July 2008 1 USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) Baseline Evaluation Report Date: July 2019 DO Number and Name: Cooperative Agreement 720066078CA00003 Activity Start and End Dates: April 6, 2018 to April 5, 2021 Total Estimated Cost: $22,150,000 AOR/COR/Activity Manager Name & Office: Pascal Tshimanga, USAID/DRC/Education Implemented by: Education Development Center, Inc. Partners: FHI 360, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Souktel Prepared by: Education Development Center, Inc. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE i TABLE OF CONTENT Contents TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................4 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................5 Evaluation Questions.......................................................................................................................................5 Evaluation Design............................................................................................................................................6 Sampling......................................................................................................................................................6 Tools.............................................................................................................................................................6 Data collection and Analysis......................................................................................................................8 Limitations...................................................................................................................................................9 DEMOGRAPHICS ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Sample size................................................................................................................................................... 10 Sample Characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 10 Geographic Area Distribution ................................................................................................................. 10 Sex Distribution........................................................................................................................................ 10 Age Distribution ....................................................................................................................................... 11 School attendance ................................................................................................................................... 12 YOUTH PERCEPTIONS SURVEY............................................................................................................. 14 Community Engagement............................................................................................................................. 14 Community Perception................................................................................................................................. 16 Prosocial Parental/Caregiver involvement and support ............................................................................ 18 Self-efficacy................................................................................................................................................... 20 Violence ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Engagement in gang and armed group violence.................................................................................. 23 Non-Violence and tolerance.................................................................................................................... 24 Positive Identity & Optimism.................................................................................................................. 27 PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL SAFETY...................................................................................................... 29 Overall perception of school safety ...................................................................................................... 30 Belonging, Diversity, & Inclusion............................................................................................................ 31 Child Protective Practices....................................................................................................................... 32 Discipline and Fairness............................................................................................................................. 33 School Safety in and on route to school.............................................................................................. 34 Student–Student Relationships............................................................................................................... 35 Student–Teacher Relationships.............................................................................................................. 35 WORK READINESS SKILLS ....................................................................................................................... 37 Big Five Inventory Overall Results............................................................................................................... 37 BFI Disaggregated.................................................................................................................................... 38 Situational Judgement Test Overall results................................................................................................ 39 Work Readiness Results Conclusion........................................................................................................... 40 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT.............................................................................................................................. 41 Overall Findings............................................................................................................................................ 41 Earnings.................................................................................................................................................... 43 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE ii Savings...................................................................................................................................................... 43 Work Conditions...................................................................................................................................... 44 Overall quality of employment ............................................................................................................... 44 Unemployment............................................................................................................................................. 46 Employability Confidence............................................................................................................................. 46 Gender and Employability........................................................................................................................... 49 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 53 Work readiness and employment .............................................................................................................. 53 Work readiness and confidence ................................................................................................................. 53 Resilience....................................................................................................................................................... 54 Baseline Indicators ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Recommendations........................................................................................................................................ 56 ANNEXES........................................................................................................................................................ 58 Resilience Spearman's rank-order correlation .......................................................................................... 58 Sample School Demographics .................................................................................................................... 60 Average Scores School Climate Survey....................................................................................................... 64 Data Collection Tools................................................................................................................................... 68 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) is funded by USAID and implemented by Education Development Center (EDC) and its consortium of partners Family Health International 360 (FHI 360), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), and Souktel. This baseline report presents project findings for IYDA’s Cohort 1 beneficiaries’ perceptions, resilience, safe learning environment, youth’s skills, and employment at baseline in order to answer the following research questions: 1. Do youth demonstrate improved resilience to conflict and violence (measured by improve perception of non-violent means to address conflict drivers and conflict management, self-efficacy and optimism about the future) as a result of IDYA’s activities? 2. Do youth demonstrate improved perception support and engagement in their community? 3. Do youth demonstrate improved perception of school safety or learning spaces? 4. Do youth demonstrate improved work readiness, as a result of IYDA’s activities (with “improved” defined as an increase of one level on a multi-leveled life and leadership skills test)? 5. Do youth participants demonstrate improved livelihoods as a result of IDYA’s activities (with “improved livelihoods” defined as new or better employment as compared to baseline measures (with “better”, in turn, defined as higher paying, more stable, of higher quality, or in better working conditions)? As this is a baseline report, it does not measure improvements but instead aims to present the baseline characteristics of the youth targeted by the project in order to establish comparability for a future midline and endline evaluation. There were 1,165 baseline participants surveyed and 1,111 validated observations included in the analysis—669 in the level 3 CRS schools and 442 in the CAP schools. A total of 24 CRS schools and 15 CAP schools were included in the sample in proportion to the number of schools targeted by the IYDA’s Year I activities. These youth come from the five implementing territories in Eastern DRC: Goma, Bukavu, Walungu, Kabare, and Kalehe. The findings of this report suggest the following baseline measures for IYDA’s performance monitoring indicators. Evaluation Questions Indicator # Indicator Target Baseline Starting Average Score Baseline Youth averaging in high range for the indicator Q1. Do youth demonstrate improved in resilience to conflict and violence as a result of 1 Percent of youth with increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of programming 75% 33.7 of 48 28.8 % 2 Percent of youth showing positive attitudes of tolerance and non-violent means 75% 42.1 of 54 48.4% USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 2 IDYA’s activities? to address conflict drivers and conflict management. 3 Percent of target youth reporting a decreased propensity to engage in violence 75% 37.2 of 48 58.8% 4 Percent of youth with increased optimism at the conclusion of programming 75% 26.3 of 36 35.2% Q2. Do youth demonstrate improved perception support and engagement in their community? 2.2 Percent of youth who believe that they are of value in society and their positive contributions are recognized and rewarded at the conclusion of programming 75% 48 of 72 23.1% 2.2.1 Number of youth who participate in civil society activities following social or leadership skills training or initiatives from USG assisted programs 6,000 NA 22.1% (246 of 1,111 sampled) 2.3.2 Percent of youth who report feeling comfortable asking their parents or guardians for help or advice during the past 30 days 75% NA 83.9%1 46.2 of 602 46.6%3 Q3. Do youth demonstrate improved perception of school safety or learning spaces? 1.2.1 Percent of youth with improved perception of the safety of schools or learning spaces 70% 224 of 306 18.1% 1 Denotes the percent positive response (5/6) of this question within the prosocial family support section of the YPS 2 Denotes the overall score of the measurement of prosocial support of the YPS 3 Denotes percent of youth with high perception score from the overall measurement of prosocial support of the YPS USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 3 Q4. Do youth demonstrate improved work readiness, as a result of IYDA’s activities? 3.1.2 Percent of individuals with improved skills following completion of USG-assisted workforce development programs 60% NA 77.4% Q5. Do youth participants demonstrate improved livelihoods as a result of IDYA’s activities? 3.1 Number of individuals with new or better employment following completion of USG￾assisted workforce development programs 4,000 (~40 percent of 10,325 completers) NA 23.7% of overall participants (263 of 1,111 sampled) Consequently, the findings of this report suggest the following recommendations for IYDA: • Overall. IYDA will need to ensure that intervention is targeting the most vulnerable youth (unemployed youth, younger youth, and those from rural areas and women) • Community Perception. IYDA will need to play an important role in forging greater community support and engagement of youth within the implementing context. • Prosocial Caregiver support. While perceptions of prosocial family support are high at baseline, IYDA will need to foster community and family/caretaker support for positive youth engagement to improve overall prosocial caregiver support. • Self-Efficacy. Given the links between self-efficacy and prosocial support, IYDA’s role in improving community and caregiver’s roles in supporting youth engagement will be important. • Violence. IYDA will need to provide youth with strategies for building personal resilience to conflict and means to think through thoughts that drive feelings, emotions, and behaviors of violence and tolerance. • School Safety. As IYDA will need to ensure a strong network between target schools and the Youth Service Organizations (YSO) receiving project support to foster referral network to prove youth access to psychosocial support but also empower and reinforce the capacity of school staff to support positive child protective practices within their learning environment. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 4 BACKGROUND The USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) is funded by USAID and implemented by Education Development Center (EDC) and its consortium of partners Family Health International 360 (FHI 360), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), and Souktel. IYDA works in the North and South Kivu regions of the DRC, specifically in the cities of Goma and Bukavu and in the South Kivu districts of Kalehe, Kabare, and Walungu. IYDA provides vulnerable youth with learning pathways and inclusive economic opportunities as well as a network of services to support these pathways. The project works with existing structures to implement these activities – education and vocational training centers, governmental officials, the private sector and local youth-serving organizations. In particular, IYDA works with accelerated learning programs (Centres de rattrapages Scolaires – CRSs), vocational training centers (Centres d’apprentissage professionnel – CAPs) and community literacy programs. Vulnerable youth receive one academic year of basic education followed by 6 months of livelihoods and employment support. IYDA’s Goal is to increase the resilience of youth to conflict and violence in eastern DRC. IYDA’s goal is supported by three intermediate results. • IR1: Youth gain and apply relevant skills for improved educational and social outcomes. Under IR1, we will strengthen and complement the work of the principal institutions that provide non-formal education to youth in the Kivus: ALPs (Pathway 1); vocational training schools (Pathway 2); and community-based literacy programs (Pathway 3). • IR2: Youth positively engaged in community activities. Activities under IR2 will strengthen youth participants’ social-emotional and life skills by affording them safe spaces, opportunities for belonging and agency, social networks and supportive relationships with adults to help them become drivers of and actors in community￾building initiatives. • IR3: Youth engaged in economic activities. Activities under IR3 will focus on Livelihoods training to provide youth with basic resilience, adaptation, and market￾driven skills that can assist in times of stress, identify immediate opportunities, and provide a foundation for future prosperity. This baseline report presents project findings on for IYDA’s Cohort I in order to provide a reference point to measure IYDA’s impact. This baseline does not measure improvements but established comparability reference for future evaluation on IYDA’s interventions to increase youth resilience to conflict. The report begins with sections detailing methodology, followed sections specific to each research question providing more insight into findings, and offering programmatic recommendations. