USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION July 2008 1 USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) Midline Cohort 4 Outcome Evaluation Report Date: August 2022 DO Number and Name: Cooperative Agreement 720066078CA00003 Activity Start and End Dates: April 6, 2018 to April 5, 2021, extended to September 30, 2022 Total Estimated Cost: $27,150,000 AOR/COR/Activity Manager Name & Office: Pascal Tshimanga, USAID/DRC/Education Implemented by: Education Development Center, Inc. Partners: FHI 360 and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Prepared by: Education Development Center, Inc. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 1 ©2022 by Education Development Center, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This content may not be reproduced without the written permission of Education Development Center, Inc (EDC). This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Education Development Center, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CENTER 43 Foundry Ave. Waltham, MA 02453 idd.edc.org USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................ 11 METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Evaluation Design ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Sampling Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Tool Design .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................... 15 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Limites de l’étude ....................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. DEMOGRAPHICS ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Sex Distribution ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Age Distribution................................................................................................................................................... 17 Geographic Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 18 WORK READINESS SKILLS......................................................................................................................................... 19 Big Five Inventory Overall Results....................................................................................................................... 19 Work Readiness Assessment (WRA) Results....................................................................................................... 21 Work Readiness Confidence................................................................................................................................ 22 Gender equality in employment ......................................................................................................................... 27 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT................................................................................................................................... 31 YOUTH PERCEPTIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 33 Community Perceptions...................................................................................................................................... 34 Youth Perception of their Role in the Community .......................................................................................... 35 Youth Perception of Prosocial Community Support........................................................................................ 37 Youth Perception of Gender and Community Access..................................................................................... 38 Perceptions of Prosocial Parental/Caregiver Support......................................................................................... 40 Perceptions of Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................................................. 43 Perception of Positive Identity & Optimism........................................................................................................ 45 Perception of Violence ........................................................................................................................................ 47 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 3 TABLES OF FIGURES Figure 1. Distribution of youth by sex and school type ______________________________________________17 Figure 2. Distribution of youth by age category and school-type ______________________________________18 Figure 3. Distribution of youth by region _________________________________________________________18 Figure 4. Distribution of youth by school type and zone _____________________________________________19 Figure 5. BFI Averages among IYDA’s Cohort 4 at baseline and midline, compared to a regional African benchmark ________________________________________________________________________________21 Figure 6. Cohort 4 Workforce Readiness by youth type and sex_______________________________________22 Figure 7. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to set a goal and develop a plan to reach that goal?" at midline ________________________________________________________________________24 Figure 8. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to get the type of job/work you desire?" at midline ___________________________________________________________________________________25 Figure 9. Answers to "Do you know how to find work in your community?” at midline ____________________26 Figure 10. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to improve your position or work?" at midline ___________________________________________________________________________________26 Figure 11. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to start and grow your own business?" at midline ___________________________________________________________________________________27 Figure 12. Youth degree of agreement with “Young men and young women should have equal access to employment and livelihoods.” _________________________________________________________________28 Figure 13. Youth degree of agreement with "The community and family should encourage young men and women equally to take employability skills training." _______________________________________________29 Figure 14. Youth degree of agreement with "Young women and men should have the same decision-making power in choosing their field of work." __________________________________________________________29 Figure 15. Youth degree of agreement with "Young women and men should have the same position at work.” 30 Figure 16. Youth degree of agreement with "With the right training, young women are as capable as young men of working in jobs such as welding, carpentry, masonry, etc." ________________________________________31 Figure 17. Youth involvement in community associations ___________________________________________32 Figure 18. Youth community involvement groups__________________________________________________33 Figure 19. Youth average score on community perception (%), by respondent type and sex at baseline and midline ___________________________________________________________________________________35 Figure 20. Youth perception of their role in their community: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree 36 Figure 21. Youth perception of their role in their community: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree (cont’d) ___________________________________________________________________________________37 Figure 22. Youth perception of prosocial community support: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree38 Figure 23. Youth perception of prosocial community support: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree (cont’d) ___________________________________________________________________________________38 Figure 24. Youth perception of gender and community access: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree __________________________________________________________________________________________39 Figure 25. Youth perception of gender and community access: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree (cont’d) ___________________________________________________________________________________40 Figure 26. Youth average score on pro-social parental support (%), by respondent type and sex ____________42 Figure 27. Youth average score on perception of self-efficacy (%), by respondent type and sex _____________44 USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 4 Figure 28. Youth average score on perception of positive identity and optimism (%), by respondent type and sex __________________________________________________________________________________________46 Figure 29. Youth average score on perception of violence (%), by respondent type and sex ________________48 Figure 30. Youth average score on perception of school safety (%), by respondent type and sex ____________50 USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 5 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Midline evaluation key youth indicators __________________________________________________13 Table 2. Mean age by school type ______________________________________________________________17 Table 3. Improvement rate on the five dimensions of the BFI, disaggregated by gender, school type, region and age bands _________________________________________________________________________________20 Table 4. Work Readiness indicator Results _______________________________________________________23 Table 5. Content of Youth Perception Survey _____________________________________________________33 Table 6. Community Perceptions Indicator Results _________________________________________________40 Table 7. Prosocial Parental/Caregiver Support Indicators Results______________________________________42 Table 8. Self-Efficacy Indicator Results___________________________________________________________44 Table 9. Positive Identity and Optimism Indicator Results ___________________________________________46 Table 10. Perception of Violence Indicator Results _________________________________________________48 Table 11. Perception of Safety of Schools Indicator Results __________________________________________50 USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Definition ALP Accelerated Learning Program BFI Big Five Inventory CAP Centre d'Apprentissage Professionnel CBO Community-Based Organization CRS Centre de Rattrapage Scolaire DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo EDC Education Development Center EG Economic Growth FHI 360 Family Health International 360 IYDA USAID Integrated Youth Development Activity IYDS PYD International Youth Development Survey MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning MYDEV USAID/ Mindanao Youth for Development NGO Non-Governmental Organization NK North Kivu PYD Positive Youth Development RISD Research Initiative for Social Development SILC Savings and Internal Lending Communities SK South Kivu SPSC Survey of Perceptions of School Climates SPSS Statistical Software for the Social Sciences TVET Technical and Vocational Training Center USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WR Work Readiness WRA Work Readiness Assessment WRN Work Ready Now! YES Youth Employment Survey YPS Youth Perception Survey USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) is funded by USAID and implemented by Education Development Center (EDC) and its consortium of partners: Family Health International 360 (FHI 360) and Catholic Relief Services (CRS). At the time of the data collection, IYDA worked in the provinces of North Kivu (NK) and South Kivu (SK) in the Democratic Republic of Congo, specifically in the cities of Goma, Beni, Butembo (NK) and Bukavu (SK) and in the territories Idjwi, Kalehe, Kabare, and Walungu (SK). IYDA’s goal is to increase the resilience of youth to conflict and violence in Eastern DRC. IYDA provides vulnerable youth with learning pathways and inclusive economic opportunities as well as a network of services to support these pathways. Based on the Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework and its four elements (Assets, Agency, Contribution and Enabling Environments), the theory of change for the USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) is as follows: IF young people gain relevant skills and have opportunities for social and economic engagement, and IF community stakeholders support youth efforts, THEN youth will be more resilient to the impact of conflict and violence. The project works with existing structures to implement these activities – education and vocational training centers, governmental officials, the private sector, and local youth-serving organizations. IYDA works particularly closely with accelerated learning programs (Centres de rattrapages scolaires or CRSs in French), technical and vocational training centers (Centres d’apprentissage professionnel or CAPs in French), and community literacy programs run by community-based organizations (CBOs). Finally, EDC also partnered with Swiss Contact to target youth with low technical skills and those who had dropped out of school due to lack of financial means in order to better prepare them for the demands of local job markets. In line with IYDA’s MEL Plan, the purpose of the midline survey report is to understand: (1) changes in skills related to youth work readiness, leadership, and resilience to conflict and violence in eastern DRC (Skills); (2) changes in youth perceptions of violence, conflict management, non-violent means to address conflict drivers, and optimism about their future, goals, options, choices, or plans (Perceptions); and (3) changes in youth behavior with regards to livelihoods, community engagement, and leadership activities (Behavior). Study Design The evaluation design used throughout IYDA was a repeated measures quasi-experimental design with no comparison group: enrolled learners were assessed at three points in time: baseline (enrollment), midline (completion of training) and endline (six months post-training). For cohort 4, IYDA was able for the first time to survey the same individual CRS, CAP and SILC learners at baseline and midline, arriving at a sufficient sample for a fully longitudinal analysis. An endline survey could not be conducted for cohort 4 as there was insufficient time during the project’s implementation period. The timeline of data collection for Cohort 4 was as follows: • Baseline: during the period of Cohort 4 enrollment in January 2022. • Midline: at the completion of the Cohort 4 IYDA training in June 2022. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 8 The three relevant data collection tools for the results presented in this report were the Work Readiness Assessment (WRA), the Big Five Inventory (BFI), and the Youth Perceptions Survey (YPS). The overall target population comprised 8655 Cohort 4 youth, including 2569 CAP, 2612 CRS and 3474 SILC. At baseline, youth were randomly selected from the target populations and 1110 youth were surveyed in total, including 371 CAP, 366 CRS and 373 SILC youth. At midline, IYDA succeeded in identifying and surveying 837 youth who had participated in the baseline study. This longitudinal sample therefore includes 250 CAP youth, 266 CRS youth, and 321 SILC youth. Evaluation Limitations Validity and reliability of self-reported data: As most of the data collected is based on self-reporting methods, social desirability bias may affect the results. In addition, misunderstanding of concepts or sensitivity to personal issues may also influence self-reported data. While it is never possible to fully eliminate these threats to validity and reliability, to mitigate them data collectors explicitly assured respondents of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. Additionally, IYDA selected, revised, and translated survey items with the goal of optimizing conceptual clarity for the targeted respondents. Evaluation Findings Cohort 4 results overall were largely consistent with those of previous cohorts, indicating once again that the IYDA training interventions had a significant impact on youth of all categories (CRS, CAP and SILC). Significant improvements on the Big Five Index All BFI averages for CAP, CRS and SILC significantly increased between baseline and midline, except for Emotional Stability. Results were similar across CRS, CAP and SILC learners. Overall, 56% of youth improved their score on Extraversion, 59% on Agreeableness, 60.8% on Conscientiousness and 63.7% on Openness. Improvements were slightly larger than in previous cohorts. As in previous cohorts, there was a slight reduction in Emotional Stability scores from baseline to midline, possibly pointing to intensifying contextual stressors including increased community violence and political instability seen in the latter half of the cohort cycle. Significant improvements in work readiness Youth from CAP, CRS and SILC pathways all significantly increased their overall competency in key work￾readiness skills between baseline and midline. Cohort 4 increases in average score on the work-readiness assessment were more modest than among Cohort 3 youth. For the IYDA Indicator related to improved work readiness skills, 71% of CRS youth, 59.4% of CAP youth, and 66.4% of SILC youth had an increased score compared to baseline. These Cohort 4 indicator results are also less pronounced than for Cohort 3. We note that Cohort 4 used a direct pre- and post- comparison of individual learners’ scores for this indicator calculation whereas earlier cohorts had used a proxy method of estimation that had been agreed upon with USAID (because adequate longitudinal samples had not been obtained for these earlier cohorts). High levels of work readiness confidence at midline USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 9 The five questions on work readiness confidence were only asked at midline so no comparison with baseline results was available for this study. Comparison of the Cohort 4 midline results with those of Cohort 2 revealed that Cohort 4 reached higher levels of self-reported confidence in: goal setting and planning, finding work, improving work situations; and growing a business. For instance, the proportion of CAP and SILC youth of Cohort 4 who felt confident or very confident in their ability to find work in their community (87%) was much higher than among Cohort 2 youth (61%). These findings showed that youth perceived great value in IYDA’s WRN! and BYOB interventions when it comes to preparing them for employment success. This difference could be attributed to trainers who were increasingly familiar with training materials and appropriate approaches after numerous cohort cycles, leading to greater participant outcomes. Varying levels of involvement in community associations depending on training pathways IYDA’s efforts to encourage youths’ civic participation showed greatest impact among CAP learners: their reported level of participation in associations increased from 64.3% at baseline to 69.6% at midline. Since SILC youth belong to associations (SILC) by definition, over 98% of SILC learners reported involvement in associations at both baseline and midline. The share of typically younger CRS youth in Cohort 4 reporting involvement in associations also remained constant, but at a much lower level - roughly 31.5% at both baseline and midline. Improved community perceptions Comparison of Cohort 4 individual midline and baseline scores showed that 65.7% of youth improved their perception of the support available to youth from their communities. This is the only dimension of youth perceptions in which Bukavu and Walungu did not lag behind the other regions in indicator results. Average community perception scores increased significantly for CRS, CAP and SILC youth alike between baseline and midline. All eight regions recorded increases. Improved perceptions of parental support Comparison of individual midline scores to baseline scores showed that 57.4% of youth improved their perception of parental/caregiver involvement and support. CRS youth unexpectedly made the least progress, since in previous cohorts these youngest learners typically reported the highest improvement in their perception of parental support. Walungu had the lowest improvement rate of all regions (29%), which could be due to a context characterized by insecurity in the region. Average scores for perception of parental involvement increased significantly for CRS, CAP, and SILC youth. Likewise, all regions but Walungu recorded increases in average scores. The three regions with the lowest baseline scores made the most progress at midline – Beni, Butembo, and Idjwi. Improved perceptions of self-efficacy Comparison of the same individual’s midline score to the baseline score showed that 67.6% of youth improved their perception of self-efficacy. Bukavu and Walungu displayed the lowest improvement rates between baseline and midline, respectively 46.2% and 48.4%. The context of heightened insecurity in both regions and the renewed criminality on the Bukavu-Walungu axis could explain these low results compared to other regions. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 10 CRS, CAP and SILC youth significantly improved their average scores on self-efficacy between baseline and midline. Only Walungu did not record an increase in self-efficacy average scores. The two regions with the lowest baseline scores – Butembo and Idjwi – made the most progress. Improved positive identity and optimism Comparison of individual midline scores to baseline scores revealed that 61.2% of youth improved their score on positive identity and optimism. Once more, Bukavu and Walungu displayed the lowest rate of improvement, which may be the result of renewed insecurity in the two regions since January 2022. Average positive identity scores significantly increased for CRS, CAP and SILC youth between baseline and midline. All regions recorded increases in average scores. Regions with the lowest baseline scores – Beni, Butembo, and Idjwi – showed the greatest improvement. Improved non-violence perceptions Comparison of individuals’ midline scores to baseline scores showed that 67.1% of youth overall improved their scores on attitudes towards violence. Bukavu (34.6%) and Walungu (32.3%) had the lowest percentages of youth with improved scores. These lower results may be related to increased criminality in Bukavu and on the Bukavu￾Walungu axis, as well as the renewed activity of local armed groups in Walungu. There were modest but statistically significant improvements in the average violence propensity score between baseline and midline among CRS, CAP, and SILC youth. All regions but Bukavu and Walungu recorded increases in average scores. Butembo was the region with the lowest baseline score by far, and it recorded the largest improvement between the two studies by far as well. Improved perception of school safety Comparison of individual midline scores to baseline scores showed that 73.7% of youth improved their perception of the safety at their schools or learning spaces. Walungu displayed the lowest rate of improvement of all regions. Youths’ perceptions of school safety in Walungu were likely influenced by the wider context of insecurity around them, which worsened as local armed groups increasingly recruited among young people and tried to expand their area of influence. Average scores on school safety significantly improved between baseline and midline for all three types of youth. Walungu was the only region that did not record an increase. The two regions with the lowest scores at baseline – Beni and Butembo – showed the largest improvements. This indicates that IYDA’s teacher trainings, school improvement planning and distribution of school supplies, materials and equipment during the past four years had a positive effect on students’ feelings of safety, security and wellbeing in a school environment. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 11 BACKGROUND The USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) is funded by USAID and implemented by Education Development Center (EDC) and its consortium of partners: FHI 360 and Catholic Relief Services (CRS). At the time of the data collection, IYDA worked in the Provinces of North Kivu (NK) and South Kivu (SK) in the Democratic Republic of Congo, specifically in the cities of Goma, Beni, Butembo (NK) and Bukavu (SK) and in the territories Idjwi, Kalehe, Kabare, and Walungu (SK). IYDA’s goal is to increase the resilience of youth to conflict and violence in Eastern DRC. IYDA provides vulnerable youth with learning pathways and inclusive economic opportunities as well as a network of services to support these pathways. The project works with existing structures to implement these activities – education and vocational training centers, governmental officials, the private sector, and local youth-serving organizations. IYDA works notably with accelerated learning programs (ALPs, in French: Centres de rattrapages scolaires – CRSs), technical and vocational training centers (TVETs, in French: Centres d’apprentissage professionnel – CAPs), and community literacy programs run by community-based organizations (CBO). Vulnerable youth receive up to one academic year of basic education followed by six months of livelihoods and employment support. In addition, IYDA works with youth who will not go through the pathways mentioned above but who receive employment or entrepreneurship support through project interventions. These youth participate in a Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) groups which offer employment or Work-Based Learning opportunities, accompanied by employability and entrepreneurship training and support provided by IYDA. Finally, EDC also partnered with Swiss Contact to target youth with low technical skills and those who had dropped out of school due to lack of financial means to better prepare them for the demands of local job markets. Based on the Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework and its four elements (Assets, Agency, Contribution and Enabling Environment), the theory of change for the USAID/DRC Integrated Youth Development Activity (IYDA) is as follows: IF young people gain relevant skills and have opportunities for social and economic engagement, and IF community stakeholders support youth efforts, THEN youth will be more resilient to the impact of conflict and violence. This report presents the findings of the midline evaluation examining the outcomes of the fourth cohort of youth completing IYDA’s interventions. This midline evaluation aims to gauge improvements and/or trends on skills, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. This analysis compares the midline results (at the conclusion of the IYDA interventions) with the baseline results (before any IYDA intervention). With the IYDA evaluation logic, the midline study took place at the month of completion of IYDA training in June 2022. Purpose The evaluation sought to understand the contribution of IYDA’s holistic approach to improving youth assets (employability), agency, civic engagement (contribution), and alliance building (enabling environment). Its results also inform decision-making during program review and refinement processes. This evaluation has allowed the project to assess whether Cohort 4 youth who received the IYDA interventions strengthened skills, knowledge, and social capital required to promote resilience. The full set of midline surveys addressed the following themes relating to IYDA’s outcome indicators: USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 12 1. Skills: Understanding changes in youth’s workforce knowledge/skills as well as work readiness confidence, leadership, and resilience skills. 2. Perceptions: Understanding changes in youth’s perceptions of violence and non-violent means to address conflict drivers and conflict management, and optimism about their future, goals, options, choices, or plans. 3. Behavior: Understanding changes in youth behavior with regards to, community engagement, and leadership activities. METHODOLOGY Evaluation Design From the start of the project, IYDA cohort evaluations were conceived to be a repeated measures quasi￾experimental design (without comparison group), with enrolled learners assessed longitudinally at three points in time, as depicted in the figure below. For cohort 4, there was insufficient time during the project’s implementation period to conduct an endline survey. This midline is therefore the final data collection for cohort 4. • Baseline: during the period of Cohort 4 enrollment in January 2022. • Midline (current study): at the completion of the Cohort 4 IYDA training in June 2022. • Endline (not possible for Cohort 4): the endline study would have taken place six months after completion of Cohort 4’s IYDA training with a focus on indicators for assets and employment. As noted, there was insufficient time during the life of the project to conduct an endline study for Cohort 4. Consistent with its baseline, this midline study targeted CAP, CRS, and SILC youth as they completed IYDA’s workforce development training. The survey contained items related to the project’s indicators on work readiness, agency, civic engagement, self-efficacy, positive identity and optimism, perceptions of community and parental support, and perceptions of violence. The table below presents the full set of IYDA evaluation questions and related indicators. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 13 Table 1. Midline evaluation key youth indicators Evaluation Questions Indicator Type of Indicator Tool Dimensions Q1. Do youth demonstrate improved in resilience to conflict and violence as a result of IYDA’s activities? 1. Percent of youth with increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of programming (Custom: Outcome) Youth Perception Survey Agency 2. Percent of youth showing positive attitudes of tolerance and decreased propensity to engage in violence to address conflict drivers and conflict management. (Custom: Outcome) Youth Perception Survey Alliance building 3. Percent of youth with increased optimism at the conclusion of programming (Custom: Outcome) Youth Perception Survey Agency Q2. Do youth demonstrate improved perceptions of support and engagement in their community? 2.2 Percent of youth who believe that they are of value in society and their positive contributions are recognized and rewarded at the conclusion of programming (Custom: Outcome) Youth Perception Survey Civic engagement & Alliance building 2.3.2 Percent of youth who report an increase in their prosocial Parental/Caregiver involvement and support (Custom: Outcome) Youth Perception Survey Civic engagement Q3. Do youth demonstrate improved perception of safety in schools or learning spaces? 1.2.1 Percent of youth with improved perception of the safety of schools or learning spaces (Custom: Outcome) Youth Perception Survey Civic engagement & Alliance building Q4. Do youth demonstrate improved work readiness, as a result of IYDA’s activities? 3.1.2 Percent of individuals with improved skills following completion of USG-assisted workforce development programs (EG. 6-2: Outcome) Work Readiness Assessment (baseline & midline only) Work Readiness Sampling Plan At midline, IYDA’s objective was to use the same sample of CAP, CRS and SILC youth who participated in the Cohort 4 baseline study in order to build a longitudinal dataset. 1 In total, 1110 youth were surveyed at baseline, including 371 CAP, 366 CRS and 373 SILC youth. 1 Longitudinal datasets contain observations for each youth at two or more points in time on the same questions, allowing a comparison across time for the exact same learner. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 14 At baseline, youth were randomly selected from the target populations of Cohort 4. Overall, the target population comprised 8,655 youth, including 2,569 CAP, 2,612 CRS and 3,474 SILC members. The sample was stratified to allow for the representation of males and females in proportion to the number of youth in Cohort 4 in IYDA’s eight target regions – Beni, Bukavu, Butembo, Goma, Idjwi, Kabare, Kalehe, and Walungu – and by school types – CRS, CAP, and SILC. Samples were calculated by categories of youth and were designed with the following parameters: Confidence Interval 95%, alpha = 0.5, and accounting for attrition up to 10%. Tableau 1. Baseline distribution of the sample of CAP, CRS and SILC youth Type Établissement, Ecole (CAP, CRS ou SILC ?) Beni Bukavu Butembo Goma Idjwi Kabare Kalehe Walungu Total Centres d’apprentissage professionnel (CAP) Féminin 63 60 20 92 11 10 36 292 Masculin 34 9 6 20 5 2 3 79 97 69 26 112 16 12 39 371 Centres de rattrapages Scolaires (CRS) Féminin 21 43 23 62 45 16 3 213 Masculin 22 42 13 39 20 15 2 153 43 85 36 101 65 31 5 366 Communauté Interne d’épargne et de crédits (SILC) Féminin 93 96 48 237 Masculin 71 48 17 136 164 144 65 373 Total Féminin 84 103 43 154 93 152 74 39 742 Masculin 56 51 19 59 71 73 34 5 368 140 154 62 213 164 225 108 44 1110 At midline, IYDA succeeded in identifying and surveying 837 youth who had participated in the baseline study. This longitudinal sample therefore includes 250 CAP youth, 266 CRS youth, and 321 SILC youth. See the weights table in Annex A (page 54) for a further breakdown of the sample. Tool Design Data was collected from youth using four tools – the Work Readiness Assessment (WRA), the Big Five Inventory (BFI), the Youth Employment Survey (YES), and the Youth Perceptions Survey (YPS): • The WRA tool, adapted from the Credential Test tool developed by EDC, consists of 31 questions that assess youths’ foundational skills and knowledge in the following topics, which are modules in the WRN curriculum: Personal Development, Interpersonal Communication, Work Habits and Conduct, Leadership, Safety and Health at Work, Rights and Responsibilities of Workers and Employers. Financial Fitness, Introduction to Entrepreneurship. • The Big Five Inventory measures the five broadest dimensions of personality in an organizing framework that has emerged to guide research on soft skills (non-cognitive). The BFI consists of 44 simple statements that the respondent agrees or disagrees with using a five‐point Likert scale. The Big Five framework includes the following broad personality factors, which have been linked to workforce success: o Conscientiousness (work ethic, detail-focused, dependable/responsible, industrious, achievement orientated, grit, time management), o Agreeableness (teamwork, cooperative, trusting, humility, sympathetic, altruistic collaborative, kind), o Emotional Stability (resilient, stress-tolerant, calm, and relaxed, self-controlled, restrained), USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 15 o Openness (intellectual curiosity - including both one's propensity to adopt analytical and divergent thinking strategies, innovation, creativity, reflective, aesthetics, culture), o Extraversion (social boldness, talkative, assertive, energetic, socially dominant). • The Youth Perception Survey (YPS) tool, originally developed by EDC for the USAID/ Mindanao Youth for Development (MYDEV) project in the Philippines and adapted for use in IYDA, measures youth perceptions of violence and their perception of their position in the community. The YPS was adapted to the context in Eastern DRC through the addition of the PYD International Youth Development Survey (IYDS) subscale on Optimism, Positive Identity, Support, and Prosocial Norms, given the sensitivity of the implementing context. Data Collection The local consulting firm Research Initiatives for Social Development (RISD), engaged by IYDA since the beginning of the project, conducted the field data collection mobilizing 20 enumerators, including five supervisors. The IYDA M&E Specialist trained the RISD enumerators in the content and administration of the tools. During data collection, the M&E Specialist provided on-the-ground quality assurance to support these enumerators. IYDA’s Home Office M&E Technical Specialist also provided support for data quality, as well as troubleshooting and upload of the data collected. IYDA hired the same interviewers as for the Cohort 4 baseline study to capitalize on their experience and thus increase the quality of the data. Data collection took place from June 3 to June 23, 2022. The team visited beneficiaries in the eight project. The entire training and data collection lasted 21 days, including 2 days of training, days of travel to and from some sites and days of data collection. Enumerators conducted the surveys orally and entered the responses in tablets using the tools that had been programmed in KoBo ToolBox. All assessors also received the full set of data collection tools in hard copy translated into French and Kiswahili, in case it was needed. IYDA’s database coordinator provided technical support for downloading of tools and troubleshooting during data collection. At the end of each day, enumerators connected to a designated Wi-Fi point (as available) to synchronize the data collected. IYDA staff provided a daily update on the data collection to provide a quality check and ensure that all the collected data was uploaded. IYDA and RISD complied with all national and organizational COVID-19 protection measures. Given the decrease in the number of COVID-19 casesin the DRC, measures had been relaxed: masks and hand sanitizer were no longer mandatory. Surveyors still practiced social distancing of two meters between the respondent and the surveyor, during the training and data collection. Data Analysis In order to extrapolate sample-based results to the full population of IYDA Cohort 4 youth, we calculated sampling weights to adjust for oversampling and under-sampling of learners by region and sex. We calculated weights using USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 16 the inverse of the probability of selection by school type, sex and region. 2 Weights are the same for baseline and midline since the dataset is longitudinal. Post-stratification Weight = Proportion in IYDA population / Proportion in study sample We conducted the data analysis using Statistical Software for the Social Sciences (SPSS). We used descriptive statistics to summarize the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants (which is the only section of the analysis where we did not use the weights and reported the actual Ns). We presented numerical data as means and distributions, while the categorical data appears as frequencies (percentages). We also used statistical tests for comparison of means to measure differences between demographic categories whenever possible. The Pearson’s chi-square test of independence helps determine whether a statistically significant difference exist between two categorical variables (i.e. the question and sex). To assess the probability that there is no difference in results between two compared groups (i.e., that the null hypothesis is true), we compare the obtained p-value to the pre-determined significance level of 0.05. If the p-value is lower than 0.05, then we consider the result as significant. In the following report, we also reported results with a p-value below 0.1, although ideally the closer the p-value is to zero, the more confidence we have in the results obtained. Finally, for the first time in the IYDA project, we were able to build a longitudinal sample, meaning that we were able to find the youth interviewed at baseline to survey them again at midline. This allowed us to conduct a longitudinal analysis, in other words we compare the same individual’s scores from baseline to midline. We used paired t-tests to compare baseline scores to midline scores and determine whether there was a significant evolution between the two studies. Limitations Validity and reliability of self-reported data: As most of the data collected is based on self-reporting methods, social desirability bias may affect the results, especially for pro-social and perception questions. In addition, respondents’ incomplete understanding of concepts, or sensitivities to personal issues, may also influence self￾reported data. While it is never possible to fully eliminate these threats to validity and reliability, IYDA took steps to mitigate them. For instance, to reduce social desirability bias, data collection tools contained assurances of confidentiality and anonymity for respondents, as well as explanations of the importance of sincere and accurate self-representation. IYDA trained data collectors on how to convey these messages to respondents and establish a relaxed, non-judgmental rapport. Furthermore, the IYDA team, with the support of multiple stakeholders, selected, revised, and translated survey items with the goal to optimize conceptual clarity for the targeted respondents. DEMOGRAPHICS Overall, 837 Cohort 4 learners were part of the longitudinal dataset (surveyed at both baseline and midline), with 321 SILC youth, 250 CAP youth, and 266 CRS youth. Below we explore the distributions of youth by sex, age and regions in the longitudinal dataset. 