1
Reducing Risk Factors for Youth on Nicaragua’s 
Southern Caribbean Coast: An Evaluation of 
FADCANIC’s Development Model for At-Risk Youth
April 2016 
This publication was produced for the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by SSG 
Advisors. It was authored by Maximillian Ashwill, Donald Méndez Quintana, and Francisco Sequeira Rankin. The 
research team consisted of Maximillian Ashwill (Team Leader), Donald Méndez Quintana (Senior Coordinator), 
Francisco Sequeira Rankin (Regional Coordinator), Xiomara Ibarra Zelaya, Emmanuel Detrinidad, and staff and 
students from Bluefields Indian and Caribbean University (BICU). 
2
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development by 
SSG Advisors, through USAID Contract # AID-OAA-M-14-00024.
This report was prepared by: SSG Advisors
1 Mill Street, Suite 201
Burlington, VT 05401
SSG Advisors Contact: Katherine Daniels
Senior Project Manager
Tel: (802) 735-1169
Email: katherine@ssg-advisors.com
Reducing Risk Factors for Youth on 
Nicaragua’s Southern Caribbean Coast: An 
Evaluation of FADCANIC’s Development 
Model for At-Risk Youth
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION REPORT
April 2016
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of tables and figures ..........................................................................................................5
Acronyms and abbreviations...................................................................................................7
Introduction.................................................................................................................................9
Methodology...............................................................................................................................9
Background..............................................................................................................................................................................9
Research team.....................................................................................................................................................................10
Literature review.................................................................................................................................................................11
Interviews...............................................................................................................................................................................11
Focus groups........................................................................................................................................................................11
Municipal-level Survey....................................................................................................................................................13
About the Education for Success model for at-risk youth.............................................14
Scope........................................................................................................................................................................................16
Regional Background.......................................................................................................................................................17
Relevance....................................................................................................................................20
Relevance to the general situation of youth risk in The RACCS.................................................................20
Relevance to USAID’s youth policies .......................................................................................................................25
Relevance to USAID’s CDCS with Nicaragua........................................................................................................25
Relevance to USAID’s Education Strategy.............................................................................................................26
Relevance to USAID’s Gender strategy...................................................................................................................27
Relevance to the Nicaraguan Government’s Youth Policy...........................................................................27
Relevance to FADCANIC’s mission............................................................................................................................27
Inputs and outputs...................................................................................................................28
Inputs .......................................................................................................................................................................................28
Outputs ...................................................................................................................................................................................28
Scholarships, personnel, and other direct costs.................................................................................................30
Effectiveness: Outcomes and survey findings...................................................................32
Educational findings and outcomes.........................................................................................................................33
Employment findings and outcomes.......................................................................................................................36
Life Skills findings and outcomes..............................................................................................................................39
Violence findings and outcomes................................................................................................................................40
Inclusiveness of EFS..........................................................................................................................................................41
Other perceptions of EFS...............................................................................................................................................44
Summary remarks on outcomes................................................................................................................................46
Sustainability.............................................................................................................................47
Political and institutional sustainability..................................................................................................................48
Social and cultural sustainability................................................................................................................................49
Building financial sustainability...................................................................................................................................50
4
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................................51
Major contributions..........................................................................................................................................................51
Challenges.............................................................................................................................................................................52
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................53
References..................................................................................................................................56
Annex A: List of Key Informant interviews ........................................................................59
5
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1: Focus group characteristics.................................................................................................................................12
Table 2: Sample details of municipal-level survey.....................................................................................................13
Table 3: percentage of the population between the ages of 10 and 29 years old living in poverty 
(consumption) in the RACCS......................................................................................................................................18
Table 4: Major EFS outputs by intermediate result (IR), October 2010-June 2015.....................................29
Table 5: Linking education to employment opportunities....................................................................................33
Table 6: Perceived difficulties in reading comprehension among non-EFS youth.....................................34
Table 7: Perceived levels of neighborhood security in each municipality.......................................................41
FIGURES
Figure 1: Focus group respondents by gender & Figure 2: Focus group respondents by ethnicity...12
Figure 3: Focus group respondents by municipality.................................................................................................13
Figure 4: EFS municipalities..................................................................................................................................................16
Figure 5: RACCS municipal populations.........................................................................................................................17
Figure 6: Ethnic makeup in RACCS...................................................................................................................................17
Figure 7: Percent of Nicaraguan's living on less than $1.25 per day, 2009.....................................................18
Figure 8: Homicide rate per 100,000 people. RACCS vs. National Average...................................................19
Figure 9: Sexual crimes per 100,000.................................................................................................................................19
Figure 10: Robberies in all forms per 100,000 people...............................................................................................19
Figure 11: Police per 100km2
................................................................................................................................................20
Figure 12: Youth who have had sexual relations.........................................................................................................21
Figure 13: Alcohol consumption........................................................................................................................................22
Figure 14: Youth working outside of the home..........................................................................................................22
Figure 15: Fear of criminality...............................................................................................................................................23
Figure 16: Percentage of youth who struggle with math.......................................................................................23
Figure 17: Percentage of youth who have difficulty following teacher instructions ..................................24
Figure 18: Percentage of youth who struggle with reading comprehension................................................24
Figure 19: Percentage of youth with difficulty writing.............................................................................................24
Figure 20: Success rate of EFS scholarships.................................................................................................................30
Figure 21: Expenditures from October 2010 to September 2014.........................................................................31
Figure 22: Expenditure trends from October 2010 to September 2015 (estimated)...................................31
Figure 23: “Why do you need to work?”.......................................................................................................................34
Figure 24: How useful have EFS’ educational services been for your family (survey of beneficiaries)
................................................................................................................................................................................................35
Figure 25: Will your education help you find employment or start a business?.........................................36
Figure 26: What does your work provide you with?................................................................................................37
Figure 27: Has EFS increased your aspirations and optimism?...........................................................................37
Figure 28: Did EFS vocational training help you find a job?.................................................................................38
Figure 29: How do you evaluate your work trajectory?.........................................................................................38
Figure 30: How useful has EFS vocational training program been for your family?..................................39
6
Figure 31: Has your family benefitted from EFS’ “life skills” program? ............................................................40
Figure 32: How has your view towards drugs changed as a result of EFS?....................................................41
Figure 33: Is EFS more beneficial to high- or low-risk youth?.............................................................................42
Figure 34: For what age group is EFS the most beneficial?..................................................................................42
Figure 35: Is EFS more beneficial for girls or boys?..................................................................................................43
Figure 36: EFS beneficiary views on violence against women.............................................................................43
Figure 37: Has EFS contributed to a reduction in teen pregnancies?..............................................................44
Figure 38: How well has EFS strengthened connections between members of the community? ......45
Figure 39: Has EFS contributed to greater community cohesion?....................................................................45
Figure 40: How well known is EFS in your community?.........................................................................................46
7
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIR American Institute for Research
B Beneficiaries of Education For Success
BICU Bluefield Indian and Caribbean University 
CAYAC Community At-risk Youth Advisory Committee 
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy 
CEAA FADCANIC´s Center for Agroforestry and Environmental Education 
COPRAJ Occupational Center for Prevention and Rehabilitation of Youth and 
Adolescents (Centro Ocupacional para la Prevención y Rehabilitación 
de Jóvenes y Adolescentes) 
DO Development Objective 
EFS Education for Success
FADCANIC Foundation for the Autonomy and Development of Nicaragua’s 
Atlantic Caribbean Coast (Fundación para la Autonomía y el Desarrollo 
de la Costa Atlántica de Nicaragua)
GON Government of Nicaragua
INATEC National Institute of Technology (Instituto Nacional de la Tecnología) 
INIDE National Institute for Development Information (Instituto Nacional de 
Información de Desarrollo)
IR Intermediate Result
KAP Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice
LAPOP Latin American Public Opinion Project
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MEFCA Ministry of Familial Economy, Community and Associative (Ministerio 
de Economía Familiar, Comunitaria, Cooperativa y Asociativa) 
MiFamilia Ministry of Family 
MINED Ministry of Education 
MOU Memoranda Of Understanding 
NB Non-Beneficiaries of Education for Success
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
NR No Response
OECD-DAC Office for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Development 
Assistance Committee
OPHI Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative 
RACCS Nicaragua’s Autonomous Region of the Southern Caribbean Coast
RACS Nicaragua’s Autonomous Region of the Southern Caribbean
SEREJUVE Regional Secretary of Youth (Secretaria Regional de la Juventud) 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme 
URACCAN The University of Nicaragua’s Caribbean Autonomous Regions 
(Universidad de las Regiones Autónomas de la Costa 
Caribe Nicaragüense) 
8
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
9
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the Education For Success (EFS) development model for
at-risk youth. The model was developed by FADCANIC, the implementing agency of the USAID￾funded project also called EFS, which was carried out in five municipalities of Nicaragua’s 
Autonomous Region of the Southern Caribbean Coast (RACCS). The EFS model is designed to 
strengthen institutions, promote social cohesion, and improve youth employment and formal and 
non-formal educational opportunities for at-risk youth.
This evaluation finds the model has made important contributions to youth development in the 
region, but has not reached its full potential in achieving some of its goals. The report shows the 
EFS model to be highly relevant to youth risk factors and other related youth development 
strategies on Nicaragua’s southern Caribbean coast. It also shows the model has produced many 
outputs and, as demonstrated through a representative survey, established some links to positive 
longer-term outcomes, such as improved youth aspirations. This evaluation proposes actions to
improve the design of the model, make the model more sustainable, and strengthen the model’s 
capacity to create employment opportunities – a major constraint to the model’s effectiveness in 
Nicaragua’s southern Caribbean coast. 
This report begins with a description of the evaluation’s research methodology. It describes the EFS 
model, its goals, and the regional context in which it operates. Next it examines the model design’s
relevance to the region’s youth risk factors and other pertinent development strategies. This is 
followed by an examination of the EFS project’s inputs and outputs, and presents survey results to 
gain insight into the longer-term outcomes of this model. The report concludes by analyzing the 
sustainability of the EFS model and offering summary remarks and recommendations.
METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
This evaluation assesses FADCANIC’s at-risk youth development model, Education For Success 
(EFS). The EFS model broadly defines “youth” as individuals between the ages of 10-29,1 which is 
consistent with USAID’s definition. The model defines “at-risk” youth as, (1) youth of school age but 
not attending school, (2) youth in school but failing, and (3) youth of working ages but not 
employed or in school. The initial terms of reference for this evaluation highlighted several research 
questions. These include: 
ƒ How has the model contributed to building youth development networks, systems, and 
connections?
ƒ What do youth participants perceive as the impact of the youth at-risk model?
ƒ What do community members perceive as the model’s impact?
 
1 Originally, EFS defined youth as between the ages of 10 and 24, but this definition was expanded to include 25 to 29 
years olds, who, it was learned, could also benefit from the model.
10
ƒ What are the educational and employment outcomes of this model?
ƒ What management and institutional capacity is necessary to operate this model?
ƒ What are the core aspects of the model that can be scaled and sustained?
ƒ How is the model incorporating an inclusive development approach?
Box 1: Distinguishing EFS the project from EFS the model 
Education For Success is a project for at-risk youth development carried out by FADCANIC on 
Nicaragua’s southern Caribbean coast. The experience from carrying out this project produced a model 
for at-risk youth development. We refer to this model as the “EFS model” throughout this report. In 
other words, “the EFS project” is the implementation of EFS in the RACCS, while “the EFS model” is 
the general design and structure of this project. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the EFS model, 
not the EFS project. To differentiate between the project and the model that emerged from that project, 
this report evaluates the relative strengths and weaknesses of EFS’ design and implementation in the 
RACCS, but it does not evaluate FADCANIC’s capacity or effectiveness as EFS’ implementing 
agency. As such, this evaluation does not propose actions to improve project implementation by 
FADCANIC, but proposes actions to improve the general design of the EFS model under the 
assumption that this model could be applied to different areas, demographics, and development 
challenges by different implementing agencies. For a more detailed evaluation of EFS’ project 
implementation and FADCANIC’s role, please refer to the 2013 mid-term evaluation of EFS (USAID 
2013).
RESEARCH TEAM
The research team consisted of a team leader, a senior specialist, two “youth assessors,” an 
independent statistician, and partners at Bluefield Indian and Caribbean University (BICU) who 
carried out the survey. The two Nicaraguan “youth assessors” were both younger than thirty years 
old. The purpose of using youth as researchers was to integrate younger perspectives into the 
research model. This had the benefit of allowing young researchers to carry out focus group 
discussions with other young Nicaraguans. Such a strategy helped bring a new perspective to the 
evaluation and improved the comfort level of the focus group discussions. At the same time, youth 
assessors had inconsistent capacity and less experience, which made vetting candidate
qualifications more difficult – fewer professional references, less prior experience in the tasks they 
would carry out. Despite this, both youth assessors engaged in advanced-level research for this 
project, with one assessor acting as the regional coordinator for both the qualitative and 
quantitative data collection components.
