This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of UBO consulting and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the 
United States Government.
MIDTERM IMPACT EVALUATION
UP TO YOUTH ACTIVITY
AUTHOR: DRENUSHË TELAKU, UBO CONSULTING
DATE: 3 JUNE 2022
DILINA GASHI FOR USAID

(DELETE THIS BLANK PAGE AFTER CREATING PDF. IT’S HERE TO MAKE FACING PAGES AND 
LEFT/RIGHT PAGE NUMBERS SEQUENCE CORRECTLY IN WORD. BE CAREFUL TO NOT 
DELETE THIS SECTION BREAK EITHER, UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE GENERATED A FINAL PDF. 
IT WILL THROW OFF THE LEFT/RIGHT PAGE LAYOUT.)



1 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CAM Community Asset Mapping
CATI Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
CSO Civil society organization
GBV Gender-based violence
IADK Initiative for Agricultural Development of Kosovo
LYAC Local Youth Action Council
MEL Monitoring, evaluation, and learning
NGO Non-governmental organization
PEN Peer Educators Network
TNA Training Needs Analysis
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
TABLE OF FIGURES 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
EVALUATION PURPOSE 5
EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND KEY FINDINGS 5
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9
METHODOLOGY 10
DESK RESEARCH 10
IN DEPTH INTERVIEWS 11
SURVEYS 11
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 13
RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14
RESEARCH GOAL 1: WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS AND ENABLERS THAT AFFECT THE 
SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENT OF YOUTH, INCLUDING MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE 
YOUTH, IN ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO CREATE POSITIVE CHANGE? 14
RESEARCH GOAL 2: HOW HAS THE PROGRAM IMPACTED SOCIAL INCLUSION OF 
MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE YOUTH? 17
RESEARCH GOAL 3: WHAT PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES INCREASE 
EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING, LEARNING, AND APPLYING NEW SKILLS FOR YOUTH 
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS? 21
RESEARCH GOAL 4: IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY BEHAVIOR CHANGES WITHIN YOUTH 
IDENTIFIED BY COMMUNITIES AND UP TO YOUTH STAFF. 26
RESEARCH GOAL 5: IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY CHANGES AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS 
IDENTIFIED AND/OR IMPLEMENTED BY COMMUNITIES AS A RESULT OF UP TO YOUTH 
INITIATIVES. 37
CONCLUSION 39
ANNEXES 40
ANNEX 1: LIST OF SEMI-STRUCTURED AND IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS 40
ANNEX II: LIST OF IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH BENEFICIARIES 41
ANNEX III: INVITEES FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 42
ANNEX 1V: YOUTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 43
ANNEX V: YOUTH IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 52
ANNEX VI: UP TO YOUTH MANAGEMENT TEAM INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 52
ANNEX VII: USAID OFFICIALS INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 53
ANNEX VIII: UP TO YOUTH PARTNERS AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS INTERVIEW 53
3 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Are there barriers that affected your successful engagement in activities designed to create 
positive change? Main Group and Control Group .................................................................................................15
Figure 2. Are there enabling effects that affected your successful engagement in activities designed to 
create positive change? Main Group and Control Group ...................................................................................16
Figure 3. As a self-reported member of a marginalized community, how included do you feel in society? 
Main Group and Control Group ..................................................................................................................................17
Figure 4. How do you feel about the social inclusion of members of marginalized communities? Main 
Group and Control group...............................................................................................................................................18
Figure 5. Do you believe that your opinion of youth of other backgrounds has improved since 
participating in the U2Y program activities (Main Group) and during the last two years (Control 
Group)....................................................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 6. Do you believe that your opinion of youth of other backgrounds has improved since 
participating in the U2Y program activities? * Gender.........................................................................................19
Figure 7. To what extent have specific advocacy efforts that promoted minorities and marginalized 
groups influenced your attention to the issues that affect these groups? Main Group.............................20
Figure 8. Can you rate how the activities implemented in the program have helped you overcome the 
community challenges you have faced? Main Group..............................................................................................22
Figure 9. Do you consider that your life/soft skills (i.e., critical thinking, time management, problem 
solving etc.) have improved due to trainings you have attended/ during the last years? Main Group and 
Control Group ....................................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 10. Have you been offered a training on life/soft skill within the past year? Main Group and 
Control Group ....................................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 11. What kind of trainings have you participated in? Main Group and Control Group..............23
Figure 12. How satisfied were you with these trainings? Main Group and Control Group....................24
Figure 13. Have you taken any action for positive improvement in your community in the last two 
years? Main Group and Control Group .....................................................................................................................26
Figure 14. Have you participated in facing/identifying any community challenges, within the last 2 years? 
Main Group and Control Group ..................................................................................................................................26
Figure 15. Can you rate how the participation in community improvement initiatives has helped you? 
Main Group...........................................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 16. Have you completed any participatory analysis workshops to provide solutions to your 
community challenges, within the last 2 years? Main Group and Control Group ......................................27
Figure 17. Which of the following workshops have you participated in? Main Group and Control Group
...................................................................................................................................................................................................28
Figure 18. Have you participated in meetings related to youth priorities with local and or national 
officials? Main Group and Control Group .................................................................................................................28
Figure 19. Have you participated in any leadership roles, within the last 2 years?.....................................29
Figure 20. Can you rate how effective were leadership roles in your daily life within your community?
...................................................................................................................................................................................................29
Figure 21. What life/soft skills trainings/clubs have you participated in during the last 2 years? Main 
Group and Control Group .............................................................................................................................................30
Figure 22. Can you rate how the participation in "Advocacy Trainings" has affected your participation 
as a member of the youth?..............................................................................................................................................30
Figure 23. Do you think your friends are exposed to any of the following? Main Group and Control 
Group .....................................................................................................................................................................................31
Figure 24. How much you agree with all of the following statements concerning your perceived “self￾efficacy”? Main Group and Control Group ...............................................................................................................33
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 4
Figure 25. Have you been involved in a paid internship within the first year? Main Group and Control 
Group .....................................................................................................................................................................................33
Figure 26. For older youth only: Have you completed any trainings focused on entrepreneurship? ..34
Figure 27. Has being involved in project activities made you feel more connected to the youth of your 
community members? Main Group and Control Group......................................................................................34
Figure 28. Have you participated in any processes established by networks to support youth, within 
last year? ................................................................................................................................................................................35
5 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION PURPOSE
The Up to Youth activity's midterm evaluation explored the program's medium and long-term effects 
on youth and stakeholders. The evaluation was conducted externally by UBO Consulting. The 
evaluation research team employed mixed methods for its methodological approach and ensured data 
triangulation. The methods utilized included desk research, a survey with youth from the program and 
youth outside of the program, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. These are 
discussed in depth in the methodology section. The study's five research goals, and the subsequent 
critical findings for each, are highlighted below:
EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND KEY FINDINGS
1. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS AND ENABLERS THAT AFFECT THE SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENT OF 
YOUTH, INCLUDING MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE YOUTH, IN ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO 
CREATE POSITIVE CHANGE?
In general, no barriers affected youth's successful engagement in activities. Two elements served as 
enablers to youth's successful engagement: (1) Up to Youth staff's high level of involvement in project 
activities and (2) the opportunities for youth to strengthen their soft and professional skills.
- Most youth respondents (including marginalized and vulnerable youth), with no 
significant difference between youth participants from the program (83%) and youth 
outside the program (76%), stated there are no barriers that affect their successful 
engagement in activities designed to create positive change. The youth that did list 
barriers, mentioned the COVID-19 pandemic, issues with transportation, and difficulties juggling 
between school and work engagements. When focusing on gender differences, more than 17% of 
female respondents declared that there are barriers that affect their successful engagement in 
activities designed to create positive change, while only 8% of men declared the same. 
- Most youth participants from the program (69%) and youth outside the program (76%) 
listed no enablers that allow them to engage with activities successfully. From the youth 
that did list enablers, these included the trainings and capacity building on how to communicate 
better; the trainings and capacity building on decision making; the trainings and capacity building on 
getting more business knowledge, and the opportunities to network and collaborate with other 
young people. All these enabling factors are activities that Up to Youth heavily invests in. Additional 
enablers included the opportunities for youth to strengthen their soft and professional skills, their
high level of willingness to participate in program activities, and the high level of involvement made 
by Up to Youth staff in project activities.
2. HOW HAS THE PROGRAM IMPACTED SOCIAL INCLUSION OF MARGINALIZED AND 
VULNERABLE YOUTH?
Youth participating in the program feel more included in society, are more accepting of 
the social inclusion of members of marginalized communities and have changed opinions 
of youth of other backgrounds since participating in the program’s activities. The program 
helped them establish social relations, thus influencing the creation of positive personal thoughts about 
them and knowledge about the prospects of their lives.
- Specific advocacy efforts that promoted minorities and marginalized groups have significantly 
influenced youth’s attention to issues that affect these groups. As a result, youth had the 
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 6
opportunity to become friends with youth from other backgrounds and increased their awareness 
of how different communities live and where they come from.
- To assess the impact of Up to Youth on the social inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable youth, 
the evaluation relied heavily on data from the evaluation’s survey with youth from the program 
and youth outside the program and on in-depth interviews with program youth from marginalized 
communities, including ethnic minorities and youth with disabilities. Youth participating in the 
program tend to feel more included in society when compared to youth outside the 
program. However, overall, young women reported a lower scale of inclusion when compared 
to young men.
