Mindanao Youth for Development 
Report
& FY18/19 (Extension) Performance
Evaluation Report
Measuring Youth’s Employment, Perceptions and Engagement, and 
Skills
ii
©2019 by Education Development Center, Inc. 
All Rights Reserved. This content may not be reproduced without the written permission of Education Development Center, Inc 
(EDC).
 
This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Education Development Center, Inc. and do not 
necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER 
43 Foundry Ave. 
Waltham, MA 02453 
idd.edc.org
iii
REPORT CONTENTS
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... v
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................vi
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................vi
Methodology............................................................................................................................................vi
Evaluation Findings ................................................................................................................................. vii
Cohort FY18/19 Performance Evaluation Findings ............................................................................. vii
Cohort FY17 Impact Evaluation Findings............................................................................................. vii
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
Evaluation Questions................................................................................................................................. 2
Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 3
Cohort FY17 Impact Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................... 3
Study Design.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Sample Design ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Cohort FY18/19 (Extension) Performance Evaluation Methodology........................................................ 5
Study Design.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Sample Design ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Data Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Evaluation Study Tools.............................................................................................................................. 6
Limitations................................................................................................................................................. 7
Limitations Specific to Cohort FY17....................................................................................................... 7
Findings and Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 7
Youth’s Perceptions of Violent Extremism & Resilience (Extension)........................................................ 7
Life, Work Readiness, and Leadership Skills............................................................................................10
Cohort FY17 Skills Impact Findings......................................................................................................10
Cohort FY18/19 (Extension) Performance Evaluation Findings..........................................................11
Perceptions of Gender in the Workplace............................................................................................13
Youth’s Perceptions Of Community And Government ...........................................................................14
Cohort FY17 Perceptions of Community and Government Impact Findings (FY17)...........................14
Cohort FY18/19 (Extension) Performance Evaluation Findings..........................................................15
Employment............................................................................................................................................16
Cohort FY17 Employment Impact Evaluation Findings.......................................................................17
Cohort FY18/19 (Extension) Employment Performance Evaluation Findings.....................................20
iv
Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................22
Youth’s Perceptions of Violent Extremism..............................................................................................22
Resilience Skills........................................................................................................................................22
Life, Work Readiness, and Leadership Skills............................................................................................23
Youth’s Perceptions Of Community And Government ...........................................................................23
Employment............................................................................................................................................23
Annex: Sample Weights...................................................................................................................23
Weights for Youth Who Took the Youth Employment Survey............................................................23
Weights for Youth Who Took the Youth Perceptions Survey .............................................................24
v 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1: MYDev’s Theory of Change ............................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: MYDev's Original Quasi-Experimental Evaluation Design............................................................................... 4
Figure 3: MYDev's FY18/19 Performance Evaluation Design......................................................................................... 5
Figure 4: Answer Options for Youth Perceptions of Violent Extremism (Extension)..................................................... 8
Figure 5: Distribution of MYDev Youth's Responses to the Perceptions of Violent Extremism Sub-Sections, at 
Baseline and Endline ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Distribution of MYDev Youth's Responses to Personal Resilience Skills Questions at Baseline and Endline . 9
Figure 7: Skills Self-Assessed by Youth......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: MYDev Youth's Skill Gains Relative to Non-MYDev Youth's Skill Gains ........................................................ 11
Figure 9: MYDev Youth's Self-Assessment of Skills at Baseline and Endline................................................................ 11
Figure 10: Average Net Skill Gain (Baseline to Endline) for MY Dev Youth, by Geographic Area................................ 12
Figure 11: Answer Options for Gender Perceptions in the Workplace Section........................................................... 13
Figure 12: Distribution of MYDev Youth's Responses on Gender Perceptions in the Workplace Section at Baseline 
and Endline................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 13: Answer options for Community and Government Perceptions questions for FY17................................... 14
Figure 14: Answer Options for Youth Perceptions of Violent Extremism (Extension)................................................. 15
Figure 15: MYDev Youth's Perceptions of Government and Community, at Baseline and Endline ............................ 16
Figure 16: Employment Trends from Baseline to Endline............................................................................................ 17
Figure 17: Ways of Finding Work at Baseline and Endline, Amongst MYDev and Non-MYDev Youth........................ 19
Figure 18: Employment Trends of MYDev Youth for Extension Period ....................................................................... 20
Figure 19: Ways of Finding Work at Baseline and Endline, Amongst MYDev Youth ................................................... 22
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1: Reliability Statistics for the YES and YPS........................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: FY17 Sample Weights..................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3: FY18/19 Sample Weights................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 4: FY17 Sample Weights..................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 5 FY18/19 Sample Weights................................................................................................................................. 25
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION
Implemented by Education Development Center (EDC), the Mindanao Youth for Development (MYDev) Project 
carried out youth life skills, basic education and livelihood skills initiatives in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao in 
eight conflict-affected areas: Cotabato City, Isabela City, Lamitan City, Marawi City, Zamboanga City, the 
municipalities of Parang in Maguindanao, and Jolo and Indanan in Sulu starting in 2013. These initiatives contribute
to USAID/Philippines Development Objective 2: Peace and Stability in Conflict-Affected Areas in Mindanao by 
strengthening local governance and increasing youth civic engagement for peace and development. In February 
2018, USAID approved a one-year cost extension which allowed MYDev to scale up the successful aspects of the 
project to 3 additional sites: Balo-I, Lanao del Norte; Iligan City; and Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur; and Iligan City, as 
USAID’s response to assist vulnerable youth affected by the Marawi siege.
Over the past six years, MYDev has reached more than 25,700 vulnerable youth and mobilized local government 
officials, local businesses, and other stakeholders into Youth Development Alliances (YDA)1 aimed at coordinating 
multi-stakeholder support to job skills training and livelihood pathways. 
In the original five-year program implementation and in the one-year extension, MYDev has focused on three main 
components: 
• Strengthening services delivery for vulnerable out-of-school youth (OSY) through capacity building of 
local government units, communities, and stakeholders to improve education and training services for 
out-of-school youth
• Increasing out-of-school youth access to education through the Department of Education’s Alternative 
Learning System (ALS)
• Increasing out-of-school youth employability by providing equitable access to relevant education and 
skills training
In the extension, MYDev also expanded its focus in two critical areas: interventions to support the recovery of Marawi 
and surrounding areas and its youth after the conflict, and interventions to continue to strengthen the resilience of 
Mindanao youth through introducing training on Foundations of Resilience along with deepening services that 
address root causes of instability in conflict-prone communities in the eight original target areas. 
METHODOLOGY
This report presents the findings for two evaluation studies examining the outcomes of two cohorts of youth (FY17 
and FY18/19). The evaluation designs and methodology used vary slightly between the two studies. In order to 
understand MYDev’s contribution to improving OSY’s community and government perceptions, skills, and 
employment outcomes, MYDev designed and implemented a quasi-experimental evaluation study for Cohort FY17. 
For Cohort FY18/19 (extension), time and feasibility constraints necessitated a shift in the evaluation design to a 
performance evaluation (without a comparison group). 
MYDev’s evaluation studies aim to determine whether links can be found between youth participation in MYDev’s 
programming and their outcomes in three key areas: 
• Employment, including self-employment
 
1 Formally Out-of-School Youth Development Alliances (OSYDA)
vii
• Perceptions of the community and government
• Life, leadership, and work-readiness skills
These three outcome areas align with three of MYDev’s key indicators and present the basis of the three evaluation 
questions that MYDev’s evaluation studies seek to answer:
Q1. Do youth participants demonstrate improved livelihoods as a result of project activities? 
Q2. Do youth participants demonstrate improved perceptions of government and community as a result of 
project activities?
