ACRE_Terminal_Report_Presentation_Final_Enhanced

1. Terminal Evaluation of “Family Strengthening and Child Development(FSCD)”ProjectPresentation of Main FindingDecember 24, 2025

2. CONTENTS Background Objectives of the Evaluation Evaluation Aspects Evaluation Criteria Methodology Main Findings Conclusion REcommendation

3. Background: : SOS FSCD at a Glance • Implemented by SOS Children’s Villages Ethiopia in Lalibela • Timeframe: 2023–2025 | Coverage: 4 kebeles • Goal: Improve the wellbeing of vulnerable children by strengthening families • Integrated approach covering: • Child protection & positive parenting • Education support • Health, nutrition & MHPSS • Economic empowerment & livelihoods • Implemented in close collaboration with communities and government institutions to ensure sustainability and local ownership

4. Why FSCD? • Many vulnerable children face poverty, family stress, conflict impacts, and weak protection systems • Isolated interventions donot address the interconnected causes of child vulnerability • FSCD responds holistically by strengthening families as the primary caregivers and protectors of children • Supporting caregivers’ livelihoods, parenting skills, andwellbeing leads to better outcomes for children • Strengthened community and government systemsensure protection and services continue beyond the project

5. Core Components and Objectives • Child Protection & Parenting – to ensure children grow up safe, cared for, and protected • Economic Empowerment – to stabilize families and reduce vulnerability at household level • Education Support – to improve access, retention, and learning outcomes • Health, Nutrition & MHPSS – to address physical and psychosocial wellbeing • Community Systems Strengthening – to sustain impact through local ownership

6. Objectives of the End-line Evaluation Main Objective: • To measure the project’s performance against planned outcomes and identify successes, challenges, and lessons for future programming. Specific Objectives: ✅ Assess relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the project. ✅ Evaluate progress toward expected results compared to the planned schedule. ✅ Determine whether implementation is moving in the intended direction. ✅ Identify any unintended effects—positive or negative. ✅ Review validity of original design assumptions. ✅ Assess organizational structure, management, and institutional relationships. ✅ Examine beneficiary outcomes and overall project impact. ✅ Provide evidence-based recommendations for future program improvement and replication.

7. Evaluation Aspects • Project Management Aspect • Project Accomplishments and Results Aspect • Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Aspect • Lessons Learned( what worked and what has not worked)

8. Evaluation Criteria • We use OECD’s DAC criteria: • Relevance, • Effectiveness, • Efficiency, • Potential impact and • Sustainability)

9. Scope, Coverage, and Study Population Geographic Coverage: • Location:Lalibela Town, Amhara Region • Coverage: 4 kebeles • Roha • DebreZeit • DebreSina • MeskelKibra • Focus: Vulnerable children and families in high-need urban communities Population Studied: • Vulnerable children and adolescents • Caregivers and households supported by FSCD • Community structures (CCSCs, RuSACCOs) • Schools and government stakeholders

10. Sampling and Data Collection Methods Quantitative Sampling: • The baseline determined the quantitative sample size using the standard formula for a finite population: • n=N1+N(e)2n = \frac{N}{1 + N(e)^2}n=1+N(e)2N​ • Where: • N = Total population of caregivers = 450 • e = Margin of error = 0.05 (5%) • Confidence level = 95%, Z-score = 1.96 • Standard deviation assumed = 0.5 • Applying the formula: • n=4501+450(0.05)2=207n = \frac{450}{1 + 450(0.05)^2} = 207n=1+450(0.05)2450​=207 • Thus, the sample size for both baseline and endline is: 207 caregivers and 207 children.

11. Qualitative Sampling • Purposive sampling used for key informants and focus group participants. • Captured insights from those directly involved in implementation. • Availability Sampling

14. Data Sources and methods • Household Survey • Desk Research (Review of secondary documents) • Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with 8-10 members. • In-depth interviews with Key informants • Process Consultation, • Schools, Infrastructure and activity Observation • Field (Participant) observation and • Case studies.