The team used the research questions to guide the evaluation activities, which included a review of 
secondary data and the collection of primary qualitative and quantitative data. The specific 
research tools used are examined below and include:
ƒ A literature review;
ƒ Key informant interviews;
ƒ Focus groups; and
ƒ A municipal-level survey.
11
LITERATURE REVIEW
The research team carried out an extensive literature review. This included research undertaken
independently and by USAID and FADCANIC related to EFS and the RACCS. It also included a 
review of FADCANIC and EFS’ external and internal documents. These documents included annual 
and quarterly reports, a sustainability plan, outreach documents, guides and manuals, strategy 
documents, and monitoring and evaluation reports. To identify relevant documentation, 
researchers carried out online scholar searches and asked key informants if they knew of any 
information that would prove valuable to the evaluation’s objectives. FADCANIC also supplied the 
team with relevant documentation. The literature review took place throughout the entirety of the 
evaluation. The reference section at the end of this report lists the documents that informed this 
evaluation.
INTERVIEWS
The research team interviewed key informants to understand EFS and the socio-economic context 
of the RACCS. Interviewees were typically experts in some regional or technical area of the 
evaluation. This helped guide the research team to other relevant research and contextualized the 
regional and socio-economic situation in which EFS operates. Interviews took place in all five EFS 
municipalities and in Managua. In total, 39 people were interviewed for this evaluation. A complete 
list of interviews can be found in Annex A.
FOCUS GROUPS
Focus groups were used to deepen the secondary research and incorporate the voices of certain 
demographics not included in the survey. Overall, 11 focus groups were carried out in the five 
municipalities in which EFS operates. Focus group characteristics were determined in collaboration 
with USAID Nicaragua. In order to attain uninfluenced perspectives from focus group participants, 
different demographics were separated into different focus groups. For example, girls participated 
with other girls, rural youth with other rural youth, and so on. The demographic breakdown by 
municipality is presented in Table 1. The youth assessor, who facilitated the focus groups, 
underwent a training to use participatory and interactive discussion techniques, like community 
mapping. The utmost care was taken to craft questions in non-leading ways. Questions were often 
indirect and open-ended, which helped discussants feel at ease and carry the conversation. 
Facilitators were instructed to pay close attention to focus group dynamics, and instructed to 
manage groups to achieve maximum participation from all discussants. EFS promoters, who work 
with FADCANIC in each project municipality, helped recruit the focus group participants.
Focus groups were selected based on certain demographic characteristics related to age, gender, 
location, risk level, and educational status. These were used to supplement the survey, not 
duplicate it. EFS beneficiaries between 14 and 29 years old, the survey’s target population, were not 
specifically targeted for a separate focus group, since most focus group participants fell within this 
general age range. However, 10 to 14 year olds were targeted as a separate focus group to help 
ensure that older participants did not drown out the voices of the youngest beneficiaries. 
12
Specifically, focus group demographics included: age: adolescents (10-14) and adults (over 30); 
gender: boys and girls; ethnicity: mestizos, indigenous, and afro-descendants; location: urban and 
rural and by municipality; risk status: in-school (low-risk) and out-of-school and not working (high￾risk); employment status: graduates of vocational training and Community At-risk Youth Advisory 
Committee (CAYAC) members (Table 1). Overall, 89 individuals participated in focus group
discussions. The focus groups had a slightly stronger male than female voice, as 55 percent of 
participants were male (Figure 1). Ethnically, most discussants were mestizo, which reflects 
Nicaragua’s demographic make-up, but there was also a strong representation from individuals of 
indigenous or African descent (Figure 2). Most focus group participants were from Bluefields or 
Desembocadura, while the fewest were from Corn Island, where there were difficulties organizing 
participants (Figure 3).2
Table 1: Focus group characteristics. 
Individual focus groups were selected in each of the municipalities based on the characteristics
listed in the table. For example, in Kukra Hill, two focus group discussions took place, one with 
adolescents and another with EFS vocational graduates. It is worth noting that in Desembocadura 
there were two focus groups – one for youth in-school and another for CAYACs. However, all 
participants were from rural areas, so both focus groups were considered to be rural.
Boys Girls Adolescents 
(10-15)
High-risk 
youth
In-school CAYACs Urban Rural EFS 
vocational 
graduates
Mixed3
Bluefields
Laguna de Perlas
Kukra Hill
Corn Island
Desembocadura 
 
2 In Corn Island, the EFS promoter and youth assessor were unable to recruit enough focus group participants. This was 
attributed to a lack of sufficient outreach to these youth and a lack of incentives to entice these youth to participate. 
3 A mixed focus group is one with participants not separated according to age.
Males
55%
Females
45%
Afro￾descent
36%
Mestizo
42%
Indigenou
s…
Figure 1: Focus group respondents by gender Figure 2: Focus group respondents by ethnicity
13
Figure 3: Focus group respondents by municipality
MUNICIPAL-LEVEL SURVEY
The municipal level survey was used to measure EFS perceptions and EFS outcomes by both 
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the model. The survey results are representative of current 
EFS beneficiaries, while non-beneficiaries are used as a control group and to gain external 
perspectives on the EFS model. Among beneficiaries, the survey is also representative according to 
gender and municipality, but is not representative of community, ethnicity, or level of risk. The 
following are some of the key survey characteristics:
x Interviews were conducted in person, face-to-face with randomly selected households.
x Survey participants were 
between the ages of 14 
and 29 years old.
x Participants were from the
five EFS municipalities: 
Bluefields, Kukra Hill, Corn 
Island, Laguna de Perlas, 
and Desembocadura del 
Rio Grande.
x The sample was split with a 
slightly higher 
representation of girls than
boys.
x The survey consisted of 
623 individuals, of which 
293 were beneficiaries and 
330 were non-beneficiaries (see Table 2).
x The survey’s margin of error is less than or equal to five percent.
x The survey has a 95 percent level of confidence.
Bluefields
31%
Kukra Hill
25%
Laguna 
de Perlas
16%
Corn 
Island
7%
Desemboca
dura
21%
Table 2: Sample details of municipal-level survey
MUNICIPALITY 
EFS 
BENEFICIARIES
NON￾BENEFICIARIES
Gender Gender
Male Female Male Female
Desembocadura 26 26 25 24
Laguna de Perlas 24 28 35 43
Kukra Hill 18 18 18 18
Corn Island 17 9 18 18
Bluefields 57 70 58 73
Totals 142 151 154 176
14
ABOUT THE EDUCATION FOR SUCCESS MODEL
FOR AT-RISK YOUTH 
The Education for Success project for at-risk youth is financed by USAID through Cooperative 
Agreement No. AID-524-A-10-00005. FADCANIC, a civil society organization, is the project’s 
implementing agency. FADCANIC’s mission is to deepen, strengthen, and develop the autonomy of 
Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast. It aims to benefit ethnic and indigenous communities by transforming 
social, cultural, political, and economic relationships in the region. FADCANIC has largely 
concentrated on improving the quality and access to formal, and some non-formal, educational 
opportunities for youth, but has expanded into many other areas of development, like life skills 
training, with the EFS model (see “outputs” below).
The EFS project began in 2010 in three of the region’s coastal municipalities. In October 2012, it 
expanded into two more municipalities and is set to continue until September 2017. Each of the 
five municipalities in which the model operates is characterized by high poverty rates, limited 
access to health and education, high unemployment rates, broken homes, and high levels of drug 
and alcohol consumption (LAPOP 2015). These municipalities generally have higher levels of 
insecurity than the rest of the country (LAPOP 2015). These five municipalities include Bluefields, 
Kukra Hill, Corn Island, Laguna de Perlas, and Desembocadura del Río Grande.
The EFS model aims to benefit youth between the ages of 10 and 29. Its goal is to improve the 
human development of at-risk youth by providing scholarships, vocational training, and “life skills” 
training. The “life skills” training is centered on supporting alternative educational opportunities in 
sports, music, and the arts. The model also looks to strengthen community participation in youth 
development, establish linkages between the private sector and youth development, and 
strengthen the institutional capacity of FADCANIC. Below is a more comprehensive list of EFS 
activities. 
The main objective of EFS is to support the project communities’ youth in preparing for “work, 
citizenship, and community life.” This main objective is supported through three intermediate 
results (IRs), described below.
The first intermediate result (IR 1) is to increase the skills of at-risk youth in Caribbean Nicaragua. 
This has two sub-objectives: 
1. To increase youth access to formal and non-formal educational opportunities. 
2. To improve the quality of formal and non-formal educational opportunities. 
To achieve these objectives, EFS carries out several activities. These include:
x Providing scholarships in formal education for students to complete their primary and 
15
secondary studies.
x Providing scholarships in vocational training, in coordination with the National Institute of 
Technology (INATEC) for youth to obtain certification in technical careers.
x Awarding scholarships to youth based on an assessment of that individual’s level of risk.
x Providing tutoring services to scholarship students in remedial math, English, and 
Spanish. 
x Helping students who receive technical training through EFS to find employment.
x Training youth in “life skills,” which include the arts, music, media, and athletics.
x Providing social counseling to youth.
x Training youth in peer methodologies.
x Training teachers to educate youth in “life skills” and social emotional learning.
x Developing a strategy and curriculum for “life skills” education.
x Installing computer labs in project municipalities.
x Creating interest groups for youth to raise awareness on the risks they face.
The second intermediate result (IR 2) is to improve family and community engagement in the EFS 
program. This has four sub-objectives: 
1. To improve the capacity of youth, parents, and Community At-risk Youth Advisory 
Committees (CAYACs). 
2. To improve the awareness of youth risk and its effects on public security. 
3. To improve public participation in community activities. 
4. To increase municipal and private sector investments that support local youth. 
To achieve these objectives, EFS carries out several activities. These include:
x Operating the project in 58 communities in five municipalities in the RACCS.
x Organizing teachers, parents, and community leaders into CAYACs.
x Training parents of EFS scholarship students in “good parenting” practices.
x Raising money from individuals and businesses to facilitate EFS activities.
x Developing memoranda of understanding with youth organizations, professional 
associations, private businesses, and municipal governments to support youth through 
internships.
x Developing a weekly youth-led radio program to engage local authorities, community 
leaders, and project stakeholders on youth issues.
x Organize activities to improve the voice and leadership of youth.
The third intermediate objective (IR 3) is to improve FADCANIC’s technical, managerial, and 
organizational systems. This has two sub-objectives: 
1. To strengthen FADCANIC staff’s capacity to design, manage, and evaluate programs and 
projects. 
2. To improve FADCANIC’s internal and external communications. 
To achieve these objectives, EFS carries out several activities. These include: 
16
x Conducting a study on youth vulnerability in the five project municipalities.
x Conducting a quantitative baseline study of EFS.
x Developing an online monitoring and evaluation system for EFS.
x Training FADCANIC staff in managerial skills.
x Developing seven manuals to modernize operations on administration, internal finance, 
and acquisition control.
x Developing a Strategic Plan (2013-2017) for FADCANIC.
x Developing a Gender Strategy and Operational Plan.
x Developing a policy for working with youth.
SCOPE
The EFS model operates in five municipalities in the RACCS that, at any given time, include 
between 1,000 and 1,500 beneficiaries. At the time of this report, there were 1,135 youth 
participating in EFS (this does not include previously enrolled or graduated youth). The five 
municipalities covered by EFS stretch along the entire southern Atlantic coast of Nicaragua. These 
municipalities include: Bluefields, Kukra Hill, Corn Island, Laguna de Perlas, and Desembocadura del
Rio Grande (see Figure 4). The five municipalities represent approximately 25 percent of the 
population of the RACCS (see Figure 5)
Figure 4: EFS municipalities (FADCANIC, 2015)
17
Figure 5: RACCS municipal populations (AIR 2013)
REGIONAL BACKGROUND
In 1987, the Nicaraguan constitution established two Coastal regions. Today these regions are 
called the Autonomous Region of the Southern Caribbean Coast (Región Autónoma de la Costa 
Caribe Sur - RACCS) and the Autonomous Region of the Northern Caribbean Coastal (Región 
Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Norte - RACCN). The RACCS occupies approximately 21 percent of 
the country’s land mass and is home to a population of about 375,000 people, or about six percent 
of the national population. The region has a majority mestizo population but with a significant 
representation of indigenous people and afro-descendants (see Figure 6, LAPOP, 2015). This ethnic 
diversity makes the region relatively wealthy in certain social capitals.
The population of the RACCS is made 
up mostly of people under 15 years 
old. This is consistent with the general 
youth bulge in Nicaragua. Over the 
next 30 years, these children - now 
dependent on their parents - will seek 
to enter the labor force. This could 
present opportunities in economic and 
productivity terms, but also pose 
challenges to development. The 
Caribbean also has higher fertility rates 
than the rest of the country so 
demographic issues will continue to be 
especially acute in the RACCS (UNDP, 2011). This phenomenon implies a major challenge for 
regional institutions in all facets of development, but especially in providing coverage or 
opportunities in education, employment, and reproductive health.
