large populations, beginning in the mid-1960s, have been established in most developing countries. They vary greatly in strength and coverage, as well as in the nature of their outreach. Periodic measures of the types and levels of effort were first conducted in 1972, followed by repeats in 1982, 1989, 1994, 1999, 2004, and as reported here, in 2009. This unique series, termed the Family Planning Effort (FPE) Index, has covered about 90 percent of the developing world each time. The Index is meant to measure inputs, not outputs. The original idea was to capture the efforts of the national public family planning program (or its closest proxy) as independent, separate variables that could be related to such outcomes as changes in contraceptive use or in fertility. The scores constitute a unique resource for understanding family planning activities, with parallel studies only for maternal health programs and HIV/AIDS programs. They have been used for causal analysis to tease out the relative effects of programs and social settings. They have also been used by major donors and agencies to set country priorities and to gauge progress. In addition, the scores have been used to diagnose program weaknesses at national levels and to assess advocacy efforts to clarify where their programs are and are not doing well, as well as to indicate what achievements could be expected if efforts are improved. In at least two countries (Vietnam and Egypt), FPE scores have been applied at the provincial level for program guidance (San et al., 1999; and Khalifa et al., 1999). The 2004 round introduced new elements that examine the importance of various rationales for family planning programs (child health, maternal health, unmet need, and demographic goals) and the effects of key drivers in recent years, such as changes in donor and national funding, integration with health, and HIV/AIDS. These new elements were meant to provide a picture of the context in which the programs operate and were retained in the 2009 round. They are meant to help clarify the place of these programs in the evolving context of the HIV/AIDS crisis, changes following decentralization of national health systems, and the shift of the family planning community toward broader reproductive health concerns. The immediate objective of this paper is to provide enhanced understanding of the changes that have taken place over the past five years in family planning efforts and the components of effort, along with a new set of program effort measures as a five-year update of the unique series begun in 1972. The results are meant to inform country-specific discussions about program directions and global planning and to provide updated analyses of program effects on contraceptive use and fertility. They also permit a special analysis of sub-Saharan countries and an exploration of contrasts between the performance of “graduated” and “non-graduated” countries. Much literature concerning the scores has appeared over the years, summarized in previous reports (Ross et al., 2007; Ross and Stover, 2001; and Ross and Mauldin, 1996). The principal types of writings are (1) those that assess program effects on fertility or contraceptive use separately from the effects of general development and socioeconomic change, (2) those that use the scores to modify program strategies or resource allocation, (3) those that examine the nature of program effort as it changes over time or shows special configurations, and (4) those that focus on the methodology of the research itself. METHODS AND DATA The basic methodology for scoring family planning efforts began with work by Robert Lapham and Parker Mauldin in 1972, who created the original ratings and published scores for a limited set of features and countries (Lapham and Mauldin, 1972). In 1981–82, they developed a full questionnaire to be completed by country experts chosen from various specialties and agencies for each country. The 2 questionnaire, containing about 120 items, was coded to produce 30 scores under four components: Policies (8 items), Services (13 items), Evaluation (3 items), and Method Access (6 items, enlarged later to 7) (see Annex A). That questionnaire, coding system, and set of scores was replicated exactly in 1989, 1994, and 1999. For the 1999 round, it was decided to retain the existing system but also to compare it with an alternative that would be simpler, cheaper, and less time consuming. Thus was born a shorter form, which asked respondents to rate, on a 1 to 10 scale, each of the 30 measures. This greatly simplified coding and data entry and permitted immediate feedback of results to each country, with a set of interpretative charts. A second change was to identify an expert consultant in each country who was familiar with the national program and could select 10 to 15 local expert respondents to complete the questionnaire. That replaced the labor-intensive system of identifying every respondent centrally, with its concomitant extensive long- distance correspondence. The results from the short form system closely mirrored the results from previous long form questionnaires, so in 2004, the short form system alone was employed and retained in the latest 2009 round (see Annex B). The basic study procedure began in 2009, as in 2004 and 1999, with identification of a qualified consultant in each developing country. The initial target was all countries containing over 1 million inhabitants, with some exclusions for countries that have essentially disbanded their programs due to their plummeting fertility rates, including Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and others, such as Uruguay or Argentina, which can be considered developed. Other exclusions were due to nonresponse after repeated contacts, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Oman. The Health Policy Initiative obtained information for 81 countries—about the same number as in previous cycles of the research. Each consultant was instructed to identify 10–15 respondents from various specialties and institutional settings—persons who in their individual capacities are knowledgeable about national family planning activities. The respondents completed the standard questionnaire individually, provided in English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, or Russian. After centralized data entry, results were returned to each country with a set of interpretative charts to highlight the principal results to encourage local use of the information. Early results are also provided on request to institutions with a relatively urgent need for the scores as an input in their work and subsequently to concerned national and international agencies. A wide variety of analytic approaches has emerged over the years. These include cross tabulations of program strength against social setting strength (based on such indicators as education, urbanization, per capita income, and longevity) to relate both as determinants of contraception and fertility. Bernard Berelson was the first to discover the remarkable pattern in which fertility decline followed either stronger programs or better social settings but especially so where both were present (Freedman and Berelson, 1976). The same pattern occurred for contraceptive use, reflecting the close correlation across countries between the total fertility rate (TFR) and contraceptive prevalence. This relationship was again a Berelson discovery—one that has been used repeatedly over the years to generate time trends in contraception from the large United Nations data sets of TFRs. In one important application, the correlation was used to show the implausibility of highly optimistic TFR projections for sub-Saharan Africa, as those projections implied radical increases in contraceptive use. Other analytic methods have included path analysis to separate the effect of public access to contraceptive methods from the effects of other determinants. The “correspondence method” is another example, as is the “paradigm shift” method. Multiple correlation/regression methods have been used extensively (Mauldin and Berelson, 1978), including one analysis that allocated more than 40 percent of fertility change to program action (Bongaarts et al., 1990). 