KENYA SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT STUDY: SOCIAL VALUE ANALYSIS OF YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M / ORDER NO. 7200AA18M00016 / DRG-LER II TASKING N052 DRG LEARNING, EVALUATION, AND RESEARCH (DRG-LER) II ACTIVITY KENYA SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT STUDY: SOCIAL VALUE ANALYSIS OF YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT February 14, 2023 Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N052 Submitted to: Matt Baker, USAID COR Submitted by: Shubha Kumar, Research Team Leader & SROI Expert Sara Olsen, SROI Expert Aaron Mallett, Research Analyst Saji Prelis, Youth, Peace, and Security Expert Contractor: NORC at the University of Chicago Bethesda, MD 20814 Attention: Matthew Parry E-mail: parry-matthew@norc.org Cover Photo Credit: The cover photo was captured by the research team during a focus group in Kenya conducted as part of this study. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M / ORDER NO. AID-OAA-M-13-00013 / DRG-LER II TASKING N055 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV EVALUATION DESIGN IV MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS V EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? V EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? V EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? VI EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OF THE PROJECT? VI EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? VI EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 1 PURPOSE 1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 2 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 2 DESK REVIEW 3 ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 4 THEORY OF CHANGE WORKSHOP 4 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 4 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 4 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 4 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 5 OUTCOMES VALUATION 5 CALCULATION OF THE SROI RATIO 5 REPORTING AND USING RESULTS 6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 6 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS 8 FINDINGS 8 EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? 8 EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? 8 EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? 11 EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? 12 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 CONCLUSIONS 13 ANNEXES 15 ANNEX A: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 16 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 16 ANNEX B: DETAILED METHODOLOGY 25 ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP, INTERVIEW AND SURVEY GUIDE 27 ii | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV ENGLISH VERSION 27 KISWAHILI VERSION 29 ANNEX D: DETAILED RESULTS 33 WELL DEFINED OUTCOMES 33 ANNEX E: IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT 35 RUBRIC FOR IMPACT RISK: EVIDENCE 35 ANNEX F: LIST OF EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS 37 TABLES Table 1: Evaluation Findings...................................................................................................................................... v Table 2: Evaluation Recommendations................................................................................................................ vii Table 3: Key stakeholders of the project..............................................................................................................8 Table 4: Key stakeholders reached ........................................................................................................................8 Table 5: Condensed Social Value Impact Map ...................................................................................................11 Table B. 1: The SROI Analysis Process (Adapted from Social Value International, 2022)......................25 Table B. 2: The Social Value International Principles (Adapted from SVI, 2022) ......................................25 Table D. 1: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Young Women Not Receiving Additional Funding from IPHRD.........................................................................................................................33 Table D. 2: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators Young Women Receiving Additional Funding from IPHRD.........................................................................................................................................33 Table D. 3: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Indirect Beneficiaries.........................................33 Table D. 4: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Trainers................................................................34 Table D. 5: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Duty Bearers.......................................................34 Table D. 6: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for IPHRD Staff .........................................................34 Table F. 1: List of Expert Advisory Group Members.......................................................................................37 FIGURES Figure 1: SROI Analysis Process..............................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Map of Well-Defined Outcomes for the Project...............................................................................9 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | iii ACRONYMS DRG-LER II Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance – Learning, Evaluation, and Research Activity EQ Evaluation Question FGD Focus Group Discussion IIGH Institute on Inequalities in Global Health IPHRD International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa KII Key Informant Interview NORC National Opinion Research Center SROI Social Return on Investment SVI Social Value International USAID United States Agency for International Development USC University of Southern California YPS Youth, Peace and Security iv | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Institute on Inequalities in Global Health (IIGH) at the University of Southern California (USC), in collaboration with Search for Common Ground, was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through NORC at the University of Chicago to develop a proof of concept to assess the social value, including quantifying the impact, of youth-led and youth-supporting peace and security efforts in Kenya using the social return on investment (SROI) model. SROI is a framework for measuring and accounting for the value of an intervention, organization or policy. It measures changes that are relevant to the people that contribute to and experience them by capturing the value of social, economic, and environmental outcomes, and uses monetary values to represent these outcomes. As part of the proof of concept, a call was initiated for youth-led and youth-supporting peace and security efforts in Kenya interested in participating in the study to be evaluated according to the SROI methodology. Response to the call resulted in a list of approximately 300 interventions which were reviewed and shortlisted for participation by the research team based on certain criteria (i.e., whether the project was youth-led or youth-supporting, the number of beneficiaries and key stakeholder groups affected, how long the project lasted, key project activities, project location(s), availability of data, etc.) and availability of resources to conduct the study. One of the four interventions selected was the Young Women Leaders Mediation Project, and is the focus of this report. The project was implemented in Kenya during 2018-2022 by the International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development (IPHRD). USC partnered with SVT Group (a US consulting firm specializing in SROI impact assessment), AMREF Health Africa (the largest health development NGO in Africa) and Rural Senses (a social enterprise research organization) to conduct the overall research including the evaluation of this project. The evaluation was guided by the following five main questions: 1) Who are the key stakeholders of the intervention? 2) What outcomes do key stakeholders experience? 3) What is the relative value of the outcomes to key stakeholders? 4) What is the social return on investment (SROI) of the project? 5) How can the results of the analysis be used to improve future programming? EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation design included a desk review of 136 documents as well as data collection using mixed methods. This included focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and quantitative online surveys. Data was collected between June 2022 – October 2022. At the outset of the evaluation, members of the research team conducted discussions with the staff of the intervention to define the scope of the analysis, including the identification of main activities, key stakeholders and how best to engage them. In addition, a theory of change workshop was conducted with project staff to identify from their perspectives what were the key outcomes of the intervention and their underlying assumptions. A map of the “well-defined outcomes,” meaning specific changes in wellbeing experienced by stakeholder groups “that provide the best opportunity to increase or decrease USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | v value,” 1was developed through engagement with all key stakeholders to understand from each of their perspectives the outcomes they experienced, including intended and unintended, and any positive and negative outcomes. Qualitative data collection was collected from a purposive sample of key stakeholders identified, including young women trainees, indirect beneficiaries, trainers of young women participants, duty bearers, and project staff. It included 3 focus group discussions (FGDs) with indirect beneficiaries and project staff as well as 5 key informant interviews (KIIs) with duty bearers, trainers and young women trainees. After data collection, transcripts were translated from Kiswahili to English as needed then analyzed and coded in Excel. Quantitative data collection included online surveys programmed in Kobo Collect to collect data from stakeholder groups that had larger numbers of participants than could participate in FGDs, in this case young women trainees, to obtain more representative samples. These surveys were sent to young women trainees and mirrored the questions from the FGDs. Five (5) respondents completed the surveys. Quantitative data was cleaned, then analyzed using Excel software. While SROI analysis traditionally involves monetization of outcomes identified by key stakeholders, this process was not completed in this study due to limitations as noted in the report. Instead, a social value analysis was completed, which is similar in principles and process to SROI analysis, including identifying key outcomes that stakeholders experience and their relative importance to them, but does not monetize these outcomes nor result in an SROI ratio. Final results were shared with key stakeholders in December 2022, including a discussion of how results can be used and recommendations for future programming to grow social value creation. MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A summary of main findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the evaluation are presented in the tables below. Table 1: Evaluation Findings EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? Key stakeholders of this intervention are: • Young women trainees • Young women trainees receiving additional funding from IPHRD to engage with indirect beneficiaries (subset of young women trainees) • Indirect beneficiaries of programming • Trainers • Duty Bearers • Project staff EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? 