Q3. Do youth participants demonstrate improved life, work readiness, and leadership skills as a result of project 
activities?
The one-year project extension included a fourth outcome relating to youth’s perceptions of violence and violent 
extremism. 
Q4. Do youth participants demonstrate changes in perceptions towards violent extremism? 
EVALUATION FINDINGS
Cohort FY18/19 Performance Evaluation Findings 
Perceptions of Violence. Findings suggest that 58% of MYDev youth demonstrated positive changes in their 
perception of violence, including violent extremism, which means they moved towards supporting non-violent or 
peaceful conflict resolution over violent actions. The average MYDev youth has 0.44 positive change score in their 
perception of violent extremism, starting at an average score of 4.95 at baseline and reaching 5.11 at endline out of 
a possible score of 7. 
Resilience Skills. Findings suggest that 55% of MYDev youth demonstrated improved resilience skills from baseline 
to endline. Across each of the five skills measured, MYDev youth rate their abilities significantly higher at endline 
than baseline (p<0.000) reflecting the increased confidence levels in their own abilities. This significance is further 
corroborated by effect size differences between 0.2 and 0.3, above the conventional threshold, for three out of the 
five skills measured.
Skills. Findings suggest that 73.6% of MYDev youth improve either life skills, work readiness, or leaderhip skills 
between baseline and endline. Across each dimension, MYDev youth score, on average, significantly higher at 
endline than baseline (p<.0.00). Furthermore, MYDev youth’s average improvement in each dimensions are above 
the conventional threshold for effect size (d>0.2), reflecting the considerable magnitude of their improvement. 
Perceptions of Community and Government. Findings suggest that 77% of MYDev youth improved their 
perceptions of their communities or the government between baseline and endline. MYDev youth improved their 
perceptions significantly from baseline to endline in both community and government dimensions. 
Employment. Findings suggest that 31% of MYDev youth found new or better employment between baseline and 
endline. An examination of the overall employment trends for MYDev youth demonstrates a significant increase of 
ten percentage points in employment rates, from 28% at baseline to 38% at endline (p<0.000). 
Cohort FY17 Impact Evaluation Findings
Skills. Findings suggest that 73% of MYDev youth improve their life skills, work readiness skills, or leadership skills 
from baseline to endline, which is significantly higher than the proportion of non-MYDev youth that improve their 
skills (63%). Additionally, MYDev youth improve their skills to a greater extent. When asked to rate a series of 
statements based on how well they understood and could perform a given skill, MYDev youth improve their skills in 
viii
life, work readiness, and in leadership more than comparison group youth do (p<0.000). In each dimension, the 
magnitude of MYDev youth’s skill gains is above the conventional threshold for effect size (d>0.2), indicating that 
MYDev’s skill gains are substantial.
Perceptions. Findings suggest that 71% of MYDev youth improved their perceptions of their communities or the 
government between baseline and endline, statistically more than 63% of comparison group youth who improved 
their perceptions. At baseline, MYDev and non-MYDev youth had significantly different perceptions of their 
communities, with comparison youth scoring higher, reflecting more positive ratings (p<0.01). However, at endline, 
MYDev youth’s scores increased substantially to an average score of 3.44 and comparison youth’s scores decreased 
slightly to an average score of 3.18, and there is a statistically significant difference between comparison and 
intervention group youth (p<0.00). At baseline, there was no significant difference in intervention and comparison 
group youth government perception scores. At endline, however, MYDev youth’s government perceptions scores 
were significantly higher than those of non-MYDev youth (3.27 vs 3.01, respectively) (p<0.00).
Employment. Findings suggest that 10.8% of MYDev youth find new or better employment between baseline and 
endline. At baseline, non-MYDev youth had significantly higher rates of employment with 28% of non-MYDev youth 
employed compared to 16% of MYDev youth (p=0.00). At endline, non-MYDev youth’s employments rates declined 
significantly falling to 18%, a ten percentage point drop (p=0.000). In comparison, MYDev youth’s rates fell only three 
percentage points, from 16% at baseline to 13% at endline. This suggests that the MYDev program may have had a soothing 
effect on possible external factors influencing negative employment trends2. An examination of the overall employment 
trends of both MYDev and non-MYDev youth reveals that both groups had lower rates of employment at endline than 
baseline. 
 
2 Although this study cannot say with certainty the external factors that contributed to declines in employment rates, it is 
worth noting that the timing of the endline data collection closely corresponded with the violence of the Marawi siege 
(beginning in May 2017) and subsequent martial law, including restriction of movement. These disruptions may have 
disproportionately negatively affected youth as they are more vulnerable to the conditions of martial law (e.g. lacking 
identification to pass checkpoints) and more vulnerable to job loss overall.
1 
INTRODUCTION 
PROJECT BACKGROUND 
Implemented by Education Development Center (EDC), the Mindanao Youth for Development (MYDev) Project 
carried out youth life skills, basic education and livelihood skills initiatives in conflict-affected areas of Mindanao in 
eight conflict-affected areas: Cotabato City, Isabela City, Lamitan City, Marawi City, Zamboanga City, the 
municipalities of Parang in Maguindanao, and Jolo and Indanan in Sulu starting in 2013. These initiatives contribute
to USAID/Philippines Development Objective 2: Peace and Stability in Conflict-Affected Areas in Mindanao by 
strengthening local governance and increasing youth civic engagement for peace and development. In February 
2018, USAID approved a one-year cost extension which allowed MYDev to scale up the successful aspects of the 
project to 3 additional sites: Balo-I, Lanao del Norte; Iligan City; and Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur; and Iligan City, as 
USAID’s response to assist vulnerable youth affected by the Marawi siege.
In the original five-year program implementation and in the one-year extension, MYDev has focused on three main 
components: 
• Strengthening services delivery for vulnerable out-of-school youth (OSY) through capacity building of 
local government units, communities, and stakeholders to improve education and training services for 
out-of-school youth
• Increasing out-of-school youth access to education through the Department of Education’s Alternative 
Learning System (ALS)
• Increasing out-of-school youth employability by providing equitable access to relevant education and 
skills training
In the extension, MYDev also expanded its focus in two critical areas: interventions to support the recovery of Marawi 
and surrounding areas and its youth after the conflict, and interventions to continue to strengthen the resilience of 
Mindanao youth through introducing training on Foundations of Resilience along with deepening services that 
address root causes of instability in conflict-prone communities in the eight original target areas. The extension 
targets for new youth beneficiaries was 5,1003. The extension also sought to establish or strengthen three new Youth 
Development Alliances (YDA) and deepen post-training interventions in the eight existing sites to build resilience for 
youth and their communities.
Over the past six years, MYDev has reached more than 25,700 vulnerable youth, mobilized resources, and 
documented youths’ accomplishments through a scientifically verified impact evaluation. In addition, MYDev 
organized and mobilized local government officials, local businesses, and other stakeholders into Youth Development 
Alliances (YDA)4 aimed at coordinating multi stakeholder support to job skills training and livelihood pathways. 
Within the specific context of the eleven conflict-affected areas where MYDev works, external factors, combined 
with local socio-economic circumstances, bear acutely on vulnerable out-of-school youth populations. MYDev 
therefore aims to strengthen positive factors for pro-social engagement of OSY by supporting reaffirmation of the 
social contract between and among different local government and other stakeholder groups, including OSY. Thus, 
MYDev’s implementation is informed by MYDev’s development hypothesis: If the social contract between local 
government and communities—vulnerable out-of-school youth (OSY) in particular—are strengthened through 
 
3 This reflects the Marawi+3 sites and additional funding for the 7 existing sites as measured by Indicator 13.
4 Formally Out-of-School Youth Development Alliances (OSYDA)
2 
incremental gains in mutual trust, conflict affected communities will begin to benefit from the accretion of social 
capital that underpins local area stability, security and prosperity. 