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 5 METHODOLOGY Evaluation Questions In order to demonstrate DRC IYDA’s impact on youth assets, agency, civic engagement (contribution), and alliance building (enabling environment) the following evaluation questions were chosen to guide the baseline inquiry and reporting on key indicators: Q1. Do youth demonstrate improved in resilience to conflict and violence (measured by improve perception of non-violent means to address conflict drivers and conflict management, self-efficacy and optimism about the future) as a result of IDYA’s activities? Indicator1: Percent of youth with increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of programming Indicator 3: Percent of target youth reporting a decreased propensity to engage in violence Indicator 2: Percent of youth showing positive attitudes of tolerance and non-violent means to address conflict drivers and conflict management. Indicator 4: Percent of youth with increased optimism at the conclusion of programming Q2. Do youth demonstrate improved perception support and engagement in their community? Indicator 2.2: Percent of youth who believe that they are of value in society and their positive contributions are recognized and rewarded at the conclusion of programming Indicator 2.2.1: Number of youth who participate in civil society activities following social or leadership skills training or initiatives from USG assisted programs Indicator 2.3.2: Percent of youth who report feeling comfortable asking their parents or guardians for help or advice during the past 30 days Q3. Do youth demonstrate improved perception of school safety or learning spaces? Indicator 1.2.1: Percent of youth with improved perception of the safety of schools or learning spaces Q4. Do youth demonstrate improved work readiness, as a result of IYDA’s activities (with “improved” defined as an increase of one level on a multi-leveled life and leadership skills test)? Indicator 3.1.2: Percent of individuals with improved skills following completion of USG-assisted workforce development programs USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 6 Q5. Do youth participants demonstrate improved livelihoods as a result of IDYA’s activities (with “improved livelihoods” defined as new or better employment as compared to baseline measures (with “better”, in turn, defined as higher paying, more stable, of higher quality, or in better working conditions)? Indicator 3.1 Number of individuals with new or better employment following completion of USG-assisted workforce development programs Evaluation Design The evaluation design is quasi-experimental assessing a sample group of participants (Cohort I) enrolled longitudinally at three points: • Baseline (the current phase of this evaluation), in the period of enrollment;, • Mid-line, at the month of completion of IYDA training for the indicators on agency, civic engagement (contribution), and alliance building (enabling environment); and • End-line, at four-six months post-training for indicators on assets and employment. Sampling Youth were randomly selected from the target population of Cohort I targeted for IYDA’s interventions in year I. The sample was stratified to allow for the representation of both male and female in proportion to the number of schools targeted per DRC IYDA Year 1 Activity Work Plan across the five target territories: Goma, Walungu, Bukavu, Kalehe, and Kabare. Given the demographic differences, CRS and CAP schools were treated as independent populations for sampling and analysis. CRS Sample Size CAP Sample Size CI =99%, α = 0.5, N=2,500 Sampl e size 30% attrition rate Total Sample size CI =99%, α = 0.5, N=1000 Sampl e size 30% attrition rate Total Sample size Number of students 526 158 684 Number of students 400 120 520 Number of schools Number of schools Number of Students per school 30 Total schools 23 Number of Students per school 36 Total schools 14 Table 1. Sample Size Design Tools Data was collected from youth using four tools —the Youth Perceptions Survey (YPS), Surveys of Perceptions of School Climate (SPSC), the Youth Employment Survey (YES) and the Anchored BFI (ABFI). The YPS was developed by EDC specifically of the USAID MYDEV project in the Philippines measuring youth perceptions of violence, their position in the community and government. The USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 7 YPS was adapted to the context in Eastern DRC through the addition of the PYD International Youth Development Survey (IYDS)4 subscale on Optimism, Positive identity, Support and prosocial norms and the removal of perception on government given the sensitivity of the implementing context. The SPSC5 was adapted from the ECCN Safe Learning Environment Toolkit. The survey aims to collect information about the perceptions of students, on the characteristics of school life, or “school climate.” A positive school climate is one where all aspects of school life come together to nurture, support, and protect students overall wellbeing. The YES was developed and validated in previous EDC projects and collects data on the nuances that characterize youth employment and underemployment in both the formal and informal sectors: hours worked per day, days worked per week, number of jobs, type of job, earnings and savings and one’s ability to meet needs and achieve goals. The ABFI was developed by EDC through Workforce Connections and in partnership with Professional Examination Services (ProExam) and Akilah Institute for Women, based on the Big Five Inventory (BFI-44; Benet-Martinez & John, 1998) popular 44-item, self-report measurement instrument developed to measure an individual’s Big Five skills (sometimes referred to as the “CANOE” skills). In addition to the BFI-44, the ABFI includes (4) anchoring vignettes and (8) workforce situational judgment tests (SJT). The SJT presents a hypothetical scenarios and asking the respondent to indicate what he or she would likely react in the workplace and measures respondent’s industriousness, self-control, and perseverance in line with the CANOE of conscientiousness skills for work readiness. 4 The IYDS youth survey is largely based on the Communities That Care Youth Suvey (CTCYS) that was extended and adapted for use in Australia. The PYD Measurement Toolkit Illustrative Indicator and Corresponding description of IYDS scale item: Positive Identity: Increased positive identity at the conclusion of training/programming (youth self-report), Support: Improved family support at the conclusion of training/programming, Prosocial norms: Increased prosocial norms at the conclusion of training/programming 5 The Surveys of Perceptions of School Climate instruments include measures of respondents’ perceptions of school climate along the following dimensions: students’ sense of belonging in the school, acceptance of diversity, and inclusion; child protective practices and structures; discipline and fairness; student–student relationships; student–teacher relationships; and teacher– staff relationships. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 8 The adaptation process of these tools for DRC IYDA included translation, back translation, and revisions to ensure its usefulness for the IYDA context. Principal Component Analysis revealed the dimensions measured for the YPS, YES and Survey School Climate was reliable at baseline. However, as the Anchoring Vignettes were not reliable, only the BFI-44 and SJT were considered for analysis. (See Table 2). The reliability of these tools—per the principal component analysis using baseline data—suggests consistent measurement over time within the implementing context. Tool Dimension Cronbach’s Alpha6 How Reliable is it? Anchored BFI BIG Five Inventory 0.70 Acceptable Anchoring Vignettes 0.39 Poor (removed from analysis) Situational Judgement Test 0.70 Acceptable Youth Perceptions Survey Perceptions of Community 0.86 Excellent Perceptions of Violence 0.721 Acceptable Perceptions of Positive Identity 0.67 Acceptable Perception of Self-efficacy 0.72 Acceptable Perception of Support 0.76 Acceptable Youth Employment Survey Employability 0.85 Excellent Confidence 0.92 Excellent Gender and Employment 0.77 Good Surveys of Perceptions of School Climate School Climate 0.80 Good Table 2: Reliability Tests for Baseline Tools, where a Cronbach's alpha of at least 0.7 is acceptable. Data collection and Analysis The baseline was conducted with IYDA’s Cohort I youth prior to interventions. IYDA engaged a local consulting firm Research Initiatives for Social Development (RISD) under the direction and training of the Activity’s M&E Specialist for data collection. Data collection began on November 26, 2018 and ended on December 11, 2018. Given potential low levels of literacy, the questionnaires were administered orally then entered on tablet using the data collection tool Survey to Go (STG) by enumerators. Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the socio-demographic characteristics of subjects. Numerical data are presented as mean based on their normality distribution. Categorical data are presented as frequency (percentage). Comparison of means statistical tests was used to measure differences between demographics where appropriate. Bivariate statistical and 6 Cronbach's alpha is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group make-up a composite score of a survey measurement of a given concept consistently. It is considered to be a measure of scale reliability. High reliability means it measures the concept or variable, while low reliability means it measures something else (or possibly nothing at all). USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 9 multivariate analyses (e.g., correlations, regression) are used to examine the relationship between different variables. Limitations • Evaluation Design limitations. An experimental design was not feasible since it was not possible to randomize youth into intervention and non-intervention to assess the true impact of the program. Therefore, attribution to project activities will be limited due to the quasi-experimental nature of the study. • Self-Reporting Bias. This evaluation relies on self-report methods of data collection. Intentional misreporting—specifically, sensitive questions on violence— for reasons of social desirability, a misunderstanding of concepts, and sensitivity to personal questions constitutes factors that may affect self-reported data. In order to minimize IYDA adapted the questionnaire to clarify concepts and reduce potential bias and enumerators received training on surveying techniques and conducted the surveys with confidentiality. • Sampling. Although attempts have been made to collect data from a gender representative sample, due to problems of low enrollments, over and under representation of one gender at the school level at baseline, the final sample did not achieve gender parity. • Reliability of the Work Readiness tool. At the baseline, when reliability tests were conducted the Cronbach’s Alpha for the Anchors of the BFI was 0.39, which was substantially lower than the acceptable reliability (0.7). Given the low reliability of the anchors, they are omitted from the analysis. The reliability will be assessed again when the test is later administered to Cohort I youth to see if exposure to literacy and work readiness skills changes the test reliability measure. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 10 DEMOGRAPHICS Sample size There were 1,165 baseline participants and 1,111 validated observations included in the analysis. Sample Characteristics The sample for the baseline of 1,111 validated cases—669 in the level 3 of CRS schools and 442 in the CAP schools. A total of 24 CRS schools and 15 CAP schools were included in the sample in proportion to the number of schools targeted by the IYDA’s Year I activities within the five implementing territories. Geographic Area Distribution Across the five territories, 34 percent of participants were from Goma, 23 percent from Bukavu, 12 percent from Walungu, 17 percent from Kalehe and 14 percent from Kabare respectively. By zones, 52 percent of youth are from urban zones and 48 percent are from rural areas. (A list of schools sampled per territory is included in the Annex.) Sex Distribution While the sampling approached aimed for gender parity, the overall sample has a higher percentage of female survey participants at 58 percent compared to 42 percent of male participants. This difference was consistent by territory, specifically in Walungu who has female Female, 55.6% Female, 60.6% Male, 44.4% Male, 39.4% CRS (N=669) CAP (N=442) Figure 1. Sex Distribution of the sample within CRS and CAP (N=1,111) 54% 56% 69% 55% 63% 46% 44% 31% 45% 37% Goma Bukavu Walungu Kalehe Kabare Female Male Figure 2. Sex Distribution of the sample per territory (N=1,111) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 11 to male ratio. The same is true at the school level where within level 3 of CRS schools (56 percent female) and in CAP schools (61 percent female). From the sample, only one percent of participants were identified as mentally or physically handicapped. Age Distribution Within the implementing context, IYDA primarily targets youth in the core age of 13 to 24 and an extended core age of 25 to 35. While 83.1 percent of participants’ ages were within IYDA’s age targets (77.8 percent aged13-24 and 5.3 percent aged 25-35), 16.9 percent were outside the target age. By school types, the sampled showed a difference in age ranges within CAP and Level 3 of CRS schools. Within level 3 of CRS schools sampled participants ranged in age from 9 to 37 years while within CAP schools participants ranged in age from 11 to 52 years old. While the overall sample participants average age was 16.6 years old, on average participants in Level 3 of CRS schools were13.9 years old and 20.7 years old in CAP schools. The difference in age between Level 3 CRS and CAP youth was statistically significant at p<.0007 . By IYDA’s age targets, survey participants in the core age of 13 to 24 average age was 14.6 years old and within the extended core age of 25 to 35 the average age was 28.2 years old. Within Level 3 CRS schools, the highest percent of participants sampled (57.0 percent) were in the age range of 13-15 years, followed by youth aged 9 to 12 (25.3 percent). Within CAP schools sampled, the highest concentration of participants sampled are in the age range of 16- 19 years old (44.6 percent), followed by youth age 20 to 24 (30.1 percent). 