1 Standards on Applying Principle 2: Understand What Changes, Part 1. Social Value International (2021) vi | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Young women trainees experienced: • Increased networking and opportunities • Increased empowerment Young women trainees receiving additional funding from IPHRD experienced: • Improved networking and opportunities • Increased personal growth • Increased sense of exclusion Indirect beneficiaries experienced: • Increased women’s empowerment and inclusion • Increased sense of security in the community • Increased friendship • Increased hostility from the community due to perception of being a troublemaker • Reduced gender-based violence in the community • Increased capacity for peacebuilding Trainers experienced: • Increased functional capacity Duty bearers experienced • Increased functional capacity Project staff experienced: • Increased capacity for peacebuilding • Increased networking and opportunities • Change in perception or treatment due to project participation EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? All outcomes that were valued by stakeholders were valued at a ranking of 5 on a 1-5 scale, with 5 indicating extremely important. EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OF THE PROJECT? Not applicable in this study as noted above. EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? Results of the analysis can be used in multiple ways, including but not limited to understanding what outcomes mattered most to key stakeholders, what negative outcomes may have been experienced, and how to increase value for different stakeholder groups. Results of the analysis also demonstrate the added value of this approach over current approaches to evaluation used in this sector, including but not limited to its encouragement of decision-making based on value creation, not outputs. Outputs do not reflect the whole picture but have often been the basis for many decisions in aid and development programming. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | vii Table 2: Evaluation Recommendations Five specific recommendations were identified for this project to increase value in the future. They are: 1) Programming should be designed in consultation with key stakeholders. Indirect beneficiaries expressed that more value would have been created if there was more engagement with additional stakeholders, such as young men and boda boda riders. 2) Adapt programming to address all sub-groups of key stakeholders. For example, some young women trainees received funding to engage with indirect beneficiaries to spread peace messaging while some did not. Another example was that some trainees felt excluded based on not receiving the same travel reimbursements as other participants coming from further locations and also associated with not having the space to observe their religious practices at the training site. This created a differential experience for these trainees and it became clear that the social value created for these different sub￾groups was also different. Creating plans to address potential differential experiences at the program design phase can increase social value creation in the future. 3) Include longer-term engagement across all activities. The activities that tend to generate the most value are those that occur over longer periods of time, and this should be taken into account in future programming and resource allocation. Additionally, participants expressed that such feedback has been shared in evaluation activities in the past but with no response. Responding to findings from previous evaluations can lead to increased social value creation in the future. 4) Focus on extending the duration of desired outcomes. While many outcomes created positive value for stakeholders, these outcomes sometimes only lasted a year or less than a year. As such, programming should be adapted to focus on extending the duration of desired outcomes. 5) Increase the recognition and branding of the program. Stakeholders expressed that by increasing the recognition and branding of the program (i.e., through t-shirts or other promotional materials), this would give their outreach efforts more legitimacy and credibility, and also help in attribution and making the value of these efforts more measurable. CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M / ORDER NO. AID-OAA-M-13-00013 / DRG-LER II TASKING N055 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 1 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS PURPOSE The Institute on Inequalities in Global Health (IIGH) at the University of Southern California (USC), in collaboration with Search for Common Ground, was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through NORC at the University of Chicago to develop a proof of concept to assess the social value, including quantifying the impact, of youth-led and youth-supporting peace and security efforts in Kenya using the social return on investment (SROI) model. SROI is a framework for measuring and accounting for the value of an intervention, organization or policy. It measures changes in ways that are relevant to the people that experience or contribute to it by capturing the value of social, economic, and environmental outcomes, and uses monetary values to represent these outcomes. As part of the proof of concept, evaluations of various youth-led and youth-supporting peace and security interventions were carried out using the SROI model. One of the evaluations, an evaluation of the Young Women Leaders Mediation Project, is the focus of this report. USC worked with SVT Group (a US consulting firm specializing in SROI impact assessment) and two local research partners, AMREF Health Africa (the largest health development NGO in Africa) and Rural Senses (a social enterprise research organization) who led data collection (focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and quantitative surveys) for this evaluation. The evaluation data collection was carried out between June 2022 and October 2022, with validation meetings with key stakeholders in September 2022. The research team included Dr. Shubha Kumar (research team lead and SROI expert), Sara Olsen (SROI expert), Aaron Mallett (research analyst), Samuel Muhula (local co-investigator), Yau Ben-Or (local research support), and Ngesa Maturu (lead local data collector). The research team was closely advised by Saji Prelis (youth, peace and security expert), Adrienne Lemon (Search for Common Ground Senior Director for Strategy and Learning), and an Expert Advisory Group (representatives from various organizations engaged in youth, peace and security (see Annex F for full list to provide guidance and context about the peacebuilding field, including common practices, key actors at the international, regional, national, and local levels, and relevant key reports and publications. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The research team was tasked with answering the following questions for the evaluation: 1) Who are the key stakeholders of the intervention? 2) What outcomes do key stakeholders experience? 3) What is the relative value of the outcomes to key stakeholders? 4) What is the social return on investment (SROI) of the project? 5) How can the results of the analysis be used to improve future programming? 2 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV PROJECT BACKGROUND The Young Women’s Mediation Project was implemented by International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa (IPHRD-Africa) in the Horn of Africa Region focusing on Kenya, South Sudan, and Somalia. This project aimed to foster the mediation skills and capacity of young women (aged 18-35) in leadership positions in sectors related to peace and security and at academic institutions studying peace processes. This project aimed to support these women in engaging in mediation work within their communities at all levels of mediation (Tracks 1-3)2 by giving them the skills and practice necessary to do so. This project was active from 2018 – 2022 and was funded through the Norwegian Church Aid Association and the Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution. According to IPHRD, core program activities of this project included: • Support to youth for peace activities of at country level • Regional Advocacy Visits of Young Women to NGOs/Supranational Organizations (African Union, FemWise – Africa, Intergovernmental Authority on Development) • Regional Policy Dialogue on Young Women’s Engagement in Peace Processes • Youth Peace Index research • Young Women Leaders Training of Trainers on Armed Conflict Mediation and Negotiation • Young Women Digital Mediation Space • Young Women Mediation Mentorship The objectives of Young Women Leaders Mediation Project were as follows: • Youth, especially young women leaders, play an active and meaningful role in peace processes as a result of strengthened and enhanced mediation capacity and space • Linkages, mentorship and experience shared between the trained young women leaders and other mediation practitioners, to foster peer learning, and young women’s engagement • Documented mediation experiences, youth efforts in peace processes and youth • Inclusivity in peace processes across the peace spectrum to influence policy and enhance capacity METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The research team began with applying the internationally-recognized approach to SROI analysis (articulated by Social Value International) to conduct the evaluation of this project. This included a stakeholder-centric mixed-methods approach including a document review and qualitative and quantitative data collection to generate credible evidence to answer the evaluation questions. The design included focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs), and quantitative online surveys with key stakeholders. Local research staff worked closely with USC to validate instruments and translate them from English to Kiswahili for data collection. Figure 1 provides a high-level overview of the SROI analysis process. An extended methodology section can be found in Annex B – Extended Methodology. 