3 A special area of research has focused on the nature of program action. For example, a method that uses patterns among different scores has shown differences between the profiles of low-scoring countries and high-scoring countries. Further, those low-scoring countries that raise their scores over time have moved toward the pattern of the high-scoring countries. This convergence indicates that, apart from the overall score, the type of efforts must be considered. RESULTS The 2009 study obtained information on the 81 countries shown in Annex C, which gives the total and four component scores for each country. Regional averages are shown both unweighted and with population weights: the former relate to the average country and the latter reflect the situation of most people. The weighted averages are higher in Asia due to China’s large influence, and secondarily to Indonesia and Bangladesh, which counterbalance the low Pakistan score and the slightly depressed India score. In other regions, the weighted score falls below the unweighted one—due chiefly to Brazil’s heavy influence in Latin America and Nigeria’s in Anglophone sub-Saharan Africa. The individual scores for 30 indicators are remarkably consistent across the years. Figure 1, for the 61 countries common to the three years, demonstrates the closeness that has emerged. This occurs notwithstanding the studies being conducted independently at five-year intervals, with mostly different respondents. The methodology of expert observers can clearly be implemented to provide assessments not otherwise available. For instance, this methodology has been used for maternal health programs to gauge their efforts, and it shows a similar pattern for the years 1999, 2002, and 2005. The lines for 2004 and 2009 are very close, but from 1999, there was some improvement in outreach (middle of figure) for community-based distribution, social marketing, postpartum programs, and home visiting workers. However, the Method Access scores to the right did not change. 4 Figure 1. Individual Scores for 30 Indicators (1999, 2004, and 2009) for 61 Countries Included in All Three Studies 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 To ta l PO LI C IE S SE RV IC ES EV A LU A TI O N A C C ES S TO M ET H O D S Po lic y on fe rt ili ty Le ad er s' st at em en ts Le ve l o f p ro gr am le ad er sh ip Po lic y on a ge a t m ar ri ag e Im po rt la w s an d le ga l r eg ul at io ns A dv er tis in g of c on tr ac ep tiv es In vo lv em en t o f o th er m in is tr ie s an d pu bl ic a ge nc ie s In -c ou nt ry fu nd in g fo r FP In vo lv em en t o f p ri va te -s ec to r ag en ci es a nd g ro up s In vo lv em en t o f c iv il bu re au cr ac y C om m un ity -b as ed d is tr ib ut io n So ci al m ar ke tin g Po st pa rt um p ro gr am s H om e- vi si tin g w or ke rs A dm in is tr at iv e st ru ct ur e Tr ai ni ng p ro gr am Pe rs on ne l c ar ry o ut a ss ig ne d ta sk s Lo gi st ic s an d tr an sp or ta tio n Su pe rv is io n sy st em M as s m ed ia fo r IE C In ce nt iv es a nd d is in ce nt iv es Re co rd -k ee pi ng s ys te m s Pr og ra m e va lu at io n M an ag em en t's u se o f e va l. fin di ng s A cc es s to M al e st er ili za tio n A cc es s to fe m al e st er ili za tio n A cc es s to p ill s/ in je ct ab le s A cc es s to c on do m s A cc es s to IU D A cc es s to s af e ab or tio n % o f M ax im um S co re 1999 2004 2009 5 Trends over the last decade for the total score reveal small, regular increases from 1999–2004 and from 2004–2009 for the 61 countries that are common to all three years (see Figure 2). The 2009 results show an average overall FPE Index of just below half of the maximum level. However, the top five countries have an overall Index of about 80 percent. Viewing such an index as a “gold standard,” the global average Index in 2009 is at about two-thirds of this realistic maximum. The Four Component Scores also rose when averaged over the 61 countries—again by rather small amounts, with the 2009 scores coming in at about the 50 percent mark. The Policies component rose by 3.5 points, the Services component by 5.6 points, the Evaluation component by 6.1 points, and the Method Access component by 2.1 points, out of 100. The Services component showed the largest gain, but it also began from the lowest starting level. Its 5.6 gain on the initial score of 41.1 represents a relatively appreciable 14 percent rise over the past 10 years. Access to contraceptives did not improve in 2004 but did so in 2009. (Annex D contains all total and component scores for the three years.) Figure 2. Total and Four Component Scores, 1999, 2004, and 2009, 61 Countries 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Total Policies Services Evaluation Access % o f M ax im um E ffo rt 1999 2004 2009 6 The change from 2004–2009 is of particular interest for this updated analysis. For the 71 countries common to both years, the mean total Index rose from 47.3 to 48.9 (the median from 46.2 to 47.9). Figure 3 depicts the pattern of changes: 43 countries improved (shown above the line), while 28 countries fell in their scores (below the line). For example, China and Vietnam appear at the top right, while Chad and Democratic Republic of the Congo are among those at the lower left. The pattern reflects real changes in program effort, as well as measurement error in either or both years, but the modest overall improvement is clear. Figure 3. Comparison of the 2004 and 2009 Total Scores, 71 Countries 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 09 T ot al S co re 2004 Total Score Regional differences in 2009 are large, as shown in Figure 4 (based on the weighted averages shown in Annex B). At the left of the figure, Asia’s total score exceeds 60 percent of the maximum, followed by the Middle East/North Africa. Latin America’s average is one of the lower ones, as it was in 2004 and 1999—probably because many services are nongovernmental and respondents think primarily of the government program. The Anglophone and Francophone sub-Saharan African groups score lowest at 45 percent. The above observations pertain to the total FPE Index. The regional rankings of the Policies component closely mirror the rankings of the total Index. The Policies scores are higher than the Total scores, reflecting the relative ease of establishing Policies, compared with actually providing Services, which register lower scores. The Evaluation scores display greater variability because they are based on only three of the 30 original scores; still, the regional rankings remain essentially the same. Finally, for the Method Access component, Latin America now scores well—most likely because of its active private sector, which national programs usually encourage. Sub-Saharan Africa scores the lowest by far, just above 40 percent, with the other regions above 50 percent. Figure 4. Regional Patterns for Total Score and Four Components 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Total Policies Services Evaluation Access % o f M ax im um ASIA MENA LTAM SSAF-A SSAF-F Global 7 A special focus on sub-Saharan African countries contrasted Anglophone vs. Francophone countries and PEPFAR (U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) vs. non-PEPFAR countries. One way to compare the positions of these four groups in 2009, for the Total Score, is shown in Figure 5. The midpoints are nearly the same, in the mid-40s to high-40s, but the figure highlights the considerable diversity within every group. The diversity, in turn, suggests more attention to individual cases, with additional information from other sources and from the local context. Most PEPFAR countries are in the Anglophone group; only three are in the Francophone group (and Rwanda is missing in 2009).3 The pattern for Anglophone-PEPFAR is nearly identical to Anglophone- non-PEPFAR if we discount the two high points for Zimbabwe and Mauritius. Other analyses show considerable similarity among the four groups in the four components and even in their profiles across the 30 individual scores. Francophone averages still fall a little below Anglophone ones, but Francophone has risen considerably to sharply narrow the gap to Anglophone. 