7 “The p-value reflects the confidence with which we can rely on finding these differences again, in a re-sampling of IYDA youth. P<.000 means that, were we to re-draw the sample over and over again, we would find the same results 100% of the time. Similarly, p<.05 means that, were we to draw the sample of youth over and over again, we would likely find the same results 95% of the time. Statistically” similar or different refers to the reliability of our statement. In other words, we can say with strong level of certainty that these groups are either similar or different to one of these high confidence levels. .0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 43 45 47 48 50 52 CRS CAP Overall Sample Figure 3. Age Distribution of the sample per school type (N=1,111) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 12 School attendance Overall survey participants spent an average of 33.9 minutes on route to and from school. Youth from CAP schools spent a statistically greater time on route to and from school with an average of 38.3 minutes compare to 31.0 minutes for Level 3 CRS youth. 79.8 percent of all youth sampled reported walking to and from school alone compared to other forms of transportation. On their school attendance over the course of the two weeks prior to the data collection, 46.7 percent of survey participants were never late, while 62.7 percent did not skip school. Males were more likely than female survey participants to report never being late or skipping school. Meanwhile female survey participants were more likely to report being late or skipping schools one or two times in the two weeks prior to the survey compared to males. 25.3% 57.0% 15.7% .5% 1.2% .6% .1% .1% 9.0% 44.6% 30.1% 8.8% 3.4% 3.6% 15.4% 37.9% 27.2% 12.7% 3.9% 1.4% 1.5% 9 thru 12 13 thru 15 16 thru 19 20 thru 24 25 thru 30 31 thru 35 36 thru Highest CRS CAP Total Sample Figure 4. Age Group Distribution of the sample per school type (N=1,111) 79.8% 43.6% 5.5% .8% 2.1% WALK ALONE WALK ALONE WITH A FRIEND/FAMILY TAKE A TAXI/BUS ALONE TAKE A TAXI/BUS ALONE WITH A FRIEND/FAMILY OTHER Figure 5. Distribution of methods of school travel (N=1,111) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 13 42.7% 37.5% 14.2% 5.6% 52.2% 27.0% 13.6% 7.2% 46.7% 33.0% 14.0% 6.3% Never One to two Times Three to Four times Five or more Female Male Sample Total 59.2% 28.4% 7.7% 4.7% 67.5% 23.1% 7.0% 2.3% 62.7% 26.2% 7.4% 3.7% Never One to two Times Three to Four times Five or more Female Male Sample Total Figure 6. Distribution School Lateness (N=1,111) Figure 7. Distribution School Absence (N=1,111) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 14 YOUTH PERCEPTIONS SURVEY In order to answer the first two research questions, IYDA adapted EDC’s Youth Perception Survey (YPS) to measure changes in the youth’s perceptions of community, prosocial support, violence and levels of self-efficacy, positive identity and optimism that leads to resilience. The answer options are on a Likert scale of 0 (‘I don’t know) to 6 (“Strongly Agree”). Negative statements responses of 1-6 were reverse coded during analysis. While the data collection approach (random selection, data collection training, survey adaptation) aimed to reduce social desirability bias,8 given the sensitive nature of some survey questions—specifically those on violence—within the implementation context overall scores may be inflated compared to the actual which may affect the overall external validity9 of the YPS results. The YPS results begin with an analysis focused on the highest level of the answer options of each domain noting the difference between positive and negative statements and key disaggregation. The analysis ends with the baseline measure for future comparison, (except for community engagement), Through a sum aggregation score computed and ranked by percentile using a 5-point Likert scale from 1(“Very Poor” 59 percent and below) to 5 (“Excellent” 90 percent and above). Dimensions Number of Statements Overall Score Score Ranking Community Perception 12 72 Excellent (90-100%) Prosocial Parental/Caregiver Involvement and Support 10 60 Good (80-89%) Self-Efficacy 8 48 Fair (70-79%) Engagement in violence 8 48 Poor (60-69%) Non-Violence and tolerance 9 54 Very Poor (0-59%) Positive identity 6 36 Community Engagement The YPS includes a community perceptions component consisting of twelve questions measuring youth’s attitudes toward their communities and their role in it as youth and 10 statements measuring youth pro-social family support. IYDA project has a target of 6,000 youth who participate in civil society activities following social or leadership skills training or initiatives from USG assisted programs (Indicator 2.2.1). 8 Social desirability is the tendency of some respondents to report an answer in a way they deem to be more socially acceptable than would be their "true" answer. They do this to project a favorable image of themselves and to avoid receiving negative evaluations. The outcome of the strategy is overreporting of socially desirable behaviors or attitudes and underreporting of socially undesirable behaviors or attitudes.” Paul J. Lavrakas 9 External validity is the validity of generalizing the results of a study to contexts outside of the study. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 15 At baseline, only 22.1 percent of participants surveyed (246 out of 1,111) participated at various levels of engagement in a civil society association in their community. Participants in CAP schools were statistically more involved in these associations in their community compared to CRS students, at p<.000. By territory, participants in Bukavu were less engaged (14.4 percent) while participants in Kalehe were more engaged (30.1 percent) in associations in their community than the average. While no statistical differences exist by gender, as participants increase in age the more involved they were in these associations. Specifically, those in the extended core age of 25 to 35 (44.1 percent) showed a greater rate of involvement in community civil society organization, than those in the core age of 13 to 24 (21.5 percent) p<.000. Reasons reported for non￾involvement in civil society association are as follows: 32.1 percent of participants are not interested, 29.9 percent lacked time due to school, and 42.0 percent noted other reasons including the lack of association of interest in their community, and lack of ability to participate. For those who were involved in a civil society association, the majority (82.5 percent) were involved in one association while 11.0 percent were involved in two. The types of associations named included, youth focused association, community service, sports, and civil political associations. Participants also noted involvement in associations such as, agriculture and cattle heading, Christian/church associations, savings groups, artistic/musical groups, motorcycle/transportation club, and women’s associations. The majority of participant involved in these civil society associations are simple members, while 28.0 percent (69 participants) held some post or responsibilities within these groups. By gender, the majority of those who held a post were male (59.4 percent) compared to females (40.6 percent) which is statistically significant at p<.000. 16.1% 31.2% 22.1% 83.9% 68.8% 77.9% CRS CAP Overall Sample Involved In an association Not Involved in an association Figure 8. Overall Distribution of involvement in a civil society association (n=1,111) Figure. Overall Distribution civil society association types (n=246) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) Other , 39.8% Youth Association, 35.8% Volunteer/Community Service Association, 21.5% Sports Association, 15.4% Civic/Political Association, 4.1% Figure 9. Distribution Civil Society Association Types (N=244) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 16 Community Perception IYDA project has a target of 75 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on feeling value in society and recognition and reward of their positive contributions to their community at the conclusion of programming (Indicator 2.2). Perception of and youth role in community are measured through a series of 12 statements. Perceptions on Community and pro-social involvement 1 Adults in my community create organized activities for people my age. 2 Adults in my community provide ways for people my age to develop new skills. 3 There are a lot of chances in my community for Youth to participate in community service. 4 In my community, young women are given equal opportunity to assume useful roles in the community. 5 In my community, young men are given equal opportunity to assume useful roles in the community. 6 In my community, young people understand their roles as important partners of the leaders solving the problems of the community. 7 Young women have access to community leaders to voice their concerns and opinions 8 Young men have access to community leaders to voice their concerns and opinions. 9 In my community, youth can have a positive future. 10 There are people in my neighborhood who are proud of me when I do something well. 11 There are people in my neighborhood who encourage me to do my best. 12 My neighbors notice when I do a good job and let me know about it. Based on the responses in agreement or strong agreement across all twelve statements, on average, 54.9 percent of all participant perceived their community and their role within the community positively, only 20.5 percent report at the highest level. While participants responded favorably in agreement or strong agreement on the statements of community prosocial support of youth (68.7 percent), responses on the statements focused on engagement of youth by the community were far lower (45.2 percent) on average. 3% 3% 3% 7% 20% 15% 5% 5% 24% 25% 19% 20% 5% 5% 5% 6% 7% 16% 12% 15% 27% 25% 33% 29% 14% 11% 24% 18% Adults in my community create organized activities for people my age. Adults in my community provide ways for people my age to develop new skills. There are a lot of chances in my community for Youth to participate in community service. In my community, young people understands their roles as important partners of the leaders solving the problems of the community. I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 10. Perception of Community and Role (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 17 50.7 percent of all participants surveyed on average perceived a positive role of young men and women community. However, the four gender-specific statement on gender roles revealed stark differences. The statement on women’s role in the community saw a lower average rating (41.8 percent) to that of men (59.5 percent). Interestingly, there were no statistical differences by gender across these statements, which lead to the assumption that both male and female participants perceived that men have greater opportunity to assume useful roles and access to leaders in their community compared to women. 6% 2% 2% 2% 6% 4% 3% 3% 12% 6% 6% 7% 5% 3% 1% 3% 15% 14% 14% 13% 35% 45% 45% 44% 21% 27% 29% 28% In my community, youth can have a positive future. There are people in my neighborhood who are proud of me when I do something well. There are people in my neighborhood who encourage me to do my best. My neighbors notice when I do a good job and let me know about it. I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 3% 2% 4% 4% 19% 8% 0% 4% 28% 17% 20% 13% 6% 5% 5% 3% 12% 14% 12% 13% 23% 34% 32% 39% 10% 20% 18% 25% In my community, young women are given equal opportunity to assume useful roles in the community. In my community, young men are given equal opportunity to assume useful roles in the community. Young women have access to community leaders to voice their concerns and opinions Young men have access to community leaders to voice their concerns and opinions. I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 11. Perception of Community Prosocial Support (N=1,110) Figure 11. Perception of Community Gender Roles (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 18 Across the twelve statements, from an overall score of 72, the overall average participant score was 48.0 (66.7% of the total score) for positive community perception. No statistical differences were observed by gender, statistical differences were observed by school type with lower score ranking for participants from CAP (p<.004), zone with lower ranking for participants in urban areas (p<.003), and territory with lower ranks for Bukavu and Kabare (p<.000). From a high score rank of good or excellent, only 23.1 percent of all survey participants were in the highest percentile measure of positive perception of their community based on value in society and recognition of their positive contributions. Community Perception Score Rank (N=1,110) CRS CAP Overall Very Poor 32.1% 24.5% 29.1% Poor 19.4% 23.4% 21.0% Fair 25.3% 29.0% 26.8% Good 13.6% 17.2% 15.0% Excellent 9.6% 5.9% 8.1% Prosocial Parental/Caregiver involvement and support IYDA project has a target of 70 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on their perception of report feeling comfortable asking their parents or guardians for help or advice during the past 30 days as part of their prosocial caregiver/parental support at the conclusion of programming (Indicator 2.3.2). This indicator is captured as part of an overall assessment on pro-social parental/caregiver support. This domain is measured through 10 self-reported statements including on level of presences, reliability and support to youth. At baseline, participants were asked to reflect on their experience of parental/caregiver support in the last 30 days prior to the date of survey. Parent Prosocial Support & Involvement 1 My parent or caregiver are good at talking with me about things. 2 I If I had a personal problem, I could ask my parent or caregiver for help or advice. 3 My parent or caregiver gives me many chances to do fun things with them. 4 My parent or caregiver ask me what I think before most family decisions affecting me are made. 5 I can rely on my parent or caregiver for emotional support. 6 My parent or caregiver were sensitive to my personal needs 7 My parents or caregiver notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it. 8 My parents or caregiver tells me they are proud of me for something I did. 9 I enjoyed spending time with my parents or caregiver. 10 I wish my parents were different (r10) Based on the responses in agreement or strong agreement across the ten statements, on average 66.9 percent of all participant demonstrated a positive perception of parental involvement and support in their lives, only 35.5 percent report at the highest level. Overall 83.9 percent of participants were in agreement or strong agreement feeling 10 Negative statements were reverse coded in the aggregate core for each component measured by the YPS. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 19 comfortable asking their parents or guardians for help or advice during the past 30 days. Interestingly however, 72.3 percent of participants wish their parents were different. The average sampled participant positive perception of parental involvement score from the overall score of 60 across the 10 statements score was 46.2 (77% of the total score). While this score was statistically similar by gender, school type, zone, it was statistically different by territory as Kabare rank lower than all other regions (p<.010). From a high score rank of good or excellent, 46.6 percent of participants show strong levels of prosocial parental support at baseline. 1% 1% 5% 9% 4% 4% 3% 7% 14% 5% 2% 2% 4% 5% 1% 5% 9% 17% 19% 11% 44% 44% 38% 30% 44% 44% 40% 30% 23% 34% My parent or caregiver are good at talking with me about things. I If I had a personal problem, I could ask my parent or caregiver for help or advice. My parent or caregiver give me lots of chances to do fun things with them. My parent or caregiver ask me what I think before most family decisions affecting me are made. I can rely on my parent or caregiver for emotional support. I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 4% 1% 2% 2% 11% 8% 2% 2% 5% 9% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 11% 11% 11% 12% 4% 0% 47% 47% 44% 28% 30% 38% 37% 34% 45% My parent or caregiver were sensitive to my personal needs My parents or caregiver notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it. My parents or caregiver tells me they’re proud of me for something I did. I enjoyed spending time with my parents or caregiver. I wish my parents were different.