EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT IN CONTRIBUTING TO PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS Sample Clauses

EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT IN CONTRIBUTING TO PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS. ACCESS/MCHIP Design USAID/Nigeria was one of the few countries that chose to implement the full HHCC model, the core technical approach introduced under USAID/W’s global ACCESS Project. This HHCC approach worked well in the ACCESS/MCHIP Project for a number of reasons. It comprehensively addressed all three delays that women experience in reaching appropriate EmONC services and the mix of interventions was heavily weighted toward the community and household. The Mission also chose to place increased emphasis on FP, especially during the post partum period, using MNBC as the entry point, and using the terminology of birth spacing rather than FP. These approaches worked well in the highly conservative Northern states of Zambara, Kano and Katsina. When the ACCESS project transitioned into MCHIP, the Mission added emphasis on engaging men through MBSMs, but minimized expansion into broader child health topics, maintaining a tight focus on maternal and newborn service delivery. ACCESS was launched in January 2006 through a National Stakeholders’ Meeting. State selection took place in this context and was based on the highest burden of MNB mortality, as well as donor gaps in the Northern area, which was a USAID strategic priority area. Zamfara and Kano states were eventually agreed upon. In 2007, Xxxxxxx state approached USAID for inclusion in the project and this was agreed to, primarily for political reasons, but this further stretched an already small project budget. LGA selection took place in the context of State Stakeholder Meetings that included the SMOH, Hospital Management Board and Directorate for Primary Health Care and gave the project good state ownership. Criteria was again needs-based, but also focused on LGAs with the greatest population coverage. Facilities were selected within LGAs according to needs, population coverage and the presence of a working minimum of staff and infrastructure. Generally speaking, the various selection processes favored and resulted in geographically scattered coverage within each state, i.e., more LGAs but fewer facilities within each LGA. Only 58 facilities were eventually covered, but they were scattered over 28 LGAs in three states and represented a fraction of the total number of facilities in the three states. Katsina alone has 1006 facilities. Three ACCESS state- level project offices were also required to support activities. Thus, the ACCESS/MCHIP Project coverage was sprinkled across isolated, non-contiguous L...