Generally, the RACCS is economically poorer than the rest of Nicaragua. Historically, this has meant 
more severe poverty (OPHI, 2014) and lower levels of human development (UNDP, 2005) in the 
Bluefields
15%
Kukra Hill
3% Laguna 
de 
Perlas
4%
Corn Island
2%
Desembocadu
ra
1%
Other 7 
municipalities
75%
Mestizos
55%
Creoles
30%
Miskitos
11%
Garifuna
2%
Ulwas
1%
Ramas
1%
Others
0%
Figure 6: Ethnic makeup in RACCS (LAPOP, 2015) 
18
RACCS than in the rest of the country, which is already one of the poorest in Latin America. The 
problem of poverty is especially acute for youth: in the RACCS, poverty affects over fifty percent of 
the population between 10 and 29 years old (Barrios et al, 2015) (see Table 3). Poverty rates in rural 
areas lag behind urban areas. Rural areas on the Caribbean coast are the poorest areas in the 
country (see Figure 5; INIDE 2011).
Table 3: percentage of the population between the ages of 10 and 29 years old living in 
poverty (consumption) in the RACCS (Barrios, Soto, & Henríquez, 2015)
POVERTY AMONG YOUTH
Poverty 
2005
Total 
population 
2005
Youth population 
(10-29) 2005
Total population 
2009
Youth population 
(10-29) 2009
Extreme 
poverty
21.1% 18.8% 19.8% 20.3%
Poverty 37.9% 39.8% 34.7% 32.7%
Not in 
poverty
41.0% 41.4% 45.5% 47.0%
The RACCS has higher youth unemployment and lower rates of school enrollment than the 
Nicaraguan average. Poverty has a direct impact on the educational achievements and 
employment opportunities of youth. In the Caribbean regions, between 33 and 48 percent of the 
population between 15 and 24 years old has less than four years of schooling (Barrios et al., 2015). 
From a human development perspective, fewer than twelve years of schooling is shown to hinder 
the accumulation of skills needed for quality employment (Barrios et al, 2015). According to Barrios 
and others (2015), 59 percent of the Caribbean population between 20 and 24 is underemployed,
and 47 percent of the population between 25 and 29 is underemployed. According to the Instituto 
Nacional de Información de Desarrollo (INIDE, 2005), 55 percent of girls between 15 and 24 years 
old in the five EFS municipalities are neither in school nor employed; it is nine percent for boys of 
the same cohort. Nationally, 38 percent of girls in this age bracket are not in school or employed, 
compared with 14 percent of boys.
The majority of employment in 
the RACCS is concentrated in 
primary economic activities such 
as fishing, forestry, and 
agriculture. Jobs in these sectors 
usually pay low wages and 
require little formal education. 
There are also more medium￾skilled occupations in the region 
such as construction and 
manufacturing, but there are few 
0 high-skill employment 
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
% living on less than $1.25/day, 
2009
Figure 7: Percent of Nicaraguan's living on less than 
$1.25 per day, 2009 (INIDE 2011)
19
opportunities (Barrios and Sequeira, 2013).
The RACCS region is generally less secure than the rest of the country. The homicide rate in the 
southern Caribbean region is much higher than national levels, which have generally declined since 
2006 (see Figure 8; National Police, 2013). If the RACCS were its own nation, it would have one of 
the 10th highest homicide rates in the world. Figure 9 shows that the amount of sexual crimes in the 
RACCS is more than double the national average, while Figure 10 shows there are more robberies 
per capita in the RACCS than the national average (National Police, 2013). Despite these higher 
levels of crime and violence, Figure 11 shows there are many fewer police per square kilometer than 
national averages (National Police, 2013).
Figure 8: Homicide rate per 100,000 people. RACCS vs. National Average (National Police 
Statistics, 2013)
Figure 9: Sexual crimes per 100,000 (National Police Statistics, 2013)
Figure 10: Robberies in all forms per 100,000 people (National Police Statistics, 2013)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
RACS
Total
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
RACS
National
20
Figure 11: Police per 100km2 (National Police Statistics, 2013)
RELEVANCE
The EFS model is highly relevant to the situation of youth risk in the southern Caribbean coast, and 
to USAID’s, FADCANIC’s, and the Government of Nicaragua’s development strategies. For this 
section, we define relevance as, “The extent to which the objectives of a development intervention 
are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and 
donors’ policies” (OECD-DAC, 2010). We use three measurements of relevance: high, moderate, 
and low. High relevance is when EFS’ strategy directly benefits a defined strategy objective. 
Moderate relevance is when EFS’ strategy indirectly benefits a defined strategy objective. Low 
relevance is when EFS’ strategy does not benefit a defined strategy objective. Below we examine 
the relevance of the EFS model to key USAID strategies, FADCANIC’s organizational strategy, the 
government of Nicaragua’s youth strategy, and the general situation of at-risk youth in the RACCS.
RELEVANCE TO THE GENERAL SITUATION OF YOUTH RISK IN THE RACCS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
RACS
National
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
RACS National
21
There are five main risks to 
RACCS’ youth, as defined 
by Zamora (2014), one of 
the lead authors of the EFS 
baseline study in 2013 (AIR, 
2013). Besides poverty, 
which is the biggest risk 
and a contributor to all 
other risk factors, the five 
major risks include: high￾risk sexual activity, drug 
and alcohol abuse, 
vulnerable work, crime and 
violence, and learning limitations.
4
One major risk for youth in the EFS program is teen pregnancy and high-risk sexual activity, such 
as unprotected sex. Over half of youth respondents from the 2013 baseline study have had sexual 
relations. This has led to destructive consequences such as sexually transmitted diseases, early 
pregnancy, unsanitary abortions, and students leaving school to seek work to support a child. 
Figure 12 shows the rates of sexual activity for youth in the five EFS municipalities. The highest rates 
are in Bluefields (AIR 2013). The EFS model does not have a specific objective related to this risk 
factor as it was determined that other regional institutions have a comparable advantage to 
respond to this issue. Still, raising awareness on teen pregnancy and high-risk sexual activity is a 
component of the EFS model’s counseling and good parenting services.
Alcohol and substance abuse is another major risk for youth in the RACCS. Figure 13 shows this is a 
major issue in Bluefields, with substantial levels of consumption also in Laguna de Perlas (AIR 2013). 
Reducing drug and alcohol consumption levels is not a specific intermediate objective of the EFS
model, but raising awareness on this issue is an objective of the counseling and life skills activities. 
Still, the EFS model does not provide any rehabilitation services to youth who struggle with 
addiction. It was determined by project managers that including youth with addiction problems 
would require additional tools and resources. Instead, FADCANIC introduced a referral system to 
guide youth addicts they encounter to specialists.
 
4 In Spanish these risks include: “abuso sexual / embarazo precoz, exposición a drogas y alcohol, trabajo infantil, 
violencia, limitaciones en el aprendizaje.”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
In-school
Out-of-school
Figure 12: Youth who have had sexual relations (AIR 2013)
22
Figure 13: Alcohol consumption (AIR 2013)
Vulnerable work situations are another major risk for youth in the southern Caribbean. Youth who 
work outside of the home are often exploited, working in poor conditions for little and inconsistent 
pay. Also, a child who works is often one who cannot attend school, which stunts the region’s 
overall human and 
early childhood 
development, both of 
which contribute to 
strong economies and 
societies. Figure 14 
shows the percentages 
of youth who work 
outside of the home. 
This is much more 
common for boys than 
girls, with the highest 
rates in Bluefields (AIR 
2013). The EFS model 
seeks to make work situations less precarious for youth by providing vocational and technical 
training. So far, however, the ability for youth graduates of this program to attain work has been 
inconsistent, as will be discussed further.
Crime and violence are major sources of risk for youth in the RACCS. Violence can come in many 
forms, such as violence outside the home; violence within the family; and violence motivated by 
theft, hate, a person’s gender, or other reasons. Generally, criminality and insecurity are 
synonymous with violence. Figure 15 shows that girls fear criminality more than boys and that the 
fear of violence is much higher in Bluefields than the other EFS municipalities (AIR 2013). The EFS
model seeks to reduce crime and violence by providing formal and non-formal educational 
opportunities and counseling and good parenting services. These activities keep at-risk youth away 
from criminal behavior and engaged in productive endeavors.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
In school
Out-of-school
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
In school
Out-of-school
Figure 14: Youth working outside of the home (AIR 2013)
23
Figure 15: Fear of criminality (AIR 2013)
Learning limitations are also considered a major risk for youth in the region. These can be related 
to math, writing, or reading comprehension. They can also be related to a child’s basic ability to 
follow a teacher’s instructions. Figures 16, 17, 18, and 19 show that Bluefields has the highest rates 
of learning deficiencies (AIR 2013). The EFS model seeks to reduce these limitations through its 
tutoring program.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
In school
Out-of-school
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
In School
Out-of-school
Figure 16: Percentage of youth who struggle with math (AIR, 2013)
24
Figure 17: Percentage of youth who have difficulty following teacher instructions 
(AIR, 2013)
Figure 18: Percentage of youth who struggle with reading comprehension (AIR, 
2013)
Figure 19: Percentage of youth with difficulty writing (AIR, 2013) 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
In School
Out-of-school
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
In School
Out-of-school
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
In School
Out-of-school
25
EFS relevance: high. Overall, EFS’ activities directly meet these five youth risks. If one of these risks
is not mentioned in the EFS results framework, it is still a key topic within the model’s activities.
RELEVANCE TO USAID’S YOUTH POLICIES
In 2012, USAID published a new youth development policy to guide youth development activities 
for country missions (USAID, 2012). The policy has a main goal to “Improve the capacities and 
enable the aspirations of youth so that they can contribute to and benefit from more stable, 
democratic, and prosperous communities and nations.” The policy’s two objectives are:
1. Strengthen youth programming, participation and partnership in support of Agency 
development objectives.
2. Mainstream and integrate youth issues and engage young people across Agency initiatives 
and operations.
These objectives have several guiding principles, including:
x Recognizing that youth participation is vital for effective programs.
x Investing in assets that build youth resilience.
x Accounting for youth differences and commonalities.
x Creating second chance opportunities.
x Involving and supporting mentors, families, and communities.
x Pursuing gender equality.
x Embracing innovation and technology by and for youth.
EFS relevance: high. The EFS model’s first intermediate objective is highly relevant to USAID’s Youth 
Policy. The EFS model directly “improves the capacities and enables the aspirations of youth” and 
“strengthens” and “mainstreams” youth programming. EFS IR1 also directly abides by each of 
USAID’s guiding principles.
RELEVANCE TO USAID’S CDCS WITH NICARAGUA
In 2013, USAID released a new Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) with Nicaragua 
(USAID, 2013). The new policy will govern the US’ development strategy in Nicaragua from 2012 to 
2017.
The CDCS’ second development objective (DO2) is to contribute to reducing insecurity along 
Nicaragua's southern Caribbean coast, through the following Intermediary Results: 
x IR 2.1 – Reading performance improved, 
o Sub-IR 2.1.1: Access to Formal and Informal Reading Programs Increased. 
o Sub-IR 2.1.2: Quality of Teacher Performance and Materials Improved.
x IR 2.2 - Workforce and life skills increased, 
o Sub-IR 2.2.1: Relevance of Employability and Life Skills Programs Increased. 
26
o Sub-IR 2.2.2: Access to and Completion of Employability and Citizenship Programs 
Increased. 
x IR 2.3 – Sustainable community engagement in creating a positive environment for at-risk 
children and youth increased. 
o Sub-IR 2.3.1 - Capacity of Local Organizations Increased. 
o Sub-IR 2.3.2 - Community Mobilization in Support of Education and Security 
Increased. 
EFS relevance: high. The EFS model is directly and highly relevant to each of the intermediate 
results of DO2 of the CDCS. In fact, the IRs of the CDCS would seem to have informed the 
definition of EFS’ IRs, but this was not the case.
RELEVANCE TO USAID’S EDUCATION STRATEGY
In 2011, USAID published its education strategy (USAID, 2011). The current strategy only lasts until 
the end of 2015 but USAID is presently updating it. The current strategy has three main goals:
1. Improve reading skills for 100 million children in primary grades.
2. Improve the ability of tertiary and workforce development programs to generate 
workforce skills relevant to a country’s development goals.
3. Increase equitable access to education in crisis and conflict environments for 15 million 
learners.
The EFS model is highly relevant to each of these goals and their sub objectives, which include: 
Goal 1:
x Improved reading instruction;
x Improved reading delivery systems;
x Greater engagement, accountability and transparency by communities and the public.
Goal 2:
x Increased access to vocational, technical, and tertiary education and training for 
underserved and disadvantaged groups;
x Improved quality of tertiary education and research in support of country development 
priorities;
x Improved relevance and quality of workforce development programs.
Goal 3:
x Provide safe learning opportunities for children and youth;
x Strengthen crisis prevention efforts; and
x Strengthen institutional capacity to provide services.
