WORLD H E A L T H ORGANIZATION
MftjjjS
t$£«^l
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANT6
REGIONAL OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN IUREAU REGIONAL OU PACIFIQUE
PACIFIC
OCCIDENTAL
REGIONAL COMMITTEE Twenty-sixth s e s s i o n Manila 1-6 September 1975 Provisional agenda item 12
WPR/RC26/6 C o r r . l 30 August 1975
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
CURRENT PROGRESS OP PROGRAMMES RECEIVING WHO ASSISTANCE IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC REGION Corrigendum
Annex 1, page 9/10 Please d e s t r o y and r e p l a c e w i t h the attached r e v i s e d Annex 1.
1
WPR/RC26/6 pages 9/10 ANNEX 1 Rev.l
LIST OF COUNTRIES OR AruSAS PARTICIPATING IN THE THREE EVALUATIONS ON THE CURRENT PROGRESS OF PROGRAMMES RECEIVING WHO ASSISTANCE
Countries/areas 1 . B r i t i s h Solomon Islands Protectorate* 2. Canlbodla
F i r s t evaluation Second e v a l u a t i o n J u l y 1969-June 197C J u l y 1970 -June 1971
Third evaluatioi J u l y 1973-June 191
/ / /
/
3. China (Province of Taiwan)** 4. Cook I s l a n d s 5. Fiji
/ •
/ / / /
6. G i l b e r t and E l l i c e Islands 7. Laos 8. Malaysia 9, New Hebrides 10. Papua New Guinea 11. P h i l i p p i n e s 12. Republic of Korea 13. South Viet-Nam 14. Singapore 15. Tonga 16. Western Samoa Number of c o u n t r i e s / areas which sent i n completed r e p l i e s t o the questionnaire Number of c o u n t r i e s / areas which r e c e i v e d copies of the
/ / /
/ /
/ / •
/ /
/ /
</ •
/ / / /
/ /
/
/
12
11
14
14
12
;
15
que3tionnaire
Response r a t e {%)
85.7
91.7
95.3*
*From 1$ June 1975:
Solomon I s l a n d s .
R e s o l u t i o n WHA25.1, Handbook of Resolutions and Decisions of the World Health Assembly and the E x e c u t i v e Board, V o l . I , 1948 -1972, page 353.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTi!
REGIONAL OFFICE FOR
THE WESTERN PACIFIC
BUREAU REGIONAL DU PACIFIQUE OCCIDENTAL
REGIONAL COMMITl'EE
WPR/Rc26/6 17 July 1975 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
Twenty-sixth session Manila 1-6 September 1975 Provisional agenda item 12 CURRENT PROORESS OF PROORAMMES
RECEIVING WHO ASSI:1TANCE IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC RIDION
Report by the Regional Director 1. QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO GOVERNMENTS
The Regional Committee at its twenty-second session adopted resolution WPR/RC22.R18, requesting the Regional Director to continue to collect information and data from countries or areas as a basis for the periodic evaluation of the progress of WHO-assisted programmes, and to report his observations and findings to the Committee every two or three years. Reports had been presented to the twenty-first and twenty-second sessions evaluating the progress of WHO-assisted projects in the periods July 1969 to June 1970 and July 1970 to June 1971. 1 In pursuance of resolution WPR/RC22.R18 a questionnaire, which was a slightly modified version of that used in the first and second evaluations, was sent to governments to elicit their views on WHO-assisted health 8Ctivities for the period July 1973 to June 1974. The replies received provide the basis for this report. A few of the questions asked in the first and second evaluations were deleted as the information in question was already available at the Regional Office (e.g., whether the country had a national socio-economic development plan; whether the country had a national health plan and, if so, whether this plan formed part of the national socio-economic development plan; and whether the objectives of WHO-assisted projects in the country were clearly related to the specific problems to be solved). New questions added, on the other hand, sought information on aspects such as: (a) whether government
-
Documents WPRjRC2l/10 (resolution WPR/RC21.R9) and WPRjRC22/12 (resolution WPR/RC22.RIB).
1
WPR/Rc26/6 page 2
contributions in personnel, physical plant, equipment and services, ~s well as WHO support in the project management, were regarded as timely, adequate and of good quality; (b) whether there Was effective cooperation between the relevant government agency and the WHO staff; and (c) whether the training component of the project was proceeding according to pla.n. Some of the original questions were refined in order to obtain more preciss replies than those given previously (e.g., (a) whether targets had been attained and, if not, what were the problems perceived; and (b) whether the assessments made of the efficacy of the methods used were ~atisfactory). In the questionnaire, WHO-assisted country activities were referred to as projects rather than programmes, as the activities normally undertaken are concerned with achieving in particular areas specific objectives within a limited time span. As regards content, the questionnaire considered in respect of each project: whether the objectives were apt and attainable within a limited span of time; the local applicability and effectiveness of the metheds employed (transferable technology); the availability of resources; whether its planning and implementation were flexible: and its impact on the population. WHO-assisted activities dealing with fellowships alone were not included in the questionnaire because they are subject to separate periodical evaluation. Projects consisting only of consultantships, which numbered about 30 between July 1973 and June 1974, were also e:-tch:ded, as thE.. relevant information could not have been obtained throug.."1 the questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent to fifteen countries or areas. with a total of 75 WHO-assisted long-term health projects.