3 Data were not available for Rwanda. 8 Figure 5. 2009 Total Scores, Four Groups of Countries (Note diversity within each group) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 N ig er ia Z am bi a Et hi op ia T an za ni a S. A fr ic a K en ya U ga nd a Li be ri a Er itr ea Si er ra L eo ne G ha na Sw az ila nd M al aw i Le so th o G am bi a Z im ba bw e M au ri tiu s M oz am bi qu e C ot e d' Iv oi re M au ri ta ni a C on go , D R Be ni n C ha d Bu ru nd i C am er oo n C on go Bu rk in a Fa so G ui ne a Se ne ga l N ig er M al i M ad ag as ca r T ot al S co re SSA-A-P SSA-A-NP SSA-F-P SSA-F-NP “Graduated Countries,” those that formerly received USAID support, are also of particular interest. Figure 6 shows one way of examining their long-term record in comparison to (1) most of Latin America, which in some ways is the most advanced large region and (2) three Latin American countries that currently receive USAID support (Bolivia, Guatemala, and Haiti). Historically, through 1994, the graduated countries (Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Mexico in Latin America, plus Indonesia, Morocco, Thailand, and Turkey) performed much better than most of Latin America and much better than the other three countries. However, five of the nine graduated countries are in Latin America, so the group of “most of Latin America” includes some programs with weaker scores. Since 1999 (and the change in methodology), the scores have been much the same for the set of graduated countries and most of Latin America. To pin down the changes occurring just after the graduation date of each country, one must go to the detailed records, and these are set forth in a separate memorandum provided to USAID in February 2010 (see Annex E). 9 Figure 6. Total FPE Score, 1972–2009, Three Country Groups 0 20 40 60 80 LAC LAC B,G,H Grad (4) Additional features include the basic justifications for the programs, the special populations they emphasize, and exogenous influences that act on them. These, together with an overall quality rating, were included in 2004 and 2009. The results, as unweighted averages by region (see Annex F) show, as they did in 2004, the stronger program justifications for women’s health than for population growth or economic development. Early childbearing by unmarried youth is rated low as a program justification and is neglected even more severely as a special population to be emphasized. Rather low ratings go also to postpartum and postabortion women; it is the poor and the rural groups that are most emphasized. Influences acting on the programs are measured on a scale from negative 5 to plus 5 to obtain judgments on the direction and magnitude of their effects. The strongest positive influences on family planning programs are considered to be their incorporation into broader reproductive health and their integration with other health services. Moves toward decentralization are seen as less helpful, and changes in both donor and domestic funding are regarded as either negative or barely positive. Interestingly, the net effects of HIV/AIDS programs are positive—although the indicators contain a spread of both negative and positive national ratings within each region, depending on the country involved. DISCUSSION After about 45 years of experience, national family planning programs are common in the developing world in varying strengths, from nearly trivial to very strong, established either through the government or a large private organization and either self-standing or merged into a maternal and child health framework. Reasons for their creation have varied; the most common justifications are mainly demographic or mainly health but in reality are usually a mixture. Where one reason has dominated, the other has nearly always been a strong second justification. In fact, the programs have both lowered fertility rates and reduced maternal deaths by averting large numbers of pregnancies. They have acted as an independent force, as well as by interaction with improved socioeconomic conditions. The impact has been substantial, especially as a weighted population average that reflects the large effects in China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the cluster of smaller Asian countries, Mexico and smaller Latin American countries, and parts of the Middle East. In sub-Saharan Africa, smaller effects have been observed in Kenya and Zimbabwe, although both have weakened in recent years. In general, reductions in maternal deaths and decreases in fertility rates have been slower in the region, reflected in its lower effort scores. For the developing world at large, effects in the 25 most populous countries account for most of the overall fertility decline and deaths saved. 10 This 2009 cycle of the research finds, as before, that of the four main components of effort, Policies score highest, as it is easiest to establish favorable policies. Services and Method Access score well below Policies. By region, East Asia has been strongest and sub-Saharan Africa weakest (with little difference between Francophone and Anglophone averages). Southeast and South Asia, including the sub-continent, are quite variable, with China, India, and Indonesia dominating the averages. Latin America scores below expectations probably because much of the effort is in private hands. The Middle East/North Africa scores are relatively high. The contraceptive methods stressed are highly selective. Usually only two or three of the available choices receive real attention: sterilization and the intrauterine device (IUD) in China; just the IUD in Vietnam; mainly the IUD in the Middle East; and mainly the pill and injectable in sub-Saharan Africa. Vasectomy is neglected nearly everywhere except in China; female sterilization is trivial in Africa and the Middle East, although important in Latin America. Condoms are often offered but are sometimes marketed more for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections than for contraception. This selectivity reflects cultural preferences, the nature of the clinical services available, and the historical accidents of which methods were established early. It is surprising that the average scores have continued to rise since 1999, even in small increments, given the unsupportive environment since Cairo for close attention to contraceptive provision. It is also unexpected to see the modestly positive ratings for the influence of HIV/AIDS on the programs. However, those are averages, and even the average is quite low for Anglophone sub-Saharan Africa. Moreover, the ratings are negative for numerous countries, especially in the high-prevalence countries in East and South Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa, the gaps have been closing between the Anglophone and Francophone groups, and they are relatively small between PEPFAR and non-PEPFAR groups. But those again are for averages; within each group there is a marked diversity of effort, so the more relevant focus for action decisions is on the individual country. CONCLUSION Average program effort levels remain robust in general, despite concerns about the diversion of resources to HIV/AIDS, donor fatigue, and other problems. However, average effort is still only at about half of the maximum, or about two-thirds of the level attained by the strongest countries. The profile of effort across the 30 indicators remains essentially the same as before but with sharp differences across the indicators and considerable selectivity in the contraceptive methods stressed. Regional differences remain much as before, with Asia strongest, sub-Saharan Africa weakest, and Latin America in between. Within sub- Saharan Africa, differences have narrowed considerably between Anglophone and Francophone countries, and PEPFAR countries in the Anglophone group show similar trends to non-PEPFAR countries, whether due to their dissimilar histories or to other factors. “Graduated” countries outperformed comparison countries during much of the past, but differences since 1999 are small between them and the comparison countries (most of Latin America). Separate questions in 2004 and 2009 show that program justifications rest more heavily on health than on fertility reduction, but