This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by LINC under 
Contract # 7200AA20D00017, Task Order #72053222F00002.
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE 
LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 
(LPD): FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
JAMIE BARNETT/FHI 360
Submitted by: LINC LLC
1100 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005
Website: www.linclocal.org
Email: info@linclocal.org
This Final Evaluation of the Local Partner Development Activity (LPD) was conducted by a team of 
international and local researchers fielded and managed by LINC, namely Mario Martinez (Team Leader -
LINC), Kate Marple-Cantrell (Assistant Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist - The Cloudburst Group), 
Zahra Miller (Evaluation Subject Matter Specialist - The Cloudburst Group), Simon Conté (Research 
Specialist - The Cloudburst Group), Makayla Barker (Research Assistant - The Cloudburst Group), and 
Carolyne Njihia (Task Order Manager - LINC).
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 1
CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS 2
ABSTRACT 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
INTRODUCTION 9
BACKGROUND 9
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 11
METHODOLOGY 11
LIMITATIONS 14
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 15
RECOMMENDATIONS 36
ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK 40
ANNEX B: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS 51
ANNEX C: DATA AND INFORMATION SOURCES 87
ANNEX D: EVALUATION TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 91
ANNEX E: SELECT YOUTH SURVEY FINDINGS 94
ANNEX F: SIGNED DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORMS 106
2 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
CBSI Caribbean Basin Security Initiative
CBT Cognitive behavioral therapy
CDCS Country development cooperation strategy
CSO Civil society organization
EQ Evaluation question
ESQ Evaluation sub-question
FGD Focus group discussion
IRB Institutional review board
KII Key informant interview
LPD Local Partner Development Activity
MoNS Ministry of National Security
PSE Private sector engagement
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 3
ABSTRACT
USAID commissioned a final performance evaluation of the Local Partner Development (LPD) Activity 
(2017–2023) implemented by FHI 360. LPD has built the capacity of Jamaican civil society organizations 
(CSOs), the private sector, and government entities to prevent crime and violence among at-risk youth 
at medium and high-risk levels through evidence-based strategies. Between November 2022 and January 
2023, the evaluation team conducted a document review, 42 key informant interviews with a range of 
activity stakeholders including the national government, grantees, CSOs, and private sector 
organizations. In addition, 8 focus group discussions and 149 structured interviews, were conducted 
with targeted youth participants. Key areas of inquiry included assessing the extent to which LPD 
improved resilience among targeted youth, the extent of the activity’s capacity-strengthening, and the 
extent of private sector engagement. The evaluation found that LPD’s integrated model with life skills 
training, vocational training/apprenticeships, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other components was 
key to increasing the resilience of youth in a short period of time, despite external challenges related to 
the COVID-19 pandemic, gaps in grantee capacity, and limited time and resources for interventions. 
Awareness and engagement workshops, specialized training, facilitating collaboration among 
stakeholders, and the study tour to Mexico enabled successful implementation. Private sector 
engagement was a critical component of the activity, although there are potential barriers to 
sustainability of the program outcomes more generally, including funding, willingness to employ at-risk 
youth, and high program attrition. Recommendations focused on training potential partners on 
evidence-based approaches, sustaining engagement with CSOs, the government, and the private sector, 
and strengthening connections with at-risk youth, including program graduates. 
4 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION PURPOSE
USAID commissioned a final performance evaluation of the Local Partner Development (LPD) activity 
to: (1) determine the extent to which the LPD activity’s strategic approach improved the resilience of 
targeted youth, their families, and communities to crime and violence; (2) assess the degree to which 
targeted local organizations are able to implement evidence-based programming to improve activity 
outcomes; and (3) examine the extent to which private sector engagement (PSE) may improve the 
sustainability of youth crime and violence prevention interventions. LINC and its partner, The 
Cloudburst Group, led the evaluation. The evaluation period of performance was September 2022–
March 2023.
LPD is a USAID/Jamaica activity funded through the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) of the U.S. 
Department of State. Evaluation findings will inform broader CBSI, Department of State, and USAID 
programming, as well as that of other units, such as the Department of State’s Bureau of International 
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, that receive CBSI funding.
BACKGROUND
USAID/Jamaica has been supporting Jamaica to reduce crime and violence in communities through 
initiatives that improve community and law enforcement cooperation, reduce corruption in the public 
and private sectors, and increase economic opportunities and skills for vulnerable populations. The LPD 
activity was one of those initiatives, with a budget of $16 million and a period of performance of just 
over six years (February 2017–June 2023). LPD was implemented by prime partner FHI 360.
For the first 2.5 years of implementation, LPD’s main objective was to strengthen the capacity of 
Jamaican civil society organizations (CSOs) and government entities that partner with USAID/Jamaica’s 
Office of Citizen Security to become effective and sustainable actors to improve citizen security and 
social cohesion. In 2019, LPD’s primary focus changed to strengthening the capacity of targeted Jamaican 
CSOs and government entities that support them to become more effective in preventing crime and 
violence among youth at medium and high risk levels by increasing awareness and implementation of 
evidence-based approaches and enhancing collaboration among the government, the private sector, and 
civil society.
Since September 2019, LPD has been working to make Jamaican institutions more effective in advancing 
collaborative, evidence-based youth crime and violence prevention strategies. LPD Phase 2 worked in 
selected high-risk geographic areas applying a place-based approach that has proven to be more effective 
than a more geographically dispersed crime and violence prevention approach. This final performance 
evaluation focuses on Phase 2.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
USAID/Jamaica, in consultation with USAID/Washington, selected the following evaluation questions, 
taking into account LPD’s objectives within the context of USAID/Jamaica’s CDCS, CBSI goals, and 
Agency priorities.
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 5
1. To what extent has the LPD activity improved the resilience of targeted youth and their families 
to crime and violence?
2. In what ways has LPD built the capacity of local government and non-government organizations 
to implement evidence-based interventions?
3. To what extent has LPD integrated private sector engagement to address the risk and resilience 
factors faced by targeted youth, families, and communities?
METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team applied a rigorous mixed-methods approach to evaluate the LPD activity. The final 
performance evaluation methodology focused on validating the theory of change; specifically, if and how 
LPD activities resulted in the improved resilience to crime and violence of targeted youth most at risk 
(medium to high risk) and their families, increased capacity of local government and non-government 
organizations to implement evidence-based interventions, and increased collaboration with businesses to 
improve the sustainability of youth crime and violence prevention interventions.
To understand how and why program results were achieved or not, the evaluation team gathered 
qualitative evidence through 42 key informant interviews (KIIs) with activity stakeholders including 
national government, grantees, CSOs, and private sector organizations, and 8 focus group discussions 
(FGDs) with youth participants. Additionally, the team drew quantitative perception data from a non￾random, purposive sample survey of targeted youth and their families (n=149) who benefited from the 
program, and from monitoring and evaluation data and program reporting documents. Data collection 
took place between November 2022 and January 2023. The quantitative and qualitative evidence was 
then triangulated to produce findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
LIMITATIONS
General challenges such as limited time and availability of proposed respondents affected data collection. 
It was also difficult to ascertain respondents’ willingness to openly and honestly discuss issues and share 
information and insights. Because of the nature of the activity design (the non-random selection of youth 
participants and implementation of interventions and the absence of a reasonable control population), it 
was not possible to evaluate causal relationships between the interventions and the observed outcomes. 
In addition, qualitative findings were not intended to be representative of all organizations that received 
USAID support, as they were drawn from only three locations, and may therefore be skewed or biased 
toward certain experiences.
The evaluation team experienced a number of difficulties mobilizing at-risk youth because of the nature 
of the demographic group targeted by the activity (some of whom are young men in conflict with the 
law). The evaluation team coordinated closely with LPD partner organizations and case managers 
(contacts known and trusted by the target respondents) to reach out to potential respondents. 
However, because of challenges locating and mobilizing activity graduates, current participants are 
overrepresented in the survey sample. Low literacy among youth participants also affected engagement 
with youth, potentially causing them to struggle to understand complex questions or to read survey 
questions. This challenge was most pronounced during FGDs with youth participants, who largely used
Jamaican Patois in discussions. To help address communication issues, the evaluation team used a 
Jamaican co-facilitator during FGDs with youth participants to facilitate the discussion and clarify 
linguistic differences.
6 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
EVALUATION QUESTION 1
LPD’s integrated model with life skills training, vocational training/apprenticeships, cognitive behavior 
therapy (CBT), and other components was key to increasing the resilience of youth in a short period of 
time. It is important that this integrated approach incorporated individualized elements such as case 
management, mentorship, and other support tailored to specific challenges youth face. Participants 
strongly endorsed this sustained, integrated approach and highly praised all of the core components. 
Another core component of LPD’s success in increasing youth resilience was the activity’s willingness to 
adapt over time by adding components that emerged as necessary (such as stipends), sequencing 
components to enable sustained participation, and scaling up components that proved successful (such 
as case management/mentorship).
Identified activity gaps included gaps in programming because of external circumstances such as the 
COVID-19 pandemic (tertiary prevention) and gaps in capacity (coordination). Additionally, the limited 
timeframe for interventions to effect major changes in the lives of program participants was a significant 
challenge. These gaps represent opportunities for future programming to continue to make sustained, 
system-level efforts.
EVALUATION QUESTION 2
Through awareness and engagement workshops, specialized training, facilitating collaboration among 
stakeholders, and the study tour to Mexico, LPD successfully increased awareness and understanding of 
evidence-based interventions and motivated local government and non-government organizations to 
implement these interventions to reduce crime and violence among youth. Most respondents perceived 
that evidence-based interventions were effective in reducing youth risk factors.
Limited budget and staff to manage LPD sub-grants was a major internal factor faced by LPD’s 
implementing partners that limited product creation and the achievement of outcomes. A combination 
of external factors, including insufficient grant budget, a short timeframe to produce results, the 
COVID-19 pandemic, limited coordination among implementers, donor budget limitations, youth 
priority on jobs (not psychosocial support), and low parental engagement limited activity results and 
brought into question the interventions’ sustainability.
LPD’s strong convening power appears to have been a key enabling factor for successful implementation 
of evidence-based approaches. LPD cultivated ownership of activities among local government and non￾government organizations. The high quality of the capacity-strengthening activities—awareness and 
technical workshops, specialized training, and the study tour to Mexico—were key enabling factors for 
adopting evidence-based programming among implementing partners.
LPD’s evidence-based approach is likely to be sustained by only a few implementing partners that have 
reported that they are already implementing or planning to implement this approach. The majority of 
interviewees confirmed that they will not be able to continue applying the evidence-based approach at 
all after LPD closes out because they lack the financial resources to sustain these costly approaches.
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 7
EVALUATION QUESTION 3
By integrating private sector partners into the development and implementation of its interventions, 
including multi-sector learning, collaboration, and mutual reinforcement, LPD promoted private sector 
partners’ capacity to contribute to youth crime and violence prevention. PSE was neither an 
afterthought nor an exclusive focus of LPD’s strategy, but rather a critical component of an integrated, 
holistic approach combining proven, evidence-based intervention strategies.
LPD used an integrated approach to PSE youth interventions, combining employment-oriented activities 
such as apprenticeships and business opportunity training with CBT, anger management, drug 
counseling, and other life skills-oriented training. Based on feedback from youth program participants 
and KII participants, who cited the decreased attrition of programs using integrated interventions, an 
integrated approach to youth and crime violence prevention for PSE seems more likely to resonate with 
youth and break the cycle of self-defeating behaviors than programs focusing on a single intervention.
Private sector partners identified a variety of potential barriers to greater participation in youth crime 
and violence prevention, including funding, willingness to employ at-risk youth, and high program 
attrition. Private sector organizations are increasingly interested in youth development and the 
challenges presented by youth crime and violence; however, they are less prepared than other types of 
stakeholders to work in this sphere. For PSE to fully contribute to sustainable crime and violence 
prevention, private sector capacity-strengthening in social development, programming approaches, 
project management, and skills in connecting with and navigating the donor community is essential. 
Sustained funding is also a crucial factor for recruiting and maintaining private sector support for youth 
crime and violence prevention.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because this final performance evaluation report has been prepared near the end of LPD, 
recommendations are expected to inform design and implementation of future programming in Jamaica 
aimed at assisting youth at medium and high-risk levels as a means to reduce crime and violence at the 
secondary and tertiary levels. The key recommendations are as follows:
• Few organizations in Jamaica possess the technical and organizational capacity to work with at-risk 
youth at the secondary and tertiary levels. USAID/Jamaica should consider training potential 
implementing partners/grantees in evidence-based approaches and award grants to organizations 
that meet minimum levels of technical and organizational capacity.
• Activities such as managing grants, providing stipends to program participants, and, especially, 
psychosocial support are costly. USAID/Jamaica should consider commissioning a cost-effectiveness 
study to analyze and determine the optimum level of support needed for technical and psychosocial 
support to youth to effectively reduce their risk factors.
• Future interventions should continue to coordinate as much as possible with the Government of 
Jamaica and across donors/partners (including CSOs and the private sector) to maximize program 
effectiveness.
• Future interventions should increase engagement of youths’ family members to further improve 
reduction in risk factors and youth resilience to crime and violence.
8 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
• Future interventions should consider involving youth in activity design, rather than engaging them 
midway through when issues have already arisen.
• Future programming with unattached youth should focus on permanent job placement opportunities 
(or apprenticeships with the opportunity for permanent placement) rather than short-term
internships. 
• Future program should share activity results and M&E data with grantees and government 
stakeholders to help them incorporate lessons learned into their programming.
• Programming should include substantial outreach to the general business community to sensitize 
them to the challenges facing at-risk youth, the related social problems for the communities in which 
the private sector organizations work, and the benefits of working with at-risk youth.
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 9
INTRODUCTION
As LPD neared the end of its period of performance, USAID commissioned this performance evaluation 
to: (1) determine the extent to which the LPD activity’s strategic approach improved the resilience of 
targeted youth, their families, and communities to crime and violence; (2) assess the degree to which 
targeted local organizations are able to implement evidence-based programming to improve activity 
outcomes; and (3) examine the extent to which private sector engagement may improve the 
sustainability of youth crime and violence prevention interventions. LINC and its partner, The 
Cloudburst Group, led the evaluation. The evaluation period of performance was September 2022–
March 2023.
LPD is an activity under the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative of the U.S. Department of State. Findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations from the evaluation will be instructive for broader CBSI 
programming considerations and for the Department of State, USAID, and other units, such as the 
Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, that receive CBSI 
funding. 
BACKGROUND
USAID/Jamaica has been supporting Jamaica to reduce crime and violence in communities through 
initiatives that improve community and law enforcement cooperation, reduce corruption in the public 
and private sectors, and increase economic opportunities and skills for vulnerable populations. The LPD 
activity was one of those initiatives, with a budget of $16 million and a period of performance of just 
over six years (February 2017–June 2023).1 LPD was implemented by prime contractor FHI 360.
For the first 2.5 years of implementation, LPD’s main objective was to build the capacity of Jamaican 
CSOs and government entities that partner with USAID/Jamaica’s Office of Citizen Security to become 
effective and sustainable actors to improve citizen security and social cohesion. In 2019, LPD’s primary 
focus changed to strengthening the capacity of targeted Jamaican CSOs and government entities that 
support them to become more effective in preventing crime and violence among youth at medium and 
high risk levels by increasing awareness and implementation of evidence-based approaches and enhancing 
collaboration among the government, the private sector, and civil society. Exhibit 1 presents the 
different components of the LPD activity before and after the focus changed in September 2019 
(Amendment 4 to the Agreement).
Exhibit 1. Components of the LPD activity during Phase 1 and Phase 2
Component 1: Strengthen the capacity of targeted local 
entities
Component 1: Strengthening targeted CSOs to implement 
secondary and tertiary crime and violence prevention 
strategies
Component 2: Support social enterprises through a business 
incubator model Component 2: Building private sector partnerships for crime 
prevention
1 Original life of activity and budget were five years and $15,000,000. The Agreement was amended to extend the end date 
from February 2022 to June 2023 and increase the budget to $16,000,000.
PHASE 1 FEBRUARY 2017–SEPTEMBER 2019 PHASE 2 OCTOBER 2019–JUNE 2023
10 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Component 3: Improve the enabling environment for civil 
society organizations and social enterprises Component 3: Strengthening the capacity of key 
Government of Jamaica entities to implement and sustain effective secondary and tertiary prevention 
initiatives
Component 4: Intentional collaboration between civil 
society, government, and the private sector
Since September 2019, LPD has been working to achieve the following, updated results: Jamaican 
institutions will become more effective in advancing collaborative, evidence-based youth crime and 
violence prevention strategies; CSOs and key public and private sector partners will be better able to 
mobilize and sustain targeted and effective secondary and tertiary prevention.
To achieve these results, LPD Phase 2 worked in selected high-risk geographic areas applying a place￾based approach that has proven to be more effective than a more geographically dispersed crime and 
violence prevention approach. This final performance evaluation focuses on LPD Phase 2.
THEORY OF CHANGE 
As reflected in the theory of change, LPD engaged partner organizations in working directly with the 
targeted group through sub-grants that encouraged the use of evidence-based strategies targeting the 
social, economic, and psychosocial drivers of crime and violence and improved youth identification. 
Exhibit 2. Theory of change, LPD2
IF LPD: THEN: SO THAT:
1. Builds key stakeholders’ awareness of evidence-based prevention approaches and improves their capacity to target youth at 
higher risk of perpetration of crime and 
violence, including youth in conflict with 
the law or in formal institutional settings, 
AND
2. Empowers local governments, civil society organizations, and community 
members to advocate for critical resources 
and reforms,
LPD’s partners, through USAID 
funding, will
1. Holistically and cost-effectively target the social, economic, and 
psychosocial drivers of crime and 
violence and provide effective 
services to the most at-risk youth,
2. Create the conditions, 
services, and opportunities for 
youth in the justice system to 
rehabilitate, reintegrate, and avoid 
re-engagement with crime and violence,
3. Apply evidence-based 
strategies, including through 
government partners’ accessing 
and generating reliable crime and 
violence data, and test the efficacy 
of new approaches, and
4. Elevate local/public pressure in support of civil society’s ability to 
address needs and grievances, 
strengthening feedback loops to 
hold governments accountable to 
resource crime and violence 
prevention
1. At-risk youth experience reduced risk factors and become 
more resilient to becoming 
victims or perpetrators of crime
2. Families and communities 
access services, infrastructure, and 
support that address physical, 
emotional, and psychosocial needs 
and the complex drivers/risk factors of crime and violence,
3. Schools support students to resolve conflict nonviolently, find 
healthy avenues for a sense of 
belonging, build self-efficacy, improve academic performance, 
and provide workforce 
development opportunities,
4. Youth in conflict with the law 
more effectively rehabilitate and 
reintegrate into society, and
5. Community members, civil society organizations, and local 
governments will effectively 
advocate for resources and 
reforms to improve crime and 
violence prevention and address key community needs.
2 LPD was extended from the original date (February 2017) to February 28, 2023 in September 2019, and then further 
extended to June 30, 2023 (Annual Report FY 2022, p. 1).
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 11
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
USAID/Jamaica, in consultation with USAID/Washington, selected the evaluation questions and sub￾questions listed below in order of priority. The questions also take into account LPD’s objectives within 
the context of USAID/Jamaica’s CDCS, CBSI goals, and Agency priorities. 
1. To what extent has the LPD activity improved the resilience of targeted youth and their families to 
crime and violence? 
1a. What interventions were most effective for beneficiaries? 
1b. From the perspective of beneficiaries, what were the areas that could be improved? 
1c. Discuss gaps and interventions that were least effective. How could the interventions be 
improved? 
2. In what ways has LPD built the capacity of local government and non-government organizations to 
implement evidence-based interventions? 
2a. What are the main barriers (internal and/or external) to local organizations adopting 
evidence-based approaches? 
2b. What are the enabling factors that allow organizations to successfully adopt evidence-based 
programming? 
2c. What evidence exists that beneficiary organizations are likely to continue to implement these 
approaches? 
3. To what extent has LPD integrated private sector engagement to address the risk and resilience 
factors faced by targeted youth, families, and communities? 
3a. What PSE approaches are most useful in youth crime and violence prevention? What are the 
potential barriers to greater private sector participation in this area? 
3b. To what extent can PSE approaches help build sustainability in youth crime and violence 
prevention activities in Jamaica? 
3c. What are the enabling factors that allow private sector organizations to support youth crime 
and violence prevention activities? 
3d. What evidence exists that private sector organizations are likely to continue to provide 
support in this area? 
The evaluation team discussed the unexpected conditions or challenges the activity experienced during 
implementation and how LPD adapted to or resolved those challenges. 
METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team applied a rigorous mixed-methods approach to evaluate the LPD activity. The final 
performance evaluation methodology focused on validating the theory of change; specifically, if and how 
12 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
LPD activities resulted in the improved resilience to crime and violence of targeted youth most at risk 
(medium to high risk) and their families, increased capacity of local government and non-government 
organizations to implement evidence-based interventions, and increased collaboration with businesses to 
improve the sustainability of youth crime and violence prevention interventions. 
To understand how and why program results were achieved or not, the evaluation team gathered 
qualitative evidence through KIIs and FGDs. Additionally, the team drew quantitative perception data 
from a non-random, purposive sample survey of youth most at risk who benefited from the program 
and from monitoring and evaluation data and program reporting documents. The quantitative and 
qualitative evidence was then triangulated to produce findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
The methods used for the performance evaluation are described below. Annex B and C present 
additional details on the data sources and the data collection instruments, respectively.
