Presentation and methodology
Overview: This evaluation report is the 5th regional evaluation of UNFPA programming in the Syria regional response to determine the impact on women, girls, boys and men that UNFPA programming has eu, through (i) sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programming; (ii) gender-based violence (GBV); and (iii) youth programs.
UNFPA activities across Syria (WoS) and Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan (3RP) countries have focused on facilities support and associated outreach activities to provide sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), including access to family planning; maternal and newborn health services covering both basic emergency obstetric care (BEmOC) and comprehensive emergency obstetric care (CEmOC); GBV services, including access to safe spaces for women and girls (safe spaces) . support to facilities for clinical management of rape (CMR) and GBV prevention messages. UNFPA also supported youth empowerment and population programming.
Key Highlights of the 2021 Impact Assessment: With respect to safe spaces, the key highlight of the 2021 Impact Assessment was that the impact of all services is high, as reported by the beneficiaries themselves. The most satisfied recipients across all countries were GBV recipients, with 51% saying access to services through safe spaces was absolutely critical to their well-being. For health facilities, this figure was 40% and for youth centers 27%. This is essential information: safe spaces provide absolutely essential vital and critical services. While it is clear that historically safe spaces have been viewed by some within the humanitarian community as a “nice to have but not necessary”, this information clearly highlights the impact of access to safe spaces on the physical and psychosocial well-being of women and girls, and should therefore be considered an essential life-saving service.
For health facilities, women indicated that family planning services and antenatal care (ANC) are the two most important services they have access to and that they are essential for the well-being of women and girls. Compared to Safe Space, there are many more health services available in countries that beneficiaries can potentially access, with a common theme being that these other services are not free or not of the same quality as the services of SRHR supported by UNFPA. When it comes to youth centres, adolescents and young people reported feeling more confident and fulfilled. They particularly enjoy the issue of civic engagement and giving back to their communities. This is important: youth centers are not just about benefiting young people, but about facilitating what young people can give back to their communities.
Methodology: The full methodology is described in the initial report of this evaluation and will not be repeated here. In short, the main fundamental approach of the 2021 impact assessment methodology was to build on the 2020 impact assessment framework which streamlined and systematized the various tools and questions previously used (from 2016 to 2020 ) within an overall impact assessment (IAF) framework. This overarching framework examines three types of service delivery points (SDPs), including associated outreach activities, where appropriate, namely (a) safe spaces; (b) health facilities; and (c) youth centers. There is then an overall scoping of three main dimensions, with two other secondary dimensions concerning comparison and monitoring from 2020 to 2021. The three main dimensions are: (a) well-being; (b) access; and (c) efficiency.
There is then an overarching methodology of three primary data collection methods, supported by a secondary data review. The three main methods of data collection are (a) key informant interviews (KII); (b) Customer Feedback Forms (CFF); and (c) group discussions (FGD).