-
---~
2•
SUMMARY OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY GOVERNMENTS
Fourteen, or 93.3%, of the fifteen countries/areas who received the questionnaire replied; one however submitted an incomplete questionnaire in respect of one of its projects. The remaining country with 8 projects ~'3.s unable to reply because of the state of emergency existing at the time the questionnaire was received. The replies furnished the informatio'1 requested on 66 out of 75 projects, giving a project response rate of 88.0%. For each item in the questionnaire one of two boxes could be ticked for a "yes" or "no" reply. Where further information was needed, a "branching" question was asked, with several boxes that could be ticked to indicate alternative replies. A "catch-all" alternative of "others" was included. Spaces were also provided for writing answers in cases where alternatives were not provided in the questionnaire. The figures in Table 1 (Summary by country/area) and in Table 2 (Summary by subject) denote the number of projects for which affirmative
-
WPR/RG26/6 page 3 replies were received. As there were 66 projects for which replies were received. the difference between 66 and the total given in the tables represents in each case the number of projects on which negative replies were received. For purposes of comparison. the totals and percentages of affirmative replies received from governments during the first and second evaluations are tabulated at the bottom of summary Tables 1 and 2. together with the totals and percentages for the third evaluation. The countries/areas participating in the three evaluations are listed in Annex 1 and the subjects concerned in Annex 2. In the latter. there are changes in the programme areas used for the third evaluation compared to those used for the first and second evaluations. These changes reflect the WHO classification of programmes as it was on 1 April 1974. Of the 66 projects. 49 (74.2%) had objectives which could be translated into quantifiable targets to be achieved within their duration. Eight of the remaining 17 projects (47.0%), did not have quantifiable targets but appropriate criteria had been developed to assess progress in the accomplishment of their objectives. Objectives were reported as being accomplished for 41 projects (62.1%) in terms of attainment of quantified targets or compliance with criteria. and not accomplished for 25. Reasons given for failure included: lack of staff in 14 projects (21.2%); delays in project staff training in 8 (12.1%): delays by the government in delivering equipment in 8 (12.1%); delays in the delivery of other government commitments in 3 (4.5%); and other factors in 14 (21.2%). Progress being achieved was in general measured against baseline data and information already available in the case of 52 projects (78.8%). Replies on 35 projects (53.0%) in which transferable technology was used before WHO assistance commenced indicated that WHO assistance was expected to contribute to the strengthening. improvement and/or dissemination of technology in the country. These expectations were confirmed in 33 out of the 35 projects (94.3%). There were 27 projects in which transferable technology had been introduced after WHO assistance commenced. and the consensus of the replies was that its use would be continued after conclusion of the assistance. The questionnaire sought information as to whether contributions to the project by the government and WHO were "timely", "adequate" and "of good quality". It emerged from the individual replies that those completing the questionnaire had assumed incorrectly that only one choice was to be made among the three items. Thus. in considering the replies. this misunderstanding should be kept in mind. Nevertheless, a positive impression can be gained from the replies. The following government contributions to project activities were classified as "timely": provision of government personnel (e.g.. secretarial or clerical assistance) in 35 projects. of physical plant (e.g •• office space, teaching facilities) in 33. and of equipment and services (e.g •• typewriters.
-
WPR,lRC26/6 page 4
audio-visual equipment) in 28. Provisions were rated: (a) "adequate", in respect of government personnel in 45 projects, physical plant in 47, and equipment and services in 37; and (b) "of good quaUty", in respect of personnel in 25 projects, physical plant in 26 and equipment and services in 24. The WHO contribution was rated: (a) "timely", in respect of technical support from WHO staff in 42 projects, fellowships awarded in 39 and provision of supplies and equipment in 26; (b) "adequate", in respect of technical support in 46 projects, fellowships in 37 and supplies and equipment in 34; and (c) "of good quality", in respect of technical support in 46 projects, fellowships in 32 and suppHes and equipment in 28. Effective cooperation between the relevant government agency and the WHO staff was reported in 62 of the 66 projects (93.9%). In 60 (90.0%) of these projects, the training component was proceedir~ according to plan. In 41 projects (62.1%). government commitments in the provision of local resources were being fully met and in 38 (57.6%), local resources were being fully and effectively utilized. The gove~Tents could not meet their commitments in 22 projects (33.3%); it was felt that the deficiency could be overcome by adding and making more efficient use of resources in 19 of these projects and by simply adding resources in three of them. The non-resource constraints encountered in the operation of the and social climate (37.9%). existing legislation (27.3%). the physical environment (19. ), institl;tional struc ture (33.3%), supplies and equipment (27.3%) m.d other factors such as communications (16.7%). It was noted that in 46.2% to 76.0% of projects non-resource constraints were being reduced or eliminated by the governments concerned.
-
66 projects included the political
The following non-resource constraints relating to WHO were mentioned: WHO policy in 9 projects, supplies system in 8. and other constraints in 4. Constraints arising from WHO policy appeared to relate more to procedures and practices, e.g., delays on the part of the Regional Office in dealing with reports of WHO technical staff, insufficient comprehension by WHO staff of local problems and difficulties. and duplication of WHO assistance (not specified) in some projects. Delays in the delivery of supplies and equipment provided by WHO in three projects and failure to provide them in one project were among the constraints attributed to WHO. For four projects the other non-resource constraints ascribed to WHO were not specified, although it was possible to infer in two cases that they were of an administrative nature. relating to personnel recruitment and continuity of consultant services.