- All interviewed youth from the program affirmed that Up to Youth had a beneficial effect on the 
inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable youth from other backgrounds. Interviewed youth stated 
that, before Up to Youth, they did not have contact with youth from other backgrounds, and the 
program helped them establish friendships, influenced youth to have positive thoughts about 
others with whom they had no contact before, and to understand more about other youths’ way 
of life.
- When surveyed, youth from marginalized backgrounds that were also participants of the 
program self-reported higher feelings of being included in society than youth from 
marginalized backgrounds outside of the program: 64% of Up to Youth participants stated that 
they felt somewhat to completely included in society, as opposed to 57% of non-participants.
- The evaluation explored how specific advocacy efforts helped raise awareness on issues that affect 
youth from marginalized and vulnerable communities. Two-thirds of youth participants from the 
program (62%) stated that they were affected or significantly affected by these advocacy efforts, 
and another 20% stated that they were somewhat affected. These advocacy efforts helped 
youth better understand youth perspectives from other backgrounds. Some of the most 
common responses from youth from the program on this matter included: youth became friends 
with youth from other backgrounds (23%), youth increased their awareness of equal rights for all 
(18%), youth increased their awareness of how youth from other backgrounds live and what their 
beliefs on life are (15%), and youth learned how to fight prejudices against youth from other 
backgrounds (10%). Up to Youth created and supported youth groups with youth from 
different backgrounds. By providing a setting for youth to regularly work together towards 
common goals, the Up to Youth program can likely continue to increase the positive influence 
that youth have in each other’s development.
3. WHAT PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES INCREASE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING, 
LEARNING, AND APPLYING NEW SKILLS FOR YOUTH PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS?
Most youth consider that their life/soft skills have improved due to trainings they 
attended as part of the program. They believe that the activities implemented in the program 
have helped them overcome the community challenges they have faced, and they are completely 
satisfied with these trainings. The project activities have created/will create capacities that will remain 
with the beneficiaries, even after the completion of the project. Active learning methodology, 
group work, games and energizers have increased the effectiveness of teaching, learning,
and applying new skills for youth program participants. 
- According to almost all survey responses from youth participants (91%), Up to Youth helped 
enhance their life / soft skills. Youth participants from the program were asked how much they 
needed and how satisfied they were with each type of training provided with Up to Youth. Based 
on the results, 91% of respondents from the main group were satisfied/very satisfied with the 
trainings.
7 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
- When asked to rate how the program’s activities helped youth overcome any 
challenges that they faced, 60% of youth from the main group the stated that the 
activities helped or helped a lot. When asked to elaborate, respondents stated that the 
program’s activities helped them increase their awareness on the social inclusion of youth from 
other backgrounds and on the eradication of bullying. Program activities also helped them with 
improving their problem-solving skills (12%), socializing with others (11%), increasing their self￾confidence, and improving their communication skills (7%).
- The overwhelming majority of youth from the program consider that their life/soft 
skills have improved due to trainings they have attended (91%), and only nine percent 
stated the opposite. Comparing this to the responses of youth outside the program, only 78% 
stated that their life / soft skills had improved during the last year. In addition, 22% stated the 
opposite – a percentage that is greater compared to the responses from youth from the program. 
- Similarly, 91% of youth from the program were satisfied or very satisfied with the 
trainings offered, compared to 80% of youth outside of the program in trainings of similar topics. 
Whereas 10% of the youth outside the program were somewhat satisfied to not at all satisfied with 
the trainings offered to them, only 2% of the youth from the program were not satisfied with 
trainings offered from the program.
4. IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY BEHAVIOR CHANGES WITHIN YOUTH IDENTIFIED BY COMMUNITIES 
AND UP TO YOUTH STAFF.
In general, youth participating in program activities have a higher sense of social 
responsibility towards their communities, as they reported to have taken action for 
positive improvement and participated in facing/identifying community challenges.
Project activities made respondents feel more connected their community members. Youth reported 
to have taken action for positive improvement and participated in identifying community challenges, 
volunteering, dialogues with a second party other than their group, leading community development 
activities, and extracurricular activities. 
- More than half of youth respondents from the program stated that they have taken 
actions for positive improvement in their community in the last two years (58%). The 
respondents were further asked about what activities they were involved in: 18% had dialogues 
with youth or others from other backgrounds; 32% participated in individual initiatives for 
community improvements; 76% participated in group initiatives; 53% did volunteer work; and 33% 
led community development activities. Conjointly, 25% of the youth from the program said that 
they were involved in organizing extracurricular activities, and 18% stated that they were involved 
in notifying government officials on the lack of a service or asset. 
- Compared to youth outside of the program (24%), almost half of youth from the 
program (49%) participated in identifying or solving community challenges. Twenty-six 
percent of the youth from the program reported completing participatory analysis workshops of 
any kind, to provide solutions to their community challenges, compared to only 10% of youth 
outside the program. Similarly, 48% of youth respondents from the program stated that they 
participated in Community Asset Mapping workshops, and 32% participated in Social Network 
Analysis workshops. 
- More than half of all youth respondents (62% of youth from the program; and 73% of youth outside 
the program) stated that they have not participated in meetings related to youth priorities with 
local and national officials. However, a solid 38% of youth from the program did participate 
in such meetings. These included meetings with only local officials (89%), meetings with only 
national officials (3%) and meetings with both local and national officials (8%).
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 8
- In terms of leadership roles, 19% of youth participants from the program stated that they 
participated in leadership roles, compared to 11% of youth outside of the program.
- During the last two years, around the same share of youth from the program (68%) and 
youth outside of the program (67%) participated in volunteering. Over half (51%) of youth 
from the program participated in trainings with mentorship or advocacy components, which is 
significantly higher when compared with respondents from the control group. On the other hand, 
more youth from outside the program participated in youth-focused clubs (87%) than youth from 
the program (81%). Project activities have generally made respondents feel more 
connected to their community members, as stated by 72% of youth respondents from 
the main group. However, 70% of the respondents from the control group believe that their 
involvement in these activities did not help in the latter.
5. IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY CHANGES AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED AND/OR 
IMPLEMENTED BY COMMUNITIES AS A RESULT OF UP TO YOUTH INITIATIVES.
In general, the program's initiatives have provided youth with more complex 
information, which supports and encourages them to participate in public life. The 
program has impacted youth's awareness of their rights and crucial role within society. As found 
through data from the evaluation, young people report to:
• Participate more in public hearings since their participation in the program.
• Raise issues through their learned new skills for effective budget advocacy.
• Volunteer more since learning about its importance through the program.
• Lead community development activities.
• Be involved in bringing to the attention of government official's the lack of a service or asset.
Considering that the project is ongoing, Up to Youth management and USAID officials believed that 
the program's objectives were not completely achieved. Yet, interviewed respondents mentioned that 
enablers contributed to achieving the objectives so far: these enablers included staff willingness 
to provide advice, training, and assistance whenever needed; and the vast experience gained by youth 
from the program.
9 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Global Communities, in partnership with LINC LLC, Moonshot CVE, and local organizations, Peer 
Educators Network (PEN) and NGO LENS, referred to hereafter as Up to Youth, was awarded the 
USAID/Kosovo, five-year Up to Youth activity on April 15, 2019. Through this contract, the Up to 
Youth activity addresses youth vulnerable to social exclusion by mobilizing and engaging youth in 
meaningful ways to effect positive change.
Up to Youth works with youth 15 to 24 years old, targeting younger youth (15-18) and older youth 
(18-24) with age-appropriate activities. The project emphasizes working with marginalized youth, 
particularly those underserved by current and past youth-focused initiatives, grappling with 
unaddressed stress and trauma, or vulnerable to developing risky behaviors. Vulnerability 
characteristics include extreme poverty, exposure to gender-based violence and other violence, lack 
of employment, and trouble in school. The project also makes concerted efforts to reach youth with 
disabilities, a group that has historically been excluded from education and community-based 
programming. 
Up to Youth applies an evidence-based approach to youth learning and equips youth with the skills 
they need to demonstrate agency in leading community asset mapping, analyzing data to identify youth￾related challenges or stressors in their community, and work with other youth and local stakeholders 
to design and implement solutions such as advocacy campaigns, community projects, and social 
ventures. By empowering youth to use data and analysis, and to leverage and engage their support 
networks and government, youth will make informed, effective contributions to their communities, 
and amplify and strengthen their voice and ability to positively affect policies and services that 
strengthen youth resilience. Up to Youth has the following three objectives: 
Objective 1: Mobilize Youth to be forces for positive change
Objective 2: Develop and demonstrate life/soft skills among youth
Objective 3: Develop, build, and support resilience partners in fostering an 
environment for youth to engage in a positive and meaningful way. 
The program is implemented in nine municipalities.
Table 1. Up to Youth Partner Municipalities
Clusters Municipalities
Cluster I Han i Elezit/Elez Han, Kaçanik/Kačanik, and Viti/Vitina
Cluster II Cluster II Mitrovicë Jugore/Mitrovica South, Vushtrri/Vućitrn, and Skënderaj/Srbica
Cluster III Cluster III Istog/k, Klinë/a, and Gjakovë/Đakovica
Up to Youth’s Theory of Change states that: “If youth in Kosovo vulnerable to social exclusions are 
mobilized and empowered to affect positive change, and resilient networks are supported to create 
meaningful engagement for youth, then youth resilience to social exclusion and extremism will be 
increased”. 
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 10
METHODOLOGY
The midterm evaluation utilized a mixed methods approach to ensure adequate data triangulation and 
to effectively target relevant stakeholder groups through the most appropriate method. The 
methodology relied on a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative methods: all in all, four main 
methods were utilized, including (1) desk research, (2) interviews, (3) surveys, and (4) focus group 
discussions. All research methods and tools were harmonized with the following key research 
questions and goals:
1. What are the barriers and enablers that affect the successful engagement of youth, including 
marginalized and vulnerable youth, in activities designed to create positive change? 