adolescent and postabortion emphases rate rather low. Donor and domestic funding changes have been unfavorable— much more so than such other influences as the merging of family planning programs into broader health services. These ratings can support numerous improvements. Clearly, the highest levels of many governments need to allocate larger resources to the provision of education, supplies, and services devoted to contraception, including encouragement to the private medical system and commercial outlets. That means increased 11 local funding, as well as a quest for increased foreign assistance. Second, policy positions need strengthening in many countries. However, better policies require better implementation, and health officials, parliamentary committees, and finance/planning ministries must be actively involved, since better policies move through new budget lines, import rules, personnel assignments, and facility management. Third, the actual access by the population at large to contraceptives urgently needs strengthening—and that means a greater diversity of methods to avoid excessive reliance on costly resupply methods and an extension of offerings out to the rural population. Closely related are outreach activities—to improve the ratings for postpartum, CBD, and CSM programs. Moreover, overtures to youth and stronger postabortion offerings are clearly needed. Any individual country can examine its national program according to each of the 30 ratings to identify weak spots and opportunities for improved effectiveness. In addition, the research results can be employed for planning and advocacy work at all levels—the international donor community, regional planning groups, and country management. An example is the interface between family planning and HIV/AIDS programs in east and southern Africa, where the results show difficulties in their joint work. Finally, the research community can now access this global update of effort ratings for the 81 countries that cover more than 90 percent of the world’s population. The data are fully available to concerned agencies and individuals in the reproductive health field. 12 ANNEX A. THE FAMILY PLANNING EFFORT INDICES This annex provides summary descriptions of the 31 items included in the Family Planning Effort Index. These are organized under the four components of Policy and Stage-Setting Activities, Service and Service-Related Activities, Recordkeeping and Evaluation, and Availability and Accessibility of Fertility Control Methods. The Family Planning Effort Scale Policy and Stage- Setting Activities 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Government’s official policy or position concerning fertility/family planning rates of population growth Favorable statements by leaders Level of family planning program leadership Age-at-marriage policy Import laws and legal regulations regarding contraceptives Advertising of contraceptives in the mass media allowed Other ministries/government agencies involved In-country budget for program and Service and Service-related Activities 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Involvement of private sector agencies and groups Civil bureaucracy used Community-based distribution Social marketing Postpartum programs Home-visiting workers Administrative structure Training programs Personnel carry out assigned tasks Logistics and transport Supervision Mass media for information, education, and communication Incentives/disincentives ( Recordkeeping and Evaluation 1. 2. 3. Recordkeeping Evaluation Management use of evaluation findings Availability and 1. Male sterilization Accessibility of 2. Female sterilization Fertility Control 3. Pills Methods 4. 5. 6. 7. Injectables Condoms, diaphragm, spermicide Intrauterine devices Safe abortion 13 ANNEX B. QUESTIONNAIRE International Family Planning Program Study —2009 CYCLE— ___________________________ Country Conducted by Futures Group 14 Characteristics and Strength of Effort • This questionnaire is intended to provide internationally comparable information for about 90 countries. It concerns large-scale family planning programs, and it will update previous investigations of the characteristics and strength of effort of these programs. • Throughout this questionnaire, we refer to “the family planning program.” In most countries, there is only one large-scale program, and usually it operates under government auspices. The focus is on the national picture of family planning activities. If these are merged with maternal and child health activities, please focus on the family planning aspects. • Do not respond for pilot projects or small service networks. The focus is at the national level. • Please do not complete questions for which you lack information—other respondents in your country may handle those. Please confer with other individuals as you wish, and answer the items simply in your personal capacity, giving your own best judgment. All responses are entirely confidential. • Thank you for your assistance with this study. In return, please note that you can obtain without cost a variety of software programs. These are on the web at FuturesGroup.com (go to “Resources” then to “Software”). 15 To give a summary picture of program effort, please rate the following items. Score each item from 1 to 10, where 1 represents non-existent or very weak effort and 10 represents extremely strong effort. Try to answer each item; omit it only if you lack information. Component Description 1= Non existent to 10= Extremely strong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 POLICY AND STAGE-SETTING ACTIVITIES Policy on fertility reduction and family planning Extent to which government policy stresses family planning for demographic reasons over health reasons or is simply neutral or opposed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Statement by leaders Extent to which the head of government, as well as other officials, speak publicly and favorably about family planning at least once or twice a year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Level of program leadership High level of seniority of the director of the national family planning program and whether director reports to a high level of government 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Policy on age at marriage Extent to which legal age at marriage for females is set at 18 years or higher and is enforced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Import laws and legal regulations Extent to which import laws and legal regulations facilitate the importation of contraceptive supplies or extent to which contraceptives are manufactured locally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Advertising of contraceptives allowed Extent of freedom from restrictions on advertising of contraceptives in the mass media 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Involvement of other ministries and public agencies Extent to which other ministries and government agencies assist with family planning activities (e.g., delivery of supplies, services, information, education) or other population activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Percent of in- country funding of family planning budget Extent to which total family planning/population budget is derived from in-country sources (e.g., 1 for 10 percent, 5 for 50 percent, 10 for 100 percent) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 SERVICE AND SERVICE-RELATED ACTIVITIES Involvement of private-sector agencies and groups Extent to which private- sector agencies and groups assist with family planning or other population activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Civil bureaucracy involved Extent to which the civil bureaucracy of the government is used to ensure that program directives are carried out, and whether its senior officials take responsibility for program directives being carried out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Community-based distribution Extent to which areas of country not easily serviced by clinics or other service points are covered by community- based distribution programs for distribution of contraceptives (especially rural