EFS relevance: high. The EFS model’s activities tackle each of these goals directly. 
27
RELEVANCE TO USAID’S GENDER STRATEGY
The USAID Gender and Female Empowerment Policy (USAID, 2012) requires all USAID 
programming integrate the following outcomes: 
x Reduce gender disparities in access to public and political decision‐making spaces and 
positions at local and regional levels; 
x Reduce cultural acceptance of GBV; and 
x Increase capability of women, girls and boys, particularly from ethnic and linguistic 
minority populations, to realize their rights, determine their life outcomes, and influence 
decision‐making in households, communities and societies.
EFS relevance: high. These are not direct objectives of EFS, but they are inherent in the model. The 
EFS model seeks to reduce gender disparities by including an equal number of boys and girls in its 
programming. It also seeks to reduce sexual and gender-based violence. Most importantly, it 
targets girls and boys from diverse ethnic and socio-linguistic backgrounds.
RELEVANCE TO THE NICARAGUAN GOVERNMENT’S YOUTH POLICY
Nicaragua’s National Youth Policy is valid until the end of 2015. This policy aims to, “improve the 
quality of life and create opportunities for Nicaraguan youth through social integration, greater 
autonomy, increasing youth potential, and by recognizing that youth are a strategic focus of the 
nation’s development.” Specific objectives include: 
x Improving employment opportunities for youth; 
x Improving youth access to a quality education;
x Improving the health of youth; 
x Increasing youth participation in the nation’s development; 
x Promoting sport and cultural spaces for youth; and 
x Preventing youth violence.
EFS relevance: high. The EFS model’s programming is highly relevant to Nicaragua’s youth policy 
objectives. The model helps youth employment, improves access to education, helps prevent 
violence, and promotes sports and cultural spaces. Although, the EFS model does not specifically 
address health improvements for youth and the Nicaraguan government’s idea of youth 
participation in development is closely aligned with party loyalties and increasing youth 
participation in the Sandinista Youth group (Juventud Sandinista) – two areas in which EFS’ youth 
development model does not align with the government’s youth development model. The 
government also has a general development strategy for the autonomous Caribbean regions 
(GON, 2012). The EFS model is relevant to this too.
RELEVANCE TO FADCANIC’S MISSION
FADCANIC’s ten guiding principles are as follows:
1. Promoting regional development in way specific to ethnic, cultural, and linguistic 
diversity,
28
2. Utilizing the region’s biodiversity and natural resources in a sustainable way that 
benefits the population,
3. Preserving and enhancing the region’s autonomy,
4. Strengthening human resources,
5. Ensuring the full participation of women,
6. Prioritizing children,
7. Enhancing opportunities for afro and indigenous populations,
8. Improving employment opportunities without discrimination,
9. Protecting and nurturing cultural diversity, and
10. Promoting regional, national, and international knowledge exchanges.
FADCANIC’s education program is the most relevant to EFS. The four objectives of this program 
include:
1. Using education to build human resources for the future,
2. Preparing youth to become leaders,
3. Improving the ability and capacity of teachers, and
4. Improving literacy rates.
EFS relevance: high. EFS model components are highly relevant to strengthening human resources, 
prioritizing children, and enhancing opportunities for Afro and indigenous populations. They are 
either indirectly relevant or not relevant to FADCANIC’s other guiding principles. EFS model 
components are highly relevant to FADCANIC’s education goals.
INPUTS AND OUTPUTS
The EFS model, as implemented in the RACCS, is generally cost effective, though capacity to fully 
execute the monitoring and evaluation system is limited. This section will briefly look at the inputs 
and outputs of the EFS model in the RACCS. Based on these, we carry out a simple cost 
effectiveness analysis and point out some capacity constraints. We define inputs as “the financial, 
human, and material resources used for the development intervention” and outputs as “the 
products, capital goods and services which result from a development intervention; may also 
include changes resulting from the intervention which are relevant to the achievement of 
outcomes” (OECD-DAC 2010).
INPUTS
The EFS project is a $6.7 million dollar program that aims to benefit 4,420 youth between the ages 
of 10 and 29; 2,100 parents; 190 teachers; and 90 youth mentors. Funding for the project began in 
October 2010 and will finish by September 2017. Since 2010, the project has spent approximately 
$3.7 million, or 54 percent of the total budget. In addition, a countless amount of volunteer time
has been dedicated to the project.
OUTPUTS
29
Table 4: Major EFS outputs by intermediate result (IR), October 2010-June 2015 
(FADCANIC 2015)
IR 1 – Increase skills of at-risk youth
Provide formal education scholarships. 1,513 scholarship students complete primary 
and secondary studies. 90% graduation 
rate.
Provide vocational scholarships 1,363 youth receive technical certifications.
Award scholarships to youth based on an assessment 
of that individual’s level of risk.
Youth risk assessment designed.
Provide tutoring services to scholarship students in 
remedial math, English, and Spanish. 
232 tutors have tutored scholarship 
students.
Help students find employment. 290 youth gained new or better jobs in 
areas related to their vocational training.
Train youth in “life skills.” 1,464 youth trained in “life skills.”
Provide social counseling to youth. 247 students received group counseling; 
202 students received individual counseling. 
Train youth in peer methodologies. 267 youth trained.
Train teachers to educate youth in life skills and social 
emotional learning.
336 teachers trained.
Develop a strategy and curriculum for life skills 
education.
Curriculum developed and implemented.
Install computer labs in project municipalities. Seven computer labs installed.
Create interest groups for youth to raise awareness 
on the risks they face.
Interest groups created.
IR 2 – Improve family and community engagement with EFS 
Operate the project in communities within the 5 
municipalities. 
Operating in 58 communities
Organize teachers, parents, and community leaders 
into Community At-risk Youth Advisory Committees 
(CAYACs).
167 CAYAC members.
Teach parents trained in “good parenting” practices. 1,252 parents trained.
Raise money from individuals and businesses to 
facilitate EFS activities.
$568,964.70 raised in private donations and 
cost sharing. 
Develop memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with 
local organizations to support youth through 
internships.
27 MOUs signed
Improve local outreach. Developed a weekly youth-led radio 
program to engage local authorities, 
community leaders, and project 
stakeholders on youth issues. Social media 
outreach is underway as well.
IR 3 – Improve FADCANIC’s technical, managerial, and organizational systems
Conduct studies to generate knowledge. A youth vulnerability study and a baseline 
study, KAP on Life Skills, KAP on policies for 
youth, a good parenting manual, EFS 
scholarship cost study, a youth recreational 
and sports infrastructure assessment, a 
30
socio-economic study of the five EFS 
municipalities, and the baseline study for 
EFS.
Improve monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity. Developed an online M&E system and 
conducted an external mid-term evaluation.
Improve management capacity. Trained FADCANIC staff in managerial skills.
Modernize operations. Developed seven manuals on 
administration, internal finance, and 
acquisition control. Also, set up a human 
resources unit.
Develop clear strategies. Developed a Strategic Plan (2013-2017) for 
FADCANIC, a Gender Strategy and 
Operational Plan, protocol for life-skills 
training, a policy for working with youth, 
and a sustainability plan.
SCHOLARSHIPS, PERSONNEL, AND OTHER DIRECT COSTS
The most expensive activities of the EFS model in the RACCS were the scholarship programs. These 
comprised approximately $1.2 million from October 2010 until September 2014, equivalent to 47 
percent of the allotted budget for scholarships for the life of the program. Despite this, EFS is 
ahead of schedule in terms of scholarship enrollment. There have been a total of 2,876 youth 
enrolled in formal 
education or trained in a 
vocational skill through 
scholarships, which is 65 
percent of the target 
population for these 
programs. This means that 
spending has been more 
effective than originally 
planned.
Both educational and 
vocational scholarships 
have been effective
towards reducing youth 
risk. Of the 1,513 youth with scholarships in formal education, there is a 90 percent graduation rate. 
Of the 1,363 youth who completed scholarships in vocational training, 21 percent (290 youth) have 
been able to find work (see Figure 20). The high graduation rate could reflect FADCANIC’s uniquely 
long history and high capacity in providing formal education opportunities. By contrast, providing 
non-formal education is an activity in which FADCANIC is relatively less experienced. More
importantly, there is a severe lack of employment opportunities in the RACCS, so a 21 percent 
90%
21%
10%
79%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Graduated school after
completing EFS formal
education scholarship
Found employment after
completing EFS vocational
training scholarship
No
Yes
Figure 20: Success rate of EFS scholarships (municipal survey 
results, authors’ rendering)
31
employment rate should be considered a success. This is 290 more jobs than would have existed 
without the project and there is no way to quantify the short- and long-term impact of keeping
over 1,300 at-risk youth off the streets and engaged in productive activities. Moreover, the inability 
of the other 79 percent of vocational graduates to attain employment is more a reflection of the 
RACCS’ weak labor market. This is a constraint to implementing the EFS model in a part of the 
world with a stagnant job market. It should be noted that finding employment is not an objective 
of the EFS model, only to improve formal and informal education opportunities.
Spending on personnel is the 
lowest expense among 
personnel, scholarships, and 
direct costs (figure 21). This 
means that human resource 
overhead is not necessarily a 
huge burden to overall model 
costs; it is only 20 percent of 
total costs through the first five 
years of EFS. This low 
spending, therefore, does not 
detract from project 
components. 
Spending on “other direct costs” is significant. Much of this budget is dedicated to the logistics of 
operating the model in a region with poor infrastructure. Many of the communities within EFS are 
only accessible by boat, so travelling expenses are high. This is a peculiarity of working in the 
RACCS, and it is reasonable to assume that the logistics of operating this model in regions with 
greater connectivity would be less costly.
Figure 22: Expenditure trends from October 2010 to September 2015 (estimated) 
(FADCANIC Annual Budget, 2014)
$0.00 $50,000.00
$100,000.00
$150,000.00
$200,000.00
$250,000.00
$300,000.00
$350,000.00
$400,000.00
$450,000.00
Personnel
Scholarships
Other direct costs
Personnel
20%
Scholarships
39%
Other direct 
costs
41%
Figure 21: Expenditures from October 2010 to September 2014 
(FADCANIC Annual Budget, 2014)
32
The $6.7 million cash infusion into FADCANIC for the EFS program represented an opportunity, but
also a challenge. This is a significant amount of money for a regional implementing agency. As we 
have seen in the case of the EFS project, FADCANIC staff had to expand into newer areas of 
operations, such as non-formal education. They also had to assume the financial and 
administrative responsibilities of managing such a large investment. This is an inherent difficultly in 
absorbing cash infusions that represent a major portion of an institution’s funding. Organizations
are forced to scale up, which can be a challenge. For example, one area in which FADCANIC
struggled was with the implementation of the modern, but cumbersome, monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) system required by USAID (see Box 2). Given these challenges, FADCANIC staff 
has generally met the new capacity requirements for executing such a large program, and scaled 
up effectively. This may be more or less problematic for other implementing agencies tasked with 
implementing this model. For this reason, the large financial investment and capacity requirements 
should be considered a real risk if the model is duplicated elsewhere.
Box 2: Monitoring and evaluation 
The EFS project’s statistical monitoring and evaluation (M&E) database has exceeded the technical 
capabilities of FADCANIC staff. The new M&E database started operating in 2013. In this system, 
information from all 58 EFS communities is collected and entered into an electronic registry. This 
data tracks the more than 3,000 youth who are participating or have participated in EFS. It requires 
consistent data inputs from promoters from each municipality. FADCANIC staff estimates that 
promoters dedicate one day in five to inputting data. But, the FADCANIC team is still in the process 
of familiarizing itself with this system. Training was provided in 2013, but shortly after receiving it, 
FADCANIC’s former head of M&E left for another job. His replacement was thrust into this position 
without any formal training in the system. When asked if they are capable of executing this 
monitoring system, FADCANIC’s new head of M&E said, “as beginners, yes. We are 65 percent 
capable.” This M&E system is very comprehensive and functional; but the staff responsible for it has 
not yet received adequate training. 
EFFECTIVENESS: OUTCOMES AND SURVEY 
FINDINGS
This evaluation shows the EFS model has been effective in achieving many of its intended 
outcomes. EFS is increasing the skills of at-risk youth in Caribbean Nicaragua, improving family and 
community engagement in the EFS program, and improving the implementing agency’s technical, 
managerial, and organizational systems. Effectiveness is defined as, “The extent to which the 
development intervention’s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into 
account their relative importance” (OECD-DAC 2010).
Measuring EFS’ outcomes is a challenge. Outcomes are defined as, “The likely or achieved short￾term and medium-term effects of an intervention’s outputs”(OECD-DAC, 2010). Measuring long￾term effects is difficult in the absence of specific data points that can measure the impact EFS has 
33
had on outcomes. Moreover, measuring outcomes can have problems of attribution. Attribution is 
defined as, “The ascription of a causal link between observed (or expected to be observed) 
changes and a specific intervention” (OECD-DAC, 2010). Outcomes such as reductions in violence 
or higher employment cannot be causally linked, or attributed directly, to EFS outputs. Such socio￾economic improvements could be a result of many factors and processes.