DOCUMENT REVIEW: The evaluation team conducted a desk review of primary and secondary 
sources, program documents (e.g., activity implementation plans; monitoring, evaluation, learning, and 
planning documents; and quarterly and annual reports), select LPD analytical products such as 
assessments, Government of Jamaica legislation and policy documents, donor analyses, public opinion 
survey reports, and policy/academic think pieces. The evaluation team paid particular attention to the 
modifications made to the LPD activity in 2019 to ensure that the evaluation design accounted for this 
shift in objectives. The evaluation team employed content analysis and fidelity analysis to understand 
how the LPD activity performed against implementation outcomes. The document review informed the 
evaluation design and culminated in the evaluation design report with the final research questions and 
sub-questions and the data collection instruments.
KIIS AND FGDS: Qualitative interviews formed the heart of the evaluation approach. Complementing 
the broad input from the survey and document review, the evaluation team conducted 42 in-depth 
interviews with 57 key informants and facilitated 8 FGDs with 52 youth activity participants across all 
three sites. The evaluation team conducted KIIs and FGDs with local and national stakeholders and 
activity participants over three weeks between November 28 and December 16, 2022 through online 
interviews and in-person fieldwork. The evaluation team developed guides for semi-structured 
interviews and FGDs that were specific to the type of respondent, were comprehensive, and addressed 
the evaluation and learning questions.
SITE VISITS: Site visits were preceded by a series of KIIs and/or FGDs in the capital city of Kingston 
with representatives of LPD, the national government, other donors, and national and international 
organizations. Members of the evaluation team then visited two additional LPD activity sites, St. James 
and St. Catherine, to collect data. At each of these locations, the evaluation team conducted interviews 
with CSOs and participating private sector organizations and carried out surveys with targeted youth 
and their families. Fieldwork also included briefings with USAID/Jamaica at the start and the end of the 
fieldwork.
PERCEPTION SURVEY: Because of the inclusion of minors among the youth activity participants 
targeted for the survey, the evaluation team sought and received institutional review board approval 
prior to data collection. Data collection for this component included 45-minute, in-person quantitative 
perception surveys with targeted youth and their families in the three selected LPD activity sites. The 
survey largely addressed Evaluation Question 1 on changes in the resilience of targeted youth and their 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 13
families to crime and violence by roughly assessing youth risk for involvement in crime and violence at 
project close and collecting information about perceptions of services received.
The team selected targeted LPD youth and their families using a stratified sampling approach. In each 
selected evaluation site, the survey attempted to contact all participants who received LPD’s youth risk 
factor assessment and families who participated in LPD parenting classes. The evaluation team believed 
this approach was necessary (instead of choosing a random sample of respondents to survey) because of 
the anticipated high non-response rate because of the demographic characteristics of the target 
respondents. The evaluation team interviewed 149 survey participants stratified by category of 
respondent (based on services received, e.g., risk assessment, therapy), sex, and age. The age of survey 
participants ranged from 14 to 34. 
Enumerators, who were trained in the tool and electronic data collection using mobile devices, 
administered the survey. The evaluation team triangulated survey data with analysis of LPD records such 
as program baseline and endline risk assessments to arrive at the richest possible picture of outcomes 
experienced by youth.
SAMPLE SELECTION AND CRITERIA
To ensure that all expected results were covered in this evaluation, the evaluation team collected data 
from all categories of stakeholders that were engaged in the activity across all components and results. 
This enabled the evaluation team to gather evidence on whether the results were achieved or not and 
how and why they were achieved or not. To gather qualitative data from all stakeholders, the evaluation 
team chose informants by applying a non-probability purposive sampling approach. Across the KIIs, the 
evaluation team interviewed 13 CSO representatives assisted by LPD and providing services to youth, 
11 Government of Jamaica representatives working in areas of crime and violence prevention, 10 private 
sector representatives that worked with LPD and were providers of services to youth, 7 LPD staff, I 
USAID representative, and 1 other youth crime and violence prevention donor-funded project.
Exhibit 3. Overview of sex breakdown of participants across data sources
KIIS FGDS YOUTH SURVEY
Females 37 14 45
Males 20 38 104
Total 57 52 149
14 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Exhibit 4. Overview of KII interviews
CSO GOJ PRIVATE
SECTOR
LPD STAFF USAID OTHER YOUTH
CRIME & VIOLENCE
PREVENTION
DONOR-FUNDED
PROJECT
TOTAL
KIIs held 13 10 10 7 1 1 42
KII participants 22 15 11 7 1 1 57
The youth survey received 149 responses. Thirty-nine percent of respondents lived in Kingston (58), 39 
percent lived in St. James (n=57), and 22 percent lived in St. Catherine (n=32). Most survey respondents 
(86 percent, n=126) were 18 or older; only 14 percent (n=20) of respondents were minors. Seventy 
percent of respondents (n=103) were male and 30 percent (n=44) were female. Most respondents (82 
percent, n=120) were currently receiving services. The majority of respondents lived with their parents 
(66 percent, n=97) and did not have children (67 percent, n=98). Annex E contains additional youth 
survey results tables, including disaggregation by sex and age. 
LIMITATIONS
There were some logistical challenges during data collection, and institutional review board approval for 
the youth survey was uncertain until the first week of fieldwork. However, the evaluation team was still 
able to nearly meet the target number of people interviewed in KIIs through consistent mobilization 
efforts across the stakeholder groups. 
Organizing KIIs was difficult because the contact information for some organizations and entities was 
either missing or generic, which delayed identification, contact, and scheduling of KIIs with the relevant 
people. Other organizations delayed confirming their interview times because of competing priorities in 
their schedules, and some of the confirmed interviews had to be rescheduled throughout the data 
collection period. 
There may have been a bias with the FGDs because activity participants who agreed to participate and 
took the time to be present were likely either currently participating in the activity and/or were those 
who held a mostly positive view of the LPD activity. Interviewers therefore explicitly asked about 
components of the activity that could be improved and probed for adverse experiences to facilitate 
balanced discussions.
Furthermore, because of the nature of the activity design (the non-random selection of youth 
participants and implementation of interventions and the absence of a reasonable control population), it 
was not possible to evaluate causal relationships between the interventions and the observed outcomes, 
though correlations are still informative. 
Additionally, as with any primarily qualitative analysis, the primary limitation is that the analysis and 
conclusions may be skewed by the biases and experiences of the selected interviewees, who were 
drawn from only three field sites and not guaranteed to be representative of all organizations that 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 15
received USAID support. Evaluators attempted to mitigate this potential bias by capturing and 
triangulating the widest view possible via the youth perception survey. 
In addition to general risks such as limited time and the availability of proposed respondents, another 
critical aspect of the quality of the analysis was the willingness of respondents to openly and honestly 
discuss issues and share information and insights. The evaluation team made every effort to build a 
strong rapport with respondents by explaining the purpose of the study and choosing a private and 
comfortable environment to complete the interview. However, if respondents were concerned about 
how results would be used, despite the full disclosures and guarantees given in the consent statement 
before data collection, it is possible that they were not fully forthcoming in their answers.
The youth survey faced two principal challenges. First, the evaluation team experienced a number of 
difficulties mobilizing respondents because of the nature of the demographic group targeted by the 
activity, some of whom are young men in conflict with the law. Because these respondents do not 
respond to unsolicited phone calls and change their phone numbers often, the evaluation team 
coordinated closely with LPD partner organizations and case managers (contacts known and trusted by 
the target respondents) to reach out to potential respondents. The evaluation team attempted to 
mitigate these challenges by traveling to central locations in survey respondents’ communities to 
interview them and by offering a small incentive for their participation. However, because of challenges 
locating and mobilizing activity graduates, current participants are overrepresented in the survey 
sample.3
Although data collection was extended by two more weeks beyond the initial three that had been 
planned to account for the limited number of activity participants organizations were able to mobilize 
each day, the data collection team was not able to meet the target of 210 survey responses. However, 
the number of responses reached (149) was still largely sufficient to identify trends and patterns among 
activity participants’ answers. The evaluation team experienced particular challenges mobilizing youth 
under 18 and families of LPD participants because of the limited number of active LPD programs with 
youth under 18 at the time of data collection. 
The second main challenge the youth survey faced was low literacy among youth participants, potentially 
causing them to struggle to understand complex questions or to read survey questions. To address this 
challenge, enumerators administered the survey orally to all targeted youth and were trained to explain 
the meaning of the survey question to respondents if needed. The evaluation team also piloted the 
survey instrument before launch to make sure all questions were understandable and appropriate.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
EVALUATION QUESTION 1: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE LPD ACTIVITY IMPROVED THE 
RESILIENCE OF TARGETED YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES TO CRIME AND VIOLENCE?
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
3 The sample was restricted to program participants who were enrolled for at least six months to ensure that they had 
sufficient exposure to assess their experience in the program and hopefully gain benefits from it.
16 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
LPD expected its activities with youth would improve participating youths’ resilience to crime and 
violence by providing them with various types of support to get and keep jobs, get back to school, or 
create income-generating activities. The majority of interview respondents from CSOs, the private 
sector, and the Government of Jamaica believed that LPD’s approach has been effective in reducing 
secondary and tertiary crime and violence. Indeed, some grantees and participants reported anecdotal 
reductions in crime, violence, and shootings in their neighborhoods since the start of the activity, though 
the activity’s scale is likely not sufficient to affect overall parish crime statistics. One interviewee 
remarked:
“It’s a Godsend program. We hope there are more programs like this in other communities. Other 
youths and communities could be beneficiaries of programs like this. [We] need broader spread of 
programs. LPD was an excellent program and we wish it would continue and be more widespread. [It] 
can impact the level of crime and violence in society, and it has. We are just hoping other funding 
agencies will take a leaf out of this LPD booklet. It’s really a success story.” – Grantee
In FGDs, activity participants credited LPD for providing an effective approach for youth crime and 
violence prevention (e.g., by providing economic opportunities and helping youth overcome negative 
behaviors such as drug/alcohol use and anger issues). Responses to LPD activities were overwhelmingly 
positive and respondents often described the program as “life-changing.” 
QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
According to the youth survey, 71 percent of respondents (n=103) were totally or highly satisfied with 
the program, and only 2 percent (n=3) were dissatisfied. As shown in Exhibit 5, female respondents and 
minor respondents reported significantly higher program satisfaction than male respondents and adult 
respondents. However, the small sample sizes for these subgroups make it difficult to determine why 
these differences exist. There did not seem to be significant differences by subgroup in the overall 
amount of support received, but women and minors were less likely to have received mentoring 
(though the difference is only statistically significant for women), potentially suggesting that additional 
refinement to the program components aimed at men, including the mentorship intervention 
components (as detailed in the Findings section), could improve overall program satisfaction. Generally, 
these results likely indicate that these subgroups (women and minors) have different underlying 
characteristics (for example, female respondents were significantly more likely than male respondents to 
have children: 64 percent [n=28], versus 20 percent [n=21]) and experienced the program and its 
benefits differently. It will be important to ensure the continuation of customized support approaches 
that take these differences into account. 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 17
Exhibit 5. Survey respondent program satisfaction by gender and age4
The primary quantitative measure employed to measure resilience to crime and violence was tracking 
youth risk assessment scores over time. Youth in private sector programs were risk screened, while all 
youth in other programs received a risk assessment at program entry.5 After completing the program, 
some youth received risk re-assessments, as detailed in footnote 5. When the risk for involvement in 
crime and violence as measured by the tool decreased over time, this was considered evidence of 
improved resilience. According to the data available to the evaluation team, 12 percent of youth (n=129) 
had been risk re-assessed as of the data collection, and 64 percent (n=83) of those youth showed 
decreased risk. Female participants had only slightly higher initial risk assessment scores compared to 
males (2.6 versus 2.4), but they were significantly more likely to show reduced risk factors at re￾assessment (76 percent [n=32] versus 59 percent [n=51]). Activity participants who received case 
management and those who completed more than 80 percent of the program were also significantly 
more likely to be re-assessed as having lower risk for involvement in crime and violence, as shown in 
Exhibit 6. Interestingly, activity participants who participated in group counseling were not more likely 
than other participants to show decreased risk assessment scores. Re-assessments are ongoing; the 
cumulative activity target is for 197 youth to be found during re-assessment to have reduced crime and 
violence risk factors.6
4 The p-value indicates whether the estimated relationship is statistically significant, or probably not due to chance. Critical 
values for the p-values are generally set to three different “alpha levels,” .01, .05, and .1. If a p-value is below the alpha level of 
.1, it means the effects are statistically significant.
5 According to the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data available to the evaluation team, the total number of youth who have 
been risk assessed is 1,037. It is the evaluation team’s understanding that, according to the LPD M&E plan, a target has not been 
set for number of youth to be re-assessed, only a target number of youth found to have reduced risk factors that drive crime 
and violence. According to the 2022 M&E Plan and the 2022 Annual Report, LPD exceeded targets in 2021 (target was 35; 
actual was 63) but not in 2022 (target was 102; actual was 59). The target number in 2023 is 15. 
6 LPD Annual Report 2022, p. 28. 
18 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Exhibit 6. Percent of youth with decreased risk by intervention category
CONCLUSIONS
LPD’s model for secondary and tertiary crime and violence prevention appears promising and powerful. 
Across data sources (KIIs, FGDs, program data) there is evidence that LPD contributed to reduced risk 
for crime and violence among participating youth, potentially making communities that were part of this 
activity safer. Additionally, all data collected from participants (through FGDs and the youth survey) 
show high confidence in and satisfaction with the programs supported by LPD. 
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 1A: WHAT INTERVENTIONS WERE MOST EFFECTIVE FOR 
BENEFICIARIES?
FINDINGS
LIFE SKILLS: Across the KIIs, FGDs, and youth survey, respondents perceived life skills training and 
vocational training to be the most effective interventions. LPD identified that activity participants’ social 
networks often did not instill the life and employability skills needed on the pathway to employment, and 
designed life skills training that included topics like conflict resolution and management, communication 
skills, listening skills, money management, and coping with grief and loss due to violence, as well as 
activities like weekly workshops and interactive activities, to improve participants’ social skills. It was 
important for the activity to begin with these life skills because they are foundational skills that allow 
participants to derive the most benefit from job skills training and to navigate the professional world.
VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND JOB/INTERNSHIP/APPRENTICESHIP PLACEMENT: LPD 
designed vocational training or business skills training (as appropriate to the specific program) to give 
youth tangible skills to make them more employable and potentially receive certification in a trade or 
skill. In many instances, this vocational training was tied to a short-term or permanent placement in the 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 19
role participants were being trained to perform, giving them practical experience applying the concepts 
learned in training, and in some cases, a pathway to permanent employment. In other LPD-supported 
programs, training focused on microbusiness skills and was paired with assistance starting 
microenterprises. Based on program M&E data, 468 targeted youths have been trained to date 
(cumulative 2020–2022 target is 689).7
In the FGDs, youth expressed that the support they valued most highly was the technical training and 
job placement support as a means to bring about a better life. Grantees and partners reported positive 
changes in youth who completed this training:
“[The] guys… who did entrepreneurial training seemed to be the most stable in terms of their ability to 
organize and stay more focused… That group ‘seems to be’ on the right track so far—they had the 
intention of making it better, not just for themselves. Coming out of that group, they wanted to 
spearhead a football camp for the children so that was an unexpected outcome of the entrepreneurial 
training that they initiated a giving back component.” – Grantee 
MENTORSHIP AND CASE MANAGEMENT: Case management, mentorship, and social worker 
support were also very commonly cited by interviewees and focus group participants as essential to 
participant success. While the specific structure and content of this support varied across programs, 
case managers often developed a customized case plan based on needs that emerged from the 
participant’s risk assessment. The case manager or a mentor worked with participants on an ongoing 
basis to support their progress and help address issues that arose during their time in the program such 
as by providing support with administrative tasks or referrals to other services. According to the survey, 
70 percent (n=73) of youth who worked with a case manager reported that they were totally or highly 
satisfied with the experience, and three respondents reported that they were dissatisfied. Survey 
respondents especially appreciated that mentors were a caring presence that would keep in touch with 
them regularly via WhatsApp, phone calls, or text messages. As with the overall rates of satisfaction, 
female respondents and minor respondents reported significantly higher satisfaction with their case 
managers.
There were instances recounted by survey respondents where their mentor or case manager did not 
appear to have sufficient time to provide the needed support, so it has been a good practice to limit the 
number of youth assisted by psychologists/social workers/case managers to only 25 for better results. 
Additionally, LPD training activities did not train mentors on working with at-risk youth to sensitize 
them to specific considerations for working with this population; this could be added in future 
programming.
CBT AND OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES: A core program success highlighted by 
interviewees was the successful introduction by LPD of CBT and other psychological services to the 
intervention model. LPD designed this work to provide underlying psychological support (where 
needed) to maximize participants’ chances of success in the life skills and professional program 
components. Although the activity tried both individual and group appointment models, the group 
model gained the most traction because of its efficiency, and participants responded well to peer 
7 According to LPD’s 2022 M&E Plan and 2022 Annual Report, LPD exceeded the target number of youth trained in social and 
leadership skills for the first time in 2022 (target was 187; actual was 245). 
20 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
support in sessions. Several providers mentioned observing attitudinal shifts in CBT participants. For 
example, one grantee said:
“I believe [the CBT curriculum] was effective. This is supported by post-assessment data. Could also see 
this in terms of the quality of sessions—more robust discussion. I didn’t expect a total transformation, 
but I think the curriculum was effective to contribute to creating behavior change. In our adolescent 
cohort, we started with 10 participants and 9 completed. They were all high school dropouts. Eight of 
the nine were back in school at the end of the three months, and have remained in school since. [CBT] 
had an impact on how they saw themselves, and on controlling angry impulses…. For older guys, I saw 
some similar changes…. In terms of behavior, I see some changes, sometimes marginal, including in the 
pre- and post-tests. [The change] is more in terms of what was said. I can see in the depth of discussions 
that behavior change is taking place. They gave a lot of heartfelt testimonials at the end.”’ – Grantee
At-risk youth assisted by LPD expressed gratitude for having these opportunities to change their 
behavior and mindset for a better life. Survey and focus group participants also thought that CBT was 
extremely beneficial and called CBT group sessions a safe place where they could open up and not be 
judged. They particularly credited CBT with helping them learn how to manage their anger, develop self￾control, improve interpersonal relationship skills, and use meditation and relaxation techniques. Some 
credited the program for keeping them out of prison. One participant explained:
“The majority of us are quick to react, because if something was to happen like someone threw a bottle 
at us, we would be quick to retaliate and get violent. The whole, stop, take a deep breath, and observe 
then proceed…. It used to be just one way we always used to act; CBT is the best thing.” – FGD 
Respondent 
LPD also measured improvements for CBT participants using pre- and post-tests to measure 
participants’ attitudes before treatment and after and capture growth or change that took place. 
According to the pre- and post-test results for four CBT programs that were completed and made 
available to the evaluation team, 62 percent of participants (n=24) reported less impulsiveness following 
CBT and just under two-fifths of participants reported decreased aggression (38 percent, n=15) and 
increased pro-social behaviors (38 percent, n=15). 
RISK ASSESSMENTS: Interviewees highly praised the risk assessment methodology LPD employed to 
identify eligible youth and better understand their needs. This approach aimed to increase the 
effectiveness of interventions through better targeting and gathering information that allowed for a 
customized approach to meet underlying individual needs. One interviewee explained that the ability to 
identify high-risk youth had helped prioritize them for emergency intervention faster, though the 
Government of Jamaica still faces constraints that mean that there will not always be services available, 
even in critical cases:
“There is a greater attitude now within the Government of Jamaica that once a child meets specific 
criteria, they need immediate attention. In terms of giving our children access to these interventions, 
this is a work in progress that is being worked through with the Ministry of Education and Youth and 
other counterparts including non-Government of Jamaica entities.” – Government of Jamaica 
Stakeholder
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 21
OTHER SUPPORT: Interviewees also praised the customized support LPD provided to address other 
specific underlying issues. This included referrals to substance abuse counseling for youth who were 
assessed to have drug problems and literacy or numeracy training for youth with gaps in their education 
that were affecting their ability to participate in professional activities. Though not widespread within the 
activity, parenting classes, either for parents of participating youth or for youth who were parents, and 
joint activities/bonding exercises involving parents and children were strongly supported by both parents 
and youth participating in LPD activities. Parents described learning how to communicate better with 
their children, manage their own anger, demonstrate respect and love, and encourage positive behavior. 
They credited the program with making them better parents and transforming their relationships with 
their children, and described the joy of being spontaneously hugged and kissed by their adult child for 
the first time.
ADAPTATION: LPD made a number of adaptations based on experience to increase program 
effectiveness (e.g., case management, adaptations to CBT model, stipend for participation). LPD made 
these adaptations to combat client attrition, which was an issue at the beginning of LPD, and to expand 
components that proved to be successful. One interviewee explained,
“[There were] things that were not considered [at program design]—lack of morale, lack of interest. 
Kudos to the LPD team who huddled together, looked at issues, and accepted and implemented 
recommendations and saved the project in the long run. They involved parents, which was a good thing. 
The engagement of case managers was the best decision of the program and it literally saved the 
program. A stipend was given to get to school, but it is not enough for them to still live.” – Grantee
CONCLUSIONS
LPD’s integrated model with life skills training, vocational training/apprenticeships, CBT, and other 
components was key to increasing the resilience of youth in a short period of time (6–9 months). It is 
important that this integrated approach incorporated individualized elements such as case management, 
mentorship, and other support tailored to specific challenges youth faced. Participants strongly endorsed 
this sustained, integrated approach and highly praised all of the core components.
Another core component of LPD’s success in increasing youth resilience was the activity’s willingness to 
adapt over time by adding components that emerged as necessary (such as stipends), sequencing 
components to incentivize sustained participation, and scaling up components that proved successful 
(such as case management/mentorship). However, it is possible that some of these adaptations would 
not have been necessary if LPD had incorporated youth perspectives earlier in the activity development 
process; this is a strategy that future activities could test. 