Taken together, youth and YDA programming is designed to produce an environment in which OSY cease to feel 
alienated from their communities and instead are able to contribute through work and community service. Such 
integration into the community—as produced by both OSY training programs and YDA activity—would be evidenced 
first by improved leadership, life, and work readiness skills accompanied by improved perceptions of the community 
and government. The improvement of skills and perceptions in the context of an environment that is conducive to 
OSY’s development and growth would lead to improved work outcomes for OSY (see Figure 1). 
 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Yet can such a theory—in which a holistic approach to creating an enabling environment for OSY is combined with
skills-focused training—be proven in the context of MYDev? MYDev’s evaluation studies aim to determine whether 
links can be found between youth participation in MYDev’s programming and their outcomes in three key areas: 
• Employment, including self-employment
• Perceptions of the community and government
• Life, leadership, and work-readiness skills
These three outcome areas align with three of MYDev’s key indicators and present the basis of the three evaluation 
questions that MYDev’s evaluation studies seek to answer:
Q1. Do youth participants demonstrate improved livelihoods as a result of project activities? 
• Indicator 12: Number of OSY receiving new or better employment (FAFI 4.6.3-2: Number of persons receiving new 
or better employment (including better self-employment) as a result of participation in a USG-funded workforce 
development project 
Figure 1: MYDev’s Theory of Change
3 
Q2. Do youth participants demonstrate improved perceptions of government and community as a result of 
project activities?
• Indicator 10: Percentage of targeted OSY with improved perceptions of community or government
Q3. Do youth participants demonstrate improved life, work readiness, and leadership skills as a result of project 
activities?
• Indicator 14: Percentage of OSY with improved life skills, work readiness, or leadership skills for civic engagement
The one-year project extension included a fourth outcome relating to youth’s perceptions of violence and violent 
extremism. MYDev designed a performance evaluation suitable for the project timing, new project sites, and 
additional questions on youth perceptions of violence and personal resilience skills to estimate the effect of the
enhanced project interventions. 
Q4. Do youth participants demonstrate changes in perceptions towards violent extremism?
In answering the evaluation questions, MYDev reports on the following key project extension indicators:
• Indicator 2: Percentage of targeted youth with improved perceptions of community and government.
• Indicator 3: Number of youth receiving new or better employment/ livelihoods. (FACTS Indicator EG 6-
1)
• Indicator 4: Percentage of youth with improved life skills, work readiness and leadership skills for civic 
engagement
• Indicator 5: Percentage of youth who demonstrate changes in perception towards violent extremism.
METHODOLOGY
This report presents the findings for two evaluation studies examining the outcomes of two cohorts of youth (FY17 
and FY18/19). The evaluation designs and methodology used vary slightly between the two studies. The next section 
of the report will first summarize the study design of the FY17 impact evaluation and then subsequent section will 
detail the changes made in the study design of the FY18/19 performance evaluation. 
COHORT FY17 IMPACT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Study Design
In order to understand MYDev’s contribution to improving OSY’s community and government perceptions, skills, and 
employment outcomes, MYDev designed and implemented a quasi-experimental evaluation study. For each cohort, 
a randomly selected sample of intervention group youth is surveyed during the first 2 weeks of participation in 
MYDev (baseline) and four to six months after graduation from MYDev (endline). Intervention group results are then 
compared to a comparison group’s results at both baseline and endline to shed light on the influence of project 
activities on intervention group youth. 
4 
Figure 2: MYDev's Original Quasi-Experimental Evaluation Design 
Sample Design
The selection of the sample of intervention and comparison group youth is key to ensuring the most comparable 
groups possible given a quasi-experimental approach in which the equivalence of comparison and intervention 
groups cannot be assumed. Thus, care was taken to choose comparison (non-MYDev) youth who were very similar 
to intervention (MYDev) youth in key characteristics: 
• Sex
• Age
• Education Status
• Employment Status
• Place of Residence
In each cohort, intervention group youth who participated in the impact evaluation were randomly selected from 
the population of OSY who began MYDev training within the fiscal year. To account for a high expected rate of 
attrition from the sample, a sample of 3,329 youth, stratified by sex and LGU, was randomly selected from the FY17
participants, yielding a final sample of 1,657 intervention group youth who took all surveys at both baseline and 
endline. A much smaller sample of 416 comparison group youth was drawn as well, also stratified by sex and 
geographic area (local government unit or LGU), yielding a final sample of 401 comparison group youth who took all 
surveys at both baseline and endline. These sample sizes were chosen to allow for the detection of even small 
changes over time or small differences between groups, sometimes referred to as a small effect size. While this 
sample size allowed for comparisons between male and female youth, it did not allow for comparisons between male
and female youth within LGUs. 
In order to allow for findings of the FY17 evaluation—based on sample data—to be generalized to the population of 
MYDev youth who participated in trainings beginning in FY17, the sample data was weighted to the population of 
youth who participated in MYDev in FY17. Weighting allows for the sample—which may not reflect key characteristics 
5 
of the population such as the percent of males and females or the percent from rural/partially urban/highly urban 
settings—to be re-adjusted so that the composition of the sample reflects the composition of the population in key 
ways. In the MYDev context, where a disproportionate stratified sampling strategy meant that an equal number of 
males and females were sampled from each LGU, the composition of the sample in terms of sex and being from a 
rural/partially urban/highly urban setting did not reflect the population. Thus, weights were applied to the sample 
based on the sex and rural/partially urban/highly urban setting composition of the population. This allows the 
findings to be generalized the entire population of FY17 MYDev youth. Both the intervention and comparison groups 
were weighted to the population of FY17 MYDev youth who participated in MYDev trainings during the time period 
in which we implemented our data collection surveys (see Annex 1 for sample weights).
Data Collection
Data was collected from intervention group youth at two points: 1) within the first two weeks of their participation 
in MYDev training and 2) 4-6 months after they graduated from their training programs. Since MYDev youth begin 
and graduate from their trainings at different points throughout the fiscal year, which runs from October 1 through 
September 30, baseline data was collected quarterly throughout the entire year. The 4-6 month lag between 
graduation and endline data collection is intentional: it allows youth the time necessary to realize the expected 
outcomes that we intend to measure. In FY17, comparison group youth were assessed at the beginning of the fiscal 
year—in October and November—and again, 4-6 months later in March and April for the endline. 
COHORT FY18/19 (EXTENSION) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
Study Design
Due to feasibility and time constraints in identifying comparison group youth, MYDev shifted the study design for 
Cohort FY18/19 to a performance evaluation (without a comparison group). Consequently, youth’s outcomes are 
assessed through a pre (baseline)/post (endline) comparison. 
Figure 3: MYDev's FY18/19 Performance Evaluation Design
6 
Sample Design
The Cohort FY18/19 performance evaluation followed the same sample design as previous impact evaluations, 
excepting the selection of comparison group youth. MYDev followed the previously-designed proportional stratified 
random sampling approach to select 1001 youth out of the enrolled from the FY18/19 cohort, stratified by sex and 
geographical location. After attrition, verification, and data cleaning, the final sample included789 intervention group 
youth. 
Data Collection
The Cohort FY18/19 performance evaluation followed the same data collection process as previous MYDev 
evaluations. Baseline data was collected at the beginning of training programs (May to October 2018). Endline data 
was collected in November 2018 to March 2019, and included the 4-6 month lag after the end of training programs. 