2 Track 1 Mediation is the highest level of mediation and is focused at national governments. Track 2 is focused at mid-level leadership (i.e. regional power figures) and Track 3 is focused at local leadership. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 3 Figure 1: SROI Analysis Process Stage 1 Establishing Scope • Identify what intervention, activities, time period, and geography • Identify stakeholder groups and engagement methods Stage 2 Map Outcomes • Identify outcomes experienced by stakeholders during focus groups and interviews (including any negative or unintended outcomes) • Cross-reference between stakeholders-which outcomes contribute to more than one group • Quantification surveys to obtain representative samples • Apply financial proxies • Triangulate responses and add desk-based research Stage 4 Establish Impact • Attribution to this or other initiatives • Deadweight--what would have happened anyway • Drop-off-- how long do the outcomes last? • Displacement Stage 5 Calculate SROI • Ensure you've captured all the costs and attributed them correctly to the correct stakeholders. Are some 'in-kind' costs? • Minimum and maximum for sensitivity analysis Stake 6 Report using Embedding • Stakeholder review and comments • What is found to be most valuable by the recipient? • What could be improved? Stage 3 Evidence and Value Of the above process, some steps were not completed (i.e., apply financial proxies, calculate SROI ratio) due to limitations as noted later in the report. Instead, a social value analysis was completed, which is similar in principles and process to SROI analysis, including identifying key outcomes that stakeholders experience and their relative importance to them, but does not monetize these outcomes nor result in an SROI ratio. DESK REVIEW The research team conducted a literature review of peacebuilding outcomes and how they have been valued in previous peer-reviewed literature and reports. In addition, the research team reviewed all documents pertaining to the project provided by IPHRD staff including interim and final evaluation reports. In total, 136 documents (6 documents provided by the project staff and 130 from a literature search) were reviewed to either provide context or provide further evidence to support findings for the evaluation questions. 4 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS At the outset of the evaluation, members of the research team conducted discussions with the staff of the intervention to define the scope of the analysis. This stage included identifying the key activities that were part of the intervention, the time period over which they occurred, and their locations, and which of those would be included in the analysis. In addition, this stage included identifying the key stakeholders of the intervention and the best methods for engagement with key stakeholders for data collection. THEORY OF CHANGE WORKSHOP Members of the research team conducted a theory of change workshop with project staff to identify from their perspectives what were the key outcomes of the intervention and their underlying assumptions. A map of well-defined outcomes was developed through engagement with all key stakeholders to understand from each of their perspectives the outcomes they experienced, including intended and unintended, and any positive and negative outcomes. (Given the focus was on identifying key outcomes, and not so strictly the cause and effect over time to the extent that formal theories of change typically do, this resulted in a map of well-defined outcomes instead of a traditional theory of change diagram.) QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Three FGDs were conducted: 2 with indirect beneficiaries of programming, and 1 with project staff. The purpose of the FGDs was to understand from stakeholders’ perspectives what were the key outcomes they experienced as a result of the intervention, how they would describe the changes they experienced (indicators), how long outcomes lasted (duration), their relative importance or value, what would have happened anyways without the intervention (deadweight), how much of the outcomes they experienced they would attribute to the intervention (attribution), if the outcomes dropped off over time (drop-off), and any recommendations they have for the future. The extent to which outcomes experienced by program stakeholders may have resulted from those outcomes simply shifting away from other stakeholders who would otherwise have experienced those same outcomes if not for the program activities (displacement) was considered to be zero. Two of the focus groups were conducted in-person while the 3rd (with project staff) was conducted online via Zoom. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS The local research team also conducted semi-structured KIIs with additional key stakeholders of the intervention who were unable to be engaged via focus groups, including duty bearers, trainers, and young women trainees In total, 5 KIIs were conducted. The purpose of the KIIs was similar to the purpose of the FGDs and the same instrument was used. All interviews were conducted via Google Meet. Data for FGDs and KIIs was entered into Kobo Collect. After data collection, transcripts were translated from Kiswahili to English as needed. Data was analyzed using content analysis and coded in Excel. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 5 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION Based on the qualitative data collection and analysis of outcomes, online surveys were developed to understand the quantity of people from key stakeholder groups that experienced the outcomes identified during the qualitative data collection phase, along with how long outcomes lasted (duration), their relative importance or value, what would have happened anyway without the intervention (deadweight), how much of the outcomes they experienced they would attribute to the intervention (attribution), if the outcomes dropped off over time (drop-off), etc. Online surveys were translated into Kiswahili and programmed in Kobo Collect. Surveys were administered to young women trainees who did not participate in the qualitative data collection. Five (5) respondents completed the surveys. Quantitative data was cleaned and analyzed using Excel software. OUTCOMES VALUATION The outcomes identified by key stakeholders were valued according to stakeholders-stated preference valuation (derived directly from stakeholders via FGDs, KIIs, and online surveys). The purpose of valuation is to reveal the value of outcomes and how important they are compared to the value of other outcomes. SROI uses monetary values to represent outcomes as money is a widely accepted way of conveying value. The monetized values of outcomes are then used to calculate an SROI ratio. Social value analysis does not use monetary values to represent outcomes but rather asks respondents to rank how important those outcomes are to them using a rating scale. For the stakeholders-stated preference valuation, respondents were asked to rank on a scale of 1-5 how important the outcome they experienced was relative to other outcomes, with 1 being not important to 5 being extremely important. CALCULATION OF THE SROI RATIO Calculation of the SROI ratio typically involves taking into account a monetized value of each outcome, the quantity of stakeholders experiencing the outcome, subtracting for deadweight, attribution, drop-off, and discounting projected values to present value to arrive at the impact for each outcome. The sum of all values is calculated, from which the total investment is subtracted, and then the total value is divided by the total investment to arrive at the SROI ratio. After calculating the SROI ratio, sensitivity analyses are conducted to assess the extent to which the results would change if some of the assumptions made in the previous stages (i.e., monetized value of outcomes, deadweight, attribution) are changed. The aim of such analyses is to test which assumptions have the greatest effect on the model. However, in this evaluation, there were difficulties obtaining monetized values of outcomes from key stakeholders, as well as difficulties with teasing out credible estimates for deadweight and attribution from some stakeholders, including indirect beneficiaries in particular, given their interactions were not with the program directly but rather with young women trainees who received additional funding from IPHRD to engage with them, and so credible estimates for attribution and deadweight as related to the IPHRD project itself could not be established. Given these limitations, an SROI ratio was not calculated in this analysis. 6 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV REPORTING AND USING RESULTS Final results were presented to project staff and additional key stakeholders in December 2022. This included discussion of how the results can be used, including key strengths of the interventions as well as recommendations to inform the strategic design of future programming to grow more social value. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS The following assumptions were made when conducting this analysis: 1. Scope. While the intervention was implemented in multiple locations, this analysis focused on the programming in Nairobi only (given limits on human and financial resources to conduct the study). In addition, this analysis only included a subset of activities implemented in Nairobi, focusing on those activities that occurred over a longer time period and were therefore more likely to have a sustained and recognizable outcome. The activities included in the analysis were the training program in Nairobi and where relevant, engagement with indirect beneficiaries in Nairobi. Given this limited scope, the social value creation described here will be different compared to if the intervention was analyzed in its entirety, and is likely underestimated in this analysis. The following limitations should be considered when interpreting results from this report: 1. Results Attribution and Deadweight. While findings suggest that the intervention contributed to and helped achieve outcomes that stakeholders experienced, causality cannot be pinpointed on this intervention alone. A variety of other factors and/or assistance from other interventions may have also contributed to results, and this evaluation did not use a randomized control trial methodology for attribution. It did however ask stakeholders to estimate how much of the outcomes they experienced were attributable to the intervention under analysis (i.e., attribution), as well as how much of the outcomes they experienced would have happened anyway based on other factors/trends (i.e., deadweight) and both of these estimates where they were credibly obtained from stakeholders were taken into account in the analysis. 2. Recall Bias. As several questions raised during the data collection processes addressed issues that took place in the past, recall bias may have affected the responses provided due to discrepancies in the accuracy or completeness of recollections of past events. 3. Halo Bias. There is a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable answers and alter their responses to approximate what they perceive as the social norm, called halo bias. This can manifest in inaccurate responses from key stakeholders, who may have a tendency to respond favorably to questions as key beneficiaries of the intervention. The research team made efforts to explicitly ask about any negative outcomes stakeholders may have experienced, and to gather information from a wide range of stakeholders and number of respondents to adjust for this bias and triangulate responses among each group. 4. Sampling for FGDs. The research team sought to select 8-12 respondents for each FGD. Participants were sampled from lists of individuals involved in relevant activities provided by the implementing organization. This does not sample for the entirety of the population of participants but focuses on participants that were included in the lists, leading to possible selection bias. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 7 5. Survey Sampling. The method of sampling for the online surveys focused on reaching as many stakeholders as possible to achieve statistically representative samples of the stakeholder groups. However, the research team acknowledges a potential limitation of relying too heavily on those who responded as the desired sample size was not met in some cases. Response rates are noted in the report. The research team was also aware of participant fatigue due to multiple data collection efforts. 6. Environmental Factors. Factors such as the national election in Kenya led to difficulties in data collection with young women trainees in particular. Multiple interviews had to be delayed or cancelled as young women trainees were busier and more difficult to reach around this period. The research team extended the data collection timeline and was able to conduct some of the planned interviews, however, this environmental factor could have influenced the quality of data collected from the respondents due to distractions or incomplete responses. 7. Timing of the Analysis. Generally, peacebuilding interventions seek to create long-term community change through their actions. The intervention analyzed ended within the 12 months preceding the analysis. While this timeframe may lend to more accurate recall of the impacts of the program by its participants than if the study were done later, longer-term outcomes that may have been created by the program were not yet possible to observe and analyze. 8 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? Project staff identified key stakeholders of the intervention, including all groups who participated in programming, those who were involved with the coordination and delivery of the project, and any other parties who were significantly affected by the project. In addition, to ensure that any other stakeholders or sub-groups of stakeholders were not missing, participants were asked during qualitative data collection to identify other groups who they felt may be affected by the programming. The groups who were deemed to be materially affected based on (1) staff report, (2) self-reported outcomes from the qualitative data collection, and/or (3) identification by parties included in the qualitative data collection were then included in the analysis. Table 3 summarizes each stakeholder group, their relationship to the project and the rationale for inclusion or exclusion from the analysis. Table 3: Key stakeholders of the project STAKEHOLDER GROUP DESCRIPTION RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION Young Women Trainees Program beneficiaries Included as intended beneficiary of programming Indirect Beneficiaries Indirect Program beneficiaries Included as indirect beneficiaries of programming Trainers Program Contributor Included as affecting and affected by programming Duty Bearers Program Beneficiaries Included as affecting and affected by programming Program Staff Provider of programming Included as affecting and affected by programming Funding Agencies Provider of funding Excluded as priorities understood through program staff Table 4: Key stakeholders reached Stakeholder Group Population Size (Nairobi) Number of Participants in Focus Groups or Interviews Number of Respondents to Survey Young Women Trainees 10 5 5 Indirect Beneficiaries 23 12* Not surveyed Trainers 1 1 Not surveyed Duty Bearers 3 3 Not surveyed Staff 10 4 Not surveyed *Indicates where a representative sample size was not reached. Note that based on the anonymous survey set up, it is unclear if the same participant was both interviewed and completed the survey. As the interviews were designed to capture the same data, there is a risk of double counting. EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? Key stakeholders included in the analysis identified several outcomes that they experienced as summarized in Figure 2 on the next page. Additional detailed results can be found in Appendix D. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 9 Figure 2: Map of Well-Defined Outcomes for the Project Young Women Participants not receiving additional funding from IPHRD Increased Networking and Opportunities Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Young Women Participants receiving additional funding from IPHRD Increased Networking and Opportunities Increased Sense of Exclusion Increased Personal Growth Program Activities 10 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Time Trainers Duty Bearers IPHRDStaff Indirect Beneficiaries Increased women’s empowerment and inclusion Increased Friendship Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Reduction of Gender Based Violence in the community Increased hostility from community due to perception of being a troublemaker Increased functional capacity Increased functional capacity Increased inclusion of young women in work Increased networking and opportunities Increased capacity for peacebuilding Perceived and/or treated differently by community due to participation Increased sense of safety within the community Program Activities CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M / ORDER NO. AID-OAA-M-13-00013 / DRG-LER II TASKING N055 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 11 EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? The relative value of outcomes experienced by each stakeholder according to stakeholders-stated preference are presented in Table 5 below. It is worth noting that only some stakeholder groups completed the valuation exercise to rank the relative importance of the outcomes. Interestingly, all the outcomes that were valued were valued at a “5”, i.e., being extremely important. While the cause for this could be that the valuation exercise was not conducted or understood correctly to tease apart the relative importance of outcomes, or it could be halo bias on the part of respondents, it could also be that respondents truly perceived all of these outcomes as extremely important to them. Table 5: Condensed Social Value Impact Map Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Ranking Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Outcome description Young Women Participants who did not receive additional funding from IPHRD Increased networking and opportunities 8 * 25% 0% 13% 0% Increased capacity for peacebuilding 8 - 25% 0% 13% 0% Young Women Participants Who Received Additional Funding from IPHRD Increased networking and opportunities 2 5 25% 0% 25% -75% Increased personal growth 2 5 25% 0% 25% -75% Increased sense of exclusion 2 5 25% 0% 25% -25% Indirect Beneficiaries of Women Participating in Training Who Received Additional Funding Increased women's empowerment and inclusion 23 5 * * * * Increased sense of security in the community 23 5 * * * * Increased friendship 23 5 * * * * Increased hostility from community due to perception of being a troublemaker 23 5 * * * * Reduced Gender-Based Violence in the Community 23 5 * * * * Increased capacity for peacebuilding 23 5 * * * * 12 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Ranking Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Outcome description Trainers Increased functional capacity 3 * 25% 0% -33% 0% Duty Bearers Increased functional capacity 3 * 25% 0% -33% 0% Increased inclusion of Young Women in Work 3 * 0% 0% 0% 0% Staff Increased capacity for peacebuilding 10 * 0% 0% 0% 0% Increased networking and opportunities 10 * * * * * Charge in perception or treatment due to project participation 10 * * * * * EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? Results of the analysis can be used to improve future programming in multiple ways. Results from the stakeholders-stated preference valuation suggest which outcomes were most important to key stakeholders who experienced the program and can be used in multiple ways. First, these insights can be used to identify the activities or approaches that are most associated with these outcomes as ones that should be continued or expanded. Second, any negative outcomes that stakeholders described present an opportunity to dig deeper to understand what led to those outcomes and how they might be prevented or reduced in the future. Third, findings can elucidate any sub-groups of stakeholders who may be experiencing outcomes differently and opportunities to better meet their needs. Fourth, if there were outcomes that stakeholders did not report as having experienced, but were intended by program managers and/or donors, it opens the dialogue for why that was the case, and if there was a potential mismatch between what mattered to decision-makers versus users of the intervention, or the approaches used, that can be considered in future design. Finally, the fact that stakeholders are asked to provide their experience of value embodies an approach to understanding and to accountability that recognizes the important role the various stakeholders play in creating positive change. This itself may enhance the rapport between funders, program implementers and communities, and improve the ability of program operators to deliver meaningful benefits to communities experiencing conflict. RECOMMENDATIONS Five specific recommendations were identified for this project to increase value in the future. They are: USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 13 1) Programming should be designed in consultation with key stakeholders. Indirect beneficiaries expressed that more value would have been created if there was more engagement with additional stakeholders, such as young men and boda boda riders. 