(R) I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 12. Perception of Prosocial Parent Support (N=1,110) Figure 13. Perception of Prosocial Parent Support (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 20 Prosocial Parental Support Score Rank (N=1,110) CRS CAP Overall Very Poor 8.5% 5.4% 7.3% Poor 12.3% 11.3% 11.9% Fair 34.1% 35.8% 34.8% Good 29.0% 33.8% 30.9% Excellent 16.1% 13.6% 15.1% Self-efficacy IYDA project has a target of 75 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on their level self-efficacy at the conclusion of programming (Indicator 1). Self-efficacy is defined as one’s belief in their abilities to do many different things well. Building strong self-efficacy is at the core of agency within framework for positive youth development (PYD). Agency is where “youth perceive and have the ability to employ their assets and aspirations to make or influence their own decisions about their lives and set their own goals, as well as to act upon those decisions in order to achieve desired outcomes”11. At baseline, youth self-efficacy was assessed through a subscale of 8 statements (4 positive and 4 negative). Self-efficacy 1 I am strong enough to overcome life’s struggles 2 At root, I am a weak person. (r) 3 I can handle the situations that life brings. 4 I usually feel that I am an unsuccessful person. (r) 5 I often feel that there is nothing that I can do well. (r) 6 I feel competent to deal effectively with the real world. 7 I often feel like a failure. (r) 8 I can think of the consequences of my actions to other persons and to myself Across the four positive statements of self-efficacy, 49.2 percent of all participants’ responses averaged in agreement or strong agreement at the highest level of self￾efficacy, only 14.7 percent report at the highest level. Thus, half of all participants did not feel strong enough to overcome life’s struggles, or deal effectively real-world situations, or proactively think of their actions towards others and themselves. 11 PYD Framework of the PYD toolkit USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 21 On the four negative statements, only 17 percent of participants answered in agreement or strong agreement with low efficacy measures such as feelings of failure. Across the eight statements of the self-efficacy subscale however, only 26.1percent of all participants responded at the highest level of high perception of themselves to influence their own decisions about their lives and set their own goals to achieve their desired outcomes in life. From the overall score of 48 across the eight statements, on average participants’ sampled score was 33.7 (70.2% of the total score) as a measure positive perception of self-efficacy score. Statistical differences were shown by gender as males ranked higher than females in self-efficacy (p<.017), by school type as participants in CAP schools scored 847% 0% 8% 3% 18% 16% 17% 9% 8% 8% 7% 3% 18% 25% 22% 21% 34% 33% 31% 40% 13% 10% 13% 22% I am strong enough to overcome life’s struggles I feel competent to deal effectively with the real world. I can handle the situations that life brings. I can think of the consequences of my actions to other persons and to myself I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree 1% 1% 2% 1% 30% 25% 24% 25% 39% 33% 35% 41% 10% 10% 11% 12% 7% 8% 8% 9% 11% 18% 14% 9% 3% 5% 5% 3% I often feel that there is nothing that I can do well. (r) At root, I am a weak person. (r) I usually feel that I am an unsuccessful person. (r) I often feel like a failure. (r) I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 14. Positive Perception of Self-efficacy (N=1,110) Figure 14. Negative Perception of Self-efficacy (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 22 higher than CRS students (p<.00), by zones with higher rating in urban area ((p<.010). Disaggregation by territory also showed statistical differences at p<.000. While participants from Goma, Bukavu, and Walungu average a score of 34.4, participants from Kalehe average a score of 33.1 and Kabare 30.8. Thus, participants from Kabare showed and overall lower self￾efficacy compared to other regions. From a high score rank of good or excellent, only 28.8 percent of participants show high level of self-efficacy at baseline. Self-Efficacy Score Rank (N=1,110) CRS CAP Overall Very Poor 27.4% 15.9% 22.8% Poor 27.7% 18.1% 23.9% Fair 22.6% 29.0% 25.1% Good 14.2% 21.1% 16.9% Excellent 8.2% 15.9% 11.3% Violence Across the sample of participants surveyed, 20.9 percent reported the presence of gangs or members of armed groups in proximity to their school. Specifically, level 3 CRS school student (25.6 percent) reported a higher presence of gangs and armed groups members than CAP students (13.8 percent) surveyed, which is statistically significant at p<.000. By territory, Kalehe ranked the highest in reports of gang and armed group presence (35.8 percent), followed by Kabare (29.0 percent), Bukavu (23.6 percent), Goma (13.1 percent), and Walungu (5.9 percent. These differences were statistically significant at p<.000. Within their school, only 8.0 percent of all participants reported knowledge of a student who belonged to a gang or armed group. These responses were statistically similar between participants from CRS and CAP schools. Overall, 0.9 percent of all participants surveyed reported that they previously belonged to an armed group while 0.5 percent reported that they were current members. Given the sensitivity surrounding this question, there is a high probability that social desirability bias in respondent’s responses. In the week prior to the survey, only 5.4 percent of all participants reported being afraid for their safety on route to and from school from gangs and armed groups. Meanwhile 4.8 percent of participants reported these fears while in school. Participants in level 3 CRS schools compared to CAP participants sampled reported being afraid for their safety in school than the average at p<.001. Given the impact of gangs and violent groups within the implementing context, it is important for IYDA to understand youth’s perception of engagement in and tolerance of violence. In response to the first research question, IYDA devised two sets of statements on the YPS. The first set of statements promotes the engagement in violent actions and violent groups 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 of the YPS and scores were assigned ranging from 0 to 6. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 23 Engagement in gang and armed group violence IYDA project has a target of 75 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on their propensity to engage in gangs and armed group violence at the conclusion of programming at the conclusion of programming (Indicator 3). Propensity to engage in gangs and armed group violence and violent groups was measured through three main questions of which the first is comprise of six sub-statements justifying engagement, a statement on the likelihood to join a violent group and lastly a statement on capacity to resist recruitment. Propensity to engage in violence 1 It is justifiable for young people to join a gang or armed groups: a) If they are being discriminated by others in the community/country (r) b) If they are suffering from poverty because of unemployment and lack of income c) If they wanted to belong to a group and do, what the members are doing. d) If they are being pressured by friends/family members e) If they want to protect themselves f) If they are being disrespected 2 It is likely that I will join a gang or violent groups in my community (r) 3 I feel that I have the skills to resist being recruited by armed groups. Across the statements justifying the joining a gang or armed group, on average 11.7 percent of all participants agree or strongly agree at baseline, only 4.3 percent report at the highest level. The majority of participants surveyed (76.3 percent) disagree or strongly do not justify joining an armed group or gang, with 43.6 percent report at the highest level of disagree. 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 4% 47% 43% 40% 43% 41% 46% 32% 31% 32% 32% 35% 35% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7% 10% 9% 7% 6% 4% 8% 6% 3% 3% 1% a) If they are being discriminated by others in the community/country b) If they are suffering from poverty because of unemployment and lack of income c) If they wanted to belong to a group and do, what the members are doing. d) If they are being pressured by friends/family members e) If they want to protect themselves f) If they are being disrespected I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 15. Negative Perception Engagement in Violence (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 24 Interestingly however, while 3.3 percent of all participants were in agreement or strong agreement that they are likely to join a gang or armed group, only 37.3 of all participants agreed or strongly agreed that they possess the skills to resist recruitment into a gang or armed group, only 24.7 percent report at the highest level. From the overall score of 48 across the eight statements, on average, participants surveyed scored 37.2 on the likelihood of refraining from engagement in violence (77.5% of the total score). While disaggregation by Gender and school types did not show any statistically differences, statistical differences between groups were shown by geography. By zone, scores of participants in rural areas ranked in higher level than those in urban areas (p<.002). Meanwhile by region, participants in Bukavu and Walungu ranked higher than participants from Goma, Kabare and Kalehe whose average scores were below the overall sample average score (p<.000). From a high score rank of good or excellent, only 58.8 percent of participants show high level of restraint to engage in violence. Engagement in Violence Score Rank (N=1,110) CRS CAP Overall Very Poor 14.5% 15.2% 14.8% Poor 9.9% 10.2% 10.0% Fair 15.4% 18.1% 16.5% Good 30.2% 22.7% 27.2% Excellent 30.0% 33.8% 31.5% Non-Violence and tolerance IYDA project has a target of 75 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on their attitudes of tolerance and non-violent means to address conflict drivers at the conclusion of programming (Indicator 2). Attitudes on tolerance and violence are measure through two sets of statements. The first set of (four) statements promote the acceptability of violent actions as a means of conflict resolution. The second set of (three) statements promote the acceptability 2% 3% 64% 19% 26% 28% 4% 10% 1% 3% 2% 13% 1% 25% It is likely that I will join a gang or violent groups in my community (r) I feel that I have the skills to resist being recruited by armed groups. I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 16. Negative Perception Engagement in Violence (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 25 of non-violence and peaceful means of conflict resolution. Two additional statements were included to understand youth’s perception gender roles and violence. Positive Attitudes of Tolerance 1 Violence is an acceptable means to resolve conflict in the community. (r) 2 If I walk away from a fight, I’d be a coward (r) 3 Sometimes violence is the only way to express your feelings. (r) 4 Sometimes a person does not have any choice but to use violence. (r) 5 There are non-violent ways to resolve conflict in the community. 6 Avoiding or walking away from someone who wants to fight you is an effective way to avoid violence 7 I try to talk out a problem instead of using violence 8 Men are always the perpetrators of violence. (r) 9 Women are always the victims of violence. (r) At baseline, on average, 82.8 percent of participants agreed or were in strong agreement of the four statements supporting non-violent actions and tolerance, with 44.8 percent reporting at the highest level. Meanwhile 9.1 percent were in support of violent actions based on the 3 statements, with only 3.3 percent reporting at the highest level. Based on the aggregate responses in agreement or strong agreement across the majority of participants surveyed showed positive attitudes of tolerance and non-violent means to address conflict drivers and conflict management at baseline. 3% 44% 4% 36% 1% 5% 8% 5% 38% 6% 45% 3% Supporting Nonviolence Supporting Violent Actions I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 17. Perception of Tolerance (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 26 While conventional notions of violence generally associate men as the perpetrators and women as the victims, across the participants surveyed, this convention was not the norm. Only 34 percent of all participants believed that men were always the perpetrators of violence, while 39 percent believed that women were always the victim. It is interesting to note that although the number women outnumbered the men surveyed responses on these statements were statistically similar when disaggregated by gender. While these results ring true to the realities of the implementing context—where both men and women have been victims and perpetrators of violence—greater nuances is required in the future to understand the gendered perception of violence through the experiences of physical, sexual, or psychological violence. Across the nine statements on attitude of tolerance at baseline, on average sampled participants scored 42.1 from the overall score of 54 (78.0 percent of the total score). This score was statistically significant by gender as females had a slightly higher mean score compared to males (p<.052), by school type as CAP participants had a higher average compared to participants in Level 3 CRS schools (p<.000). By geography, scores were also statistically significant by zone with participants in urban areas showing a higher level of tolerance(p<.000) compared to rural territories and by territory as Bukavu, Walungu and Goma showed a higher level of tolerance to non-violence compared to the average while participants from Kalehe and Kabare who scored below the average ((p<.001). From a high score rank of good or excellent, 48.4 percent of participants show high attitude of tolerance at baseline. Tolerance of Non-Violence Score Rank (N=1,110) CRS CAP Overall Very Poor 4.0% 2.0% 3.2% Poor 16.4% 12.2% 14.8% 1% 1% 16% 14% 27% 23% 12% 8% 9% 14% 19% 24% 15% 15% Men are always the perpetrators of violence. (r) Women are always the victims of violence. (r) I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 18. Gendered Perception of Violence (N=1,110) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 27 Fair 34.4% 32.4% 33.6% Good 35.6% 37.0% 36.1% Excellent 9.6% 16.3% 12.3% Positive Identity & Optimism IYDA project has a target of 75 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on their level of positive identity and optimism at the conclusion of programming (Indicator 4). Within the PYD framework, positive identity is defined as positive and coherent attitudes, beliefs, and values that one holds about him/herself and his/her future. The YPS measures positive identity through six self-reported statements. Positive Identity 1 When I think about the future, I feel optimistic. 2 I know what kind of person I am. 3 I really believe in myself. 4 Things usually turn out well for me. 5 I think the world and people in it are good. 6 I feel okay about the way I have handled myself so far. Across the six statements of positive identity, while 61.7 percent of all participants showed a high tendency of optimism, only 29.8 percent report at the highest level. While responses on statement on belief in/knowledge self and optimism of the future were very favorable with 83.3 percent of participants answering in agreement or strong agreement, statements showing how participants viewed others in the world, their life choices, and expectations were generally very low: on average only 39.7 percent of participants surveyed agreed or strongly agreed. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 28 From the overall score of 36 across the six statements, the average overall participant a positive perception of positive identity score was 26.3(73.1% of the total score). While scores were statistically similar by gender, by school type scores were statistically different as CAP participants ranked higher (p<.000) compared to participants in Level 3 CRS school, and by zones as participants from urban areas ranked higher (p<.000). Disaggregation by territory also showed statistical differences, while participants from Goma, and Bukavu averaged a score above the mean, participants from Walungu, Kalehe and Kabare averaged scores below the mean (p<.000). From a high score rank of good or excellent, only 35.2 percent of participants show positive identity and optimism at baseline. Positive Identity & Optimism Score Rank (N=1,110) CRS CAP Overall Very Poor 21.2% 12.2% 17.7% Poor 15.2% 15.0% 15.1% Fair 28.6% 37.2% 32.0% Good 19.3% 22.7% 20.6% Excellent 15.7% 12.9% 14.6% 2% 1% 1% 6% 20% 7% 3% 5% 2% 17% 27% 16% 1% 2% 2% 6% 10% 6% 7% 11% 7% 20% 21% 21% 36% 39% 37% 33% 15% 31% 47% 40% 51% 18% 6% 17% When I think about the future, I feel optimistic. I know what kind of person I am. I really believe in myself. Things usually turn out well for me. I think the world and people in it are basically good. I feel okay about the way I’ve handled myself so far. I do not know Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree Figure 19. Perception of Positive Identity (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 29 PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL SAFETY A positive school environment is one where “where social, emotional, and academic development are nurtured and supported; where the interpersonal relationships between and among teachers, students, and staff are open and positive; and where teachers and students of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities are both respected and have a voice in school affairs… When students’ social and emotional development is nurtured in school, they become empowered to make decisions about their own safety and to report and challenge violence when they encounter it personally or as a witness”12. IYDA project has a target of 75 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on their level of perception of school safety or learning spaces at the conclusion of programming (Indicator 1.2.1). The Survey of Perceptions of School Climate (SPSC) instrument measures student’s perceptions of safe learning environment through six dimensions of a holistic school climate as enumerated in the table below. The DRC IYDA Baseline retained 51 of the 59 statements from the original tool through the adaptation process scoring each item using a 0-6 Likert scale similar to the YPS. When scoring the survey, statements with a positive connotation (i.e. "In this school, boys, and girls are nice to each other.") are coded from 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 6 ("Strongly Agree"). Questions which have negative connotations, (i.e. "In this school, teachers are unkind to children with disabilities."), are reverse coded from 6 ("Strongly Disagree") to 1 ("Strongly Agree"), since strongly disagreeing with this statement would suggest a positive response to that survey item. Similar to the YPS, the SPSC was analyzed through an overall score. The overalls score was recoded to an aggregate sum score rank using a 5-point Likert scale from 1(“Very Poor”) to 5 (“Excellent”) and disaggregated by school type, gender and territory. A summary of the average response to each statement of the SPSC is included in the Annex disaggregated by school type and gender. 12 USAID/RTI International. 2016. Conceptual Framework for Measuring School-Related Gender-Based Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International Development. Dimensions Number of Statements Score Score Ranking Students’ Sense of Belonging, Acceptance of Diversity, and Inclusion in school 10 60 Excellent (90-100 percentile) Child Protective Practices and Structures, Psychosocial support 7 42 Good (80-89 percentile) Discipline and Fairness 9 54 Fair (70-79 percentile) School Safety in and on route to school 14 84 Poor (60-69 percentile) Student–Student Relationships 4 24 Very Poor (0-59 percentile) Student–Teacher Relationships 7 42 Overall Perception Score 51 306 Table 5. Dimensions of the Surveys of Perception of School Climate Score and Ranking USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 30 Overall perception of school safety From a total score of 306 across the 51 statements of the SPSC, only 18.1 percent of participants perceived the level of their school safety as good or excellent. On average, participants rated their learning enviroment as fair with a score of a 224 (72.9 percent of the total score). Survey participants from CRS schools overall ranked their schools below the average with a score of 221 (72.2 percent of the total score) whereas participants from CAP schools ranked their learning enviroment above the the mean with a score of 229 (74.8 percent of the total score). These differences were statisically different at p<.000, as more participants from Level 3 CRS rated their learning enviroment as ‘very poor’ compared to CAP participants. While the overall scores by gender was statistically similar in Level CRS schools, within CAP schools’ disaggregation by gender was statistically different at p<.023, as young men rated their learning enviroment as having a higher degree of safety compared to young women. As observed in the Rapid Education Risk/Do Not Harm Analysis (RERA/DNH), at young women report being at higher risk in and on route to school, scpecifically with of the prevelance of School-related Gender-based Violence (SRGBV) against woment. The low perception of safety may also be linked due the greater differences of age differnce in CAP schools compared to CRS. From the RERA we may also tie the difference in perception of safety to the reported level of insecurity young owmen feel at school after hours or harrasment from male students and male staff. 35.6% 2.5% 46.0% 12.9% 3.0% 22.4% 1.8% 54.2% 17.9% 3.6% 30.4% 2.3% 49.3% 14.9% 3.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent CRS CAP Overall Figure 20. Overall perception of School Safety (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 31 By territory, Bukavu and Kabare were the lowest rated in terms of safefy, as only 11.6 percent of participants in Bukavu and 12.3 percent of participants in Kabare rated the level of safety of their learning enviroment as high. Comparatively 23 percent participants from Goma, rated their learning enviroment as good or excellent.. IYDA will need to place a particular focus to Bukavu and Kabare in its activities to improve the overall safety of learning enviroments of schools targeted by the Activity. Belonging, Diversity, & Inclusion Of the participants surveyed only 30.1 percent perceived a high sense of belonging, acceptance of diversity, and inclusion in school. From a score of 60 across the 10 statements measuring belonging, diversity, and inclusion, on average participants rated their learning environment as fair with a score of a 43.9 (73.2 percent of the total score). While disaggregation by school type and gender within school did not show any statistical difference, 38% 33% 36% 25% 18% 22% 2% 3% 3% 2% 1% 2% 45% 47% 46% 53% 55% 54% 13% 12% 13% 18% 18% 18% 2% 4% 3% 1% 7% 4% Female Male Overall Female Male Overall CRS CAP Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent 24% 32% 15% 34% 2% 51% 4% 0% 3% 52% 3% 52% 60% 46% 34% 14% 12% 23% 9% 17% 12% 0% 2% 0% 1% Goma Bukavu Walungu Kalehe Kabare Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Figure 21. Overall perception of School Safety by gender (N=1,110) ti Figure 22. Overall perception of School Safety by Region (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 32 disaggregation by territory was statistically different as Bukavu, Kalehe and Kabare rated the lowest on this domain at p<.000. Child Protective Practices Of the participants surveyed only 19.4 percent perceived their learning environments as having child protective practices and structures and psychosocial support. from a score of 42 across the 7 statements, on average, sampled participants rated their learning environment as fair with a score of a 29.2 (69.5 percent of the total score). Disaggregation by school type was statically different at p<.010, as CRS level 3 students rated this domain the lowest compared to CAP students surveyed. While results were statistically similar by gender in CRS schools, within CAP these results were statistically diffent at p<.000 as young women rated this domain lower than young men. Meanwhile disaggregation by territory was statistically different as Bukavu rated the lowest on this domain compared to other regions at p<.000. 12% 23% 40% 20% 5% 11% 16% 34% 31% 7% 11% 21% 38% 24% 6% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent CRS CAP Overall Figure 23. Overall perception of Belonging and Inclusion (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 33 Discipline and Fairness Of the participants surveyed, only 30.1 percent rated their learning environment as having ‘good or excellent’ discipline and fairness practices. From a score of 54 across the 7 statements on average participants rated their learning environment as fair with a score of a 40.7 (75.4 percent of the total score). Disaggregation by school type was statically different at p<.001, as CRS level 3 students rated this domain the lowest compared to CAP students surveyed. While results were statistically similar by gender in CRS schools, within CAP these results were statistically diffent at p<.003 as young women rated this domain lower than young men. Meanwhile disaggregation by territory was statistically different as Bukavu rated the lowest on this domain compared to other regions at p<.000. 17% 27% 40% 13% 3% 12% 25% 39% 19% 5% 15% 26% 40% 15% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent CRS CAP Overall Figure 24. Overall perception of Child Protective Practices (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 34 School Safety in and on route to school Of the participants surveyed only 30.1 percent perceived a high level of safety on route to and from school. From a score of 84 across the 14 statements measuring this domain, on average participants rated their learning environment as poor with a score of a 57.4 (68.3 percent of the total score). Disaggregation by school type was statically different at p<.000, as CRS level 3 students rated this domain the lowest compared to CAP students surveyed. While results were statistically similar by gender in level 3 CRS schools at p<.066 and within CAP schools at p<.131, disaggregation by territory was statistically different as Walungu rated the lowest on this domain compared to other regions at p<.000. 13% 17% 30% 30% 10% 5% 14% 33% 35% 12% 10% 16% 31% 32% 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent CRS CAP Overall 24% 39% 23% 10% 4% 14% 35% 33% 13% 5% 20% 37% 27% 11% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent CRS CAP Overall Figure 25. Overall perception of Discipline and fairness (N=1,110) ti Figure 26. Overall perception of Safety on route (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 35 Student–Student Relationships Of the participants surveyed only 30.1 percent perceived student-to-student relationship within learning environments as good or excellent. From a score of 24 across the 4 statements measuring this domain, on average participants rated their learning environment as fair with a score of a 18.0 (75.0 percent of the total score). Statistical differences were observed by school type at p<.019, as CRS level 3 students rated this domain lower comapred to CAP students surveyed. In level 3 CRS schools, these results were also statistically different by gender at p<.024 as women rated this lower than men surveyed. Within CAP schools, the results were statistically similar at p<.958 as young women rated this domain similarly to young men. Meanwhile disaggregation by territory was statistically different as Bukavu, Goma, Kabare rated the lowest on this domain compared to other regions at p<.000. Student–Teacher Relationships Of the participants surveyed only 30.1 percent perceived student to teacher relationship as highly positive. From a score of 42 across the 7 statements measuring this domain, on average participants rated their learning environment as good with a score of a 34.8 (82.9 percent of the total score). Disaggregation by school type was statically similar at p<.084, as CRS level 3 students rated this domain the similarly to CAP students surveyed. Dissagregation by gender wihtin schools show that, males and females were statistically similar in level 3 CRS schools p<.388 and within CAP schools at p<.672. Meanwhile disaggregation by territory was statistically different as Bukavu rated the lowest on this domain compared to other regions at p<.000. 15% 21% 23% 20% 21% 9% 19% 30% 20% 22% 13% 20% 26% 20% 21% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent CRS CAP Overall Figure 27. Overall perception of Student-Student Relationship (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 36 3% 7% 30% 31% 29% 2% 5% 26% 38% 29% 3% 6% 28% 34% 29% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent CRS CAP Overall Figure 28. Overall perception of Student-Teacher Relationship (N=1,110) ti USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 37 WORK READINESS SKILLS IYDA project has a target of 60 percent of youth that ‘improve’ one level or more on their level of work readiness at conclusion of programming (Indicator 3.1.2).To respond to the fifth research question informing this indicator, IYDA use the Big Five inventory (BFI) and situational judgement tests of the Anchored BFI. The combination of the overall results of these tools guides the measurement for the indicator on workforce readiness skills. Big Five Inventory Overall Results The Big Five Inventory (BFI) measures the five broadest dimensions of personality in an organizing framework that has emerged to guide research on soft skills. The BFI consists of 44 simple statements that the respondent agrees or disagrees to using a five-point Likert scale13. The tool has been translated into 28 languages and scores higher in reliability than other similar assessments (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann Jr., 2003). Since the BFI-44 is a diagnostic without a set benchmark, IYDA’s baseline was compared to the findings from Schmitt et al.’s data collection in seven African nations in 2007. Compared to other world regions surveyed by Schmitt et al. in 2007, the Africa region scored highest on agreeableness and conscientiousness, and the lowest on emotional stability and openness. The Africa regional average was in the middle for extraversion, scoring similarly to Southern and Western Europe, but below North America. Overall, IYDA’s baseline results mirrors Schmitt et al findings of the Africa region as the mean score out of 5 for conscientiousness and agreeableness are the highest with emotional stability being the lowest among surveyed participants. 13 John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. 