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 1B: FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF BENEFICIARIES, WHAT 
ARE THE AREAS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED?
FINDINGS
LOW STIPENDS: Many interviewees identified stipends as a major area for improvement. In many 
cases, the stipend was only sufficient for them to travel to program activities, not to support themselves 
while there. In some cases, the stipend did not even cover the full transportation costs. Some programs 
had to be adapted to offer different training because participants could not afford to reach the intended 
22 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
training; in other programs, youth were not able to attend in-person meetings with their mentors 
because travel was not paid. Many of the youth who dropped out of the program did so because they 
needed to work despite remaining interested in completing the training. One stakeholder described:
“When you go into a parish like St. James where one of the biggest challenges is lottery scamming, and 
at the center of lottery scamming is money, you are trying to identify at-risk youth from those same 
communities where they see their peers ‘living the life.’ But you say to them that you are trying to 
preserve their life and give them an opportunity—‘come and engage in a six-month training and we try 
to place you afterwards’—they still need to survive in the meantime while [they] also [need] support to 
attend the interventions.” – Grantee
SHORT PROGRAM TIMEFRAMES: Youth survey respondents also desired a longer period of 
program support. Some described their disappointment that the program ended by saying it felt like 
“broken promises.” Interviewees echoed this desire. They explained that the very short intervention 
timeframe—sometimes consisting of one or two sessions on a certain component like counseling or 
follow-ups—was insufficient to support transformation in youth who may have spent years struggling 
with underlying issues. Grantees at times felt compelled to try to continue these components despite 
lacking the program budget to cover them because, as one described, “you have to find a way to help; 
you cannot just walk away.” The short program timeframe also created prioritization challenges for case 
managers who had to make difficult decisions about how to triage service referrals for high-risk clients 
who would not be able to receive all of the support they needed in the allotted time. A case manager 
noted:
“There are several interventions happening at the same time, so it is difficult for the case manager to 
know what services the client must get based on the short timeframe, especially given the context of 
them being high risk. They will likely need remedial support, psychological support, and a social worker, 
and need to upskill them so they can be more marketable and better able to resist a life of crime. They 
need all these services, but based on the short timeframe, it is hard to prioritize which ones to do.”
CONCLUSIONS
While LPD was able to accomplish a remarkable amount using several successful approaches and did 
important work to adapt in response to challenges, including expanding the use of stipends, limited 
stipend amounts and short program timeframes still presented challenges for clients and participants and 
likely dampened program effects. 
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 1C: DISCUSS GAPS AND INTERVENTIONS THAT WERE 
LEAST EFFECTIVE. HOW COULD THE INTERVENTIONS BE IMPROVED?
FINDINGS
LIMITED TERTIARY PREVENTION: The youth reintegration component of the activity largely did not 
go forward because partners were not allowed to enter remand centers as a result of COVID-19, so it 
is too early to ascertain its effectiveness. Some programs were able to recruit a limited number of young 
people who had left remand centers and were re-entering society and train officers online, but the CBT 
intervention in remand centers is still stalled aside from training the main psychologist in the system. 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 23
The activity also faced difficulty tracking youth once they left facilities because the Department of 
Correctional Services did not release their contact information to partners.
NEED FOR ENHANCED CLIENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND BETTER DATA SHARING:
Several grantees noted a lack of a shared client management system across partners and suggested that 
having one would help track youth and target appropriate resources to them. One grantee explained 
that they built an internal client management system for their own program administration needs with 
other funds, but as of this report’s drafting, there does not appear to be a platform for organizations to 
track at-risk youths’ receipt of services across organizations and government entities. Interviewees 
suggested that the Government of Jamaica should manage this system and indicated that the Ministry of 
National Security may be looking into creating something like this, but the effort is complicated by the 
lack of a national ID number in Jamaica. Grantees also expressed a desire for additional data sharing by 
LPD on what interventions the activity is finding to be most successful to inform their programming. 
LIMITED COORDINATION BETWEEN PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS: LPD used several 
strategies to facilitate coordination among stakeholders and partners, such as the co-design workshops 
at the beginning of the activity. Nevertheless, a desire for greater coordination in their work was a 
major theme across interviewees. Some grantees noted that they did not always achieve the anticipated 
level of coordination, such as through the referral system, largely because of capacity challenges at the 
organizations. One grantee explained,
“We were supposed to have this referral system… and in a few cases it did work… but I don't think at 
the level that we had all anticipated. I don't know that that is a reflection necessarily on LPD. I think 
that's probably just a cultural issue that we have in Jamaica that we don't effectively coordinate. So I 
wouldn’t place that—it’s more of a recommendation than a criticism of the program because again, I 
think it’s bigger than LPD, it’s a systematic problem. But I definitely applaud LPD for their efforts to try 
and have that done, having core partners coming together co-designing the program and implementing 
simultaneously. It’s just that we weren’t able to have the level of coordination across our activities. I 
think that could be strengthened in some ways.” – Grantee
In addition, grantee and LPD respondents both spoke about a desire for greater leadership and 
coordination from Government of Jamaica stakeholders. Specific challenges included limited 
coordination with CSOs providing similar services, lack of budget allocation to support interventions 
(e.g., reintegration), and communication challenges because of short staffing. Stakeholders explained that, 
ideally, Government of Jamaica partners would identify their support needs and coordinate donors to 
work on different areas, but that this level of leadership was not present during LPD. Collaboration 
across entities engaging in different approaches to prevent crime and violence, such as police and 
peacebuilders, is also an area where future activities could aim to make progress.
CONSTRAINED TIMEFRAME: A key factor that likely limits the ability of LPD and this evaluation to 
observe activity benefits is the constrained activity timeframe. Several interviewees noted that two years 
is not enough time to expect to see sustained transformative change. This kind of work requires long￾term planning and resource allocation that provides enough flexibility that activities can be easily 
modified as realities change on the ground. Additionally, the key indicator used to measure resilience 
(reduction of risk factors) does not fully measure resilience, since the sustainability of changes is 
unknown and other levels of risk (family, community, justice) remain. 
24 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
CONCLUSIONS
Identified activity gaps included gaps in programming because of external circumstances such as the 
COVID-19 pandemic (tertiary prevention) and gaps in capacity (coordination). Additionally, the limited 
timeframe for interventions to effect major changes in the lives of program participants was a significant 
challenge. These gaps represent opportunities for future programming to continue to make sustained, 
systemic efforts. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 2. IN WHAT WAYS HAS LPD BUILT THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT AND NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENT EVIDENCE￾BASED INTERVENTIONS? 
FINDINGS
WORKSHOPS: The majority of respondents from the Government of Jamaica, CSOs, and the private 
sector confirmed that the LPD activity had invited them to participate in workshops and presentations 
about the objectives, scope, and implementing mechanisms of the activity’s work. Participants reported 
learning about evidence-based tools to identify and assess youth and best practices and evidence-based 
approaches to implement youth crime and violence prevention at the secondary and tertiary levels. 
Most respondents emphasized the importance of LPD’s convening power and reputation, which they 
said led to high participation in the events. The majority of respondents from government agencies, civil 
society, and the private sector also highlighted the professionalism and strong technical capacity of LPD 
staff and confirmed that the training and workshops were key elements in motivating them to adopt 
evidence-based approaches and tools. Respondents reported that the workshops motivated several 
private sector participants to collaborate with other implementing partners to provide apprenticeships, 
internships, temporary jobs, and even full-time permanent jobs to participating youth. 
SPECIALIZED TRAINING SESSIONS: All sub-awardee evaluation respondents confirmed that LPD
had provided training on LPD’s evidence-based approach, including CBT, case management, and other 
specialized approaches. However, they also reported that not all organizations or entities administered 
the activity’s two-part risk assessment, the Jamaica Risk Assessment, themselves, despite receiving 
training on it; some interviewees mentioned that the assessment and re-assessment were conducted by 
LPD staff or consultants hired by LPD.
The evaluation team confirmed that one private sector implementing partner provided a training-of￾trainers approach with the Department of Correctional Services. The Department confirmed this and 
conveyed that the staff trained to train others had relocated within the Ministry of National Security or 
found another job and that it would be helpful to do this training-of-trainers on an annual basis because 
of high staff turnover. Evaluators did not find evidence that the training-of-trainers’ support included 
follow-up to support implementation. 
COLLABORATION AND CO-DESIGN: Participants highly valued LPD’s coordination of stakeholder 
collaboration and program co-design. However, most respondents indicated that coordination among 
the organizations that were awarded funds to implement their youth support plans decreased over time. 
The implementing partners were supposed to meet frequently, but because of non-LPD work backlogs 
in each organization, coordination meetings became scarce over time. Some interviewees also 
mentioned that the culture of working collaboratively is low in the Jamaican context. 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 25
STUDY TOUR OF MEXICO: Eleven CSO, private sector, and Government of Jamaica organizations 
traveled to Mexico to learn about the risk assessment tool and CBT methodology. All interviewees that 
participated in the study tour reported learning that the CBT model had been highly effective in 
reducing crime and violence in the Mexican communities they visited with similar economic and social 
conditions to those of the Jamaican communities where LPD planned to work. They also agreed that the 
learning experience in Mexico helped them believe in the importance of evidence-based approaches, 
such as the use of a youth targeting tool and CBT, and the engagement of the private sector in reducing 
crime and violence. They reported that the experience was highly motivational for them to be active 
LPD implementing partners.
CONCLUSIONS
Through awareness and engagement workshops, specialized training, facilitating collaboration among 
stakeholders, and the study tour to Mexico, LPD successfully increased awareness and understanding of 
evidence-based interventions and motivated local government and non-government organizations to 
implement these interventions to reduce crime and violence among youth. Most respondents perceived 
that evidence-based interventions were effective in reducing youth risk factors. 
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 2A: WHAT ARE THE MAIN BARRIERS (INTERNAL AND/OR 
EXTERNAL) TO LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS ADOPTING EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES? 
FINDINGS
Internal barriers
LACK OF FULL-TIME STAFF TO ADMINISTER THE LPD GRANT: All respondents said that their 
non-LPD work competed for their time with LPD activities and reporting and documentation 
requirements. This resulted in them not meeting with other organizations as frequently as expected and 
delays in preparing and delivering reports and documentation to LPD. Existing work limited the ability of 
staff assigned to LPD activities within implementing organizations to attend coordination meetings, meet 
deadlines to prepare project/program documentation and deliverables, and attend capacity-strengthening 
activities. All interviewees agreed that they did not have enough budget to assign full-time staff to 
implement the activities of the sub-grants.
INSUFFICIENT INSTITUTIONAL BUDGET TO PROVIDE COMPLEMENTARY SUPPORT TO 
PARTICIPANT YOUTH: The majority of interviewees recognized the soundness and relevance of 
LPD’s evidence-based interventions; however, they also remarked that the activity was very expensive 
and that there were occasions when additional financial support was needed beyond that of the sub￾grant. Moreover, there were some activities that needed more money than what was provided by LPD
under the sub-grant mechanism. For example, the stipend provided to participant youth for 
transportation was not enough and prevented some participants from showing up to the training 
sessions; implementing organizations did not have the resources to complement the stipend provided by 
the sub-grant. Likewise, some youth needed support to feed themselves or their children and tended to 
use the stipend for that purpose, leaving the organizations with insufficient funds to meet their other 
needs and improve their attendance. In the case of internships, one respondent said that the funds were 
not enough to support youth to attend internships for a long period of time—such as six months or 
26 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
longer—even though they knew that the longer they spent in one internship, the more likely they were 
to get a job. 
The evaluation team received the same feedback from LPD staff, who also pointed out that the 
evidence-based approach was very expensive, primarily because of the case management approach, 
which requires highly qualified and high-salary professionals. 
All interviewees consulted on the budget issue agreed that they did not have sufficient institutional 
financial resources to assign full-time staff to implement the sub-grant activities and predicted that this 
would likely limit the sustainability of the evidence-based approach, despite their willingness to 
implement it. The majority of respondents indicated that it was unlikely that they would be able to 
continue implementing this approach after LPD’s closeout and only a few said they would continue 
implementing the model holistically, as discussed under Evaluation Sub-Question 2c. 
External barriers
SHORT TIMEFRAME TO GET RESULTS: The majority of interviewees agreed that the timeframe to 
aid participating youth was too short to reduce risk factors identified by the risk assessment tool. While 
respondents agreed that more time was needed, there was no agreement on the optimal time. Some 
mentioned timeframes from 2–5 years. Some examples of the feedback included:
• “Two years or less will never be enough for this kind of work, it requires 5 years at a minimum.”
• Several case managers and social workers who provided direct support to youth indicated that two 
counseling sessions for a high-risk youth would not do anything and mentioned that youth would 
need a minimum of six sessions.
• One respondent indicated that for the August Town and Grange Hill interventions, they needed 
more time to effect the real change they were looking for because behavior change takes time; for 
instance, psychosocial support for three months is not enough.
COVID-19 PANDEMIC-RELATED DELAYS: The COVID-19 pandemic generated significant delays in 
the implementation of LPD activities. For instance, the adaptation of the CBT ROLE Model of Mexico to 
the Jamaican context was largely delayed from 2020 to 2021. In one location, one of its three 
interventions was canceled because the Ministry of Health and Wellness and the Jamaica Defense Force 
Army used its facility for their COVID-19 response. Attendance at some face-to-face events was halved 
because of social distancing imposed during the pandemic, and the number of training sessions had to be 
increased to accommodate smaller groups. Implementing partners were unable to directly support 
delivery of assistance to high-risk youth at the tertiary risk level in some areas, although one private 
sector partner indicated that they carried out a training-of-trainers event with the Department of 
Correctional Services during this time. Although LPD’s end date was extended from February 2022 to 
February 2023, and then again to June 2023, most respondents felt they would have been able to assist 
more youth and provide more support sessions without the negative effects of the pandemic.
Respondents praised LPD’s responsiveness and adaptability in addressing these challenges. Adaptations 
included extending deliverable deadlines, requesting no-cost extensions to sub-grants with the support 
of LPD staff, and realignment of budget line items to reflect new costs, such as buying tablets for online 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 27
instruction. LPD took advantage of the intensive interaction and coordination with local community 
members to create confidence and engagement of local communities in LPD activities. 
LIMITED COORDINATION AMONG IMPLEMENTERS: Evaluators found that most respondents 
appreciated the coordination strategy applied by LPD to support collaborative action planning and co￾design. However, although initially there were frequent coordination meetings, after a few months, 
implementing partners met less frequently, according to various respondents. Respondents suggested 
that this was because organizations did not like to work together, coordinating everybody’s time was a 
challenge, and organizations did not have enough time to attend meetings. According to one respondent, 
“It didn't work the way it was planned, and LPD should have been coordinating to make it work.”
GRANT BUDGET LIMITATIONS: The majority of respondents opined that LPD’s evidence-based 
approach was expensive, particularly the case management component. Respondents pointed out that 
delivery of specialized services to youth such as life skills and vocational training and psychosocial 
counseling requires hiring professionals who are not only scarce but also expensive. Most respondents 
believed that this might have affected the number and duration of some services. For example, 
respondents pointed to the low number of counseling sessions, the stipend for internships lasting six 
months not being allowed, the insufficient stipend for participant transportation, insufficient budget to 
hire full-time administrative staff to manage the grants, and lack of budget for project personnel 
transportation. One respondent indicated that the implementers themselves did not benefit financially 
and had expected at least some administrative support. This situation prevented implementing 
organizations from fully committing to the activity, and one interviewee even mentioned that for this 
reason one agency had pulled out of the Collaborative Action program in St. Catherine.
Most interviewees stated that they would not be able to continue applying the evidence-based approach 
if they did not receive funds from donors or other sources.
LIMITED NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS WORKING WITH AT-RISK YOUTH: At the beginning 
of the activity, LPD realized that there were very few organizations working with at-risk youth and even 
fewer working with at-risk youth at medium to high risk levels. Evidence indicates that the organizations 
that were working with at-risk youth were not using the risk assessment to target youth based on the 
level of risk, a gap that required intense capacity-strengthening with potential implementers.
YOUTH FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON GETTING EMPLOYMENT: Evidence from FGDs with youth
participants indicates that they entered the program primarily to get a job, and this was confirmed by 
most key informant interviews. Some interviewees reported that youth ended up not receiving the 
social part of the program, a key component to effectively reducing youth risk factors. Interviewees 
suggested that this was because of a common mindset among youth that focused exclusively on finding a 
job and that they did not value life skills training and psychological support.
LIMITED PARENT OR CAREGIVER ENGAGEMENT: Parenting or caregiver support was not 
mentioned by organizational respondents as a generalized program service. Those that confirmed that
they provide this kind of assistance recognized that full involvement of parents/caregivers is critical for 
reducing crime and violence among youth. However, they pointed out that low levels of financial 
resources forced some parents/caregivers to prioritize attending work rather than participating in family 
counseling sessions, limiting LPD’s impact.
28 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
CONCURRENT INTERVENTIONS: All respondents, including case managers, social workers, and 
psychologists agreed that each youth, given their high risk profile, had to receive many interventions to 
improve their resilience to crime and violence. One case manager mentioned that they had to handle 
many youth interventions at the same time—for example, in August Town and Grange Hill—and that 
they had to prioritize and limit the number of services provided to youth. Other respondents 
mentioned that the number of counseling sessions, for example, were not enough to really produce a 
behavioral change. In general, respondents reported that program participants did not get all the 
assistance they needed based on their risk assessment results. One respondent said that participating 
youth “will likely need remedial support, psychological support, and a social worker, and need to upskill 
them so they can be more marketable and better able to resist a life of crime—they need all these 
services but based on the short timeframe, [it was] hard to prioritize which ones to do.”
FLARE-UPS OF VIOLENCE: In some implementing communities, activity participants were victims of 
violence, leading to delays, cancellations, or relocation of activities.
CONCLUSIONS
There were several key barriers or limitations that affected the achievement of better results. Limited 
budget and staff to manage LPD sub-grants was a major internal factor that limited the achievement of 
products and outcomes. A combination of external factors, including insufficient grant budget, a short 
timeframe to produce results, the COVID-19 pandemic, low coordination among implementers, donor 
budget limitations, youth prioritizing jobs instead of psychosocial support, and low parental engagement 
limited activity results and brought into question the interventions’ sustainability.
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 2B: WHAT ARE THE ENABLING FACTORS THAT ALLOW 
ORGANIZATIONS TO SUCCESSFULLY ADOPT EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMMING? 
FINDINGS
AWARENESS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES: LPD was 
successful in raising awareness and understanding of evidence-based approaches to reduce crime and 
violence among most at-risk youth at the secondary and tertiary levels. Most interviewees from CSOs, 
private sector foundations, and Government of Jamaica entities confirmed that they participated in 
awareness events facilitated by LPD prior to becoming grantees of LPD. During transfer knowledge 
events, they learned best practices to interface with at-risk youth, how these approaches should be 
implemented, and how effective the approaches are. Most implementing partners remarked that their 
experience confirmed that the approach applied by LPD has proven effective, particularly the risk 
screening and risk assessment and re-assessment tools, which have provided evidence of reduced levels 
of risk among participating youth.
Evaluation data found high desire among LPD’s implementing partners to continue applying the evidence￾based approach to reduce crime and violence. However, implementation depends on being awarded 
funds from external sources such as the Government of Jamaica or national and/or international donor 
organizations. 
Interviewees agreed that evidence-based approaches are effective at reducing risk factors of youth 
participating in the activity, but also that the model is expensive, and most organizations do not have the 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 29
resources to implement the approach to its full potential. For instance, deploying the approach requires 
full-time staff including psychologists and case managers, stipends for participants, and coaches and 
mentors.
STUDY TOUR TO MEXICO: The evaluation confirmed that study tour participants found this activity 
very valuable. Participants acknowledged that the tour helped increase the buy-in of key government 
entities, private sector businesses, and CSOs. All study tour participants indicated that they learned 
about best practices and evidence-based approaches for dealing effectively with youth at higher risk of 
getting involved in crime and violence, measuring progress toward reducing risk factors, implementing 
individual treatment plans, engaging the private sector in combating at-risk youth crime and violence, and 
delivery of behavioral support, including counseling and therapy. As a consequence, the tour broadened 
their perspective of how to introduce evidence-based tools in Jamaica, and enabled several organizations 
to successfully apply for LPD sub-grants to implement evidence-based programming. LPD also decided 
to adopt the Mexican model of CBT that participants learned about on the tour.
OWNERSHIP GENERATED BY LPD AMONG IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS: Collaboratively co￾designing program activities and LPD’s flexibility in adjusting program activities generated ownership 
among implementing organizations by allowing them to develop programs that were aligned with their 
institutional interests. LPD brought together groups of potential implementing partners—including 
CSOs, private sector foundations, and community members—to identify and design programs in 
targeted geographic areas such as Clarendon and St. Catherine. Numerous respondents conveyed their 
belief that this approach was a highly effective strategy to motivate implementing partner organizations 
to participate in LPD and work to achieve the intended results. Some respondents also mentioned that 
they used their own resources to support participating youth. For instance, in some cases, stipends, 
counseling, and support in obtaining personal identification numbers for taxes, bank accounts, etc. that 
were not budgeted for under the sub-grant were partially covered by the implementing organizations. 
PROFESSIONALISM, FLEXIBILITY, AND COMMITMENT OF THE LPD TEAM: Most respondents 
highlighted the expertise, flexibility, and commitment of LPD’s technical staff as a motivational factor that 
supported the successful implementation of evidence-based programming. Some respondents indicated 
that the convening power of LPD, based on its reputation and expertise, enabled the program to 
convince interested organizations to implement evidence-based programming under LPD. Respondents 
noted that LPD staff were highly flexible in providing needed organizational support for implementing 
partners, including training staff on monitoring and evaluation and using the newly created case 
management system to report on progress toward results.