2. How has the program impacted social inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable youth?
3. What program strategies and practices increase the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and applying 
new skills for youth program participants? 
4. Identify and quantify behavior changes within youth identified by communities and Up to Youth
staff. 
5. Identify and quantify changes and/or improvements identified and/or implemented by communities 
as a result of Up to Youth initiatives. 
Throughout the methodology, the research team paid close attention to including all relevant program 
stakeholders in the evaluation. This included the Up to Youth management team, relevant officials 
from USAID, Up to Youth implementing partner representatives, government representatives, youth 
participants from the program (hereon after referred to as the “main group”) and youth that did 
not participate in the program (hereon after referred to as the “control group”). Throughout every 
stage and for every method, the research team ensured that all samples were representative and 
included participants from all ethnic groups in Kosovo and persons with disabilities. 
The research team made relevant changes to accommodate youth, stakeholders and other 
representatives from non-majority communities by translating all data collection tools in English, 
Albanian and Serbian, and by conducing the data collection process in those languages. Additionally, 
the research team made efforts to accommodate youth and stakeholders with disabilities by doing 
remote data collection when possible, and by hosting the in-person focus group discussions in disability 
accessible venues. Youth under the age of 18 were interviewed or participated in focus group 
discussions only with the approval of the parent or guardian. 
DESK RESEARCH
The secondary data used for the purpose of this study was collected in the documents provided by 
the organization. After reviewing the documents, UBO Consulting collected the available data that 
were most related to the topic, which were further combined and compared. Documents reviewed 
for the desk research phase included:
- Up To Youth Activity in Kosovo - Monitoring, Evaluation, And Learning Plan, June14, 2019
- Up To Youth Activity - Year One Annual Performance Report, April 15, 2019 Through April 14, 
2020
- Up To Youth Activity - Year Two Annual Performance Report, April 15, 2020 Through April 14, 
2021
- Up To Youth Activity - Quarterly Performance Report (Quarter 4 FY2021), July 1, 2021 through 
September 30, 2021
- Up To Youth Activity - Quarterly Performance Report (Quarter 1 FY2022) October 1, 2021 
through December 31, 2021
- Up to Youth Activity Baseline Assessment for Youth Cohorts
- Formative Evaluation of USAID/Kosovo’s Up to Youth Activity, April 2021
11 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The desk research informed the design process for all data collection tools in the following methods 
listed below (interview questions, survey questions and focus group questions).
IN DEPTH INTERVIEWS
The research team conducted 41 interviews with various project stakeholders. These included five 
interviews with Up to Youth management team representatives, three interviews with USAID 
representatives, five interviews with Up to Youth implementing partners, four interviews with 
government institutions and youth officers from Directorates of Culture, Youth and Sports, and 23 
interviews with youth participants of the program. The list of all persons who participated in the 
interviews is available in Annex 1. 
Among the 23 interviews with youth participants from the program, 15 of them were conducted with 
Albanian youth, three (3) with youth from Egyptian community, one (1) with youth from Roma 
community and four (4) with Serbian youth. None of the interviewed young people disclosed whether 
they had any disabilities or not.
The research team conducted the interviews between February 14th, 2022 and March 4th, 2022. Due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, the semi-structured and in-depth interviews were conducted through 
the Zoom platform. Due to the low participation rate of youth from ethnic minority communities in 
the focus group discussion, additional efforts were made to conduct in-depth interviews with youth 
from those communities.
SURVEYS
The research team drafted two surveys for youth participants to capture information relating to the 
research questions and goals outlined above. One survey was designed for youth that participated in 
the Up to Youth program (referred to as the “main group”), and the other was designed for youth 
outside of the program (referred to as the “control group”). Per the research proposal, a total of 400 
youth ages 15 to 24 were foreseen to be reached via the surveys. 
The research team conducted a pre-test (pilot) with a small sample of people from the survey 
population. A pilot like this is one of the most significant techniques to determine whether the 
respondents are reading questions as intended and whether the order of the questions may influence 
responses, thus ensuring the validity and reliability of the questionnaire.
To assess the causal effect of the program on youth participants, the evaluation looked at a purposive 
comparison group with its surveys, to better understand whether participants outside the program 
had similar results. The Up to Youth master participant list, as of 31-Jan-2022, had a total of 844 entries 
registered. Working with that master participant list, the survey samples for both survey versions 
were pre-selected as follows:
1. For the purposive control group with youth outside of the program (n = 138), out of this 
844-entry total, 146 entries were pre-selected as potential respondents for the control group sub￾sample. The eligible categories for adding an entry to the control group were youth that during the 
application process of joining Up to Youth were either: (a) Not selected; (b) Withdrew their 
application; or (c) Were out of range / Not eligible to participate. The ineligible categories for adding 
an entry to the control group were: (a) Youth that were selected for the program; and (b) Youth that 
withdrew from the program after already attending trainings. Entries without valid contact information 
were removed from the sub-sample. A total of 138 entries remained.
The demographic composition for this control group was (n = 138):
⎯ 52.2% girls / women and 47.8% boys / men (72 girls / women; 66 boys / men).
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 12
⎯ 71.0% older youth and 29.0% younger youth (98 older youth; 40 younger youth).
⎯ 125 are K-Albanian; eight (8) are K-Serb; one (1) is Ashkali; one (1) is Egyptian; three (3) are 
Roma.
⎯ 13 from Gjakova; seven (7) from Istog; three (3) from Kacanik; 12 from Klina; 60 from South 
Mitrovica; 17 from Skenderaj; four (4) from Viti; 22 from Vushtrri.
Since not everyone from the pre-sampled control group could be reached, the research team 
extended the criteria for the control group to include youth outside of the program, that were not in 
the original Up to Youth participant lists (youth from the general population that matched the 
demographic criteria). 
For the main group with youth from the program (n = 477), out of this 844-entry total, 477 entries 
were pre-selected as potential respondents for the main group sub-sample. The eligible category for 
adding an entry to the main group was youth that during their application process with Up to Youth 
were: (a) Selected. All 477 entries had valid contact information.
The demographic composition for this main group with youth from the program was (n = 477):
⎯ 59.5% girls / women and 40.4% boys / men (284 girls / women; 193 boys / men).
⎯ 74.8% older youth and 25.2% younger youth (357 older youth; 120 younger youth).
⎯ 372 are K-Albanian; 18 are K-Serb; five (5) are K-Bosniak; eight (8) are K-Turk; 12 are Ashkali; 57 
are Egyptian; five (5) are Roma.
⎯ 62 from Gjakova; 29 from Hani I Elezit; 59 from Istog; 49 from Kacanik; 65 from Klina; 65 from 
South Mitrovica; 45 from Skenderaj; 45 from Viti; 58 from Vushtrri.
The research team conducted the surveys between February 14th, 2022 and March 4th, 2022. Due to 
the COVID-19 pandemic, the surveys were conducted through the Computer Assisted Telephone 
Interviews (CATI) methodology. To encourage the effective participation of youth from marginalized 
backgrounds, the research team conducted surveys in other languages when needed. 
In the end, the research managed to collect a total of 355 responses from program and non-program 
youth. Out of this total number of survey respondents, 70% were beneficiaries of the program, and
30% were part of the control group sample. The latter declared different reasons to not having 
participated in the program, such as not being accepted (28%), withdrawing their application (5%) and 
other reasons (11%). This combination of the sample makes it possible to see the real effects of the 
program on its beneficiaries, by comparing it with the rest of the respondents, who were not 
beneficiaries of the program.
Disaggregation-wise, 60% of the overall respondents were female, while the other 40% were male, 
followed by 52% who lived in urban areas and 48% live in rural areas. When asked if they considered 
themselves a member of a marginalized community, one-fourth answered positively (25%) and only 
5% preferred to not disclose. Six percent of respondents were youth with disabilities and 13% were 
youth from non-ethnic majority groups. 
13 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Table 2. Demographic information
Demographic information of the surveyed sample
Gender
Male 40%
Female 60%
Ethnicity
Albanian 87%
Serbian 2%
Roma 1%
Ashkali 2%
Egyptian 7%
Bosnian 0.3%
Turk 1%
Settlement
Urban 52%
Rural 48%
Marginalized community
Yes 25%
No 69%
Prefer to not disclose 5%
Disability
Yes 6%
No 93%
Prefer to not disclose 1%
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
The Illustrative Research Questions included in Request for Proposals guided the research team in the 
design of all focus group discussion questions. The backtranslation approach was used for instrument 
translation in this evaluation, as it places a greater emphasis on conceptual and cultural equivalence in 
comparison to language. 
In terms of focus group discussions, the research team organized two groups: one with stakeholders 
from the program’s Youth Support Network. and one with youth participants from the program. The 
first discussion was held with Youth Support Network stakeholders, and it targeted 14 persons in 
total. However, only seven people attended the discussion, three of whom were women and four 
men. Further, the second discussion targeted 16 youth from the program. However, only five youth 
(two women and three men) attended the session. One of the participating youths was a person with 
a disability. The focus group discussions were organized in-person in disability accessible venues to 
facilitate a smoother exchange between participants. There were three individuals from the research 
team present in the discussions: two moderators and one note-taker. No difficulties occurred during 
the process. 
Due to the low participation rate of youth from ethnic minority communities in the focus group 
discussion, additional efforts were made to conduct in-depth interviews with youth from those 
communities to ensure that their inputs are captured.