areas) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Social marketing Extent of coverage of the country by a social marketing program (subsidized contraceptive sales at low cost in commercial sector, especially in urban areas) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Postpartum program Extent to which all new mothers in the country receive postpartum family planning assistance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Home-visiting workers Extent of coverage of population by workers whose primary task is to visit (rural) women in their homes to talk about family planning and maternal and child health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Administrative structure Extent to which administrative structure and staff at national, provincial and county levels are adequate to implement the family planning program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Training program Extent to which training programs, for each category of staff in the family planning program, are adequate to provide personnel with information and skills necessary to carry out their jobs effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 Personnel carry out assigned tasks Extent to which all categories of family planning program staff (administrative, medical, paramedical, field) carry out assigned tasks effectively 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Logistics and transport Extent to which the logistics and transport systems are sufficient to keep stocks of contraceptive supplies and related equipment available at all service points, at all times and at all levels (central, provincial, local) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Supervision system Extent to which the system of supervision at all levels is adequate (regular monitoring visits with corrective or supportive action) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mass media for IEC Frequency and extent of coverage of mass media messages that provide population with information on family planning and service sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Incentives and disincentives Extent to which monetary or other incentives are used to encourage the adoption of family planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RECORD KEEPING AND EVALUATION Record keeping Extent to which systems for client recordkeeping, clinic reporting and feedback of results are adequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Evaluation Extent to which program statistics, national surveys, and small studies are used by specialized staff to report on program operations and measure progress 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Management’s use of evaluation findings Extent to which program managers use research and evaluation findings to improve the program in ways suggested by findings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF METHODS AND SUPPLIES IUDs Extent to which entire population has ready and easy access to IUDs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How well does the IUD supply system operate (it avoids stockouts or interrupted supplies and guarantees a reliable flow at local levels) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pills Extent to which entire population has ready and easy access to pills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How well does the pill supply system operate (it avoids stockouts or interrupted supplies and guarantees a reliable flow at local levels) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Injectables Extent to which entire population has ready and easy access to injectables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How well does the injectable supply system operate (it avoids stockouts or interrupted supplies and guarantees a reliable flow at local levels) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Female sterilization Extent to which entire population has ready access to voluntary sterilization services for women 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How well does the supply system provide necessary equipment and medical supplies for female sterilization services at clinical facilities? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Male sterilization Extent to which entire population has ready access to voluntary sterilization services for men 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How well does the supply system provide necessary equipment and medical supplies for men’s sterilization services at clinical facilities? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Condoms Extent to which entire population has ready and easy access to condoms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How well does the condom supply system operate (it avoids stockouts or interrupted supplies and guarantees a reliable flow at local levels) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18 19 Abortion Extent to which entire population has ready and easy access to safe abortion or 1 menstrual regulation (whether legal or not) Please rate the general quality of family planning services. (Good quality includes a focus on client needs, with counseling, full information, wide 1 method choice, and safe clinical procedures.) 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 INFLUENCES ON THE FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM Note that for the following questions the scale is different. Forces affecting the family planning program can either strengthen or detract from its effectiveness. Check zero (0) if there is no difference either way; check a negative number from -1 to -5 if the influence is negative; or check a positive number from 1 to 5 is the influence is positive. (1 in either direction means little influence and 5 in either direction means strong influence.) Decentralization (the shift of decision making and resources from the central government to lower administrative levels) -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 HIV/AIDS programs -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Incorporation of family planning into a broader context of reproductive health -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Integration of family planning with other health services -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Changes in donor funding -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Changes in domestic government funding -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 How important is each of the following as a current justification for the national family planning program? (1 means negligible importance; 10 means great importance.) Reduce rate of population growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Enhance economic development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Help women and men avoid unwanted births 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Improve women’s health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Improve child health 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reduce unmarried adolescent childbearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reduce unmet need for contraceptive services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 SPECIAL POPULATIONS To what extent does the family planning program give particular emphasis to special populations? (1 means negligible emphasis; 10 means great emphasis) Unmarried youth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rural populations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Postpartum women for counseling and contraceptive services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Postabortion women for counseling and contraceptive services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FINAL QUESTIONS A. You were invited to work with other individuals if you wished. Did you do so? Yes __ No___ B. How long have you been closely acquainted with the national family planning program? ______ years C. During most of this time, what has your relationship been to the program? D. If you are an employee of the program: Title: __________________________________________________________________ Duties: _________________________________________________________________ E. If