2) Adapt programming to address all sub-groups of key stakeholders. For example, some young women trainees received funding to engage with indirect beneficiaries to spread peace messaging while some did not. Another example was that some trainees felt excluded based on not receiving the same travel reimbursements as other participants coming from further locations and also associated with not having the space to observe their religious practices at the training site. This created a differential experience for these trainees and it became clear that the social value created for these different sub-groups was also different. Creating plans to address potential differential experiences at the program design phase can increase social value creation in the future. 3) Include longer-term engagement across all activities. The activities that tend to generate the most value are those that occur over longer periods of time, and this should be taken into account in future programming and resource allocation. Additionally, participants expressed that such feedback has been shared in evaluation activities in the past but with no response. Responding to findings from previous evaluations can lead to increased social value creation in the future. 4) Focus on extending the duration of desired outcomes. While many outcomes created positive value for stakeholders, these outcomes sometimes only lasted a year or less than a year. As such, programming should be adapted to focus on extending the duration of desired outcomes. 5) Increase the recognition and branding of the program. Stakeholders expressed that by increasing the recognition and branding of the program (i.e., through t-shirts or other promotional materials), this would give their outreach efforts more legitimacy and credibility, and also help in attribution and making the value of these efforts more measurable. CONCLUSIONS Findings suggest that the project has had a positive impact on the communities in which it operates. There were clear benefits to all stakeholder groups including young women trainees, indirect beneficiaries, trainers, duty bearers and staff working on the project. Despite the limitations noted in this report, using the social value analysis approach for this evaluation provided added value over traditional evaluation approaches used in this sector in the following ways: 1) Social value analysis prioritized the voice of all key stakeholders and what mattered most to them. It did this by asking stakeholders what outcomes they experienced and the relative importance of them. Through this process, social value analysis allowed for the measurement of ‘softer’ intangible outcomes as opposed to solely focusing on ‘hard’ tangible or economic outcomes. These ‘softer’ outcomes are often excluded from traditional program evaluation and economic analyses due to the difficulty of quantifying them. However, this analysis found that these intangible outcomes (i.e., increased empowerment and inclusion, and increased networking) were the most important to stakeholders. 2) Social value analysis provided insights to avoid or mitigate harmful effects. The process engaged key stakeholders in defining what changed for them and explicitly required them to consider both any positive and negative consequences they might have experienced. These insights can be used to mitigate these harms from occurring in the future. 3) Social value analysis examined sustainability by considering how long outcomes lasted and how they dropped off over time and factored those into the analysis. 14 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV 4) Social value analysis elucidated value creation. While most programming in this space has inherently been understood as valuable by program staff and donors, social value analysis made that value explicit by assigning valuations to outcomes. 5) Social value analysis encourages decision-making based on value creation, not outputs. Outputs do not reflect the whole picture but have often been the basis for many decisions in aid and development programming. Ultimately, as the goals of programming and evaluation are to improve the well-being of communities, understanding, measuring and valuing what matters most to all key stakeholders of peacebuilding interventions is key to proving and improving value. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 15 ANNEXES 16 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEX A: SOURCES OF INFORMATION DOCUMENTS REVIEWED PROJECT REPORTS International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa (2018). Annual Report 2018. International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa (2019). Annual Report 2019. International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa (2020). Annual Report 2020. International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa (2021). Annual Report 2021. International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa (2020). Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2020. International Centre for Peace, Human Rights and Development in Africa (2019). Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2019. LITERATURE REVIEW SOURCES Adresgroup. (n.d.). Policy Brief: Promoting Sustainable Peace in Kenya. Amaechi, C. M. (2017). Africa: ‘Intractable’ Conflicts and the Imperative of the Indigenous Idea of Peacebuilding. Conflict Studies Quarterly, 20, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.24193/csq.20.1 Autesserre, S. (2017). International Peacebuilding and Local Success: Assumptions and Effectiveness. International Studies Review, 19(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viw054 Bachmann, J., & Schouten, P. (2018). Concrete approaches to peace: Infrastructure as peacebuilding. International Affairs, 94(2), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix237 Badruzaman, I., & Vitón, G. (2021). From peace to peace(s): The impact of the local participation in the contemporary global concept of peacebuilding. Lessons from Indonesia and Mozambique. Sociología y Tecnociencia, 11(2), 326–357. https://doi.org/10.24197/st.2.2021.326-352 Bargués, P. (2020). Peacebuilding without peace? On how pragmatism complicates the practice of international intervention. Review of International Studies, 46(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210520000042 Barnett, M., Kim, H., O’Donnell, M., & Sitea, L. (n.d.). Peacebuilding: What Is in a Name? Berry, M. E., & Rana, T. R. (2019). What Prevents Peace? Women and Peacebuilding in Bosnia and Nepal. Peace & Change, 44(3), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/pech.12351 Braithwaite, J., & D’Acosta, B. (2018). Cascades of Violence: War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia. Australian National University Press. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 17 Brockett, C. D. (2022). Violence, Peacebuilding, and Democratic Struggles in Central America. Latin American Research Review, 52(3), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.25222/larr.126 Brown, K. (2019). Political commemoration and peacebuilding in ethno-national settings: The risk and utility of partisan memory. Peacebuilding, 7(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2018.1491275 Bruch, C., Jensen, D., Nakayama, M., & Unruh, J. (n.d.). The Changing Nature of Conflict, Peacebuilding, and Environmental Cooperation. Cahill, L. S. (2019). Just War, Pacifism, Just Peace, and Peacebuilding. Theological Studies, 80(1), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040563918819808 Call, C. T., & de Coning, C. (Eds.). (2017). Rising Powers and Peacebuilding: Breaking the Mold? Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60621-7 Cárdenas, M. L. (2019). Women-to-Women Diplomacy in Georgia: A Peacebuilding Strategy in Frozen Conflict. Civil Wars, 21(3), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2019.1667713 Clements, K. P. (2018). Authoritarian Populism and Atavistic Nationalism: 21ST-Century Challenges to Peacebuilding and Development. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 13(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2018.1519354 Commonwealth Secretariat. (2021). Global Youth Development Index and Report. Commonwealth Secretariat. Cravo, T. A. (2017). PEACEBUILDING: ASSUMPTIONS, PRACTICES AND CRITIQUES. 8. Datzberger, S., & Mat, M. L. (2018). JUST ADD WOMEN AND STIR? Education, gender and peacebuilding in Uganda. International Journal of Educational Development, 59. de Carvalho, B., Schia, N. N., & Guillaume, X. (2019). Everyday sovereignty: International experts, brokers and local ownership in peacebuilding Liberia. European Journal of International Relations, 25(1), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118759178 de Coning, C. (2018). Adaptive peacebuilding. International Affairs, 94(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix251 de Coning, C. (2019). Complexity thinking and adaptive peacebuilding. Accord, 28. de Soto, A., & de Castillo, G. (1994). Obstacles to Peacebuilding. Foreign Policy, 94, 69–83. Deiana, M.