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 14
RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following paragraphs show a collided approach of the results, conclusions, and recommendations 
from the evaluation. To address the impact of the Up to Youth program, the evaluation was guided 
by five research goals:
1. What are the barriers and enablers that affect the successful engagement of youth, including 
marginalized and vulnerable youth, in activities designed to create positive change? 
2. How has the program impacted social inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable youth?
3. What program strategies and practices increase the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and applying 
new skills for youth program participants? 
4. Identify and quantify behavior changes within youth identified by communities and Up to Youth
staff. 
5. Identify and quantify changes and/or improvements identified and/or implemented by communities 
as a result of Up to Youth initiatives. 
These research goals helped assess the medium and long-term effects of the program, including both 
intended and unintended, and both positive, and negative effects. The results, conclusions and 
recommendations are presented based on the research goals. 
RESEARCH GOAL 1: WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS AND ENABLERS THAT AFFECT THE 
SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENT OF YOUTH, INCLUDING MARGINALIZED AND 
VULNERABLE YOUTH, IN ACTIVITIES DESIGNED TO CREATE POSITIVE CHANGE?
RESULTS
The first research goal tackled the issue of barriers and enablers that affect the successful engagement 
of youth, including marginalized and vulnerable youth, in activities designed to create positive change. 
The results from the survey, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions indicate 
that, in general, no barriers affected youth’s successful engagement in activities. However, 
the high level of involvement made by Up to Youth staff in project activities, as well as the numerous 
opportunities for youth to strengthen their soft and professional skills, were deemed enablers.
Most youth respondents (including youth from marginalized communities), with no large difference 
between youth participants from the program (83%) and youth outside the program (76%), listed no 
barriers that affect their successful engagement in activities designed to create positive change. From 
the youth that did list barriers, these included the COVID-19 pandemic, issues with transportation, 
and difficulties juggling between school and work engagements. When focusing on gender differences, 
17% of female respondents declared that there were barriers that affected their successful engagement 
in activities, while only 8% of men declared the same. 
15 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Figure 1. Are there barriers that affected your successful engagement in activities designed to create positive 
change? Main Group and Control Group
Data collected in focus group discussions showed that activities implemented online did 
not offer the same experience to youth as when these were held face to face. According to 
qualitative data gathered from in-depth interviews with program participants, other barriers included
internet issues (lack of internet / poor internet), electricity shortages, and the entire process of online 
activities during the pandemic. As revealed by Up to Youth’s Formative Evaluation, because Up to 
Youth targets economically and socially marginalized youth living in rural areas, it is not surprising that 
the challenge of moving to online platforms was greater for these youth than for YAB members, who
come from more urban areas, are better off financially, and are more technologically savvy.
In addition to the pandemic and implementation of online activities, qualitative data from interviews 
with Up to Youth management and USAID officials revealed that an additional barrier that could have 
affected the achievement of program objectives was also the selection process for program youth. 
According to interviewees, the selection form and analysis during the inception phase ensured that 
the program included women and men, people with disabilities and other marginalized groups. 
However, recruiting youth with disabilities and other marginalized groups presented a 
barrier. When it came to girls from rural areas, recruitment was a barrier in and of itself.
The existence of numerous stigmas, such as the community's rejection of girls who choose to prioritize 
their jobs over raising a family, presented certain challenges in recruiting girls from rural areas. On 
the other hand, transportation of youth with disabilities was not always possible, which 
impacted their participation in the program. It is worth mentioning that Handikos helped in 
this regard.
Finally, the program’s work in equipping youth with skills and training in specific areas 
that assist them in starting their own businesses is insufficient. According to Up to Youth
management team, local and central level institutions should create separate financing streams to help 
youth practice the skills they learn through specific program activities and trainings. The process of 
establishing relations between institutions and businesses in municipalities presents a barrier.
Again, most youth participants from the program (69%) and youth participants outside 
the program (76%) stated there are no enablers that allowed them to engage with 
activities successfully. From the youth that did list enablers, these included: trainings and capacity 
building on how to communicate better; trainings and capacity building on decision making; trainings
and capacity building on getting more business knowledge, and opportunities to network and 
collaborate with other youth. These are all activities that the Up to Youth program heavily invests in. 
Further, the high level of involvement made by Up to Youth staff in project activities, as well as 
opportunities for youth to strengthen their soft and professional skills, were seen as enablers.
13%
85%
2%
14%
76%
10%
Yes No Don't know
Main Group Control Group
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 16
Figure 2. Are there enabling effects that affected your successful engagement in activities designed to create 
positive change? Main Group and Control Group
According to USAID officials, one of the main enablers that contributed to the achievement 
of the program objectives so far was the program staff, who were engaged in implementing 
the program’s activities and adapting those activities during the pandemic. 
When focusing on other enablers, the opportunities the program offers to youth was considered an
enabler as well. Young people of these municipalities have not been active in local organizations 
previously. As a result, they were unaware of the opportunities and demands they could make, but 
because of the program and its trainings, they are more motivated to raise their voice and 
speak for the needs of their local communities. Parents of youth have become more aware of 
the advantages their children acquire by participating in the program.
CONCLUSIONS
There are little to no barriers that affect youth’s successful engagement in activities 
designed to create positive change. The online project implementation during the COVID-19 
pandemic, issues with transportation, difficulties juggling between school and work engagements, lack 
of internet / poor internet and electricity shortages are all mentioned as barriers, with some youth 
being impacted more than others. Among those impacted more by these barriers are youth from rural 
areas and youth with disabilities. Further, recruiting young women from rural areas provided a unique 
challenge, as these youth are already fighting social stigmas regarding women who put education and 
career before their family life. The transportation of youth with disabilities was not always 
possible, which impacted their participation in the program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The program should adapt its activities to youth participants’ school and work schedules, as youth 
mentioned this as recurring barrier in survey responses, focus group discussions and interviews.
2. The program should conduct activities near targeted rural areas, due to youth’s inability to access 
transportation, as youth, and especially youth with disabilities, mentioned this as recurring barrier 
in survey responses and focus group discussions.
3. The program should avoid implementing activities online: data from focus group discussions show 
that online activities do not provide the same experience as face-to-face trainings. 
30%
69%
1%
23%
76%
1%
Yes No Don't know
Main Group Control Group
17 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
RESEARCH GOAL 2: HOW HAS THE PROGRAM IMPACTED SOCIAL INCLUSION OF 
MARGINALIZED AND VULNERABLE YOUTH?
RESULTS
The second research goal explored how the program impacted the social inclusion of marginalized 
and vulnerable youth. Youth participating in the program tend to feel more included in 
society, when compared to youth outside the program. However, overall, young women 
reported a lower sense of inclusion when compared to young men. One of the main targets 
of the program has been the social inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable youth. Marginalized and 
vulnerable youth include young people living in rural areas with few opportunities to participate in 
community activities, young people with poor economic conditions, youth with disabilities and youth
from minority ethnic communities. Therefore, as stated in in-depth interviews with youth, the program 
has given these youth the opportunity to meet and socialize with people from other communities.
Qualitative data from in-depth interviews with USAID officials indicate that the number of youth with 
disabilities and youth from minority ethnic communities should increase as the program continues.
Self-reported marginalized community members from the main group declared they felt somewhat 
included/completely included in society (64%), rather that 57% of respondents from the control group 
who declared the same. Further, 13% of respondents from the control group declared that they do 
not feel included at all in the society, while only 2% of those from the main group declared the same.
Figure 3. As a self-reported member of a marginalized community, how included do you feel in society? Main 
Group and Control Group
However, Up to Youth’s management team declared that they saw an increase in
tolerance, understanding and acceptance in youth participants from the program.
According to them, the program gave these youth the opportunity to learn about and socialize more 
with youth of other backgrounds, different ethnicities, different sexual orientations etc.
Most surveyed respondents from the main group (86%) believe that the social inclusion 
of members of marginalized communities is necessary / completely necessary, whereas
slightly fewer of control group respondents (75%) declared the same. With that said, when 
asked to elaborate further, 40% of them think that their participation is necessary for the progress of 
society and 18% stated that they feel good about the inclusion of all communities in their social life.
2%
7%
28%
22%
42%
13%
10%
20%
27%
30%
Not at all included
2
3
4
Completely included
Control Group Main Group
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 18
Other respondents believe that members of marginalized communities should be included more (13%) 
and that all must be equal (11%).
Figure 4. How do you feel about the social inclusion of members of marginalized communities? Main Group 
and Control group
Within the main group, 82% of the respondents believe that their opinion of youth of 
other backgrounds has improved since participating in program activities. Only 5% of the 
respondents stated the opposite. When asked to elaborate on their assessment, 46% of the 
respondents declared they now have a more positive attitude toward others. Other respondents 
stated that it had influenced them to be more self-aware towards different societal backgrounds, as 
well as the environment in which others live (8%). Additionally, they had the chance to communicate 
and become friends with members of different groups (6%). Those who declared the contrary 
gave no specific reasoning behind their assessment, by stating that their opinion simply 
has not changed since the participation in the program’s activities.
The control group were also asked if their opinion of youth from other backgrounds has improved in 
the past two years. Having said that, 57% of the respondents have affirmed that their opinion has 
changed. However, 27% stated the contrary – thus declaring that their opinion of other backgrounds 
did not improve. While 10% of the respondents said that their opinion is the same as two years ago,
17% believe that it has improved and another 9% believe that it has gotten even worse.