you live outside of the country: Number of visits to the country in the last two years_________. Approximate total time spent in the country during the last two years ____________ F. Any final comments or suggestions? _____________________________________________________________________________________ 21 ANNEX C. 2009 FPE NATIONAL COMPONENT SCORES, 81 COUNTRIES Total Policies Services Evaluation Access Asia Afghanistan 50.7 56.0 51.6 53.4 41.8 Bangladesh 56.4 61.1 53.1 49.5 60.2 Cambodia 55.8 59.9 58.5 51.1 48.2 China 72.9 83.0 74.8 75.4 56.7 India 53.5 59.0 51.0 55.8 50.7 Indonesia 59.9 68.6 56.9 67.3 52.3 Malaysia 62.2 61.9 58.8 74.1 63.8 Myanmar 28.1 22.3 26.1 33.7 35.9 Nepal 56.8 58.4 55.0 48.3 62.0 Pakistan 45.7 59.6 42.5 45.3 35.9 Philippines 29.8 35.7 28.8 34.5 23.1 Sri Lanka 55.4 55.0 55.2 62.7 53.0 Viet Nam 71.1 77.8 67.4 63.3 73.8 AVERAGE 53.7 58.3 52.3 54.9 50.6 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 60.7 68.4 59.9 62.7 52.6 Central Asia Armenia 38.1 49.7 31.6 46.1 33.3 Azerbaijan 49.0 44.4 50.5 63.2 45.3 Georgia 46.6 48.1 43.1 50.3 49.8 Kazakhstan 37.5 42.7 31.2 33.6 44.7 Kyrgyzstan 42.0 40.1 37.2 51.9 48.9 Tajikistan 62.8 67.0 56.5 74.9 64.2 Turkmenistan 64.3 57.6 64.3 78.7 65.8 Ukraine 47.9 49.2 38.6 62.1 57.3 Uzbekistan 60.2 65.9 56.3 59.5 61.1 AVERAGE 49.8 51.6 45.5 57.8 52.3 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 50.4 52.7 44.5 58.1 55.2 Middle East/North Africa Algeria 63.6 71.0 62.4 74.3 52.9 Egypt 60.9 71.9 57.6 69.4 51.0 Iran 57.9 48.7 58.4 54.1 69.3 Jordan 51.3 61.2 41.7 54.1 56.4 Lebanon 53.5 49.1 50.4 63.2 60.1 Libya 20.4 21.5 7.9 13.3 45.2 Morocco 66.7 71.7 65.7 80.5 56.8 Turkey 52.7 51.7 46.3 68.4 59.1 Yemen 38.8 44.3 36.5 37.6 37.2 AVERAGE 51.8 54.6 47.4 57.2 54.2 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 56.7 58.9 53.7 63.8 56.7 22 Latin America Bolivia 48.8 46.3 46.4 50.7 55.4 Brazil 39.3 45.9 32.9 40.7 43.0 Chile 64.7 68.4 64.1 76.4 56.6 Colombia 50.0 52.4 42.4 42.1 64.7 Costa Rica 53.1 55.0 49.2 44.6 61.8 Dominican Republic 46.3 56.4 42.2 42.4 43.9 Ecuador 52.8 54.8 48.9 43.4 61.8 El Salvador 47.5 47.1 43.6 57.7 50.8 Guatemala 42.7 36.1 43.8 47.2 46.1 Haiti 33.2 36.9 31.3 29.7 34.1 Honduras 50.3 49.4 49.1 54.5 52.0 Jamaica 62.5 72.5 56.6 68.1 59.7 Mexico 52.4 48.8 46.5 66.9 61.4 Nicaragua 47.4 44.2 46.8 49.3 51.4 Panama 54.9 53.3 52.8 51.0 62.5 Paraguay 46.4 48.3 43.4 51.9 47.6 Peru 41.0 46.8 36.0 43.9 42.3 Trinidad & Tobago 57.1 69.8 59.4 28.6 50.7 AVERAGE 49.5 51.8 46.4 49.4 52.5 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 45.8 48.4 40.4 49.3 51.1 Sub-Saharan Africa (Anglophone) Eritrea 37.9 33.3 38.6 44.1 39.0 Ethiopia 45.3 55.9 43.6 37.7 39.4 Gambia 50.3 53.5 52.4 46.6 44.3 Ghana 46.4 51.7 41.8 50.1 47.3 Kenya 48.7 55.8 41.0 75.8 43.5 Lesotho 50.0 48.8 48.3 49.3 55.1 Liberia 34.8 51.5 28.4 36.5 26.9 Malawi 47.8 52.6 47.5 46.4 43.6 Mauritius 60.6 64.0 58.9 63.9 58.4 Nigeria 33.6 38.1 32.9 38.9 27.6 Sierra Leone 41.1 50.3 38.6 41.7 34.8 South Africa 48.0 54.1 38.6 50.2 57.8 Swaziland 46.7 46.9 43.9 47.9 51.4 Tanzania 47.0 50.5 44.3 49.1 47.2 Uganda 50.4 63.4 47.8 47.9 41.5 Zambia 44.6 49.2 38.2 45.3 51.0 Zimbabwe 59.9 66.0 59.4 59.5 54.2 AVERAGE 46.7 52.1 43.8 48.9 44.9 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 43.0 49.5 40.0 46.1 39.9 (Francophone) Benin 35.1 42.8 31.0 40.5 31.7 Burkina Faso 45.6 49.3 41.1 50.7 47.4 Burundi 40.2 55.7 32.5 43.7 35.1 Cameroon 41.4 52.0 36.2 41.9 38.8 23 Chad 36.7 51.6 30.4 38.1 30.6 Congo Congo, Democratic Republic Côte d'Ivoire 44.8 34.3 54.4 49.6 34.6 61.1 43.2 33.5 52.3 45.8 40.9 62.3 41.7 32.5 47.1 Guinea 46.2 53.0 46.4 41.5 40.1 Madagascar Mali 64.0 61.4 67.2 69.7 65.4 61.5 65.5 63.2 57.2 50.9 Mauritania 21.0 19.2 16.4 24.0 30.6 Mozambique Niger Senegal AVERAGE 39.2 55.0 47.5 46.5 42.0 60.6 52.4 53.2 33.4 56.6 47.1 43.9 46.7 67.3 46.2 50.2 43.7 40.3 43.2 42.3 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 45.4 50.7 43.2 50.1 41.4 Global AVERAGE 49.3 53.5 46.3 52.1 48.8 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 56.3 62.8 54.6 59.2 51.0 24 ANNEX D. REGIONAL COMPONENT SCORES: 1999, 2004, 2009 Total and Four Component Scores by Region, 1999, 2004, and 2009, 61 Countries TOTAL SCORE 2009 2004 1999 Asia 53.8 55.8 55.0 Central Asian Republics 53.3 49.1 44.3 Middle East/North Africa 54.0 50.2 47.9 Latin America 49.0 46.3 43.8 Sub-Saharan Anglophone 47.3 47.1 44.1 Sub-Saharan Francophone 45.6 42.0 38.8 GLOBAL 49.7 47.9 45.3 POLICIES 2009 2004 1999 Asia 58.8 61.3 62.4 Central Asian Republics 54.7 50.0 45.3 Middle East/North Africa 58.3 60.2 50.6 Latin America 50.7 47.3 47.5 Sub-Saharan Anglophone 53.0 51.7 52.6 Sub-Saharan Francophone 51.6 46.0 42.9 GLOBAL 53.8 51.8 50.3 SERVICES 2009 2004 1999 Asia 52.1 53.5 49.9 Central Asian Republics 49.1 44.8 40.1 Middle East/North Africa 49.7 44.5 43.6 Latin America 45.6 43.1 37.7 Sub-Saharan Anglophone 44.2 45.6 40.9 Sub-Saharan Francophone 43.2 40.7 37.2 GLOBAL 46.7 45.2 41.1 EVALUATION 2009 2004 1999 Asia 54.4 54.6 58.0 Central Asian Republics 59.7 50.8 39.6 Middle East/North Africa 62.2 53.8 50.6 Latin America 50.6 50.8 42.2 Sub-Saharan Anglophone 47.4 49.4 41.1 Sub-Saharan Francophone 48.7 46.5 45.8 GLOBAL 52.2 50.7 46.1 25 ACCESS 2009 2004 1999 Asia 51.1 53.9 54.5 Central Asian Republics 56.9 56.4 54.6 Middle East/North Africa 53.4 47.2 52.2 Latin America 52.7 49.4 52.7 Sub-Saharan Anglophone 46.5 42.9 41.1 Sub-Saharan Francophone 41.8 37.5 33.5 GLOBAL 49.5 47.1 47.4 26 ANNEX E: MEMORANDUM Family Planning Program Effort in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1972–2009 John Ross February 19, 2010 This memorandum is prepared as an addendum to the presentation to USAID staff on January 28, after which it was agreed that a look at sub-Saharan Africa alone would be useful, with particular attention to PEPFAR vs. Non-PEPFAR countries and to Anglophone vs. Francophone countries. So, we have four groups of countries, as shown in Table 1. The entire series of seven rounds of the research, from 1972 to 2009, caught 42 countries at one time or another in the sub-Saharan region. In 2009, 32 of those countries were included, and those are the ones in Table 1. The best way to compare the positions of these four groups in 2009, for the Total Score, is in Figure 1. The midpoints are nearly the same, in the mid 40s to high 40s, but the figure highlights the considerable diversity within every group. That, in turn, suggests more attention to individual cases, with inputs from staff who know the local situations. (Moreover some anomalies exist in the scores, as with improbably high readings for Tanzania and Uganda in 1999 and Niger in 2009; see Table 2.) Most PEPFAR countries are in the Anglophone group; only three are in the Francophone group (and Rwanda is missing in 2009). The pattern for Anglophone-PEPFAR is nearly identical to Anglophone- NonPEPFAR if we discount the two high points for Zimbabwe and Mauritius. The time trends in Figure 2, top two panels, also suggest some similarity between the two Anglophone groups: in 1994, both Total scores were at 50, and the changes to 2009 were not much different. The two Francophone groups (bottom two panels) also agree with each other, though at lower levels than the Anglophone groups. They were below 40 in 1994 and rose to about 45 by 2009. (In the PEPFAR group, Rwanda is missing from the line in 1994 and 2009, but the trend is similar when re-done with only the other two countries every year.) Information for all 42 countries for all years 1972–2009 appears in Table 2. Trends for the Four Components in the Four Geographic Groups, 1982–2009 The trends in Figure 3 provide a closer look at the major types of effort. There are five panels, first for the Total Score, then for each of the four components. (As in Figure 2, the break between 1994 and 1999 signals the change in methodology and the likely discontinuity.) (All numerical values are in Table 3.) Total Scores: First, a glance at the Total Scores (top panel) shows the sharp rise from 1982 to 1989 to the 1999 level, which was basically sustained from then on. The Anglophone group is highest, above the Francophone group; however, the latter rose after 1999 to close the gap to the other lines. The positions of the PEPFAR and Non-PEPFAR groups are very close (though below PEPFAR does better in 2009 on Services and a little better on Access). Note that the Non-PEPFAR group contains nearly all of the Francophone group, along with a smaller number of Anglophone countries. 