The evaluation team confirmed that during the initial socialization and sensitization phase of the activity 
and during implementation, the LPD team effectively conveyed its expertise on evidence-based 
approaches to reducing crime and violence among high-risk youth, a key factor that helped organizations 
decide to become involved in the activity. One respondent said, “In terms of project design and 
responding to the needs of the target population, they have been responsive and creative to the benefit 
of the program. The team is a good blend of professionals in terms of what is needed. Worked well 
together to troubleshoot and work out challenges on the ground during implementation.”
30 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
CONCLUSIONS
LPD’s strong convening power appears to have been a key enabling factor for successful implementation 
of evidence-based approaches. LPD cultivated ownership of activities among local government and non￾government organizations. The high quality of the capacity-strengthening activities—awareness and 
technical workshops, specialized training, and the study tour to Mexico—were key enabling factors for 
adopting evidence-based programming among implementing partners.
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 2C: WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT BENEFICIARY 
ORGANIZATIONS ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THESE APPROACHES? 
FINDINGS
Respondents told evaluators that they have the capacity and willingness to continue partially applying 
evidence-based approaches, but do not have the resources, strategies, or plans to allocate dedicated 
budget to apply it fully. For example, some indicated that they would at least continue to use the risk 
assessment tool to measure results toward reduction of risk factors among assisted youth, but not 
necessarily other aspects of the approach they have been using during LPD implementation. Some 
interviewees, particularly case managers, believed that most organizations do not have the institutional 
resources to fully implement LPD’s evidence-based approaches.
However, a few private sector, CSO, and Government of Jamaica implementing partners reported that 
they plan to continue or have started using the whole evidence-based approach, including providing CBT 
services to clients and providing technical training on evidence-based approaches to other partners:
One private sector foundation, for example, is initiating work with two initiatives; one of them is funded 
by the European Union and the other is receiving support from a private sector company (not 
identified), and will reportedly replicate the LPD approach model. One CSO will apply the evidence￾based approach under the new Social Transformation and Renewal (STAR) project funded by the Private 
Sector Organization of Jamaica in conjunction with the Jamaica Constabulary Force. The CSO “will 
provide technical expertise with a focus on evidence-based approaches to violence prevention utilizing a 
public health approach” with the aim of bringing about social transformation in Jamaica’s low-resource 
communities. One Government of Jamaica ministry is also part of the STAR project and will be able to 
apply the evidence-based approach in working in schools to reduce crime and violence. In October 
2022, this ministry identified nine high schools in Grange Hill to conduct a CBT methodology pilot and 
then extend its use to all Jamaican high schools.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD’s evidence-based approach is likely to be sustained by only a few implementing partners that have 
reported that they are already implementing or planning to implement this approach in programs or 
projects funded by donors or other financial supporters. 
The rest of the interviewees said that they do not have the budget to implement the evidence-based 
approaches in a holistic manner unless they receive funds from external sources to do so. Some do plan 
to continue using the Jamaica Risk Assessment, which is a key component of the model, because they 
consider it an effective way to better target youth and reduce crime and violence. The majority of 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 31
interviewees confirmed that they will not be able to continue applying the evidence-based approaches at 
all after LPD closes out because they lack the financial resources to sustain these costly approaches.
EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS LPD INTEGRATED PRIVATE SECTOR 
ENGAGEMENT TO ADDRESS THE RISK AND RESILIENCE FACTORS FACED BY TARGETED 
YOUTH, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES?
FINDINGS
INCLUSION IN TRAINING: As evidenced by both desk review documents and KIIs, LPD employed a 
collaborative approach to private sector engagement. For example, both the Clarendon Collaborative 
Action Project and St. Catherine Collaborative Action Project used multistakeholder groups drawn from 
civil society, the private sector, and government entities to jointly participate in workshops, training 
activities, strategy sessions, and program development.8 Additionally, the Mexico study tour included 
three private sector foundations. 
COMPLEMENTARY STRENGTHS OF PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS: Youth activity participants 
identified lack of employment opportunities as a primary concern, making employment-based 
interventions a natural programming activity and private sector organizations logical partners because of 
their capacity to provide both vocational training and short- and long-term opportunities for 
employment. LPD enabled holistic, integrated PSE approaches that leveraged a combination of evidence￾based interventions by providing capacity-strengthening for private sector partners, such as training in 
life skills and CBT interventions, enhancing the probability of youth participants’ overall success.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD substantially integrated private sector engagement to address the risk and resilience factors faced 
by targeted youth, families, and communities. By integrating private sector partners into the 
development and implementation of its interventions, including muti-sector learning, collaboration, and 
mutual reinforcement, LPD promoted private sector partners’ capacity to contribute to youth crime and 
violence prevention. PSE was neither an afterthought nor an exclusive focus of LPD’s strategy, but a 
critical component of an integrated, holistic approach combining proven, evidence-based intervention 
strategies.
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 3A: WHAT PSE APPROACHES ARE MOST USEFUL IN YOUTH 
CRIME AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION? WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO
GREATER PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN THIS AREA?
FINDINGS
Approaches most useful in youth crime and violence prevention
INTEGRATED APPROACH TO PSE YOUTH INTERVENTIONS: Youth participants identified 
apprenticeship programs, business opportunity training, and other employment-oriented activities as 
their primary motivation for initially participating in LPD programs, overwhelmingly citing the lack of 
8 Jamaica Local Partner Development, Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2020.
32 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
employment opportunities as one of their most significant obstacles. Once in the programs, youth 
participants also highly praised the broad range of individualized and sustained interventions, such as 
CBT, life skills training, mentorship, anger management training, and drug counseling, that were 
integrated with the employment-oriented activities. CBT, in particular, was widely praised by youth 
participants in almost every FGD, with numerous participants describing how the program changed their 
outlook on life, their relationships with their families, and their ability to identify and avoid behaviors 
that previously led to negative outcomes. Additionally, as noted in the analysis for Evaluation Question 
1, KIIs and survey data suggest that an integrated approach to youth interventions led to better 
outcomes. For example, while FGD participants frequently cited employment-based activities as their 
primary motivation for participating in LPD activities, once in the program, they overwhelmingly 
credited CBT and life skills training for providing a healthier and more constructive approach to 
relationships and life, and for preventing them from slipping back into counterproductive behaviors.
COLLABORATION AND CAPACITY-STRENGTHENING FOR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS:
Private sector partners engaged by LPD frequently expressed appreciation for the collaborative 
approach and the skills, knowledge, and capacity that will remain even after the cessation of LPD
activities. In particular, private sector partners favorably mentioned the co-creation process, the ability 
to work with and learn from CSOs and other private sector partners through workshops and 
discussions, and the assistance provided by LPD in navigating and understanding the donor-funded 
administrative, financial, and regulatory environment. Private sector partners also credited LPD with 
significantly enhancing their understanding of at-risk youth and how to engage with them and better 
target them based on the level of risk they have at the point of enrollment in the activity. For example, 
several private sector partners reported that the Jamaica Risk Assessment tool is now embedded in 
their approach to youth crime and violence prevention.
PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT-BASED OPPORTUNITIES: As noted in Evaluation Sub-Question 
1a, vocational training and access to improved opportunities for employment are key motivating factors 
for at-risk youth. Youth participants in FGDs frequently cited lack of employment as one of their most 
significant challenges and identified employment-based opportunities as the primary benefit of LPD’s 
program. LPD’s private sector partners served as the primary mechanism for providing employment￾based opportunities to activity participants. 
Potential barriers to greater private sector participation
LACK OF ONGOING FUNDING: While some private sector partners indicated an ongoing 
commitment to youth crime and violence prevention activities, many indicated that without funding they 
would be unable to continue the kind of integrated, multi-faceted approach to interventions used by 
LPD. Such interventions are resource intensive, and even larger private sector partners may not be able 
to provide sufficient financial support for participants to support themselves and their families during the 
program without taking time away from programming to work.
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING/WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH AT-RISK YOUTH: Private sector 
organizations often have little understanding of youth crime and violence prevention, while others are 
reluctant to engage with at-risk youth, particularly those deemed to be high risk. Some private sector 
organizations are concerned about working with youth viewed as potentially having gang/criminal 
backgrounds, and who may be unreliable or difficult to work with. For example, one grantee noted:
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 33
“[There is] small to no willingness of the private sector to collaborate with at-risk youth. They are not 
that interested in hiring youth with a ‘rap sheet.’ Closer to the end of the project some youth got small 
positions in supermarkets or hardware as Christmas jobs but there wasn’t a lot of assistance there in 
terms of apprenticeships, so it was difficult…. Bigger organizations—they are not ready to take on youth 
from certain communities.”
LOW AVAILABILITY OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES: Youth participants cited the desire to 
obtain employment opportunities as their primary motivation but some respondents reported that, 
overall, private sector organizations were unwilling to take on large groups of at-risk youth. This is 
particularly problematic after apprenticeships or training activities have concluded, as participants often 
have difficulty obtaining ongoing employment even with their new certifications or skills.
ATTRITION: Some private sector organizations identified significant attrition in programs for at-risk 
youth. For example, one organization specified that out of 138 referrals, only 50 completed Phase 1 
training, of which only 11 completed Phase 2 mentorship and business support—a completion rate of 
approximately 8 percent.
CONCLUSIONS
LPD used an integrated approach to PSE youth interventions, combining employment-oriented activities 
such as apprenticeships and business opportunity training with CBT, anger management, drug 
counseling, and other life skills-oriented training. Based on feedback from youth program participants 
and the decreased attrition of programs using integrated interventions, an integrated approach to youth 
and crime violence prevention for PSE seems more likely to resonate with youth and break the cycle of 
self-defeating behaviors than programs focusing on a single intervention.
Private sector partners identified a variety of potential barriers to greater participation in youth crime 
and violence prevention, including funding, willingness to employ at-risk youth, and high program 
attrition. However, most of these limitations can be mitigated by strategies identified in the 
Recommendations section.
EVALUATION SUB-QUESTION 3B–D
ESQ3B. TO WHAT EXTENT CAN PSE APPROACHES HELP BUILD SUSTAINABILITY IN YOUTH CRIME AND 
VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACTIVITIES IN JAMAICA? 
ESQ3C. WHAT ARE THE ENABLING FACTORS THAT ALLOW PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS TO 
SUPPORT YOUTH CRIME AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACTIVITIES? 
ESQ3D. WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE 
TO PROVIDE SUPPORT IN THIS AREA? 
This section presents findings for Evaluation Sub-Questions 3b–d by addressing topics related to PSE and 
sustainability that are relevant to all three sub-questions.
FINDINGS
34 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
PRIVATE SECTOR MOTIVATION TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CRIME AND VIOLENCE: While 
several respondents noted reluctance by some private sector organizations to work with at-risk youth, 
most private sector and CSO KII respondents observed increasing private sector interest both in 
community programming generally and in youth crime and violence prevention activities specifically. The 
number of private sector foundations is increasing, in part because of greater acceptance of corporate 
social responsibility. 
In particular, KII participants noted that private sector organizations’ links to the communities in which 
they are located and greater awareness of social challenges are motivation for their interest in engaging 
in youth crime and violence prevention. In many instances, private sector organizations are already 
engaged in community development and have existing ties to community-based organizations, such as 
community development committees. As ongoing members of the community, and with employees living 
and working in affected areas, private sector organizations can serve as long-term allies to promote 
youth crime and violence prevention in their communities, contributing to the sustainability of these 
efforts.
Private sector organizations are also, to some extent, motivated by increasing concern about the impact 
of crime and violence on GDP and Jamaica’s economic growth and stability. Additionally, some KII 
participants observed that private sector organizations are particularly results-oriented, and the 
successful approach employed by LPD resonated with private sector partners and encouraged them to 
continue it. As one private sector partner stated, “As we speak, we have been exploring the possibility 
of having a part 2 and are planning to do a second program.” The same partner also stated, “If 
something is evidence based, and it is working, it should be replicated. The point of a pilot is to test 
efficacy. If it works it should be scaled up.”
PRIVATE SECTOR CAPACITY-STRENGTHENING: The evaluation team received consistently 
positive feedback on LPD’s approach to increasing private sector capacity to engage in this area, helping 
to build sustainability through their PSE activities. While KII participants positively noted increasing 
interest and commitment from the private sector to engage in youth crime and violence prevention, 
they also identified an ongoing need for private sector capacity-strengthening and skills training. Most 
private sector organizations have limited familiarity with social development, and KII participants 
positively cited LPD’s efforts to build private sector capacity, including development of substantive 
knowledge, program management skills, and skills for working with the donor community. Private sector 
partners frequently noted in KIIs that the skills and knowledge they derived from LPD programs will 
enable their participation in youth crime and violence prevention in the future, helping to build locally 
driven, sustainable capacity. For example, one grantee noted:
“CBT has now become one of our pillars because of LPD support, we have been trained and we have 
people on staff who can train others in CBT. They also provided support in master trainers in life skills, 
which will also add to sustainability, because we can then train others. It’s allowing us to have greater 
impact, reach, and scale in terms of the delivery of our life skills program. And the assessment is 
something that we have. It’s become part of general operations in any program that we do now. We do 
screening and assessments today to make sure that we are on target.”
MULTISTAKEHOLDER COORDINATION AND COOPERATION: LPD used joint activities and 
planning with private sector and CSO partners to promote an integrated approach to youth crime and 
violence prevention through multistakeholder collaboration and coordination. For instance, the 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 35
Collaborative Action Projects for Clarendon and St. Catherine demonstrated the benefits of effective 
coordination between the private sector and other stakeholders. KII participants described how 
multistakeholder programming benefits from the inherent advantages possessed by private sector 
partners in conducting employment-oriented activities, while private sector partners benefit from the 
skills and knowledge training gained from working with CSOs in designing and implementing social 
development programs. Accordingly, several KII participants identified the importance of effective 
coordination in the area of youth crime and violence prevention as an enabling factor for private sector 
participation. This includes effective coordination within the private sector itself and between the private 
sector and civil society. One KII participant from the Government of Jamaica observed:
“I think there could be greater impact with more cohesion among the private sector. We are a culture 
of scarce benefits, which hurts cohesion. To get as many youth as possible in the program we need 
better coordination in the private sector rather than competition. Also, the U.S. Embassy needs to help 
organizations stop working in isolation. Jamaica gets lots of funding, lots has already been tried, but we 
need greater open discussion and coordination to align efforts and reduce competition.”
SUSTAINED FUNDING AND PROGRAMMING: In conjunction with the need for effective 
coordination, some KII participants expressed frustration with the limited nature of programs and 
identified sustained funding as an enabling factor for private sector participation. KII participants noted 
that impact in the area of youth crime and violence prevention will only be realized through long-term 
programming, and this will only be possible through ongoing support from the donor community. 
Several private sector partners praised the funding provided by LPD and identified financial support they 
received as “crucial” for their participation. While larger private sector participants expressed an intent 
in KIIs to continue at least some aspects of their youth crime and violence prevention programs, the 
majority of private sector participants indicated that ongoing funding would be necessary for them to 
continue programming.
CONCLUSIONS
The private sector is increasingly interested in youth development and the challenges presented by 
youth crime and violence, and with sufficient capacity-strengthening and funding, is likely to remain 
involved in youth crime and violence prevention. 
PSE approaches can be extremely helpful in building sustainability in youth crime and violence prevention 
in Jamaica. Private sector organizations play an essential role in providing much-needed employment￾based activities and employment opportunities for at-risk youth, and should be integrated into a 
comprehensive, collaborative approach to youth crime and violence prevention in conjunction with civil 
society, government agencies, and the donor community. Private sector organizations also have existing 
ties to the communities in which they operate and are sensitive to the particular social challenges facing 
their communities. 
However, they are less prepared than other types of stakeholders to work in this sphere, so for PSE to 
fully contribute to sustainable crime and violence prevention, private sector capacity-strengthening in 
social development, programming approaches, project management, and skills in connecting with and 
navigating the donor community is essential. Sustained funding is also a crucial factor for recruiting and 
maintaining private sector support for youth crime and violence prevention; without funding from LPD, 
most private sector partners would not have engaged in youth crime and violence prevention.
36 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because this final performance evaluation report has been prepared near the end of LPD, the 
recommendations below are targeted at USAID/Jamaica. These recommendations are expected to 
inform design and implementation of future programming in Jamaica aimed at assisting youth at medium 
and high risk levels as a means to reduce crime and violence at the secondary and tertiary levels.
Train potential implementing partners in evidence-based approaches and award grants to 
organizations that meet minimum levels of technical and organizational capacity.
Because few organizations in Jamaica possess the technical and organizational capacity to work with at￾risk youth at the secondary and tertiary levels, and most organizations are not equipped with full-time 
staff with the technical expertise needed, such as case managers, psychologists, project coordinators,
and mentors, USAID/Jamaica should design programs that include two phases. First, it should train 
potential implementing partners in evidence-based approaches to reducing youth crime and violence to 
equip organizations with full-time staff able to implement the LPD integrated model. Second, it should 
award grants to trained organizations that meet minimum technical and organizational capacity standards 
to implement these approaches. By doing so, USAID will ensure that more organizations have the 
capacity to work with at-risk youth more effectively. 
Consider commissioning a cost-effectiveness study to analyze and determine the optimum 
level of support needed for technical and psychosocial support to youth to effectively 
reduce their risk factors. 
Insufficient budget was a major barrier identified in the evaluation. Activities such as managing grants, 
providing stipends to program participants, and, especially, psychosocial support are costly, and many 
organizations working to reduce youth crime and violence lack sufficient funds to cover these costs. 
Studying the cost effectiveness of these various interventions would enable stakeholders to understand 
how to allocate their resources most effectively.
Sustain funding as part of a long-term approach to youth crime and violence prevention.
Consistent funding was identified as an enabling factor for ongoing participation by private sector 
organizations. While many private sector organizations are interested in participating in youth crime and 
violence prevention programs, they are reluctant to do so unless staffing, program participant stipends, 
and other costs are covered.
Future interventions should continue to coordinate as much as possible with the 
Government of Jamaica and across donors/partners (including CSOs and the private 
sector) to maximize program effectiveness.
Effective coordination between stakeholders was identified as a need across stakeholder types and was 
an enabling factor for ongoing private sector participation. Approaches that promote collaboration 
between the private sector, civil society, and government agency partners foster a common 
understanding of youth crime and violence prevention and facilitate effective coordination of 
programming. For example, greater coordination can help future partners target specific participant 
groups. Strategies that employ collaboration and mutual learning also help build private sector capacity 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 37
to continue work in this area by transferring knowledge and skills related to social development, 
program management, and working in the donor-funded environment.
Increase engagement of youth family members to further improve reduction in risk factors 
and youth resilience to crime and violence.
Though LPD programming in this area was limited, family members of at-risk youth (generally family 
members of minors) often described the parenting classes they participated in as transformative. 
Expanding this type of support in an integrated youth risk reduction model increases its chances of 
effectiveness by addressing additional dimensions of risk for involvement in crime and violence beyond 
the individual, and could be provided either through complementary programming (e.g., USAID’s 
Positive Pathways activity) for which participants receive referrals or through direct inclusion in a future
activity model. 
Focus future programming with unattached youth on permanent job placement 
opportunities (or apprenticeships with the opportunity for permanent placement) rather 
than short-term internships. Internships are most appropriate and successful in providing 
youth enrolled in school with a first employment experience.
Respondents identified increased access to employment opportunities as a significant motivation for 
youth participation in interventions, but they also identified a lack of actual long-term employment 
opportunities as part of LPD programming as an obstacle. Ongoing employment support beyond their 
initial training and apprenticeships would help the long-term success of youth program participants.
Continue including case management/mentorship and CBT components in future 
interventions.
The case management/mentorship and CBT components should be continued in future programming 
because they address underlying issues to decrease dropouts. Government of Jamaica entities should 
also institutionalize them to increase sustainability.
Consider involving youth in activity design, rather than engaging them midway through 
when issues have already arisen.
LPD’s efforts to include partners and stakeholders in program co-creation and to solicit feedback from 
youth were laudable and successful. The next step in demonstrating this commitment to incorporating 
knowledge gained through youths’ lived experience to improve programming is to expand consultation 
with youth at the beginning of the activity. Though there may be logistical or timeline challenges to 
accomplishing this, expanding the co-design process could improve participant buy-in and avoid some 
issues in implementation. 
Build in sufficient resources for youth crime prevention programming.
Some of the elements of LPD’s youth crime prevention programming that participants considered most 
important in reducing youth crime and violence were also some of the programs’ most cost-intensive 
elements, such as case managers and stipends. Respondents often pointed out that funding for these 
programmatic elements was insufficient. USAID should ensure that program funding is sufficient to hire 
38 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
enough case managers and cover participants’ costs—including supporting their families, if deemed 
necessary in special cases—during the program design and budgeting stage to ensure that participants 
fully attend programming and complete their individual treatment plans. For instance, stipends and meals 
should be considered an essential component of all activities and must be sufficient to adequately 
compensate participants’ attendance-related costs. However, future programming should avoid making 
stipends so high that they become an “incentive for attendance.” As a complementary approach to 
alleviate the lack of funds, future programs should consider combining program activities with support to 
youth to find a part-time job that could help participants earn some money to cover attendance costs 
and increase the rate of graduated youth, something that would require private sector engagement in 
program design, given the challenges LPD has experienced with securing short-term internships.
Continue the individualized, integrated approach to youth interventions. 