3.39 4.23 4.23 2.27 3.54 3.38 3.87 3.72 2.76 3.61 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness DRC IYDA Youth Africa Figure 29. DRC IYDA Baseline BFI Averages versus Africa Regional Averages (N=1,111) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 38 Across the five dimensions on average, participants averaged a score of 3.5 out of 5. While no participants scored these dimensions below a 2 no participants scored above a 4.4. Ranking the overall scores by percentile similar to the YPS, shows that 64.0 percent of all participants surveyed scored between a 3.5 (‘Fair’) and 4.4 (‘Good’) which represent a ‘good’ level of the BFI-44 skills. BFI Disaggregated While the average score for Level 3 CRS and CAP sampled followed the general patterns observed by Schmitt et al, at baseline there were statistical differences between CRS and CAP youth in extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness at p<.000. Overall, no statistical differences were present by gender within the sample across the five dimensions. Average Scale Score14 (n=1,111) Extraversion *** Agreeableness Conscientiousness *** Emotional Stability *** Openness *** CAP Youth 3.47 4.27 4.32 2.20 3.78 CRS Youth 3.35 4.20 4.17 2.32 3.37 By territory, statisitcal differences are noted on the the extreaversion, emotional stability and openess traits of the BFI-44 at p<.000, on agreeableness at p<.002 and conscientiosness at p<.016. Except for the trait of Emtionally stability where Walungu ranked the lowest, Kabare ranked the lowest across the BFI-44. Average Scale Score (n=1,111) Extraversion *** Agreeableness *** Conscientiousness *** Emotional Stability *** Openness *** Goma (n=383) 3.39 4.19 4.29 2.24 3.78 Bukavu (n=250) 3.49 4.25 4.21 2.17 3.46 Walungu (n=130) 3.50 4.42 4.27 2.03 3.37 Kalehe (n=193) 3.31 4.21 4.23 2.44 3.47 Kabare (n=155) 3.26 4.14 4.11 2.51 3.28 14 *** statistically significant at p<.001 level USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 39 Situational Judgement Test Overall results The Situational Judgement Test (SJT) focuses on one factor of workforce readiness, conscientiousness. This construct is measures by three facets industriousness, self-control, and persistence. The SJT items present hypothetical situations and ask respondents how he or she would react in the workplace in five ways on 5-point Likert scale. Effective responses reflect a high level of conscientiousness. The SJT is scored by taking the absolute difference between experts and respondents’ responses on each of the five response options for a situational judgment test. Why does consciousness matter in the workplace? Consciousness is the tendency to be organized, responsible, and hardworking. Employees with low levels of this trait are less able to manage goals and time, work independently, or take responsibility and ownership of their work and decisions. An employee with high levels of this trait are more able to self-manage, they have strong work ethic, plan and maintain focus on a task. Overall, they are growth minded and goal striving which is a benefit to any enterprise. A Pearson’s r15 product-moment correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between the SJT and the Consciousness trait measure by the BFI. There was a positive correlation between these two variables (r=102, n=1,111, p<.001). As such, increases in the BFI consciousness correlate to increases in the SJT measure of workforce consciousness. The SJT scoring is based on the absolute value of the sample in comparison to the ratings of a group of 10 personality experts, who scored the SJT items response options based on the effectiveness of each response to the situation and on the item’s ability to represent the facet. From a mean score of 5 across the eight SJT items, on average participants score of 3.5. While no participants scored below a 2.5 (‘Poor’), no participants scored above a 4.4 (‘Good’). Ranking the overall the average SJT overall mean scores from 1 to 5 shows that 90.8 percent of all participants surveyed scored between a 3.5 (‘Fair’) and 4.4 (‘Good’) on the BFI. Compared to Level 3 CRS participants surveyed (88.1), a greater number of CAP surveyed (94.9 percent) score in the 3.5 to 4.4 range. While this difference is statistically significant at p<.000 and may be due in part to the pedagogical differences between CRS and CAP schools as the latter focus on vocational training. These results speaks to the necessity of the workforce readiness training that IYDA will provide in both Level 3 CRS and CAP schools within the target territories. While no statistical differences were shown in by gender, similar to the results on the BFI, statistical difference exists by territory at p<.000 as Kabare received the lowest mean score overall on the SJT. 15 Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of the strength of the association between the two variables. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 40 Work Readiness Results Conclusion Across the BFI and the SJT and average of 77.4 percent of participants surveyed demonstrate high levels of knowledge in foundational work readiness skills at baseline. Overall, IYDA sampled participant scored themselves the highest in conscientiousness and agreeableness and the lowest in emotional stability and extraversion. While these results of the BFI and SJT are subject to self-score inflation or social desirability bias, research has shown that these personality factors are malleable and a study done in 2006 showed that all five-personality factors are malleable throughout young adulthood.16 Lessons and activities that are intended to strengthen work ethic, teamwork, resilience, analytical thinking, emotional intelligence, and confidence are incorporated in IYDA’s Work Ready Now Curriculum to be utilized for the Activity’s youth workforce training. For example, modules on appropriate workplace behavior and attitudes, and personal development and interpersonal communication intend to teach youth how to appropriately respond to threats and stress at work. Overall DRC IYDA interventions will improve youth’s soft skills in these critical areas, thus increasing their chances of attaining gainful livelihoods in the future. 16 Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E. & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean‐level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 41 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT IYDA project has a target of 4,000 youth that ‘improve’ with new or better employment at conclusion of programming (Indicator 3.1). IYDA’s training activities will focus largely on helping youth to achieve positive education and employment outcomes—including obtaining work for the first time since starting IYDA’s trains or improving the quality of one’s work. IYDA’s Life Skills training, which is based on EDC’s Work Ready Now! (WRN!) Curriculum includes focused study and the practical application of skills across several areas important for one’s work readiness including: • 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 • Civic Engagement 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 accelerated education training to prepare them for their next steps. This set of interventions that targets individual youth’s needs and goals intends to allow youth flexibility in finding work that suits them while providing a common level of soft skills amongst all IYDA youth. Overall Findings At baseline, 23.7 percent of participants surveyed (263 out of the sample of 1,111) worked in the six months prior to the survey. In CAP schools, those employed accounted for 29.6 percent of participants sampled (130 out of 442) and only 19.9 percent of participants surveyed in Level 3 CRS Schools (113 out of 669). While this is statistically different at p<.000, it is important to note the demographic difference as well difference in the educational pedagogy of these schools. Specifically, youth in CAP schools received training toward a profession of practice or employment whereas CRS schools provide an accelerated learning in formal education with a greater focus on transition to higher education. 19.9% 29.4% 23.7% 80.1% 70.6% 76.3% CRS CAP OVERALL SAMPLE Employed Unemployed Figure 30. Overall employment by school type (N=1,111) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 42 On average, the 263 participants employed in the preceding six months to the survey held 1.5 jobs. However, some youth held up to eight jobs. While most participants (88 percent) held either one or two jobs, there were no statistical difference in the number of jobs held by participants in level 3 CRS schools compared to CAP schools. By zones, previously employed participants represented 22.1 percent of overall the sample are in urban areas compared to 25.3 percent in rural area. By gender, previously employed participants females represented 17.7 percent while 31.8 percent were male at a statistical difference at p<.000. By age, only 24.2 percent of IYDA core age (13-24) and 35.6 percent the extended core age (25-35) reported employment. Meanwhile 52.9 percent of those above the core ages and 14 percent of those below the core ages reported working. These differences are statistically different at p<.000. By territory, there was a statistical difference in employment as less sampled participant in Bukavu and Walungu reported employment p<.000. Overall, 54 percent of previously employed participants surveyed reported serving as occasional/non-permanent employees, while 36.1 percent reported self￾employment. While there was no statistical difference by school types, there was a statistical difference in the types of employment worked gender, p<000. More males (63.3 percent) reported having served as occasional employees while more women (53.9 percent) reported self-employment. By employment sector, the majority (22.2 percent) reported working in businesses or small enterprises. 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Domestic employment Agriculture Construction Transportation Services Beauty / Health Business / Enterprise Restoration Textile and Crafts Telecommunications and Appliances Entertainment / Recreation General Services Other 6.5% 12.9% 14.8% 3.7% 2.5% 22.2% 4.3% 4.9% 2.5% .9% 6.2% 18.8% Figure 31. Overall employment by sectors worked (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 43 Earnings Overall, on average most (80 percent) of previously employed participants earned the equivalent of 10 US Dollars (USD) per month. Statistical differences were shown in earning by school type in earnings at p<.000. Overall, only 8.7 percent of sampled participants responded that their earning increased in the six months prior to the survey, while 32.3 percent noted a decrease, which is statistically different between participants in CAP and CRS Level 3 schools. Savings Overall, only 12.5 percent of the 263 of previously employed sampled participants noted that they were ‘always’ able to save. Savings questions revealed no differences between level 3 CRS and CAP students in terms of how often participants were able to save, with 10.5 percent of Level 3 CRS and 14.6 of CAP participants responding that they are sometimes able to save. Other savings questions revealed that of previously employed participants sampled, level 3 neither CRS or CAP students are better off in meeting their needs. On average only 65.2 percent of Level 3 CRS and CAP participants stated that their savings allowed them to meet their needs/goals. This was not statistically different by gender. While more level 3 CRS participants experienced increases in their savings at 56.6 percent compared to 49.5 percent of CAP participant these differences were also not significant or by zone or gender. 8.7% 31.6% 27.4% 32.3% Yes, considerably Yes a bit No, it stayed the same No, it has decreased Figure 32. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) 32.3% 5.7% 49.4% 12.5% NEVER ALMOST NEVER SOMETIMES ALWAYS Figure 33. Overall frequency of saving (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 44 Work Conditions Employment condition was measured through the following four variables: commute to work, security on route to work, security at work as well as overall work satisfaction. By a small margin, those who reported a long commute (34.6 percent) were in the majority compared to those with a short commute (33.5 percent). Meanwhile, 25.6 percent reported no commute as their work was within their home or street, which speaks to the nature of informal markets and entrepreneurship. Additional analysis revealed no significant difference in commute by school type, zone, gender, or age group. In analyzing previously employed participant’s feelings of safety physically and emotionally on their commute, 76.8 percent reported feeling safe on their route to work; there was no significance by school type or by gender. By age group however, significant differences are noted, as those over the age of 35 felt less safe compared to the overall IYDA core age groups. There was also a significant difference in level of safety on route by territory overall participants from Bukavu rated their safe by 10 percent lower than the average. In terms of security at work 78.7 percent of overall participant felt safe at work. Statistical differences were also observed by territory as participants in Bukavu reported feeling less safe at work compared to other regions at p<.000. Meanwhile no significant difference by school types, zone, age group, or gender was noted. Overall, 49.4 percent of previously employed participants reported that they were very satisfied with their jobs in the six months prior to the survey. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction between level 3 CRS and CAP participants, or by core age groups, or gender. However, by geography statistical differences existed. More participants (57.8 percent) from urban zones compared to rural zones at p<.030 reported being satisfied. As more participants from Goma (69.5 percent) reported they were satisfied with their work compared to the average for participants from all other territories (36.3 percent), there was a statistical difference in employment satisfaction by territory at p<.000. Overall quality of employment Quality of employment is measured through the aggregation of the following variables, or aspects of employment quality: (1) whether youth’s earnings have increased, (2) whether their savings have increased, (3) how often youth are able to save, (4) whether their savings meet their needs, Whether they feel (5) safe in and or on the way (6) happy to their jobs and whether they are satisfied with their job (7). The quality of employment is and aggregate Earnings Have Increased Savings Have Increased Rate of Saving Savings Meet Needs Job Safety on route Job Safety at work Job Satisfaction Higher Frequency or Larger Increase Higher Frequency or Larger Increase Lower Frequency or Smaller Increase Lower Frequency or Smaller Increase Score Degree of Quality 1 to 4 Very Poor 5 to 8 Poor 9 to 12 Fair 13 to 16 Good 17 to 20 Very Good Figure 34. Understanding Quality of Employment Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 45 score ranging from a very poor quality score of 1 to a very good score of 20 across these domains. Overall, the average quality of employment score for all participant was 13.5, which are ‘fair and good’ (44.5 percent of the total score). By rank, only 25.9 percent of those who were employed had ‘very good’ quality of employment. Additional analysis correlates the relationships between this overall score and each of seven characteristics. The quality of employment score is positively correlated to all 7 domains of a quality of employment. All of these correlations are statistically significant at p<.000. While the quality of employment score has a negative relationship with the number of jobs held by youth, meaning the more jobs one has the lower the quality of employment, this difference was statistically similar. Given that there were correlations between quality of employment and each domain of the quality employment measure, we can assume that: Youth who have overall high job satisfaction, or feel safer on route or at work or have an increase in salary, savings, or higher ability meet their needs tend to have a higher quality of employment no matter their demographics. 