Evaluation of the natural family planning education and training project of the Family of the Americas Foundation

training courses for BOM teacher trainers. The project was carried out by the Family of the Americas Foundation (FAF). External evaluation covers the period 1984-88. The project seems to have had little or no significant impact on general interest in BOM. The BOM educational film did not, as stipulated, target FP providers (though it may be adaptable for them), and other educational materials, while technically accurate (if incomplete), were sometimes culturally inappropriate and impractical. This may have been due to FAF's failure to pre- test the materials, a requirement for which was omitted from the Cooperative Agreement. FAF did not have information on the distribution of these educational materials readily available, but it is evident that distribution was biased in favor of organizations with FAF approval. Organizations which did not embrace FAF's philosophy about FP (which included A.I.D./W, Missions, and other A.I.D. cooperating agencies) had a very difficult time obtaining the materials. The training workshops seem to have been well organized and taught, and the curriculum remains useful, especially as a reference tool. In the long term, this training is expected to professionalize, standardize, and increase the training of new BOM instructors and thereby promote NFP. In some cases, however, participants developed more negative attitudes toward other contraceptive methods. This may aggravate the conflictive relationship between NFP and multi-method FP agencies, contributing to an environment in which both sides produce misinformation which hinders informed public choice. Overall relations between A.I.D. and FAF, which cannot be called a "cooperating agency" in any meaningful sense, were stormy. FAF was rigid and uncooperative in respecting A.I.D. guidance and priorities for participant selection, and failed to exercise caution in avoiding controversial topics beyond the content of the curriculum. In addition, FAF's production of the BOM film for other than the targeted audience and its failure to deliver to A.I.D. all footage, preprint materials, and the master print constitute serious breaches of the Cooperative Agreement. Why the Agency continued to support the project are unclear, although there is evidence that it may have been influenced by members of the U.S. Congress. Finally, because of the possible integration of religious doctrine in the training courses, A.I.D. may have violated the First Amendment, which precludes the use of tax revenues for nonsecular activities. A major lesson learned is that A.I.D. and its umbrella projects should fund only those agencies that can demonstrate a willingness and ability to cooperate with A.I.D. and other Cooperating Agencies and that conform with A.I.D. population policy. In the field of NFP, such organizations do exist.