These early results of LPD’s integrated approach showed promising decreases in risk for youth 
involvement in crime and violence and earned praise from both participants and grantees who saw the 
activity making a difference in their communities. Current and future programming should build on this 
success by adopting and refining LPD’s comprehensive, customized, and sustained model of support for 
medium- and high-risk youth. Specifically, programming for youth crime and violence prevention should 
continue to combine employment-oriented activities with CBT, anger management, mentorships, drug 
counseling, and other life skills-oriented training.
Expand youth assistance programs into other hotspot areas.
Because many of the benefits of this work are individual or highly local, USAID should consider 
expanding the geographic reach of future activities to maximize programmatic outcomes. 
Build sustainability through ongoing connections with program graduates.
Integrating program graduates into future interventions (for example, as mentors for future 
classes/activities) could be a powerful tool to support graduates’ progress and provide current program 
participants with advocates who understand youth challenges firsthand. 
Plan for a longer program timeline to realize full benefits.
LPD’s timeframe to assess and re-assess at-risk youth was short (six months for clients below 18 years 
old, and nine months for clients 18 years or older) and should be extended in future programming to 
have more significant reduction in risk levels. Grants should also include a period of youth mentoring 
and/or monitoring after the end of the case treatment plans to support transition and monitor for 
sustainability of changes. Because the timeframe for assessing and re-assessing at-risk youth was set by 
the Ministry of National Security, any changes to those timelines should be agreed upon with this 
ministry.
Expand work to share data on results of activities and best practices, so that a wider 
community of stakeholders has timely access to USAID-funded evidence on what works. 
Grantees and government stakeholders expressed desire for more timely access to M&E data to help 
them incorporate lessons learned into their programming. Investments in access to information can also 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 39
help sustain learning after the activity ends. For example, making resources on programming for 
organizations serving youth available electronically through an online platform can be a low-cost way to 
sustain learning gained through activities such as LPD.
PSE programming for youth crime and violence prevention should continue to use a 
collaborative approach, along with outreach to the general business community that 
leverages their ties to the local community.
Ongoing collaboration should use co-creation processes, management support, skills training, and other 
capacity-strengthening activities that enhance private sector partners’ knowledge and skills in youth 
crime and violence prevention. Because private sector organizations have limited experience and 
knowledge in social development, collaborative approaches that strengthen their capacity and encourage 
collaboration with civil society increase their ability to effectively engage in youth crime and violence 
prevention.
Additionally, PSE programming should sensitize the business community to the challenges facing at-risk 
youth, the related social problems for the communities in which the private sector organizations work, 
and the benefits of working with at-risk youth. 
Finally, in many instances, private sector organizations are already engaged in community development 
and have existing ties to community-based organizations, such as community development committees. 
As ongoing members of the community, and with employees living and working in affected areas, private 
sector organizations can serve as long-term allies to promote youth crime and violence prevention, 
contributing to the sustainability of these efforts.
40 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK
ACTIVITY TITLE
Final Performance Evaluation of the Local Partner Development (LPD) activity.
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) Chapter 20119 establishes Agency Program Cycle 
guidance and procedures, including those for learning from performance monitoring, evaluations, and 
other relevant sources of information to make course corrections as needed and inform future 
programming. According to the policy, “[e]valuation is the systematic collection and analysis of 
information about the characteristics and outcomes of strategies, projects, and activities conducted as a 
basis for judgments to improve effectiveness and timed to inform decisions about current and future 
programming. Evaluation is distinct from assessment or an informal review of projects.” Further, “[t]he 
purpose of evaluations is twofold: to ensure accountability to stakeholders and to learn to improve 
development outcomes.”
The purpose of this performance evaluation is threefold to: (1) determine the extent to which the LPD 
activity’s strategic approach improved the resilience of targeted youth, their families and communities to 
crime and violence; (2) assess the degree to which targeted local organizations are able to implement 
evidence-based programming to improve activity outcomes; and (3) examine the extent to which private 
sector engagement may improve the sustainability of youth crime and violence prevention 
interventions.10 Findings and recommendations from the evaluation will be instructive for broader 
Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI) programming considerations (see Section III for more 
information).
AUDIENCE AND INTENDED USES
The primary evaluation stakeholders are:
1. USAID/Jamaica
2. Ministry of National Security, including agencies and departments such as the Department of 
Correctional Services
3. Ministry of Justice
4. Ministry of Education and Youth
5. The Planning Institute of Jamaica
9 ADS 201 can be found at https://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/200/201
10 USAID’s definition of Private Sector Engagement (PSE) may be found in the PSE policy at: https://www.usaid.gov/work￾usaid/private-sector-engagement/policy
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 41
6. Civil Society Organizations, including community and faith-based organizations, engaged in 
youth crime prevention programming
7. Private Sector Organization of Jamaica and select member organizations engaged in youth 
crime prevention programming
LPD is an activity under the CBSI of the U.S. Department of State (DOS). The DOS, USAID, and other 
agencies such as the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) that receive CBSI 
funding will take a particular interest in any lessons for CBSI success.
USAID/Jamaica will disseminate evaluation findings to secondary audiences, such as LAC missions with 
similar programs and with USAID’s Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation (DDI) and 
Bureau for Conflict-Prevention and Stabilization for sharing in other regions. The Mission will use the 
findings of the evaluation report to inform the development of future capacity building and youth crime 
and violence prevention programming. Other international development partners such as the UK 
Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, Global Affairs Canada, and the European Union that 
implement citizen security activities would also be interested in the findings.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Strategy/Project/Activity 
Name
Local Partner Development Activity
USAID Office Office of Citizen Security, USAID/Jamaica
Implementer(s) FHI 360
Cooperative Agreement # AID-532-LA-17-00001
Total Estimated Ceiling of 
the Evaluated Activity (TEC)
$16,000,000
Life of Activity February 2017 – February 2023
Active Geographic Regions See Section C4. B
Development Objective(s) 
(DOs)
DO 2: Youth Crime and Violence Prevented in Targeted Communities 
(CDCS 2020-2025)
DO: Threats to the environment and citizen vulnerability reduced (CDCS 
2013-2019)
Required evaluation? Yes
External or internal 
evaluation?
External
42 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
BACKGROUND
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND CONTEXT
Jamaica is an upper middle-income country with a population of approximately 2.8 million. The country 
boasts a relatively high life expectancy and a high literacy rate. Its Journey to Self- Reliance Roadmap 
education quality score (0.45) is slightly above the average (0.40) and shows room for further 
improvement.11 Despite these gains, the country is confronted with challenges that impede its 
development, including a high homicide rate.
High levels of crime and violence continue to be a major concern of the government and citizens of 
Jamaica—threatening many industries and placing a heavy burden on the health and criminal justice 
systems. In an October 12, 2017, Jamaica Gleaner newspaper article, the then Minister of National 
Security estimated the direct cost of violence to the Jamaican economy to be 5 percent of GDP or 
J$68B (U$535M). For many years, Jamaica has experienced high and persistent levels of violence placing 
the country in the top ten countries with the highest homicide rates. In-Sight Crime’s 2021 Homicide 
Roundup reported that Jamaica had the highest homicide rate in Latin America and the Caribbean at 
49.4 deaths per 100,000 people in 2021. Notwithstanding additional crime-fighting measures put in place 
by the Government of Jamaica (GOJ), the number of murders continues to increase. Data from the 
Jamaica Constabulary Force indicates that there were 1,463 murders in 2021, representing a 10 percent 
increase over 2020.12 The country’s 0.54 score out of 1.0 on the 2022 USAID Road Map’s “Safety and 
Security” metric confirms that crime and violence is still a pressing concern. In 2021, Jamaica scored 
0.57 for safety and security.
In Jamaica, youth are most often the perpetrators and victims of crime and violence. Youth are arrested, 
jailed and murdered at twice the rate of the general population. An IDB study13 on crime and violence in 
Jamaica profiles most victims of homicide as, “male, young, uneducated, and poor.” The study found that, 
“In 2013, 90 percent of all victims were male” and 51 percent were under the age of 35. Per 
USAID/Jamaica’s Gender Analysis, the frequency of physical violence for males averaged 2,799 per year 
over the 2007-2012 period and the violence frequency for females averaged 311 during the same period. 
Many young men possess criminal records that present obstacles to accessing legitimate social services, 
jobs, and accompanying opportunities that keep them confined in the perpetual cycle of a criminal and 
violent lifestyle. Those with a criminal history face difficulty getting jobs in the formal sector as many 
employers require a criminal background check for employment.
The GOJ has implemented several strategies to reduce the number of homicides and increase 
cooperation with the police. The Ministry of National Security (MNS) ended its major intervention—the 
Citizen Security and Justice Program (CSJP) in September 2019—and has launched a new Citizen 
Security Plan (Plan Secure Jamaica)14, which seeks to intensify and deepen interventions in targeted 
11 See FY 2022 Jamaica Country Roadmap Score of 0.45 on Education Quality (https://selfreliance.usaid.gov/country/jamaica)
12 https://jcf.gov.jm/stats/ - April 25, 2022
13 Inter-American Bank (IDB) Series on Crime and Violence in the Caribbean: Crime and Violence in Jamaica, 2016
14 See JIS report of the Minister of National Security presentation on Plan Secure Jamaica - https://jis.gov.jm/govt￾committed-to-plan-secure-jamaica-dr-chang/
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 43
hotspot communities and address the challenges identified, including trust levels between police and 
citizens and impunity among public officials.
Despite Jamaica consistently scoring very high (0.96) on the USAID Road Map’s “Civil Society Capacity” 
metric, USAID’s work with civil society organizations (CSOs) in citizen security has shown that they 
tend to have low capacity to manage donor funding and implement data-driven programs. In addition, 
they have inadequate human resources, low funding and often rely on donor funds, and there is little 
collaboration and coordination between CSOs. Findings from a 2016 Jamaica Local Capacity 
Development mapping exercise reveal that although Jamaica has a vibrant and active civil society its 
overall capacity and structure are still weak and fragmented, with limited genuine collaboration and 
coordination. It is USAID’s experience that non- governmental organizations (NGOs) that work on 
youth issues tend to focus on primary interventions that target the general population rather than 
secondary and tertiary interventions targeting youth who have serious behavioral issues, have come into 
contact with the law, or have a police record. These findings and observations have influenced 
USAID/Jamaica’s decision to build the capacity of local CSOs and the private sector to effectively work 
with youth who are most at risk of getting involved in violence and crime, that is, secondary and tertiary 
crime prevention.
LINKS TO JAMAICA CDCS AND CARIBBEAN BASIN SECURITY INITIATIVE
The CBSI was launched after the 5th Summit of the Americas in April 2009 in response to rising crime 
(high homicide rates),15 the security threat posed by Transnational Organized Crime, and the need to
secure the United States’ third border. It brings together members of the Caribbean Community and 
the Dominican Republic to collaborate on regional security with the United States as a partner and 
provides funding for activities aimed at crime and violence prevention. In 2017, USAID started the 
implementation of the Local Partner Development activity with CBSI funds. The activity was 
implemented across two USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCSs):
1. 2013-2019 CDCS (see Figure 1) - Development Objective “Threats to the Environment and 
Citizen Vulnerability Reduced” through Intermediate Result (IR) 2: “Violence in Community 
Renewal Programme (CRP) Communities Reduced” and Sub IR 2.3: “Institutional Capacity of 
Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Civil Society Organizations (CSO), Non￾Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Ministries, Department and Agencies (MDAs) 
Improved.”
2. 2020-2025 CDCS (see Figure 2) - DO 2: Youth crime and violence prevented in targeted 
communities through IR 2.1 “Resilience of youth improved to prevent crime and violence” and 
IR 2.2 “Institutions' effective response to growing crime and violence.” The relevant sub-IRs 
are:
− Sub-IR 2.1.1- Community-level Violence Prevention strengthened to increase resilience factors 
and reduce risk factors that drive youth involvement in crime and violence
− Sub-IR 2.1.2 - Child Justice System improved to rehabilitate and reintegrate youth in conflict 
with the law back into their communities
15 UNDOC reported that the Caribbean had the highest homicide rate of any other region in the world (30 per 
100,000, 2007)
44 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
− Sub-IR 2.2.1 - Criminal Justice System strengthened to effectively process crime and violence 
cases
− Sub-IR 2.2.2 - Institutions Capacity to Advance Crime and Violence Prevention Increased
Figure 1: USAID/Jamaica’s Results Framework (Source: Jamaica CDCS 2013-2019)
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 45
Figure 2: USAID/Jamaica’s Results Framework (Source: Jamaica CDCS 2020-2025
The Local Partner Development activity also supports the 2020 CBSI Strategic Framework, which has 
two IRs:
1. IR 2.1: Resilience of Youth Improved to Prevent Crime and Violence
Under this IR, USAID supports efforts that help targeted communities increase resilience 
factors and reduce risk factors that drive youth involvement in crime and violence.
2. IR 2.2: Institutions’ Effective Response to Growing Crime and Violence
Through IR 2.2, USAID partners with GOJ institutions to strengthen restorative justice 
practices and implement alternative dispute resolution methods and practices in order to 
reduce court backlogs at the parish and community levels. Partnerships with the GOJ, civil 
society and the private sector implement crime prevention activities and seek to strengthen 
interventions to build trust and confidence at the community level among the JCF and 
citizens.
CBSI has been codified under the Caribbean-United States Framework for Security Cooperation, the 
Caribbean-United States Declaration of Principles, and the Caribbean-United States Plan of Action. 
When the Framework was updated in November 2017, it emphasized that improving citizen security 
requires a coordinated multi-national and multi-sector approach including
46 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
prevention, institutional reforms, and information sharing. When the Plan of Action was also updated 
in November 2017, the governments committed to implementing and strengthening the collection and 
use of reliable data as a basis for policies and decision-making.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION TO BE EVALUATED AND THEORY OF CHANGE
LPD 2017-2019
The LPD activity began as a general organizational strengthening program working with local partners 
across several sectors. After two years, the activity transitioned to strengthening institutions that 
work in the youth crime and violence prevention sector and re-align with the CBSI Framework.
For the first two years of implementation, the main objective of the LPD was to build the capacity of 
Jamaican Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), Social Enterprises (SEs), Community Based 
Organizations (CBOs), Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), and government entities that partner with 
USAID/Jamaica’s Office of Citizen Security (OCS) to become effective and sustainable actors to 
improve citizen security and social cohesion.
LPD then had four main components:
1. Component 1: Strengthen the Capacity of Targeted Local Entities;
2. Component 2: Support Social Enterprises through a Business Incubator Model;
3. Component 3: Improve the Enabling Environment for Civil Society Organizations and Social 
Enterprises; and
4. Component 4: Intentional Collaboration Between Civil Society, Government, and the Private 
Sector.
LPD 2019-2023
To better align with the revised CBSI Framework and USAID’s CDCS, from 2019 onwards, the 
primary focus of the LPD changed to strengthening the capacity of targeted Jamaican CSOs and 
government entities that support them to become more effective in preventing crime and violence, by 
increasing collaboration between government, business, and civil society. LPD works to achieve the 
following result:
Jamaican institutions will become more effective in advancing collaborative, evidence- based youth crime and 
violence prevention strategies. CSOs and key public and private partners will be better able to mobilize and 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 47
sustain targeted and effective secondary and tertiary prevention.
LPD’s theory of change hypothesizes that:
IF LPD:
1. Builds key stakeholders’ awareness of evidence-based prevention approaches and improves 
their capacity to target youth at higher risk of perpetration of crime and violence, including 
youth in conflict with the law or in formal institutional settings, AND
2. Empowers local governments, civil society organizations and community members to 
advocate for critical resources and reforms,
THEN LPD’s partners, through USAID funding, will
1. Holistically and cost-effectively target the social, economic and psycho-social drivers of crime 
and violence and provide effective services to the most at-risk youth, and
2. Create the conditions, services and opportunities for youth in the justice system to 
rehabilitate, reintegrate and avoid re-engagement with crime/violence,
3. Apply evidence-based strategies, including through government partners’ accessing and 
generating reliable crime and violence data, and test the efficacy of new approaches
4. Elevate local/public pressure in support civil society’s ability to address needs and grievances, 
strengthening feedback loops to hold governments accountable to resource crime and 
violence prevention
48 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
SO THAT primarily:
5. At-risk youth experience reduced risk factors and become more resilient to becoming 
victims or perpetrators of crime
6. Families and communities access services and infrastructure and supports that address 
physical, emotional, and psycho-social needs and the complex drivers/risks factors of crime 
and violence
7. Schools support students to resolve conflict nonviolently, find healthy avenues for a sense 
of belonging, build self-efficacy, improve academic performance, and provide workforce 
development opportunities
8. Youth in conflict with the law more effectively rehabilitate and reintegrate into society
9. Community members, civil society organizations, and local governments will 
effectively advocate for resources and reforms to improve crime and violence prevention 
and address key community needs
LPD focuses on three components, namely:
1. Component 1 activities strengthen the efforts of CSOs that work on youth crime and 
violence prevention, allowing them to become more effective actors who are able to provide 
sustainable services that positively impact youth crime and violence in Jamaica.
2. Component 2 activities build the capacity of private sector organizations in secondary and 
tertiary crime prevention, while involving the sector in strategic efforts to prevent and 
reduce crime and insecurity.
3. Component 3 activities work with Government of Jamaica (GOJ) institutions that directly 
work in the area of crime and violence to enable them to design and sustain effective crime 
prevention strategies.
COVID-19 RESPONSE
In response to the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), LPD’s award was modified in September 2020 to 
include $1 million to provide immediate relief to persons impacted by the disease over 12 months. 
COVID-19 Response activities are in line with Component 1. The specific goal of this intervention was 
to strengthen the ability of LPD partners to effectively respond to social, economic, and environmental 
disruptions of individuals most affected by the pandemic.
TARGET POPULATION AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA
Youth crime and violence interventions are most effective when they focus on locations with the 
highest risk and the persons most at risk of participating in or experiencing violence. Therefore, one of 
the primary reasons for the realignment of the LPD was to focus on:
1. hot-spot or “opportunity” communities where crime and violence are the highest;
2. the demographic groups of “opportunity youth” (e.g., youth in detention) that are most at￾risk for involvement in crime and violence; and/or
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 49
3. specific enabling environment issues (macro-level governance issues and systems) that must 
be addressed for effective crime and violence prevention.
LPD is required to work with partners to identify high risk places, people, and behaviors most closely 
associated with violence and leverage resources and align them into areas where they will be most 
effective, for example, juvenile correction facilities and ‘hot-spot’ communities. LPD is expected to 
coordinate closely with the GOJ’s Ministry of National Security and the Planning Institute of Jamaica 
(PIOJ), which serves as the coordinating entity for the Community Renewal Programme (CRP) to 
identify target communities. Under the MNS, there is a list of the 25 priority communities based on 
the Jamaica Constabulary Force’s data focusing on the communities with the highest murder rates. 
Similarly, the CRP accounts for the top 100 most vulnerable communities. The target communities are 
located in the parishes of Kingston, St. Andrew, St. Catherine, St. James and Clarendon. The core LPD 
activity is implemented in select communities within these parishes. The COVID-19 intervention (see 
below) was much broader than these parishes.
ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION
The activity implementation period runs from February 2017 to February 2023. As stated above, the 
first phase of the LPD activity (2017-2019) focused on general capacity development of USAID/Jamaica 
local partners. Since October 2019, activity implementation has been more closely aligned with the 
CBSI Framework and builds the capacity of local partners that implement youth crime and violence 
prevention programs. Since March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted 
implementation resulting in missed milestones and deliverables, the complete redesign of some 
interventions, and the inability to engage with some beneficiaries.
The evaluation team shall review all activity documents made available by USAID or FHI 360, as well as 
any other sources relevant to the evaluation, such as government or international data. USAID will 
provide the evaluation team with the following list of available information sources to be examined by 
the evaluation team:
1. Cooperative agreement and modifications
2. LPD progress reports
3. Annual work plans
4. LPD Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plans
5. Studies or assessment completed or commissioned by LPD or its sub-partners
Prior to conducting field work, the evaluation team will review existing literature and data, including 
the documents provided by USAID.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
In keeping with the evaluation purpose described in Section C.2, USAID/Jamaica, in consultation with 
USAID/Washington, has selected the questions listed below. The questions below are listed in order 
of priority and take into account LPD’s objectives within the context of USAID/Jamaica’s CDCS, CBSI 
50 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
goals, and agency priorities (see Section C.4). The sub- questions elaborate on the main questions; 
answering them should assist with, and provide support for, answering the top-level questions.
To what extent has the LPD activity improved the resilience of targeted youth and their families to 
crime and violence?
a. What interventions were most effective for beneficiaries?
b. From the perspective of beneficiaries, what are the areas that could be improved?
Discuss gaps and interventions that were least effective. How could the interventions be improved?
c. In what ways has LPD built the capacity of local government and non-government 
organizations to implement evidence-based interventions?
− What are the main barriers (internal and/or external) to local organizations adopting 
evidence-based approaches?
− What are the enabling factors that allow organizations to successfully adopt evidence-based 
programming?
− What evidence exists that beneficiary organizations are likely to continue to implement these 
approaches?
− To what extent has LPD integrated PSE to address the risk and resilience factors faced by 
targeted youth, families, and communities?
− What PSE approaches are most useful in youth crime and violence prevention? What are the 
potential barriers to greater private sector participation in this area?
− To what extent can PSE approaches help build sustainability in youth crime and violence 
prevention activities in Jamaica?
− What are the enabling factors that allow private sector organizations to support youth crime 
and violence prevention activities?
− What evidence exists that private sector organizations are likely to continue to provide 
support in this area?
In answering these questions, the evaluator shall explicitly discuss the unexpected conditions or 
challenges that were experienced by the activity during implementation and how the implementing 
partner adapted to or resolved those challenges. The Evaluation contractor shall incorporate gender 
concerns in the evaluation methodology (including data collection and analysis) and disaggregate data 
by sex, age and geographic location (for example, rural vs. urban). The evaluation team must integrate 
this analysis into the evaluation’s overall findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 51
ANNEX B: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS 
KII SEMI-STRUCTURED GUIDES
USAID
1. How have you interacted with the LPD Activity and what was your role? How would you describe 
those interactions?