Figure 5. Do you believe that your opinion of youth of other backgrounds has improved since participating in 
program activities (Main Group) and during the last two years (Control Group)
Gender-wise, more female respondents (85% from the main group and 63% from the control group) 
than male respondents (77% from main group and 50% from control group) stated that their opinion 
3%
1%
10%
14%
72%
5%
6%
14%
23%
52%
The social inclusion of members of marginalized
communities is not at all necessary
2
3
4
The social inclusion of members of marginalized
communities is completely necessary
Control Group Main Group
82%
5%
13%
57%
27%
16%
Yes No Don't know
Main Group Control Group
19 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
of youth of other backgrounds has improved since participating in program activities or generally in 
the last two years. 
Figure 6. Do you believe that your opinion of youth of other backgrounds has improved since participating in 
program activities? * Gender
Ethnicity-wise, all Turk and Roma respondents (100%), most Egyptian respondents (95%) 
and over half of Ashkali respondents (57%) from the main group reported that their 
opinions of youth from other backgrounds have improved since participating in program 
activities. The results were also supported by data obtained from in-depth interviews with youth 
participants. When asked how Up to Youth has affected the social inclusion of marginalized youth, 
their answers were generally the same. All interviewees stated that the program had a positive effect 
on the inclusion of youth from other backgrounds. Further, elaborating that many of them had not 
had frequent contacts with youth from other backgrounds, the program has given them opportunities 
to establish social relations between them, thus influencing the shaping of positive personal thoughts 
about them and given them knowledge about their lives.
Respondents from the main group were asked to what extent specific advocacy efforts that promoted 
minorities and marginalized groups influenced their attention to the issues that affect these groups. 
Having said that, 62% stated that these efforts have affected/greatly affected their attention
and 20 percent stated that it has somewhat affected it. The remaining 19% believe that it has 
not affected/not affected it at all. When elaborating their assessment, 23% of the respondents 
declared that they became friends with other communities, 18% that it has helped them raise 
their awareness that all people should have equal rights, 15% that it has helped them get informed on 
how these groups live and what beliefs they have about life in general and 10% that they now manage 
to dispel prejudices for minorities.
77%
85%
50%
63%
5%
5%
30%
25%
18%
10%
20%
12%
Male
Female
Male
Female
Main Group Control Group
Yes No Don't know
15%
4%
20%
27%
35%
Has not affected it at all 2 3 4 Has greatly affected it
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 20
Figure 7. To what extent have specific advocacy efforts that promoted minorities and marginalized groups 
influenced your attention to the issues that affect these groups? Main Group
CONCLUSIONS
Youth participating in the program tend to feel more included in society, are more 
accepting of the social inclusion of members of marginalized communities and have 
changed opinions of youth of other backgrounds since participating in program activities. 
The Up to Youth program allowed participants space to understand the differences and similarities 
between them, which is a good starting point in learning to address other inequities in society.1 Since
many of the program youth had not had frequent contact with youth from other 
backgrounds before, the program helped them establish social relations, thus influencing 
the creation of positive personal thoughts about youth from other backgrounds. 
Specific advocacy efforts that promoted minorities and marginalized groups seem to 
have influence youth’s attention to the issues that affect these groups greatly. These efforts 
gave youth the opportunity to become friends with youth of other backgrounds, it increased their 
awareness towards how different communities live and where they come from, and they now manage 
to dispel prejudices towards members of minority communities. 
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Up to Youth should pay particular attention to the needs of youth with disabilities to ensure that 
the project’s social inclusion goals are met. Due to youth's inability to obtain transportation, the 
program should offer activities near selected rural regions, since this was cited as a reoccurring 
barrier in survey responses and focus group discussions by beneficiaries, and particularly by youth 
with disabilities.
2. Given the impact the program has had on its beneficiaries when compared to the control group, it 
is critical for the program to continue to promote social inclusion, social cohesion, and gender 
equality, thereby encouraging a larger number of minorities and marginalized groups to participate 
in such activities and trainings.
1
Social Exclusion: Definition, Impact, Examples, Future Opportunities (2021). Retrieved from: 
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/social-exclusion/43579, on 13/04/2022.
21 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
RESEARCH GOAL 3: WHAT PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES INCREASE 
EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING, LEARNING, AND APPLYING NEW SKILLS FOR YOUTH 
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS?
RESULTS
Youth are valuable assets to their communities; however, they are often left out of decision-making 
and go unheard. The program considered the extent to which activities were in line with participants’ 
needs, and with the aim of building stronger communities and more resilient youth. Based on the 
results retrieved from in-depth interviews and desk research, during the design phase of the strategies 
and practices, the program’s Objective 2 Lead had begun discussions with the Chief of Party 
concerning potential approaches to the training needs analysis (TNA) tool. This tool was used to 
determine the specific needs and capacities of youth in each of the nine partner municipalities. This 
TNA helped program managers develop strategies and practices to increase the 
effectiveness of teaching, learning, and applying new skills to youth program participants.
As found through desk-research, the information gathered from the TNA had two main uses: 
1. It helped Up to Youth understand what trainings youth in each community have already received, 
what competencies they can demonstrate, and what skills they prioritize for further
development; and 
2. It provided valuable baseline information on project participants that will be used by the 
Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning team to track youth changes in knowledge and skills over 
time.
The program’s objectives do address the needs of the targeted group; however, given the 
circumstances of youth in Kosovo, according to Up to Youth management, the project does not 
address all the needs of young people. Instead, it allows youth to be a positive force for change.
According to qualitative data from interviews with Up to Youth management and USAID officials, to 
the trainings were tested with a smaller group of youth first, to assess the effectiveness of the trainings. 
Another effective program strategy was the community asset mapping exercise, which 
allowed youth to identify challenges within the municipalities of the program.
The program implements an active learning methodology during its trainings and 
activities, called “flipping the classroom”. This methodology promotes student-teacher 
interaction, through different breakouts and fun activities. 
Lastly, parental cooperation has greatly influenced the involvement of young people in the 
program. By participating in the program, young people have learned about data, and addressing and 
communicating various issues of their community. This has mobilized young people to initiate 
projects with a small budget but with a large impact, in municipalities.
Some of the program strategies and practices that contributed to the process of youth gaining and 
applying new skills as stated by the interviewed youth included:
a) “Group work and interactivity between other group members”
b) “Trainings regarding cover letters, CV, professionalism, etc.”
c) “Trainings for decision making and problem solving”
d) “Some of the trainers use energizers, thanks to them and their creativity, we kept the lectures in 
mind.”
e) “During the trainings we had different activities where we were able to put into practice the things 
we have learned”
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 22
To further identify which strategies and practices have had such an effect, program 
beneficiaries were asked about the level of need, satisfaction, and type of training 
provided through the program. To further evaluate the impact of these strategies and practices, 
the results are derived by comparing the main group and the control group.
When asked to rate how the activities implemented in the program have helped them 
overcome the community challenges that they have faced, 60% of the respondents from 
the main group declared that these activities have helped/helped a lot. Only 14% stated the 
opposite, by saying that the activities were not helpful at all, while 22% said that they were somewhat 
helpful. When asked to elaborate their assessment, 22% of respondents stated that this has helped 
them raise the awareness of the population to accept people as they are and the young people in the 
eradication of bullying. Other than that, the respondents stated that it has helped them in problem 
solving (12%), socializing with others (11%), self-confidence and communication skills (7%).
Figure 8. Can you rate how the activities implemented in the program have helped you overcome the community 
challenges you have faced? Main Group
The evaluation provided the opportunity through in-depth interviews with youth participants, to 
identify program strategies and practices that contributed to creating and applying new skills. Based 
on the results, some of the most effective strategies and practices were: the interaction 
between the youth of different groups, the trainings, the space for discussion and 
expression of opinions, as well as the possibility of applying the things that were discussed 
and learned in the activities and trainings of the program in their daily lives.
The majority respondents from the main group (91%) consider that their life/soft skills 
have improved due to trainings they have attended, and only 9% stated the opposite. However, 
when the control group were asked the same question, 78% stated that their life/soft skills have 
improved during the last year. In addition, 22% of them stated the opposite – a percentage that is 
greater compared to the respondents that were trained. 
Figure 9. Do you consider that your life/soft skills (i.e., critical thinking, time management, problem solving etc.) 
have improved due to trainings you have attended/ during the last years? Main Group and Control Group
14%
3%
22%
26%
34%
Not helpful at all 2 3 4 They have helped a lot
91%
9%
78%
22%
Yes No
Main Group Control Group
23 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
All respondents were asked whether they have been offered a training on life/soft skills within the past 
year. As depicted in the graph below, 40% of the respondents from the main group claimed that they 
have been offered a training on life/soft skills, whereas 72% of respondents from the control 
group said the contrary.
Figure 10. Have you been offered a training on life/soft skill within the past year? Main Group and Control 
Group
42% of the respondents agreed that the trainings were very good and appropriate, where they also 
had the chance to develop life skills and new skills (24%). Moreover, 11% of the respondents stated 
that the trainings they attended served them well in their professional development. When focusing 
on youth’s perception on the School of Entrepreneurship, focus group participants were 
impressed with the longevity of these trainings, lecturers that included businessmen and 
university professors. According to them, the two week length of the entrepreneurship school 
trainings enabled them to acquire professional skills and access the labor market.