WPR;RC26/6 page 5 Regular reviews of plans of action had been undertaken for the following reasons: to adapt the operations to budgetary and other resource constraints of the government and WHO in 52 projects (78.8%), to introduce innovations necessitated by progress in technology and management in 53 (80.3%) and to incorporate modifications in the objectives, methods and/or targets in 45 (68.2%). The following criteria were suggested for use either singly or in combination to assess the efficacy of the methods used in the reviewed projects: (a) target accomplishment on the basis of performance standards; (b) cost-effectiveness of the results obtained; (c) quality of the results obtained; and (d) a combination of two or more of the above criteria. Satisfactory results were reported in respect of: 22 out of 30 projects assessed with a combination of two or more of the criteria, two out of six assessed with the criterion of target accomplishment, and one out of five assessed with the quality criterion. The replies showed that long-term WHO-assisted projects were helping to satisfy the needs of the people through: (a) accomplishment of the specific project objectives (78.8%);
(b) achievement of the broader objectives of the national health programmes to which the projects were linked (83.3%); (c) the positive relationship between the projects and national socio-economic development plans (60.6%). 3. COMPARISON OF FINDINGS IN THE THREE EVAllJATIONS
--
Replies to identical questions in the three questionnaires will now be compared to determine the pattern of government responses in the evaluation of their long~term WHO-assisted projects. The response rate by countries/areas is highest for the most recent evaluation (July 1973 - June 1974), i.e. 93.3% as against 91.7% for the second (July 1970 - June 1971) and 85.7% for the first (July 1969 - June 1970). The response rate by projects is: 88.0% for the third evaluation, 92.8% for the second and 78.0% for the first. As indicated in summary Tables 1 and 2, the proportion of projects with quantified targets increased from 60.9% in the first evaluation to 74.2% in the third evaluation. However, the proportion of projects with baseline information and data against which to measure progress remained about the same (78%) in the three evaluations.
•
WPR/Rc26/6 page 6 More and more transferable technology was being introduced at the commencement of WHO assistance (40.9% in the third evaluation as against approximately 28% in the first and second), and the replies indicate that WHO assistance was expected to ensure continuation of the technology after conclusion of the assistance. The replies to all three questionnaires also showed that governments had been unable to meet their commitments in about one-third of all longterm country projects. The three evaluations also showed that in roughly 40% of projects non-resource constraints were encountered due to the political and social climate in the country, while in 25-30% the constraints resulted from existing legislation, physical environment, institutional structure a~d the supplies system. However, in more than 50% of projects measures were being taken to reduce or eliminate the constraints. For about 10% of projects reviewed in the three evaluations, nonresource constraints were attributed to WHO's policies (or more accurately its practices and procedures) and its supplies system. In 80% of the projects in the three evaluations, plans of action were regularly reviewed to make them conform to budgetary and other resource constraints and to enable relevant technology and management innovations to be introduced. The plans of action of 70% of the projects were reviewed periodically to enable the objectives, methods and/or targets to be modified. In each of the three evaluation exercises about 33.3% of the projects reviewed were assessed for efficacy by a combination of two or more of the following criteria: target accomplishment. cost-effectiveness of results and quality of results; and of the projects so assessed, two-thirds were rated satisfactory. Approximately 80% of all projects reviewed in each exercise were credited by governments with having directly or indirectly satisfied the needs of the population through: accomplishment of their specific objectives; their positive contribution to the national health programmes with which they were linked; or their contribution to the implementation of the national socio-economic plans. 4. CONCWSIONS
~
-
Modification of the questionnaire after the first two evaluations made it possible to elicit more information in the third one. There are nevertheless some limitations. First of all, although the third evaluation was based on information collected from nine-tenths of
WPR!Rc26/6 p~e7~
the long-term country proJects, one country, with eight projects, was unable to respond. Secondly, the analysis and evaluation are based entirely on government replies. It is hoped that fuller cover~e can be achieved in the future through the continued cooperation of Member states. A third limitation lies in the imprecise formulation of some questions, which were not well understood by the respondents. Consequently, it is planned to ensure further refinement of future questionnaires. Such evaluation by countries and the regular review of country programmes and projects in the Regional Office provide the basis for developing the future policy and programmes of WHO assistance to countries and areas in the Western Pacific Region.
WPR/RC26/6 pages 9/10 ANNEX 1
LIST OF COUNTRIES OR AREAS PARTICIPATING IN THE THREE EVALUATIONS ON THE CURRENT PROGRESS OF PROGRAMMES RECEIVING WHO ASSISTANCE Second evaluation First evaluation July 1969-June 1970 July 1970-June 1971 Third evaluation July 1973-June 1974
Countries/areas 1. British Solomon Islands Protectorate* 2. Cambodia
/
/
/ / / /
3. Cook Islands 4. Fiji 5. Gilbert and Ellice Islands 6. Laos 7. Malaysia 8. New Hebrides 9· Papua New Guinea 10. Philippines 11. Republic of Korea
/ / /
/ /
/
/
/ I / /
/ I /
/ /
I / I
12. South Viet-Nam 13. Singapore
I / /
/ / /
/ I j
14. Taiwan
-
15. Tonga 16. Western Samoa Number of countries/ areas which sent in completed replies to the questionnaire Number of countries/ areas which received copies of the questionnaire Response rate (%)
I I 12
/ 11
14
14
12
15
85.7
91.7
93.3%
*From
15 June 1975:
Solomon Islands.
WPR/RC26/6 pages 11/12 ANNEX 2
LIST OF SUBJEC'rS FIRST AND SECOND EVAWATIONS Subject Communicable diseases Tuberculosis; leprosy Malaria; filariasis Environmental health Public health services Public health administration; health laboratory services; nursing; health education; rehabilitation; epidemiology and statistics Aspects included Venereal diseases; epidemiological surveillance; international quarantine
Maternal and child health; nutrition Health protection and promotion Education and training Occupational health; mental health
THIRD EVAWATION Subject Strengthening of health services Family health Health manpower development Communicable disease prevention and control Epidemiological surveillance of communicable diseases; malaria and other parasitic diseases; bacterial diseases; mycobacterial diseases; venereal diseases and treponematoses; veterinary public health; vector biology and control Provision of basic sanitary measures; pre-investment planning for basic sanitary services; control of environmental pollution and hazards; health of working populations; biomedical and environmental health aspects of ionizing radiation; establishment and strengthening of environmental health services and institutions; food standards programme Development of health statistical services Aspects included Strengthening of health services; health laboratory services Maternal and child health; human reproduction; nutrition; health education
Promotion of environmental health
Health statistics
( Table 1.