17 Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient is used to discover the strength of a link between two variables. in a single value between -1 and +1. This value is called the correlation coefficient. A positive correlation coefficient indicates a positive relationship between the two variables (as values of one variable increase, values of the other variable also increase) while a negative correlation coefficient expresses a negative relationship (as values of one variable increase, values of the other variable decrease). A correlation coefficient of zero indicates that no relationship exists between the variables. Spearman's rho17 Ranks of quality employment Increase in Salary Increase In Saving Rate of Saving Savings Meet needs Job Safety on Route Job Safety at work Job satisfaction Ranks of quality employment Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .550** .576** .807** .367** .379** .316** .460** Sig. (2- tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 263 263 178 263 178 263 263 263 Poor, 10.3% Fair, 30.0% Good, 33.8% Very Good, 25.9% Figure 35. Quality of employment score rank (N=263) Figure 36. Correlation of l Quality of employment score with the 7 domains of measure Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 46 Unemployment At baseline, 76.3 percent of participants surveyed (848 out of the sample of 1,111) did not work in the six months prior to the survey. In CAP schools, this represents 80.1 percent of participants surveyed (312 out 442) and 70.6 percent of Level 3 of CRS schools participants surveyed (536 out of 669). While these differences are statistically significant, at p<.000, again the demographics and difference in the pedagogy of focus is important to note. Of the unemployed surveyed, only 18.8 percent of participants (159 out of 848) responded that were currently looking for a job. Participants from Level 3 CRS schools compared to CAP schools are statistically different at p<.000, in that only 11.4 percent of CRS level participants compared to 31.4 percent of participants in CAP schools respectively responded that they were currently looking for a job. While there was no statistical difference by gender, by age group however, respondents were statistically different mores respondents above the core age of 24 were in search of a job. Of those that responded that they have not been looking for a job, the most common reasons for both CAP and Level 3 CRS participants were that they are still in school. The distribution of responses for CAP and Level 3 participants is presented below. Employability Confidence Three questions on the level of confidence relating to relating to employment were posed to those that were working and not working. The possible responses were very confident, confident, hardly confident, and not at all confident. • Do you feel you have the skills to find a job /livelihood? 90.1% 9.7% 1.9% 7.2% 9.9% 3.4% 1.5% 8.6% 83.2% 3.7% 9.3% 5.1% 12.6% 8.4% 3.3% 3.3% I am still in school I do not need a job There are no job offers I do not have time I do not think I have the necessary skills I do not know how / where to look for work I can not afford (money for transportation, etc.) Other CAP CRS Figure 37. Distribution of CAP and Level 3 CRS Reasons for Not Looking for Jobs (n=689) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 47 • Do you know how to apply for jobs or improve your work position/status (or be promoted)? • Do you feel you have the skills to start and grow a successful business on your own? Only 18.7 percent of all participants responded that they were ‘very confident’ when asked how confident they were that they had the skills to find a job/livelihood. While there were not statistical differences by gender this question revealed particularly interesting differences between participants by school type, age, zone, and territory. Whereas 29.2 percent of CAP participants responded, they were very confident only 11.8 percent of level 3 participant could say the same. These differences were statistically significant at p<.000. By age group, those in IYDA’s extended core age group of 25-35, were more likely to respond that they were “very confident” compared to the overall average (30.5 percent >18.7 Percent). More participants in Urban zones compared to Rural zones responded that they were ‘very confident’ (23.0 percent >14.1 percent). By territory, more participants from Goma responded that they were ‘very confident’ compared to the average, while participants from Kabare were the least likely. These differences were statistically significant at p<.000. 48.1% 16.7% 23.3% 11.8% 25.8% 22.4% 22.6% 29.2% 39.2% 19.0% 23.0% 18.7% Not at all confident Hardly confident Confident Very confident Overall Sample CAP CRS Figure 38. Distribution of CAP and Level 3 CRS Confidence for Employment (n=1,111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 48 On the level of confidence to improve work position/status, only 15.5 percent of all participants responded that they were ‘very confident.’ Within Level 3 CRS schools only 10.2 percent of respondents sampled were ‘very confident’ and in CAP schools, 23.5 percent of participants which is statically difference at p<.000. While there were no statistical differences by gender, responses by the demographic markers of core age, zone, and territory followed similar partner to participants’ responses to their level of confidence to find work. An examination of the participants’ responses on their confidence to start a business shows that on average, 20.7 percent of participants were ‘very confident’. This was statistically significant by school types at p<.000, as more participants in CAP schools 33.2% 35.6% 36.9% 45.6% 54.2% 39.2% 18.0% 22.8% 23.1% 15.0% 16.8% 19.0% 21.7% 24.0% 21.5% 24.9% 23.9% 23.0% 27.2% 17.6% 18.5% 14.5% 5.2% 18.7% Goma Bukavu Walungu Kalehe Kabare Oveall sample Not at all confident Hardly confident Confident Very confident 48.9% 17.6% 23.3% 10.2% 26.2% 19.0% 31.2% 23.5% 39.9% 18.2% 26.5% 15.5% Not at all confident Hardly confident Confident Very confident Overall Sample CAP CRS Figure 39. Distribution Confidence for Employment by Territory (n=1,111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) Figure 40. Distribution Confidence for Improved Employment by school type (n=1, 1111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 49 (29.2 percent) noted that they were ‘very confident’ compared to level 3 CRS schools (15.1 percent). It is important to note that these differences are due in part to the pedagogical difference between CAP and CRS schools where CAP school provide professional training to participants in specialize fields that have greater likelihood to lead to entrepreneurship. Analysis of participants’ results by other demographic markers followed the same patterns of response to the previous questions on employability confidence. Gender and Employability All participating youth (working and non-working) were asked to self-report their belief about gender and employment through a series of 5 questions; • To what extent do you agree that young men and women have equal access to employment and livelihoods? • To what extent do you agree that the community and the family encourage young men and young people women have training in employability skills? • To what extent do you agree that young women and men have the same decision￾making power to choose their field of work? • To what extent do you agree that young women and men can have the same position at work? • To what extent do you agree that young women are as capable as young men of working in jobs such as welding, carpentry, masonry, etc. (i.e. traditionally male dominated fields)? The possible responses were ‘strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree.’ Across all questions, less than half of participants responded that they “Strongly agree. The figure below shows the distribution of responses by youth at baseline. 47.8% 13.2% 23.9% 15.1% 27.1% 17.2% 26.5% 29.2% 39.6% 14.8% 24.9% 20.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Not at all confident Hardly confident Confident Very confident Overall Smaple CAP CRS Figure 42. Distribution Confidence for Entrepreneurship by school type (n=1, 1111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 50 While these results were consistent across both the Level 3 CRS and CAP participants there were statistical differences as more CAP student responded in strong agreement to these statements, at p<.000. 29.5% 13.7% 21.5% 20.4% 24.1% 33.1% 22.7% 27.4% 27.1% 24.8% 19.9% 31.9% 24.7% 22.8% 25.2% 17.5% 31.8% 26.5% 29.7% 25.9% young men and women have equal access to employment and livelihoods the community and the family encourage young men and young people women have training in employability skills young women and men have the same decision-making power to choose their field of work young women and men can have the same position at work young women are as capable as young men of working in traditionally male dominated fields Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 34.5% 21.9% 14.3% 12.7% 23.3% 18.8% 25.6% 12.7% 30.8% 14.0% 32.7% 33.7% 26.0% 17.6% 30.5% 22.6% 28.6% 24.9% 28.8% 18.6% 19.3% 20.8% 31.1% 33.0% 24.4% 25.1% 20.5% 26.2% 22.1% 29.9% 13.5% 23.5% 28.6% 36.7% 21.8% 33.5% 25.4% 36.2% 18.2% 37.6% CRS CAP CRS CAP CRS CAP CRS CAP CRS CAP YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO EMPLOY MENT AND LIVELIH OODS THE COMMU NITY AND THE FAMILY ENCOUR AGE YOUNG MEN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WOMEN HAVE TRAININ G IN EMPLOY ABILITY SKILLS YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN HAVE THE SAME DECISIO N - MAKING POWER TO CHOOSE THEIR FIELD OF WORK YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN CAN HAVE THE SAME POSITIO N AT WORK YOUNG WOMEN ARE AS CAPABLE AS YOUNG MEN OF WORKIN G IN TRADITI ONALLY MALE DOMINA TED FIELDS Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Figure 43. Overall Distribution of beliefs on Gender (n=1, 1111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) Figure 44. Overall Distribution of beliefs on Gender by school type (n=1, 1111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 51 While by gender, responses were statistically similar, young men were slightly higher in their agreement compared to young women. By age group, responses across these statements were usually statistically different as participants in the core age group of 25 to 35 showed a higher propensity to agree with all of these statements compared to participants below or above this core age. However, it is by territory where the most statistically significant at variance occurred p<.000. Regarding equal access to employment participants from Kabare and Kalehe were less likely to respond ‘strongly agree’ compared to other territories. 32.7% 27.2% 15.7% 12.2% 24.4% 19.4% 20.6% 20.3% 26.1% 22.7% 30.1% 35.3% 24.8% 21.1% 26.5% 28.0% 26.1% 27.8% 23.6% 25.6% 18.9% 20.6% 29.3% 33.8% 22.7% 26.1% 22.3% 23.1% 24.8% 25.5% 18.3% 16.9% 30.1% 33.0% 26.3% 26.6% 31.0% 28.8% 25.5% 26.3% MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO EMPLOYM ENT AND LIVELIHOO DS THE COMMUNI TY AND THE FAMILY ENCOURA GE YOUNG MEN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WOMEN HAVE TRAINING IN EMPLOYAB ILITY SKILLS YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN HAVE THE SAME DECISION￾MAKING POWER TO CHOOSE THEIR FIELD OF WORK YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN CAN HAVE THE SAME POSITION AT WORK YOUNG WOMEN ARE AS CAPABLE AS YOUNG MEN OF WORKING IN TRADITIO NALLY MALE DOMINATE D FIELDS Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Figure 45. Overall Distribution of beliefs on Gender by gender (n=1, 1111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 52 5.5% 24.4% 25.4% 33.7% 30.3% 21.4% 32.0% 26.2% 28.0% 32.9% 31.3% 19.2% 23.1% 16.1% 15.5% 41.8% 24.4% 25.4% 22.3% 21.3% GOMA BUKAVU WALUNGU KALEHE KABARE YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN CAN HAVE THE SAME POSITION AT WORK Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 18.3% 32.8% 29.2% 38.9% 40.6% 34.2% 33.6% 24.6% 35.8% 33.5% 29.0% 14.8% 20.8% 11.9% 14.8% 18.5% 18.8% 25.4% 13.5% 11.0% GOMA BUKAVU WALUNGU KALEHE KABARE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT AND LIVELIHOODS Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Figure 46. Overall Distribution of beliefs on Gender and Access by region (n=1, 1111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) Figure 47. Overall Distribution of beliefs on gender and employment (n=1, 1111) Figure. Overall frequency of earnings increase (N=263) USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 53 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Baseline data offered the evaluators the opportunity to explore characteristics of IYDA’s target youth in order to understand the project’s target youth population. These findings may contribute to program design. This baseline report provides detailed analysis of employability, employment, and non-cognitive skills, perception of community, positive youth development factors, as well as safe learning environment through. Additional analysis was done to explore the correlations between all three tools in order to better understand the relationship between cognitive, Work readiness and employment Work readiness results from the BFI-44 and performance on the Situational Judgement test were analyzed for relationships with youth employment quality. Results showed that self￾reports of non-cognitive skills, such as agreeableness, openness, and extraversion from the BFI￾44, were correlated with youth quality of employment; in fact, these skills showed a stronger relationship with youth quality employment than the SJT. Work readiness and confidence It is expected that youth with demonstrated work readiness knowledge, assessed through the BFI-44 and SJT, would also have more confidence in their work readiness skills. The table below shows the correlation of the youth performance on WR Employability Assessment and their confidence in their skills to find work, improve their employability quality, or start a business. As seen in the table, there is a significant correlation between work readiness measured through the SJT and BFI-44 and youth’s confidence. This suggests that confidence in finding work is not wholly explained by one’s knowledge of the subject matter but also non-cognitive skills. SJT Overall Extraversion Agreeableness conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Confidence to Find Work Spearman’s rho (rs) .086** .177** .132** .124** -.127** .138** Sig. (1- tailed) .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 Work Readiness SJT Overall Extraversion Agreeableness conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Quality of employment score Spearman’s rho (rs) .044 .130* .152** .061 -.102* .106* Sig. (1- tailed) .237 .017 .007 .163 .049 .043 N 263 263 263 263 263 263 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 54 Confidence to Improve Quality Employment Spearman’s rho (rs) .027 .195** .171** .176** -.168** .154** Sig. (1- tailed) .183 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 Confidence to start a business Spearman’s rho (rs) .036 .190** .196** .201** -.197** .133** Sig. (1- tailed) .115 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 Resilience Additional analysis was conducted to better understand the relationship between youth resilience through the positive youth development contracts measured by the YPS and the Work readiness measurement of the BFI-44 and SJT. Results showed strong statistical correlation between the resilience domain and work readiness skills. Additional analysis also showed that a significant positive relationship exist between the resilience facets measured by the YPS. This suggests youth who have more life skills and positive development assets such as prosocial family and community support and self-efficacy and optimism tend to have more work resilience skills. (The results of the resilience Spearman’s rank￾order correlation are included in the annex.) Baseline Indicators The findings of this report suggest the following baseline measures for IYDA’s performance monitoring indicators. Evaluation Questions Indicator # Indicator Target Baseline Starting Average Score Baseline Youth averaging in high range for the indicator Q1. Do youth demonstrate improved in resilience to conflict and violence as a result of IDYA’s activities? 1 Percent of youth with increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of programming 75% 33.7 of 48 28.8 % 2 Percent of youth showing positive attitudes of tolerance and non-violent means to address conflict drivers and conflict management. 