EVALUATION STUDY TOOLS
Both the FY17 and FY18/19 evaluation studies collected data from youth using two main tools: the Youth 
Employment Survey (YES) and the Youth Perceptions Survey (YPS). These two tools were first piloted with MYDev 
youth in FY14, after which they were revised, adapted, and implemented as part of MYDev’s FY15, FY16, and FY17 
evaluations. 
The YES was developed and validated in previous EDC projects, and then adapted for use in MYDev. This process of 
adaptation included translation, back translation, piloting, and revision to the tool to ensure its usefulness for the 
MYDev context. In addition, a new section was added to measure youth’s life, work-readiness, and leadership skills. 
To establish the reliability of this new section, principal component analysis was implemented, revealing the tool to 
be relatively reliable with Cronbach’s alpha measures for all skill-types dimensions above the conventional threshold 
of 0.7 (Table 1). For the FY18/19 performance evaluation, an additional dimension was added to the YES to examine 
youth’s perceptions of gender roles in the workplace. This was in response to results from previous impact 
evaluations that identified gender gaps in employment outcomes and skills gains. 
The YPS was developed specifically for the MYDev context with the goal of measuring youth’s perceptions of their 
governments and their communities. As with the YES, the YPS underwent pilot testing and refinement before being 
implemented in MYDev evaluation studies. For the FY18/19 performance evaluation, two additional dimensions were 
added to the YPS: perceptions of violence and resilience skills. This was in response to MYDev’s expanded focus and 
additional outcome measure. 
Table 1: Reliability Statistics for the YES and YPS
Tool Dimension Cronbach’s Alpha5 How Reliable is it?
Youth Employment 
Survey
Work Readiness 0.853 Good
Leadership 0.745 Acceptable
Life Skills 0.749 Acceptable
Gender Perceptions 0.854 Good
Youth Perceptions 
Survey
Government Perceptions 0.908 Excellent
Community Perceptions 0.914 Excellent
 
5 A level of .70 or higher is viewed as acceptable for Cronbach’s alphas, though researchers prefer to see alphas of .85 or higher.
7 
Perceptions of Violence 0.908 Excellent
Resilience Skills 0.820 Good
LIMITATIONS
While the FY17 impact evaluation and FY18/19 performance evaluation were implemented with rigor and detail, 
some limitations persist:
• Claims to Causality. The quasi-experimental impact evaluation design selected for the FY17 cohort is considered 
relatively rigorous, however one cannot assume that it produces intervention and comparison groups that are 
equivalent in both observable and unobservable characteristics. While the sampling and data analysis 
approaches used in this evaluation try to mitigate the effects of this limitation, the influence of unobservable 
difference remains unknown. Thus, factors other than the presence or absence of the MYDev program may 
influence youth’s outcomes such that the findings in this evaluation cannot be claimed to be caused by MYDev’s 
programming. Instead, throughout the report, we point to findings that suggest the influence of MYDev’s 
programming on MYDev youth, even though we cannot claim causality. The lack of a comparison group in 
MYDev’s FY18/19 performance evaluation limits claims to causality even further, as there is no counterfactual 
presented to represent what youth’s outcomes might have been without the program. 
Limitations Specific to Cohort FY17
• Comparison Group Weighting. As data on the sex and geographic area composition of all out-of-school youth 
in Mindanao was not available, comparison group youth were weighted to the population of MYDev Cohort FY17 
youth. This means that, regardless of the reality, comparison and intervention groups will seem statistically 
comparable in terms of sex and location.
• Different Timing of Data Collection for Intervention and Comparison Groups. MYDev’s trainings have 
rolling admission, which means that baseline surveys are implemented on a rolling basis as well, whereas 
comparison group baselines are implemented at one point in time. If time of year has a differential effect on 
skills, perceptions, or employment outcomes, observed differences between intervention and comparison group 
youth may be artificial. 
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 
The following sections present the findings for each of the evaluation questions. Within each section, FY17 Impact 
Evaluation and FY18/19 (Extension) Performance Evaluation findings are presented separately. 
YOUTH’S PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM & RESILIENCE (EXTENSION) 
In the extension, MYDev’s expanded its focus to include interventions to address youth after the Marawi conflict and 
increase the resilience of youth, including the addition of two modules, Foundations of Resilience (FoR) 1 and 2, to 
MYDev’s Life Skills training. The first training module, FoR 1, aims to help youth understand how thoughts directly 
drive feelings/emotions, and affect behaviors. The second training module, FoR 2, aims to help youth understand 
violent extremism in the local context and provides strategies such as strengthening one’s social support system to 
build personal resilience to violence, including violent extremism. 
8 
In order to answer the evaluation question “Do youth participants demonstrate changes in perceptions towards 
violent extremism?”, MYDev developed an additional section in the Youth Perceptions Survey to measure changes in 
the youth’s perceptions of violent extremism (YPS Part 2). YPS Part 2 is composed of two sets of statements. The first 
set of statements promotes the acceptability of violent actions and violent extremism as a means of conflict 
resolution. The second set of statements promotes the acceptability 
of non-violence and peaceful means of conflict resolution. Youth 
expressed their agreement to each statement using the same Likert 
Scale (see Figure 4) and scores were assigned ranging from 1 to 7, with 
higher scores reflecting agreement to peaceful means of conflict 
resolution.
In order to estimate the resilience skills gained from FoR 1, the YPS 
also included a section asking youth to share their level of confidence 
in performing five key resilience skills using a different five-point Likert 
scale, which was then scored from 1 to 5. 
MYDev Youth’s Perceptions of Violent Extremism
58% of MYDev youth demonstrated positive changes in their perception of violent extremism, which means they 
moved towards supporting non-violent or peaceful conflict resolution over violent actions. The average MYDev
youth has 0.44 positive change score in their perception of violent extremism, starting at an average score of 4.95 at 
baseline and reaching 5.11 at endline out of a possible score of 7. 
The overall distribution of MYDev youth’s responses to each sub-section at baseline and endline is shown in the 
figure below. 
Figure 5: Distribution of MYDev Youth's Responses to the Perceptions of Violent Extremism Sub-Sections, at Baseline and Endline
Youth’s Perceptions of Violent Extremism and Gender
At endline, MYDev youth agreed more with statements supporting nonviolence 
and disagreed more with statements supporting violent actions 
ANSWER OPTIONS
1. I DON’T KNOW
2. STRONGLY DISAGREE
3. DISAGREE
4. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
5. SOMEWHAT AGREE
6. AGREE
7. STRONGLY AGREE
Figure 4: Answer Options for Youth Perceptions 
of Violent Extremism (Extension) 
9 
MYDev male and female youth demonstrated, on average, similar positive change scores in their perceptions of 
violent extremism from baseline to endline. Interestingly, however, at both baseline and endline, MYDev female 
youth scored significantly higher than male youth (p<0.000). At baseline, female youth had an average score of 5.12 
points compared to an average score of 4.8 points for male youth (out of a possible score of 7). At endline, female 
youth had an average score of 5.28 points compared to an average of 4.99 points (out of a possible score of 7).
Youth’s Perceptions of Violent Extremism and Geographic Area
Overall, there was little geographic-based variation in MYDev youth’s baseline, endline, or positive change scores on 
the perceptions of violent extremism dimension. The only statistically significant based difference relating to 
geographic area was in the comparison of positive change scores between partially urban and rural areas (0.16 vs 
0.23, respectively) (p<0.05). 
MYDev Youth’s Resilience Skills
55% of MYDev youth demonstrated improved resilience skills from baseline to endline. Across each of the five skills 
measured, MYDev youth rate their abilities significantly higher at endline than baseline (p<0.000) reflecting the 
increased confidence levels in their own abilities. This significance is further corroborated by effect size differences 
between 0.2 and 0.3, above the conventional threshold, for three out of the five skills measured. The distribution of 
MYDev youth’s responses to each prompt is shown in the figure below. 
