Evaluation report : FPMD [family planning management development] supervision assistance to the family planning program of the Burkina Faso Directorate of Family Health

The project is being implemented by Management Sciences for Health (MSH). Evaluation covers the period 1992-95. Despite constraints related to organizational changes, personnel turnover, lack of resources, weak bureaucratic structures, and confusion about the central level"s role in project implementation, the project can be declared a success. It has introduced a new philosophy of supervision free of previous notions of control and inspection, as well as new supervisory tools, which supervisors praise as a tangible set of instruments that have given them responsibility for program improvement and resulted in better staff relations. Through the multiplier effect, the project has expanded beyond the family planning and maternal and child health sector into other health activities and geographic areas in Burkina Faso. As a result of the project"s efforts, supervisors seem to be giving more attention to the quality of the services provided to clients than they did before the project. There seem to be no cultural obstacles to the acceptance of new perspectives on supervision and the use of new supervisory tools. Those involved in the project are extremely happy with the TA provided, although there has been some criticism in regard to workshops. Finally, the Government of Burkina Faso is committed to a population policy and National Family Planning Program, indicated in part by its intention to increase the contraceptive prevalence rate to 60% by 2005 and then to reduce fertility by 10% every 5 years, beginning in 1995. The demand for family planning services in the country is strong. Two important lessons were learned from the project. (1) There is a clear need for a local coordinator for this project. The project"s organizational framework made efficient communication between DSF and MSH difficult, especially in light of the management burdens caused by the project"s extension in time and geographic area. The presence of a local coordinator from the outset would have made this extension easier to manage. In addition, compared to other projects administered by the DSF, this one is very small, and no one at the central level could spare the attention the project required. (2) The issue of project extension should be better addressed during project design and during the first phase of implementation, particularly in regard to criteria to justify extension, how the strengths and weaknesses of the project"s first phase might be used to improve its performance during the second, and how persons involved in the project"s first phase can also be integrated into the second.