Impact-Evaluation-Report-Of-Family
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) performs various types of evaluation in order to secure accountability and achieve better development results by learning. KOICA conducts evaluations within different phases of phases of projects and programs, such as ex-ante evaluations, interim evaluations, end-of-project evaluations and ex-post evaluations. Moreover, sector evaluations, country program evaluations, thematic evaluations, and modality evaluations are also performed. In order to ensure the independence of evaluation contents and results, a large amount of evaluation work is carried out by external evaluators. Also, the Evaluation Office directly reports evaluation results to the President of KOICA KOICA has a feedback system under which planning and project operation departments take evaluation findings into account in programming and implementation. Evaluation reports are widely disseminated to staff and management within KOICA, as well as to stakeholders both in Korea and partner countries. All evaluation reports published by KOICA are posted on the KOICA website. (www.koica.go.kr) This evaluation study was written by the evaluation team organized by KOICA evaluation office. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect KOICA's position. # &RQWHQWV -JTUPG"CCSFWJBUJPOT &YFDVUJWF4VNNBSZ 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙##4 ぞ#BDLHSPVOE 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙##: た5IF$PNNVOJUZ#BTFE'BNJMZ1MBOOJOH1SPKFDU 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#44 D1# Frppxqlw|# prelol}dwlrq# dqg# rxwuhdfk 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#47 E1# Surylvlrq# ri# orqj0whup# idplo|# sodqqlqj# phwkrgv 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#48 F1# Sxeolf# khdowk# wudlqlqj# fhqwhu 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#49 G1# Fdsdflw|# exloglqj# iru# surylghuv# dqg# frppxqlw|# ohdghuv 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#4: H1#Orjlfdo#iudphzrun#ri#wkh#surmhfw圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#4: だ.FUIPET 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#4< D1# Uhvhdufk# Txhvwlrqv 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#54 E1#Vwxg|#ghvljq圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#55 F1#Vwxg|#vlwhv圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#56 G1# Vdpsolqj 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#57 H1# Txhvwlrqqdluh 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#59 I1# Ilhogzrun 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#59 J1# Gdwd# dqdo|vlv 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#5: K1#Hwklfdo#frqvlghudwlrqv圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#5; ち'JOEJOHT 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#5< D1# Fkdudfwhulvwlfv# ri# uhvsrqghqwv 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#64 E1# Ihuwlolw| 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#66 F1# Nqrzohgjh# ri# idplo|# sodqqlqj 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#6; G1#Frqwudfhswlyh#xvh圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#76 H1# Frxsoh# frppxqlfdwlrq# dqg# ghflvlrq0pdnlqj 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#88 ぢ%JTDVTTJPO 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙##8< D1# Dfklhyhphqwv 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙###94 E1#Vkliw#wr#orqj0dfwlqj#phwkrgv圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙###95 F1# Fdsdflw|# exloglqj 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙###97 G1# Vxvwdlqdelolw|# ri# lpsdfw 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙###99 H1# Olplwdwlrqv# dqg# frqvwudlqwv 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙###99 # っ*NQMJDBUJPOT 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙##9< D1# Uhsolfdwlqj# wkh# prgho 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙###:4 E1# Vxvwdlqdelolw| 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙###:5 3FGFSFODFT 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙##:6 # "QQFOEJY 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙##:: Dqqh{# D1# 533<# Frqvhqw# Irup# dqg# Txhvwlrqqdluh 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙##::< Dqqh{# E1# 534405345# Frqvhqw# Irup# dqg# Txhvwlrqqdluh 圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙圙#4436 /LVW RI $EEUHYLDWLRQV "CCSFWJBUJPO 0GGJDJBMOBNF "/$ "OUFOBUBMDBSF $#" $PNNVOJUZCBTFEBHFOU $#3) $PNNVOJUZCBTFESFQSPEVDUJWFIFBMUIXPSLFS $13 $POUSBDFQUJWFQSFWBMFODFSBUF &%)4 &UIJPQJB%FNPHSBQIJD)FBMUI4VSWFZ '1 'BNJMZQMBOOJOH )&8 )FBMUIFYUFOTJPOXPSLFS *&$ *OGPSNBUJPO FEVDBUJPO BOEDPNNVOJDBUJPO *6% *OUSBVUFSJOFEFWJDF ,0*$" ,PSFB*OUFSOBUJPOBM$PPQFSBUJPO"HFODZ -"1.T -POHBDUJOHBOEQFSNBOFOUNFUIPET .0) .JOJTUSZPG)FBMUI /(0 /POHPWFSONFOUBMPSHBOJ[BUJPO 03)# 0SPNJB)FBMUI#VSFBV 1)5$ 1VCMJD)FBMUI5SBJOJOH$FOUFS 5'3 5PUBMGFSUJMJUZSBUF 7$)8 7PMVOUBSZDPNNVOJUZIFBMUIXPSLFS Executive Summary ([HFXWLYH 6XPPDU\ Objective To assess the impact of KOICA’s CommunityǦBased Family Planning Project on desired family planning outcomes; such changes of knowledge of family planning methods, attitudes toward fertility issues, and use of contraceptives, especially longǦacting methods. Method Three round cross sectional community based survey were conducted from 2009 to 2012 with a structured questionnaire. TwoǦstage random sampling was used to select the respondents for the survey. The first round of data collection took place in May 2009, shortly after project activities began, and was conducted as part of project monitoring activities; hence data was collected only at the intervention site of Hetosa. The second and third round of data collection took place at the end of the projectphaseǦout period in December 2011 and in AugustǦSeptember 2012 including both the intervention and comparison sites. Descriptive Statistics and multiple logistic regression were done. Whereas purposive sampling was used for the qualitative part of the study. G lG z G G Z Results The study consisted of quantitative and qualitative data. Of the qualitative part, several FGDs were conducted for not only fertile women aged 15Ǧ49, and also project stakeholder ranged from practice level to policy level. As for the qualitative data, in terms of knowledge change, the proportion of women in Hetosa who had heard of implanon almost doubled from 2009 to 2011 (48.2% and 93.7%, respectively, p=.001) and was nearly universal in 2012 (96.7%). In 2012, almost half fertile women(49%) who did not participated FP had positive attitude towards FP practice within 6 months. Moreover the percentage of those women who were willing to participate longǦterm method gradually increased from 2009(16%) to 2011(24%). Regarding FP practice, the contraceptive method mix in Hetosa changed significantly from 2009 to 2011, and that change was sustained in 2012. Current contraceptive use rose from 38% overall in 2009 to 60% in 2012, and longǦacting methods accounted for nearly all of the increase. Though overall contraceptive use was the same in Hetosa and the comparison sites in 2011, there was a major difference in the method mix. Women in Hetosa were far more likely than other women at the comparison sites to use implanon (26% versus 4%) and far less likely to use injectables (24% versus 37%) or oral pills (1% versus 7%). The same pattern held true in 2012, when the gap in injectable use widened to 25 percentage points. FP practice was significantly associated with FP service channel such as HEW. In 2011, when measuring against the figure in comparison sites(38%), 72% of women in Hetosa preferred much more to see a HEW for family planning service. [GGpGlGyGGm GwGwGGhGSG l Conclusions Since the launch of the CommunityǦbased Family Planning Project, contraceptive prevalence has increased markedly in Hetosa. The use of modern methods rose from 35% in 2009 to 53% of women in 2011; after the end of the project, it continued to rise to 59% in 2012. After the intervention had time to take effect, increased contraceptive use led to a reduction in unwanted pregnancies, which can benefit maternal and child health, and in family size. In Hetosa, the proportion of recent pregnancies that were unwanted fell from 21% in 2011 to 5% in 2012, while the proportion that were wanted at the time rose from 48% to 79%. In contrast, unwanted pregnancies in the comparison areas stood at 42% in 2011 and 24% in 2012. The CommunityǦbased Family Planning Project in Arsi Zone focused specifically on increasing the use of more effective, longǦacting family planning methods, especially implanon.