For this reason, we relied on the perspectives of EFS beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries to measure 
the effectiveness of the EFS model. These perspectives were collected as part of a survey that is 
representative of all EFS beneficiaries by gender and municipality. The perspectives of a non￾representative control group of non-EFS beneficiaries were also collected to improve challenges of 
attribution and provide a limited counterfactual. Below, we present some of the survey’s general 
findings and EFS model outcomes in education, employment, life skills, violence, and inclusiveness. 
After, we look more generally at perceptions of the EFS model by both beneficiaries and non￾beneficiaries.
EDUCATIONAL FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES
Most students living in the five municipalities are enrolled in the public education system. Youth 
within the EFS program tend to rely on public education more than youth not involved in the 
program, with 97 percent of EFS youth at public schools, but only 80 percent of non-EFS youth in 
public schools. Approximately three percent of EFS youth are enrolled in private schools, compared 
to 17 percent of non-EFS students. This finding reflects territorial inequalities in socio-economic 
wellbeing. The majority of private schooling, which is of a higher quality, but also more expensive, 
is found in Bluefields and Corn Island. Of the five EFS municipalities, these two are the most urban 
and have the most diversified labor markets. This finding also shows that the EFS model is 
successful in targeting poorer at-risk youth who cannot afford private education.
For surveyed youth in the formal educational system, school represents a strategic investment that 
allows them to improve their living conditions over the short- and medium-term. When asked, 
“What have you learned from your education that will help you find employment or start a 
business?” the responses from both EFS youth (94 percent) and non-EFS youth (87 percent) were 
positive (see Table 5). From an urban-rural or municipal perspective, there were no major 
differences. The main answers given were that education helped them: succeed at work, gain 
responsibility, improve job opportunities, and build knowledge or organizational skills.
Table 5: Linking education to employment opportunities (municipal survey results, 
authors’ rendering)
“What have you learned from your education that will help you find employment or start a business?”
EFS youth Non-EFS youth
 
Desembocadura 
Laguna 
de 
Perlas
Kukra 
Hill
Corn 
Island Bluefields Total Desembocadura 
Laguna 
de 
Perlas
Kukra 
Hill
Corn 
Island Bluefields Total
34
Improved job 
opportunities 6.4% 20.8% 32.1% 15.4% 15.8% 16.7% 11.1% 30.4% 8.8% 61.8% 18.6% 24.1%
Succeed at 
work 19.1% 37.5% 39.3% 7.7% 27.2% 27.0% 35.6% 40.6% 8.8% 32.4% 17.7% 26.4%
Strengthen 
knowledge and 
oragnizational 
capacity
25.5% 10.4% 17.9% 19.2% 26.3% 21.7% 33.3% 15.9% 8.8% 2.9% 28.3% 21.0%
Improve 
interpersonal 
skills
10.6% 3.8% 6.1% 4.9% 11.1% 0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 3.5% 4.4%
Gain more 
work 
responsibility
38.3% 29.2% 10.7% 53.8% 23.7% 28.9% 11.1% 30.4% 8.8% 61.8% 18.6% 24.1%
No response 2.1% .9% .8% 0.0% 1.4% 2.9% 0.0% .9% 1.0%
Learning difficulties tend to be worse in rural areas. This was shown clearly among non-EFS youth 
in the five municipalities, especially Desembocadura, where 32.7 percent of respondents claimed 
learning difficulties and Kukra Hill, where 25 percent of respondents claimed the same (see Table 
6). These two municipalities are the most rural of the five. This lack of comprehension could lead to
long-term negative impacts on literacy and other educational outcomes. It could also hinder the 
ability of youth from these areas to develop the skills necessary for better employment 
opportunities. Youth aspirations could be stunted.
Table 6: Perceived difficulties in reading comprehension among non-EFS youth 
(Municipal survey results, authors’ rendering)
Municipality
Total Desembocadura Laguna 
de Perlas
Kukra 
Hill 
Corn 
Island Bluefields
Yes 32.7% 16.7% 25.0% 16.7% 20.7% 21.6%
No 67.3% 83.3% 75.0% 83.3% 79.3% 78.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Youth tend to drop out 
of school because of 
poor personal or family 
living conditions. Most 
survey respondents 
said they left school 
because “the family is 
in need” or to “cover 
one’s own costs and be 53.8
20.5 17.9 5.1 2.6
32.4
46.5
12.7
8.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
My family is
in need
To cover my
own costs
To be
independent
Other No response
EFS Youth Non-EFS Youth
Figure 23: “Why do you need to work?” (Municipal survey 
results, authors’ rendering)
35
independent” (see Figure 23). This tradeoff between continuing school and working is a common 
one in the RACCS. It is a scenario where survival strategies in the short-term directly limit long￾term development.
EFS beneficiaries believe 
that their EFS-supported 
education has been very 
useful. Only in 
Desembocadura did a 
significant portion (almost 
half) of respondents say 
their education was only 
somewhat useful (see 
Figure 24). This could 
reflect the rural, isolated 
nature of Desembocadura 
and the fact that a formal
education is relatively less 
imperative than in areas 
with a more diverse labor 
market and greater 
connectivity to non-local opportunities. This outlook by EFS beneficiaries shows the EFS model is 
succeeding in improving the quality of educational opportunities, but, again, this is difficult to 
measure directly.
Generally, EFS youth believe their education will help them find work (Figure 25). In each of the 
survey municipalities, most youth responded favorably to the question “Will your education help 
you find employment or start a business?” Moreover, in four of the five municipalities (except Kukra 
Hill), a greater percentage of EFS youth responded favorably to the question than non-EFS youth 
responded favorably. This means that the EFS model has done a good job of imparting the long￾term value of education on its beneficiaries.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not useful Somewhat useful Very useful
Figure 24: How useful have EFS’ educational services been for 
your family (survey of beneficiaries) (Municipal survey results, 
authors’ rendering
36
Figure 25: Will your education help you find employment or start a business? (Municipal 
survey results, authors’ rendering)
EMPLOYMENT FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES
EFS youth tend to encounter more precarious work situations than non-EFS youth. Four out of ten 
survey respondents say they work, which is true for both EFS and non-EFS youth. But, when we 
look closer, we see some differences. For EFS youth, 26 percent were self-employed, and 32
percent worked in their family’s business. For non-EFS youth, 47 percent found salaried work, and 
27 percent were self-employed. The lack of salaried jobs for EFS youth shows they have higher 
employment vulnerability than non-EFS youth, which is possibly a reflection of fewer opportunities 
associated with living in a higher state of risk. Figure 26 supports this by showing that only 26 
percent of EFS participants who work are provided benefits from their employer, such as social 
security or another type of support if in need, while 50 percent of non-EFS youth receive these 
benefits. Sixty-three percent of EFS youth with a job say they receive no benefits at all from their 
employer.
Figure 26, which shows EFS youth work in vulnerable conditions, presents an interesting contrast to 
Figure 27, which shows that EFS youth are highly optimistic about finding quality work. This can be 
partially explained by the type of training provided by the EFS model in life skills and 
entrepreneurial skills. This training teaches empowerment and that education and job training can 
help one find a good job, which is reflected in Figure 27. But, youth in the RACCS are confronted 
by the hard reality that there are very few secure work opportunities in the municipalities, 
especially for at-risk youth. Still, even if youth cannot find employment in the RACCS they are 
better trained to seek work elsewhere if they migrate. There is very little data on the benefits the 
EFS model has on potential migrants. In theory, all graduates of the EFS programs are better 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB
Desembocadura Laguna de Perlas Kukrahill Corn Island Bluefields Men Women Total
 NR No Yes
37
equipped to work. Still, the completion of the program could present a small risk by creating an
exaggerated sense of hope and greater frustration for EFS youth when that hope is not realized. 
Figure 27 reaffirms what this suggests and should generally be considered a positive outcome, that 
the EFS model has been effective in raising the hopes and aspirations of its beneficiaries.
Figure 26: What does your work provide you with? (Municipalsurvey results, authors’ 
rendering)
Figure 27: Has EFS increased your aspirations and optimism? (Municipal survey results, 
authors’ rendering)
21.1 5.3
63.2
10.5
40
10
40
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Social security A promise of
help when I'm in
need
Nothing No response
EFS Youth Non-EFS Youth
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes
No
38
EFS youth believe their 
career trajectories are 
improving. Despite the 
structural difficulties of 
finding secure work in 
EFS communities, 60 
percent of EFS youth 
said the training they 
received helped them 
find work (see Figure 
28). This is despite the 
fact that only 21 
percent of EFS’
technical training 
graduates have actually 
found work as a result of their training. This seems to suggest a disconnect between the positive 
outlooks of EFS youth and the reality of the RACCS’ job market. Figure 29 affirms this by showing 
EFS youth beneficiaries are more likely than non-beneficiaries to say their career prospects are 
improving. Figure 30 shows that the overwhelming majority of EFS youth found vocational training 
to be beneficial to their families. Focus groups show this is because of the youth’s higher prospect 
for landing a job and their general sense of accomplishment.
Figure 29: How do you evaluate your work trajectory? B=beneficiaries; NB=non-beneficiaries; NR=no 
response. No data available for beneficiaries of Kukra Hill (Municipal survey results, authors’ rendering)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes
No
Figure 28: Did EFS vocational training help you find a job? 
(Municipal survey results, authors’ rendering)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB
Desembocadura Laguna de Perlas Kukra Hill Corn Island Bluefields Men Women Total
Stagnant Surviving Improving Very Negative NR
39
Figure 30: How useful has EFS vocational training program been for your family?
(Municipal survey results, authors’ rendering)
LIFE SKILLS FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES
EFS youth generally believe that life skills training benefitted their family. In all, 88 percent believed 
this (see Figure 31). EFS youth prioritized the components of the life skills training that were the 
most important; computer training was ranked the most important, followed by sports, music, and
art. This suggests that life skills trainings are succeeding in providing alternate activities to high-risk 
behavior for youth. It also shows that the menu of activities is relevant to the interests of local 
youth. Focus group discussions show that this component has had problems maintaining trainers 
for these activities, but this does not seem to have created a negative perception towards the 
program
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
40
Figure 31: Has your family benefitted from EFS’ “life skills” program? (Municipal survey 
results, authors’ rendering)
EFS youth in Desembocadura, on average, found each of the youth activities less helpful to their 
families than the rest of the municipalities, though all overwhelmingly found these activities helpful. 
In Desembocadura, they found the educational, vocational, and life skills trainings all less helpful 
than did the other four communities (see Figures 24, 30, and 31). This is interesting because it 
contradicts the general sentiment within EFS that the model works the best in Desembocadura and 
Kukra Hill, but is the most challenging in Corn Island and Laguna de Perlas (interview with Hazel 
Wilson, EFS Coordinator, August 7, 2015, Bluefields). Specifically, about Desembocadura, 
FADCANIC said the community is excited to make the components work, not that the components 
have worked. It is possible that this community lacks enough market and educational opportunities 
to take full advantage of the project components, but have the motivation to do so. Again, the 
limits of the model are exposed by the hard socio-economic realities within the communities.
Boys found the life skills training more helpful to their families than girls, while girls found the 
educational and vocational trainings most helpful to their families (see Figures 24, 30, and 31). This 
could possibly reflect gender norms in the region. It is probably more acceptable for boys to 
engage in activities such as sports, music, and art. Girls, on the other hand, may find the practical 
aspects of EFS more helpful because gender norms have traditionally made life skills – such as art, 
sports and music - more acceptable activities for boys.
VIOLENCE FINDINGS AND OUTCOMES
EFS youth tend to be more informed about the challenges associated with violence than the group 
of non-EFS youth. The EFS youth explain violence in terms of being victims of it. This could reflect 
the higher risk living situations of EFS youth than non-EFS youth. From a territorial perspective, 
Bluefields is perceived as the least safe municipality; with 45 percent of respondents saying it is not 
safe. By contrast, only 23 to 30 percent of respondents from the other municipalities say their 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes
No
41
communities are unsafe (table 7). This general perception of insecurity, especially in Bluefields is 
consistent with the 2013 baseline study (AIR, 2013). 
Table 7: Perceived levels of neighborhood security in each municipality (Municipal 
survey results, authors’ rendering)
MUNICIPALITY 
Desembocadura
Laguna 
de 
Perlas
Kukra 
Hill 
Corn 
Island Bluefields
Not Secure 23.5% 25.0% 27.8% 30.8% 44.9% 34.2%
Secure 64.7% 73.1% 63.9% 69.2% 50.4% 60.3%
No response 11.8% 1.9% 8.3% 4.7% 5.5%
The EFS model appears to have been successful in improving perceptions on crime and violence. 