Figure 6: Distribution of MYDev Youth's Responses to Personal Resilience Skills Questions at Baseline and Endline
10
LIFE, WORK READINESS, AND LEADERSHIP SKILLS
Among the MYDev project’s key activities is intensive Life Skills training that develops a youth’s foundational life 
skills, work readiness skills, and leadership skills. Coupled with practical technical skills training, community service 
projects, participation in community-based youth networks, and involvement in the youth-promoting activities led 
by MYDev’s YDA, this intensive skills training is intended to prepare youth for meaningful and productive engagement 
in their communities, with their families, and at their jobs. MYDev has measured skill gains through self-reported 
questions for each dimension answered directly by youth (see Figure 7). Findings in the following section suggest 
that MYDev youth may improve their life skills, work readiness skills, and leadership skills as a result of training.
Cohort FY17 Skills Impact Findings
A significantly higher percentage of MYDev youth seem to improve their life skills, work readiness skills, and 
leadership skills from baseline to endline than non-MYDev youth as a result of MYDev training. 73% of MYDev 
youth improve either their life skills, work readiness skills, or leadership skills between baseline and endline, 
compared to 63% of non-MYDev youth (p=0.000). Additionally, MYDev youth improve their skills to a greater extent. 
When asked to rate a series of statements based on how well they understood and could perform a given skill, MYDev 
youth improve their skills in life, work readiness, and in leadership more than comparison group youth do (p<0.000). 
In each dimension, the magnitude of MYDev youth’s skill gains is above the conventional threshold for effect size 
(d>0.2), indicating that MYDev’s skill gains are substantial. In fact, across all three skills dimensions, MYDev youth 
improve their skills while non-MYDev youth seem to have a slight reduction in skills. 
Life Skills
•Communicating 
with a variety of 
people
•Goal-setting
•Understanding 
One's Learning 
Style
•Providing for 
Family
Work Readiness 
Skills
•Speaking Clearly
•Overcoming 
Challenges
•Solving Conflict
•Finding work
•Improving a work 
situation
•Developing 
business proposals
•Starting a Business
Leadership Skills
•Leading at work
•Leading in one's 
community
Figure 7: Skills Self-Assessed by Youth
11
Skills and Gender
MYDev skills training seems to reduce a skills gender gap between males and females. Amongst non-MYDev youth, 
male youth improve their scores more than female youth (with 95% confidence on life skills and 90% confidence on 
work readiness skills). Yet this pattern cannot be observed amongst MYDev youth, where males and females have 
statistically similar gain scores from baseline to endline. 
Skills and Urban/Rural Location
While MYDev may have leveled the playing field between highly urban, partially urban, and rural youth a little bit
across most skill areas, a gap for rural youth persists when it comes to leadership skills. While highly urban MYDev 
youth have similar scores on the leadership skills dimension compared to MYDev youth from partially urban areas, 
by endline, highly urban youth score significantly better than rural youth on this dimension (p<0.00). On average, 
MYDev youth from highly urban areas improved 0.6 net points on the leadership skills dimension, while MYDev youth 
from rural areas improved only 0.13 net points. 
Cohort FY18/19 (Extension) Performance Evaluation Findings 
73.6% of MYDev youth improve either life skills, work readiness, or leaderhip skills between baseline and endline. 
Across each dimension, MYDev youth score, on average, significantly higher at endline than baseline (p<.0.00). 
Furthermore, MYDev youth’s average improvement in each dimensions are above the conventional threshold for 
effect size (d>0.2), reflecting the considerable magnitude of their improvement. 
Figure 9: MYDev Youth's Self-Assessment of Skills at Baseline and Endline
0.28
0.24
0.33
-0.03 -0.06 -0.07 Work Readiness Life Skills Leadership Skills
Intervention
Comparison
Figure 8: MYDev Youth's Skill Gains Relative to Non-MYDev Youth's Skill Gains
12
Skills and Gender
There does not appear to be a gender gap in MYDev youth’s life, work readiness, and leadership skills. Male and 
female MYDev youth improve their skills at similar rates, 73% and 74.5%, respectively, from baseline to endline. 
Furthermore, at endline, MYDev male and female youth rate themselves similarly with an average skills score of 2.78 
for male youth and 2.83 for female youth (p=0.288). 
Skills and Urban/Rural Location
There does not appear to be an urban/rural gap in the proportion of MYDev youth with improved life, work 
readiness, and leadership skills. In other words, MYDev youth from geographic areas, on average, improved their 
skills at similar rates. Further analysis, however, shows that geographic differences do emerge when examining the 
magnitude of the skill gains. Interestingly, while MYDev youth from urban and partially urban areas have similar 
average skill gains, there is a significant (p<0.00) difference in the gains between highly urban and rural youth (as 
seen in the figure below). 
Figure 10: Average Net Skill Gain (Baseline to Endline) for MY Dev Youth, by Geographic Area
13
Perceptions of Gender in the Workplace
The MYDev project equally embraces male and female participants, presenting youth with as much choice as possible 
while providing all youth with a solid foundation in the skills they will need regardless of their sex. In examining the 
outcomes of male and female MYDev youth and over the course of implementing 
project activities, the project noticed several trends reflecting gender gaps and 
possible gender biases. MYDev took the opportunity of the project extension to 
further investigate youth’s perceptions of gender in the workplace. In an additional 
section of the Youth Employment Survey, youth expressed their agreement on a 
five-point scale (shown at right) to a series of eight statements promoting gender￾equity in the workplace. 
At baseline, on average, about half (52%) of MYDev youth agreed or strongly agreed 
with statements promoting gender equity in the workplace. At endline, this 
proportion increased significantly to 58% (p<0.000). Not surprisingly, female MYDev 
youth showed stronger levels of agreement with these statements than did male 
MYDev youth. At endline, however, this difference was only significant in three instances (net agreement for male 
and female youth):
• Female youth feel prepared to be successful in employment and livelihood opportunities (70.8% vs 81.7%).
• The community and family encourage both male and female youth equally to be trained on employability 
skills (77.6% vs 85.6%). 
• Female and male youth have the same decision-making power to choose their field of work (77% vs 85.2%).
Figure 12: Distribution of MYDev Youth's Responses on Gender Perceptions in the Workplace Section at Baseline and Endline
17%
11%
20%
32%
20%
11%
8%
22%
39%
19%
I Don't Know Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
At endline, MYDev youth show signficantly more support 
for statements promoting gender equity in the workplace
Baseline
Endline
ANSWER OPTIONS
1. I DON’T KNOW
2. STRONGLY DISAGREE
3. DISAGREE
4. AGREE
5. STRONGLY AGREE
Figure 11: Answer Options for 
Gender Perceptions in the 
Workplace Section
14
YOUTH’S PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT
MYDev’s program seeks to improve youth’s engagement with and perceptions of their communities and government. 
This section presents findings regarding youth’s perceptions of both their communities and the government. FY17 
Impact Findings suggest that 71% of MYDev youth improved their perceptions of their communities or the 
government between baseline and endline, statistically more than 63% of comparison group youth who improved 
their perceptions. Extension Performance Evaluation findings suggest that 77% of MYDev youth improved their 
perceptions of their communities or the government between baseline and endline. 
Cohort FY17 Perceptions of Community and Government Impact Findings (FY17)
MYDev Youth’s Perceptions of Community 
The Community Perceptions component of this study consists of twelve questions measuring youth’s attitudes 
toward their communities and their role in it as out-of-school youth. These attitudes are measured over time as a 
gain score, indicating the change in youth’s perceptions of their communities from baseline to endline. The answer 
options are on a Likert scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 5 (see Figure 13). 