75% 42.1 of 54 48.4% 3 Percent of target youth reporting a decreased propensity to engage in violence 75% 37.2 of 48 58.8% USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 55 4 Percent of youth with increased optimism at the conclusion of programming 75% 26.3 of 36 35.2% Q2. Do youth demonstrate improved perception support and engagement in their community? 2.2 Percent of youth who believe that they are of value in society and their positive contributions are recognized and rewarded at the conclusion of programming 75% 48 of 72 23.1% 2.2.1 Number of youth who participate in civil society activities following social or leadership skills training or initiatives from USG assisted programs 6,000 NA 22.1% (246 of 1,111 sampled) 2.3.2 Percent of youth who report feeling comfortable asking their parents or guardians for help or advice during the past 30 days 75% NA 83.9%18 46.2 of 6019 46.6%20 Q3. Do youth demonstrate improved perception of school safety or learning spaces? 1.2.1 Percent of youth with improved perception of the safety of schools or learning spaces 70% 224 of 306 18.1% Q4. Do youth demonstrate improved work readiness, as a result of IYDA’s activities? 3.1.2 Percent of individuals with improved skills following completion of USG-assisted workforce development programs 60% NA 77.4% 18 Denotes the percent positive response (5/6) of this question within the prosocial family support section of the YPS 19 Denotes the overall score of the measurement of prosocial support of the YPS 20 Denotes percent of youth with high perception score from the overall measurement of prosocial support of the YPS USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 56 Q5. Do youth participants demonstrate improved livelihoods as a result of IDYA’s activities? 3.1 Number of individuals with new or better employment following completion of USG￾assisted workforce development programs 4,000 (~40 percent of 10,325 completers) NA 23.7% of overall participants (263 of 1,111 sampled) Recommendations Overall, the baseline is a learning opportunity for the IYDA team as we plan for Year Two of the project. The findings of this report suggest the following recommendations for IYDA programming: • Overall. IYDA will need to ensure that intervention is targeting the most vulnerable youth (unemployed youth, younger youth, and those from rural areas and women) • Community Perception. IYDA will need to play an important role in forging greater community support and engagement of youth within the implementing context. Specifically, the support of youth led community services and creation/support of Youth Development Alliances will be a strong asset to mobilize communities around the creation of engagement of vulnerable youth in civic and economic activities in their communities. Fostering a greater connection and support for youth in the community will not only improve their perception but also reinforce their overall resilience by fortifying their prosocial pillars of support within their community. • Prosocial Caregiver Support. While perceptions of prosocial family support are high at baseline, IYDA will need to foster community and family/caretaker support for positive youth engagement to improve overall prosocial caregiver support. The Parent and caregiver PYD discussion series provides the opportunities for IYDA to enhance parents and caregiver’s support of youth by building their understanding models of healthy relationships that increases youth’ agency and safety within their family. • Self-Efficacy. Given the links between self-efficacy and prosocial support, IYDA’s role in improving community and caregiver’s roles in supporting youth engagement will be important. By increasing their connections to caring networks in their communities, youth will develop a greater sense of self-efficacy, belonging, and identity, enabling them to make positive decisions for their future as well as resist the risks including violence and armed groups within their community. • Violence. IYDA’s goal is to increase youth resilience to conflict and violence in the DRC. Within the IYDA approach, youth will be provided with strategies for building personal resilience to conflict and means to think through thoughts that drive feelings, emotions, and behaviors of violence. Greater nuances are required in the future to understand the gendered perception of violence through the experiences of physical, sexual, or psychological violence. • School Safety. The results of the SPCS, complements the finding of the RERA/DNH, which highlights the risk to the safety, and wellbeing of students within the implementing context. Given the extensive exposures to trauma in the implementing context as noted in the RERA/DNH and the Baseline findings, as IYDA builds the capacities of Youth USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 57 Service Organizations (YSO) within the implementing context, it will need to ensure a strong network between target schools and these YSOs. Specifically, this will require establishing strong linkages to foster referral network to prove youth access to psychosocial support but also empower and reinforce the capacity of school staff to support positive child protective practices within their learning environment. This should include collaborating with school staff and students to review and ensure that school code of conducts are child protective and accessible to all. IYDA will also need to work with school communities in a participatory manner to review and establish best practices to foster child protective discipline practices in and out of the classroom as well as promote positive and respectful interactions between teachers and students and between students. Learning from the findings of the RERA/DNH and Baseline, which highlights the high risk for young women, and their low perception of safe learning environments compared to young men, IYDA, will need to implement practices that promote gender equity, equality, and access throughout its activities within the implementing context. USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 58 ANNEXES Resilience Spearman's rank-order correlation N=1,110 Community perceptions Self￾Efficacy Pro￾social family support Engagement in Violence Tolerance Positive identity Extraversion Scale Score Agreeableness Scale Score conscientiousness Scale Score Emotional Stability Scale Score Openness Scale Score SJT Overall Community perceptions Spearman’s rho (rs) 1.000 .356** .344** -.032 .197** .383** .179** .424** .390** -.262** .320** .106** Sig. (1- tailed) .000 .000 .142 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Self-Efficacy Spearman’s rho (rs) .356** 1.000 .314** .133** .304** .438** .265** .352** .368** -.300** .416** .221** Sig. (1- tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Pro-social family support Spearman’s rho (rs) .344** .314** 1.000 .086** .174** .366** .195** .357** .311** -.225** .241** .028 Sig. (1- tailed) .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .179 Engagement in Violence Spearman’s rho (rs) -.032 .133** .086** 1.000 .255** .135** .087** .031 -.022 -.073** -.086** .107** Sig. (1- tailed) .142 .000 .002 .000 .000 .002 .150 .234 .007 .002 .000 Tolerance Spearman’s rho (rs) .197** .304** .174** .255** 1.000 .143** .116** .301** .294** -.241** .189** .218** Sig. (1- tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 59 Positive identity Spearman’s rho (rs) .383** .438** .366** .135** .143** 1.000 .198** .324** .330** -.277** .230** .055* Sig. (1- tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .034 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 60 Sample School Demographics GOMA School Type Female Male Total Centres de rattrapages Scolaires (CRS) (CRS)CEPAD / BADIRIKA 15 13 28 (CRS) COV 16 14 30 (CRS) CENED 20 10 30 (CRS) CEFAJED 17 14 31 (CRS)NAZAREEN 25 5 30 (CRS) UPDCO/SHALOOM 12 18 30 (CRS) APROFIME 17 13 30 Total 122 87 209 Centres d’apprentissage professionnel (CAP) (CAP) MUUNGANO 20 16 36 (CAP) CPS KARISIMBI 35 1 36 (CAP) APROJED 6 30 36 (CAP) JERICHO FONDATION 11 17 28 (CAP) TUMAINI ETN 13 25 38 Total 85 89 174 BUKAVU School Type Female Male Total USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 61 Centres de rattrapages Scolaires (CRS) (CRS) KADUTU/FOYER SOCIAL 17 13 30 (CRS) AMALDEFEA 13 15 28 (CRS) NYOTA/ELIMU KWA WOTE 21 8 29 (CRS) BAGIRA I 15 15 30 (CRS) BAGIRAII 17 14 31 Total 83 65 148 Centres d’apprentissage professionnel (CAP) (CAP) CFPO BAGIRA Jeunesse 31 9 40 (CAP) BAGIRA 4 21 25 (CAP) UMOJA 10 1 11 (CAP) CPS PILOTE DE KADUTU 11 15 26 Total 56 46 102 WALUNGU School Type Female Male Total Centres de rattrapages Scolaires (CRS) (CRS) MADAKA 6 7 13 (CRS) KAHEMBARHI/CASDI 15 15 30 (CRS) LURHALA CASDI 10 7 17 Total 31 29 60 Centres d’apprentissage professionnel (CAP) (CAP) CFPO WALUNGU 26 8 34 (CAP) CFPO IKOMA 33 3 36 Total 59 11 70 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 62 KALEHE School Type Female Male Total Centres de rattrapages Scolaires (CRS) (CRS) CAPED RAMBIRA/SINISTRES 6 10 16 (CRS) BUSHUSHU/CAPED 23 14 37 (CRS) MINOVA/CEBCE 9 11 20 (CRS) UMOJA/BVES (MINOVA) 13 4 17 (CRS) AMUKENI/CEBCE (KALUNGU) 10 13 23 (CRS) St PAUL EMMANUEL/TCHOFI 6 10 16 Total 67 62 129 Centres d’apprentissage professionnel (CAP) (CAP) CFPO Minova CFP OFFICIEL DE LA JEUNESSE 23 5 28 (CAP) CFPO Kasheke CFP OFFICIEL DE LA JEUNESSE 16 20 36 Total 39 25 64 KABARE School Type Female Male Total Centres de rattrapages Scolaires (CRS) (CRS) LA MERVEILLE 14 18 32 (CRS) BENEMUDAK 8 11 19 (CRS) ST JEAN P II 33 9 42 (CRS) BARAKA 6 13 19 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 63 (CRS) KAHAYA 8 3 11 Total 69 54 123 Centres d’apprentissage professionnel (CAP) (CAP) St JEAN PAUL II 14 3 17 (CAP) LA MERVEILLE 15 0 15 Total 29 3 32 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 64 Average Scores School Climate Survey Surveys of Perceptions of School Climate Statements Overall Mean Score (6) CRS Overall Mean Score (6) CAP Overall Mean Score (6) CRS females Mean Score (6) CRS Males Mean Score (6) CAP Females Mean Score (6) CAP Males Mean Score (6) Most students try their best to attend every school day. 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.6 Students treat each other with respect. 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Most students work hard on their schoolwork. 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.8 Students like their teachers. 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.2 Teachers like their students. 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 Students often go to their teacher for help with their classwork. 3.9 3.8 4.1 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.1 Teachers care about the students they teach. 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 Teachers listen to students when they discuss their problems. 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 Students care about each other. 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.8 5.0 Students from different religious backgrounds are friendly to each other 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.8 Boys and girls are not very nice to each other. 3.2 3.1 3.4 3.2 2.9 3.0 4.0 Students often treat disabled students unkindly. 4.4 4.2 4.8 4.3 4.1 4.7 4.9 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 65 Students might embarrass or harm a boy if he is perceived as not being masculine 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.5 Students treat students who are very poor the same way as other students. 3.9 3.8 4.2 3.8 3.7 4.1 4.3 Students from different races and ethnic backgrounds do not get along. 4.0 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.4 Sometimes teachers are unkind to children with disabilities. 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2 Teachers treat girls and boys equally. 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.1 4.7 5.0 Teachers treat students of all races and ethnic the same. 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.2 Students know what the rules are in class and school. 4.9 4.8 5.0 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 Students are often asked to help decide what is best for the class or school. 4.0 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.2 3.8 Most students follow the rules in class and school. 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 The school rules are fair. 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.9 The consequences of breaking school rules are fair. 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 Students are punished too much for little things. 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.8 Students are rewarded when they do well in their classwork. 4.0 4.2 3.6 4.1 4.3 3.7 3.6 Students are punished unfairly. 5.2 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.2 5.4 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 66 Students are sometimes afraid to go to school for fear of punishment. 4.9 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.8 5.3 Use of the cane or other forms of physical discipline (e.g., pulling ears, kicking, slapping, and standing in the sun) is common. 4.3 4.0 4.8 4.1 3.9 4.8 4.8 Gangs and armed groups are a problem. 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.5 3.1 2.6 3.3 Violence is a problem. 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.6 3.1 Students are taught how to solve conflicts with others. 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 Students are taught that they should care about how others feel. 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 Students often worry that other students might be mean to them. 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.3 Students sometimes threaten to hurt teachers. 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 Girls feel safe at school. 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.2 4.8 Boys feel safe at school. 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.2 4.9 5.3 Students often threaten their peers and call them names. 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.8 There are places in or near the school where it is not safe for girls to go alone. 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.6 4.7 5.1 4.8 There are places in or near the school where it is not safe for boys to go alone. 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.8 5.1 Girls do not feel safe traveling to and from school. 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.7 Boys do not feel safe traveling to and from school. 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.1 Students know who to report to when they 4.5 4.4 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.7 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 67 experience or witness violence. Girls usually report incident(s) of physical violence when they experience it or witness 3.5 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.3 School officials rarely do anything when students hurt other students. 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.4 Students know what it means to be sexually harassed or sexually assaulted 2.9 2.6 3.2 2.6 2.7 3.2 3.3 Students are afraid to report incident(s) of sexual harassment or sexual violence 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.3 There are programs [Insert Local Terms, e.g., clubs] for students to learn about and discuss sexual harassment and sexual violence 2.3 2.1 2.7 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.8 There are no student groups where boys and girls can openly discuss the problems that they face inside or outside of school. 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.7 Teachers or school officials immediately take action when students report incident(s) of violence. 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.7 The School Code of Conduct is known by teachers and other school personnel and is strictly enforced. 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.9 5.1 Teachers and administrator are helpful to students when the students are in trouble. 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 USAID/DRC IYDA 2019 BASELINE 68 Data Collection Tools RDC ADIJ Etude Baseline Nov-Dec '18_2019.doc