(
WHO-ASSIS1llD PROJECTS IN COUNTRIES OR AREAS FURNISHING AFFIRMATIVE REPLIES
Objectives No. of WHO- INo. of WHOassisted assisted projects with projects on )rrans18ted long-term which replies nto assistance were received quantifiable i targets
of the projects No quantifiable targets but with criteria for determining
Targets and cri taria ~ Have not been attained due to: Have been
attained
l.ack of staff
delay in training
accomplishments 1
delay in delivery of equipment
delay in govtj Other contribution reasons
Baseline informa tion and data available to measure progress of project
BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECroRAW CAMBODIA COOK ISLANDS
2
2
1
1
8 1 1 1 10 11 )
o 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1
FIJI GILIlERT AND ELIJCE ISLANDS
1 1 1
1
LAOS MALAYSIA !lEW HEBRIDl!S
10 11
3 9 2
3
9 4
7 2
3 2
2 1
1 1
6 2
7 2
:> h
1
PAPUA !lEW GUINEA PHILIPPINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA
4
3
2
1
1
3 1 1
5 7 2
5 '(
5
4 2
4
5 2
6 1
1 1
7 1 11
SINGAPORE SOUTH VJET-NAM roNGA WES'lERN SAMOA
2 1;'
14 2
12 2
8 1
4 1
4
1
2
1
1
2
4
2
2
2 1 • i 2 L 1 '2: " ----+.-----1---+----- ----~-I-
Third evaluation No.
75
56 100.0
49 74.2
8 12.1
ill 62.1
:4
,S 12.1
8 12.1
1
" 52 78.S 50
3 4·5
I 1
14 21..,
I L'
1------
% 69
---I---
21.2
Second evaluation No.
0-+ 100.0
43 67.2
'I 10.9 )6
--1--- -- ~ i
1 i .
1---_ _ _ _ _ _ _%_____ First evaluation No~
_____ , _ _ _ 78_._1_ _--1
118
92 100.0
% * From 15 June 1975: Solomon Islands.
56 60.9
72 78.3
39.1
Hi :::0 ~
~/'Ibis question was not asked in the first and second evaluatior~}i.
v:
" ':;J....0 10
~ '0'
'g ~
q;j~ f-'O -,,"IU
Table 1.
(continued) It was expected that WHO assistance would promote It was expected that WHO
~
~ . Country
No, of WHO-
No. of WHO-
Transferable technology introduced Before inception of project
assisted projects
assisted projects on which replies
This expectation was confirmed during operation
with long-term assistance 2
were received 2
(A) 2
After inception of project (B)
use of technology in the
assistance would ensure continuous use of technology after end of projects under (B)
country through projects under (A) 2
of projects under (A)
BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECTORATE
2
CAMBODIA COOK ISLANDS FIJI GILBERT AND ELUCE ISLANDS LAOS MALAYSIA NEW HEBRIDES PAPUA NEW GUINEA PHlUPP1NES REPUBUC OF KOREA SINGAPORE SOUTH VIET-NAM TONGA WESTERN SAMOA
8 1 1 1 10
a 1 1 1 1 2 9 1 8 1 2 4 1 2 9 1 1 1 9 1 8 1 2 1 1
1 1 10
11 3
11 3 4 5 7 2 13 2 4
4 5 7 2
4 3 5 2 3 2 2
3 5 2 6 2 2
2 2
4 2 6 2 2
14 2 4
4
6 2
4
2
2
2
Third evaluation No. 75 66 100.0 3553.0 2740.9 35 (35/35) 100.0 33 (33/35) 94.3 27 (27/27) 100.0
0/, Second evaluation No. 69
I I
64 100.0
46 71. 9
"/, First evaluation No.
18 2B.1
46 100.0
41 89.1
16
88.9
118 --------
92 100.0
\")5
27 29.4 -_. ----- - ---_.
65
% --_._-
70. 6
100.0
60 32.3 -_ .. -
26 96.3
'-
From 15 June 1975: Solomon Islands. For four projects the question was not answered.
( .'
(
Table 1.
(continued)
~. COW'ltry BRITISH SOLCfol:ON ISLANDS PRQ'IY,c'K>RA'IE
No. of WHO-
No. of WHO-
assisted assisted proJects wi til proJects on long-tenn which replies assistance were received 2 2
Government counterpart contributions considered timely. adequate. and of good quality !I Per~onnel Ph sical plant Equipment and services
WHO support to the project management considered timely. Technical support from WHO staff
adequate, and of good quality!Y Fellowships Timely Of good Adequate quality 2 2
Supplies end eouipment Timely ~deqUate Of good
Timely
Adequate
Of good
quality 2
Timely
Of good Adequate quality 2 2
Timely
Adequate
Of good
qual1 ty 2
Timely
Adequate
Of good
'lusH ty
quality
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
CAMBODIA
8 1 1 1 10 11
0 1 1 1 10 11
COOK ISLANDS
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 9 6 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
FIJI GlUERT AND ELIJ.CE ISLANDS
LAre MAlAYSIA
6 2
4
3 4
6 3
5 7
3 3 1 1 2
4
4
3
10
8 10
8
8 8 2
I
7 5 2
7 2
7 5 2
7
7 2
1
7 1
3 3 1 2
7
-r 1 2
3 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 2
_
l£mlDES
3 PAPUA NEW GUINEA
3 4 5 7 2
3 1 3 4 1 2
1 2
3 1
4 0
1 4 5 1 8 2 2
4 4
1 4 2
4 4 5 2
1 4
4 3 3 2
3 3 0
1 3 2
1 2
2
1 2
PHILIPPINES
4 4 1 5 2
3 6 2
4 3 1 6 2 2
3 3 1 2
REPUBLIC OF KOREA SINGAPOflE SOlmi VIET-NAM 'ruNGA WES'IERN SAMOA
7 2
6 2
5 1 3 2 2
3 1 7 2 2
3 1 1 2 2
5 1 2
3 1 5 2
1 7 2
1 7 2
2 2 2
14 2
13 2
6 2
6 2
4 2
7 2
2 2
2 2
2
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
1
2
'lh1rd evaluation No.
