Evaluation: funding facility for stabilization : midterm performance evaluation

The Evaluation Team used seven quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, sampling beneficiary communities, 10 stakeholders representing 10 intervention areas, and stakeholders from local government partners and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Investigation of four Evaluation Questions resulted in four Key Conclusions: 1. How have FFS activities affected access to services in target communities? FFS positively affected access to services in all targeted communities. Targeted water, electricity, education, and health services were restored to pre-ISIS levels with limited sanitation services. 2. How have FFS activities affected the quality of services in target communities? FFS activities restored the quality of basic services to pre-2015 levels. Furthermore, to improve quality of service, education and health services required additional human capacity and technical knowledge. 3. How have FFS activities affected IDPs in target communities? FFS addressed factors that influenced decisions to return or stay (respondents who never left) for up to 86 percent of the population, although not all services are equally important and none were cited by a majority of respondents as the critical reason for return. 4. What factors are contributing to or impeding local authorities’ capacity to administer services targeted by FFS? Various factors contributed to or impeded local authorities’ capacity to administer FFS services depending on the province or sector, including local authorities’ low technical capacity to administer education services in all three provinces, and across all Ninewa sectors.