Figure 32 shows that over 85 percent of respondents say their view on drugs has become more 
negative. In Bluefields, 80 percent of respondents agree, though a slightly larger proportion of 
these respondents say their views on drugs are positive or have not changed compared to the 
other municipalities. There are no discernible gender differences.
Figure 32: How has your view towards drugs changed as a result of EFS? (Municipal survey 
results, authors’ rendering)
INCLUSIVENESS OF EFS
EFS youth are in a state of higher risk than non-EFS youth. Perceptions of crime and violence show 
some divisions between EFS youth and non-EFS youth. Most EFS youth have a better 
understanding of the threat of crime and violence. This includes more nuanced views on drug 
consumption, access to firearms, and problems with drug trafficking. These differences in 
knowledge likely reflect the state of risk between the two groups, with EFS youth living in higher 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I view drugs more
negatively
My view on drugs has
not changed
I view drugs more
positively
42
risk situations. As a result, both EFS youth and non-EFS youth tend to believe the EFS model is 
most beneficial for high-risk youth (Figure 33). This can be considered a success for EFS since the 
model targets higher risk populations.
Figure 33: Is EFS more beneficial to high- or low-risk youth? (Municipal survey results, 
authors’ rendering)
Figure 34 shows that 
EFS youth believe that 
EFS benefits younger 
individuals. Most 
respondents said they 
believe the program 
benefits all ages 
equally, but when one 
looks closer there is a 
clear belief that 
adolescents and youth 
between 10 and 19 are 
benefitting more than 
young adults. This 
would support what 
some focus groups and 
interviews suggest 
(Jessi Castro, August 9, Bluefields),
5 that the EFS model is more beneficial for adolescents, but less 
so for the older end of the highest-risk populations, which are between 15 and 24 years old. 
 
5 President of the Youth Council (Consejo de las Juventudes) of Bluefields and Secretary of the Sandinista Youth 
(Secretario de la Juventud Sandinista ) in the South Caribbean.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB
DesembocaduraLaguna de Perlas Kukra Hill Corn Island Bluefields Men Women Total
More beneficial for youth in high-risk
More beneficial for youth in moderate-risk
More beneficial for youth in low-risk
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
More beneficial for
children (10-14)
More beneficial for
adolescents (15-19)
More beneficial for
young adults (20-24)
More benefical for
adults (25-29)
Equally beneficial for all
ages
Figure 34: For what age group is EFS the most beneficial? 
(Municipal survey results, authors’ rendering)
43
According to Mr. Castro, “Those are the youth on the corners.” Corn Island is the only municipality 
where there is a clear trend to benefit the 15 to 19 year old population group. 
Most EFS youth believe the EFS model benefits both genders equally (Figure 35). This would seem 
to be supported by project indicators that show an equal number of boys and girls have 
participated in the program. Figure 36 shows that EFS youth view violence against women 
negatively, by a large margin, with only a slightly higher proportion of girls viewing it negatively 
than boys. A large majority of project beneficiaries also say the EFS model has helped reduced teen 
pregnancy, with boys tending to be a little more optimistic on this issue than girls (see Figure 37).
Figure 35: Is EFS more beneficial for girls or boys? (Municipal survey results, authors’ 
rendering)
Figure 36: EFS beneficiary views on violence against women (Municipal survey results, 
authors’ rendering)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
More beneficial for boys
More beneficial for girls
Equally beneficial for boys and girls
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
I view abuse toward women
more negatively
My view has not changed
I view abuse toward women
more positively
44
Figure 37: Has EFS contributed to a reduction in teen pregnancies? (Municipal survey 
results, authors’ rendering)
The EFS model does not actively target youth who struggle with substance abuse or have a 
criminal history. The EFS model lacks a systemic approach to work with these youth, who by most 
accounts are at the highest risk. The rational for excluded them is understandable. First, FADCANIC 
does not have the capacity, expertise, or specialized skills to work in rehabilitation. Second, 
allowing these troubled youth into EFS could destabilize gains or even endanger other youth in the 
program. Georgina Ferrer, Director of the Occupational Center for Prevention and Rehabilitation of 
Youth and Adolescents (COPRAJ) in Bluefields, reaffirmed this. She said:
“These kids don’t attend classes. I tried to involve them in FADCANIC programs, but these 
programs have strict rules, and these kids don’t follow rules. For this reason, we don’t have 
any rules at COPRAJ, other than to not consume drugs or alcohol or provoke violence while 
in the Center. But these kids are not going anywhere, so we have to go to them. They come 
to the Center when they want and leave the same way.”
OTHER PERCEPTIONS OF EFS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes
No
45
EFS youth tend to 
believe the model
has strengthened 
community 
connections more 
than non-EFS youth 
believe (see Figure 
38). This could 
likely reflect EFS 
youth’s familiarity 
with model
activities, but also 
may reflect the 
limited outreach 
the EFS model has 
among non￾beneficiary 
populations, which 
is beyond the 
scope of the model. Figure 39 shows that EFS youth generally believe the EFS model has improved 
community cohesion. This is especially true in Desembocadura and Kukra Hill, where FADCANIC
personnel said that EFS has had the most success (confirmed in an interview with Hazel Wilson, EFS 
Coordinator, FADCANIC, August 7, Bluefields).
Figure 39: Has EFS contributed to greater community cohesion? (Municipal survey results, 
authors’ rendering)
Figure 40 shows that EFS is generally well known in the communities. It is interesting to note that 
Laguna de Perlas and Corn Island have the lowest proportion of respondents saying EFS is “very 
well known.” This is consistent with what EFS personnel told us about Laguna de Perlas and Corn 
Island being the most problematic for the program among all the municipalities. This may suggest 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes
No
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB B NB
DesembocaduraLaguna de Perlas Kukra Hill Corn Island Bluefields Men Women Total
Connections have strengthened greatly
Connections have strenthened some
Connections have not strengthened
Figure 38: How well has EFS strengthened connections between 
members of the community? (Municipal survey results, authors’
rendering)
46
that one of the challenges in these communities for EFS is people lack a clear understanding of the 
model’s purpose or even its existence. This can inhibit higher participation rates.
Figure 40: How well known is EFS in your community? (Municipal survey results, authors’ 
rendering)
SUMMARY REMARKS ON OUTCOMES
The survey results clearly show a number of positive attitude and behavioral changes have 
occurred as a result of the EFS model. The positive changes are related to drug use, unsafe sex, 
teen pregnancy, and community cohesion. In this sense, high-risk practices that were perhaps 
previously justified are now perceived as a violation of rights and negative influences on the 
community. These attitudinal changes have helped generate a virtuous cycle of community 
participation, relationships with family, and confidence in decision-making.
The EFS model has also contributed to the development of skills and positive aspirations for at-risk 
youth. The model’s deliberate strategy to work with at-risk youth has generated positive outlooks 
by them towards their future, their employment opportunities, and their education as a means to 
achieve personal and professional development.
The EFS model has improved the confidence of its beneficiaries. These contributions have helped 
dismantle negative paradigms around issues such as drug use and the lack of opportunities. The 
EFS model has instilled a recognition among participants that, by taking action, they can shape 
their destinies over the medium- and long-term. In this sense, the EFS model has helped build 
personal confidence, interpersonal skills, assertiveness and increased emotional intelligence in its 
beneficiaries that will have long lasting and immeasurable impacts on those individuals and their 
communities.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Very well known
Somewhat well known
Not well known
47
BOX 3: Why is the EFS model more successful in some municipalities than in others? 
In trying to understand why EFS has functioned well in some municipalities and less so in 
others, we can only offer some hypotheses. Generally, the EFS model has been applied 
uniformly to each municipality without much room for local adaptation. The populations of 
these five municipalities are highly diverse, but this is not a sufficiently detailed rationale for 
adjusting activities. Below we look at other factors that may have determined project 
effectiveness in the different municipalities 
In some municipalities, certain project components function well, while in others they do 
not. Some examples include:
ƒ The vocational training program requires some sort of private enterprise involvement 
to provide jobs to program graduates. While private enterprises with available job 
opportunities are limited in the entire region, they are completely nonexistent in 
Desembocadura.
ƒ Certain municipalities have important work seasons. For example, Laguna de Perlas 
has a fishing season, during which most youth are at sea trying to make a living. 
During this time, it may be more difficult to encourage youth participation in the 
model. But, this is not the case in other communities where the agricultural calendar is 
more important. Therefore, EFS activities must be sensitive to these seasonal issues.
ƒ The life skills component involves sports, art, music, and computer equipment, the
resources for which tend to be centrally located in a youth center or other facility. 
Youth from communities that are isolated or are a great distance from these centers 
will naturally be less inclined to participate. This is especially the case for more rural 
areas and demonstrates the distinctly urban bias of the EFS model. 
ƒ Certain municipalities have better access to resources. For example, Laguna de Perlas 
has access to the School of Excellence, while Desembocadura has closer access to the 
vocational training sites in Wawashang. 
ƒ Some communities have more acute youth vulnerability. For example, crime 
prevention in Kukra Hill has been complicated by the ineffective control of narco￾trafficking by police. This is a risk that other municipalities also face, but not in the 
same way. Moreover, Bluefields has more frequent instances of crime and violence. 
ƒ The good-parenting and CAYAC models function better in areas with strong social 
cohesion. For example, according to focus group discussions, Desembocadura has 
high social cohesion, while Bluefields, Corn Island, and Laguna de Perlas have lower 
social cohesion, which makes this component more difficult in those municipalities.
SUSTAINABILITY
The EFS model for at-risk youth in its current form is not completely financially sustainable, but in 
many ways it is socially sustainable. The model required an external investment of $6.7 million over 
48
seven years, and, as of December 2015, the EFS project raised $568,964 in private sector 
contributions and cost sharing. Of this, $207,114 is contributions from businesses, universities, and 
individuals. But, sustainability is much more than a simple question of financing. We define 
sustainability as, “The continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major 
development assistance has been completed. The probability of continued long-term benefits. The 
resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time” (OECD-DAC, 2010). In this section, we examine 
the model’s political and institutional sustainability, social and cultural sustainability, and financial 
sustainability.
POLITICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY
The experience of EFS in the RACCS shows that political and institutional sustainability is an 
important requisite to the model’s sustainability. If the EFS model does not foster strong 
relationships with political and institutional actors, it cannot carry out work programs past the 
financial life of the project. But, in this case, FADCANIC’s political and institutional alliances have 
helped position it to sustain aspects of the model’s programming.
The EFS model in the RACCS has a strong local presence because FADCANIC has built a network in 
the five municipalities of the program. Each municipality has a local EFS representative (a 
promoter), and most have a youth center that is associated with the model. These established ties 
in the communities are important aspects of sustainability.
There is a general consensus in the region about the nature of risks facing youth. Regional actors 
tend to agree on what are the main socio-economic vulnerabilities. Having this mutual 
understanding among partners and potential partners allows institutions to focus actions and pool 
resources for commonly identified challenges. This is an important benefit of operating in the 
RACCS.
Because of its long history of working in the RACCS and experience with EFS, FADCANIC is 
generally accepted as an authority on youth development in the region. In this sense, the 
institution is well positioned to carry on interventions that reduce risks for youth. In general, 
FADCANIC maintains excellent relationships with the Regional Secretary of Education, the Ministry 
of Education (MINED), the Ministry of the Family (MiFamilia), the National Institute of Technology 
(INATEC), and municipal authorities. These types of relationships, if formalized, would allow the 
implementing agency to continue EFS-type interventions past the project’s financing end date.
The EFS model has developed a communications strategy that includes social, ethnic, cultural, and 
linguistic elements from the region. The Regional Secretary of Youth (SEREJUVE) works with EFS to 
broadcast radio programs in Bluefields and other municipalities and communities (Desembocadura 
lacks these facilities, for example). This ability to communicate and promote local voices has raised 
awareness about FADCANIC and the importance of the EFS model, even among people who have 
not benefitted from the program. This local awareness and acceptance allows FADCANIC the 
possibility of sustaining EFS’ presence in the regions.
49
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
The EFS model’s sustainability depends largely on the level of appropriation of the model’s 
elements by local leaders, families, and beneficiaries, among others. In this sense, EFS has made 
great gains in assimilating afro- and indigenous populations into the program by included them 
among the program’s beneficiaries. The same is true of women. This diversified community 
involvement increases the likelihood that elements of the EFS model can be sustained.
One factor that favors the sustainability of the EFS model in RACCS is the existence of local leaders 
who have an interest in reducing youth risk, but lack the skills to do so. Some of these leaders 
include teachers, religious leaders (pastors and priests), professionals from different disciplines, and 
citizens from all walks of life. These disparate individuals often share an interest in organizing 
efforts to confront community problems such as youth risk. The EFS model provides them a 
platform to do so.
As part of its intention to improve community engagement in activities, the EFS model builds
networks of volunteers to support the program. In the RACCS, these volunteers are organized into 
CAYACs, interest groups, and mentoring networks. To a certain extent, these volunteers can 
assume the roles of staff in the absence of funding. The main function of the CAYACs is to 
empower the community and make the model more sustainable. Focus group discussions 
demonstrate that CAYAC members show great ownership over EFS, and it is because of these 
groups that EFS has integrated into the communities to the extent it has. This shows that volunteer 
participation is an important aspect of the model’s sustainability.
