What works in Damascus
All catalogues · Syria profile
Quality scores are 0–100 rubric scores; “strong evidence” reflects study design; adoptions count documented replications elsewhere. Know more
Evidence snapshot for Damascus
The evidence shows two distinct initiatives in Damascus. The WFP/UNHCR SMS Food Voucher Scheme piloted a mobile-phone-based food voucher programme starting in October 2009 in Damascus neighbourhoods like Jaramana and Sayeda Zeinab, where approximately 1.2 million Iraqi refugees were dispersed across urban areas; the pilot enrolled 1,000 families before scaling to roughly 9,600 families (about 32,500 refugees) across multiple Syrian governorates, though sources do not document continuation after Syria's 2011 civil war began. Beyond that historical period, the practices in the CONTEXT block do not quantify any ongoing programmes or outcomes specific to Damascus itself.
Drawn from: WFP/UNHCR SMS Food Voucher Scheme for Iraqi Refugees in Syria · Women and Girls Safe Spaces (WGSS) — Syria Crisis Response · AI Readiness Gaps in Syrian Medical Education — A 564-Student Ethics-Focused Readiness Survey
Generated from this place's cited practices only. Always check the linked sources.
Strengths & weaknesses vs peers
Strengths
Evaluation evidence +64 pts 100 here · 36 average
Documented learning +27 pts 100 here · 73 average
Demonstrated reach +25 pts 100 here · 75 average
Curator validation +25 pts 100 here · 75 average
Effectiveness +19 pts 100 here · 81 average
Impact on gender equality +17 pts 100 here · 83 average
Innovation level +16 pts 80 here · 64 average
Gender-mainstreaming embedding +10 pts 100 here · 90 average
Weaknesses
Transparency, ethics & data protection -16 pts 33 here · 50 average
Equity & inclusion -21 pts 33 here · 54 average
Evidence of learning impact -30 pts 0 here · 30 average
Efficiency -52 pts 0 here · 52 average
Scalability & sustainability -66 pts 0 here · 66 average
Sustainability (ongoing) -80 pts 0 here · 80 average
Evaluated outcomes -84 pts 0 here · 84 average
Score profile vs peers
Coloured bar: Damascus. Grey bar: peer average across the corpus. Both on a common 0–100 scale.
Points compare this place's average on each dimension with the average across all evaluated places, on a common 0–100 scale. Know more
Top good practices here
WFP/UNHCR SMS Food Voucher Scheme for Iraqi Refugees in Syria · 76
Women and Girls Safe Spaces (WGSS) — Syria Crisis Response · 63
AI Readiness Gaps in Syrian Medical Education — A 564-Student Ethics-Focused Readiness Survey · 20
Each number is the practice's overall 0–100 quality score against its catalogue's rubric. Know more
Recommended to adopt or replicate
Transferable practices from elsewhere that address this place's gaps.
Ciudad Mujer — El Salvador's Integrated Women's Services Programme · fit 100/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
SASA! Community Mobilisation Programme against Intimate Partner Violence — Uganda · fit 100/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Digital Green — Video-Mediated Agricultural Extension · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Kartu Prakerja – National Digital Skills and Financial Inclusion Programme · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Rwanda's Land Tenure Regularization Programme — Titling Land in Women's Names · fit 90/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Copenhagen Business Hub (Erhvervshus Hovedstaden) · fit 90/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Abolition of Chhaupadi — Ending Menstrual Exile Huts in Nepal's Far- and Mid-Western Districts · fit 82/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Fit estimates how well a practice matches this place, 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent); the list is ordered to favour practices that address this place's gaps. Know more