Figure 11. What kind of trainings have you participated in? Main Group and Control Group
However, according to data acquired from interviews with Up to Youth management and USAID 
officials, to increase the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and applying new skills for program
40%
60%
28%
72%
Yes No
Main Group Control Group
63%
54%
45%
45%
44%
43%
40%
36%
33%
33%
29%
28%
26%
26%
25%
25%
18%
66%
52%
21%
52%
10%
7%
17%
17%
10%
3%
10%
38%
3%
10%
17%
7%
Critical Thinking
Active Listening
Accessing Mentorship
Decision-making
Social Media Literacy
Leadership
Entrepreneurship
Issue Advocacy
Problem solving
Self- motivation
Tolerance
Empathy
Negotiation
Self-control
Accessing Finance
Positive Self-concept
Financial Literacy
Main Group Control Group
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 24
participants, trainings should be institutionalized and digitalized, and interaction with the 
central level should be increased to enable higher durability of program impacts. Furthermore, the 
declarations gained from the focus group discussion with stakeholders backed up this conclusion. 
They suggested that a stronger link be built between the commercial sector, particularly 
local and national SMEs, and these young people, as well as the program itself, in order 
to expand this partnership. They went on to say that this would allow youth who have been 
trained in professional skills to put their skills into practice.
Figure 12. How satisfied were you with these trainings? Main Group and Control Group
Youth participants, on the other hand, had a distinct list of actions that should be 
implemented in the future to ensure that the outcomes of these programs are long￾lasting. Financial support for the implementation of social entrepreneurship projects, strategic 
campaigns to raise young people's awareness of their rights and their impact on society and increasing 
the number of participants in the continuation of the program, including holding trainings / activities 
on weekends, extending the training time (more than one day), and creating job opportunities were 
all things that young people said they would change if the project was restarted. It is worth mentioning 
that other parties interviewed for this assessment listed the same measures.
Lastly, the possibilities for applying these skills are not always sufficient. In this context, 
cooperation with the Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Innovation, the Ministry of 
Culture, Youth and Sports and local level institutions should be increased. Based on the data obtained 
from in-depth interviews with beneficiaries and stakeholders, local-level institutions have always 
expressed willingness to cooperate during the project, especially in the nine municipalities involved in 
the project. Still there is a lack of budget, therefore increasing communication between local and 
central level is important.
CONCLUSIONS
Most youth consider that their life/soft skills have improved due to training they have 
attended as part of the program. They believe that the activities implemented in the 
program have helped them overcome the community challenges they have faced and are 
completely satisfied with these trainings. The project activities have created/will create 
capacities that will remain with the beneficiaries, even after the completion of the project. Active 
learning methodology, group work, games and energizers have increased the 
effectiveness of teaching, learning and applying new skills for youth program participants.
Based on the data retrieved from interviews, the program emphasized interactive teaching 
methodologies. When it comes to life skills training, merely sharing information is not sufficient for 
youth to discuss, question, and internalize the competencies taught to use them in their own lives. 
Participatory training pedagogy was key to inspiring youth and increasing your life skills 
trainings impact.
2%
7%
29%
62%
7% 3%
10%
21%
59%
Not at all satisfied 2 3 4 Completely satisfied
Main Group Control Group
25 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. According to data gathered from interviews and focus group discussions, the program should 
continue to use the active learning methodology – such as flipping the classroom, group work and 
interactivity between group members and energizers – because they were identified as some of the 
practices that increased the effectiveness of teaching and learning.
2. To increase the effectiveness of the program, trainings should be institutionalized and digitalized, 
according to interviewed management team and USAID officials.
3. Based on data gathered from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with beneficiaries 
and stakeholders, the program should facilitate the cooperation between professional high schools 
with businesses operating in potential fields of employment, where beneficiaries can apply skills 
learned from the program.
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 26
RESEARCH GOAL 4: IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY BEHAVIOR CHANGES WITHIN YOUTH 
IDENTIFIED BY COMMUNITIES AND UP TO YOUTH STAFF.
RESULTS
Given the great importance the program placed on behavior changes within youth, the evaluation 
analyzed actions youth have taken towards positive improvement in their communities, their 
participation in facing/identifying any community challenges, their participation in analysis workshops 
to provide solutions to their communities’ challenges and their participation in meetings related to 
youth priorities with local and/or national officials. In general, youth participating in program
activities have a higher sense of social responsibility towards their communities. They 
reported to have taken more action for positive improvement and participated in 
facing/identifying community challenges.
For reference, 58% of the respondents from the main group and 24% from the control 
group declared that they have taken actions for positive improvement in their 
community in the last two years. The respondents were further asked about what activities they 
were involved in: only 18% had a dialogue with a second party other than their group; and another
32% reported to have undertaken individual initiatives. 
Figure 13. Have you taken any action for positive improvement in your community in the last two years? Main 
Group and Control Group
Nearly half of the respondents (49%) from the main group have participated in 
facing/identifying community challenges, with a significant difference between the two 
groups (49% from the main group and 24% from the control group). However, 50% did not 
do the same within the last two years.
Figure 14. Have you participated in facing/identifying any community challenges, within the last 2 years? Main 
Group and Control Group
58%
40%
2%
24%
74%
2%
Yes No I don't know
Main Group Control Group
49% 50%
1%
24%
73%
3%
Yes No Don't know
Main Group Control Group
27 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
When focusing on the survey results, respondents from the main group were asked to rate how the 
participation in community improvement initiatives has helped them, where a score of ‘1’ meant “not 
helpful at all” and a score of ‘5’ meant “they have helped a lot”. With that said, more than half of 
surveyed youth from the main group (54%) believe that their participation in the 
aforementioned initiatives have helped/helped a lot, followed by 21% that believe it was 
somewhat helpful and not helpful at all.
Figure 15. Can you rate how the participation in community improvement initiatives has helped you? Main 
Group 
Respondents from both groups (main group and comparison group) were asked whether they 
completed any participatory analysis workshops to provide solutions in their community challenges 
within the last 2 years. Based on the results, 26% of the respondents from the main group 
completed participatory analysis workshops of any kind, to provide solutions to their 
community challenges. A smaller share of respondents from the control group (10%) declared the 
same. 
Figure 16. Have you completed any participatory analysis workshops to provide solutions to your community 
challenges, within the last 2 years? Main Group and Control Group
Furthermore, 48% of respondents from the main group participated in Community Asset 
Mapping workshops, and 32% of respondents of the same group have participated in 
Social Network Analysis workshop. The remaining 23% stated that they have participated in other 
participatory analysis workshops.
21%
4%
21% 20%
34%
Not helpful at all 2 3 4 They have helped a lot
26%
74%
10%
90%
Yes No
Main Group Control Group
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 28
Figure 17. Which of the following workshops have you participated in? Main Group and Control Group
More than half of the surveyed respondents from the main group (62%) stated that they 
have not participated in meetings related to youth priorities with local and national 
officials. However, 38% of the respondents from the main group stated the contrary, by affirming 
their participation in such meetings. The meetings that most of the respondents have participated in 
are the ones with local officials (89%). However, there were also meetings with both local and national 
officials (8%) and meetings with national officials only (3%).
Figure 18. Have you participated in meetings related to youth priorities with local and or national officials? 
Main Group and Control Group
Most of respondents from the main group (78%) have not participated in any leadership 
roles within the last two years. However, there were other respondents, 19% precisely, that 
confirmed their participation in the latter. Whereas only 11% of the respondents from control group 
declared the same.
48%
29%
23%
14%
32%
54%
Community Asset Mapping workshop
Social Network Analysis workshop
Other participatory analysis workshop
Main Group Control Group
38%
62%
27%
73%
Yes No
Main Group Control Group
29 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Figure 19. Have you participated in any leadership roles, within the last 2 years?
A larger number of respondents from the main group (47%) rated the effectiveness of 
their leadership roles within their community as not effective/not effective at all. When 
further asked to elaborate on their assessment, these respondents did not give any reasoning behind 
it. However, 36% of the respondents believe that the leadership roles were effective/very effective. 
Figure 20. Can you rate how effective your leadership roles were in your daily life within your community?
The respondents from both groups were further asked about what life/soft skills trainings/clubs they 
participated in. During the last two years, around the same share of respondents from the 
main group (68%) and control group (67%) have participated in in volunteering. More than 
half of respondents from the main group have participated in trainings that have advocacy components
(51%), which is significantly higher when compared with respondents from the control group who 
declared the same (35%). On the contrary, the share of respondents from the main group 
(40%) who participated in youth-focused clubs was lower than those from the control 
group (58%).
19%
78%
3%
11%
87%
3%
Yes No Don't know
Main Group Control Group
40%
7%
18%
15%
21%
Not effective at all 2 3 4 Very effective
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 30
Figure 21. What life/soft skills trainings/clubs have you participated in during the last 2 years? Main Group and 
Control Group
Respondents from the main and control groups were also asked to rate how their participation in 
trainings affected their active participation in everyday life as a member of the youth community. Most 
respondents from both groups (84% from the main group; and 89% from the control group) declared 
that their participation in volunteering affected or completely affected their active participation in 
everyday life as a member of the youth community. The respondents were further asked to elaborate 
their assessment, where 41% of them believe that their awareness for volunteering has 
increased, followed by 29% who stated that they now try to help more people within their 
community and 12% who stated that their empathy for others has developed.
Furthermore, 81% of main group respondents and 87% of control group respondents stated 
that their participation in youth-focused clubs affected or completely affected their active 
participation in everyday life as a member of the youth community. Almost half of all
respondents (48%) declared that they are now trained on various topics that help them in identifying 
youth problems and negative phenomena. Further, 30% of respondents affirmed that they learned 
about youth rights and 23% stated that clubs had a positive impact.
Figure 22. Can you rate how the participation in "Advocacy Trainings" has affected your participation as a 
member of the youth community?