The EFS experience in the RACCS shows that using CAYACs has had some challenges, too. For 
example, focus group discussions with CAYAC members show they believe that EFS planning 
happens “from above” and that community inputs and decisions are devalued within the program. 
CAYAC members also believe they could be used to a greater extent in negotiating with 
government agencies. As it is now, they voice their concerns to EFS representatives, who in turn 
communicate with the authorities. CAYAC members believe they should have a direct line to 
regional decision makers. In Desembocadura, this is the case, which shows that the scope of the 
CAYACs very much depends on the community in which they reside. To help resolve these issues, 
in September 2015, a number of CAYACs and EFS representatives gathered in Corn Island and 
agreed to collaborate to produce quarterly plans. Future interventions should consider the delicate 
balance of maintaining volunteer support and developing proper channels to enhance 
participation.
Youth tutors are also important program stakeholders for the EFS model. These youth help tutor 
EFS students who have difficulties in school. The EFS model supports this process by training these 
tutors. To make the EFS model sustainable, it is important to strengthen the skills and capacity of 
these youth tutors. Youth volunteering is especially valuable in the context of the RACCS. In this 
region, poverty forces families to seek paid work, even if short term and unskilled. As a result, 
valuable volunteer opportunities are often overlooked as a means to build skills and human capital. 
50
To sum, the EFS experience in the RACCS shows it is crucial to raise community participation in the 
EFS model’s planning, strategy, and implementation. This is the key to making many of the model’s
components, such as tutoring, sustainable. The implementing agency must concentrate on building 
the capacity of volunteer networks with tools to make the model sustainable without large 
infusions of cash. FADCANIC is well positioned to carry this out, given its strong relationship with 
local NGOs and social movements, but this could be a challenge for implementing agencies less 
well integrated in regional development efforts.
BUILDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Community, political, and institutional support are important for the EFS model’s sustainability, but 
receiving financing is still the most important factor determining sustainability. For this reason, the 
model’s implementing agency should actively reach out to public institutions interested in 
replicating the EFS model, or its components. The implementing agency could also reach out to 
the private sector, but in the case of the EFS model in the RACCS, interviews show the local private 
sector has demonstrated little interest in social responsibility in the region. Despite this, FADCANIC 
has signed several MOUs with local businesses to support youth.
The EFS model in the RACCS shows that establishing relationships with public institutions can play 
a role in financially sustaining the program. In the RACCS, these institutions include MINED and 
INATEC. MINED is particularly well placed to replicate EFS model components in their own 
programming. The components of the EFS model that MINED could easily adopt include: tutoring, 
school counseling, the good-parenting program, accelerated primary schooling, and the training of 
teachers in psycho-social sensitivity. The model’s financial sustainability is dependent on the 
capacity of local public institutions and their willingness to participate. These potential partnerships 
should be mapped before any future EFS-type model intervention.
In order to conserve the hard investments in infrastructure made through initial EFS project
funding, it is important to train volunteer networks in the region of implementation to care for 
these tools. These hard investments include musical and sporting equipment, computers, and 
pedagogical materials. Volunteer networks could hold raffles or other small-scale fundraising 
efforts to repair or replace old or aging equipment. Maintaining this equipment is a necessary
action for achieving a level of resource sustainability.
Future interventions of this model should foster partnerships with regional universities so they can 
take the lead in generating new knowledge. These universities can help diagnose the situation of 
youth and provide strategic, empirically based directions for future interventions. The knowledge 
and skills these universities can generate will last well beyond the project’s lifetime. FADCANIC has 
established relationships with universities, and the EFS experience in the RACCS shows that local 
universities can be leveraged to sustain the knowledge generation elements of the model.
Box 4: What is FADCANIC’s plan for sustaining the model after 2017? 
“The strategy is to concentrate efforts in technical and vocational educations. What 
will the impact be in the five municipalities if we have 2,000 youth with solid 
51
technical capacity, carrying out their own workshops and running their own 
businesses, hiring others? With higher incomes than they currently earn. Repairing 
stoves, cars, or any other piece of equipment that currently must be sent to 
Managua. In these workshops, they are developing a new generation of technical 
specialists and professionals. The priority should then be to empower these 
specialists to carry out their own trainings and workshops. Currently, there are no 
resources for this. But, there will come a time when the government will want to 
follow the path laid out by the Technical Education Center in Wawashang.” - 
Interview with Ray Hooker, Director, FADCANIC, August 27, 2015. 
CONCLUDING REMARKS
MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The EFS model was effective in reducing youth vulnerabilities in the southern Caribbean coast of 
Nicaragua. Given the context of the region, the EFS model can be viewed as a long-term, strategic 
investment in human development. It is highly relevant and focused on a population living in 
conditions of poverty and exclusion, with poor family planning, high exposure to alcohol and drug 
abuse, and different types of violence.
The EFS model is highly inclusive. EFS’ goal is to build the capacity of youth from all cultural and 
socio-linguistic backgrounds through scholarships in primary and secondary education, vocational 
courses, and life skills training. All of these activities are placed within a model that fosters social 
inclusion and promotes the participation of parents in the education process and teachers in the 
capacity building process. In the RACCS experience, girls play an equally important role in the
model as boys.
The EFS model is relevant to many ongoing strategies on the Caribbean coast. These include the 
Nicaraguan government’s Youth Policy and Development Strategy for the Caribbean coast; 
USAID’s country strategy in Nicaragua and its international youth and gender policies; and 
FADCANIC’s institutional mission, among others. The emphasis on employment, education, 
inclusiveness, human development, and youth participation and empowerment in the south 
Caribbean tie the EFS model to each of these strategies. This shows that the model strikes a 
balance between popular youth development strategies and achieving results for at-risk youth.
Survey results show the EFS model changes youth attitudes. Perspectives on drug use, sexuality, 
physical violence, the importance of education, and how to pursue opportunities to achieve 
aspirations have all become more positive. The EFS model has given youth in the RACCS a greater 
sense of control over their own destinies. This is an important and unquantifiable contribution to a 
region that suffers from persistent poverty, violence, unemployment, and hopelessness. This is a 
likely outcome to applying the model in different regional and socio-economic contexts.
52
The EFS model should maintain its goal of building the implementing agency’s capacity. In the case 
of the RACCS, FADCANIC is well positioned to remain an authority on youth development. In 2010, 
when EFS began, the RACCS lacked any similar at-risk youth models. But, FADCANIC’s historical 
work in education, natural resource management, environmental issues, and the strengthening of 
the autonomy process – in addition to the implementation of the EFS model and the experience
and enhanced capacity that comes with it – have allowed FADCANIC to position itself institutionally 
and politically as an authority among government and civil society actors. The EFS model’s
grassroots integration into the five project municipalities further entrenched FADCANIC in this role.
This strengthened institutional capacity has important ramifications for the sustainability of future 
implementations of the model.
CHALLENGES
The EFS model needs to improve its M&E training. FADCANIC’s staff readily admitted that they still 
did not totally grasp the EFS model’s M&E system. This is especially true for monitoring former 
participants of the program who have since graduated and moved on with their lives. No tracer 
study was ever completed. There is only a process of keeping track of participants from the 
vocational trainings for one year after their graduation. With constant movement and migration, 
keeping track of former participants remains a challenge. These shortcomings made tracking down 
EFS beneficiaries for the survey difficult.
A significant challenge for the model is achieving strong coordination among other youth and 
development institutions. In the RACCS, FADCANIC made concerted efforts to coordinate with 
other agencies. For example, FADCANIC has worked with MINED and the Escuela Normal in 
Bluefields for two-and-a-half decades. Despite this, gaps still exist. For example, partnerships with 
MEFCA, SEREJUVE, and local governments could be strengthened to achieve greater sustainability. 
These gaps could be the result of a results framework that focuses on the achievement of certain 
targets and indicators, but does not include strong targets for cooperation with other institutions. 
In another context, this could lead to serious gaps and many missed opportunities, as potential 
partnering institutions are in a critical position to plan and execute comprehensive development 
strategies focused on building sustained employment opportunities. This need to create 
employment falls outside of the model’s scope, yet achieving the greatest levels of success with the 
model is absolutely contingent on creating these opportunities. 
The RACCS experience shows that for the model to be fully successful, it must link youth who 
receive training to concrete employment opportunities that meet their growing aspirations. While 
the EFS model provides technical certificates to youth who complete vocational training courses 
and provides some funds for the development of small enterprises, it cannot possibly address the 
region’s huge deficiency in job opportunities. The model is developing skills and building youth 
capacity, but these efforts have led to employment for only one in five youth who complete the 
program. This is not a flaw in execution; it is, rather, a result of the structural challenge of executing 
this model in a region with a weak labor market. Theoretically, this model could be a better fit for a 
region that has available jobs, but lacks skills, whereas the RACCS simply lacks jobs.
53
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations focus on actions that can help make the EFS model for at-risk 
youth more effective in future implementation scenarios. These actions include creating
employment in the implementing region, making the model more sustainable beyond its funding 
life, and improving the design of future program models. The mid-term evaluation sufficiently 
highlighted programmatic changes that could be made to improve the EFS project’s current 
operations (USAID, 2013), so we will not repeat these here.
Creating employment
As mentioned above, a shortcoming of the EFS model’s design, at least in the RACCS, is that it 
focuses on vocational training in a region that lacks available employment opportunities for that 
training. FADCANIC has attempted to adapt the model to the peculiarities of the region in several 
ways. First, it provides flexible formats for building work and life skills that make trainings accessible 
to a population that is (a) geographically disperse, (b) multilingual, and (c) has a low level of formal 
schooling which limits their access to other educational opportunities. Second, the EFS project 
offers community-based vocational training in the location or near the location of the youth, and 
basic and secondary technical training at FADCANIC´s Center for Agroforestry and Environmental 
Education (CEAA) in Wawashang and at INATEC in Bluefields. Third, the EFS project’s technical and 
vocational training program includes: employability training, business training, and seed funding 
for small youth business; individual support services for job placement for participating youth, 
professional references to support the youth’s job search, and personalized tutoring and coaching 
to develop youth business plans. The program also coordinates with local institutions to organize 
promotional events such as youth business fairs.
Still, for future design scenarios, we recommend implementing the model in areas with greater 
employment opportunities or expanding the responsibility of the implementing agency to work 
with local governments to more actively improve regional employment opportunities. This can be 
accomplished through the following actions, which are currently outside the scope of the model:
x Design and implement a strategy of inter-agency cooperation with government agencies 
experienced in small business and enterprise development. For example, in the RACCS this 
would include agencies such as MEFCA and its Department of Small and Medium-sized 
Enterprises.
x Promote the development and adoption of a regional plan to create youth employment. In 
the RACCS, a regional development plan would augment the national plans and help 
create synergies among development institutions to create employment opportunities.
x Develop partnerships with local universities. In the RACCS this would include higher 
education centers like BICU and URACCAN. Local universities can act as incubators for the 
fledgling companies started by graduates of the EFS model.
x During the model planning phase, draft a research and innovation plan to identify 
unexplored economic sectors in the implementing region that can absorb youth trained 
through the EFS model. This could be executed in partnership with local universities.
FADCANIC has made efforts to do parts of this by selecting vocational courses based on
54
local and regional market demands. These demands have a strong tendency toward trade 
professions ― cooks, welders, plumbers, seamstresses, electricians, and motor mechanics 
― that offer self and permanent employment opportunities. Our recommendation is to 
strengthen and formalize this planning phase.
Strengthen the EFS model’s sustainability
The EFS model should develop a detailed plan with clear target indicators to achieve sustainability 
beyond any given project’s lifespan. For example, in the RACCS this would include prioritizing and 
budgeting for project components to continue after the close of the EFS project in 2017. This would 
include a close monitoring of project impacts and the creation of a sustainability strategy that 
operationalizes FADCANIC’s previous sustainability plan. Accurately understanding program and 
operational costs is critical to defining a funding strategy and determining which components 
should be prioritized. For example, how many resources should come from the implementing 
agency, volunteer networks, employers, or other actors? Also, the implementing agency should 
explore ways to retain key staff after project funding is exhausted. In the case of FADCANIC, there 
is the risk that talented managers may leave the agency towards the end of the project because of
uncertainty about their job stability.
In seeking to develop sustainable elements of the EFS model, it is important to establish realistic 
deadlines. As the project end approaches in the RACCS, decision-making and financing should be 
geared towards sustainability, not only project completion. In theory, this could mean that certain
project components should continue to receive funding or technical support after the close of the 
project. Having a detailed and realistic sustainability plan that allows flexibility to adapt to practical 
challenges could make a difference in scaling and sustaining key components of the EFS model. 