Intervention group youth have significantly higher perceptions of the community at endline and significantly higher 
gain scores between baseline and endline compared to non-MYDev youth. These findings, explored further below, 
suggest that, by encouraging youth to be part of the youth network and to be engaged in community service activities 
with their community leaders the MYDev program may help in improving youth’s perceptions of their communities. 
MYDev Youth’s Perceptions 
MYDev youth improve their perceptions of their communities over 
time, without any gender disparities in this improvement. MYDev
youth have a 0.40 gain score in community perceptions, starting at 
an average score of 3.06 at baseline and reaching 3.44 at endline out 
of a possible score of 5. There is no statistically significant difference 
in the average gain score in community perceptions between male 
and female intervention group youth (p=0.376). 
Impact Findings: MYDev vs. Non-MYDev Youth
There is evidence that MYDev positively influences youth’s 
perceptions of their communities. At baseline, MYDev and non￾MYDev youth had significantly different perceptions of their 
communities, with comparison youth scoring higher, reflecting more positive ratings (p<0.01). However, at endline, 
MYDev youth’s scores increased substantially to an average score of 3.44 and comparison youth’s scores decreased 
slightly to an average score of 3.18, and there is a statistically significant difference between comparison and 
intervention group youth (p<0.00). 
Youth’s Perceptions of Government
The Government Perceptions component of this study consists of twelve questions measuring youth’s attitudes 
toward their government and civic participation. These attitudes are measured over time as a gain score, indicating 
the change in youth’s perceptions of their government from baseline to endline. The answer options are on a Likert 
scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 5 (as in Figure 13 above). 
Figure 13: Answer options for Community and 
Government Perceptions questions for FY17
ANSWER OPTIONS
1. I DON’T KNOW
2. STRONGLY DISAGREE
3. DISAGREE
4. AGREE
5. STRONGLY AGREE
15
While the presence of a comparison group helps to isolate the effects of the larger political scene from the effects of 
MYDev’s programming, the absence of a randomly assigned control group opens the possibility for comparison and 
intervention group youth to be differently affected by the political environment. 
MYDev Youth’s Perceptions
The average MYDev youth improved his or her perceptions of the government with an average gain of 0.36 between 
baseline and endline. There is no significant difference in average gain scores between male and female intervention 
group youth (p=0.325). 
Impact Findings: MYDev vs. Non-MYDev Youth
MYDev’s programming appears to have had a significant effect on intervention group youth’s perceptions of the 
government relative to comparison group youth. At baseline, there was no significant difference in intervention and 
comparison group youth government perception scores. At endline, however, MYDev youth’s government 
perceptions scores were significantly higher than those of non-MYDev youth (3.27 vs 3.01, respectively) (p<0.00). 
Cohort FY18/19 (Extension) Performance Evaluation Findings
MYDev Youth’s Perceptions of Community and Government 
In the project extension, MYDev utilized the same Youth Perceptions Survey, but updated the answer options on the 
Likert scale to expand the range of scores from 1 to 7, the same options available in the dimension measuring youth’s 
perceptions of violent extremism (see Figure 14). 
MYDev Youth’s Perceptions of Community
MYDev youth improved their perceptions of their communities 
significantly from baseline to endline, without any signs of gender or 
geographic area disparities in this improvement. The average MYDev 
youth has a 0.45 gain score in community perceptions, starting at an 
average score of 4.11 at baseline and reaching 4.57 at endline out of a 
possible score of 7. There is no statistically significant difference in the 
average gain score in community perceptions between male and 
female MYDev youth or in the average gain scores of MYDev youth 
from different geographic areas. 
ANSWER OPTIONS
1. I DON’T KNOW
2. STRONGLY DISAGREE
3. DISAGREE
4. SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
5. SOMEWHAT AGREE
6. AGREE
7. STRONGLY AGREE
Figure 14: Answer Options for Youth 
Perceptions of Violent Extremism (Extension) 
16
Figure 15: MYDev Youth's Perceptions of Government and Community, at Baseline and Endline
MYDev Youth’s Perceptions of Government
MYDev youth improved their perceptions of their government significantly from baseline to endline, without any 
signs of gender or geographic area disparities in this improvement. The average MYDev youth has a 0.44 gain score 
in government perceptions, starting at an average score of 3.85 at baseline and reaching 4.29 at endline out of a 
possible score of 7. There is no statistically significant difference in the average gain score in community perceptions 
between male and female MYDev youth or in the average gain scores of MYDev youth from different geographic 
areas. 
EMPLOYMENT
MYDev’s training activities focus on helping youth to achieve positive education and employment outcomes—
including obtaining work for the first time or improving the quality of one’s work. While youth have the option to 
become involved in technical skills training programs, all youth participate in MYDev’s Life Skills training, which is
based on EDC’s Work Ready Now! (WRN!) Curriculum. Life Skills training includes focused study and the practical 
application of skills across several areas important for one’s work readiness. The curriculum also includes 
entrepreneurship and civic engagement modules: 
• Personal Development
• Interpersonal Communications
• Work Habits and Conduct
• Leadership and Teamwork
• Safety and Health at Work
• Workers’ and Employers’ Rights and Responsibilities
• Managing Personal Finances
• Exploring Entrepreneurship 
17
• Civic Engagement
• Foundations of Resilience 1 and 26
While the life skills training provided prepares youth for success on the job, it also seeks to prepare them for 
managing that success in the handling of their personal lives even as they embrace technical training or basic 
education training to prepare them for their next steps. Additionally, MYDev and training service providers help youth 
bridge the gap from training to employment with post-training activities and deep engagement with private sector. 
Cohort FY17 Employment Impact Evaluation Findings
In FY17, the findings below suggest that 10.8% of MYDev youth find new or better employment between baseline 
and endline. 
At baseline, 84% of youth were not employed. Of these youth, 11.3% gained employment by endline, which 
represents 9.6% of all MYDev youth. Only 3.2% of all MYDev youth had employment at both baseline and endline 
(and thus are eligible for better employment by endline), and 38.6% of these youth reported improving their 
employment – representing 1.2% of the sample. 
At baseline, non-MYDev youth had significantly higher rates of employment with 28% of non-MYDev youth employed 
compared to 16% of MYDev youth (p=0.00). When compared to non-MYDev youth, there were no significant 
differences in the rates of new or better employment between MYDev and non-MYDev youth. However, non-MYDev 
youth’s employments rates declined significantly falling to 18%, a ten percentage point drop, at endline (p=0.000). 
In comparison, MYDev youth’s rates fell only three percentage points, from 16% at baseline to 13% at endline. This 
suggests that the MYDev program may have had a soothing effect on possible external factors influencing negative 
employment trends 7. An examination of the overall employment trends of both MYDev and non-MYDev youth 
reveals that both groups had lower rates of employment at endline than baseline. 
Figure 16: Employment Trends from Baseline to Endline
 
6 FoR 1 & 2 were implemented in FY18/19 only
7 Although this study cannot say with certainty the external factors that contributed to declines in employment rates, it is 
worth noting that the timing of the endline data collection closely corresponded with the violence of the Marawi siege 
(beginning in May 2017) and subsequent martial law, including restriction of movement. These disruptions may have 
disproportionately negatively affected youth as they are more vulnerable to the conditions of martial law (e.g. lacking 
identification to pass checkpoints) and more vulnerable to job loss overall. 