75
66 100.0
35 5).0
45 68.2
25 37·9
33 50.0
47 71.2
26 39.4
28 42.4
37 56.1
24
42 63.6
46
"6 69.7
39
37 56.1
}2 48.5
26 39.4
34 51.5
28
% Second evaluation No.
36.4
0.7
59.1
42.4
0
64
% First evaluation No.
118
92
%
..'" ~
• iii ." ~
From 15 June 1975:
Solomon Islands.
~/'IhlS
'"" '"
~"
question was not asked in,the first and second evaluations.
~~ Table 1.
'g
iii
(continued)
O\~ Deficiency in government commitments in projects under (D) can be met by: effident llse of resources adding more resources
>-'0
~~Country BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECTOBATE' CAMBODIA COOK ISLANDS
No. of WHO-
No. of WHO·
assisted projects assisted projects
Government commitments to provide local resources: met
Local resources
fully and effectively utilized in projeers under (C)
There is effective cooperation between the government
Training comporrent of the
with long-term assistance 2
on which replies were received 2
project is pra-
not met (D)
both of these means
agency and the WHO
ceeding according to plan a/
(C)
provided
staff a/ 2
1
1
1
1
2
8 1 1 1 10 11 3 4 5 7 2
0 l
1 1 1 2
1 1 1 7 3 2 2 B
1 1 1 1 1 6 2 2
1 I
FIJI GILBERT AND ELLICE ISLANDS LAOS MALAYSIA NEW HEBRIDES PAPUA NEW GmNEA PHILIPPINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA SINGAPORE SOUTH VIET-NAM TONGA WESTERN SAMOA
1 1 10 11 3 4 5 7 2
1 10
10 11 2
8 1 4 3 7
8 3 4 5 7 2
1 4
3 2
2
3 7 2
5 7 2
2 7 4
14
13 ~
4
1
3
11
10 2
2 4
2 1 3
2
2 3 4
4
1
4
Third evaluation No.
75
66 100.0
41**
22"*
38 57.6 37 57.8 47 51. 1 1 5.0 4 10.3
3 (3/22) 13.6 6 30.0 10 25 6
19 (19/22) 86.4 9 45.0 23 59.0
u'2 93.9
60 90.9
0/, Second evaluation No.
62.1 44
33.3 20 31. 2 39
69
64
'I, Fi [st evaluation No.
100.0 118
68.8 53 57 6
92 100 0
0/, " from 15 June 1975: Solomon Islands. '*>10
42.4
for three projects the Question was not answered.
al
, This question was not asked in the first and second evaluations.
(
( t
( Table 1.
(continued)
~ Country BRITISH SOWMON ISLANDS PROTECTORATE" CAMBODIA COOK ISLANDS Fill GILBERT AND ELLICE ISLANDS LAOS MALAYSIA NEW HEBRIDES PAPUA NEW GUINEA PIITUPPINES REPUBUC OF KOREA SINGAPORE SOUTH VlET-NAM TONGA WESTERN SAMOA
Non~resource
No. of WHO-
No. of WIlO-
Non-resource constraints encountered in
COlUltry
constraints in country that can be minimized or eliminated
assisted projects
assisted projects on which replies were received
with long-term assistance
Political and social
Existing legislation
Physical environment
Institutional structure
Supplies
Political
climate
system
Others
and social
Existing
PhYsical environment
Institu tional structure
Supplies
Others
!
climate
legislation
system
2
2 0
1
1
1
8 1 1 1 10
1 1 1 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6 4 1 1 1
2
1 5 1
2 4
3
6 4 4
2 2 3
1 3
2 3 3
11 3 4 5 7 2 14 2
11 3 4 5 7 2 13 2
3 1
4 2
2 1
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 1
1 2
1 1
1
2 2
8
7
1
4
4
2
4
5
2
2
1 I
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
,
Third evaluation No.
75
66 100.0
25 37.9
18 27.3
13 19.7
22
18 27.3
11 16.7
19 (19/25) 76.0
12 (12/18) 66.7
6 (6/13) 46.2
14 (14/22) 63.6
10 (10/18) 55.6
7 (7/11) 63.6
'/, Second evaluation No.
33.3
69
64 100.0
28 43.8
21 32.8
19 29.7
20 31. 2
23 35.9
17 26.6
7 25.0
12 57.1
10 52.6
13 65.0
11 47 S
% First evaluation No.
10 58.8
118
92 100.0
37 40.2
23 25.0
'/, * From 15 Jane 1975: Solomon Islands
28 30.4
28 30.4
25 27.2
19 20.7
28 75.7
19 82.6
23 82.1
24 85.7
21 84.0
12 63.2
~ ~ I-'
~~ --..:i i'':\ ',"
r.,
C'. ::~
11 ~ 'l%-S Table 1.