-A., Komarova, M., & McCall, C. (2019). Cross-Border Cooperation as Conflict Transformation: Promises and Limitations in EU Peacebuilding. Geopolitics, 24(3), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2019.1599518 Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2000). International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586208 18 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Džuverović, N., & Vidojević, J. (2018). Peacebuilding or ‘Peacedelaying’: Social Exclusion of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Post-war Serbia. Ethnopolitics, 17(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2017.1340476 Eckhard, S., & Dijkstra, H. (2017). Contested Implementation: The Unilateral Influence of Member States on Peacebuilding Policy in Kosovo. Global Policy, 8, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758- 5899.12455 Fernández, M., & Guerra, L. (2020). Peacebuilding and Postcolonial Subject. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies (pp. 1–12). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-11795-5_81-1 Forde, S., Kappler, S., & Björkdahl, A. (2021). Peacebuilding, Structural Violence and Spatial Reparations in Post-Colonial South Africa. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 15(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1909297 Forsyth, M., Kent, L., Dinnen, S., Wallis, J., & Bose, S. (2017). Hybridity in peacebuilding and development: A critical approach. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(4), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2017.1448717 Ganson, B. (2019). Business and peace. In J. Miklian, R. M. Alluri, & J. E. Katsos (Eds.), Business, Peacebuilding and Sustainable Development (1st ed., pp. 3–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429057229-1 George, N., & Kent, L. (2017). Sexual violence and hybrid peacebuilding: How does silence ‘speak’? Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(4), 518–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2017.1395710 Gippert, B. J. (2017). Legitimacy and Coercion in Peacebuilding: A Balancing Act. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 11(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2017.1353753 Gnoth, A. (n.d.). A CRISIS OF CRITICALITY? REIMAGINING ACADEMIA IN INTERNATIONAL PEACEBUILDING. Goodhand, J., Meehan, P., Bhatia, J., Ghiabi, M., & Sanín, F. G. (2021). Critical policy frontiers: The drugs￾development-peacebuilding trilemma. International Journal of Drug Policy, 89, 103115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103115 Harris, D. (2021). The state of peacebuilding in Africa: Lessons learned for policymakers and practitioners. International Affairs, 97(4), 1272–1274. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab107 Hersh, M. A. (2022). Professional ethics and social responsibility: Military work and peacebuilding. AI & SOCIETY, 37(4), 1545–1561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01238-5 Högberg, S. (n.d.). Women and Peacebuilding in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Howe, B. (2019). Human Security, Peacebuilding, and the Responsibility to Protect in East Asia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 7(2), 183–218. https://doi.org/10.18588/201911.00a093 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 19 Howe, B. M. (2017). Korea’s Role for Peacebuilding and Development in Asia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 5(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.18588/201711.00a017 Idbudni McCormack, F. (2017). Regionalism and Peacebuilding in West Africa: Addressing the Challenge of Roaming Combatants. University of Sussex. Iñiguez de Heredia, M. (2017). Everyday Resistance, Peacebuilding and State-making: Insights from “Africa’s World War.” Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_628403 Iñiguez de Heredia, M. (2018). The Conspicuous Absence of Class and Privilege in the Study of Resistance in Peacebuilding Contexts. International Peacekeeping, 25(3), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2018.1449650 Isike, C. (2017). Soft Power and a Feminist Ethics of Peacebuilding in Africa. Peace Review, 29(3), 350– 357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2017.1344535 Jarikre, M. (2017). The Media and Post-Election Peacebuilding in Nigeria, 1999–2015. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 5(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.18588/201711.00a011 Juichiro Tanabe. (2017). Beyond Liberal Peacebuilding: A Critique of Liberal Peacebuilding and Exploring a Postmodern Post-liberal Hybrid Model of Peacebuilding. International Relations and Diplomacy, 5(8). https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2134/2017.08.001 Juncos, A. E. (2018). Resilience in peacebuilding: Contesting uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2018.1491742 Kappler, S. (2017). The Securitization of International Peacebuilding. In T. Bonacker, W. Distler, & M. Ketzmerick (Eds.), Securitization in Statebuilding and Intervention (pp. 29–52). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845285825-29 Karlsrud, J. (2019). From Liberal Peacebuilding to Stabilization and Counterterrorism. International Peacekeeping, 26(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2018.1502040 Kasherwa, A. C. (2020). ‘The role of youth organizations in peacebuilding in the African Great Lakes Region: A rough transition from local and non-governmental to the national and governmental peacebuilding efforts in Burundi and eastern DRC.’ Journal of Peace Education, 17(2), 123–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1688139 Kharisma, M. W. (2017). The Philosophical Worth of Liberal Peacebuilding. Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional, 19(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.7454/global.v19i1.146 Krampe, F. (2019). Climate Change, Peacebuilding AND Sustaining Peace (SIPRI Policy Brief) [Policy Brief]. Kreutz, J. (2018). New Rebels in Postconflict Settings: The Principal-Agent Dilemma of Peacebuilding. Peace & Change, 43(2), 218–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/pech.12284 20 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Kumar, S. (2011). Social Return on Investment (SROI) Analysis: A New Tool for Strategic Decision Making, Planning, and Evaluation for Managers, Investors, and Policy Makers in International Aid and Development. Dissertation. University of California Los Angeles. Leib, J., & Ruppel, S. (2021). The Dance of Peace and Justice: Local Perceptions of International Peacebuilding in West Africa. International Peacekeeping, 28(5), 783–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2021.1927726 Lewis, A., & Winn, N. (2018). Understanding the Connections between the EU Global Strategy and Somali Peacebuilding Education Needs and Priorities. Global Policy, 9(4), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12573 Lingane, A., & Olsen, S. (2004). Guidelines for Social Return on Investment. California Management Review, 46(3), 116–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166224 Marsili, Marco. (2019). The Twilight Zone of Political Transition: Between Revolution and Democratic Change. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3517223 Martin de Almagro, M. (2018). Hybrid Clubs: A Feminist Approach to Peacebuilding in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 12(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1482125 Martin, M., Bojicic-Dzelilovic, V., & Benraïs, L. (2020). Mind the gaps. A Whole-of-Society approach to peacebuilding and conflict prevention. In M. Martin & V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (Eds.), Whole-of-Society Peacebuilding (1st ed., pp. 1–12). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429282652-1 McAuliffe, P. (2017). Reflections of the nexus between justice and peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 11(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2017.1287636 McCandless, E. (2021). Peacebuilding–Development Nexus. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795- 5_145-1 McDowell, S., Braniff, M., & Murphy, J. (2017). Zero-sum politics in contested spaces: The unintended consequences of legislative peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Political Geography, 61, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.09.001 McKeown, S., & Taylor, L. K. (2017). Intergroup contact and peacebuilding: Promoting youth civic engagement in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(2), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i2.769 Medinilla, A., Tadesse Shiferaw, L., & Veron, P. (2019). Think local. Governance, humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding in Somalia (Discussion Paper DISCUSSION PAPER No. 246). European Centre for Development Policy Management. Miklian, J. (2019). The role of business in sustainable development and peacebuilding: Observing interaction effects. Business and Politics, 21(4), 569–601. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.28 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 21 Miklian, J., & Medina Bickel, J. P. (2020). Theorizing Business and Local Peacebuilding Through the “Footprints of Peace” Coffee Project in Rural Colombia. Business & Society, 59(4), 676–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317749441 Moe, L. W., & Stepputat, F. (2018). Introduction: Peacebuilding in an era of pragmatism. International Affairs, 94(2), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy035 Morales-Muñoz, H., Löhr, K., Bonatti, M., Eufemia, L., & Sieber, S. (2021). Assessing impacts of environmental peacebuilding in Caquetá, Colombia: A multistakeholder perspective. International Affairs, 97(1), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa175 Nakagawa, Y. (2018). Theorizing Postcolonial Deliberation and Deliberative Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 12(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1464353 Nyadera, I. N., Ahmed, M. S., & Agwanda, B. (n.d.). Transformation of the Somali Civil -War and Reflections for a Social Contract Peacebuilding Process. Ochen, E. A. (2017). Women and Liberal Peacebuilding in Post- Conflict Northern Uganda: Community social work agenda revisited? 21. Öjendal, J., Bachmann, J., Stern, M., & Leonardsson, H. (2021). Introduction – Peacebuilding Amidst Violence. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 15(3), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1913006 Paffenholz, T. (2021). Perpetual Peacebuilding: A New Paradigm to Move Beyond the Linearity of Liberal Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 15(3), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1925423 Panter-Brick, C. (2021). Resilience Humanitarianism and Peacebuilding. In M. Ungar (Ed.), Multisystemic Resilience (1st ed., pp. 361-C19.P73). Oxford University Press New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190095888.003.0020 Paone, M. (n.d.). From Civilising Mission to Civilian Power: Rethinking EU Peacebuilding from a Postcolonial Perspective. Parida, S. (n.d.). Local ownership in Peacebuilding: The role of Youth movements in Kosovo’s Peace Process. Paris, R. (2002). International peacebuilding and the ‘mission civilisatrice.’ Review of International Studies, 28(4), 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021050200637X Pepper, M. (2018). Ethnic Minority Women, Diversity, and Informal Participation in Peacebuilding in Myanmar. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 13(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2018.1472030 Petrov, P., Dijkstra, H., Đokić, K., Zartsdahl, P. H., & Mahr, E. (2019). All hands on deck: Levels of dependence between the EU and other international organizations in peacebuilding. Journal of European Integration, 41(8), 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1622542 22 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Pherali, T. (2021). Social justice, education and peacebuilding: Conflict transformation in Southern Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2021.1951666 Piccolino, G. (2018). Peacebuilding and statebuilding in post-2011 Côte d’Ivoire: A victor’s peace? African Affairs, 117(468), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady020 Pingeot, L. (2020). International Peacebuilding as a Case of Structural Injustice. International Peacekeeping, 27(2), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2019.1673739 Pogodda, S. (2020). Revolutions and the liberal peace: Peacebuilding as counterrevolutionary practice? Cooperation and Conflict, 55(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720921881 Pugh, M. (n.d.). The political economy of peacebuilding: A critical theory perspective. Internation Journal of Peace Studies, 10(2), 23–42. Randazzo, E. (2021). The Local, the ‘Indigenous’ and the Limits of Rethinking Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 15(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1882755 Rasouli, M. (n.d.). THE U.S. APPROACH TO PEACEBUILDING IN AFGHANISTAN A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, AND DONALD TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICIES IN AFGHANISTAN. Richmond, O. P. (2021). The Fraught Development of an International Peace Architecture. In J. Kustermans, T. Sauer, & B. Segaert (Eds.), A Requiem for Peacebuilding? (pp. 221–242). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56477-3_10 Richmond, O. P., & Tellidis, I. (2020). Analogue crisis, digital renewal? Current dilemmas of peacebuilding. Globalizations, 17(6), 935–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1712169 Roque, S. (2017). Between New Terrains and Old Dichotomies: Peacebuilding and the Gangs’ Truce in El Salvador. Contexto Internacional, 39(3), 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102- 8529.2017390300003 Schliesser, C. (2019). Conflict resolution and peacebuilding. In J. Haynes (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook to Religion and Political Parties (1st ed., pp. 126–138). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351012478-12 Scholten, P. (2019). Value Game: A method for involving customers in valuing outcomes. Social Value UK. Scholten, P., Nicholls, J., Olsen, S., & Galimidi, B. (n.d.). Social Return on Investment: A Guide to SROI Analysis. Lenthe Publishers. Search for Common Ground. (n.d.). Measuring Peace: The Global Impact Framework. Senior Lecturer, Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, & Lambourne, W. (2003). Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: Meeting Human Needs for Justice and Reconciliation. Journal of Peace, Conflict and Development, 4. https://doi.org/10.7246/pcd.0404 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 23 Shah, Q. A., Nawab, B., & Mehmood, T. (2020). The Role of Stakeholders in Post Conflict Peacebuilding in Swat, Pakistan. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government, 18(1), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.4335/18.1.211-229(2020) Sherriff, A., Veron, P., Deneckere, M., & Hauck, V. (2018). Supporting peacebuilding in times of change. European Centre for Development Policy Management. Simangan, D. (2020). A Case for a Normative Local Involvement in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding. International Peacekeeping, 27(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2019.1654380 Singh, P. (n.d.). South African peacebuilding needs new purpose. Sloan, T., Dinnen, S., Sweaney, N., & Chevalier, C. (n.d.). Perceptions of Peacebuilding in Solomon Islands Post-RAMSI. Smith, S. (2018). Gendering Peace: UN Peacebuilding in Timor-Leste (S. Smith, Ed.; 1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351261043 Swaine, A., Spearing, M., Murphy, M., & Contreras-Urbina, M. (2019). Exploring the Intersection of Violence Against Women and Girls With Post-Conflict Statebuilding and Peacebuilding Processes: A New Analytical Framework. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 14(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1542316619833877 Taka, M. (2020). The role of education in peacebuilding: Learner narratives from Rwanda. Journal of Peace Education, 17(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1669146 Tronc, E., Grace, R., & Nahikian, A. (2019). Realities and Myths of the “Triple Nexus”: Local Perspectives on Peacebuilding, Development, and Humanitarian Action in Mali. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3404351 Uduji, J. I., Okolo-Obasi, E. N., & Asongu, S. A. (n.d.). Sustainable Peace building and Development in Nigeria’s Post-Amnesty Programme: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Oil Host Communities. Valente, A. A. (n.d.). Financing for Young People in Peacebuilding—An Overview. von Billerbeck, S., & Tansey, O. (2019). Enabling autocracy? Peacebuilding and post-conflict authoritarianism in the Democratic Republic of Congo. European Journal of International Relations, 25(3), 698–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118819724 Wallis, J., Kent, L., Forsyth, M., Dinnen, S., & Bose, S. (Eds.). (2018). Hybridity on the ground in peacebuilding and development: Critical conversations. ANU Press. Weiss, R. (2020). Peacebuilding, Democratization, and Political Reconciliation in Cambodia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 8(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.18588/202005.00a069 World Health Organization & WHO Collaborating Centre for Violence Prevention. (2010). Violence prevention: The evidence. In Prevención de la violencia: La evidencia. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77936 24 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Young, G. (n.d.). South African land reform as peacebuilding: Integrating perspectives from Social Identity Theory and Symbolic Politics in a peacebuilding conceptual framework. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 25 ANNEX B: DETAILED METHODOLOGY Social return on investment (SROI) analysis is a methodology that seeks to measure and account for the value (economic, social and/or environmental) created through (or diminished by) a program, policy, or intervention. Table B.1 outlines the six-step process of analysis and table B.2 outlines the eight principles that govern how SROI (and social value analysis) should be applied. Table B. 1: The SROI Analysis Process (Adapted from Social Value International, 2022) Step 1: Establishing scope and identifying key stakeholders. It is important to clearly delineate the scope of what is to be included in the SROI analysis – including what activities will be analyzed, who will be involved in the process and how they will be included. Stage 2: Mapping outcomes. As stakeholders are engaged with, the relationship between inputs, outputs and outcomes becomes clearer. As a result, these can be mapped into a Theory of Change and Impact Map. Stage 3: Evidencing outcomes and giving them a value. In this stage, data is collected to understand if outcomes have occurred and to assign them a monetized value. Stage 4: Establishing Impact. Now that evidence of outcomes has been collected and they have been monetized, change because of other factors, or that would have occurred anyway, must be controlled for to establish the true impact of the intervention. Stage 5: Calculating the SROI. At this stage, the value of all outcomes is calculated by summing total benefits and subtracting any negatives. This total value is then compared to the investment into the intervention (both financial investment and non-monetary investments) to generate an SROI ratio (the ratio of outputs to investment). This ratio is then tested for sensitivity. Stage 6: Reporting, using, and embedding. This last step of the SROI process shares findings of analysis with stakeholders, verifying the report, and sharing recommendations to improve the impact of the program. Table B. 2: The Social Value International Principles (Adapted from SVI, 2022) Principle 1: Involve stakeholders. This suggests that stakeholders and best placed to describe how an intervention has affected them and means that they are consulted throughout the analysis process. Principle 2: Understand what changes. This requires that the Theory of Change or Impact Map (both describing how the change occurs) be articulated and evidence-based - involving stakeholders, positive and negative outcomes, and intended and unintended outcomes. Principle 3: Value what matters. This suggests that it is important to understand the relative importance or value of different outcomes – especially to the stakeholders that experience them. Principle 4: Only include what is material. This means that only what has been determined to be of importance to stakeholders is included (i.e. what may affect future decisions). Principle 5: Do not overclaim. This means that an intervention should only claim the value it has created. This requires considering impact that may be created by other interventions, the amount of future change to happen as a result of the program, and counterfactual impact. Principle 6: Be transparent. This means that at each step of the analysis, the process and decisions made should be documented to ensure it is a fair and honest representation of the actual impact of the scope of analysis. 