27 Policy Scores: In 2009, Policy scores exceed Total scores; in fact, in all analyses, Policy scores rank higher than the other components, suggesting that it is considerably easier to declare favorable policies than to implement them. (That however does not mean that favorable policy determinations, with real intent, emerge without considerable effort.) All groups rose slightly after 2004. The Anglophone group’s policies fell after 1999; it is unclear why. Interestingly, the Francophone group rose to close the gap to the other groups. Services and Access Scores: In 2009, both Services and Access scored only at about 40 to 45 percent of maximum effort. In the last five years, Services have been flat, while Access has improved a little. As with the other components, it is unclear why the Anglophone group fell after 1999; for Access, the PEPFAR group also fell, partly because nearly all of PEPFAR is Anglophone. The Francophone group has improved somewhat since 1999. The 1982 to 1994 trends are interesting: first the sharp rises, then the wide disparities in 1994 that closed thereafter. Methodologically, it is curious that after the 1994/1999 discontinuity scores jumped for Services, Access, and Evaluation, but not for Policies. Therefore, Total scores also jumped, here in sub- Saharan Africa—though the average Total scores for all countries (all regions) fell. Evaluation scores (M&E) come from only three of the 30 indicators and can fluctuate more than the other components do. However, the trends here are quite similar to those seen above: the groups cluster fairly closely in 2009. They do so at about half of maximum effort. The Anglophone group declined from 1999 to 2004, as did the PEPFAR group. Effort Patterns Across the Thirty Individual Scores The comparisons in Figure 4 (two panels) contrast PEPFAR vs. Non-PEPFAR countries for the Anglophone sector, and second, contrast all Anglophone vs. all Francophone countries. All 30 scores are shown, together with the averages for the Total and four Component Scores (5 leftmost points). Comparison of PEPFAR and Non-PEPFAR Profiles for Anglophone countries: The first chart shows the very similar profiles for PEPFAR and Non-PEPFAR countries within the Anglophone group. (In the Francophone group, there are only two countries in 2009). PEPFAR does slightly worse overall, but the main deficiencies are under Services, where it especially falls down on its administrative structure, training program, personnel performing their tasks, and logistics. It also suffers from less involvement of the civil bureaucracy, on community-based distribution, and on postpartum programs. These all pertain to actual implementation features, a cluster that may signal a harder hit by HIV on the health ministries in certain member countries. Or, are there other explanations? Comparison of Anglophone and Francophone Countries: The patterns of these two groupings are surprisingly close. Anglophone has a slight advantage (see five averages to the left), but both Total means are disappointingly low, below 50 percent. Anglophone does better on the level of program leadership but worse on leadership statements; it does better on community-based distribution but worse on CSM. It has a slight but consistent advantage on the same cluster of implantation features discussed above, of administrative structure, training, personnel, and logistics. It is also stronger on sterilization. But mainly, the two groups differ little in the effort they give to each of the 30 types of effort. 28 All these group comparisons are enlightening, even when they show unexpected similarities. They help for general planning and resource allocations, and they give a context for examining a particular country. Local program actions, however, must be based on additional information and management judgment. Table 1. 2009 Total Scores for Four Groups, Ordered by Size We have scores on 42 countries for the period 1972–2009, though some countries are missing data in some years. This table shows the 32 countries with data for 2009, which include all of the largest countries and a high percentage of the total population of the region. Group 1 A (P) Group 2 A (NP) Nigeria 33.6 Liberia 34.8 Zambia 44.6 Eritrea 37.9 Ethiopia 45.3 Sierra Leone 41.1 Tanzania 47.0 Ghana 46.4 South Africa 48.0 Swaziland 46.7 Kenya 48.7 Malawi 47.8 Uganda 50.4 Lesotho 50.0 Gambia 50.3 Zimbabwe 59.9 Mauritius 60.6 Group 3 F (P) Group 4 F (NP) Mozambique 39.2 Mauritania 21.0 Cote d'Ivoire 54.4 Congo, DR 34.3 Benin 35.1 Chad 36.7 Burundi 40.2 Cameroon 41.4 Congo 44.8 Burkina Faso 45.6 Guinea 46.2 Senegal 47.5 Niger 55.0 Mali 61.4 Madagascar 64.0 A: Anglophone; F: Francophone; (P): PEPFAR; (NP): Non-PEPFAR Figure 1. 2009 Total Scores, Four Groups of Countries (Note diversity within each group) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 N ig er ia Z am bi a Et hi op ia T an za ni a S. A fr ic a K en ya U ga nd a Li be ri a Er itr ea Si er ra L eo ne G ha na Sw az ila nd M al aw i Le so th o G am bi a Z im ba bw e M au ri tiu s M oz am bi qu e C ot e d' Iv oi re M au ri ta ni a C on go , D R Be ni n C ha d Bu ru nd i C am er oo n C on go Bu rk in a Fa so G ui ne a Se ne ga l N ig er M al i M ad ag as ca r T ot al S co re SSA-A-P SSA-A-NP SSA-F-P SSA-F-NP 29 30 Figure 2. Group Total Scores Group 1 Total Score: ANGLO PEPFAR (9 countries) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 197 2 198 2 198 9 199 4 199 9 200 4 200 9 Total Score Group 2 Total Score: ANGLO Non-PEPFAR (12 countries) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 197 2 198 2 198 9 199 4 199 9 200 4 200 9 Total Score Group 3 Total Score: FRANCO PEPFAR (3 countries) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 197 2 198 2 198 9 199 4 199 9 200 4 200 9 Total Score Group 4 Total Score: FRANCO Non-PEPFAR (18 countries) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 197 2 198 2 198 9 199 4 199 9 200 4 200 9 Total Score 31 Table 2. Total Scores, All Years, All 42 Countries 1972 1982 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 ANGLO-PEPFAR Botswana na 26.5 74.9 65.8 na na na Ethiopia - 6.2 32.0 38.3 38.7 37.1 45.3 Kenya 20.0 28.1 57.6 55.8 49.6 na 48.7 Namibia na na 10.8 42.5 51.8 54.3 na Nigeria 6.7 12.8 43.2 41.7 50.3 41.1 33.6 South Africa na na 61.9 55.8 47.4 46.0 48.0 Tanzania 10.0 22.3 41.7 47.5 71.2 44.7 47.0 Uganda - 17.1 33.1 44.2 61.1 43.0 50.4 Zambia - 16.4 49.2 40.8 39.9 36.9 44.6 Means 6.1 18.5 44.9 48.1 51.2 43.3 45.4 ANGLO-NonPEPFAR Eritrea na na na na na na 37.9 Gambia na 26.0 na na na 50.2 50.3 Ghana 10.0 17.8 52.1 52.5 52.6 55.5 46.4 Lesotho - 13.9 45.1 43.3 55.5 46.7 50.0 Liberia 10.0 21.6 na na na 38.4 34.8 Malawi - 5.8 16.5 44.2 44.5 50.1 47.8 Mauritius 66.7 68.3 69.5 74.2 74.0 na 60.6 Sierra Leone - 16.1 35.5 46.7 na na 41.1 Somalia - 9.6 0.8 na na na na Sudan 10.0 7.5 20.2 29.2 55.7 na na Swaziland na na na na na 39.3 46.7 Zimbabwe 10.0 27.3 56.4 67.5 48.9 61.6 59.9 Means 11.9 21.4 37.0 51.1 55.2 48.8 47.6 FRANCO-PEPFAR Cote d'Ivoire - 5.5 16.3 38.3 52.0 38.3 54.4 Mozambique - 16.4 27.3 33.3 23.4 55.0 39.2 Rwanda - 23.0 43.3 - 44.0 35.7 na Means - 15.0 29.0 23.9 39.8 43.0 46.8 FRANCO-NonPEPFAR Angola - na 39.4 24.2 na na na Benin 10.0 11.4 28.5 37.5 30.3 53.4 35.1 Burkina Faso - 4.3 45.1 na 46.0 58.3 45.6 Burundi - 10.5 40.3 na na 41.5 40.2 Cameroon - 8.4 34.2 49.2 35.5 41.1 41.4 Central African Rep. - 10.3 42.2 40.0 39.3 47.4 na Chad - 6.9 19.5 26.7 25.3 28.9 36.7 Congo - 15.3 36.1 27.5 35.5 25.9 44.8 Congo, DR na 12.9 28.3 na na 31.6 34.3 Gabon na na na na 47.7 na na Guinea - 4.5 39.6 50.0 48.2 45.8 46.2 Guinea-Bis na 13.6 28.5 35.8 na na na Madagascar - 8.6 40.3 32.5 33.7 47.7 64.0 Mali - 11.3 37.6 45.0 59.3 52.6 61.4 Mauritania - 3.5 20.8 31.7 19.1 40.1 21.0 32 Niger - 4.6 38.4 45.8 35.6 26.3 55.0 Senegal - 22.7 43.7 50.8 52.0 46.1 47.5 Togo - 13.9 29.7 na 52.7 54.7 na Means 0.7 10.2 34.8 38.2 40.0 42.8 44.1 Figure 3. (Five Panels) Time Trends by Component and Country Groups Policy Scores 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1982 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 All Anglo All Franco All Pepfar All non- Pep Total Scores 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1982 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 All Anglo All Franco All Pepfar All non- Pep 33 Services Scores 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1982 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 All Anglo All Franco All Pepfar All non- Pep Access Scores 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1982 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 All Anglo All Franco All Pepfar All non- Pep 34 Evaluation Scores 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1982 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 All Anglo All Franco All Pepfar All non- Pep 35 Table 3. 