Youth DHRG Toolkit M and E

TOOLKIT FOR YOUTH INCLUSION IN DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GOVERNANCE

Youth in the Program Cycle: Monitoring & Evaluation

Entry Points for Youth Integration into the Program Cycle: Monitoring & Evaluation

Challenges to developing Theories of Change for Youth/DRG programming

One of the greatest challenges faced when developing theories of change around youth is that they are not a monolithic bloc across countries or regions. Youth may face similar challenges in the developing world: poverty, violent extremism, war, conflict, and lack of economic mobility. But how those issues affect the lives of youth across the globe is context-specific. Thus a deep understanding of country context and the issues that constrain positive youth development and engagement in civil society is critical for developing theories of change, as well as program designs.

Even within countries themselves, a major challenge that faces many is that the youth USAID Nexos Locales demographic does not represent a homogenous group. Class, ethnicity, gender, region, and political affiliation are all social segments within a society that dramatically impact how and where youth can become engaged in civic activities, organizations, and leadership efforts. These social segments in a society that may exist between elite groups and non-elite groups, urban and rural perspectives, and socio-economic classes should all be taken into account when contemplating theories of change and programming. Often the same factors that impact adults impact youth, but not always in the same ways. For instance, after the Ebola epidemic, many children and youth who survived were left orphaned. What was a medical emergency is now a social one. They often face the same social stigma as adult survivors as being unclean or contagious, but amplified due to their status of youth and their limited access to political and social structures. There is opportunity to bring youth and adults together as positive actors against this stigma and for the rights and dignity of survivors.

Likewise, there are no universal ideals of youth political behavior. Development programs are often based on Western perspectives, and those perspectives may not reflect cultural and contextual realities or social norms. And while dangerous/anti-social behaviors should not be overlooked, it is important to understand what the cultural and political norms are before engaging in change. So in each context, it is important to examine what types of political and civic behavior exist in the local culture and political environment and how they compare and contrast to Western models. This is important for ensuring that the theory of change you develop for an intervention is grounded in the local context.

Some program examples and sample theories of change for a variety of youth programs are included in the “Cross Cutting Considerations” and in the subsector modules in this Toolkit.

Indicators:

Indicators should be disaggregated by relevant social segments, including gender, geographic location, marginalized or at-risk populations, and age disaggregation (e.g., early adolescence (10-14); adolescence (15-19); emerging adulthood (20-24), and transition to adulthood (25-29)) and other standard disaggregation, as appropriate. A few examples (most closely related to civic participation outcomes) include:

●     % increase in desired civic engagement activity (advocacy, voting, oversight)

●     % Increase in self-efficacy reported by in groups vs. out groups.

●     % Increase in youth participation in civic engagement activities.

●     Proportion of elite vs. non-elite group participation.

ASEAN Youth Volunteer Program 2013. Photo credit: USAID Asia Learn more about youth engagement measurement and indicators in the Youth Engagement Measurement Guide and in UNICEF’s Conceptual Framework for Measuring Outcomes of Adolescent Participation.

The subsector modules included as part of this Toolkit include sample indicators and categories for disaggregating project monitoring data in order to be inclusive of a wide variety of youth demographics. YouthPower Learning’s PYD Measurement Toolkit is another excellent, less sector-specific resource.

In addition to these traditional M&E techniques, more innovative methods for M&E may be required. This is because DRG programming is complex (in the technical sense): it is non-linear, generally is aimed at bringing about social and behavioral change, and often there are unanticipated outcomes and consequences. USAID’s “Complexity Aware M&E” initiative has highlighted several recommended approaches that may be “best fit” approaches for Youth/DRG Programming.

For example, the Community Oriented Policing Activity (COPA) in Morocco (implemented by TetraTech) utilizes the “Most Significant Change” technique with promising results.

In short, M&E for PYD/DRG programming is a space that is ripe for innovation! Your USAID colleagues in the Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning can help you with Complexity-Aware Monitoring & Evaluation, as well as the latest tools and strategies for Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting throughout the Program Cycle. Knowledge and evidence gathered from the M&E can contribute to the global PYD Learning Agenda whose goal to provide collective guidance for a common agenda to address evidence gaps and invest in evidence-building activities related to PYD.

Other resources for youth-inclusive M&E:

● USAID has funded a series of studies on soft skills for youth development that focuses on identifying the most important soft skills for key youth outcomes. This series is entitled Soft Skills for Positive Youth Development, and includes “How to Measure Soft Skills”.

● The Handbook of Democracy and Governance Program Indicators was produced by USAID in 1998; it is old but comprehensive, and still quite useful.

● Oxfam’s Youth Participation and Leadership Theory of Change Resource (also available on YouthPower Learning’s What Works site) is a starting point to help guide strategies for collective impact, by specifically considering youth inclusion.

● USAID’s Complexity-Aware Monitoring Discussion Note complements ADS 201 and outlines general principles and promising approaches for monitoring complex aspects of USAID development assistance. Complexity-aware monitoring is a type of complementary monitoring that is useful when results are difficult to predict due to dynamic contexts or unclear cause-and-effect relationships.

● On Learning Lab, the CLA Toolkit: “Engaging Stakeholders” site provides guidance that is highly applicable to engaging youth in M&E for DRG contexts.