2 Find the detail of the weights calculation in Annex A on page 54. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 17 As a reminder, the sampling weights detailed in the methodology section addressed variations in youth distributions by regions and sex in the sample compared to the total population, so that the reported results were as representative as possible of the general population of each type of respondent. Sex Distribution Like in previous reports for other cohorts, the gender demographics of the learners interviewed for this longitudinal study reflected the strong participation of young women in each target group and in the overall IYDA intervention. This was particularly notable among CAP youth in the sample, where 80.8% of learners were young women. IYDA did not aim to enroll more young women than young men in its activities. The higher proportion of young women in all groups was the result of contextual factors in the area of intervention, where women were less likely to pursue formal education when household economic resources are limited. Both CRS and short-term CAP training in fields popular with young women were relatively inexpensive compared to formal school, as were SILC trainings. Women reported to see value in developing a trade of skill to improve their economic prospects. Figure 1. Distribution of youth by sex and school type in the longitudinal sample Age Distribution Overall, the mean age was 21 years old in the longitudinal sample. As illustrated in the table below, CRS youth tended to be much younger than the rest of learners, while SILC tended to be older. Table 2. Mean age by school type in the longitudinal sample School CRS CAP SILC Mean Age 14.79 22.21 25.49 80.8% 58.6% 66.0% 19.2% 41.4% 34.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CAP CRS SILC Female Male USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 18 This trend by school type was also reflected in the graph below, where most sampled CRS youth were part of the 10-14 and 15-19 age categories. By contrast, about a third of SILC youth were in the 20-24 age category, a quarter in the 25-29 category and another quarter in the 30-35 age category. Figure 2. Distribution of youth by age category and school-type in the longitudinal sample Geographic Distribution SILC youth were located in Idjwi, Kabare, and Kalehe only. About 29% of CRS youth were in Goma and 24% in Bukavu, while the rest were distributed across the other five sites. About 29% of CAP youth were located in Goma, 24% in Beni and about 22% in Bukavu, while the rest of CAP learners were distributed across the four other sites. Figure 3. Distribution of youth by region in the longitudinal sample Furthermore, a majority of CAP and CRS youth were located in urban areas, while almost all SILC youth were located in rural areas. 0.4% 39.5% 40.4% 56.8% 12.5% 31.2% 3.8% 37.7% 18.4% 23.4% 9.6% 25.9% .6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CAP CRS SILC 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-35 36+ 24.0% 13.2% 21.6% 24.1% 6.0% 10.9% 29.2% 28.6% 41.7% 4.4% 14.7% 40.8% 3.6% 7.1% 17.4% 11.2% 1.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CAP CRS SILC Beni Bukavu Butembo Goma Idjwi Kabare Kalehe Walungu USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 19 Figure 4. Distribution of youth by school type and zone in the longitudinal sample WORK READINESS SKILLS At the core of IYDA’s interventions is its intensive Life Skills training that develops a youth’s foundational life skills, work readiness skills, and leadership skills. Big Five Inventory Overall Results The dimensions of personality measured by the BFI are described above under “Tool Design.” Since the BFI-44 is a diagnostic without a set benchmark, IYDA has been comparing youths’ BFI scores to the findings from Schmitt et al.’s data collection in seven African nations in 2007. Similar to Schmitt et al.’s findings, IYDA youth, on average and throughout the cohorts, have scored highest on agreeableness and conscientiousness, and the lowest on emotional stability at both baseline and midline. Overall, 56% of youth improved their score on Extraversion, 59% on Agreeableness, 60.8% on Conscientiousness and 63.7% on Openness. However, only 30.7% of all youth improved their score on Emotional Stability. Figure 5 below shows that the Emotional Stability was the only instance where the average score decreased for CAP, CRS and SILC learners between baseline and midline. In addition, differences in improvement rates between regions were highly significant for all five BFI dimensions (p<.003 for Conscientiousness, p<.001 for the rest). For instance, the share of youth who improved their scores in Walungu was systematically lower than in other regions on all five dimensions. Nevertheless, there was no clear leading region since Butembo boasted the highest percentage of youth with improved scores on Agreeableness (73.2%) and Emotional Stability (52.5%), while Beni led on Extraversion (76.5%), Goma on Conscientiousness 19.6% 23.3% 98.8% 80.4% 76.7% 1.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% CAP CRS SILC Rural Urban USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 20 (72.9%), and Idjwi on Openness (74%). Differences in improvement rates between genders, school types and age categories were not significant on any of the five BFI dimensions. Table 3. Percentage of youth with baseline to midline improvement on the five dimensions of the BFI, disaggregated by gender, school type, region and age bands Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Gender Female 55.4% 59.2% 60.9% 29.6% 63.5% Male 58.0% 58.7% 60.8% 32.5% 64.0% School Type CRS 54.0% 60.7% 64.4% 29.0% 59.7% CAP 56.6% 60.5% 60.9% 29.8% 64.5% SILC 58.0% 56.5% 58.0% 32.4% 66.1% Region* Beni 76.5% 55.1% 55.7% 29.9% 73.2% Bukavu 39.4% 60.6% 57.7% 22.1% 52.9% Butembo 42.5% 73.2% 70.7% 52.5% 61.0% Goma 60.4% 70.8% 72.9% 23.6% 69.4% Idjwi 55.2% 60.3% 63.4% 21.2% 74.0% Kabare 55.3% 53.6% 53.3% 35.6% 57.8% Kalehe 67.0% 56.4% 63.8% 47.9% 60.0% Walungu 25.0% 25.8% 41.9% 31.3% 43.8% Age Band 10 thru 14 55.3% 60.2% 62.1% 23.3% 57.8% 15 thru 19 58.2% 62.2% 64.3% 31.1% 62.9% 20 thru 24 56.6% 60.6% 63.8% 30.2% 67.1% 25 thru 29 53.6% 52.8% 50.4% 35.2% 67.5% 30 thru 35 55.4% 53.6% 56.3% 33.0% 59.8% Above 35 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Total 56.3% 59.0% 60.8% 30.7% 63.7% Figure 5 below reveals that all BFI averages for CAP, CRS and SILC increased between baseline and midline, except for Emotional Stability. These evolutions between the two studies all met a stringent standard of statistical significance (p<.001). We noted that the slight reduction in Emotional Stability scores from baseline to midline, simultaneous with slight increases in the other dimensions, has been a consistent trend across the IYDA cohorts, possibly suggesting that contextual stressors, stemming from the COVID pandemic and other crises, have tended to intensify. Disaggregating these results further by sex (not shown in figure 5), we observed that the overall trends outlined in the previous paragraph were followed by both young women and young men. Overall differences between genders were significant at neither baseline nor midline. However, disaggregating results by sex within school types, there was a significant difference in average Extraversion scores between CAP young women (3.55) and CAP young men (3.71) at midline (p<.018). There was also a difference on the Openness score between SILC young women (3.58) and SILC young men (3.64) at midline, through it only met a less stringent threshold of significance (p<.066). USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 21 Figure 5. BFI Averages among IYDA’s Cohort 4 at baseline and midline, compared to a regional African benchmark Work Readiness Assessment (WRA) Results The WRA measures youths’ knowledge of eight key work-readiness areas that are covered in the Work Ready Now curriculum that students receive in their training. The assessment gauges youths’ foundational skills and knowledge in the following topics, which are modules in the WRN curriculum: • Personal Development • Interpersonal Communication • Work Habits and Conduct • Leadership • Safety and Health at Work • Rights and Responsibilities of Workers and Employers • Financial Fitness • Introduction to Entrepreneurship These are the stepping-stones for prepared, confident, and capable youth who are work-ready with the proper transferable skills. Youth from CAP, CRS, and SILC all significantly increased their overall competency in key work-readiness skills between baseline and midline (p<.001). However, increases in work readiness averages were more modest among Cohort 4 compared with Cohort 3. Baseline averages of Cohort 4 tended to be higher than for Cohort 3, while midline averages were lower. Likewise, indicator results reported in Table 4 below show that the percentage of youth with improved work-readiness skills was lower in Cohort 4 than in Cohort 3. One contributing factor to thisfinding is likely the difference in the method of indicator calculation: Cohort 3, for which an adequate longitudinal sample could not be obtained, used a proxy method, agreed upon with USAID, comparing individual midline scores to baseline mean scores; Cohort 4’s longitudinal sample allowed 3.38 3.87 3.72 2.76 3.61 3.38 3.28 3.29 3.94 3.85 3.96 4.02 3.80 3.99 2.60 2.65 2.75 3.66 3.42 3.42 3.59 3.43 3.45 4.17 4.06 4.09 4.24 4.03 4.16 2.29 2.44 2.43 4.00 3.61 3.80 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Openness Africa benchmark Baseline Midline USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 22 straightforward comparison of each individual’s midline score to their baseline score. A second possible contributing factor was that Cohort 4’s employment training modules (WRN and BYOB) were integrated into the CAP/CRS national curriculum, i.e. in courses on math, geography, history, or life skills, instead of being taught on their own for Cohort 3. At midline, CAP men held a small but statistically significant advantage in average scores over women, 65.6% to 63.2% (p<.040). Among SILC youth, a statistically significant advantage for men at baseline (p<.020) was no longer detected at midline. CAP youth located in rural areas outperformed CAP learners in urban areas at baseline by 6.2 percentage points (p<.007). The trend was reversed at midline, where CAP youth in urban areas scored on average 2.1 percentage points higher than learners in rural areas (not statistically significant). Figure 6. Cohort 4 Workforce Readiness by youth type and sex All regions recorded significant increases in their average workforce readiness scores between midline and midline (at least p<.009), except for Walungu where the increase was not significant. The three regions with the lowest scores at baseline recorded the greatest improvement in average scores – Beni, Butembo, and Idjwi. Work Readiness Indicator Results The IYDA project had a target of 60 percent of youth with an improved level of work readiness skills after completing the workforce development program (Indicator 3.1.2). Until this study of Cohort 4, IYDA was unable to sample longitudinally and thus to compare the same individuals’ scores from baseline and midline, and therefore used a proxy method comparing midline scores to baseline means. In this case, direct comparison of the same Cohort 4 learner’s scores from baseline to midline yielded a result of 65.8% of youth with improved 56.6% 63.2% 48.6% 59.9% 49.4% 58.7% 55.1% 65.6% 47.4% 60.2% 53.0% 58.8% 56.2% 63.7% 48.1% 60.1% 50.7% 58.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline (p<.040) Baseline Midline Baseline (p<.020) Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 23 work readiness skills. As displayed in Table 4 below, these results included significant differences between school types and regions. Walungu recorded the lowest improvement rate of all regions (40.6%) and Bukavu has the second lowest result. These two regions’ low results were possibly attributable to the resurgence of insecurity. Walungu faced renewed activity in local armed groups who recruited youth to strengthen their groups and expand their area of influence, while Bukavu saw an increase in child abductions by criminals in collaboration with some security forces. In addition, the Bukavu-Walungu axis suffered from an uptick in criminality targeted at commercial vehicles. Table 4. Work Readiness indicator Results Indicator Outcome Improved Lack of progress Gender (Χ2(1) = 3.432 p < .064) Female 63.5% 36.5% Male 69.9% 30.1% School Type (Χ2(2) = 7.580 p < .023) CRS 71.0% 29.0% CAP 59.4% 40.6% SILC 66.4% 33.6% Region (Χ2(7) = 79.987 p < .001) Beni 86.7% 13.3% Bukavu 53.8% 46.2% Butembo 95.0% 5.0% Goma 54.9% 45.1% Idjwi 80.7% 19.3% Kabare 58.9% 41.1% Kalehe 60.0% 40.0% Walungu 40.6% 59.4% Age Band (Χ2(5) = 6.057 p < .301) 10 thru 14 69.6% 30.4% 15 thru 19 67.7% 32.3% 20 thru 24 63.7% 36.3% 25 thru 29 58.4% 41.6% 30 thru 35 68.8% 31.3% Above 35 100.0% 0.0% Total 65.8% 34.2% Work Readiness Confidence It is expected that youth with demonstrated work readiness knowledge, assessed through the WR Employability assessment would also have more confidence in their work readiness skills and their ability to find employment. Confidence is measured through youth’s responses to five questions with a 4-point Likert scale on confidence. Note that the five questions were only asked at midline, so no comparison with baseline results was available. Statements How confident are you that you have the skills to set a goal and develop a plan to reach that goal? USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 24 How confident are you that you have the skills to get the type of job/work you desire? How confident are you that you know how to find work in your community? How confident are you that you have the skills to improve your position or work? How confident are you that you have the skills to start and grow your own business? Response Choices Not Confident at all Somewhat Confident Confident Completely Confident A majority of youth felt confident or very confident at midline that they had the skills to set a goal and develop a plan to reach that goal, whatever type of training youth were involved in. This proportion among CAP and SILC youth in Cohort 4 (90.6%) was well above the 68.6% of SILC and CAP youth from Cohort 2 who felt confident or very confident in their skills to set a goal and develop a plan to reach that goal.3 In addition, this result was true for both women and men, with no significant difference between genders. There was, however, a significant difference between the level of confidence of youth in the three training types – CAP, CRS, and SILC (p<.001). For instance, while 45.4% of CAP youth said they were very confident in their skills to set a goal, only 15.4% of CRS youth said so. This was likely explained by the difference between CAP, SILC and CRS profiles, since CRS youth are much younger and their pathway is not as focused on preparing for employment. Figure 7. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to set a goal and develop a plan to reach that goal?" at midline Similarly, the share of youth reporting feeling confident or very confident that they had the skills to get the type of job that they want was significantly higher among CAP and SILC youth than among CRS learners (p<.001). Once more, this was likely explained by the fact that CRS youth were younger and more likely to pursue further 3 Cohort 4 midline results on work confidence were compared to Cohort 2 midline results to put them into context. Note that in the Cohort 2 midline study, CRS learners were not included alongside CAP and SILC youth. 46.9% 41.1% 16.9% 12.4% 26.4% 36.8% 49.5% 55.4% 64.9% 70.5% 57.5% 54.4% 3.6% 1.8% 12.8% 15.2% 13.7% 7.2% 1.8% 5.4% 1.9% 2.4% 1.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Female Male Female Male Female Male CAP CRS SILC Very confident Confident Barely confident Not confident at all USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 25 studies rather than actively search for employment. A large majority of CAP youth felt confident or very confident overall at midline (87.9%), while this share was 23 percentage points lower among CRS youth (64.7%). The proportion of CAP and SILC youth feeling confident or very confident was slightly lower among Cohort 4 learners (80.1%) than Cohort 2 youth (82.6%). In addition, differences between young women and men were not significant among CAP and CRS youth, but were highly significant among SILC learners (p<.013). While the proportion of SILC young women and men who felt very confident was similar, 45% of SILC young women felt confident versus 58.9% of SILC men. This was the only instance of a significant difference between genders on the questions regarding work readiness confidence. Figure 8. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to get the type of job/work you desire?" at midline Once more, most youth in all three school types reported feeling confident or very confident in their ability to find work in their community. The proportion of CAP and SILC youth of Cohort 4 who felt confident or very confident (87%) was much higher than among Cohort 2 youth (61%). Differences in the confidence level between CRS, CAP and SILC youth were again highly significant (p<.001). This time, however, there was no significant difference between genders. 35.2% 31.6% 10.1% 13.5% 23.7% 25.0% 52.3% 57.9% 57.4% 47.1% 45.0% 58.9% 9.8% 10.5% 25.0% 34.6% 25.1% 14.5% 2.6% 7.4% 4.8% 6.2% 1.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Female Male Female Male Female Male CAP CRS SILC (p<.013) Very confident Confident Barely confident Not confident at all USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 26 Figure 9. Answers to "Do you know how to find work in your community?” at midline The share of CAP and SILC youth who reported feeling very confident in their skills to improve their position at work was much larger than among CRS learners (p<.001). Again, this was explained by the profile of CRS youth who were younger and less likely to be thinking about employment yet, as opposed to CAP and SILC youth. Taking together youth who reported feeling confident and very confident revealed higher confidence levels among CAP youth than among CRS and SILC youth. Differences between genders were not significant. Overall results among CAP and SILC youth of Cohort 4 (83.9%) were slightly higher than among Cohort 2 CAP and SILC learners (78.3%). Figure 10. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to improve your position or work?" at midline Learner’s level of confidence in their skills to start and grow their own business was yet again significantly different between youth types (p<.001), with a higher share of CAP and SILC youth feeling confident or very confident compared with CRS learners. As explained before in this section, CRS youth were younger and more likely to 42.5% 35.7% 15.5% 17.9% 20.5% 31.5% 50.3% 53.6% 56.1% 63.2% 60.5% 55.6% 6.2% 10.7% 19.6% 15.1% 15.7% 11.3% 1.0% 8.8% 3.8% 3.3% 1.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Female Male Female Male Female Male CAP CRS SILC Very confident Confident Barely confident Not confident at all 25.5% 24.6% 6.8% 6.7% 26.7% 32.0% 65.1% 66.7% 62.6% 63.8% 48.1% 53.6% 8.9% 8.8% 23.1% 20.0% 17.6% 10.4% 0.5% 7.5% 9.5% 7.6% 4.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Female Male Female Male Female Male CAP CRS SILC Very confident Confident Barely confident Not confident at all USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 27 pursue further studies than enter the workforce, which explained that their work confidence level was not as high as for CAP and SILC learners. The proportion of CAP and SILC who felt confident or very confident in their skills to start and grow a business was slightly higher among Cohort 4 youth (85.8%) than among Cohort 2 youth (83.3%). Differences between young women and young men are not significant. Figure 11. Answers to "How confident are you that you have the skills to start and grow your own business?" at midline Gender equality in employment Youth participating in the survey were asked to report their beliefs/perceptions about gender and employability through a series of five questions, as illustrated below. For Cohort 4, these questions were revised in an effort to remove ambiguities in how way these items had originally been phrased in French, thus removing problems for interpretation. Taking all youth types together, the average rate of agreement plus strong agreement across the five gender equality items increased from 65.5% to 80.7% from baseline to midline. This finding was also true when looking at each youth type separately. At midline, CRS youth agreed or strongly agreed with the five statements at the lowest average rate: 72.2%. Differences between CAP, CRS and SILC youth were highly significant on all five statements at both baseline and midline (at least p<.004). First, for the item “Young men and young women should have equal access to employment and livelihoods,” the share of CAP, CRS and SILC youth who agreed or strongly agreed increased between the two studies. At baseline and midline, CAP youth’s level of agreement with this statement was higher than for CRS and SILC youth (p<.001). Differences of agreement between young women and men were significant overall at midline, with 69.5% of female youth agreeing or strongly agreeing versus 75.6% of male (p<.022). It was surprising that a smaller share of women than men agreed with the statement “Young men and young women should have equal access to employment and livelihoods,” yet the cultural context could provide explanations for such a result. Traditionnally, men provided for family needs and women stayed home to take care of the household and children. Society considers that men have more abilities and opportunities than women to generate income and opportunities feed their family. There is still a widespread belief and practice to date that even if women work, it is only to help their 37.0% 31.6% 12.9% 18.1% 33.6% 34.7% 48.4% 54.4% 59.2% 52.4% 51.2% 53.2% 13.5% 12.3% 20.4% 21.9% 10.4% 9.7% 1.0% 1.8% 7.5% 7.6% 4.7% 2.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Female Male Female Male Female Male CAP CRS SILC Very confident Confident Barely confident Not confident at all USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 28 husbands so that their focus should still be the household. Among SILC learners specifically, women participated in larger numbers than men. SILC women tended to create more revenue and have more stable financial situations than men. As such, these SILC women may wish that men in their community and/or husbands succeed as well as they do, in part to assume roles closer to traditional expectations as explained above. Disaggregation of these results by school type showed that at baseline differences between genders were highly significant among CAP youth (p<.043) and significant only at a lower threshold among SILC youth (p<.065). At midline, differences in agreement between men and women had decreased, meeting only a less stringent standard of significance among SILC learners (p<.093). Figure 12. Youth degree of agreement with “Young men and young women should have equal access to employment and livelihoods.” The second item measured agreement with the statement: “The community and the family should encourage young men and women equally to take employability skills training." For this item, the increase in the share of youth agreeing or strongly agreeing between baseline and midline was also evident among all three youth types. CAP learners displayed higher levels of agreement, once again, than CRS and SILC youth at baseline and midline (p<.001). Among SILC youth at baseline the difference in responses between sexes met a less stringent standard of significance, (p<.081). Otherwise, however, differences between genders were not significant on this item. 25.0% 37.3% 16.7% 24.1% 22.9% 25.9% 47.6% 42.2% 35.9% 41.5% 31.8% 44.3% 5.2% 4.0% 3.6% 4.7% 8.3% 8.6% 16.9% 10.8% 36.3% 22.9% 25.3% 18.2% 5.2% 5.6% 7.6% 6.7% 11.6% 3.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Strongly agree Agree Nor agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 29 Figure 13. Youth degree of agreement with "The community and family should encourage young men and women equally to take employability skills training." On the item “Young women and men should have the same decision-making power in choosing their field of work,” the share of youth agreeing or strongly agreeing went up among CAP, SILC and CRS youth. There were no overall significant differences in agreement between genders. Figure 14. Youth degree of agreement with "Young women and men should have the same decision-making power in choosing their field of work." With regards to the statement "Young women and men should be able to hold the same positions at work,” we again observed an increase in the share of youth agreeing or strongly agreeing among all three types of youth. Levels of agreement among CAP youth were again much higher than CRS learners at both baseline and midline 28.2% 41.4% 22.3% 20.9% 25.9% 34.5% 56.9% 53.8% 45.0% 60.9% 45.2% 57.4% 4.0% 0.8% 12.4% 7.1% 8.6% 6.0% 7.3% 3.6% 15.1% 9.9% 13.1% 2.1% 3.6% 0.4% 5.2% 1.2% 7.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Strongly agree Agree Nor agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 25.4% 37.5% 17.1% 21.8% 19.2% 29.5% 49.2% 48.0% 42.9% 49.2% 44.6% 53.0% 6.5% 5.6% 7.9% 6.0% 9.3% 7.7% 17.3% 6.9% 27.4% 16.7% 18.6% 8.9% 1.6% 2.0% 4.8% 6.3% 8.4% 0.9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Strongly agree Agree Nor agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 30 (p<.001). In addition, differences between sexes were highly significant only among CAP learners at midline, with 85.7% of young men agreeing or strongly agreeing versus 88.5% of young women (p<.006). Figure 15. Youth degree of agreement with "Young women and men should be able to hold the same positions at work.” Finally, the share of youth agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement "With the right training, young women are as capable as young men of working in jobs such as welding, carpentry, masonry, etc.” increased between baseline and midline for all learners. Differences between youth types were significant at baseline (p<.004) and midline (p<.001). At midline, the difference between young women and young men was significant overall (p<.042), with 81.4% of women agreeing or strongly agreeing versus 88.4% of men. This was likely driven by CRS youth since 71% of CRS female leaners agreed or strongly agree with the statement at midline versus 82.7% of CRS male students (p<.052). 19.4% 39.8% 11.1% 19.3% 23.8% 29.5% 46.4% 48.2% 37.3% 46.9% 34.5% 50.6% 7.3% 2.4% 9.5% 10.6% 9.8% 7.7% 20.2% 8.0% 33.7% 19.7% 21.4% 11.0% 6.9% 1.6% 8.3% 3.5% 10.4% 1.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Strongly agree Agree Nor agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 31 Figure 16. Youth degree of agreement with "With the right training, young women are as capable as young men of working in jobs such as welding, carpentry, masonry, etc." Note that there are only two instances of an overall significant difference in agreement between genders, and in both cases men tend to agree more with the statement. Both instances occur in the midline study: first, on the assertion that young men and women should have equal access to employment and livelihoods (p<.022); second, on the statement that with the right training young women are equally as capable as young men of working in employment like welding, carpentry, etc. (p<.037). COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IYDA encourages youth to participate in community activities and associations to support development of socio￾emotional and life skills and to strengthen community cohesion. The following results present the level of engagement of IYDA youth in their community, mostly through associations. Between baseline and midline, the proportion of youth participating in an association increased for CAP learners, while it decreased by less than one percentage point among CRS and SILC youth. The proportion of CAP learners participating in community associations increased from 64.3% at baseline to 69.6% at midline. In the case of SILC youth, the decrease still kept community engagement above 98% at midline. SILC youth are, by definition, already members of associations (their SILC groups), which accounts for the high reported engagement level. Lastly, there was no significant difference in the reported rates of CRS, since 31.9% of CRS learners reported being engaged in an association at baseline and 31% at midline. Differences in the rates of community engagement between school types were of course highly significant at both baseline and midline (p<.001). There were no significant differences between young women and men in terms of their participation in community associations, except for CAP youth at midline. In that case, 66.3% of CAP women participated in associations versus 80.7% of men (p<.038). 35.1% 45.4% 26.7% 34.4% 34.5% 51.9% 39.1% 34.5% 36.7% 41.9% 39.6% 40.9% 8.1% 8.8% 6.0% 6.7% 4.8% 1.8% 13.7% 10.0% 19.9% 13.8% 11.0% 5.1% 4.0% 1.2% 10.8% 3.2% 10.1% 0.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Strongly agree Agree Nor agree, nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 32 At baseline and midline, the two main reasons provided by respondents for not belonging to an association among CAP and CRS youth who declared no community engagement were 1) they do not have time and 2) they are not interested. This trend was observed among both women and men at baseline and midline. The only exception was that CAP men indicated as their second reason at midline that they do not want additional responsibilities (16%). Figure 17. Youth involvement in community associations Among those reporting participation in any associations, over 60% of CAP youth, over 85% of CRS learners and around 40% of SILC youth reported participating in one association only. About 30% of SILC youth and about 25% of CAP youth reported participating in two associations at both baseline and midline. Also, among those reporting participation in associations, at both baseline and midline, the majority of youth reported being simple members of associations, as opposed to holding leadership roles: the lowest share of simple members was 55.8% at baseline and 52.7% at midline, both for SILC youth. A slightly larger share of young men tended to assume leadership roles in all school types. For instance, at midline, 40.4% of CAP young men had leadership roles versus only 34.8% of young women. Still among youth reporting participation in associations, over 50% of CRS youth and between 35% and 40% of CAP and SILC youth were involved in “youth” associations at baseline and midline. Over 22% of CAP and SILC youth participated in volunteer and community service associations at baseline and midline. Very few respondents indicated that they were part of civil/political engagement associations or sports associations specifically. However, youth associations span a variety of different focus areas, such as sports and recreation, performing arts, community service, professional development, and agriculture. Despite the different focus areas and goals of these associations, they serve a common purpose of allowing youth to engage more intentionally and dynamically within their communities. Overall, these results spoke well of IYDA’s civic engagement interventions for youth and provide greater avenues for youth involvement in youth-focused associations. 65.1% 66.3% 30.1% 30.6% 99.5% 98.6% 61.4% 80.7% 34.3% 31.4% 100.0% 99.2% 64.3% 69.6% 31.9% 31.0% 99.7% 98.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 33 We noted the high proportion of youth who responded “Other.” About 10% of CAP youth involved in associations specified that they participate in religious associations at midline, while most SILC youth chose to specify that they are involved in savings and lending associations. Figure 18. Youth community involvement groups 4 YOUTH PERCEPTIONS IYDA’s approach focuses on building youth foundations for resilience. The interventions implemented across all three IRs aim to build youth agency, assets, alliance building, and civic contribution and engagement towards increasing youth resilience to conflict. To measure these outcomes, IYDA has utilized the Youth Perception Survey (YPS). The YPS measures each dimension through a set of statements, which is used to create an aggregate score across all statements. Table 5. Content of Youth Perception Survey Dimensions Number of Statements Total Possible Score Community Perception 12 72 Prosocial Parental/Caregiver Involvement and Support 10 60 Self-Efficacy 8 48 4 Note that in Figure 18, proportions by type of associations may add to more than 100% because youth were allowed to choose more than one type of association in which they participate. 37.2% 39.9% 57.0% 52.8% 37.0% 35.2% 29.2% 19.2% 13.1% 6.1% 29.1% 22.5% 5.4% 5.5% 8.7% 6.3% 3.2% 2.3% 3.9% 1.8% 1.2% 2.2% 5.4% 5.2% 24.3% 33.6% 20.1% 32.6% 25.3% 34.7% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Youth associations Volunteer / Community service associations Sports associations Civic / Political engagement associations Other USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 34 Violence propensity 17 102 Positive identity 6 36 Community Perceptions The community perception component of this study consisted of a series of 12 statements5 measuring youth’s attitudes toward their communities and their role in them. Among the twelve statements, four are categorized as Perceptions of Youths’ Role in the Community, four as Perceptions of Prosocial Community Support, and four as Perceptions of Gender and Community Access. These items can be found in the tool in Annex B (page 55). The answer options are on a Likert scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 5. For scores, we only included ten statements after it was determined that the two first statements on gender access carried too much ambiguity to be included. The total possible score is 50, but for clarity we standardized all scores, expressing them as a percentage. These findings, explored further below, suggest that by encouraging youth to be engaged in community service activities, IYDA has helped in improving youth perceptions of their communities and their role in the community. Between baseline and midline, average community perception scores increased significantly for all types of youth (p<.001). For instance, CAP youths’ average score increased from 72.3% to 79.6% (p<.001). Differences between school types are significant at baseline and midline (p<.001). As illustrated in Figure 20 below, young women and young men averaged very similar scores at baseline and midline. Therefore, differences between genders were not significant for any of the school types. Disaggregation by regions revealed that increases were all highly significant (at least p<.032). Regions with the lowest baseline scores – Butembo and Beni – made average progress, neither the least or most progress compared with other regions. The regions that made the most progress in average community perception score – Goma and Idjwi – were those with baseline average scores that were neither among the lowest or highest. There were highly significant differences between regions at baseline and midline (at least p<.002). 5 These statements are a composite of EDC’s YPS tool originally developed in USAID’s MYDEV project and include the subscale on prosocial community involvement from The Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTCYS) developed by the Social Development Research Group (SDRG) at the University of Washington (United States). The CTCYS is noted as a tool for prosocial community support in the USAID/Youth Power Positive Youth Development Toolkit USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 35 Figure 19. Youth average score on community perception (%), by respondent type and sex at baseline and midline Youth Perception of their Role in the Community IYDA’s systems-based stakeholder engagement analysis, service-learning activities, and the civic engagement modules of IYDA’s life skills training aim to support youth to become more aware of their role in building an enabling environment within their community. Across the four statements focused on youth’s perception of their role in the community6 , the average proportion of learners in agreement and strong agreement7 increased from 64.2% to 76.5% for CAP learners, from 53.3% to 69.7% for CRS learners, and from 53.0% to 73.3% for SILC youth. There was a modest difference between genders in the CRS level of agreement across the four statements at midline, with 43.9% of women agreeing or strongly agreeing versus 36.2% of men. This only met a less stringent level of statistical significance (p<.089). 6 See Annex B on page 55 for the tool detailing questions and response options. 7 Calculated from the sum of each statement’s percentage of “Agree” and “Strongly agree.” This methodology is applied in the analysis of overall statement responses for each dimension of the YPS. 72.7% 80.2% 69.8% 75.3% 72.3% 80.0% 70.9% 77.5% 69.7% 76.0% 73.1% 79.5% 72.3% 79.6% 69.8% 75.6% 72.6% 79.