2009 Scores by Component and Group Year All Anglo All Franco All PEPFAR All Non- PEPFAR ALL SSA TOTAL 1982 20.2 10.9 17.4 14.5 15.3 1989 41.2 34.0 41.0 35.5 37.3 1994 49.4 35.5 42.0 42.7 42.4 1999 53.0 40.0 48.1 44.6 45.8 2004 46.1 42.8 43.2 44.7 44.2 2009 46.7 44.4 45.7 45.6 45.6 POLICY 1982 32.6 18.8 30.6 23.2 25.3 1989 45.4 44.4 47.4 43.7 44.9 1994 59.0 47.7 52.2 54.1 53.4 1999 56.7 44.1 50.9 49.1 49.8 2004 50.9 46.5 49.3 48.1 48.5 2009 52.1 50.7 52.2 51.1 51.4 SERVICES 1982 16.9 8.2 13.3 11.9 12.3 1989 41.0 32.0 41.1 33.7 36.1 1994 47.2 33.4 38.3 41.6 40.3 1999 50.0 37.5 44.7 42.3 43.1 2004 44.5 41.1 40.8 43.4 42.6 2009 43.8 41.8 41.3 43.4 42.9 EVALUATION 1982 16.5 10.0 14.5 12.6 13.1 1989 47.6 43.0 45.4 45.0 45.1 1994 50.0 41.8 39.1 50.0 45.9 1999 56.1 44.0 50.8 48.8 49.5 2004 48.7 49.4 47.1 50.0 49.1 2009 48.9 47.9 50.4 47.6 48.4 ACCESS 1982 12.7 6.8 10.3 9.3 9.6 1989 32.8 19.7 29.8 23.8 25.7 1994 47.1 20.5 41.9 28.9 33.8 1999 52.7 38.0 50.6 41.4 44.6 2004 41.6 38.1 38.4 40.2 39.7 2009 44.9 40.7 44.3 42.4 42.9 36 Figure 4. (Two Panels) Comparison of Anglo PEPFAR and Anglo Non-PEPFAR 2009 and Comparison of Anglo and Franco 2009 . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 To tal Po lic ies Se rvi ce s Ev alu ati on Ac ce ss Po lic y o n F ert ilit y Fa vo rab le sta tem en ts by le ad ers (1 -2 tim es a ye ar) Le ve l o f p rog ram le ad ers hip Po lic y o n a ge at m arr iag e Im po rt l aw s a nd le ga l re gu lat ion s Ad ve rtis ing of co ntr ac ep tiv es Inv olv em en t o f o the r m ini str ies an d p ub lic ag en cie s In- co un try fu nd ing fo r fa mi ly pla nn ing Inv olv em en t o f p riv ate -se cto r a ge nc ies an d g rou ps Inv olv em en t o f c ivi l b ure au cra cy Co mm un ity -ba se d d ist rib uti on So cia l m ark eti ng Po stp art um pr og ram s Ho me -vi sit ing w ork ers Ad mi nis tra tiv e s tru ctu re Tr ain ing pr og ram Pe rso nn el ca rry ou t a ss ign ed ta sk s Lo gis tic s a nd tra ns po rta tio n Su pe rvi sio n s ys tem Ma ss m ed ia for IE C ma ter ial s Inc en tiv es an d d isi nc en tiv es Re co rd- ke ep ing sy ste ms Pr og ram ev alu ati on Ma na ge me nt' s u se of ev alu ati on fin din gs Ac ce ss to M ale st eri liz ati on Ac ce ss to fe ma le ste rili za tio n Ac ce ss to co ntr ac ep tiv e p ills Ac ce ss to co nd om s Ac ce ss to IU D Ac ce ss to sa fe ab ort ion % o f M ax im um S co re Anglo PEPFAR Anglo Non-PEPFAR AVERAGES POLICIES SERVICES M&E ACCESS 37 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 To tal Po lic ies Se rvi ce s Ev alu ati on Ac ce ss Po lic y o n F ert ilit y Fa vo rab le sta tem en ts by le ad ers (1 -2 tim es a ye ar) Le ve l o f p rog ram le ad ers hip Po lic y o n a ge at m arr iag e Im po rt l aw s a nd le ga l re gu lat ion s Ad ve rtis ing of co ntr ac ep tiv es Inv olv em en t o f o the r m ini str ies an d p ub lic ag en cie s In- co un try fu nd ing fo r fa mi ly pla nn ing Inv olv em en t o f p riv ate -se cto r a ge nc ies an d g rou ps Inv olv em en t o f c ivi l b ure au cra cy Co mm un ity -ba se d d ist rib uti on So cia l m ark eti ng Po stp art um pr og ram s Ho me -vi sit ing w ork ers Ad mi nis tra tiv e s tru ctu re Tr ain ing pr og ram Pe rso nn el ca rry ou t a ss ign ed ta sk s Lo gis tic s a nd tra ns po rta tio n Su pe rvi sio n s ys tem Ma ss m ed ia for IE C ma ter ial s Inc en tiv es an d d isi nc en tiv es Re co rd- ke ep ing sy ste ms Pr og ram ev alu ati on Ma na ge me nt' s u se of ev alu ati on fin din gs Ac ce ss to M ale st eri liz ati on Ac ce ss to fe ma le ste rili za tio n Ac ce ss to co ntr ac ep tiv e p ills Ac ce ss to co nd om s Ac ce ss to IU D Ac ce ss to sa fe ab ort ion % o f M ax im um S co re Anglo 2009 Franco 2009 AVERAGES POLICIES SERVICES M%E ACCESS 38 ANNEX F. MEAN* SCORES FOR PROGRAM JUSTIFICATIONS, EMPHASES ON SPECIAL POPULATIONS, INFLUENCES, AND QUALITY, 81 COUNTRIES, BY REGION All Asia Central Asia Latin America/ Caribbean Middle East/North Africa Anglo- phone Africa Franco- phone Africa JUSTIFICATIONS Reduce population growth 69.8 80.0 30.2 29.9 66.5 59.1 51.2 Enhance economic development 69.2 74.4 67.8 43.0 66.6 63.9 63.1 Reduce unmet need 78.2 80.6 80.1 79.3 69.0 71.5 67.2 Reduce nonmarital adolescent childbearing 62.7 63.3 80.5 62.8 39.6 63.1 76.3 Improve women’s health 83.3 83.2 91.1 83.3 82.6 82.2 84.6 Improve child health 78.0 77.0 87.5 75.4 80.8 80.1 83.4 Avoid unwanted births 83.3 84.3 86.5 84.9 78.8 78.8 79.8 EMPHASES ON SPECIAL POPULATIONS The poor 66.8 71.4 50.9 66.4 63.7 49.7 49.1 Rural population 70.0 76.6 59.9 53.5 72.5 51.4 48.1 Unmarried youth 38.3 34.8 59.1 50.5 28.5 45.2 52.9 Postpartum women 59.0 59.8 74.6 56.9 63.1 48.5 58.9 Postabortion women 52.2 52.6 69.1 53.0 45.9 47.3 55.3 INFLUENCES Changes in donor funding -3.7 -5.0 32.2 -2.7 -5.9 -6.9 4.4 Changes in domestic funding 14.2 15.4 33.7 -1.7 22.3 11.3 12.5 Decentralization 31.7 32.7 25.9 9.8 34.3 44.9 34.0 Integration with other health services 49.1 48.9 73.1 38.3 52.5 50.6 54.2 Incorporation with reproductive health 54.1 54.9 73.2 49.8 49.1 51.7 53.4 HIV/AIDS programs 38.7 41.7 54.2 33.2 34.4 15.6 51.2 QUALITY 53.8 56.0 51.5 44.8 60.8 45.6 48.6 *All scores weighted for regional populations. Note: Negative scores indicate detrimental effects. 39 REFERENCES Bongaarts, J., W. Parker Mauldin, and J. Phillips. 1990. “The Demographic Impact of Family Planning Programs.” Studies in Family Planning 21(6): 299–310. Freedman, R., and B. Berelson. 1976. “The Record of Family Planning Programs.” Studies in Family Planning 7(1):1–40. Khalifa, M., E. D. Suliman, and John Ross. 1999. Family Planning Program Effort in Egypt’s Governorates. Cairo: POLICY Project, Futures Group International. Lapham, R., and W. Parker Mauldin. 1972. “National Family Planning Programs: Review and Evaluation.” Studies in Family Planning 3(3): 29–52. Mauldin, W. Parker, and B. Berelson. 1978. “Conditions of Fertility Decline in Developing Countries, 1965–75.” Studies in Family Planning 9(5): 90–147. Ross, J., and J. Stover. 2001. “The Family Planning Program Effort Index: 1999 Cycle. International Family Planning Perspectives 27(3): 119–29. Ross, J., and W. Parker Mauldin. 1996. “Family Planning Programs: Efforts and Results, 1972–94. Studies in Family Planning 27(3): 137–47. Ross, J., J. Stover, and D. Adelaja. 2007. “Family Planning Programs in 2004: New Assessments in a Changing Environment.” International Family Planning Perspectives 33(1): 22–30. San, P. B., J. Ross, N. Lan Phuong, and N. Duc Vinh. 1999. “Measuring Family Planning Program Effort at the Provincial Level: A Vietnam Application.” International Family Planning Perspectives 25(1): 4–9. Health Policy Initiative, Task Order 1 Futures Group One Thomas Circle, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 USA Tel: (202) 775-9680 Fax: (202) 775-9694 Email: policyinfo@futuresgroup.com http://ghiqc.usaid.gov http://www.healthpolicyinitiative.com Acknowledgments Executive Summary AbbreviationS BACKGROUND METHODS AND DATA RESULTS DISCUSSION CONclusion Annex A. The Family Planning Effort Indices ANNEX B. QUESTIONNAIRE Annex C. 2009 FPE National Component Scores, 81 Countries Annex D. Regional Component Scores: 1999, 2004, 2009 ANNEX E: MEMORANDUM annex F. Mean* scores for program justifications, emphases on special populations, influences, and quality, 81 countries, by region

View the publication

You are currently offline. Some pages or content may fail to load.