Evaluation of the Program for Applied Research on Fertility Regulation (PARFR).

The assignment purpose was to provide both an interim and final evaluation of the Program for Applied Research for Fertility Regulation (PARFR) relating specifically to activities over the July 1 1981 to June 30 1986 period. The evaluation focused on the PARFR administration management project portfolio collaboration and relationships with other organizations and their technical approach and accomplishments. PARFR provided the 3-member evaluation team with a complete inventory of projects expenditures funding consultants prior evaluations publications workshops a semi-annual report and so forth for background information and preparation. The chairperson of the team interviewed staff of agencies involved in contraception research and development and family planning assistance as well as the principal investigators of several PARFR sub-projects. The team held discussions with the principal investigator director assistant director and direction of administration of PARFR. A site visit was held at Stolle Research and Development Corporation in Cincinnati Ohio to assess its new facility and to discuss in detail the PARFR/Stolle injectable subagreements. The evaluation team also met with 4 principal investigators of PARFR subagreements. This report of the evaluation generally follows the major issues raised in the work scope: PARFR response to previous evaluation; assessment of PARFRs portfolio; management and administration issues; PARFR relationship with the Agency for International Development (AID); PARFR relationships with industry other agencies and investigators; PARFRs scientific advisory committee; the current PARFR mechanism of operation; PARFRs activities in information dissemination; and PARFR funding situation. Recommendations are summarized and include: PARFR should give priority to determining the reproducibility of norethindrone (NET) microcapsule batch manufacture as it affects "in vivo" performance thereby validating current quality control procedures; PARFR should add to its staff a minimum of 2 scientists one of whom should have expertise in the biomedical engineering or product development area and PARFR should upgrade both the frequency and the quality of technical assessment of site visits and other project monitoring functions; AID and PARFR should reconsider the specific operating procedures of the Cooperative Agreement e.g. restriction of activities to preclinical and early clinical trials requirements to advertise broadly and review of unsolicited proposals; consideration of future funding might indicate that PARFR should increase foundations awareness of its program; the Scientific Advisory Committees membership should more completely reflect PARFRs area of research and program activities; a workshop on generic problems involved in contraceptive research and development should be considered in theure; and PARFR should consider seeking funding from other sources to achieve greater program flexibility and to cover AID shortfalls.