15. Qualitative data collection tools • Questionnaire for children • Questions for Caregivers • FGD Questions for Project Beneficiary Children(older) • FGD Questions for SACCOs • FGD Questions for Woredaseducation officers • Questions for Government Stakeholders (Signatories) • Questions for Project Staff and the Donor

16. Recruitment, Training and Field Organization • Recruitment of Field Staffs • Training Approach • Field Organization • Data Collection and Data Quality Assurance Plan

17. Pretest • Pretest of the tool will be made on 20 community members in Gondar

18. Ethical considerations • Given the purpose of the study, ethical clearance is not sought but support letter was secured. • Informed consent, confidentiality and clear communication is strictly made. • Respondents’ privacy strictly maintained. • SOS child safeguarding policy is strictly adhered

19. Analysis of Data • SPSS version 23 for the survey and • Colaizzi's procedural steps for qualitative data • Used interactive debriefing with project teams to validate findings.

20. Limitation of the Study

21. FindingsOverall Achievements • Achieved nearly 100% of planned objectives as per the project log frame. • Demonstrated positive outcomes in the lives of target children and families with concrete outcome in Lalibela. “ Project is not new in Lalibella but SOS is unique as it touches the heart of the community beyond the target beneficiaries” City Finance and Economy

22. Outcome 1: Strengthened Family and Community-Based Child Protection Systems

23. Outcome 2: Improved Household Economic Resilience and Livelihood Stability

24. Outcome 3: Enhanced Access to Quality Education and Improved Learning Outcomes

26. Effectiveness Effectiveness was evaluated based on the below 4 dimensions: • Children’s Educational Outcomes – school attendance, performance, and retention. • Caregiver Livelihoods & Resilience – income generation, savings, and parenting capacity. • School Capacity Building – teacher training, infrastructure, and learning quality. • Community & Institutional Collaboration – partnerships among CCSCs, SACCOs, and local government.

27. Relevance of the project Approach in the Evaluation: • Analyzed contextual relevance — fit with real challenges facing families and schools. • Reviewed policy and strategic relevance — contribution to Ethiopia’s Education and Social Protection strategies. • Assessed programmatic and community relevance — effectiveness of community-based structures (CCSCs & SACCOs) and local ownership.

28. Contextual Relevance Key Realities Addressed: • Widespread poverty and food insecurity. • Conflict and displacement disrupting schooling. • Limited access to child protection and social support. • Gender-based vulnerabilities affecting girls’ education. Project Response: • Combined education, livelihood, and psychosocial support for maximum impact. • Provided school materials, food stipends, and medical care to prevent dropouts. • Empowered families through vocational training and financial inclusion. • Strengthened local community coalitions (CCSCs) to respond to child protection needs.

29. Policy and Strategic Relevance

30. Programmatic and Community Relevance Design Strengths: • Rooted in evidence and lessons from previous FSCD phases. • Uses community structures (CCSCs & SACCOs) to ensure local ownership. • Promotes sustainability by reducing dependency and building local capacity. • Addresses cross-cutting issues: gender equity, inclusion, and psychosocial well-being. Community Voices: “ When the conflict displaced families, we coordinated quickly to re-enroll children. We didn’t wait for outside aid.” — CCSC Member, Gondar

31. Efficiency • Highly efficient project mainly due to • Resource absorption • Extremely cost-effective • Extreme staff motivation and commitment • Strict budget allocation and administration • Efficient Project Implementation and Continuous Assessment

32. Challenges and Limitations Affecting Efficiency 1. Procurement Delays and Centralization • The centralized procurement system (managed from Addis Ababa) slowed the timely delivery of materials and equipment to project sites. • Limited flexibility at field level reduced responsiveness to urgent local needs (e.g., replacing damaged school materials or restocking supplies). • The process occasionally caused implementation lags and disrupted the planned schedule for school support activities.

33. Limitations… 2. Limited Induction and Capacity building for staff • Inadequate induction and training for new personnel slowed activity continuity and reduced efficiency. 3.Logistical and Security Constraints 4. Coordination and Communication Bottlenecks • Occasional communication gaps between national and field offices led to duplicated efforts or delayed decision-making. • The volume of reporting and administrative tasks sometimes diverted staff from core implementation activities.

34. Impact • Educational Impact: Dropout reduced from 10% to 4%, with 96% of children enrolled and 93% promoted annually. • Economic Impact: 87% of caregivers increased income and achieved self-reliance, sustaining children’s schooling. • Community Impact: Functional CCSCs and SACCOs strengthened local child protection and family support systems. • Behavioral Impact: Children showed improved confidence and discipline; families embraced education and saving cultures.