(continued)
.... " COf\)
~ Non-resource constraints on the part of WHO
'"
Non-resource constraints on the pan of WHO No. ofWHO-
No. of WHOassisted projects
that can be minimized or eliminated
Project plan of action reviewed regularly to: allow for introduce
Query
assisted projects
incorporate
with long-term assistance
on which replies were received
WHO,policies
Supplies system
Others
WHO policies
Supplies system
Olhers
budgetary and other resource
relevant
modifications in objectives,
technology and management
Country BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTfCTORA TE' CAMBODIA I
constraints 2 8 2 2
methods. targets
innovations 2
2
0 1 1 1 10 11 3 4 5 7 2 2
COOK ISLANDS FIJI GILBERT AND ELliCE ISLANDS LAOS MALAYSIA NEW HEBRIDES PAPUA NEW GUINEA PfllLIPPINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA SINGAPORE SOUTH VIET-NAM TONGA WESTE RN SAMOA
1 1 1 10 11 3 4 5 7 2 14 2
1
1 1 1 1 7 10
1
1 8 10 1 3 5 7 I
2 1
1
10 11 2
2 2
I
2
3 1 4 4
3 4 7
1 1
13 2 4
3
1
3
9 2
8 2 3
7 2 I
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
Third evaluation No.
75
66 100.0
9 13. 6
8 12.1
4
7 (7/9) 77.8
2 (2;0) 25.0
2
52 78.8
53 80.3
45 68.2
(2/4) 50.0
'I, Second evaluation No.
6. 1
69
64 100.0
-
6 9.4
13 20.3
% rirst evaluation No.
10 15.6
5 83.3
9 69.2
7 70.0
51 79. 7
52 8]. 3
47 73.4
118
92 100.0
10 10.9
9
10 10.9
0/, From lS June 1975: Solomon I'lands.
9.8
9 GO.O
7 77. ,
7 70.0
72 78.3
75 8]. 5
65 70.7
(
(
( Table 1.
( continued)
~ Country
No. of WHOassisted projects with long-term assistance
No. of WHO-
Efficacy of target accomplishment (E)
method~
assessed on the basis of: Quality of
Results considered satisfactory through assessment on the basis of:
assisted projects on which replies were received cost - effectiveness of results (F)
2 or all of these criteria (Il)
results (G) 1
target accomplishment (projeers under E)
cost-effectiveness of results (projects under F)
quality of results (projects under G)
2 or all of these criteria (pro jeers under H
BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECTORATE'
2 B 1 1
2 0
1
1
CAMBODIA COOK ISLANDS FIJI GILBERT AND ELLICE ISLANDS LAOS MALAYSIA NEW HEBRIDES PAPUA NEW GUINEA PHILIPPINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA SINGAPORE SOUTH VIET - NAM TONGA WESTERN SAMOA Third evalua tion
I 1 1
1 1
1
1 10
1 10
1 2
1 1 1 3
1 5 1 3 4
11 3 4 5 7
11 3 4 5 7 2 13 2 4 1
1 3 3 4 I
1
6
2 14 2 4
1 2 3 4 1 1 1
1 2 1
No.
75
66 100.0
6 9.1
5 7.6
30 45.5
2 (2(6) 33.3
1 (1(5) 20.0
22 (22(30) 73.3
,,/0 Second evaluation No. 69
64 100.0
23 35.9
12 1B.8
24 37.5
17 26.6
20 87.0
8 66.7
20 83.3
15 33.2
"/0 First evaluation
No.
118
92 100.0
9 9. B
,,/0 * From 15 June 1975: Solomon Islands.
1 1.1
10 10.9
31 33.7
5 55.6
1 100,0
5 50.0
23
74.2
'g ~ '" :>l ,..,0
"'~
"'''' ~
'rJ~ Table 1.
'g~ ",0
(continued)
0", <J\
'd\
, ,
~ Country
No. of WHO-
No. of WHO-
Project considered to be satisfying the population's needs through:
assisted projects assisted pro jeers with long-term assistance
on which replies
were received 2
accomplishment of its specific objectives
its contriburion in meeting the broader objectives of the programme to which it blinked 2
its contribution to the national socia-economic development plan 1
BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECTORATE'
2 8 1 1 1 10 11 3 4 ;j
2
!
CAMBODIA COOK ISLANDS FIn GILBERT AND ELUCE ISLANDS LAOS MALAYSLA NEW HEBRIDES PAPUA NEW GInNEA PHILIPPINES REPUBLIC OF KOREA SINGAPORE SOUTH VIET-NAM TONGA WESTERN SAMOA
0 1 1 1 10 1 9 9 2 4
I
I
1
1 1 8 11 3 4
1 2 10 1 4 4
11 3 4
5 7 2
5 5 1 7 2
5 5
7 2
3 1 7 1 4
1 8 2
14 2 4
13 2 4
·1
3
.,. Third evaluation No. 75 66 100.0 52 78.8 55 83.3 40 60. 6
0/, Second evaluation No. 69
64 100.0
55 85. 9
51 79.7
41 64.1
0/, rirst evaluation No.
118
92 100.0
77 83.7
69 75.0
65
"f,
70.7
from 1fl June 1<;)75: Solomon Islands.
(
( I
(
TABlE 2.
WII0-ASSIS1ED PROJEC'IB ACCORDING TO SUBJECT ON WHICH AFFIRMATIVE REPLIES WERE FURNISHED
~ SubJeot I. STRENGTHENING OF REALTH SERVICES FAMrLY HEALTH HEALTH MANPC1t/ER DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICABlE DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HEALTH STATISTICS
No. of WHONo. of WHOassisted assisted projeots with proJects on long-term which replies assistance were rece! ved
Objectives of the project
Translated into
No quantifiable targets but with
Targets and oriteria ~ Have not been attained due to: Have been attained
Baseline information and data Other
quantifiable determining targets
criteria for accomplishments
lack of staff
delay in training
delay in delay in govt. delivery of contribution equipment
reasons
available to measure progress of proJeot
19 9
16 8
7 5
5 1
12
1
11 6
4
4
2
2
1
4
15
13
11
1
11
2
2
9
20
17
15
1
8
5
2
4
1
6
16
10
10
9
4 2
3
4
2
1
1
8 2
2
2
2
Third evaluation No. 75 66 100.0 49 74.2 8 12.1 41 62.1 14 21.2 8 12.1
8 12.1
3 4.5
14 21.2
52 78.8
:!: Second evaluation No.