18
Profile of a Newly Employed MYDev Youth
The group of MYDev youth who are newly employed by endline tend to be overwhelmingly male (73%), live in rural
areas (49.6%), and are, on average, 20.2 years old. Their work lives are mostly consumed with temporary work (56.8%
of the youth) or permanent work (28.2%), both of which are much more popular types of employment amongst 
newly employed MYDev youth compared to internships and running one’s own business. Most of these youth (80.7%) 
work one job each. Almost all (95.8%) are paid in monetary wages, and not in kind, for their work. The most popular 
sector for newly employed youth is business, with 31.7% of newly employed youth involved in this sector, followed 
by construction (13.4%), and transportation services (12.6%). Most of these youth feel either safe (63.8%) or very 
safe on the job (6.4%).
Financially, newly employed MYDev youth seem to be managing their earnings. Over half (61%) say their earnings 
have increased a little since graduation from MYDev, and almost all (92.2%) say that these earnings meet their needs 
either sometimes or always. A slight majority (58.5%) of youth who are newly employed report being able to save 
their money sometimes, and the majority of youth (64.8%) who responded say that these savings meet their needs. 
Furthermore, half (55.5%) of them say their savings have increased since they graduated from MYDev. Corroborating 
this point is the fact that 90.3% of responding youth report eating three or more meals per day at endline. 
New Employment and Gender
Male youth find new employment at higher rates than female youth, and this difference is significant for MYDev 
youth. Among MYDev youth, only 6.4% of female youth obtained new employment compared to 11.7% of male 
youth, reflecting a gender gap of about 5.3 percentage points (p=0.000). Among non-MYDev youth only 5.5% of 
female youth obtained new employment compared to 9.7% of male youth, reflecting a smaller and not statistically 
significant gender gap of 4.2 percentage points. 
New Employment and Urban/Rural Location
There seems to be some geographic-based variation in rates of new employment. Amongst MYDev youth, almost 
half of newly employed youth were from rural areas (49.6%). About one-third (33.9% of newly employed youth come 
from highly urban areas and 16.5% come from partially urban areas. However, amongst non-MYDev youth, the 
highest proportion of newly employed youth are from partially urban areas (49.8%). For MYDev youth, the 
16%
13%
28%
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Baseline Endline
Intervention
Group
Comparison
Group
19
distribution of newly employed youth from highly urban/partially urban/rural areas is significantly different (at 
p<0.01). 
Better Employment for MYDev Youth
While just 1.2% of all MYDev youth have better quality employment by endline, when we examine only the group of 
52 MYDev youth who have employment at both baseline and endline (and are therefore ‘eligible’ for improved 
employment), almost two-fifths (38.6%) these youth obtain improved employment by endline. There is no 
statistically significant difference between better employment outcomes for the intervention and comparison groups 
(p=0.344). 
Better Employment and Gender
According to the data, no gender gap for better employment exists for either MYDev or non-MYDev youth in terms 
of better employment. However, the small sample size (n=52 for MYDev youth that are continuously employed) limits 
our ability to make further inferences into gender differences. More research with a larger sample size is necessary 
to determine this for sure. 
Better Employment and Urban/Rural Location
Similarly, according to the data, no urban/rural gap seems to exist for either MYDev or non-MYDev youth in terms of 
better employment. The small sample size, however, limits the conclusiveness of this finding. 
Unemployed Youth (FY17)
In FY17, the overwhelming majority of MYDev (87%) and non-MYDev youth (82%) were unemployed at endline. 
Of those unemployed, about 20% of MYDev youth responded that they were looking for work. Those that were 
looking for work seem to have benefited from MYDev’s activities. At baseline, similar proportions of MYDev and non￾MYDev youth cited attending job fairs. At endline, however, a significantly higher proportion of MYDev youth than 
non-MYDev youth cited attending job fairs – a key YDA activity – as a way of looking for work. 
10.1%
2.5%
11.4%
7.1%
30.3%
Comparison
48.2%
22.9%
19.6%
5.5%
6.0%
Intervention
23.3%
11.0%
21.5%
6.5%
11.9%
Comparison
35.9%
11.7%
15.6%
6.1%
8.6%
CV or Job Application
Attended a Job
Fair/Event
Applied for a Job
Interviewed for a Job
Develop a Businessplan
Intervention
Ways of Finding Work at Baseline Ways of Finding Work at Endline
Figure 17: Ways of Finding Work at Baseline and Endline, Amongst MYDev and Non-MYDev Youth
20
The most common reason cited by both MYDev and non-MYDev youth for not looking for work was that “there are 
no jobs” (29.0% of MYDev youth/31.2% non-MYDev youth). This perhaps further indicates the extent of the impact 
of external factors on labor market trends. Among MYDev youth, other common reasons for not looking for work 
included attending school (14.1%), not needing work (13.6%), and not having the skills needed (13.2%). Among non￾MYDev youth, “not having the resources” was the second most common reason cited for not looking for work 
(22.2%). This perhaps further indicates the impact of MYDev’s activities on youth’s access to services and resources. 
Cohort FY18/19 (Extension) Employment Performance Evaluation Findings
The FY18/19 MYDev Youth Performance evaluation findingssuggest that 31% of MYDev youth found new or better 
employment between baseline and endline. 
At baseline, about 72% of youth reported not having employment and 28% reported having some kind of 
employment. Of those unemployed at baseline, 33% gained employment, representing 24% of all MYDev youth. Of 
the 14.1% MYDev youth who reported employment at both baseline and endline, 50.4% improved their employment, 
representing 7% of the sample. 
An examination of the overall employment trends for MYDev youth demonstrates a significant increase of ten 
percentage points in employment rates, from 28% at baseline to 38% at endline (p<0.000). 
Figure 18: Employment Trends of MYDev Youth for Extension Period
 
Profile of a Newly Employed MYDev Youth
MYDev youth who are newly employed by endline tend to be overwhelmingly male (72%) and live in rural areas 
(45.7%). A majority of MYDev youth reported temporary work (42.5% of the youth), with 29.6% reporting permanent 
work, both of which were more commonly reported amongst newly employed MYDev youth compared to internships 
and running one’s own business. Most of these youth (66.0%) work one job each. Almost all (90.6%) are paid in 
monetary wages, and not in kind. The most popular sector for newly employed youth is business, with 22.5% of newly 
employed youth involved in this sector, followed by construction (19.4%), and agriculture (11.4%). Most of these 
youth feel either safe (51.0%) or very safe on the job (26.2%).
28% 38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Baseline Endline
MYDev Youth
21
Financially, newly employed MYDev youth seem to be managing their earnings. Over half (52.9%) say their earnings 
have increased a little since graduation from MYDev, and almost all (90.0%) say that these earnings meet their needs 
either sometimes or always. A slight majority (62.6%) of youth who are newly employed report being able to save 
their money sometimes, and the majority of youth (60.2%) who responded say that these savings meet their needs. 
Furthermore, almost half (48.2%) of them say their savings have increased since they graduated from MYDev. 
Corroborating this point is the fact that 74.4% of responding youth report eating three or more meals per day at 
endline. 
Employment and Gender
Male youth find new employment at higher rates than female youth, and this difference is significant at p<0.000. 
Only 16.3% of female youth obtained new employment compared to 29.1% of male youth, reflecting a gender gap 
of about 12.8 percentage points. There is no gender gap for MYDev youth (p=0.583) in terms of better employment, 
with 50.7% of eligible female MYDev youth and 50.3% of eligible male MYDev youth obtaining improved employment 
at endline. 
Employment and Urban/Rural Location
While there is some geographic-based variation in rates of new employment, these differences are not statistically 
significant. About 27% of youth from highly urban areas, about 21% of youth from partially urban areas, and about 
24% of youth from rural areas obtained new employment at endline. Similarly, there appears to be no urban/rural 
gap (p=0.797) for MYDev youth in terms of better employment. The small sample size of eligible youth from each 
rural area, however, limits the conclusiveness of this finding. 