2. What are your impressions of LPD in promoting the capacity of Jamaica government, CSO, and 
private sector organizations to implement youth crime and violence prevention strategies?
3. Overall, what aspects of LPD’s activities worked well?
a. (Probe for program development, training, communication and collaboration, support, overall 
management)
4. Overall, what aspects of LPD’s activities could have been improved?
a. (Probe for program development, training, communication and collaboration, support, overall 
management)
5. How did COVID impact LDP’s activities?
a. What adaptations were made in response to COVID?
b. How effective and responsive was LPD in facilitating adaptations to COVID?
6. What other challenges did LPD face? How did LPD adapt to those challenges?
7. What should be donor strategic priorities in this regard? What programming should be considered?
a. What mix and intensity of different types of activities would be appropriate for the Jamaican 
context going forward?
8. What recommendations can be made to ensure greater impact on building Jamaica government, 
CSO, and private sector capacity to implement youth crime and violence prevention strategies?
9. Are there good examples of youth crime and violence prevention strategies from other countries 
that could be introduced into Jamaica?
10. Are there any gender-related issues that have been impacted, positively or negatively, by LPD 
activity? What about issues related to persons with disabilities? What about other groups of at-risk 
youth?
11. Are there any other views/persons within the US Government that we should seek out to 
interview?
12. Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else do you think I should know about LPD and their 
effectiveness in promoting youth crime and violence prevention strategies?
FHI 360 (LPD TECHNICAL STAFF)
1. Can you briefly describe how you selected the CSOs, government entities and private sector 
organizations to implement LPD activities during phase 1 and phase 2?
2. What kind of technical support did you provide to those organizations?
a. Probe to what extent and how the OCA tool was used to plan technical support for CSOs, GoJ 
and private sector? Were there other assessment tools? If yes, please describe them.
52 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
3. To what extent LPD partners (CSOs, GoJ entities and private sector) have contributed to 
rehabilitate, reintegrate and avoid re-engagement of youth in crime and violence? What has 
worked well? What has not worked well?
4. In what ways and how did LPD strengthen CSOs, GoJ and private sector capacity to generate and 
use evidence to design effective activities to overcome secondary and tertiary risks and reduce 
youth crime and violence? 
5. To what extent the organizations benefited by LPD have improved their capacity to target youth 
at higher risk of getting involved in crime and violence, those in conflict with the law or those 
already in a formal institutional setting (detainees, center of rehabilitation/reintegration, etc.)?
6. What type of services were provided to youth at higher risk of perpetration of crime and violence, 
including youth in conflict with the law or in formal institutional settings?
7. In what ways and to what extent, LPD improved youth resilience to crime and violence? How do 
you measure youth resilience to crime and violence?
a. (Probe for use of Youth Risk Factor Assessment -YRFA- tool)
8. In your opinion, what social, economic and psycho-social drivers of crime and violence are the 
most challenging? What services have worked well to address those drivers and reduce crime and 
violence?
a. (Probe for the use of M&E data to measure improvements; use of YRFA tool)
9. To what extent LPD has achieved the expected results as per the M&E plan and in line with the 
ToC?
10. In your opinion, is a 5-6-year period sufficient to achieve the outcomes/results as per the theory of 
change? Are there improvements that can be made in this regard?
11. Overall, what aspects of LPD’s activities could be improved for future similar programs?
a. (Probe for program development, training, communication and collaboration, support, overall 
management)
12. Overall, are LPD’s partners likely to continue working in the activities to reduce crime and 
violence after the Activity ends? Why?
GOVERNMENT OF JAMAICA
Before getting into the interview would you please describe the work you and your organization have 
done with LPD? 
1. What role does your organization play with regard to youth crime and violence prevention?
a. What target groups are your activities aimed at? (e.g., males/females; unattached youth; 
youth offenders, youth victims, parents etc.)
b. What guidelines, policies or laws inform these youth crime prevention activities?
c. In your opinion, does your organization have enough resources to successfully address 
youth crime and violence prevention? (e.g., database or other form of shared data, support 
services or formal referral mechanisms with other MDAs, etc.)
d. What types of data do you collect on activities geared towards youth crime and violence 
prevention? What do you officially report on and who gets this report?
2. Can you describe the work done with LPD regarding institutional capacity building to work with 
youths at secondary and tertiary risk level? 
a. Did you receive assistance to design and implement evidence-based approaches to work 
with youth at-risk? If yes, please describe.
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 53
b. What improvements has this assistance made to program implementers? What 
improvements have this made to program participants or other stakeholders?
c. Overall, what interventions with LPD worked well and what did not work well?
d. What challenges you experienced working with LPD?
e. What areas can be improved?
3. In what ways has LPD built the capacity of local government and non-government organizations to 
implement evidence-based interventions? What are the barriers or enabling factors?
4. Can you describe how you engaged the private sector (PSE) to reduce the risk factors and 
improve resilience factors faced by targeted youth, families, and communities?
5. What are the perspectives to continue working to reduce crime and violence in Jamaica using the 
experience gained by working with LPD? CSOs, Private sector and GoJ?
6. Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else do you think I should know about LPD and their 
effectiveness in promoting youth crime and violence prevention strategies?
PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
Before getting into the interview would you please describe the work you and your organization have 
done with LPD? 
1. Can you describe what capacity building support you/your organization received from LPD? Did 
you receive assistance to design and implement evidence-based approaches to work with youth at￾risk? If yes, please describe. (Probe: OCA, YRFA, M&E, other)
2. Why your organization decided to work with LPD in secondary and tertiary youth crime and 
violence prevention?
a. In what ways LPD engaged your organization and the private sector in general (whether as 
services providers to youths at risk or business (individual, association or chamber of 
commerce) providing opportunities of apprenticeship, internship or employment?
b. In your opinion, what ways have proven most effective and why?
3. What services did you provide to youths and their families under the LPD activity?
4. Based on the results achieved so far, with support of LPD, to what extent your organization or 
LPD has:
a. Implemented evidence-based activities or programs to reduce secondary and tertiary crime 
and violence?
b. Reduced the participation of youth in secondary and tertiary youth crime and violence in 
the community (improved resilience of youth and their families to youth crime and 
violence)?
c. Engaged the private sector in the crime and violence prevention activities and how this can 
improve the sustainability of the activities? What are the major barriers or enabling factors 
to engage private sector and for sustainability?
5. Overall, what aspects of your interaction with LPD worked well or not worked well? (interventions 
most effective or less effective)
a. (Probe for what can be improved)
6. What challenges you experienced working with LPD?
a. Probe for recommendations for improvements, what could be done to address these 
challenges. How effective and responsive was LPD in facilitating adaptations to COVID?
7. To what extent the work done with LPD is sustainable?
54 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
a. (Probe for How can the experience gained from working with LPD be used to continue 
work aimed at reducing secondary and tertiary youth crime and violence in Jamaica?)
8. Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else do you think I should know about LPD and their 
effectiveness in promoting youth crime and violence prevention strategies?
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
Before getting into the interview would you please describe the work you and your organization have 
done with LPD? 
1. Can you describe what capacity building support you/your organization received from LPD? Did 
you receive assistance to design and implement evidence-based approaches to work with youth at￾risk? If yes, please describe. 
a. (Probe: OCA, OPI, YRFA, M&E, other)
2. Why your organization decided to work with LPD 2 in secondary and tertiary youth crime and 
violence prevention?
3. What services did you provide to youths and their families before LPD and then under the LPD 
activity?
4. Based on the results achieved so far, with the support of LPD, to what extent your organization 
has:
a. Implemented evidence-based activities or programs to reduce secondary and tertiary 
crime and violence?
b. Reduced the participation of youth in secondary and tertiary youth crime and violence in 
the community (improved resilience of youth and their families to youth crime and 
violence)? 
c. Engaged the private sector in crime and violence prevention activities and how this can 
improve the sustainability of the activities?
5. How effective and responsive was LPD in facilitating adaptations to COVID?
6. Overall, what aspects of your interaction with LPD worked well or not worked well? 
(interventions most effective or less effective)
a. (Probe for what can be improved)
7. What challenges have you experienced working with LPD?
a. (Probe for recommendations for improvements, what could be done to address these 
challenges)
8. To what extent the work done with LPD is sustainable?
a. (Probe for How can the experience gained from working with LPD be used to continue 
work aimed at reducing secondary and tertiary youth crime and violence in Jamaica?)
9. Beyond what we’ve discussed, what else do you think I should know about LPD and their 
effectiveness in promoting youth crime and violence prevention strategies?
CASE MANAGERS
1. Can you please tell us about your experience with and knowledge about youth at-risk before LPD 
or any similar job?
2. Would you please tell us when did you start working with LPD Activity and describe the work 
(tasks, activities, etc.,) you have been implementing?
3. Did you receive any technical training to do your duties with youth-at-risk? If yes, what specific 
training you received?
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 55
4. Can you describe how you interacted with the CSOs, Private Sector organizations and GoJ and 
what were the objectives of these interactions?
5. What are the expected results of your work regarding reducing the risk factors of youth? Is there 
a personal performance evaluation Plan with specific targets for your position -e.g., number of 
youths assisted, number of organizations contacted, etc.?
6. Did the LPD activity have a case management system to track the work done by case managers?
What type of registries did you prepare? How did you know that the youths assisted are more 
resilient to crime and violence?
7. What are the main challenges you found in your activities? What measures, if any, were 
implemented to address them?
8. Do you have any recommendations to increase the effectiveness in reducing risk factors of youth 
at secondary and tertiary levels?
9. In your opinion, the LPD’s approach to assist youth at risk at the secondary and tertiary levels is 
sustainable?
a. (Probe for the availability of resources, political will, commitment, ownership, etc.)
10. Is there something that we have not discussed that you think we need to know to inform our 
evaluation report?
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
1. Have you or your organization ever interacted with LPD representatives and what was the 
situation? Please describe that interaction.
2. Are you familiar with LPD’s activities to strengthen Jamaican government, CSO, and private sector 
capacity to implement youth crime and violence prevention strategies? · 
a. If so, what are your impressions of those activities?
b. Can you recall positive/good results or shortcomings of LPD regarding its youth crime and 
violence prevention activities? Any external factors that hindered the achievements?
c. What are the key weaknesses or problems that you are aware of in addressing youth 
crime and violence prevention in Jamaica?
3. What should be donor strategic priorities in this regard? What programming should be considered? 
a. What outcome/result for the Jamaican context going forward?
b. What recommendations can be made to ensure a greater impact on building Jamaica 
government, CSO, and private sector capacity to implement youth crime and violence 
prevention strategies?
c. Are there good examples of youth crime and violence prevention strategies from other 
countries that could be introduced into Jamaica?
SAMPLE FGD ISSUES: PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES/FAMILIES
1. How did you learn about the PROGRAM NAME?
2. Why did you decide to participate in the program?
3. Please describe your experience with the program.
4. Overall, what were the most important benefits of the program?
5. What do you think the program could have done better?
56 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
6. Overall, how well do you think the program has improved conditions and opportunities for 
youths and families?
7. Do you know anyone else involved in a youth-oriented program and, if so, which program 
and what was their experience?
8. Have you ever participated in another youth-oriented program? How were the experiences 
similar or different?
9. What do you think are the primary factors contributing to youth crime and violence?
10. What steps do you think could be taken to help prevent youth crime and violence?
11. What else do you think I should know about youth crime and violence in Jamaica?
YOUTH SURVEY
PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO BE COMPLETED BY ENUMERATOR
Parish Kingston/St. Andrew
St. Catherine
St. James
Other, specify
Community Name [List of towns will be preloaded and filtered based on parish selection]
Enumerator Name (List TK)
Respondent type: Beneficiary youth (18 and over)
Beneficiary youth (under 18)
Family member of beneficiary youth
Unique ID [Select from list]
Respondent Name [Select from list]
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 57
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
What is your age? (In completed years) [Text fill, numbers 10-35 only]
Do you still live with your parent(s)/guardian(s)? Yes
No
Prefer not to respond
How many people in total live in your household at this time? 
(Including yourself)
[Text fill, numbers only]
How many children under the age of 13 live in your 
household?
[Text fill, numbers only]
Who do you live with?
Ask if do not live with parent(s)/guardian(s) and household size > 
1.
Other family
Roommates
Significant other
Other, specify
Other, please specify [Text fill]
Do you live in …? The capital
A large/medium town/community
A small town/community
A rural area
Do you consider yourself Black, Indian, White, Chinese, 
Mixed, or of another race?
If respondent says Afro-Jamaican, mark Black.
White 
Indian 
Black 
Mixed 
58 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Chinese 
Other, specify 
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Other, please specify [Text fill]
What is your marital status?
Ask if age 16 or older.
Single
Married
Common law marriage (Living 
together)
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
Civil union
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do you have children? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, do you provide financial support to your child(ren)? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 59
MODULE 1: RECEIPT OF SERVICES
What types of supportive services have you received in 
the last four years?
None
Food and sanitation supply vouchers 
Book vouchers, backpacks, and/or school 
supplies
Case management
Therapy/counselling (including CBT)
Substance mis-use counselling
Mentorship
Life skills training
Psychosocial support for GBV survivors
School reintegration support
Job skills training / vocational training
Apprenticeship placement
Microenterprise support
Youth risk screening
Literacy/numeracy training
Other, specify
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Other, please specify [Text fill]
What types of supportive services are you currently 
receiving?
[Select from list filtered to include services 
ever received above]
Other, please specify [Text fill]
60 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
What organization(s) provided the service(s) that you 
received?
[Select from preloaded list of LPD CSOs 
or other, specify]
Other, please specify [Text fill]
What supportive services have you found most helpful? [Select from list filtered to include services 
ever received above]
Are there any services that you did not find helpful? [Select from list filtered to include services 
ever received above]
If yes, why not? [Text fill]
Did you experience any challenges in accessing any of 
these services?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, what were the challenges? [Text fill]
Did you experience any benefits from your participation 
in this program?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, what are the benefits? Obtained a full-time job
Obtained a higher paying job
Was able to attend or stay in school
Reduced substance use
Other, specify
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 61
Other, please specify [Text fill]
Please rate your level of satisfaction with the services 
you received.
Totally satisfied
Highly satisfied
Satisfied
Partially Satisfied
Dissatisfied
If case management or mentorship, how would you rate 
your satisfaction with your case manager/mentor?
Totally satisfied
Highly satisfied
Satisfied
Partially Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Why did you select this response? Please explain and 
provide examples.
[Text fill]
Do you have any suggestions for areas that could be 
improved? What are they?
[Text fill]
MODULE 2: JUSTICE SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT
Have you ever been arrested? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, what is the year of your first arrest? [Text fill, numbers 
1987-2022 only]
62 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
If yes, what type of offense have you been arrested for? Assault
Sexual assault
Theft
Burglary
Selling drugs
Destruction of 
property
Other, specify
Other, please specify [Text fill]
Have you been arrested in connection with a violent assaultive offense in 
the last 5 years (since 2017)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, how many times have you been arrested in connection with a 
violent assaultive offense in the last 5 years (since 2017)?
[Text fill, numbers 
only]
If yes, have you been arrested in connection with a violent assaultive 
offense in the last year (2022)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Have you been arrested in connection with a nonviolent offense in the last 
5 years (since 2017)? This includes theft, burglary, drug selling, and 
destruction of property.
Yes
No
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 63
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, how many times have you been arrested in connection with a 
nonviolent assaultive offense in the last 5 years (since 2017)?
[Text fill, numbers 
only]
Have you spent any time in jail or prison? This includes youth detention 
centers.
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, what was the last year that you spent any time in jail or prison? [Text fill, numbers 
only]
Are you currently involved with the justice system? This includes any 
current interaction with the criminal justice system as a defendant.
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
MODULE 3: MENTAL HEALTH AND BEHAVIOR
Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness?
Enumerator: This includes diagnoses for psychotic disorders, major mood 
disorders, other mental disorders, and any previous or current diagnoses of 
antisocial, psychopathic, or dissocial personality disorders (do not read list 
aloud).
No previous or current 
diagnoses
Previous diagnoses
Current diagnoses
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do you have a history of suicide or self-harm attempts? No history
64 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Yes, injuries without 
suicidal intent
Yes, suicide attempt(s)
Have you ever been diagnosed with an educational disability (slow 
learner)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Have you ever experienced any of the following symptoms?
Select all that apply.
None
Hyperactivity 
(including
Attention Deficit 
Hyperactivity Disorder 
[(ADHD])
Extreme restlessness
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
MODULE 4: BEHAVIOR
For the next questions, I will ask whether you experience certain emotional reactions, regularly, 
sometimes, or never.
Do you keep things in until you finally explode with anger? Regularly
Sometimes
Never
Don’t know
Do you have a tendency to take your anger out on someone other than the 
person you're angry with?
When a problem arises between you and someone else, do you discuss it 
without losing control of your emotions?
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 65
Are you satisfied with the way you settle differences with others? Prefer not to 
respond
Do you tend to feel very guilty or bad after getting angry?
When you get angry, do people around you feel threatened or frightened?
When you get angry, have you ever damaged property? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to 
respond
If yes, how severe was the property damage? Very severe
Severe
Not severe
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
I have a reserved and cautious attitude toward life. Agree Strongly
Agree Some
Disagree Some
Disagree Strongly
Don’t know
Prefer not to 
respond
I have trouble controlling my impulses.
I generally seek new and exciting experiences and sensations.
When I am very happy, I can’t seem to stop myself from doing things that can 
have bad consequences.
I have trouble resisting my cravings (for food, cigarettes, etc.).
I'll try anything once.
I tend to give up easily.
66 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
I am not one of those people who blurt out things without thinking.
I often get involved in things I later wish I could get out of.
When I feel bad, I will often do things I later regret in order to make myself 
feel better now.
I enjoy taking risks.
When I am upset, I often act without thinking.
It is hard for me to resist acting on my feelings.
Others are shocked or worried about the things I do when I am feeling very 
excited.
When I feel rejected, I will often say things that I later regret.
I welcome new and exciting experiences and sensations, even if they are a little 
frightening and unconventional.
I always keep my feelings under control.
In the heat of an argument, I will often say things that I later regret.
When I am really excited, I tend not to think of the consequences of my 
actions.
MODULE 5: RISK FOR INVOLVEMENT IN CRIME AND VIOLENCE
Have you been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 
months? That is, have you been a victim of robbery, burglary, 
assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats, or any 
other type of crime in the past 12 months? 
Yes
No
Don’t know
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 67
Prefer not to respond
How many days in the last 30 days did you carry a weapon, 
such as a gun or knife?
[Text fill, numbers 0-30 only]
If ever carry a weapon, have you used the weapon on 
someone or to threaten someone?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Have you ever been associated with a gang? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
What proportion of your close friends have a history of 
criminal justice system involvement?
All
Most
Some
Few
None
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do your parents or guardians have an adult criminal history? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
68 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
How would you describe the discipline, supervision, and 
support that you receive from your parent(s) or guardian(s)?
Not applicable (no discipline/ 
supervision/support received from 
parent(s)/guardian(s))
Adequate
Sometimes inconsistent
Overly strict
Overly permissive
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Have you ever experienced conflict and violence in the 
home? This includes witnessing or experiencing pushing, 
hitting, slapping, grabbing, throwing objects, marital discord, 
etc.
Enumerator: Occasional violence or discord means two or less 
violent events in the previous year.
No violence
Violence/discord is occasional
Violence/discord is severe and/or 
regular
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
For each of the following items, please specify if the statement is Not True, Somewhat True or 
Certainly True.
I try to be nice to other people. I care about their feelings. Not true
Somewhat true
Certainly true
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
I usually share with others, for example CDs/video games, 
games, and food.
I am helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill.
I am kind to younger children.
I often offer to help others (parents, teachers, children).
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 69
There are lots of adults in my neighborhood I could talk to 
about something important. To what extent do you agree or 
disagree with this statement?
[Number on scale from 1, 'not at all' 
to 7, 'a lot']
MODULE 6: ATTITUDES
For each of the following items, please specify if the statement is Not True, Somewhat True or 
Certainly True.
It’s O. K. to fight if the other guy says bad enough things about you 
or your family.
Not true
Somewhat true
It’s O. K. to skip school every once in a while. Certainly true
It’s O. K. to steal something from someone who is rich and can 
easily replace it.
It’s O. K. to lie to someone if it will keep you out of trouble with 
them.
For each of the following items, please specify if you engage in this thinking never, a little, or a lot.
When you get mad, do you sometimes imagine hitting or hurting the 
other person?
Never
A little
Do you ever daydream about people getting killed? A lot
To what extent do you trust the justice system? [Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
To what extent do you trust the local government? [Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
To what extent do you trust the police in your neighborhood? [Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
70 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
I am going to read some statements about the relationships of couples and I am going to ask you to 
indicate whether you agree or disagree.
A man has a right to discipline his partner with physical violence. Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Prefer not to respond
Physical violence between members of a couple is a private matter 
and should be handled by the couple or close family.
Employers discriminate against people with past criminal behavior. 
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
[Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
MODULE 7: EDUCATION
What is your highest level of education completed? None
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 71
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
High school diploma
Post-secondary education 
(incomplete or complete)
Vocational training
Are you currently enrolled in school? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, about how often did you attend school in the last 
month?
Never
Rarely
Absent more often than present
Present more often than absent
Almost all the time
All the time
If yes, thinking back over the past year in school, how often 
did you try to do your best work in school?
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Rarely
Never
Don’t know
72 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Prefer not to respond
In the past year, how many of your best friends have tried to 
do well in school?
