Costed Implementation Plans: Gaining Traction in Senegal

Trinity Zan

FHI 360 | Technical Advisor

At the recent Family Planning Summit for Safer, Healthier and Empowered Futures in London in July, representatives from country governments, donors, and civil society organizations reconvened, as many had five years earlier, to make bold commitments in support of reaching 120 million women with contraception by 2020. To achieve these commitments, governments and partners within a country must have a shared vision and must coordinate financing and implementation of aligned and complementary activities. Costed Implementation Plans (CIPs) are one way that countries have articulated and guided the who, what, when, and how much will it cost of achieving their FP2020 commitments. As we pause to reflect on the outcomes of our collective efforts over the past five years, I think it is equally important to reflect on the processes we have employed to achieve those outcomes, including how we implement CIPs.

FHI 360, through the K4Health and the Advancing Partners and Communities (APC) Projects, is developing a series of country case studies that examine and document country experiences implementing CIPs, organized around the four key elements of CIP execution:

  1. Foster country ownership
  2. Set up and implement a governance and coordination framework
  3. Mobilize and manage resources
  4. Monitor performance for results

One case study on Tanzania, the first country to develop a CIP, was published in 2015. We are now pleased to share a second case study on Senegal, one of the early adopters of CIPs.

Like Tanzania, Senegal had strong country ownership and active leadership that helped maintain focus and momentum as the country shifted from CIP development into execution. Senegal also placed a major emphasis on performance monitoring, though the approach differed from Tanzania in that Senegal focused on standardizing, collecting and analyzing client-level data, including from regions and districts, while Tanzania focused on activity and output monitoring. Senegal also placed special emphasis on information sharing between national and decentralized levels and among regions as part of the performance monitoring process. Finally, monitoring resource mobilization was a major challenge for Senegal; while the country surpassed the total amount of funding required for the CIP, allocations were spread unevenly across strategic areas of focus.

We hope to produce at least two more case studies in the next several months, with one on Zambia coming very soon. It is my hope that learning about the different ways that countries have approached CIP execution, their successes and their challenges, will help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of country-level FP programs—thereby helping us to achieve our FP2020 commitments. This also helps inform global guidance documents included in the CIP Resource Kit. Check there soon for a CIP Execution Checklist—a tool developed based on learnings from these case studies and other CIP experiences that country-level stakeholders can use to self-assess CIP implementation across the four key components. Happy executing!