35. Sustainability • Community Ownership – CCSCs & SACCOs functioning independently. • Government Alignment – Integrated with local education and social systems. • Capacity Retention – Trained teachers & caregivers sustain skills. • Economic Self-Reliance – Caregiver savings and livelihoods continue. • Partnership Networks – Strong SOS–school–government collaboration. • Challenges: • Funding Gaps – Some community groups still depend on external support. • Context Risks – Conflict and inflation threaten local continuity.

36. Conclusion • Highly Relevant and Responsive – The project effectively addressed educational and socio-economic needs in conflict-affected communities. • Holistic and Effective Approach – Integrating education, livelihoods, and psychosocial support produced strong, measurable results. • Sustainable Community Systems – Strengthened CCSCs, SACCOs, and government linkages ensure continued child and family support. • Scalable Model – FSCD 4.0 offers a proven, adaptable framework for replication in other regions facing similar vulnerabilities.

37. Recommendation • Scale Up the Model – Expand FSCD to more districts, prioritizing conflict-affected and low-income areas. • Decentralize Operations – Allow site-level procurement and decision-making for faster, more efficient delivery. • Strengthen Capacity – Institutionalize staff induction, continuous training, and digital M&E tools. • Deepen Collaboration – Integrate FSCD’s approach into local education and social protection systems. • Promote Inclusion & Resilience – Enhance disability inclusion, climate awareness, and livelihood diversification.

38. GYB Team Response to Review Comments • The GYB team appreciates the constructive feedback provided by reviewers. • All comments were reviewed openly and professionally. • Feedback was seen as an opportunity to strengthen the quality, clarity, and credibility of the report.

39. Comments… • Methodology sections were clarified and better aligned with evaluation objectives. • Data gaps and inconsistencies were corrected or explained. • Narrative sections were revised for clarity, coherence, and evidence-based conclusions. • Reviewer suggestions were incorporated while maintaining report integrity.

40. The Revised Report Ensures… • Improved structure, readability, and logical flow of the report. • Stronger linkage between findings, conclusions, and recommendations. • Enhanced transparency and credibility of analysis. • Final report reflects a collaborative and responsive review process.

42. Abera • Include care givers 91% self-reliant • Keep lesson learned in separate section • Include promotion rate in the report Tade: • Overall performance 100%. • Case story or case study • 2 lijbecha • What do we do without baseline(before and after analysis) • Low / high, weak/strong Yaze Include all indicators at output level(we did but we will). Baseline laYyelelu

43. Be logframumeseretyikemet(adult literacy outcome 3) Michael • 4 outcome( child care and protection… astekakil) • Disability • Informed consent Coherence yikatet Effectiveness Nearly 100% xyibalim(specify) Data protection(Yiferem, all involved research team leofficeYilak back date) Belog frame yikireb( baseline, endline, target), What is 100%(of the participants and not the beneficiaries). Youth wiout caregivers hunyta Lesson has to be (observation, good practice, challenge,,) • Most significant changes yikatet

44. ACRE Project – Terminal Report • Afar–Cross Border Resilience and Empowerment (ACRE) Project • Terminal Report Presentation

45. Project Overview • The ACRE Project was designed to strengthen resilience, livelihoods, peace, and basic services in fragile and conflict-affected border areas through integrated and community-driven interventions.

46. Project Objectives • • Strengthen household resilience and livelihoods • • Improve access to WASH and basic services • • Promote peacebuilding and social cohesion • • Enhance institutional and community capacities

47. Implementation Approach • The project applied a Triple Nexus approach integrating humanitarian response, development actions, and peacebuilding, ensuring sustainability and conflict sensitivity.

48. Key Achievements – Summary • The project successfully achieved most planned outputs, demonstrating strong community engagement, effective coordination with local authorities, and measurable improvements in livelihoods, WASH, and social cohesion.

49. Monitoring, Learning & Accountability • Robust M&E systems, participatory monitoring, and continuous learning mechanisms ensured quality delivery, accountability, and adaptive management throughout the project cycle.

50. Challenges & Mitigation Measures • Key challenges included climatic shocks, insecurity, and access constraints. These were mitigated through flexible planning, strong local partnerships, and adaptive implementation strategies.