68%
56%
51%
40%
67%
30%
35%
58%
Volunteering
Mentorship Trainings
Advocacy Trainings
Youth-focused clubs
Main Group Control Group
2%
3%
6%
6%
1%
10%
2%
23%
15%
12%
11%
13%
6%
29%
45%
21%
34%
30%
48%
44%
30%
63%
55%
51%
39%
Main Group
Control Group
Main Group
Control Group
Main Group
Control Group
Advocacy
Trainings Volunteering
Youth-focused
clubs
Not affected at all 2 3 4 Completely affected
31 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The evaluation explored the challenges that youth are most exposed to in their daily 
lives. Overall, the perceived risks reported from the main group respondents is lower 
than that of control group respondents from outside the program. The share of respondents 
who believe that their friends are exposed to the following issues, is greater in the case of control 
group. Based on the results, unemployment is one of the most concerning issues taking place in Kosovo 
according to respondents from both groups. In addition to this, 89% of the respondents from the 
main group declared that their friends are exposed to low employability, whereas 93% of 
the respondents from the control group stated the same. Moreover, a large percentage (72%) 
of respondents from the main group reported that their friends are exposed to poverty, yet this is 
still six percentage points lower than those who declared the same from the control group.
Half of the respondents from the main group (50%) stated that their friends are also 
exposed to poor familial support. Further, there is a poor community participation, according to 
the 74% of the respondents from the control group. Moreover, slightly more than half of the 
respondents from the main group (51%) claimed that their friends are exposed to psychological 
violence, a percentage that is smaller when compared with 74% of those from the control group who 
declared the same. and 46% of them stated the same regards physical violence. One-third of the 
respondents from the main group (30%) claimed that their friends are exposed to sexual violence, 
whereas more than half of respondents from control group (52%) declared the same. In this regard, 
female respondents from both groups tend to report higher perceived physical violence in community 
(50%), report higher perceived psychological violence in community (61%), and report higher 
perceived sexual violence in community (43%).
Lastly, more than half of the respondents from the main group (53%) claimed that their 
friends are exposed to discrimination. However, the percentage of those who declared the same 
from the control group is significantly higher (68%).
Figure 23. Do you think your friends are exposed to any of the following? Main Group and Control Group
Further, all survey respondents were asked to rate how much they agree with the following 
statements concerning their perceived “self-efficacy”. With that said, a fairly large percentage 
89%
72%
56%
53%
51%
50%
46%
39%
38%
36%
33%
30%
93%
78%
74%
68%
69%
56%
55%
59%
63%
53%
48%
52%
Low employability
Poverty
Poor community participation
Being discriminated against
Psychological violence
Poor familial support
Being out of school
Being marginalized
Physical Violence
Being stigmatized
Physically located in a community with gangs or violent
extremism organizations
Sexual Violence
Main Group Control Group
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 32
of the respondents from the main group (85%) somewhat agree or strongly agree that they are strong 
enough to overcome life’s struggles, whereas 63% of the respondents from the control group declared 
the same. 
Most of the survey respondents from the main group (77%) are confident that they can 
handle the situations that life brings. Only 8% of the respondents from the main group somewhat 
agree/strongly agree that they usually feel that they are unsuccessful. Most of the respondents from 
the main group (71%) disagree or strongly disagree that they often feel that there is 
nothing they can do well. Moreover, a slightly larger percentage of respondents from the main 
group (76%) are confident that they are competent to deal effectively with the real world, thus agreeing
or strongly agreeing with this statement.
Lastly, the survey respondents from the main group agree/strongly agree that they usually feel 
they can handle the typical problems that come up in life (76%). 
When results were distinguished by gender, female respondents were less agreeable with the 
following statements: “I am strong enough to overcome life’s struggles.” (84% of male respondents 
agree/strongly agree compared to 76% of female respondents who declared the same), “I usually feel 
I can handle the typical problems that come up in life.” (74% of male respondents agree/strongly agree 
compared to 65% of female respondents who declared the same), and “I often feel like a failure.” (9% 
of male respondents agree/strongly agree compared to 7% of female respondents who declared the 
same).
4%
10%
85%
85%
10%
4%
6%
17%
77%
79%
13%
8%
71%
21%
6%
5%
18%
76%
85%
9%
4%
6%
17%
76%
6%
31%
63%
64%
20%
17%
13%
35%
51%
55%
26%
18%
46%
31%
23%
9%
45%
46%
60%
24%
16%
15%
34%
51%
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree
Neutral
Somewhat agree/strongly disagree
I am strong 
enough to 
overcome 
life’s 
struggles
At root, I
am a weak
person.
I can handle
the
situations
that life
brings.
I usually feel
that I am an
unsuccessfu
l person.
I often feel
that there is
nothing that
I can do
well.
I feel
competent
to deal
effectively
with the
real world.
I often feel
like a
failure.
I usually feel
I can handle
the typical
problems
that come
up in life.
Main Group Control Group
33 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Figure 24. How much you agree with all of the following statements concerning your perceived “self-efficacy”? 
Main Group and Control Group
Based on the results obtained from in-depth interviews with youth participants, the 
program has greatly influenced their perception of "self-efficacy". According to them, 
participation in the program has influenced them to nurture self-confidence in their abilities, as well as 
to be aware of their role and rights in society. Data retrieved from focus group discussions 
shows that before the program, youth were not very aware of the influence they might 
have as part of their community. According to them, through this program and numerous 
trainings they were encouraged to participate in local debates and budget hearings. In addition, prior 
to the launch of this program, young people had the opportunity to engage in their 
communities only through LYACs, most of which are not functional in certain 
municipalities. Young participants from the discussion stated that the program gave them the 
opportunity to meet municipal authorities and cooperate with them, through project proposals, 
complaint letters or even simple requests.
Most of the respondents from the main group (77%) have not been involved in paid 
internships within the last year. However, there were other respondents (23%) that declared the 
contrary. When asked to specify, 13% of the respondents stated that they were involved as interns in 
Up to Youth, 4% were involved in IADK, Nursing and USAID, and 2% were involved in an accounting 
company, Ani Bar and Art Motion. 
Figure 25. Have you been involved in a paid internship within the first year? Main Group and Control Group
Focus group discussions have highlighted some success stories that are worth 
mentioning, such as employment with a 6-month employment contract of persons with 
disabilities (as stated by one participant with disabilities), opportunities for paid internships in local 
NGOs (as stated by one female participant) and youth employment in some private businesses. Of the 
young people participating in the discussion, two of them were engaged as interns within the program, 
(one of which was a female participant), one of them was employed in the private sector and another 
participant stated that he has become a team leader within Red Cross and other local NGOs. But 
above all, according to them, the program built future leaders within their communities.
Furthermore, 31% of the older youth participants from the main group have completed 
trainings focused on entrepreneurship, whereas only 13% of respondents from the control 
group did so. When asked to specify the trainings, 39% reported to have completed the School of 
Entrepreneurship, 18% attended trainings on how to start a business, business plans (8%), management 
(5%) and more. According to 94% of the respondents from both groups, their understanding of 
entrepreneurship has improved since participating in these trainings. However, 6% have denied this 
statement. Most of the respondents (84%) are satisfied/completely satisfied with the 
trainings, claiming that they were very informative and the knowledge they have gained 
23%
77%
10%
90%
Yes No
Main Group Control Group
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 34
about entrepreneurship can be applied in the future. Only 7% reported to be unsatisfied/not 
satisfied at all.
Regarding trainings that explained financing possibilities, most respondents from both 
groups have not participated in such trainings. When differing the results between the two 
surveyed groups, 14% of those who confirmed their attendance in the latter belonged to the main 
group, while 6% belonged to the comparison group. A larger percentage of respondents (44%) 
declared they were satisfied with these trainings, 39% were completely satisfied, whereas 6% were not 
at satisfied at all. The respondents further stated that they have gained basic knowledge about finances 
(95%). Additionally, 86% of the respondents consider that their understanding of finance has increased 
since participating in these trainings, while the remaining 14% stated the opposite.
A total of 11 main group respondents (5%) from the older youth cohorts reported to
have registered a business at the Kosovo Business Registration Agency, Ministry of Trade 
and Industry within the past year.
Figure 26. For older youth only: Have you completed any trainings focused on entrepreneurship?
Project activities have generally made the respondents feel more connected to the youth of their 
community members, as stated by 72% of respondents from the main group. 
Figure 27. Has being involved in project activities made you feel more connected to the youth of your 
community members? Main Group and Control Group
Further, 29% of the respondents from the main group and 18% of respondents from the 
control group have participated in processes established by networks to support youth. 
However, a larger percentage (an average of 74% for both groups) did not do so within the last year. 
31%
69%
14%
86%
5%
95%
13%
87%
7%
93%
5%
95%
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Completed any
trainings
focused on
entrepreneurs
hip
Attended
trainings that
explained
financing
possibilities
Registered a
business at the
Kosovo
Business
Registration
Agency,
Ministry of
Trade and
Industry within
the past years
Main Group Control Group
72%
28%
Yes No
Main Group
35 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The networks were established by Up to Youth (36%), LYAC (15%), USAID (6%), Municipality, PEN 
and VORAE (3%), Art Polis and DIAKONIE YOUTH CENTER (2%) and more. 
Moreover, the topics discussed in these networks were mostly about preventing bullying (16%), 
volunteering and awareness of the youth for the protection of environment (9%), inclusion of youth
with disabilities in the community and inclusion of all communities in art (3%), as well as other different 
topics (25%).