All
Most
Some
Few
None
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
1. If yes, at school, do you do the following things?
No Maybe Yes
Organize a group of students in order to achieve changes 
at school.
Take school problems or concerns to my teacher or 
principal.
Teach things to other students in my school.
Help keep the classroom and school clean.
Serve on the student government at my school.
Encourage my parent(s) to come to PTA meetings.
Was your school education affected due to 
the COVID-19 pandemic?
No, because I did not attend school for another 
reason
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 73
No, my classes continued normally
Yes, I went to virtual or remote/online classes
Yes, I switched to a combination of virtual/online 
and in-person classes (mixed learning)
Yes, I cut all ties with the school
Are you currently enrolled in vocational 
training (including apprenticeships)?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, about how often did you attend training 
in the last month?
Never
Rarely
Absent more often than present
Present more often than absent
Almost all the time
All the time
MODULE 8: INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
Are you currently employed? Yes, full time
Yes, part time
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, about how often did you attend work in the last month? Never
74 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Rarely
Absent more often than present
Present more often than absent
Almost all the time
All the time
What is the total monthly income in your household?
In JMD.
Between 0 and $30,000
Between $31,001 and $40,000 
Between $40,001 and $60,000
Between $60,001 and $80,000
More than $80,000
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do you think that your current economic situation is better, the 
same or worse than it was twelve months ago?
Better
Same
Worse
In the past three months, because of a lack of money or other 
resources, did your household ever run out of food?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do you or anyone in the home where you live have any of the 
following? Select all that apply.
. Refrigerator
. Landline/residential telephone (not cellular)
. Washing machine
. Microwave oven
. Computer, laptop, tablet, or iPad
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 75
. Broadband/Wi-Fi internet service in your home
. Internet from your home including from phone or tablet
. Flat screen/panel TV
. Cable or satellite television service
MODULE 9: ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE
How often in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription 
medication for nonmedical reasons?
Never
Less than 
monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Daily or almost 
daily
How often in the past year have you used marijuana? Never
Less than 
monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Daily or almost 
daily
In the past year, how often have you had six or more alcoholic drinks/beverages 
on one occasion?
Never
Less than 
monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Daily or almost 
daily
76 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Are you currently experiencing physical, social, or legal problems because of 
your alcohol or drug use?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to 
respond
In the past year have you experienced any violence associated with alcohol or 
drug use?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to 
respond
CONCLUSION
Thank you. This concludes our survey.
Respondent name
First name:
Last name:
[Text fill]
FAMILY SURVEY
PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO BE COMPLETED BY ENUMERATOR
Parish Kingston/St. Andrew
St. Catherine
St. James
Other, specify
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 77
Community Name [Text fill]
Enumerator Name (List TK)
Youth Beneficiary name [Select from list of preloaded names]
UID [Text fill, numbers only]
Respondent name [Text fill]
Background information
What is your gender identity?
Enumerator observation
Male
Female
Other
What is your relationship to the beneficiary youth? Parent
Sibling
Extended family (aunt, uncle, 
grandparent)
Other, specify
Other, please specify [Text fill]
Do you consider yourself Black, Indian, White, Chinese, 
Mixed, or of another race?
If respondent says Afro-Jamaican, mark Black.
White 
Indian 
Black 
Mixed 
Chinese 
78 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Other, specify 
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Other, please specify [Text fill]
What is your marital status?
Ask if age 16 or older.
Single
Married
Common law marriage (Living 
together)
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
Civil union
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
MODULE 1: RECEIPT OF SERVICES
What types of supportive services have you and/or 
your child received in the last four years?
None
Food and sanitation supply vouchers 
Book vouchers, backpacks, and/or school 
supplies
Therapy/counselling
Substance mis-use counselling
Mentorship
Life skills training
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 79
Psychosocial support for GBV survivors
School reintegration support
Job skills training / vocational training
Apprenticeship placement
Microenterprise support
Youth risk screening
Literacy/numeracy training
Parenting classes
Other, specify
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Other, please specify [Text fill]
What types of supportive services are you or your 
child currently receiving?
None
Food and sanitation supply vouchers 
Book vouchers, backpacks, and/or school 
supplies
Therapy/counselling
Substance mis-use counselling
Mentorship
Life skills training
Psychosocial support for GBV survivors
School reintegration support
Job skills training / vocational training
80 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Apprenticeship placement
Microenterprise support
Youth risk screening
Literacy/numeracy training
Parenting classes
Other, specify
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Other, please specify [Text fill]
What supportive services have you found most helpful? [Select from list filtered to include services 
ever received above]
Are there any services that you did not find helpful? [Select from list filtered to include services 
ever received above]
If yes, why not? [Text fill]
What organization(s) provided the services that you 
and/or your child received?
[Select from list of LPD partner 
organizations or other, specify]
Other, please specify [Text fill]
Did your child experience any challenges in accessing 
any of these services?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, what were the challenges? [Text fill]
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 81
Please rate your level of satisfaction with the services 
you and/or your child received.
Totally satisfied
Highly satisfied
Satisfied
Partially Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Do you have any suggestions for areas that could be 
improved? What are they?
[Text fill]
MODULE 2: RISK FOR INVOLVEMENT IN CRIME AND VIOLENCE
Have you been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 
months? That is, have you been a victim of robbery, burglary, 
assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats, or any 
other type of crime in the past 12 months? 
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do you have an adult criminal history? Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
How would you describe the discipline, supervision, and 
support that you provide to your child?
Not applicable (no discipline/ 
supervision/support received from 
parent(s)/guardian(s))
Adequate
Sometimes inconsistent
Overly strict
Overly permissive
82 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Have you ever experienced conflict and violence in the 
home? This includes witnessing or experiencing pushing, 
hitting, slapping, grabbing, throwing objects, marital discord, 
etc.
No violence
Violence/discord is occasional
Violence/discord is severe and/or 
regular
MODULE 3: ATTITUDES
For each of the following items, please specify if the statement is Not True, Somewhat True or 
Certainly True.
It’s O. K. to fight if the other guy says bad enough things about you 
or your family.
Not true
Somewhat true
It’s O. K. to skip school every once in a while. Certainly true
It’s O. K. to steal something from someone who is rich and can easily 
replace it.
It’s O. K. to lie to someone if it will keep you out of trouble with 
them.
To what extent do you trust the justice system? [Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
To what extent do you trust the local government? [Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
To what extent do you trust the police in your neighborhood? [Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
I am going to read some statements about the relationships of couples and I am going to ask you to 
indicate whether you agree or disagree.
A man has a right to discipline his partner with physical violence. Strongly agree
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 83
Physical violence between members of a couple is a private matter 
and should be handled by the couple or close family.
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know
Prefer not to respond
Employers discriminate against people with past criminal behavior. To 
what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
[Number on scale from 1, 
'not at all' to 7, 'a lot']
MODULE 4: EDUCATION
What is your highest level of education 
completed?
None
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
84 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
High school diploma
Post-secondary education (incomplete or complete)
Was your child’s school education affected 
due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
No, because child did not attend school for another 
reason
No, my child’s classes continued normally
Yes, child went to virtual or remote/online classes
Yes, child switched to a combination of virtual/online 
and in-person classes (mixed learning)
Yes, child cut all ties with the school
MODULE 5: INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT
Are you currently employed? Yes, full time
Yes, part time
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
If yes, about how often did you attend work in the last month? Never
Rarely
Absent more often than 
present
Present more often than 
absent
Almost all the time
All the time
What is the total monthly income in your household? Between 0 and $30,000
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 85
Between $31,001 and 
$40,000 Between $40,001 
and $60,000
Between $60,001 and 
$80,000
More than $80,000
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do you think that your current economic situation is better, the 
same or worse than it was twelve months ago?
Better
Same
Worse
In the past three months, because of a lack of money or other 
resources, did your household ever run out of food?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
Do you or anyone in the home where you live have any of the 
following? Select all that apply.
. Refrigerator
. Landline/residential telephone (not cellular)
. Washing machine
. Microwave oven
. Computer, laptop, tablet, or iPad
• Broadband/Wi-Fi___33 internet service in your home
. Internet from your home including from phone or tablet
. Flat screen/panel TV
. Cable or satellite television service
Yes
No
Don’t know
Prefer not to respond
86 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
CONCLUSION
Respondent phone number [Text fill, integers 
only]
Thank you. This concludes our survey.
[ENUMERATOR ANSWER] What proportion of the questions do you feel the 
respondent had difficulty answering?
All
Most
Some
A few
None
[ENUMERATOR ANSWER] What was the respondent's reaction to the 
interview?
Very positive
Somewhat 
positive
Neutral
Somewhat 
negative
Very negative
[ENUMERATOR ANSWER] Any additional comments? [Text fill]
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 87
ANNEX C: DATA AND INFORMATION SOURCES
DOCUMENT REVIEW
WORK PLANS
1. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2021 (October 1, 2020 -
September 30, 2021)
2. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2020 (October 1, 2019 -
September 30, 2020)
3. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2019 (October 1, 2018 -
September 30, 2019)
4. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2018 (October 1, 2017 -
September 30, 2018)
5. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2017/2018 (October 1, 
2017 - September 30, 2018)
6. Jamaica Local Partner Development Semi Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2017 (February 24, 
2017 - September 30, 2017)
7. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2016/2017 (February 24, 
2017 - September 30, 2017)
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS
8. Jamaica Local Partner Development Cooperative Agreement No. AID-532-LA-17-00001 
(February 24, 2017)
9. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Modification of Assistance Number 1 (October 
17, 2017)
10. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Modification of Assistance Number 3 (March 26, 
2019)
11. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Modification of Assistance Number 4 
(September, 2019)
12. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Modification of Assistance Number 6 
(September, 2020)
13. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Modification of Assistance Number 7 
(December 23, 2021)
14. Jamaica Local Partner Development COVID-19 Response Annual Report (October 1 - 2020 
- September 30 - 2021)
88 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
ANNUAL REPORTS
15. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2022 (October 1, 2021 -
September 30, 2022)
16. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2021 (October 1, 2020, 
September 20, 2021)
17. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Report Fiscal Year 2020 (October 1, 2019 -
September 30, 2020)
18. Jamaica Local Partner Development Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2019 (October 1, 2018 -
September 30, 2019)
QUARTERLY REPORTS
19. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2022, Quarter 3 (April 1, 
2022 - June 30, 2022)
20. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2022, Quarter 2 (January 
1, 2022 - March 31, 2022)
21. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2022, Quarter 1 (October 
1, 2021 - December 31, 2021)
22. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2021, Quarter 3 (April 1, 
2021 - June 30, 2021)
23. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2021, Quarter 2 (January 
1, 2021 - March 31, 2022)
24. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2021, Quarter 1 (October 
1, 2020 - December 31, 2020)
25. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2020, Quarter 3 (April 1, 
2020 - June 30, 2020)
26. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report Fiscal Year 2020, Quarter 2 (January 
1, 2020 - March 31, 2020)
27. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report Fiscal Year 2020, Quarter 1 (October 
1, 2019 - December 31, 2019)
28. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2019, Quarter 3 (April 1, 
2019 - June 30, 2019)
29. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2019, Quarter 2 (January 
1, 2019 - March 31, 2019)
30. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2019, Quarter 1 (October 
1, 2018 - December 31, 2018)
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 89
31. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2018, Quarter 3 (April 1, 
2018 - June 30, 3018)
32. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2018, Quarter 2 (January 
1, 2018 - March 31, 2018)
33. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2018, Quarter 1 (October 
1, 2017 - December 31, 2017)
34. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2016/2017, Quarter 3 
(April 1, 2017 - June 30, 2017)
35. Jamaica Local Partner Development Quarterly Report: Fiscal Year 2016/2017, Quarter 2 
(February 24, 2017 - March 31, 2017)
MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLANS
36. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan 
(October 1, 2021 September 30, 2022)
37. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan 
(October 1, 2020 - September 30, 2021)
38. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan Fiscal 
Year 2020 (October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019)
39. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan Fiscal 
Year 2019 (October 1, 2018 - September 20, 2019)
40. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan Fiscal 
Year 2017/2018 (October 1, 2017 - September 30, 2018)
41. Jamaica Local Partner Development Activity Semi-Annual Monitoring Evaluation and Learning 
Plan Fiscal Year 2017 (February 24, 2017 - September 30, 2017)
OTHER
42. Jamaica Local Partner Development Gender and Social Inclusion Analysis (June, 2017)
43. Jamaica Local Partner Development List of Communities
44. Blurred Lines and Tough Choices: Jamaica’s Complex Legal Environment for Civil Society 
Organizations and Social Enterprises and Implications for Reforms: An initial assessment for 
discussion among Stakeholders (June, 2018)
45. Jamaica Local Partner Development Info Sheet (2017 - 2022)
46. Local Partner Development Phase 2 Info Sheet 
90 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
LIST OF STAKEHOLDER TYPES THAT PARTICIPATED IN KIIS
USAID
FHI 360 – LPD STAFF
GOVERNMENT OF JAMAICA
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 91
ANNEX D: EVALUATION TEAM QUALIFICATIONS AND 
EXPERIENCE
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATION (BRIEF)
Mario Martinez, Team Leader, will oversee the design and facilitation of the initial meeting, manage the document review, develop data collection instruments, lead KIIs/FGDs, and lead the analysis and drafting for the Final Evaluation Report and Presentation. Mr. Martinez will supervise the work of the entire team and provide quality assurance review 
of deliverables.
Master’s level degree in international development or a social science Master of Science in Applied Economics and Graduate 
Diploma in Financial and Macroeconomic Planning (PontÍfica Universidad Católica de Chile); Master of 
Science in Economic Development Planning (Universidad 
Nacional Autónoma de Honduras)
Experience leading an evaluation team or professional 
experience coordinating and leading teams. Served as Evaluation Team Leader on multiple prior 
evaluations in Jamaica, El Salvador, Honduras, Macedonia, 
Liberia, Burkina Faso, Paraguay, among other countries.
Experience with mixed methods in the past 5 years – undertaking field quantitative and qualitative data 
collection through interviews, surveys, or focus groups for 
either performance or impact evaluations – demonstrated 
through written performance or impact evaluation reports 
authored or co- authored by the proposed Team Leader.
Lead and authored two multi-country final evaluations funded by USDOL in 2019-2020 on the Youth Pathways Central America (El Salvador and Honduras) program and 
on its Country Level Engagement and Assistance to 
Reduce Child Labor (CLEAR) II program for combatting combat child labor, involved MEL work in seven countries 
(Belize, Panama, Honduras, Jamaica, Nepal, Liberia and
Burkina Faso). These evaluations utilized literature and 
project document review, individual and small group KIIs 
and FGDs; quantitative analysis of administrative data and 
reports by international organizations; and review of 
secondary data using time series and statistical and 
regression analysis. Mr. Martinez also co-authored the US 
State Department Reducing Violence & Homicide through 
Access to Justice in Honduras evaluation report and the 
Inter-American Development Bank Productive Development for Increased Trade Support Program in El Salvador Final Performance and Impact Evaluation. In 
addition to literature and project document review, 
individual and small group KIIs and FGDs; quantitative 
analysis of administrative data and reports by international 
organizations, the latter evaluation also utilized ex-post Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).
Direct knowledge and/or experience working with USAID 
rules, evaluation policy, regulations, and procedures Longstanding experience with USAID, including serving as 
MEL Director in El Salvador for a USAID-funded project, as team lead for an assessment of youth at risk for 
USAID/Honduras, nine years as a project manager for 
USAID/El Salvador, and also as an expert and team leader 
on multiple USAID research and evaluation projects and fidelity with USAID regulations and evaluation policy.
Exceptional organizational, analytical, writing, and 
presentation skills. Extensive experience with analytical approaches on 
performance and impact evaluations (experimental, quasi- experimental, non- experimental, mixed-methods). Drafted informative reports and presentations 
communicating performance, impact, lessons learned, best 
practices and success stories of projects for different 
audiences including implementors, stakeholders, 
beneficiaries, and donors.
92 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Kate Marple-Cantrell, Assistant Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist, will support the Team Leader in the design and facilitation of the initial meeting; contribute to the document and data review; develop data collection instruments;
lead KIIs/FGDs in Phase 2; contribute to Field Work Exit Briefing; and conduct the analysis and draft and revise the Final 
Evaluation Report and Presentation under the guidance of the Team Leader.
Master’s level degree in a social science or international 
development with at least
10 years of technical knowledge and experience in a 
relevant field (e.g., democracy and governance, anti- corruption programming, etc.).
Master of City Planning and MA in International Area 
Studies (University of California Berkeley); 10+ years of experience in relevant international development fields 
such as governance and capacity building, with eight of 
those years conducting rigorous mixed methods 
evaluations for USAID and the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation (MCC).
Demonstrated experience with mixed methods in the past 
5 years, undertaking field quantitative and qualitative data 
collection through interviews, surveys, or focus groups for 
either performance or impact evaluations. This experience 
must be demonstrated through written performance or impact evaluation reports authored or co-authored by the proposed Assistant Team Leader.
Deep experience designing and implementing multiple 
performance and impact evaluations in diverse contexts in 
the past five years, including coauthoring five evaluation 
reports. For example, in 2018 for MCC in Mongolia, Ms. 
Marple-Cantrell was the lead author for the Registry Systems Process Study Performance Evaluation (2017- 2020) findings report. This rigorous pre-post performance evaluation utilized surveys, structured interviews, semi- structured interviews, FGDs, and transcription. She also 
served as lead author on a rigorous performance evaluation/small-N impact evaluation of the Community Land Protection Program in Liberia with a quasi- experimental design drawing from surveys, structured 
interviews, FGDs, and transcription. Finally, for an 
evaluation of USAID/Malawi’s Local Government
Accountability and Performance Activity, she employed surveys and semi-structured interviews.
Active evaluation team participation with responsibility for 
collecting field data on at least three rigorous evaluations 
in the past five years.
Designs and executes flexible, efficient, and varied data 
collection methods to deliver timely and effective analysis. 
This includes active team participation on eight rigorous 
evaluations in the last five years: in Liberia (2017 – surveys, structured interviews, FGDs, transcription), Mongolia 
(2018 – surveys, structured interviews, semi-structured 
interviews, FGDs, transcription), Mozambique - 2019-2022 
(structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, 
transcription), Ukraine (2020 – surveys, semi-structured 
interviews, FGDs), Belarus (2020 – surveys, semi- structured interviews), Malawi (2020 – surveys, semi- structured interviews), Burkina Faso (2022 – surveys, structured interviews, semi- structured interviews, 
transcription), and the United States (2019-2022 – surveys, FGDs, transcription).
Zahra Miller, Evaluation Subject Matter Specialist, will support the Team Leader in the design and facilitation of the initial meeting; contribute to the document and data review; develop data collection instruments; lead KIIs/FGDs, contribute to Field Work Exit Briefing; and contribute to the analysis and draft the Final Evaluation Report and 
Presentation under the guidance of the Team Leader. Additionally, she will be responsible for assisting in coordinating all evaluation deliverables, and providing overall administrative and logistical support to the team.
Master’s level degree with at least 6 years of technical 
knowledge and experience in a relevant field.
MBA, University of Massachusetts Amherst (pending); MPH, University of Liverpool; 10+ years of experience in 
program evaluation, research, and data management in 
relevant technical areas such as NGO capacity building, 
youth engagement, childhood education, child trafficking prevention, and community development.
Prior rigorous evaluation experience or prior experience
in research studies involving survey data collection, data analysis, etc.
Ms. Miller served on the evaluation team of the British 
Council Jamaica Evaluation of Core Skills Training 
Programme (10/2019 - 09/2020). This evaluation methodology included teacher progress surveys, key 
informant interviews, focus group discussions, and 
classroom observation. She has conducted evaluations on 
child diversion and trafficking prevention, and core skills 
training for UNICEF, Winrock International, and the 
British Council, among others.
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 93
NON-KEY TECHNICAL STAFF SUMMARY
PERSON/ROLE QUALIFICATIONS
Simon Conté, Global Development
Research Specialist
Role: Support the Team Leader, Assistant Team 
Leader/ Evaluation Specialist, and Evaluation Subject 
Matter Specialist with the document review, 
Conducting and coding KIIs, and contributing to the 
report.
Mr. Simon Conté has over 20 years of experience conceptualizing,
developing, and implementing innovative research projects, assessment tools, 
and knowledge products on rule of law, democracy and governance, and 
anticorruption. As an expert in the justice sector, including the Access to Justice Assessment Tool, the Detention Procedures Assessment Tool, the 
Prosecutorial Reform Index, and the ICCPR Index, among others. 
Mr. Conté has led or contributed to the development of numerous 
methodologies that evaluate and explore issues related to the fair and equitable treatment of youth in the criminal justice system. With deep experience in 
research and evaluation and international technical assistance, Mr. Conté served 
as the lead assessor for seven country assessments and authored over 60 legislative analyses, country assessments, and research papers on rule of law 
reform, democracy and governance, and human rights
Makayla Barker, Junior Analyst,
Global Development
Role: Provide research and analysis support, contributing to the desk review, coding qualitative 
interview notes, cleaning quantitative data, and 
analyzing secondary data sources. Assist with 
administrative tasks.
Ms. Makayla Barker is a quantitative and qualitative researcher with experience providing data management support across the data lifecycle for USAID. Her 
data management competencies include survey design, data collection, and data 
cleaning and analysis using statistical programs (R, STATA, SPSS). Ms. Barker has 
considerable experience providing support to evaluation research through desk reviews, survey programming and testing, qualitative notetaking and analysis, 
and supporting briefing meetings. 