69
64 100.0
43 67.2
7 10·9
50 78.1
:!: First evaluation I I
No.
118
92 100.0
56 60.9
36 39.1
72 78.3
:!:
i ~ 'rl~ I\)()
..-1\)
!I This
quest10n was not asked in the first and second evaluations.
'" a;
.-g C/O
~ '"
Table 2.
(continued)
1\)0 1\)1\)
"'';r
~ It was expected that WHO
I I
~ Subject
No. of WHO-
No. of WHOassisted projects
Transfe,Iable technology introduced
assisted projects with long -term assistance
on which replies were received
Before inception of project (A) 8
After inception of project (8)
assistance would promote use of technology in the country through projects under..i& 8
This expectation was
It was expected that WHO
confirmed during operation of projects under (A)
assistance would eusure. continuous use of techoology after end of projects under (8)
STRENGTHENING OF HEALTH SERVICES
19
16
7
6
7
FAMILY HEALTH
9
8
4
4
4
4
4
HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
15
13
6
6
6
6
6
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE PREVENTiON AND CONTROL
20
17
11
6
11
11
6
PROMOTiON OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
10
10
5
3
5
5
.,
HEALTH STATISTICS
2
2
1
1
\
1
l
I Third evaluation No. 75 66 100.0 !
35' 53.0
27" 40.9
35 (35/35) 100.0
33 (33/35) 94.3
27 (27/27) 100.0 I
% Second evaluation
No.
69
64 100.0
46 7l.3
18 28. 1
46 100.0
41 89. 1
16 88.9
"!, First evaluation No.
llS
92 100.0
65 70.6
27 20. ·1
65 100.0
60 92.3
26 96.3
,,!o
FOT four projects the qucstlul1 was [lot ansvlereu.
(
(
Table 2.
(continued)
~ Subject S'mENGTIiENING OF HEALTH SERVlCES
No. of WHOassisted projects wi th long-term assistance
No. of WHO~ assisted projects on which replies were received
Government counterpart contributions considered timely, adequate, and of good qual1 ty ~/ Personnel Physical plant Equipment and services Timely Adequate Of good quality Timely Adequate Of good quality Timely Adequate Of good quality
,
f,upport to the project management considered timely, adequa te. and of good quali ty I}/ Technical support from WHO staff Fellowships Supplies and equipment Timely Adequate Of good quality Timely Adequate Of good quality Timely Adequate Of good
\mo
quality
19
16
9
11
9
8
11
4
7
8
5
I , I , i , I
11
9
14
10
8
8
6
8
7
FAMILY HEALTH
9
8
4
5
3
5
4
3
5
5
3
, I I ,
6
'I
7
4
5
5
4
6
5
HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
15
1)
5
9
5
6
11
9
5
9
8
i
9
10
10
10
9
7
7
7
6
COMMUNICABIE DISEASE PREVENTION AND CON'rnOL
20
17
12
12
6
10
12
7
8
7
6
11
13
10
11
10
10
6
8
7
PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
10
10
4
7
2
4
8
3
3
7
2
I
J,
i : , I 24
" 1
5
"
5
2
3
" 1
3
,
mALTH STATISTICS
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
First evaluation No. ~
75
66 100.0
35 53·0
45 68.2
25 37·9
33 ')0.0
47 71.2
26 ~9.1j.
28 42.4
37 56.1
36.4
! I
42 63.6
"0
OJ.7
.6 &:J.7
3') 5'9.1
I f 37 56.1
i I
32 '18.~
26
34 51. 5
28 42.4
39 .•
Second evaluation No. ~
0
64
First evaluation No.
ll8
92 --
%
1-
I
-g~
'!/'lbiS question was not asked in the first and
~econd
evaluations.
1'" ,,~
"'''' ~
Table 2.
(continued)
ii ~ Deficiency in govemmeot commitments in projects under ED) can be met by:
'gi'tj
~ Subject STRENGTHENING OF HEALTH SERVICES FAMILY HEALTH HEALTH MANPOWER DEVEWPMENT COMMUNICABLE DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Government corrunitments
No. ofWHOassisted projects with long-term assistance
No. ofWHOassisted projects
Local resources fully and
There is effective cooperation between
to provide local resources:
Training com-I ponent of the project Is pro- I ceeding aceor- . dillS! to Dlan!/ '
on which replies were received
met (C) 10
not met
effectively utilized in projeets unde:r (C)
efficient use of resources adding more resources
the government both of these agency and the WHO
(D) 5
provided
means 4
staff !/ 14
19
16
10
1
14 I
9
8
4
4
3
4
7
6
15
13
8
5
8
1
4
12
13
20
17
12
5
10
1
4
17
16
PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
10
10
6
3
6
3
10
9
HEALTH STATISTICS
2
2
1
I
2
2
Third evaluation
No.
75
66 100.0
41' 62.1
22' 33.3
38 S7.6
3 (3/22) 13.6
19 (19/22) 86.4
62 93.9
60 90.9
I
"" Second evaluation No.
69
64 100.0
44 68.8
20 31. 2
"/, First evaluation No. 118 .-
37 57.8
1 5.0
6 30.0
9 45.0
92 100.0
53 57.6
39 42.4
47 51.1 -----
4 10.3 -
"/, "" For three projects the question was not answered. ~/This
10 25.6 -'---.
23 59.0
-
question was not asked in the first and second evaluations.
