To track our progress and ensure effective implementation of the programs, we established guidelines and framework for monitoring and measuring targets. We measured impact and outcome indicators through national-level surveys including KDHS, while output and process indicators were tracked using the national KHIS/DHIS 2 system and other project-level client exit interviews and other reporting systems. Additionally, the program was guided by a robust results framework and an evidence-based Theory of Change, ensuring a structured approach to achieving its objectives
SARA ASSESSMENT
Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) assessment was also conducted to inform the design of interventions and communication strategies during program inception. The Project adopted the WHO tool SARA to identify gaps in the facilities in terms of provision of quality family planning services. This was conducted in between July-August 2019, where
- A total of 380 facilities, (79) public and (301) private facilities from both rural and urban set ups were visited.
- 17 DESIP Counties.
- The facilities were assessed in terms of:
- Staff availability and training.
- Availability of minimum equipment and infrastructure for FP service provision.
- FP commodity and consumables supply.
- Healthcare waste management.
- Adolescent Health Services.
- Supervision by County Health Management Team.
- Management of records and reporting.
COLLABORATING, LEARNING, AND ADAPTING (CLA)
DESIP also employed a collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA) approach to drive continuous improvement. This includes mechanisms such as routine review meetings, cluster meetings to review progress, and in-charges meetings.
CLIENT EXIT INTERVIEWS
Additionally, three client exit interviews were conducted in the life of project implementation, this is year 1, year 2 and year 5.
Client exits were conducted to answer three indicators (one outcome and 2 output) in the project log frame, these questions are:
a) Proportion of FP clients living below the poverty line (living on less than US $1.90 /day) accessing FP services (13%)
b) Proportion of WRA who recall hearing or seeing an FP message in implementing counties (45%)
c) Proportion of clients who receive comprehensive counselling on FP and RH services (67%)
The study explored specific standardized tools for measuring these indicators:
1). Including the Poverty Probability Index (PPI)
2). A combination of the Washington Group Disability Questions to assess the extent to which these have affected a client’s access to FP services
3). Method Information Index (MMI) to assess the quality of comprehensive family planning counselling offered by the facilities.