In addition, 17% of the respondents from the main group reported to have participated in 
youth related activities where different organizations were involved. They participated in 
activities from LYAC (16%), LYAC, PEN (6%), Art Polis and CARITAS (3%). More than half of the 
respondents (70%) reported to be satisfied or completely satisfied with these activities. Only 10% of 
the respondents were not satisfied at all. When asked to elaborate their assessment, 39% of the 
respondents believe that these activities were very positive, and that there have been good activities 
in sports and culture where youth have learned how to treat people with disabilities and accept them 
in society (7%). A few respondents claimed they managed to create positive change in terms of 
removing stigma and discrimination (4%).
Lastly, 8% of the respondents have designed activities that obtained resources from 
external stakeholders. The donors/contributors that helped to achieve this were USAID (19%), EU 
Council (13%), GIZ (13%), UNMIK (13%), U.S Embassy (13%), EU Office (6%), IOM (6%), UNICEF 
(6%), YNCA (6%), and Up to Youth (6%). The respondents further proclaimed the subjects of the 
designed activities, which were mostly about COVID-19, the development of various ideas, culture, 
bullying, as well as awareness raising for young people on employment opportunities (6%).
Figure 28. Have you participated in any processes established by networks to support youth, within last year?
CONCLUSIONS
Youth participating in program activities have a higher sense of social responsibility 
towards their communities. Project activities made respondents feel more connected to the youth 
in their communities. As such, they reported to have taken action for positive improvement 
and participated in facing/identifying community challenges, volunteering, dialogues with 
a second party other than their group, leading community development activities, and 
extracurricular activities. They believe that participation in community improvement initiatives 
was helpful and has increased their awareness towards volunteering. These youth now try to be more 
helpful to the people within their community and show empathy for others. 
29%
17%
8%
18%
15%
9%
Participated in any processes established by networks to
support youth, within last year
Participated in youth related activities where different
organizations were involved
Designed an activity that obtained resources from external
stakeholders
Main Group Control Group
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 36
Regarding advocacy trainings, the respondents declared that they have learned about how to be more 
active in people’s demands for their rights, they have developed critical thinking, and gained necessary 
general knowledge. Regarding the youth-focused clubs, respondents declared that they helped them 
identify youth problems and negative phenomena and learned about youth rights. When it comes 
to self-efficacy, program participants are more likely to agree that they are strong 
enough to face life's challenges, confident that they can handle the situations that life 
brings and agree that they feel they can handle the typical problems in life.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Based on data gathered from interviews and focus group discussions with young beneficiaries and 
stakeholders, the program should put more effort in organizing workshops that offer solutions to 
participants’ community challenges. 
2. Based on data gathered from interviews and focus group discussions with young beneficiaries and 
stakeholders, Up to Youth should collaborate more with businesses, companies and NGOs in 
offering paid or unpaid internship in order to enhance and put into use the skills gained from the 
program. 
37 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
RESEARCH GOAL 5: IDENTIFY AND QUANTIFY CHANGES AND/OR IMPROVEMENTS 
IDENTIFIED AND/OR IMPLEMENTED BY COMMUNITIES AS A RESULT OF UP TO YOUTH
INITIATIVES.
RESULTS
In general, program initiatives provided youth with more complex information, which 
supports and encourages them to participate in public life. The program has impacted 
youth’s awareness of their rights and their crucial role within society. As found through data 
presented in the above listed evaluation questions and goals, youth from the program report to have:
⎯ Participated more in public hearings, since their participation in the program;
⎯ Raised issues through their learned new skills for effective budget advocacy;
⎯ Volunteered more since learning about its importance through the program;
⎯ Lead community development activities;
⎯ Been involved in bringing to government official’s attention the lack of a service or asset.
Before introducing them to their role, the program investigated youth’s interests. Hence, the 
program’s partners and government institutions included various representatives, including youth 
officials at the municipal level, representatives of LYACs and representatives of non-governmental 
organizations in the municipalities where the program operates. These representatives gave 
feedback by being involved in drafting initiatives to address youth priorities. According to 
them, this involvement was made through participation in meetings organized by Up to Youth, where 
they contributed to the design of initiatives based on data from the youth community in those
municipalities.
Different stakeholders were involved in different ways in youth-designed activities performed as part 
of the program, such as:
a) Youth center Hareja has developed various trainings and meetings, which included topics, such as: 
compiling CVs and cover letters, English language courses, robotics courses, tailoring, and design 
courses.
b) A three-day activity for children with disabilities, held in restaurant Amazona.
c) Lobbying and advocacy as a youth center: how to increase the number of youth activities and 
capacity building, drafting the budget code for youth in Gjakova and Istog.
d) Creating opportunities for meetings with municipal officials, including the mayor, creating space for 
various meetings and part of the commission in selecting the beneficiaries of the free German 
language course.
When asked whether their institution/organization was engaged in designing and 
implementing solutions such as advocacy campaigns, community projects, and/or social 
ventures in collaboration with the program, interviewed stakeholders listed the 
following:
a) Logistical support, including providing the necessary space for training and meetings, for cultural 
activities.
b) Establishing a cooperation with local institutions and businesses.
c) Dissemination of information related to leadership, entrepreneurship and businesses to young 
people.
d) Awareness campaigns or more capacity building of young people in soft skills.
USAID.GOV UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION | 38
CONCLUSIONS
The program's partners and government institutions comprised a diverse group of people, including 
local youth authorities, LYAC representatives, and non-governmental organization representatives in 
the municipalities where the program works. These stakeholders provided valuable feedback 
by participating in the development of initiatives to address youth needs. According to 
them, they became involved through participating in Up to Youth meetings, where they helped plan 
programs based on data, they had about the youth community in their communities.
While providing youth with more complex information, which supports and encourages 
them to participate in public life, the program influenced young people's understanding 
of their rights and the importance of their role in society. Identified changes by youth because 
of U2Y’s program included: youth’s participation in public hearings, youth raising issues through their 
learned new skills for effective budget advocacy’ volunteering more since learning about its importance 
through the program’ leading community development activities and bringing to government official’s 
attention the lack of a service or asset.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Based on data gathered from focus group discussions with youth and stakeholders, Up to Youth, 
in collaboration with municipalities, should continue to encourage program participants to attend 
public hearings and apply their learned new skills for effective budget advocacy, even after the 
program is over, as this makes the youth community more aware of their impact on society.
2. Up to Youth, in collaboration with public and private institutions, should offer volunteering 
activities for participants and other interested individuals even after the program is completed to 
ensure continuity of skills acquired during the program, as reported via the survey with youth, in￾depth interviews and focus group discussions with youth and stakeholders. Participants should be 
motivated in leading community development activities applying the skills they gained from the 
program.
39 | UP TO YOUTH MIDTERM EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CONCLUSION
Evaluation data shows that the Up to Youth program provides young people with benefits that will 
last a lifetime, as they include skills that they will use in their everyday life, work, or community 
engagement. Providing opportunities for young people is essential to support them in creating their 
own lives, both professionally and personally.2 Therefore, the continuous learning of skills such 
as empathy, self-awareness, communication, and creativity has become increasingly 
valuable and important for future success. These "soft skills" or "human skills" can be seen as 
meta-skills and as necessary prerequisites for the continuous development of expertise and substance 
skills that change rapidly with changes in industries and work.3
Since engaging in program activities, young people from various backgrounds have felt more included 
in society, are more accepting of the social inclusion of members of marginalized communities and
have changed perceptions about young from other backgrounds. Moreover, most of the youth believe 
that the training they received as part of the program has enhanced their life/soft skills. They believe 
that the program's activities have assisted them in overcoming community difficulties, 
and they are entirely satisfied with these trainings. As further elaborated by them, the project 
activities have/will generate capacities in the beneficiaries that will last long after the initiative is 
completed.
Youth who take part in program activities have a greater feeling of social responsibility 
in their communities. They feel more connected to their community's youth because of the 
project's activities. As a result, individuals reported taking steps toward positive change and 
participating in activities such as facing/identifying community challenges, volunteering, 
dialogues with people outside their group, leading community development initiatives, 
and extracurricular activities. They believe that participating in community improvement activities 
has benefited them and has raised their knowledge of the importance of volunteering; they now 
attempt to be more helpful to those in their community and have developed empathy for others.
Program participants are more likely to agree that they are strong enough to confront 
life's obstacles, confident that they can handle the conditions that life throws at them, 
and that they believe they can deal with the ordinary problems that life throws at them.
Lastly, the program improved young people's knowledge of their rights and the relevance of their 
participation in society by giving them more complex information that supports and encourages them 
to participate in public life. However, the possibilities for applying these learned skills into 
their daily lives are not always good. The national government does not invest in positive outlets 
for youth, as budget lines for youth programming at both the national and municipal levels are woefully 
inadequate. Strong resilience partners that accept, respect, and incorporate youth contributions, 
views, skills, and capabilities are directly responsible for meaningful youth participation. Informal and 
formal resilience actors are crucial in empowering youth to develop self-efficacy and confidence in 
their potential to affect good change in their communities.4 In this context, cooperation with the 
Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Innovation, the Ministry of Culture, 
Youth and Sports and local level institutions should be increased. While local-level 
institutions have always expressed willingness to cooperate during the project, especially in the nine 
municipalities involved in the project, there is still a lack of financial funding towards youth 
implemented activities, therefore increasing communication between local and central level is 
important.
2 Global Employment Trends for Youth 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---
publ/documents/publication/wcms_737648.pdf, on 14/04/2022.
3 Lemmetty, S. & Collin, K. (2020). Throwaway knowledge, useful skills or a source for wellbeing? Outlining sustainability of workplace 
learning situations. International Journal of Lifelong Education, early online: https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2020.1804004
4 Formative Evaluation of USAID/Kosovo’s Up to Youth Activity by Susan Kosinski Fritz, April 2021