94 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
ANNEX E: SELECT YOUTH SURVEY FINDINGS
1. Selected results charts 
60
40%
57
38%
32
21%
A1. Parish
Kingston/ St. Andrew St. James St. Catherine
1
.6%
12
14.7%
126
84.5%
A4. Respondent Type
Family member of beneficiary
youth
Youth beneficiary (under 18)
Youth beneficiary (18 and older)
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 95
16
11%
131
89%
C.7 Did you expierence any challenges in accessing any of 
these services?
Yes No
147
93%
11
7%
C.9 Did you expierence any benefits from your participation in 
this program?
Yes No
96 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
25
4
36
20
73
Obtained a full
time job
Obtained a
higher paying
job
Was able to
attend or stay in
school
Reduced
substance use
Other
C.10 What are the benefits that you recieved from 
the program?
54
37%
50
34%
33
22%
7
4%
3
2%
C.11 Please rate your level of satisfaction with the services 
you received 
Totally Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Satisfied Partially Satisfied
Dissatisfied
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 97
45
44%
28
26%
19
18%
9
9%
3
3%
C.13 How would you rate your satisfaction with your case 
manager/mentor?
Totally Satisfied Highly Satisfied
Satisfied Partially Satisfied
Dissatisfied
19
13%
129
87%
G.1 Have you been a victim of any type of crime in the last 
12 months?
Yes No
98 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
20
14%
128
86%
I.2 Are you currently enroled in school?
Yes No
1
2
7
3
7
Rarely Absent more
than present
Present more
than absent
Almost all the
time
All the time
I.3 About how often did you attend school in the last 
month? 
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 99
58
39%
89
61%
I.13 Are you enrolled in vocational training?
Yes No
1
4
20
10
23
Never Absent more
than present
Present more
than absent
Almost all the
time
All the time
I.14 About how often did you attend training in the last 
month?
100 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
69
46%
30
20%
27
18%
22
15%
J.1 Are you currently employed?
No Yes, Part time Yes, Full time Yes, Self-Employed
2
3
8
4
12
Rarely Absent more
than present
Present more
than absent
Almost all the
time
All the time
J.2 If yes, about how often did you attend work in 
the last month?
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 101
28
20%
31
22%
83
58%
J.4 Do you think that your current economic situation is 
better, the same, or worse than it was 12 months ago?
Worse Same Better
102 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
2. Full results tables
Table 1: Youth Survey 
Descriptive Statistics, 
Part 1 (Binary and 
Continuous 
Variables)
Mean Male Female Over18 Under18 Min Max N
B.4 What is your age? (In completed years) 22.32 22 23.87 23.07 16.19 14 34 148
B.5 Do you still live with your parent(s)/guardian(s)? .66 .68 .62 .62 1 0 1 148
B.6 How many people in total live in your household at this time? 4.63 4.25 5.05 4.66 4.38 1 15 148
B.7 How many children under the age of 13 live in your household? 1.23 .93 1.74 1.23 1.25 0 8 148
B.12 Do you have children? .33 .19 .64 .36 .13 0 1 148
B.13 Do you provide financial support to your child(ren)? .98 1 .96 .98 1 0 1 49
D.1 Have you ever been arrested? .34 .41 .23 .36 .19 0 1 148
D.9 Have you spent any time in jail or prison? .57 .59 .56 .56 .67 0 1 51
D.11 Are you currently involved with the justice system? .1 .12 0 .08 .33 0 1 51
E.3 Have you ever been diagnosed with an educational disability (slow learner)? .18 .17 .13 .16 .31 0 1 148
F.1 - F.6: 0=Never, 1=Sometimes, 2=Regularly
F.1 Do you keep things in until you finally explode with anger? .92 .84 1.13 .92 .94 0 2 148
F.2 Do you have a tendency to take your anger out on someone other than the pers .43 .32 .72 .4 .69 0 2 148
F.3 When a problem arises between you and someone else, do you discuss it without .99 1.05 .79 .99 1 0 2 147
F.4 Are you satisfied with the way you settle differences with others? 1.35 1.43 1.16 1.38 1.06 0 2 147
F.5 Do you tend to feel very guilty or bad after getting angry? 1.01 .94 1.15 1.02 1 0 2 147
F.6 When you get angry, do people around you feel threatened or frightened? .64 .62 .58 .63 .73 0 2 141
F.7 When you get angry, have you ever damaged property? .22 .23 .23 .21 .25 0 1 148
F.9 - F.27 1 = Disagree Strongly, 5 = Agree Strongly
F.9 I have a reserved and cautious attitude toward life 3.18 3.29 2.92 3.22 2.87 1 4 145
F.10 I have trouble controlling my impulses. 2.09 2 2.26 2.06 2.31 1 4 145
F.11 I generally seek new and exciting experiences and sensations. 3.02 2.94 3.1 3 3.2 1 4 145
F.12 When I’m happy I can’t stop myself from doing things with bad consequences 1.99 1.95 2.03 1.94 2.38 1 4 143
F.13 I have trouble resisting my cravings (for food, cigarettes, etc.). 2.29 2.3 2.28 2.31 2.06 1 4 147
F.14 I’ll try anything once. 2.39 2.32 2.51 2.37 2.63 1 4 147
F.22 Others are shocked by things I do when I’m excited 2.21 2.24 2.05 2.2 2.25 1 4 145
F.23 When I feel rejected, I will often say things that I later regret. 2.24 1.96 2.79 2.13 3.13 1 4 147
F.24 I welcome new experiences even if they are frightening 2.82 2.85 2.77 2.84 2.63 1 4 144
F.25 I always keep my feelings under control. 3.31 3.54 2.9 3.37 2.8 1 4 145
F.26 In the heat of an argument, I will often say things that I later regret. 2.54 2.24 3.1 2.47 3.19 1 4 147
F27. When excited, I don’t think about the consequences of my actions 2.35 2.29 2.5 2.38 2.06 1 4 147
G.1 Have you been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 months? .13 .12 .18 .14 .06 0 1 148
G.3 Have you used the weapon on someone or to threaten someone? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
G.4 Have you ever been associated with a gang? .16 .17 .1 .16 .19 0 1 147
G.6 Do your parents or guardians have an adult criminal history? .17 .18 .11 .17 .14 0 1 143
G.9: 0 = Not True, 1 = Somewhat True, 2 = Certianly True
G.9 I try to be nice to other people. I care about their feelings. 1.68 1.66 1.74 1.68 1.69 0 2 148
G.14: 1 = Don’t at all agree, 7 = Agree a lot
G.14 There are lots of adults in my neighborhood I could talk to about something 3.48 3.75 3.05 3.41 4.06 1 7 148
H.5 - H.6: 0 = Never, 1 = A Little, 2 = A Lot
H.5 Do you sometimes imagine hitting or hurting the other person? 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.04 1 0 2 147
H.6 Do you ever daydream about people getting killed? .63 .6 .64 .63 .63 0 2 147
H.7 - H.12: 1 = Don’t at all agree, 7 = Agree a lot
H.7 To what extent do you trust the justice system? 2.97 2.84 3 2.79 4.44 1 7 148
H.8 To what extent do you trust the local government? 2.71 2.54 2.95 2.52 4.31 1 7 148
H.9 To what extent do you trust the police in your neighborhood? 2.4 2.15 2.64 2.21 3.94 1 7 148
H.12 Employers discriminate against people with past criminal behavior? 4.63 4.71 4.85 4.74 3.69 1 7 147
I.2 Are you currently enrolled in school? .14 .1 .08 .11 .38 0 1 148
I.13 Are you currently enrolled in vocational training .39 .44 .26 .4 .31 0 1 147
J.3: 0 = 0 - 30,000, 1 = 30,001 - 40,000
2 = 40,001 - 60,000, 3 = 60,001 - 80,000, 4 = More than 80,000
J.3 What is the total monthly income in your household? 1.06 1.22 .56 1.11 .29 0 4 109
J.5 In the past three months, did your household ever run out of food? .61 .58 .67 .62 .5 0 1 147
K.4 Are you currently experiencing problems due to alcohol or drug use? .01 .02 0 .01 .06 0 1 147
K.5 Have you experienced violence related to alcohol or drug use? .03 .05 0 .04 0 0 1 148
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 103
Table 2: Youth Survey 
Descriptive Statistics, 
Part 2 (Binary Variables 
- Services)
Mean Male Female Over18 Under18 Min Max N
C.1 What types of supportive services have you received in the last four years?
C.1: None .01 0 0 0 .06 0 1 148
C.1: Food and sanitation supply vouchers .18 .16 .23 .19 .06 0 1 148
C.1: Book vouchers, backpacks, and/or school supplies .14 .1 .18 .14 .19 0 1 148
C.1: Therapy/counseling (including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) .4 .38 .51 .39 .5 0 1 148
C.1: Substance mis-use counseling .16 .19 .08 .16 .13 0 1 148
C.1: Mentorship .45 .56 .31 .46 .38 0 1 148
C.1: Life skills training .66 .72 .62 .67 .56 0 1 148
C.1: Psychosocial support for GBV survivors .05 .06 0 .04 .13 0 1 148
C.1: School reintegration support .2 .19 .23 .18 .38 0 1 148
C.1: Job skills training / vocational training .61 .68 .56 .62 .56 0 1 148
C.1: Apprenticeship placement .25 .25 .28 .25 .25 0 1 148
C.1: Microenterprise support .11 .11 .1 .12 0 0 1 148
C.1: Youth risk screening .13 .12 .18 .13 .13 0 1 148
C.1: Literacy/numeracy training .16 .18 .13 .15 .25 0 1 148
C.1: Case management .51 .51 .62 .5 .56 0 1 148
C.2 What types of supportive services are you currently receiving?
C.2: None .18 .18 .21 .19 .07 0 1 147
C.2: Food and sanitation supply vouchers .05 .06 .03 .05 .07 0 1 147
C.2: Book vouchers, backpacks, and/or school supplies .03 .01 0 .02 .2 0 1 147
C.2: Therapy/counseling (including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) .2 .16 .31 .17 .47 0 1 147
C.2: Substance mis-use counseling .05 .06 .03 .05 .07 0 1 147
C.2: Mentorship .26 .32 .15 .26 .27 0 1 147
C.2: Life skills training .3 .31 .26 .29 .4 0 1 147
C.2: Psychosocial support for GBV survivors .01 .01 0 .01 0 0 1 147
C.2: School reintegration support .07 .06 .08 .07 .07 0 1 147
C.2: Job skills training / vocational training .38 .41 .33 .37 .47 0 1 147
C.2: Apprenticeship placement .17 .18 .18 .16 .27 0 1 147
C.2: Microenterprise support .03 .03 .05 .04 0 0 1 147
C.2: Youth risk screening .04 .05 .03 .04 .07 0 1 147
C.2: Literacy/numeracy training .05 .07 0 .05 .13 0 1 147
C.2: Case management .38 .35 .51 .36 .6 0 1 147
What supportive services have you found most helpful?
C.4: None .01 .01 .03 .02 0 0 1 147
C.4: Food and sanitation supply vouchers .1 .08 .15 .11 .07 0 1 147
C.4: Book vouchers, backpacks, and/or school supplies .07 .03 .08 .05 .2 0 1 147
C.4: Therapy/counseling (including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) .29 .23 .46 .27 .47 0 1 147
C.4: Substance mis-use counseling .1 .12 .05 .1 .07 0 1 147
C.4: Mentorship .35 .42 .23 .36 .27 0 1 147
C.4: Life skills training .49 .54 .44 .51 .33 0 1 147
C.4: Psychosocial support for GBV survivors .01 .02 0 .02 0 0 1 147
C.4: School reintegration support .12 .12 .13 .12 .13 0 1 147
C.4: Job skills training / vocational training .48 .54 .38 .48 .47 0 1 147
C.4: Apprenticeship placement .14 .15 .13 .13 .2 0 1 147
C.4: Microenterprise support .05 .05 .08 .06 0 0 1 147
C.4: Youth risk screening .07 .07 .08 .06 .13 0 1 147
C.4: Literacy/numeracy training .05 .05 .08 .05 .13 0 1 147
C.4: Case management .33 .31 .44 .33 .33 0 1 147
C.5 Are there any services that you did not find helpful?
C.5: None .95 .96 .9 .95 .93 0 1 147
C.5: Food and sanitation supply vouchers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
C.5: Book vouchers, backpacks, and/or school supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
C.5: Therapy/counseling (including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) .01 .01 0 0 .07 0 1 147
C.5: Substance mis-use counseling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
C.5: Mentorship .01 .01 0 .01 0 0 1 147
C.5: Life skills training .02 .02 .03 .02 0 0 1 147
C.5: Psychosocial support for GBV survivors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
C.5: School reintegration support .01 0 .03 .01 0 0 1 147
C.5: Job skills training / vocational training .02 .02 .03 .02 0 0 1 147
C.5: Apprenticeship placement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
C.5: Microenterprise support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
C.5: Youth risk screening .01 .01 0 .01 0 0 1 147
C.5: Literacy/numeracy training .01 .01 0 .01 0 0 1 147
C.5: Case management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147
C.7 Did you experience any challenges in accessing any of these services? .11 .14 .05 .12 0 0 1 147
C.9 Did you experience any benefits from your participation in this program? .93 .91 .95 .92 1 0 1 147
C.10 What are the benefits? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C.11 Please rate your level of satisfaction with the services you received 2.01 2.16 1.74 2.07 1.53 1 5 147
C.13 How would you rate your satisfaction with your case manager/mentor? 2.01 2.15 1.66 2.09 1.42 1 5 104
104 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
Table 3: Youth Survey 
Descriptive Statistics, 
Part 3 (Categorical 
Variables)
Total Male Female Over18 Under18
A1: Parish
A1: Kingston / St. Andrew 60 35 14 53 7
A1: St. James 57 37 20 49 8
A1: St. Catherine 32 27 5 31 1
A4: Respondent Type
A4: Family member of beneficiary youth 1 0 0 1 0
A4: Youth beneficiary (under 18) 22 7 5 6 16
A4: Youth beneficiary (18 or older) 126 92 34 126 0
Race
B10: Black/ Afro Jamaican 138 92 37 122 16
B10: Mixed 10 7 2 10 0
B11: Single 122 87 33 110 12
B11: Married 2 0 1 2 0
B11: Common law marriage (Living together) 19 12 4 19 0
B11: Prefer not to respond 1 0 1 1 0
I.6 Organize a group of students in order to achieve changes at school
I6: No 7 5 0 6 1
I6: Yes 10 5 2 7 3
I6: Maybe 3 0 1 1 2
I.7 Take school problems or concerns to my teacher or principal.
I7: No 8 3 1 5 3
I7: Yes 10 5 2 8 2
I7: Maybe 2 2 0 1 1
I.8 Teach things to other students in my school
I8: No 5 2 1 2 3
I8: Yes 15 8 2 12 3
I.9 Help keep the classroom and school clean.
I9: No 2 2 0 1 1
I9: Yes 17 7 3 12 5
I9: Maybe 1 1 0 1 0
I.10 Serve on the student government at my school.
I10: No 12 8 1 10 2
I10: Yes 7 2 2 4 3
I10: Maybe 1 0 0 0 1
I.11 Encourage my parent(s) to come to PTA meetings.
I11: No 7 4 1 7 0
I11: Yes 12 5 2 6 6
I11: Don’t know 1 1 0 1 0
I.12 Was your school education affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
I12: No, because I did not attend school for another reason 61 43 16 56 5
I12: No, my classes continued normally 11 10 1 11 0
I12: Yes, I went to virtual or remote/online classes 28 15 7 20 8
I12: Yes, I switched to a combination of virtual/online and in-person classes (m 13 9 3 10 3
I12: Yes, I cut all ties with the school 2 2 0 2 0
I12: Don’t know 21 12 8 21 0
I12: Prefer not to respond 12 8 4 12 0
E.1 Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness?
E1: No previous or current diagnoses 142 95 38 127 15
E1: Previous diagnoses 4 3 0 3 1
E1: Current diagnoses 2 1 1 2 0
G.2 How many days in the last 30 days did you carry a weapon?
G2: 0 days 118 80 29 104 14
G2: 1 days 4 4 0 4 0
G2: 2 days 1 1 0 1 0
G2: 4 days 3 2 1 3 0
G2: 7 days 1 0 1 1 0
G2: 8 days 1 0 1 1 0
G2: 14 days 1 1 0 1 0
G2: 20 days 2 2 0 2 0
G2: 21 days 1 1 0 1 0
G2: 25 days 1 1 0 1 0
G2: 30 days 15 7 7 13 2
G.5 What proportion of your close friends have a history with the criminal justice system?
G5: All 72 42 25 63 9
G5: Most 33 24 5 30 3
G5: Some 25 20 4 23 2
G5: Few 8 6 2 8 0
G5: None 2 2 0 2 0
G5: Don’t know 8 5 3 6 2
G.7 How would you describe the discipline, supervision, and support that you receive?
G7: Not applicable (no discipline/supervision/support received from parent(s)/guardian 10 7 2 10 0
G7: Adequate 26 19 6 24 2
G7: Sometimes inconsistent 42 25 14 36 6
G7: Overly strict 51 32 15 46 5
G7: Overly permissive 18 15 2 15 3
G7: Don’t know 1 1 0 1 0
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 105
Total Male Female Over18 Under18
K.5 Have you experienced violence related to alcohol or drug use?
K5: No violence 75 53 19 69 6
K5: Violence/discord is occasional 52 34 13 44 8
K5: Violence/discord is severe and/or regular 21 12 7 19 2
I.3 About how often did you attend school in the last month?
I3: Rarely 1 0 1 1 0
I3: Absent more often than present 2 2 0 2 0
I3: Present more often than absent 7 3 2 5 2
I3: Almost all the time 3 3 0 3 0
I3: All the time 7 2 0 3 4
I.4 Thinking back over the past year in school, how often did you try to do your schoolwork?
I4: Some of the time 1 1 0 1 0
I4: Some of the time 11 5 3 8 3
I4: All of the time 8 4 0 5 3
I.5 In the past year, how many of your best friends have tried to do well in school
I5: None 18 11 5 18 0
I5: Few 25 18 5 20 5
I5: Some 28 21 6 24 4
I5: Most 27 19 6 25 2
I5: All 30 19 9 28 2
I5: Don’t know 18 10 8 15 3
I5: Prefer not to respond 2 1 0 2 0
I.14 About how often did you attend training in the last month?
I14: Never 1 1 0 1 0
I14: Absent more often than present 4 3 1 4 0
I14: Present more often than absent 20 14 5 19 1
I14: Almost all the time 10 8 2 9 1
I14: All the time 23 18 2 20 3
J.1 Are you currently employed?
J1: No 69 47 15 58 11
J1: Yes, part time 30 21 7 28 2
J1: Yes, full time 27 17 9 25 2
J1: Yes, self-employed 22 14 8 21 1
J.2 If yes, about how often did you attend work in the last month?
J2: Rarely 2 2 0 2 0
J2: Absent more often than present 3 3 0 3 0
J2: Present more often than absent 8 5 3 7 1
J2: Almost all the time 4 2 1 4 0
J2: All the time 12 8 3 11 1
J2: Don’t know 1 1 0 1 0
J.4 Do you think that your current economic situation is better, the same or worse?
J4: Worse 28 19 7 27 1
J4: Same 31 22 7 27 4
J4: Better 83 54 25 74 9
J4: Don’t know 6 4 0 4 2
K.1 How often in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription for non-medical 
reasons? K1: Never
135 89 36 119 16
K1: Less than monthly 3 1 2 3 0
K1: Monthly 4 4 0 4 0
K1: Weekly 2 1 1 2 0
K1: Daily or almost daily 4 4 0 4 0
K.2 How often in the past year have you used marijuana?
K2: Never 69 36 25 58 11
K2: Less than monthly 12 9 3 11 1
K2: Monthly 15 9 5 13 2
K2: Weekly 5 3 2 4 1
K2: Daily or almost daily 46 41 4 45 1
K2: Don’t know 1 1 0 1 0
K.3 In the past year, how often have you had six or more alcoholic drinks/beverages? K3: Never 58 36 16 49 9
K3: Less than monthly 31 20 7 27 4
K3: Monthly 20 12 8 20 0
K3: Weekly 25 21 4 23 2
K3: Daily or almost daily 13 9 4 12 1
K3: Don’t know 1 1 0 1 0
H.10 A man has a right to discipline his partner with physical violence.
H10: Strongly disagree 96 64 25 87 9
H10: Disagree 35 22 10 29 6
H10: Neither agree nor disagree 7 5 2 7 0
H10: Agree 4 4 0 4 0
H10: Strongly agree 5 3 2 4 1
H10: Prefer not to respond 1 1 0 1 0
H.11 Physical violence between members of a couple is a private matter
H11: Strongly disagree 28 14 11 27 1
H11: Disagree 24 12 10 21 3
H11: Neither agree nor disagree 14 9 5 14 0
H11: Agree 47 34 9 38 9
H11: Strongly agree 34 29 4 31 3
H11: Don’t know 1 1 0 1 0
106 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
ANNEX F: SIGNED DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
FORMS 
DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
[The Evaluation Policy requires that evaluation reports include a signed statement by each evaluation 
team member regarding any conflicts of interest. A suggested format is provided below.]
Name Mario Martinez
Title Mr.
Organization LINC LLC
Evaluation Position? Evaluation Team Leader
Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 7200AA20D00017/72053222F00002
USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), 
implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable)
Local Partner Development Activity (LPD), 
FHI360, Cooperative Agreement # AID-532-
LA-17-00001
I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. No
If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:
1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating 
unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the 
implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or 
in the outcome of the evaluation.
3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience 
with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the 
project design or previous iterations of the project.
4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the 
USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated.
5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may 
be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or 
objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated 
that could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature
Date February 14, 2023
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 107
108 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (LPD) USAID.GOV
USAID.GOV FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL PARTNER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY | 109