Another area that would significantly improve the EFS model’s impact is strengthening the 
implementing agency’s capacity to utilize and manage the required M&E statistical database. In the 
case of FADCANIC, interviews suggest that staff responsible for managing the EFS model’s M&E 
system have not been properly trained. As a result, FADCANIC has had difficulties tracing former 
graduates of the EFS model. USAID did provide training in this system, but the individual who 
received it left FADCANIC. Additional training was needed. Without proper monitoring capabilities, 
it is difficult for USAID or the EFS model’s implementing agency to quantify the program’s 
outcomes and make the case for continuing the model. 
Another sustainability strategy is to strengthen the capacities of local volunteers. In particular, the 
EFS model should strengthen volunteer involvement in the participatory planning of project
activities and enhance volunteers’ ability to enter into dialogues with municipal and state agencies.
6
The implementing agency should consider training volunteers in the proper use and care of the 
model’s tools and infrastructure so they can continue to use them after the project’s completion. 
Also, the model’s implementing agency should familiarize volunteers with fundraising tools to
 
6 It should be noted that USAID has certain limitations in working directly with the Nicaraguan government.
55
assist with acquiring resources to cover the basic costs of carrying on elements of the model after 
the completion of the project.
Applying the EFS model to another country or regional context would further validate and 
substantiate the model. As mentioned above, the hard socio-economic realities within RACCS
communities make it difficult to fully test the validity of the model. The likelihood of positive 
outcomes in a new region is high given the many successes of the model in the RACCS, but not 
guaranteed. On the one hand, different regions may not have the same labor market constraints or 
issues with insecurity as the RACCS. On the other hand, different regions may have weaker 
institutional capacity or any other number of complications. Once the new pilot is validated and the 
model’s design is formalized, USAID can begin transferring this knowledge to public and private 
institutions through guidebooks and implementation templates. Currently, the model is not 
defined, only as EFS, and only as implemented in Nicaragua’s southern Caribbean coast.
Improving future program design
There is a strong rationale for the EFS model to target the highest risk youth in future program 
design. For example, the EFS model, as implemented in the RACCS, does not allow youth with a 
criminal history or alcohol or drug addiction problems to enter the program. This is 
understandable, considering FADCANIC has no experience in working with these youth, and 
because these youth could be a poor, unstable influence on other EFS model participants. But, 
youth with addiction problems or a history of criminality are ultimately in the greatest need of 
support. One way to approach this challenge would be to have the implementing agency partner 
with rehabilitation centers. In the RACCS this would mean FADCANIC entering into agreements 
with rehabilitation centers such as COPRAJ to target these youth, helping them receive education,
vocational, or life skills training. Safeguards could be put in place in future model designs to limit 
the negative impacts these youth could have on the program.
Future program models should also more actively involve older youth in their programming. The 
results of the survey show that the primary beneficiaries of the model’s programming are youth 
between the ages of 10 and 19. This has certain long-term benefits as it reduces the risk of these 
youth when they enter the higher-risk age group of 15 to 24 years old. Still, adjusting the EFS
model’s programming to meet the needs of 20 to 29 year olds could help capture and reduce risks 
for this demographic.
More efforts should be made to understand the local differences among the various communities 
within the model. In the case of the RACCS, this would mean greater efforts to understand the local 
contexts in the five EFS model municipalities. As the RACCS experience shows from interviews with 
FADCANIC staff and focus group discussions (see box 3), the model functions better in some 
communities – such as Kukra Hill and Desembocadura - than others – such as Laguna de Perlas 
and Corn Island, according to interviews with FADCANIC staff. Developing a better understanding 
of why this is the case would be a worthwhile activity in any future implementation of the model.
56
The model’s inherent urban bias should be reduced as much as possible. Executing the EFS model 
in the RACCS was an especially challenging endeavor given the rural, isolated nature of the region. 
Many areas are only accessible by boat or by foot. Connecting at-risk youth in these areas to 
training, youth centers, and project resources was a constant challenge, since these resources are 
usually located in the most centrally located and well-populated areas. This arrangement makes 
resources accessible to the greatest number of beneficiaries, but still may be out-of-reach for the 
most isolated families. This is an innate problem that strategies in territorial development can help
mitigate. For example, project resources can be decentralized and project decision-making can be 
shared. Moreover, labor market opportunities more relevant to the least connected communities 
can be fostered.
Lastly, future results frameworks for similar programs should include measurable outcome and 
sustainability targets. Currently, the EFS model measures output targets but, as mentioned above, a 
weak long-term results framework and problems with attribution make model outcomes hard to 
measure. It is clear from the survey that the EFS model has made impressive gains in reducing 
youth risk and FADCANIC has improved its own capacity as well as the broader capacity within the 
region to take on these challenges. But, these advances have proven difficult to measure. For 
example, how can one measure the counterfactual of keeping a youth occupied with a productive 
activity versus the impact that youth may have otherwise had on the streets? A stronger results 
framework that ameliorates attribution issues would improve these measurements and help verify
the positive linkages between the EFS model and reduced youth risk. This would, in turn, provide 
stakeholders with critical information to promote future programs that support at-risk youth.
In sum, the EFS model has made important contributions to youth development on Nicaragua’s 
southern Caribbean coast. It addresses the region's main youth risk factors and is highly relevant to 
the region's other important youth development strategies. The model has not yet reached its full 
potential, but with the above-mentioned recommendations to improve the model’s design, it can 
become more sustainable and contribute even further to creating employment and other 
opportunities for at-risk youth.
REFERENCES
AIR (2013). Línea de Base de la Programa Educación para el Éxito: Informe final. American Institutes 
for Research (AIR).
57
Barrios, D., & Sequeira, F. (2013). “Explorando rutas para una inserción laboral juvenil efectiva,” 
Labor market study of municipalities of Kukra Hill, Corn Island, La Desembocadura, Laguna de 
Perlas y Bluefields: (Final), Bluefields: FADCANIC.
Barrios, D., Soto, J. C. G., & Henríquez, G. (2015). “Voces y Realidades del Sur,” Actualización de la 
situación de las juventudes en la Región Autónoma de la Costa Caribe Sur de Nicaragua, Managua: 
UNFPA.
FADCANIC, 2015. Building Skills of Youth in Caribbean Nicaragua. Power Point presentation. 
GON (2004). Plan de Accion de la Politica Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Juventud 2005-
2015: Jóvenes Actores Estratégicos del Desarrollo. Government of Nicaragua (GON), Presidencia de 
la Republica, Managua, April, available at: 
http://www.youthpolicy.org/national/Nicaragua_2005_National_Youth_Policy.pdf
GON (2012). Estrategia de Desarrollo de la Costa Caribe y Alto Wangki Bocay: Para el Buen Vivir y el 
Bien Común 2012 – 2016. GON. Available at: 
http://www.poderjudicial.gob.ni/pjupload/costacaribe/pdf/EDCC_2012_2016.pdf
INIDE (2011). “Resultos Pricipales,” Encuesta de Hogares sobre Medicion del Nivel de Vida 2009
(EMNV 2009), Instituto Nacional de Información de Desarrollo, Managua.
LAPOP (2015). Final Baseline Report on Citizen Security in the Southern Caribbean Coast in 
Nicaragua, Authored by Maldonado, Arturo, Diana Orcés, Emily Saunders, Edited by Elizabeth J. 
Zechmeister and Daniel Montalvo, Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) and Vanderbilt 
University.
OECD-DAC (2010). Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. The DAC 
Working Party on Aid Evaluation (WP-EV), Office for Economic Cooperation and Development’s 
Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC), available at: 
http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/2754804.pdf
Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI) (2014). Multidimensional Poverty Index,
available at: http://www.ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/mpi-2014/
Policia Nacional de Nicaragua (2013). Anuario Estadistico 2013. Available at: 
http://www.policia.gob.ni/cedoc/sector/estd/fich.htm
UNDP (2005). Informe de desarrollo humano las regions autónomas de Costa Caribe: Nicaragua 
assume su diversidad. Available at: 
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national/latinamericathecaribbean/nicaragua/name,3330,en.html.
UNDP (2011). Informe nacional sobre desarrollo humano 2011: Las juventudes construyendo 
Nicaragua. Available at: 
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/es/home/presscenter/articles/2011/12/07/-informe-nacional￾de-desarrollo-humano-2011-las-juventudes-construyendo-nicaragua-.html.
USAID (2011). USAID Education Strategy 2011-2015: Opportunity through learning. Available at: 
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pdacq946.pdf
58
USAID (2012). Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy. Available at: 
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/GenderEqualityPolicy_0.pdf
USAID (2012). USAID Youth in Development Policy: Realizing the Demographic Opportunity.
Washington DC, available at: 
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Youth_in_Development_Policy_0.pdf
USAID (2013). Mid-Term Evaluation of the Education For Success Project on the Atlantic Coast of 
Nicaragua. Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00jk6h.pdf
USAID (2013). Nicaragua Country Development Cooperation Strategy FY 2013-FY 2017. Available at: 
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1862/USAID%20NICARAGUA%20FINAL%20P
UBLIC%203.11.14.pdf
Zamora, Joel (2014). “Línea de base del Programa Educación para el Éxito,” WANI Revista del Caribe 
Nicaragüense Number 69. October 2013 – September 2014, pp. 11-22.
59
ANNEX A: LIST OF KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
Name Organization Responsibility Location 
Adilia Brenes CAYAC in Corn Island Member Corn Island
Alan Sandoval 
Molina
Municipality of Laguna de 
Perlas
Director of planning Laguna de Perlas 
Amanda Castillo Hotel Tía Irene. Property of 
URACCAN University
General Manager Bluefields
Ana Alvarado EFS Regional / FADCANIC
Goodparenting program
Education specialist
 
Bluefields
Cindy Sinclair 
Allen
Hospital psychiatrist Responsible for 
adolescents
Kukra Hill 
Cristino Salgado Graduate of EFS vocational 
training
Cell phone repairman Bluefields
Daira Valle Instituto de Estudios 
Estratégicos y Políticas
Publicas
Coordinator of Seguridad 
Democrática
Managua
Deborah Robb EFS/ FADCANIC Supervisor Bluefields
Dominga 
Hernandez 
EFS / FADCANIC Coordinator of Life Skills 
component
Bluefields
Eddy Allen Sacasa Municipality of Kukra Hill Director of social 
promotion
Kukra Hill 
Eddy Reyes Oliva Instituto Nuestra Señora 
del Rosario 
Support teacher Bluefields
Edgard Santiago EFS/ FADCANIC Promoter in Karawala Desembocadura
Genoveno Peréz 
Chacon 
Morava church in Karawala Reverend Desembocadura
Georgina Perret COPRAJ (Occupational 
Center for Prevention and 
Rehabilitation of Youth and 
Adolescents)
Director Bluefields
Grace Gordon EFS / FADCANIC M&E specialist Bluefields
Hazel Wilson EFS / FADCANIC Coordinator Bluefields
60
Hugo Mendoza EFS’ vocational training 
programming
Trainer in cell phone repair Bluefields
Israel Huerta 
Obando
Casa de Jóvenes Bluefields Musician and Director of 
FADCANIC’s music 
program 
Bluefields
Jessi Castro Sandinista Youth and the 
Southern Caribbean 
Council on Nicaraguan 
Youth
Coordinator Bluefields
Josselyne 
Campbell 
At-risk youth Left school two years ago Bluefields
Juan José 
Montoya
Fishing business CAF General Manager Bluefields
Kenny (unknown 
last name)
Boy Scouts of Nicaragua 
(SCOUT) 
Leader Bluefields
Keyson Timothy 
Forbes
Municipal Youth Council 
(COMAJ)
Member Corn Island
Lissa Suyen Rove Inhabitant Inhabitant Corn Island 
Lizan Juanita 
Campbell
EFS / FADCANIC Promoter Corn Island
Mable Nelson 
Pondler
Communal government Member Laguna de Perlas 
Maria Ivette 
Fonseca
AIR Coordinator of FADCANIC 
assessment
Canada by Skype
Norman Howard UNDP Coordinator of Caribbean 
Coast
Bluefields
Onysha Morgan Inhabitant Inhabitant Corn Island
Ray Hooker FADCANIC Director Managua
Rudy Pamiston Communal Authority of 
Karawala
Local judge (Whita) Desembocadura
Sadie Roxana 
Cononnly
Instituto Nuevo amanecer Counselor, primary school 
teacher
Bluefields
Shayron Tower Municipal Youth Council 
(COMAJ)
Member Corn Island
Shila Howard EFS / FADCANIC Promoter Laguna de Perlas 
Silvio Heberth MINED MINED delegate Desembocadura
Tyrone Aburto MDS (Movement for Sexual 
Diversity)
Coordinator Bluefields
Warner Cayasso Communal government Coordinator Laguna de Perlas 
Yancy Lanuza FECONORI project for 
handicapped people
Coordinator Bluefields
61
Yarid Villalta Municipality of Kukra Hill Secretary of youth Kukra Hill 
62
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523
Tel: (202) 712-0000
Fax: (202) 216-3524
http://www.usaid.gov