Unemployed Youth (FY18/19) 
At endline, about 62% of MYDev youth reported that they were unemployed. Of those unemployed, about 21% 
responded that they were looking for work reported utilizing MYDev post-training support including job fairs, 
coaching and workshops to help youth develop their CVs. Post training support was provided in partnership with 
local training providers, stakeholders and YDA members. At baseline about one-third of youth cited creating a CV as 
a way to find work. At endline, this figure increased significantly to about half (p<0.000). Similarly, about 14% of 
youth reported attending a job fair as a way to find work at baseline. While not statistically significant, at endline, 
this rate increased 9 percentage points. 
22
Figure 19: Ways of Finding Work at Baseline and Endline, Amongst MYDev Youth
At baseline, the most common reasons cited by MYDev youth for not looking for work were attending school (28.6%), 
the lack of jobs which youth reported “there are no jobs” (18.3%), and that they don’t have time to look for work 
(17.5%). At endline, the most common reason cited by MYDev youth for not looking for work was attending school 
(46.9%). No youth cited lack of jobs as a reason they weren’t looking for work, which may be indicative of the benefits 
of MYDev activities in increasing youth’s awareness of available jobs. MYDev’s benefits are further corroborated by 
the low rate of youth reporting lack of skills (12.1%) and resources (8.1%) as reasons for not looking for work. 
CONCLUSIONS 
These evaluations suggest that the MYDev project may positively influence participating youth in key ways. While 
claims to causality cannot be made, these evaluations do highlight clear areas in which the MYDev project seems to 
be supporting youth in achieving positive employment, skills, and civic engagement outcomes. Furthermore, the 
findings of the new dimensions measured in the project extension Performance Evaluation highlight areas of possible 
future research.
YOUTH’S PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENT EXTREMISM
Within the context of conflict-affected Mindanao, generally, and the aftermath of the Marawi siege specifically, 
MYDev youth’s positive changes in perceptions of violent extremism – away from supporting violence toward 
supporting peaceful means of conflict resolution – are promising. 
RESILIENCE SKILLS
MYDev youth rated themselves significantly and considerably higher at endline than baseline. While it isn’t possible 
to speak to these gains conclusively without a comparison group, these findings do highlight the potential of the 
37.3%
14.2%
18.6%
7.4%
17.5%
51.3%
23.3%
21.6%
8.2%
19.4%
CV or Job Application
Attended a Job Fair/Event
Applied for a Job
Interviewed for a Job
Develop a Businessplan
Ways of Finding Work at Baseline and Endline
Baseline
Endline
23
Foundations of Resiliency modules and the further integration of resilience skills into Life Skills training and youth￾led activities. 
LIFE, WORK READINESS, AND LEADERSHIP SKILLS
MYDev youth improve their life skills, work readiness skills, and leadership skills more than non-MYDev youth over 
the course of their participation in MYDev, suggesting that the MYDev activities that influence skill outcomes may 
have a positive effect on youth. During FY17 and the extension period, skill gains for MYDev youth were considerable, 
reflected in effect size values above the conventional threshold. 
YOUTH’S PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT
MYDev youth demonstrate significant improvements in their perceptions of their communities and government over 
the comparison group in FY17. These findings are maintained, even in times of declining employment rates, indicating 
that MYDev programming may foster persistent and deep engagement with the community and government. 
Findings demonstrating improved perceptions during the extension period further corroborate youth’s engagement 
in their communities. 
EMPLOYMENT
In the presence of external factors negatively affecting the labor market, as is likely the case in FY17, MYDev may 
have a soothing effect on youth’s employment, reducing rates of job loss for MYDev youth. While the lack of a 
comparison group prevents a conclusive finding on the effect of MYDev on youth’s employment during the extension 
period, the significant increase in overall employment rates between baseline and endline is telling. Furthermore, 
even amongst youth who have not found employment 4-6 months after graduating from MYDev, MYDev’s 
programming seems to have positively affected their outcomes. Unemployed MYDev youth less often cite lack of 
skills as a reason for not looking for work, and they more often cite attending job fairs and developing a CV—a key 
YDA activity and part of the Life Skills training—as a way of looking for work compared to non-MYDev youth. 
ANNEX: SAMPLE WEIGHTS 
Weights for Youth Who Took the Youth Employment Survey
The following table of weights applies to all youth who took the YES—regardless of whether or not they took the 
YPS as well—at both baseline and endline. These weights were used for analysis that examines data from the YES 
only.
Table 2: FY17 Sample Weights
Group Population Proportion of 
population
Sample Proportion of 
sample
Weight
Intervention Male 
Highly Urban 565 .17 392 .23 .72
Intervention Male 
Partially Urban 485 .15 304 .18 .80
24
Intervention Male Rural 930 .28 350 .21 1.33
Intervention Female 
Highly urban 258 .08 114 .07 1.14
Intervention Female 
Partially Urban 441 .13 331 .20 .67
Intervention Female 
rural 650 .20 180 .11 1.81
Comparison Male highly 
Urban 565 .17 76 .18 .93
Comparison male 
Partially Urban 485 .15 92 .22 .66
Comparison male rural 930 .28 85 .20 1.37
Comparison Female 
highly urban 258 .08 24 .06 1.34
Comparison Female 
Partially Urban 441 .13 56 .13 .98
Comparison female 
rural 650 .20 83 .20 .98
Table 3: FY18/19 Sample Weights
Group Population Proportion of 
population
Sample Proportion of 
sample
Weight
Intervention Male 
Highly Urban 511 .17 103 .13 1.28
Intervention Male 
Partially Urban 520 .17 132 .17 1.02
Intervention Male Rural 781 .26 176 .22 1.14
Intervention Female 
Highly urban 211 .07 48 .06 1.13
Intervention Female 
Partially Urban 435 .14 132 .17 .85
Intervention Female 
rural 600 .20 198 .25 .78
Weights for Youth Who Took the Youth Perceptions Survey
The following table of weights applies to all youth who took the YPS—regardless of whether or not they took the 
YES as well—at both baseline and endline. These weights were used for analysis that examines data from the YPS 
only.
Table 4: FY17 Sample Weights
Group Population Proportion of 
population
Sample Proportion of 
sample
Weight
Intervention Male 
Highly Urban 565 .17 389 .23 .74
Intervention Male 
Partially Urban 485 .15 301 .18 .82
Intervention Male Rural 930 .28 371 .22 1.28
25
Intervention Female 
Highly urban 258 .08 126 .07 1.04
Intervention Female 
Partially Urban 441 .13 327 .19 .69
Intervention Female 
rural 650 .20 182 .11 1.82
Comparison Male highly 
Urban 565 .17 114 .27 .62
Comparison male 
Partially Urban 485 .15 24 .06 2.53
Comparison male rural 930 .28 115 .28 1.01
Comparison Female 
highly urban 258 .08 33 .08 .98
Comparison Female 
Partially Urban 441 .13 31 .07 1.78
Comparison female 
rural 650 .20 100 .24 .81
Table 5 FY18/19 Sample Weights
Group Population Proportion of 
population
Sample Proportion of 
sample
Weight
Intervention Male 
Highly Urban 511 .17 104 .13 1.24
Intervention Male 
Partially Urban 520 .17 132 .17 1.00
Intervention Male Rural 781 .26 164 .21 1.20
Intervention Female 
Highly urban 211 .07 45 .06 1.19
Intervention Female 
Partially Urban 435 .14 134 .17 .82
Intervention Female 
rural 600 .20 194 .25 .78