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 36 Figure 20. Youth perception of their role in their community: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree Compared with the two first statements, a larger share of CAP, CRS and SILC youth seemed to be agreeing or strongly agreeing with the two statements presented in the graph below. Differences between youth types on the third statement were again significant at baseline (p<.002) and midline (p<.008), just as they were for the fourth statement at baseline (p<.001) and midline (p<.011). Disaggregation by sex showed that differences in agreement between male and female CAP youth on the fourth statement was significant at baseline (p<.044), with 76.5% of women agreeing or strongly agreeing vs. 64.9% of men. 49.2% 51.0% 35.1% 51.0% 43.3% 55.7% 42.7% 47.4% 36.3% 53.9% 35.4% 50.6% 4.8% 20.5% 6.8% 5.9% 4.8% 11.0% 5.6% 18.1% 4.4% 7.1% 2.7% 7.1% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC Adults in my community create / organize activities for youth my age. Adults in my community provide ways for youth my age to develop new skills. Agree Strongly agree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 37 Figure 21. Youth perception of their role in their community: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree (cont’d) Youth Perception of Prosocial Community Support Review of the four statements on youth’s perception of prosocial community support revealed a positive trend among all types of youth from baseline to midline. The share of CAP youth either agreeing or strongly agreeing increased from a baseline average of 77.4% to a midline average of 86.3%. Among CRS learners, this proportion rose from 71.8% at baseline to 81.6% at midline, while it increased from 74.8% to 89.9% among SILC youth. The increase between baseline and midline occurred on all four statements for all three types of youth. Overall, these results showed not only an even more enthusiastic outlook on the future in their community, but also improved perceptions of community support and encouragement. For the first statement “In my community, young people can have a positive future,” differences between youth types were highly significant at both baseline and midline (p<.001). However, that was not the case for the second statement. Furthermore, on the second statement “There are people in my community who are proud of me when I do something well,” levels of agreement were modestly different between CAP female and male learners, with 83.9% of women agreeing or strongly agreeing versus 75% of men. This met only a less strict standard of statistical significance (p<.087.) 61.8% 55.4% 57.9% 63.9% 48.8% 57.4% 62.4% 59.0% 47.8% 60.9% 51.3% 64.2% 18.5% 32.5% 15.1% 20.6% 17.6% 29.2% 11.6% 22.1% 10.0% 15.4% 8.1% 17.9% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC There are a lot of opportunities in my community for youth to participate in community service. In my community, young people understand their role as important partners of the leaders solving problems in the community Agree Strongly agree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 38 Figure 22. Youth perception of prosocial community support: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree Differences by gender on these items were relatively minor; the only one meeting a high standard of statistical significance was between CRS female and male learners at midline on the fourth statement (p<.036), with 82.4% of women agreeing or strongly agreeing versus 85.8% of men – still a quite modest difference. Figure 23. Youth perception of prosocial community support: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree (cont’d) Youth Perception of Gender and Community Access 45.8% 48.6% 49.0% 56.3% 52.5% 62.4% 62.1% 56.0% 55.4% 57.3% 53.3% 59.1% 13.3% 20.1% 12.4% 13.5% 19.3% 22.7% 20.2% 32.7% 16.7% 28.1% 22.6% 32.5% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC In my community, young people can have a positive future. There are people in my community who are proud of me when I do something well. Agree Strongly agree 66.4% 56.9% 63.5% 59.3% 55.4% 61.6% 59.3% 53.8% 57.9% 56.9% 58.0% 60.1% 22.3% 38.3% 15.5% 27.7% 22.0% 29.2% 20.6% 39.0% 16.7% 27.3% 16.1% 31.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC There are people in community who encourage me to do my best. My neighbors notice when I do a good job and let me know about it. Agree Strongly agree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 39 Gender as part of community perceptions is measured through items inquiring into possible gender-driven differences in the opportunities to assume useful roles and to have access to community leaders. These measures were included to help understand IYDA’s contribution to enabling environment for youth8 . The two first statements warranted an analysis that looked at the baseline to midline trend by gender. For the first one “In my community, usually, young men have more opportunities than young women to take on meaningful roles and responsibilities,” 24.8% of young women disagreed or strongly disagreed at baseline versus 22.7% of young men. At midline, 13.9% of young women disagreed or strongly disagreed versus 15% of men. On the second statement “In my community, usually, young women have more opportunitiesthan young men to take on meaningful roles and responsibilities,” 56.7% of young women disagreed or strongly disagreed at baseline versus 53.9% of young men. At midline, 35.4% of young women disagreed or strongly disagreed versus 42.3% of men (p<.026). These results defy straightforward interpretation. Further qualitative research would be warranted to better understand the perceptions behind these responses. Figure 24. Youth perception of gender and community access: proportion of youth who disagree or strongly disagree Looking now at the third and fourth items on gender and community access, overall, total agreement with statements on women’s access to leaders was lower than the agreement with men’s access at both baseline and midline. At midline, the smallest difference between the proportion of youth in agreement with women’s versus men’s roles and access was 4.2 percentage points among SILC youth, while it reached a high of 9.4 percentage points among CRS youth. Disaggregation by sex also showed that there was a highly significant difference between CAP female and male learners on the third statement at midline (p<.001), with 84.8% of women agreeing or strongly agreeing versus 8 We note that the phrasing of the items in this section has also been further clarified for the first time with this study of Cohort 4 youth. 27.4% 15.7% 21.5% 12.7% 16.4% 8.6% 53.6% 31.9% 46.0% 32.4% 34.5% 30.7% 3.2% 3.2% 3.6% 2.8% 1.8% 1.5% 8.9% 2.8% 11.5% 5.9% 14.9% 9.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC In my community, usually, young men have more opportunities than young women to take on meaningful roles and responsibilities. In my community, usually, young women have more opportunities than young men to take on meaningful roles and responsibilities. Disagree Strongly disagree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 40 57.9% of men. These results reinforce the conclusion that through participation in IYDA women were more active in the workforce and in their community; women were better prepared to participate in their community; they learned to formulate their own, more informed opinions, and they were more confident and open-minded. That being said, it was possible that men did not yet so directly perceive this change in women’s access to their community and to their leaders, which would explain the difference in agreement between genders outlined above. Figure 25. Youth perception of gender and community access: proportion of youth who agree or strongly agree (cont’d) Community Perceptions Indicator Results IYDA has a target of 65 percent of youth “who believe that they are of value in society and their positive contributions are recognized and rewarded at the conclusion of programming” (Indicator 2.2). Comparison of the same Cohort 4 individuals’ scores from baseline to midline showed that 65.7% of youth improved their perception of their community. Differences between regions are significant, as shown in the table below. Table 6. Community Perceptions Indicator Results Indicator Outcome Improved Lack of progress Gender (Χ2(1) = 0.222 p < .638) Female 65.2% 34.8% Male 66.8% 33.2% School Type (Χ2(2) = 0.709 p < .702) CRS 66.7% 33.3% CAP 66.9% 33.1% SILC 64.0% 36.0% Region (Χ2(7) = 14.418 p < .044) Beni 57.7% 42.3% Bukavu 59.0% 41.0% 52.6% 43.8% 52.8% 54.2% 47.3% 57.4% 64.1% 52.2% 62.2% 61.5% 54.8% 62.2% 12.0% 34.5% 15.9% 23.7% 27.7% 31.0% 16.5% 32.1% 19.9% 25.8% 31.0% 30.4% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC CAP CRS SILC Young women have access to their community leaders to express their proccupations and opinions. Young men have access to their community leaders to express their proccupations and opinions. Agree Strongly agree USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 41 Butembo 61.0% 39.0% Goma 75.0% 25.0% Idjwi 72.4% 27.6% Kabare 63.1% 36.9% Kalehe 63.8% 36.2% Walungu 62.5% 37.5% Age Band (Χ2(5) = 3.312 p < .652) 10 thru 14 64.7% 35.3% 15 thru 19 68.1% 31.9% 20 thru 24 61.8% 38.2% 25 thru 29 65.6% 34.4% 30 thru 35 67.0% 33.0% Above 35 100.0% 0.0% Total 65.7% 34.3% Perceptions of Prosocial Parental/Caregiver Support Overall results Pro-social parental/caregiver support is measured through ten self-reported statements assessing the level of presence, reliability, and support provided by parents/caregivers as perceived by youth. These items can be found in the tool in Annex B. The answer options are on a Likert scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 5. During data collection, youth are asked to reflect on their experience of parental/caregiver support in the last 30 days before the date of the survey as they respond to each of these statements. This scale combines the prosocial components of EDC’s YPS tool with the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire subscale of family support.9 The total possible score is 50, but we report them as percentages for clarity. Between baseline and midline, scores measuring positive perception of parental involvement improved significantly for CAP and SILC youth (p<.001), as well as CRS learners (p<.002). For instance, CRS youth scored on average 73.9% at baseline and increased their average score to 76.6% at midline (p<.001). Differences between school types were significant at midline only (p<.001). None of the differences in mean scores between young women and men were significant at baseline. However, at midline, differences in average score between sex were highly significant in favor of women among CRS youth (p<.007) and only somewhat significant in favor of men among CAP youth (p<.056). Furthermore, all regions recorded increases in average scores but Walungu. In all regions that saw an increase in their average score between baseline and midline, only Bukavu and Kabare did not display a significant increase (at least p<.022 for other regions). The three regions with the lowest scores at baseline recorded the largest progress – Beni, Butembo, and Idjwi. 9 Developer: Procidano, M.E. & Heller, K Scales were developed to assess an individual’s perceived level of social support from family and friends. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 42 Figure 26. Youth average score on pro-social parental support (%), by respondent type and sex Prosocial Parental/Caregiver Support Indicators Results IYDA has a target of 75 percent of youth “who report an increase in their prosocial Parental/Caregiver involvement and support” (Indicator 2.3.2). Overall, comparison of individual midline scores to baseline scores showed that 57.4% of youth indicated improved prosocial Parental/Caregiver involvement and support. As shown in Table 7 below, there were significant differences between regions, as well as between genders – although on a less strict significance standard. CRS youth made the least progress, which is a surprising result compared to other cohort evaluations, where the youngest usually recorded the highest improvement in their perception of parental support. While the difference with SILC youth – the oldest group – is not big and differences are not significant between school types, one might still consider whether the intervention received by CRS could be reinforced in relation to perceptions of parental support. Most striking was the overall low result recorded in Walungu (29%), which could be explained by the resurgence of insecurity in the region characterized by heavy activity of local armed groups that mostly recruited young people between the ages of 16 and 25, according to local authorities. It is possible that youth have felt powerless in the face of the situation, as did the rest of their community, including their parents who may struggle to shield them or encourage them. Table 7. Prosocial Parental/Caregiver Support Indicators Results Indicator Outcome Improved Lack of progress Gender (Χ2(1) = 3.119 p < .077) Female 55.2% 44.8% Male 61.5% 38.5% School Type (Χ2(2) = 3.326 p < .190) CRS 54.0% 46.0% CAP 61.8% 38.2% 75.9% 79.3% 73.2% 77.0% 76.2% 79.0% 72.4% 80.5% 74.9% 76.0% 75.0% 81.7% 75.1% 79.6% 73.9% 76.6% 75.7% 80.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 43 SILC 56.5% 43.5% Region (Χ2(7) = 38.410 p < .001) Beni 73.2% 26.8% Bukavu 47.1% 52.9% Butembo 70.7% 29.3% Goma 58.7% 41.3% Idjwi 65.5% 34.5% Kabare 47.8% 52.2% Kalehe 58.5% 41.5% Walungu 29.0% 71.0% Age Band (Χ2(5) = 5.348 p < .375) 10 thru 14 52.9% 47.1% 15 thru 19 56.9% 43.1% 20 thru 24 56.1% 43.9% 25 thru 29 56.0% 44.0% 30 thru 35 65.2% 34.8% Above 35 100.0% 0.0% Total 57.4% 42.6% Perceptions of Self-Efficacy Overall results Self-efficacy is defined as belief in one’s abilities to do many different things well. Building strong self-efficacy is at the core of agency within the framework for positive youth development (PYD). The notion of “agency” denotes that “youth perceive and can employ their assets and aspirations to make or influence their own decisions about their lives and set their own goals, as well as to act upon those decisions to achieve desired outcomes.”10 Youth self-efficacy is assessed through a subscale of eight statements (four positive and four negative) as recommended by the PYD Indicator reference sheet for this indicator.11 These items can be found in the tool in Annex B. The answer options are on a Likert scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 5. The total possible score is 40, but we present scores as percentages for clarity. We observed an improvement in the average scores on self-efficacy between baseline and midline for all three types of youth (p<.001). For instance, the average score on self-efficacy increased from 70.7% to 78.7% among SILC youth. Differences between school types were significant at baseline and midline (p<.001). Differences in average scores between young women and men were not significant at midline for any of the three types of youth. However, at baseline, there was a significant difference between genders among CAP learners, with young women scoring 76.8% versus 72.1% for young men (p<.004). 10 PYD Framework of the PYD toolkit. 11 The measure includes the items from the Generalized Self-Efficacy or GSE (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998*). USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 44 Disaggregation by region showed that average scores increased in all regions but Walungu. In addition, all increases were significant (p<.001), except for Bukavu. Regions with the lowest baseline scores – Butembo and Idjwi – recorded the greatest progress. Figure 27. Youth average score on perception of self-efficacy (%), by respondent type and sex Self-Efficacy Indicator Results IYDA has a target of 70 percent of youth “with increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of programming” (Indicator 1). Comparison of the same individual’s midline score to the baseline score yielded an estimate of 67.6% of youth having improved their perception of self-efficacy. Only differences between regions were significant here, with especially low results for Bukavu (46.2%) and Walungu (48.4%) driven by CRS youth. As explained previously, the context of renewed insecurity in Walungu and Bukavu during the first six months of 2022 could explain those weaker results. In addition to the activity of local armed groups in Walungu who recruit among young people, there was also a spike in criminality, specifically commercial vehicles robberies, along the Bukavu-Walungu axis. In Bukavu, there was also a resurgence of child abductions by criminals in collaboration with some security forces. The intensity of insecurity in Bukavu and Walungu may have limited the benefits of the IYDA project. Table 8. Self-Efficacy Indicator Results Indicator Outcome Improved Lack of progress Gender (Χ2(1) = 0.731 p < .393) Female 66.7% 33.3% Male 69.6% 30.4% School Type (Χ2(2) = 3.273 p < .195) CRS 63.5% 36.5% CAP 67.9% 32.1% SILC 70.5% 29.5% Beni 75.3% 24.7% 76.8% 83.7% 68.2% 74.8% 70.8% 78.2% 72.1% 84.4% 68.8% 76.4% 70.5% 79.5% 75.7% 83.8% 68.5% 75.4% 70.7% 78.7% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 45 Region (Χ2(7) = 43.056 p < .001) Bukavu 46.2% 53.8% Butembo 75.6% 24.4% Goma 70.8% 29.2% Idjwi 80.0% 20.0% Kabare 64.2% 35.8% Kalehe 70.2% 29.8% Walungu 48.4% 51.6% Age Band (Χ2(5) = 6.842 p < .233) 10 thru 14 58.8% 41.2% 15 thru 19 67.0% 33.0% 20 thru 24 67.9% 32.1% 25 thru 29 69.0% 31.0% 30 thru 35 75.0% 25.0% Above 35 50.0% 50.0% Total 67.6% 32.4% Perception of Positive Identity & Optimism Overall Results Within the PYD framework, positive identity is defined as positive and coherent attitudes, beliefs, and values that one holds about oneself and one’sfuture. The YPS measures positive identity through six self-reported statements adapted from the International Youth Development Survey from the PYD toolkit. These items can be found in the tool in Annex B. The answer options are on a Likert scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 5. The total possible score is 30, but we report scores as percentages for clarity. Average positive identity scores significantly increased between baseline and midline among all types of youth interviewed for this study (p<.001). The average positive identity score was 68.8% for SILC youth at baseline, increasing to 75.6% at midline. The pattern of increase was very similar across the three youth types. Disaggregation by regions revealed that all regions recorded increases in their averages scores between baseline and midline. However, Bukavu and Walungu had modest increases that did not meet standards of statistical significance (at least p<.010 for other regions). As also noted for prosocial and self-efficacy scores, regions with the lowest baseline scores – Beni, Butembo and Idjwi – showed the greatest improvement. There were significant differences in average positive identity scores between regions at baseline and midline (p<.001 for CAP, p<.001 for SILC and CRS at baseline, p<.043 for SILC at midline, p<.019 for CRS at midline). USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 46 Figure 28. Youth average score on perception of positive identity and optimism (%), by respondent type and sex Positive Identity and Optimism Indicator Results IYDA has a target of 70 percent of youth “with increased optimism at the conclusion of programming” (Indicator 4). Comparison of individual midline scores to baseline scores revealed that 61.2% of youth improved their perception of positive identity and optimism. As shown in Table 9, there were significant differences between regions, as well as between genders and school types – although the latter two did not meet the usual 0.05 significance threshold. Bukavu and Walungu had the lowest share of youth with improved perception, like for self￾efficacy before. These low improvement rates in Bukavu and Walungu were mostly attributable to CAP youth, since 80% of CRS learners in Walungu and 50.9% in Bukavu improved their perception versus 42.3% of CAP youth in Walungu and 36.2% in Bukavu. The only explanation for such specific low results in Bukavu and Walungu was the context of insecurity that deteriorated in the two regions since January 2022 with renewed activity of armed groups who recruit among youth aged 16 to 25, as well as criminality along the roads between Bukavu and Walungu. Table 9. Positive Identity and Optimism Indicator Results Indicator Outcome Improved Lack of progress Gender (Χ2(1) = 3.809 p < .051) Female 58.8% 41.2% Male 65.7% 34.3% School Type (Χ2(2) = 5.639 p < .060) CRS 55.2% 44.8% CAP 64.1% 35.9% SILC 63.7% 36.3% Region (Χ2(7) = 41.883 p < .001) Beni 74.5% 25.5% Bukavu 44.2% 55.8% Butembo 65.0% 35.0% 72.7% 76.5% 71.9% 75.8% 68.8% 74.8% 69.4% 78.5% 70.5% 74.4% 68.4% 76.8% 71.9% 76.9% 71.3% 75.2% 68.6% 75.6% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 47 Goma 61.8% 38.2% Idjwi 76.0% 24.0% Kabare 52.2% 47.8% Kalehe 60.6% 39.4% Walungu 48.4% 51.6% Age Band (Χ2(5) = 7.637 p < .177) 10 thru 14 53.4% 46.6% 15 thru 19 58.2% 41.8% 20 thru 24 65.6% 34.4% 25 thru 29 65.1% 34.9% 30 thru 35 62.8% 37.2% Above 35 100.0% 0.0% Total 61.2% 38.8% Perception of Violence Overall Results Violence propensity is measured through 17 self-reported statements assessing youth’s perception of their own support of violence versus non-violence, belief about justifications for resorting to violence, and their likelihood of engaging in violent actions. These items can be found in the tool in Annex B. The answer options are on a Likert scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 5. The total possible score is 85, but we present all scores as percentages for clarity. There were modest but statistically significant improvements in the average violence propensity score between baseline and midline among CRS, CAP, and SILC (p<.001). The average score on violence perception increased from 79.2% to 83.9% among CAP learners, for example. Differences between sexes were significant at baseline, in favor of women, among CAP learners (p<.007) and SILC youth (p<.046). At midline, differences between CRS female and male learners were significant as well, again in favor in women (p<.033). Disaggregation by regions showed that increases in averages scores occurred in all regions but Bukavu and Walungu. Only the decrease in Walungu was statistically significant (p<.037). Increases in the other regions all met a stringent standard of significance (at least p<.003). Butembo was the region with the lowest baseline score by far, and it recorded the greatest improvement between by far as well. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 48 Figure 29. Youth average score on perception of violence (%), by respondent type and sex Perception of Violence Indicator Results IYDA has a target of 70 percent of youth that improve their positive attitudes of tolerance and decrease their propensity to engage in violence to address conflict drivers and conflict management (Indicator 2). Our score on perceptions of violence captures both such positive attitudes and propensity to engage in violence: a higher score means better attitudes and less propensity to engage in violence. Comparison of individuals’ midline scores to baseline scoresshowed that 67.1% of youth improved their perception of violence. Differences between regions were once more highlight significant, with especially low results in Bukavu (34.6%) and Walungu (32.3%). As explained before, low results in these two regions were likely attributable to the resurgence of insecurity. While it may be more speculative to associate results on self-efficacy and positive identity to security issues, here the relationship between low improvements on non-violence propensity and the context of insecurity is straightforward. Walungu faced a strong activity in local armed groups who recruited youth to strengthen their groups and expand their area of influence. Bukavu faced increased child abductions by criminals in collaboration with some security forces. The Bukavu-Walungu axis also suffered from an uptick in criminality targeted at commercial vehicles. Table 10. Perception of Violence Indicator Results Indicator Outcome Improved Lack of progress Gender (Χ2(1) = 1.168 p < .280) Female 65.9% 34.1% Male 69.6% 30.4% School Type (Χ2(2) = 2.473 p < .290) CRS 68.3% 31.7% CAP 63.3% 36.7% SILC 69.3% 30.7% Beni 80.4% 19.6% 80.2% 83.7% 75.8% 82.8% 79.1% 84.9% 76.0% 84.4% 77.2% 80.8% 76.4% 85.4% 79.2% 83.9% 76.4% 82.0% 78.1% 85.1% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 49 Region (Χ2(7) = 99.283 p < .001) Bukavu 34.6% 65.4% Butembo 95.0% 5.0% Goma 75.7% 24.3% Idjwi 76.0% 24.0% Kabare 66.1% 33.9% Kalehe 63.8% 36.2% Walungu 32.3% 67.7% Age Band (Χ2(5) = 4.172 p < .525) 10 thru 14 65.7% 34.3% 15 thru 19 69.3% 30.7% 20 thru 24 66.7% 33.3% 25 thru 29 60.8% 39.2% 30 thru 35 71.4% 28.6% Above 35 50.0% 50.0% Total 67.1% 32.9% Perception of School Safety IYDA sought to improve the school environment by distributing school supplies, equipment and furniture, as well as teaching and learning materials. IYDA also addressed safety issues identified at the beginning of the project in the RERA/DNH through teacher training and reviews of the schools’ codes of conduct. IYDA’s use of a competency-informed curriculum for teachers coupled with efforts to improve teachers’ wellbeing and build teachers’ psychosocial support skills via inclusive teaching strategies and specific resilience-building modules appeared to have a positive effect on students’ perceptions of wellbeing. Overall Results School safety is measured through ten self-reported statements assessing youth’s perception of whether their learning environment is safe. These ten statements were adapted and simplified from the Survey of Perceptions of School Climates (SPSC) instrument that measures student’s perceptions of a safe learning space through 51 statements. IYDA’s experience showed that asking 51 statements lengthened the overall survey too much at the risk of losing the respondents’ attention and impacting data quality. These items can be found in the tool in Annex B. The answer options to the ten statements are on a Likert scale and are scored on a range of 1 to 6, with reverse coding of negative statements. The total possible score is 60, but we present all scores as percentages for clarity. Average scores on school safety significantly improved between baseline and midline for all three types of youth (p<.001). For instance, the average score on school safety among CRS youth increased from 69.3% to 79.6%. Differences in average school safety scores between young women and men were not significant at midline for any of the three types of youth. Increases were recorded in all regions, and were significant in all regions (at least p<.006) except Walungu. The regions with the lowest scores at baseline – Beni and Butembo – showed the greatest improvements. Findings on school safety outlined above suggest that IYDA’s actions have translated to youths’ improved feelings of safety, security and wellbeing in a school environment, even more so after four years of implementation. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 50 Figure 30. Youth average score on perception of school safety (%), by respondent type and sex Perception of School Safety Indicator Results IYDA has a target of 53 percent of youth “with improved perception of the safety of schools or learning spaces” (Indicator 4). Comparison of individual midline scores to baseline scores revealed that 73.7% of youth improved their perception of the safety at schools or learning spaces. As shown in Table 11, there were significant differences between regions (p<.001), with Walungu trailing behind all the other regions. As explained before, it is likely that youths’ perceptions of school safety in Walungu were influenced by the wider context of insecurity around them, although youth in Beni and Butembo faced similar insecurity, due to longer exposure, violence and insecurity in these areas may have become normalized to some degree. Table 11. Perception of Safety of Schools Indicator Results Improvement rate Improved Lack of progress Gender (Χ2(1) = 0.091 p < .762) Female 74.0% 26.0% Male 73.1% 26.9% School Type (Χ2(2) = 2.351 p < .309) CRS 76.7% 23.3% CAP 74.3% 25.7% SILC 71.1% 28.9% Region (Χ2(7) = 55.664 p < .001) Beni 87.6% 12.4% Bukavu 65.4% 34.6% Butembo 100.0% 0.0% Goma 76.4% 23.6% Idjwi 82.1% 17.9% Kabare 65.0% 35.0% 75.1% 83.9% 68.8% 80.4% 72.8% 80.4% 69.1% 82.8% 70.0% 78.5% 71.6% 73.7% 80.3% 83.7% 69.3% 79.6% 72.4% 80.4% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Baseline Midline Baseline Midline Baseline Midline CAP CRS SILC Female Male Overall USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 51 Kalehe 66.0% 34.0% Walungu 46.9% 53.1% Age Band (Χ2(5) = 3.517 p < .621) 10 thru 14 71.8% 28.2% 15 thru 19 77.0% 23.0% 20 thru 24 72.8% 27.2% 25 thru 29 70.6% 29.4% 30 thru 35 71.4% 28.6% Above 35 100.0% 0.0% Total 73.7% 26.3% CONCLUSION Cohort 4 results overall were largely consistent with those of previous cohorts, which is encouraging particularly since the Cohort 4 midline study applied the first longitudinal analysis where IYDA could compare individuals’ own baseline scores to their midline scores. This all suggests that the IYDA training interventions had a significant impact on youth of all categories (CRS, CAP and SILC). We provide below a brief summary of the various key findings. Big Five Index. Overall, 56% of youth improved their score on Extraversion, 59% on Agreeableness, 60.8% on Conscientiousness and 63.7% on Openness. However, only 30.7% of all youth improved their score on Emotional Stability. CRS, CAP and SILC all had very similar results. All BFI averages for CAP, CRS and SILC significantly increased between baseline and midline, except for Emotional Stability. We noted that the slight reduction in Emotional Stability scores from baseline to midline, simultaneous with slight increases in the other dimensions, has been a consistent trend across the IYDA cohorts, possibly suggesting that contextual stressors, stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and other crises, have tended to intensify. Work Readiness Assessment Results. The Work Readiness Assessment measures what has been learned from the Work Ready Now curriculum. Youth from CAP, CRS and SILC pathways all significantly increased their overall competency in key work-readiness skills between baseline and midline. Cohort 4 increases in work-readiness average scores were more modest than among Cohort 3 youth. Only among CAP youth did men hold a slight but statistically significant advantage at over women midline 65.6% to 63.2%. As noted previously, this Cohort 4 outcome evaluation was the first time IYDA was able to conduct a longitudinal analysis, which allowed a direct pre- and post- comparisons of individual learners (previous evaluations used a proxy method that compared individual midline scores to baseline mean scores). This method of calculation yielded an estimate of 71% of CRS youth, 59.4% of CAP youth, and 66.4% of SILC youth with an increased Work Readiness score compared to baseline. These differencesin percentages between school types were statistically significant. Indicator results for Cohort 4 are also lower than for Cohort 3; the difference in indicator calculation method is likely a contributing factor in this difference. Work Readiness Confidence. Unfortunately, the five questions on work readiness confidence were asked only at midline, so no direct comparison with Cohort 4 baseline results was available. However, comparison of the Cohort 4 midline results with those of Cohort 2 revealed that Cohort 4 reached even higher levels of self-reported USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 52 confidence in: goal setting and planning, finding work, improving work situations; and growing a business. For instance, the proportion of CAP and SILC youth of Cohort 4 who felt confident or very confident in their ability to find work in their community (87%) was much higher than among Cohort 2 youth (61%). Therefore, there are no indications that Cohort 4 youth would have demonstrated smaller increases in work readiness confidence than previous cohorts. This strongly emphasizes the high value youth perceived in IYDA trainings – WRN and BYOB – in terms of preparing them to succeed in the workplace or in self-employment. Community Engagement. Results on learners’ participation in youth activities and associations showed that, as always, over 98% of SILC youth reported involvement in associations at baseline and midline. This was unsurprising since, by definition, SILC youth belong to SILC associations. IYDA’s efforts to support the development of youths’ socio-emotional and life skills and to strengthen community cohesion among Cohort 4 CAP learners resulted in a modest 5 percentage point increase (64.3% to 69.6%) in associational involvement from baseline to midline. However, among the younger CRS learners, reported rates remained constant near 31.5%. Youth Perceptions. CRS, CAP and SILC youth responses to the Youth Perception Survey showed significant improvements in their perceptions of: community support, parental and caregiver support (external resilience factors), self-efficacy, positive identity/optimism, and non-violence propensity (internal/individual resilience factors). There was strong evidence that IYDA helped Cohort 4 youth make progress in various foundational dimensions of resilience. While older learners in previous cohorts usually showed smaller increases in their rates of agreement with community support and parental/caregiver encouragement, Cohort 4 SILC youth reached similar heights to CAP and CRS youth this time. As a matter of fact, the younger learners – CRS youth – were the ones trailing behind on parental/caregiver support and positive identity indicator results, suggesting that interventions targeting them could be improved. Generally, indicator results were more modest on parental/caregiver support compared to other dimensions of resilience, yet 57.4% of youth still indicated improved prosocial parental and caregiver involvement and encouragement. While Cohort 4 youth did not record improvements as dramatic as for Cohort 3 on non-violence propensity, we should still that Cohort 4 CRS, CAP and SILC learners significantly increased their average scores on non-violence between the two studies. Indicator calculations yielded an overall estimate of 67.1% of youth with improved violence perception. These findings are remarkable since IYDA did not explicitly address non-violence or peace￾building topics during its interventions. These results could be an indication that promoting resilience in general among youth and providing them with the knowledge, skills and tools to pursue entrepreneurship and employment opportunities helped lessen their perception of violence as a mean to an end. Regions with the lowest baseline scores – usually Beni, Butembo and/or Idjwi – made the largest progress at midline. In the meantime, Bukavu and Walungu did not always record increases in their average scores and their indicator results on self-efficacy, positive identity, and violence were lagging behind the rest of the regions. Such systematic low results in Bukavu and Walungu are likely attributed to the resurgence of insecurity in both regions since January 2022. In Walungu specifically, the activity of armed groups intensified as they recruited among young people aged 16 to 25 to expand their area of influence. In Bukavu, there was an uptick in child abductions by criminals in collaboration with some elements of security forces. However, most IYDA intervention areas faced increases in insecurity and violence, but still reflected more significant positive outcomes. Perception of school safety. Using a simplified version of the Survey of Perceptions of School Climates instrument with ten statements only, IYDA observed significant improvements in the average scores on school safety perceptions among CRS, CAP and SILC youth. For instance, the average score on school safety among CRS youth USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 53 increased from 69.3% to 79.6%. Overall, indicator calculations revealed that 73.7% of youth improved their perception of the safety at schools or learning spaces. Once more, regions with the lowest scores at baseline – Beni and Butembo – recorded the largest improvements at midline, while Walungu’s average score decreased between the two studies and recorded the smallest improvement rate of all regions in indicator results (46.9%). Once again, the context of insecurity with heightened activity of militias and criminal gangs likely affected youth environment and perceptions. Nonetheless, the overall results strongly suggested that after four years of implementation, IYDA’s distribution of school supplies and furniture, IYDA’s teacher trainings, and the reinforcement of youth communication skills through the WRN training have translated into improved perceptions of youths’ feelings of safety, security and wellbeing in a school environment. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 54 ANNEXES Annex A. Weights Cohort 4 population Baseline & Midline Strata Population Proportion of Population Study sample Proportion of Study Sample Design Weight SILC Female Youth Idjwi 850 0.098209128 78 0.093 1.054 SILC Male Youth Idjwi 655 0.075678798 56 0.067 1.131 SILC Female Youth Kabare 864 0.09982669 92 0.110 0.908 SILC Male Youth Kabare 430 0.049682265 39 0.047 1.066 SILC Female Youth Kalehe 470 0.054303871 42 0.050 1.082 SILC Male Youth Kalehe 205 0.023685731 14 0.017 1.416 CAP Female Youth Beni 464 0.05361063 43 0.051 1.044 CAP Male Youth Beni 210 0.024263432 17 0.020 1.195 CAP Female Youth Bukavu 383 0.044251878 48 0.057 0.772 CAP Male Youth Bukavu 98 0.011322935 6 0.007 1.580 CAP Female Youth Butembo 115 0.013287117 10 0.012 1.112 CAP Male Youth Butembo 65 0.00751011 5 0.006 1.257 CAP Female Youth Goma 630 0.072790295 60 0.072 1.015 CAP Male Youth Goma 134 0.01548238 13 0.016 0.997 CAP Female Youth Kabare 69 0.00797227 8 0.010 0.834 CAP Male Youth Kabare 36 0.004159445 3 0.004 1.160 CAP Female Youth Kalehe 82 0.009474292 8 0.010 0.991 CAP Male Youth Kalehe 11 0.001270942 1 0.001 1.064 CAP Female Youth Walungu 244 0.028191797 25 0.030 0.944 CAP Male Youth Walungu 28 0.003235124 3 0.004 0.903 CRS Female Youth Beni 200 0.02310803 18 0.022 1.075 CRS Male Youth Beni 133 0.01536684 17 0.020 0.757 CRS Female Youth Bukavu 342 0.039514731 32 0.038 1.034 CRS Male Youth Bukavu 253 0.029231658 32 0.038 0.765 CRS Female Youth Butembo 135 0.01559792 16 0.019 0.816 CRS Male Youth Butembo 104 0.012016176 13 0.016 0.774 CRS Female Youth Goma 457 0.052801849 47 0.056 0.940 CRS Male Youth Goma 268 0.03096476 29 0.035 0.894 CRS Female Youth Kabare 257 0.029693819 30 0.036 0.828 CRS Male Youth Kabare 202 0.02333911 9 0.011 2.171 CRS Female Youth Kalehe 111 0.012824957 11 0.013 0.976 CRS Male Youth Kalehe 97 0.011207395 8 0.010 1.173 CRS Female Youth Walungu 26 0.003004044 2 0.002 1.257 CRS Male Youth Walungu 27 0.003119584 2 0.002 1.306 Total 8655 1 837 1.000 1 USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 55 Annex B. Survey tool Question ID Question Answer 1 Identité de l’énumérateur Nom de l’énumérateur Code de l’énumérateur 2 INSTRUCTIONS SUR LA TABLETTE: Si vous faites une erreur en cochant une case, appuyez sur la bonne réponse pour corriger votre erreur. Si vous faites une erreur en écrivant une réponse, appuyez sur le bouton Supprimer pour supprimer ce que vous avez écrit et saisissez à nouveau votre réponse avant de continuer. Cette enquête, est menée par Education Development Center (EDC), une Organisation Non Gouvernementale (ONG) à but non lucratif, qui exécute un projet dénommé Activité de Développement Intégré des Jeunes (ADIJ), visant l’employabilité des jeunes dans l’Est de la RDC. Financé par L’Agence Américaine pour le Développement International (USAID), l’objectif d’ADIJ est d’Accroitre la résilience des jeunes face aux conflits et aux violences à l’Est de la RDC en leurs créant des opportunités d’emplois. En accord avec la Division des Affaires Sociales (DIVAS), la Division de la Jeunesse (DIVIJENEUSSE), FPM (Formation Profesionnelle des Métires) et votre CRS/CAP, vous être sélectionné pour participer à une enquête sur les compétences de préparation au travail et employabilité des jeunes. Le but de l’enquête est de comprendre le niveau global des connaissances des élèves des CRS/CAPs sur les comportements et attitudes en OUI NON USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 56 milieux professionnels pour le comparer aux résultats d’une autre enquête qui sera faite plus tard. Vous trouverez des questions dans cette enquête portant sur vous et votre famille Des situations hypothétiques et votre réaction Des énoncés sur la manière dont vous considérez les autres. Votre personne en générale Dans ce questionnaire, il n'y a ni réponse juste ni réponse fausse. Vos réponses sont celles qui sont justes selon vous. Chaque personne est différente. Ainsi, la réponse de chacun sera différente. Cette enquête n'est pas un examen et vous ne serez pas coté ou évalué. Ne répondez pas à l'enquête si vous ne désirez pas y participer. Toutes les informations concernant les participants seront conservées de façon anonyme et confidentielle. Le traitement informatique n’est pas nominatif. Vos réponses seront associées à celles des autres pour établir les totaux et les moyennes. Ainsi, personne ne pourra être identifié. La transmission des informations concernant le participant pour l’expertise ou pour la publication de recherche sera aussi anonyme. Le questionnaire a une durée de 60 minutes. Une fois que vous avez commencé, vous pouvez interrompre si vous ne désirez pas continuer. Vous pouvez arrêter en tout moment. Si vous désirez ne pas prendre part à cette enquête, cette décision n'aura aucun incident sur votre participation au projet ADIJ. Acceptez-vous participer à l'enquête? 