(
(
( Table 2. (continued)
~ Subject
No. of WHO-
No. of WHO-
Non-resource constrainB encountered in country
Non-resource constraints in country that cao be minimized or eliminated
assisted projects
assisted projects on which replies were received
with long-term assistance
Political and social
Existing
Physical enviroo-
Institu-
climate
legislation
tiona1 structure
Supplies system
Political Others
and social
Existing
physical
105titu-
ment
climate
legislation
environmen!
tiona1 structure
Supplies system
Others
STRENGTHENING OF HEALTH SERVICES
19
16
5
4
3
7
5
4
2
3
2
FAMILY HEALTH
9
8
4
2
1
2
1
8
4
1
2
1
2
HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
15
13
3
2
1
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
COMMUNiCABLE DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
20
17
7
4
6
2
6
3
7
4
3
1
3
1
PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
10
10
4
5
2
7
3
2
2
5
2
6
2
2
HEALTH STA TISTICS
2
2
2
1
1
Third evaluation No.
75
66 100.0
25. 37.9
18 27 3
13 19.7
22 33.3
18 27.3
11
"/0 Second evaluation No.
16.7
19 (19/25) 76.0
12 (12/18) 66.7
6
14
(6/13) 46.2
(14/22) 63.6
10 (l0/18) 55.6
7 (7/11) 63.6
69
64 100.0
0/0 First evaluation No.
28 43.8
21 32.8
19 29.7
20 31. 2
23 35.9
17 26.6
7 25.0
12 57.1
10 52.6
13 65.0
11
47.8
10 58.8
118
92 100.0
37 40.2
23 25.0
28 30.4
28 30.4
25 27.2
19 20.7
28 75.7
19 82.6
23 82. 1
24 85.7
21 84.0
12 63.2 -
%
--
'g ;0;;
~~ f\)(}
V1
f\)
~
~~ Table 2. (continued) ~ru ~
'g~ ruO
6;
I
Non-resource constraints on the
part of WHO
Non-resource constraints on the part of WHO
Query
No. of WHO-
No. of WHO-
that can be minimized or eliminated
Project plan of action revie •.,ed regularly to: allow for introduce relevant technology and management
assisted projects Subject
assisted projects on which fe.plies were received
incorporate modifications
with long-term assistance
WHO policies
Supplies system
Others
WHO pOlicies
Supplies system
Others
budgetary and other resource
in objectives, methods,
constraints
innovations 12
ta",ets 11
STRENGTHENING OF HEALTH SERVICES
19
16
1
1
1
1
1
14
FAMILY HEALTH
9
8
2
1
3
1
1
7
8
4
HEALTH MANPOWER DEVEWPMENT
15
13
3
1
2
1
S
11
10
COMMUNfCASLE DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
20
17
1
3
1
1
15
16
16
PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
10
10
2
2
2
7
6
3
HEALTH STATISTICS
2
2
1
1
Third evaluation No. 75 66 100.0
9 13.6
8 12.1
4 6.1
7 (7/9) 77.8
2 (2/8) 25.0
2 (2/4) 50.0
52 78.8
53 SO.3
45 68.2
"/0 Second evaluation No.
69
64 100.0
6 9.4
13 20.3
10 15.6
5 83.3
9 69.2
7 70.0
51 79.7
52 81.3
47 73.4
"/0 First evaluation No. llS ----
92 100.0 -----
10 10.9 ---------
9 9.S
10
9 90.0
7 77.S ---------
7 70.0 -------
72 7S.3
75
65 70.7
,,/0
10. 9
81. 5 - - -
(
(
( Table 2.
(continued)
~ Subject
No. of WHO-
No. of WHO-
Efficacy of methods assessed on de basis of: target
Results considered satisfactory through assess ment on the basis of: target accomplishmem (projeers under E)
assisted projE'crs with long-term assistance
assisted projects on which replies were received
cost -effectiveness of results (f)
quality of results (G)
2 or all of these
cost -effectiveness of results (projects under F)
accomplishment (E)
criteria (H)
quality of results (projects under G)
2 or all of these criteria (projects under H)
STRENGTHENING OF HEALTH SERVICES
19
16
4
1
4
3
FAMILY HEALTH
9
8
1
1
HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
15
13
1
6
1
5
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
20
17
1
1
15
1
9
PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
10
10
1
4
4
I
HEALTH STATISTICS
2
2
1
1
1
Third evaluation No.
75
66
6 9.1
5 7.6
30 45.5
2
1 (1/5) 20.0
22 (22/30) 73.3 :
(2/6)
"/0 Second evaluation No.
100.0
33.3
69
64 100.0
23 35.9
12 18.8
24 37.5
17 26.6
20 87.0
8 66.7
20 83.3
15 88.2
0/0 First evaluation No.
I 1
llS
92 100.0
9
1
10 10.9
31 33.7
5 55.6
1 100.0
5 50.0 -
0/0
23 -_ .. _ - -
9.8
1.1
7~
j
'g ~
o/iI~
[\)0 --..J !\) J"<
"d;
~ Table 2. (continued)
~~ OJ/\)
iii
~ ;
.~ Query Subject STRENGTHENING OF HEALTH SERVICES FAMILY HEALTH
No. of WHO-
No. of WHOassisted projects on which replies were received
Project considered to be satisfying the population's needs through: its contribution in meeting the broader objectives of the programme to
assisted projects
with long-term assistance
i
accomplishment of its specific objectives
its contribution to the national socia-economic development plan
which it is linked
19
16
11
10
5
9
8
7
8
6
HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
15
13
11
13
8
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE PREVENTiON AND CONTROL
20
17
16
16
14
PROMOTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
10
10
7
7
7
HEALTH STA TISTICS
2
2
1
Third evaluation No.
75
0/0 Second evaluation No.
66 100.0
52 78.8
55 83.3
40 60.6
69
64 100.0
0/0 First evaluation No.
55 85.9
51
79.7
41 64.1
118
0/0
92 100.0
77 83.7
69 75.0
65
70.7
(
(