3 [CONSENT] L'étudiant n'a PAS consenti (si l'étudiant n'a pas consenti, nous ne USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 57 pouvons pas remplir le questionnaire) Continuer! Ceci est une erreur. L'étudiant a consenti à participer au questionnaire. 4 A1. Date à laquelle l'enquête a été effectuée 5 Quel est votre nom ? Nom de Famille Prénom et Deuxième Prénom (le cas échéant) 6 Êtes-vous une femme ou un homme? Femme Homme 7 Quel est votre Age? 8 Numero Telephone Numero Personnel Numero d'un Parent/Tuteur 9 Email Chapter 2 Question ID Question Answer 10 Zone Urbaine Rurale 11 Type École Centres de rattrapages Scolaires (CRS) Centres d’apprentissage professionnel (CAP) Communauté Interne d’épargne et de crédits (SILC) ONG Locales (OCB) 12 Nom du territoire Beni Bukavu Butembo Goma Idjwi Kabare Kalehe Walungu 13 Etablissement (Goma) CRS BETHEL CRS CENED CRS SHALOM CRS CARE USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 58 CRS NAZAREEN CRS KANYARUCHINYA CRS VICTOIRE CRS APROFIME CRS ANNA MIKELI CRS LA DESTINEE CRS BISHANGE CRS LA CONFIANCE CAP MUUNGUNO CAP MAISHA NEMA CAP APROJED CAP TUMAINI ETN CAP BRENDA ALARM CAP SAINT JOSEPH APPROMEV CAP PEACE LIVES CENTER CAP AFIA BORA CAP RUDO CRS SUBIRA PATEMO CRS AMANI /GAPED CRS JIBU CAP APROFIME CAP KARISIMBI 14 Etablissement (Bukavu) CRS DSEV/BAGIRA CRS NYOTA/ELIMU KWA WOTE CRS CREEAV/ AHADI CRS MWANGA CRS BAGIRA I CRS KADUTU/FOYER SOCIAL CRS BAGIRAII CAP UMOJA CAP CFPO BAGIRA CAP CFPO KAWA 1 CAP KADUTU/FOYER SOCIAL CAP CENTRE CAPA CAP CENTRE SOS DE FORMATION PROFESSIONNEL CAP MWANGA CAP BAGIRA DIVAS 15 Etablissement (Walungu) CRS MADAKA CRS IKOMA/CASDI CRS MULAMBA/CASDI CRS BIDEKA CAP CENTRE AVADIC USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 59 CAP CAP IKOMA CAP C'EST LE BATISSEUR CAP CFPO WALUNUG 16 Etablissement (Kalehe) CRS UMOJA/BVES CRS AMUKENI/CEBCE CRS MUHONGOZA CRS St PAUL EMMANUEL/TCHOFI CRS SAINT PAUL EMMANUEL/KASHEKE CRS MURAMBI/CAPED CRS BIGOMA LWEZA/PRODES CRS KICHEKO Minova CAP SAINT PAUL EMMANUEL TCHOFI CAP CFPO MINOVA CAP ECOLE DE METIER REPREHA 17 Etablissement (Kabare) CRS KAHAYA CRS KATANA CENT CRS UJIJUWE CRS KABINDI CRS AMANI CRS BARAKA CRS LA PROGRESSION CAP SAINT JEAN PAUL II CAP CFP LA RESSURECTION CAP CFP SAINT JOSEPH CRS BENEMUDAKA CRS SAINT JEAN PAUL 2 CRS MBOBERO etablissemnt BENI etablisement BUTEMBO 18 Est-ce que le jeune a un handicap? Oui Non 19 Type handicap Aveugle Sourd Difficulté à voir même en cours de classe Difficulté à entendre même en utilisant un appareil auditif Handicap physique Recevoir une assistance spéciale pour d'autres problèmes d'apprentissage USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 60 Autres 20 Préciser Compétence d'employabilité Question ID Question Answer 21 Les questions suivantes porteront sur votre connaissance des compétences de préparation au travail. Veuillez lire attentivement chaque question et sélectionner la réponse appropriée. Chaque question n'a qu'une seule réponse. 22 1. Que pouvez-vous faire pour vous aider à rester sur la bonne voie pour atteindre un objectif ? A. Fixer des dates butoirs/échéancier. B. Identifier vos croyances. C. Penser à vos rêves. D. Évaluer votre style d'apprentissage. 23 2. Comment pouvez-vous montrer que vous avez une attitude positive ? A. Etre honnête avec les autres B. Etre ouvert pour essayer de nouvelles choses. C. Être prêt à admettre ses erreurs D. Tout ce qui précède 24 3. Laquelle de ces actions t’aidera à atteindre ton objectif ? A. Se fixer l'objectif le plus élevé possible. B. Garder le but pour toi. C. Évaluer tes progrès par rapport à l'objectif. D. Éviter de fixer une période de temps. 25 4. Un objectif clairement défini devrait inclure : A. une attitude spécifique. B. un délai précis. C. un plan pour rencontrer de nouvelles personnes. D. un plan pour faire de l'argent. 26 5. Que fait une personne lorsqu'elle écoute efficacement ? A. Juger ce que dit l'autre personne. B. Interrompre la personne si tu as quelque chose à ajouter. C. Se concentrer sur l'autre personne qui parle. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 61 D. Répondre aux messages texte pendant que l'autre personne parle. 27 6. Quatre personnes travaillent pour une petite entreprise. Les affaires ne marchent pas bien, alors le propriétaire leur demande de créer un plan pour augmenter les profits. Le groupe décide de se réunir et de faire un remue-méninges. Une fois qu'ils se sont mis d'accord sur un plan, ils commencent à travailler ensemble pour définir comment ils peuvent le faire fonctionner. Quel mot décrit le mieux ce que les employés font ? A. Conflit B. Formation C. Diriger D. Coopérer 28 7. Quand est-ce qu’un employeur devrait fournir une rétroaction à un employé ? A. Une fois par an B. Tous les trois mois C. Aussi souvent que possible D. Lorsque l'employeur est en colère 29 8. Quand vous parlez à un client, vous vous demandez : "Comment je me sentirais à sa place ?" Quel mot ci-dessous décrit votre sentiment ? A. Colère B. Sarcasme (moquerie) C. Surprise D. Empathie (compréhension) 30 9. Quelles sont les informations les plus importantes à fournir dans une lettre de motivation ou une lettre de candidature ? Ta religion et ton groupe ethnique B. Une liste de tes passe-temps et de tes intérêts personnels. C. Un résumé de tes expériences de travail antérieures D. Les notes obtenues pour chaque cours que tu as étudié à l'école. 31 10. Lequel des éléments suivants devrais-tu faire avant un entretien? A. Répondre honnêtement à toutes les questions de l'intervieweur. B. Envoyer une note de remerciement à l'intervieweur. C. En apprendre davantage sur l'entreprise avec laquelle tu dois faire l’entretien. D. Effectuer un suivi téléphonique pour vérifier l'état d'avancement du travail. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 62 32 11. Lors d'un entretien, il est important pour toi de : A. Poser des questions sur l'entreprise et s'il y a des postes disponibles. B. Expliquer comment la formation sur la formation d'ADIJ t’a préparé au milieu professionnel. C. Répondre honnêtement à toutes les questions de l'intervieweur. D. Tout ce qui précède. 33 12. Lequel des comportements suivants est approprié sur le lieu de travail ? A. Prendre une pause quand vous le souhaitez. B. Participer à des discussions négatives C. Parler poliment à vos collègues de travail D. Plainte avec vos collègues au sujet du superviseur 34 13. Daniel est toujours arrivé à l'heure au travail. Dernièrement, il a accompagné son jeune frère Thomas à l'école le matin. La première semaine où Daniel a fait cela, Thomas a mis du temps pour se préparer. Ceci a causé le retard de Daniel pour son travail. Le superviseur de Daniel a remarqué son retard et lui a donné un avertissement. Que devrait faire Daniel pour remédier à cette situation ? A. Partir tôt le matin sans Thomas afin de lui donner une leçon. B. Dire à son superviseur qu'il n'a pas le choix parce que personne d'autre ne peut accompagner Thomas à l'école. C. Se mettre en colère contre Thomas et lui dire qu’il ne va plus l’accompagner à l’école s'il n'est pas prêt plus tôt. D. Discuter du problème avec Thomas et l’aider à trouver un moyen d'être prêt à temps. 35 14. Un leader efficace : A. Pense plus au passé qu'à l'avenir. B. A la capacité de communiquer de différentes façons avec différents membres de l'équipe. C. S'attribue personnellement le mérite des succès de son équipe. D. Dépense beaucoup d'argent pour un projet afin de communiquer la confiance. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 63 36 15. Un objectif important de la résolution de problèmes est de trouver une solution qui : A. Sera acceptable pour toutes les personnes impliquées. B. N’aura pas besoin d'être modifié à l'avenir. C. Sera de prouver vos compétences en leadership à vos superviseurs. D. Ne reflètera pas vos propres expériences personnelles. 37 16. Alioune a été choisi pour diriger un grand groupe organisé. Les membres sont motivés et il leur demande leurs idées pour trouver des solutions possibles à un problème. Si Alioune est un leader avec un style consultatif, comment décidera-t-il d'une solution ? A. Il décidera d'utiliser sa propre solution et persuadera le groupe que c'est le meilleur choix. B. Il prendra une décision qu’il dira au groupe et ce que chaque personne fera. C. Il choisira la solution que le groupe a jugé la meilleure sans dire son idée au groupe. D. Il écoutera les idées du groupe, proposera sa propre solution et choisira la solution que le groupe jugeait la meilleure. 38 17. Afin de s'assurer que les tâches seront accomplies en équipe de travail, il est utile de : A. Elaborer un plan de projet étape par étape avec des échéances. B. Partager les souvenirs/expériences de projets antérieurs avec les membres de l'équipe. C. Parler des plans pour le weekend avec les collègues de travail. D. Passer du temps à lire les derniers titres sur Internet 39 18. Doudou est un nouvel employé sur un chantier de construction et son superviseur lui a demandé d'installer une série de montants métalliques dans le mur d'un immeuble de bureaux. Quels types d'équipement de protection individuelle Doudou devrait-il choisir ? A. Lunettes de sécurité, gants et protecteurs auditifs B. Chaussures à bout d'acier, un respirateur et des protecteurs auditifs. C. Des chaussures à bout d'acier, un casque de sécurité et des lunettes de sécurité. D. Un casque de protection, un respirateur et des gants. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 64 40 19. Le lavage des mains est l'un des moyens efficaces de prévenir la propagation des germes. A. Vrai B. Faux 41 20. Seni a demandé à travailler dans un entrepôt où l'ami de ses parents, Claude, est le superviseur et il sait que la famille a besoin d'un revenu supplémentaire, mais Seni n'a que 15 ans et la loi du pays stipule qu'il ne peut travailler que dans des conditions limitées. Quelle est la meilleure solution pour Claude d'engager Seni ? A. Employer Seni pour faire des travaux légers dans l'entrepôt avec la permission de ses parents. B. Suggérer à Seni d'attendre et de présenter une nouvelle demande lorsqu'il aura 18 ans. C. Apprendre à Seni comment utiliser le chariot élévateur à fourche dans l'entrepôt. D. Embaucher Seni pour balayer l'entrepôt pendant le quart de nuit. 42 21. En tant que travailleur, il est de votre responsabilité de : A. Signaler tout danger à votre superviseur. B. Dire à vos collègues comment faire leur travail. C. Quitter le poste sans demander à votre superviseur. D. Demander une augmentation de salaire immédiatement après l'embauche. 43 22. Si vous constatez qu'un autre employé de votre lieu de travail est victime de harcèlement, vous devriez : A. Faire comme si vous n'aviez rien vu. B. Signaler cet incident à votre superviseur. C. Harceler également l'employé. D. Envisager de quitter votre emploi. 44 23. Les Femmes ne devraient pas rapporter les harcèlements sexuels par leurs superviseurs, parce qu’ils vont perdre leur emploi. A. Vrai B. Faux 45 24. Vous ne pouvez pas économiser de l'argent lorsque vous vous avez un petit revenu et vous n’avez aucun emploi permanent. A. Vrai B. Faux 46 25. Est l’endroit le plus sûr d’épargner votre argent A. Dans la banque ou le groupe d’épargne B. Avec un ami C. Dans un coin de la maison USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 65 D. L'épargne est pour les gens qui s'inquiètent trop 47 26. Vous avez emprunté auprès de la banque. Laquelle des propositions suivantes n'est pas une stratégie pour rembourser le prêt ?? A. Utiliser le prêt pour faire du shopping et demander à vos amis pour aider à payer votre emprunt B. Venir avec un plan de remboursement de prêt C. Éviter de prendre d’autres prêts D. Utilisation du prêt pour l’usage prévu 48 27. Pour être un entrepreneur sage : A. Embaucher autant de personnes que possible B. Investir tout votre argent dans votre entreprise C. Dépenser l’argent gagné sur les fêtes somptueuses donc la communauté voit que tu as réussi D. Équilibre entre dépenses et épargne, investissement et dépenses personnelles 49 28. Ce qui suit n’est pas un très bon usage de l’argent de l’entreprise ? A. Acheter des produits supplémentaires parce que vous attendez d’une augmentation de la demande B. Emprunter de l’entreprise à payer pour une nouvelle télévision pour votre famille C. Réparer une lampe cassée dans la boutique d’espace ou de la vente au détail de production D. Embaucher une personne supplémentaire pour un temps court pendant une période d’activité intense 50 29. Les propriétaires de petites entreprises n’épargnent pas assez d’argent en vue des événements imprévus, comme les urgences médicales. A. Vrai B. Faux 51 30.Sylvie une employée de bureau est appelée pour une affaire urgente par son supérieur hiérarchique, alors qu’elle travaillait avec un ordinateur A. Perte des données de ses boites email B. Fermeture définitive de ses boites email USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 66 fixe de la salle de réunion de l’entreprise. Pressée d’aller répondre, Sylvie laisse ouvertes plusieurs pages internet ainsi que ses boites email. Dis à quels types de risques Sylvie est-elle exposée ? C. Utilisation par quelqu’un d’autre de ses informations personnelles D. L’écran reste longtemps allumé et se gâte 52 31 : Marie une fille qui a l’habitude de publier ses photos dans les réseaux sociaux se fait harceler de façon constante par quelqu’un sur Facebook. Laquelle des solutions suivantes permet à Sylvie de mettre fin à cette situation ? A. Rester dans sa chambre et pleurer B. Parler poliment à la personne sur Facebook et lui demander d’arrêter de la harceler C. En parler à un membre de la famille ou une autre personne de confiance ce qui s'est passé et comment régler le problème efficacement. D. Publier sur son profil des messages désobligeants (désagréables) pour se venger. BFI Question ID Question Answer 53 Vous allez trouver un certain nombre de qualificatifs qui peuvent ou non s’appliquer a vous. Par exemple, acceptez-vous d’être quelqu’un qui aime passer du temps avec les autres ? Écrivez devant chaque affirmations le chiffre indiquant combien vous approuvez où désapprouver l’affirmation : 54 1. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est bavard. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 55 2. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui A tendance à critiquer les autres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 67 56 3. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Travaille consciencieusement. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 57 4. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est déprimé, cafardeux (mélancolique). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 58 5. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est créatif, plein d’idées originales. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 59 6. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est réserve(e) . Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 60 7. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est serviables et généreux avec les autres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 61 8. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Peut-être un peu négligeant(e). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 62 9. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est relaxe, détendu(e), gère bien le stress. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 63 10. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est curieux(se) à propos de plusieurs choses différentes. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 64 11. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est plein(e) d'énergie. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 68 D'accord Fortement d’accord 65 12. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Provoque des disputes avec les autres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 66 13. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est un travailleur(se) fiable. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 67 14. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Peut-être tendu(e) (angoissé). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 68 15. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est ingénieux (se), pense beaucoup. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 69 16. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Communique beaucoup d'enthousiasme. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 70 17. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est de nature indulgente (a tendance à pardonner). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 71 18.Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui A tendance à être désorganisé(e). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 72 19. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui S'inquiète beaucoup. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 69 73 20. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui A une imagination active. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 74 21. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui A tendance à être tranquille, silencieux(se). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 75 22. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Fait généralement confiance aux autres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 76 23. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui A tendance à être paresseux(se). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 77 24. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est stable émotivement, n'est pas facilement perturbé(e). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 78 25. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est inventif(ve). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 79 26. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui A une forte personnalité, s’exprime avec assurance. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 80 27. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Peut être froid(e) et distant(e). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 81 28. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Persévère jusqu'à ce que la tâche soit terminée. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 70 D'accord Fortement d’accord 82 29. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Peut être de mauvaise humeur. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 83 30. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Valorise les expériences artistiques, esthétiques. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 84 31. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est parfois timide, inhibé(e). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 85 32. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est prévenant(e) et gentil(le) avec presque tout le monde. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 86 33. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Fait les choses efficacement. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 87 34. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Reste calme dans les situations tendues (angoissantes). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 88 35. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Préfère le travail routinier. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 89 36. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est ouvert(e), sociable. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 71 90 37. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est parfois impoli avec les autres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 91 38. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Fait des plans et les suit. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 92 39. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Devient facilement nerveux(se). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 93 40. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Aime réfléchir, jouer avec des idées. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 94 41. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui A peu d'intérêts artistiques. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 95 42. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Aime coopérer avec les autres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 96 43. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est facilement distrait(e). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 97 44. Je me perçois comme quelqu'un qui Est sophistiqué(e) en ce qui concerne les arts, la musique et la littérature. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 72 Confidence Employabilité Question ID Question Answer 129 Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous confiant que Savez-vous comment trouver du travail dans votre communauté? Pas du tout confiant A peine confiant Confiant Très confiant 130 Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous confiant que Savez-vous comment vous fixer un objectif et élaborer un plan pour atteindre cet objectif? Pas du tout confiant A peine confiant Confiant Très confiant 131 Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous confiant que vous avez les compétences pour obtenir le type d'emploi / travail que vous voulez? Vous savez comment chercher et postuler pour un emploi de votre choix Pas du tout confiant A peine confiant Confiant Très confiant 132 À quel point êtes-vous confiant queêtes-vous confiant que vous avez les compétences nécessaires pour améliorer votre position ou votre travail? Exemples: vous savez comment travailler en vue d'une augmentation de salaire, travailler dans un environnement plus sûr, obtenir des heures de travail plus adaptées à votre emploi du temps ou faire passer une promotion de titre à un poste plus élevé une fois que vous commencez à travailler. Pas du tout confiant A peine confiant Confiant Très confiant 133 À quel point êtes-vous confiant que êtes-vous confiant que vous posséder les compétences nécessaires pour démarrer et développer votre propre entreprise? Vous savez comment démarrer une entreprise qui va faire de l'argent et qui a le potentiel d'embaucher plus de personnes ou d'étendre à plus de clients. Pas du tout confiant A peine confiant Confiant Très confiant Genre USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 73 Question ID Question Answer 134 Les jeunes hommes et jeunes femmes devraient avoir un accès égal à l’emploi et aux moyens de subsistance Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 135 La communauté et la famille doivent encourager les jeunes hommes et jeunes femmes également à suivre une formation sur les compétences d’employabilité. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 136 Les jeunes femmes et jeunes hommes devraient avoir le même pouvoir décisionnel à choisir leur domaine de travail Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 137 Les jeunes femmes et jeunes hommes devraient pouvoir avoir les mêmes postes au travail Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 138 Avec les bonnes formations, les jeunes femmes sont aussi capables que les jeunes hommes à travailler dans des emplois tels que soudure, menuiserie, maçonnerie, etc. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord YPS Les prochaines questions concernent votre participation dans les associations. Le terme « associations » fait référence au groupes organisés réunissant les gens dans votre communauté avec des buts bien précis. Question ID Question Answer 139 Êtes-vous actuellement membre d’une association dans votre communauté ? Oui Non 140 Pourquoi n’êtes-vous pas membre d’une association dans votre communauté? (sélectionnez tout ce qui s’applique) Je ne suis pas intéressé à me joindre à des associations ou groupes Je n’ai pas le temps à cause des responsabilités Scolaires/professionnelles et familiales USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 74 Je ne suis pas capable et qualifié pour être membre d’une association Je ne veux pas avoir des responsabilités supplémentaires Je ne veux pas avoir des ennuis Je crois que les associations ne peuvent pas m’aider Mes parents/religion ne me permettent pas d’adhérer à des associations Autre, 141 Autres 142 De combien d’associations êtes- vous membre actuellement ? 1 2 3 4 5 ou plus 143 De quel type d'associations êtes-vous membre dans votre communauté? (Sélectionnez tout ce qui s'applique) Association de jeunes Association sportive Association de Volontaire / Service Communautaire Association d'engagement civique / politique Autre (à préciser) 144 Préciser 145 Quels sont vos rôles actuels dans ces associations ? Rôle de responsabilité au sein de l’association Membre simple 146 Jouez-vous effectivement vos fonctions/rôles comme responsable/membre simple au sein de ces associations ? Pas du tout Parfois Toujours jouer son rôle comme responsable/membre simple Perceptions sur l’implication sociale et sociable Question ID Question Answer 147 Selon votre expérience, veuillez cocher la boîte qui correspond avec votre réponse sur chacun des énoncés suivants. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 75 Les adultes de ma communauté créent /organisent des activités pour les jeunes de mon âge. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Les adultes de ma communauté offrent aux jeunes de mon âge des moyens de développer des nouvelles compétences. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Les jeunes de ma communauté ont beaucoup de chances de participer au service communautaire. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Dans ma communauté, en général, des jeunes hommes ont plus d’opportunité que des jeunes femmes d’assumer des rôles et responsabilités utiles Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Dans ma communauté, en générale, des jeunes femmes ont plus d’opportunité que des jeunes hommes d’assumer des rôles et responsabilités utiles Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Dans ma communauté, les jeunes comprennent leur rôle en tant que partenaires importants des leaders qui résolvent les problèmes de la communauté. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 148 Selon votre expérience, veuillez cocher la boîte qui correspond avec votre réponse sur chacun des énoncés suivants. Les jeunes femmes ont accès aux leaders de la communauté pour exprimer leurs préoccupations et leurs opinions Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Les jeunes hommes ont accès aux leaders de la communauté pour exprimer leurs préoccupations et leurs opinions. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 76 Fortement d’accord Dans ma communauté, les jeunes peuvent avoir un avenir positif. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Il y a des gens dans ma communauté qui sont fiers de moi quand je fais bien les choses. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Il y a des gens dans ma communauté qui m'encouragent à faire de mon mieux. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Mes voisins remarquent quand je fais du bon travail et me le font savoir Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Perception de la Violence Dans certains coins du pays, il y a des groupes armés ou des gangs qui sèment l’insécurité. Nous allons vous poser certaines questions en rapport avec la sécurité. Question ID Question Answer 149 Y a-t-il des groupes armés ou des gangs présents dans votre école ou à proximité? Oui Non 150 Est-ce que l'un des élèves de votre école appartient à un gang ou à un groupe armé? Oui Non 151 Est-ce que des gangs ou des groupes armés sont venus à votre école au cours des six derniers mois? Oui Non 152 Avez-vous déjà appartenu à un gang ou à un groupe armé? Oui Non 153 Êtes-vous membre d’un gang ou d’un groupe armé maintenant? (So Question 152 est « Oui ») Oui Non USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 77 154 Au cours de la semaine écoulée, dans quelle mesure vous êtes-vous inquiété de votre sécurité face aux gangs ou aux groupes armés pendant vos études? Significativement Quelque peu Pas du tout 155 Au cours de la semaine écoulée, dans quelle mesure vous êtes-vous inquiété de votre sécurité face aux gangs ou aux groupes armés lorsque vous vous rendez à l'école ou en revenez? Significativement Quelque peu Pas du tout 156 Selon votre expérience, veuillez vérifier (þ) la boîte de votre réponse sur chacun des énoncés suivants. Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse. Nous voulons juste comprendre vos opinions. Si vous répondez le plus sincèrement possible, vous nous aiderez beaucoup. Vos points de vue ne seront pas partagés avec n’importe qui et resteront strictement confidentiels. La violence est un moyen acceptable de résoudre un conflit dans la communauté. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Si j'évite une bagarre, je serais un lâche. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Des actes de violences sont toujours perpétrés par les hommes (et jamais par les femmes). Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Les victimes de la violence sont toujours des femmes Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 78 157 Il est légitime que les jeunes joignent un gang ou des groupes armés(r) dans les cas qui suivent : a) S'ils sont discriminés par d'autres dans la communauté / le pays Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord b) S'ils souffrent de pauvreté à cause du chômage et du manque des revenus Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord c) S'ils voulaient appartenir à un groupe et faire ce que font ses membres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord d) S'ils subissent des pressions des amis ou des membres de la famille Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord e) S'ils veulent se protéger Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord f) S’ils ne sont pas respectés Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 158 Selon votre expérience, veuillez vérifier (þ) la boîte de votre réponse sur chacun des énoncés suivants. Il n’y a pas de bonne ou de mauvaise réponse. Nous voulons juste comprendre vos opinions. Si vous répondez le plus sincèrement possible, vous nous aiderez beaucoup. Vos points de vue ne seront pas partagés avec n’importe USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 79 qui et resteront strictement confidentiels. Éviter ou s'éloigner de quelqu'un qui veut vous combattre est un moyen efficace d'éviter la violence. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord J'essaie de discuter des enjeux au lieu d'utiliser la violence Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Parfois, la violence est le seul moyen d’exprimer vos sentiments. (r) Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Il est probable que je rejoindrai un gang ou des groupes violents dans ma communauté(r) Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Parfois, une personne n'a d'autre choix que de recourir à la violence. (r) Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je sens que j'ai les compétences nécessaires pour résister au recrutement des gangs ou des groupes armés. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Il existe des moyens non violents de résoudre les conflits dans la communauté. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Identité Positive Question ID Question Answer 159 Suivant votre expérience, veuillez vérifier à quel degré êtes-vous USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 80 d’accord ou en désaccord avec chacune des déclarations suivantes. Pour les questions suivantes, prière penser à vous-même et à votre avenir Quand je pense à l'avenir, je me sens optimiste. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je sais quel genre de personne je suis. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je crois vraiment en moi. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Les choses se passent généralement bien pour moi. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je pense que le monde et les gens qui y vivent sont fondamentalement bons. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je suis satisfait de la façon dont je me suis débrouillé jusqu'à présent. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Auto-efficacité Question ID Question Answer 160 Suivant votre expérience, veuillez vérifier à quel degré êtes-vous d’accord ou en désaccord avec chacune des déclarations suivantes. USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 81 Pour les questions suivantes, prière penser à vous-même et à votre avenir Je suis assez fort pour surmonter les difficultés de la vie Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Au fond, je suis une personne faible. (r) Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je peux gérer les situations de la vie qui m’arrivent. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord J'ai généralement l'impression d'être une personne sans succès. (r) Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord 161 Suivant votre expérience, veuillez vérifier à quel degré êtes-vous d’accord ou en désaccord avec chacune des déclarations suivantes. Pour les questions suivantes, prière penser à vous-même et à votre avenir J'ai souvent l'impression qu'il n'y a rien que je puisse bien faire. (r) Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je me sens capable de faire face efficacement au monde réel. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je me sens souvent comme un(e)perdant (e) Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 82 D'accord Fortement d’accord Je peux penser aux conséquences de mes actes sur d'autres personnes et sur moi-même Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Soutien prosocial Question ID Question Answer 162 Suivant votre expérience au soutien de votre famille au cours des 30 derniers jours, veuillez vérifier à quel degré êtes-vous d’accord ou en désaccord avec chacune des déclarations suivantes. Pour les questions suivantes, prière penser à vous-même et votre famille. Mes parents ou mon tuteur naturel parlent bien avec moi de certaines choses. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Si j'avais un problème personnel, je pourrais demander de l'aide ou des conseils à mes parents ou à mon tuteur. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Mes parents ou mon tuteur me donnent beaucoup de chances de faire des choses amusantes avec eux Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Mes parents ou mon tuteur me demandent ce que je pense avant de prendre la plupart des décisions familiales qui me concernent. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Je peux compter sur mes parents ou mon tuteur pour des soutiens émotionnels. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 83 Fortement d’accord 163 Suivant votre expérience au soutien de votre famille au cours des 30 derniers jours, veuillez vérifier à quel degré êtes-vous d’accord ou en désaccord avec chacune des déclarations suivantes. Pour les questions suivantes, prière penser à vous-même et votre famille. Mes parents ou mon tuteur sont sensibles à mes besoins personnels Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Mes parents ou mon tuteur remarquent lorsque je fais du bon travail et me le font savoir. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Mes parents ou mon tuteur me disent qu’ils sont fiers de moi pour quelque chose que j’ai fait. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord J'aimais passer du temps avec mes parents ou mon tuteur. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord J'aimerais que ma famille soit très différente. Fortement en désaccord Pas d'accord Ni en accord, ni en désaccord D'accord Fortement d’accord Sécurité au sein des écoles Question ID Question Answer 164 Suivant votre expérience au sein ou en route vers votre école veuillez vérifier à quel degré êtes-vous d’accord ou en désaccord avec chacune des déclarations suivantes USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 84 Les apprenants apprennent à résoudre des conflits avec les autres. Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord l y a des endroits dans ou près de l’école qui ne sont pas sécurisés pour les apprenantes d'aller seules Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Il y a des endroits dans ou près de l'école qui ne sont pas sécurisés pour les apprenants d’aller seuls Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Les apprenantes ne se sentent pas en sécurité lorsqu'elles se rendent à l'école ou en reviennent Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Les apprenants ne se sentent pas en sécurité lorsqu'ils vont à l'école ou en reviennent Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Les apprenant(e)s savent à qui faire rapport quand ils sont victimes ou témoins des violences Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Les apprenant(e)s savent ce que signifie être harcelé ou agressé sexuellement Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord USAID/DRC IYDA COHORT 3 MIDLINE EVALUATION 85 Les apprenant(e)s ont peur de signaler des incidents d’harcèlement sexuel ou de violence sexuelle Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Il existe des programmes [Insérer les termes locaux, par exemple, clubs] permettant aux apprenants et apprenantes de se renseigner sur le harcèlement sexuel et la violence sexuelle et d’en discuter Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Les enseignants/formateurs ou les responsables de l’école agissent immédiatement lorsque les apprenant(e)s signalent un ou plusieurs incidents de violence Fortement en désaccord Pas d’accord Plutôt en désaccord Plutôt d’accord D’accord Fortement d’accord Section F Question ID Question Answer 173 Vous êtes arrivé à la fin du questionnaire. Merci de participer à l'enquête! Cette enquête nous permettra d'apporter des améliorations afin de mieux répondre à vos besoins dans l'avenir. Veuillez communiquer avec nous si vous avez des questions. 174 Type de données données réelles données de pratique