26 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Principle 7: Verify the result. Analysis results should be independently assured to ensure that the decisions made by those responsible for the analysis were reasonable. Principle 8: Be responsive. Social value should be optimized through timely decision making, supported by appropriate accounting and reporting. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 27 ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP, INTERVIEW AND SURVEY GUIDE ENGLISH VERSION Guide for Focus Groups/Interviews with Key Stakeholders (i.e., Youth, Families/Communities, Project Staff, State Institutions, Private Sector, etc.) Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group [or interview] today. My name is Ngesa/Mariam/Other of Rural Senses. Our purpose is to evaluate the effects of the [program name]. As part of this effort, we are doing focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders of the program like yourselves, to understand from their perspectives what the program’s effects were. This study will be used to improve the program and similar programs so that they can be as beneficial as possible for young people and your community. Your responses will be anonymous- we will not associate anyone’s name with anything you say. We are an independent party and we want to capture the reality and your honest feedback, whether good or bad. We expect this session to last approximately 90 minutes. Our objectives are to: I. Understand your perspectives in terms of any positive or negative changes, both intended and unintended, experienced by participants or other key stakeholders as a result of the program II. Explore what the importance of that change has been to the participants and other key stakeholders We plan to share results with participants and other interested parties during and upon completion of the evaluation – we will reach out to you by the end of September regarding the results. If you agree to participate, we will continue, if you don’t want to participate you are free to leave. Introduction round (present yourself and an animal/fruit name) First let’s just start by talking about your involvement with the program. 1. How would you describe your experience in the program in your own words? Now let’s think about what the program’s effects were. 2. What were you hoping the program would do for you? 3. What positive changes did you experience as a result of the program? (Probe: did it affect your knowledge/attitudes/behavior, interactions with others, quality of life, safety, less violence, empowerment, business, policies, etc.) (note: list the top 2-5 outcomes that come up) 4. What negative changes did you experience as a result of the program, if any? (note: 1-2 if any) 5. Were there any results or changes that surprised you? If so, what were they? 6. For each change you experienced: 6.1. Change title: 6.2. Positive/Negative change? 28 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV 6.3. How could you tell that had changed? 6.4. How much did it change (a little, significantly, a lot)? 7. Of all these changes, which ones (1-3) were most important to you and why? 8. For each of the most important changes: 8.1. How long did the changes last? (a few days, weeks, months, years, ongoing- if years specify how many years)? 8.2. Did the effects change over time (increased a lot over time, increased a bit over time, no change, decreased a lot over time, decreased a bit over time)? 8.3. If the program didn’t exist, is there anything else that would have led to any of the same changes? 8.4. What or who else contributed to any of these changes, and how? 8.5. How much of the changes would you say was caused by the program? (0% - none, 25% - some, 50% - half, 75% -a lot, 100% - all)? 9. Who else did the program affect in a significant way? 10. for each affected stakeholder from previous question: 10.1. Stakeholder title 10.2. How were they affected? 11. Do you have any suggestions or ideas how the program could be improved in the future? In the last part of this focus group, we want to discuss the value of other items with regards to the change. We are now going to present you with a list of items. Let’s go over them to estimate their approximate market price. [Put up images, cards, or list of those items from lowest to highest value]. 12. For each of the most important change: 12.1. Where would you place the value of that change in relation to these items? Facilitator notes down the 2 items below and above the change. 13. Is there anything else you’d like to share with us? Thank you so much for your time! List of items: Item ~value (KS) ~value (US$) Airtime for 1 week 700 7 Used mobile phone 10,000 100 Laptop 30,000 300 TV “32 20,000 200 Plot of land (40X80 square feet) 100,000 1,000 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 29 Item ~value (KS) ~value (US$) Used car 300,000 3,000 Apartment in Mombasa 5,000,000 50,000 Apartment in Syokimau 7,000,000 70,000 Beachfront Property 12,000,000 120,000 KISWAHILI VERSION Muongozo wa maswali kwa vikundi husika. (Ambao ni vijana, familia, Jamie, wafanyi kazi wa Shirakawa husika, mashirika ya serikali, masirika ya kibinafsi n.k) Guide for Focus Groups/Interviews with Key Stakeholders (i.e., Youth, Families/Communities, Project Staff, State Institutions, Private Sector, etc.) Asanteni kwa kubali kushirika kwenye shughuli hii. Jina langu ni ( Ngesa/mariam/ama mwingine kutoka Rural Senses. Madhumuni yetu ni kukagua athari za(jina la mradi). Katika hili juhudi, tunawauliza maswali vikundi husika kama nyinyi kutaka kuelewa muonekano wenu wa athari zilizotokea kupitia mradi huu. Tutatumia majibu haya kwenye kuboresha mradi huu na miradi mingine kama hii, yapate kuleta manufaa bora kwenu vijana na jamii zenu. Maoni yenu yatakuwa bila kujulikana mtu aliyeyatoa. Sisi ni Shiraka huru na tunataka kunasa maoni yenu halisia yawe ni kwa uzuri au ubaya wa athari hizi. Tunataraji swala hili kuchukua takriban dakika 90 Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group [or interview] today. My name is Ngesa/Mariam/Other of Rural Senses. Our purpose is to evaluate the effects of the [program name]. As part of this effort, we are doing focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders of the program like yourselves, to understand from their perspectives what the program’s effects were. This study will be used to improve the program and similar programs so that they can be as beneficial as possible for young people and your community. Your responses will be anonymous- we will not associate anyone’s name with anything you say. We are an independent party and we want to capture the reality and your honest feedback, whether good or bad. We expect this session to last approximately 90 minutes. Malengo yetu: Our objectives are to: Kuelewa muonekano wako ima uzuri au ubaya wa athari zilizojiri, zilizokusidiwa na ambzo hazikukusidiwa, ambayo mulipitia ama walipitia washirika wengine kwasababu ya mradi huu I. Understand your perspectives in terms of any positive or negative changes, both intended and unintended, experienced by participants or other key stakeholders as a result of the program Kuchunguza umuhimu wa mabadiliko hayo kwa wahusika na vikundi husika 30 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV II. Explore what the importance of that change has been to the participants and other key stakeholders Tutafikisha majibu haya kwenu nyinyi wahusika na vikundi husika pamoja na wote watakao kuwa na dhamira na huu mradi pindi tu tukapo maliza mradi huu…. Tutawasiliana nanyi mwisho wa mwezi wa julai kuhusiana na majibu. We plan to share results with participants and other interested parties during and upon completion of the evaluation – we will reach out to you by the end of July regarding the results. Ukukubali kushiriki tutaendelea na pia kama hakukubali jiskie huru kuondoka. If you agree to participate, we will continue, if you don’t want to participate you are free to leave. Kujitambisha (jina la mnyama, tunda n.k) Introduction round (present yourself and a animal/fruit name) Kwanza tuanze na kuzungumzia kuhusu uhusiano wako na mradi First let’s just start by talking about your involvement with the program. Unaweza kusimulia vipi ulichopitia na mradi kwa maneno yako mwenyewe 1. How would you describe your experience in the program in your own words? sasa tufikirie athari za mradi Now let’s think about what the program’s effects were. Ulitarajia kupata nini kupitia huu mradi? 2. What were you hoping the program would do for you? athari zipi nzuri zilitokea kupitia mradi huu ( ilikuathiri kivipi? Elimu, tabia, mahusiano na watu? Ubora wa maisha,usalama, kupingua kwa fujo, uwezeshaji wa biashara na mambo mengine, ) chukua vitano muhimu ambavyo vimejirudia 3. What positive changes did you experience as a result of the program? (Probe: did it affect your knowledge/attitudes/behavior, interactions with others, quality of life, safety, less violence, empowerment, business, policies, etc.) (note: list the top 2-5 outcomes that come up) Athari zipi mbaya zimetokana na mradi huu (Angalia mawili matatu yanayochipuza) 4. What negative changes did you experience as a result of the program, if any? (note: 1-2 if any) Kuna athari ilikushangaza? Ipi? 5. Were there any results or changes that surprised you? If so, what were they? Kwa kila athari: USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 31 ● Jina la athari ● Uzuri/ ubaya ● Umejuaje imebadilika ● Imebadilika kwa kiasi gani (kidogo, kiasi , au sana kwenya haya mabadiliko yote yapi yalikuwa muhimu sana kwako? ( 1-3) na kwanini? 6. For each change you experienced: 6.1. Change title: 6.2. Positive/Negative change? 6.3. How could you tell that had changed? 6.4. How much did it change (a little, significantly, a lot)? 7. Of all these changes, which ones (1-3) were most important to you and why kwa kila badiliko muhimu ● Ilibadilika kwa muda gani?( siku kidogo, wiki kadhaa, miezi, miaka au ingali inaendelea?) ● Mabadiliko hayo athari zake kwa muda ( yaliongezeka sana, yaliongezeka kidogo, haya kubadilika, yalipungua sana yalipungua kidogo) ● Kama mradi huu haungekuwepo, kunacho kitu kingine amacho kinge changia mabadiliko haya? ● Kitu gani au mtu gani amechangia pia kwenye mabadiliko haya? ● Amechangia kwa kiasi kipi ukilinganisha na mradi wenyewe (asilimia 0-hakuna, 25% kiasi, 50%- nusu, 75% sana 100% yote)? 8. For each of the most important changes: 8.1. How long did the changes last? (a few days, weeks, months, years, ongoing- if years specify how many years)? 8.2. Did the effects change over time (increased a lot over time, increased a bit over time, no change, decreased a lot over time, decreased a bit over time)? 8.3. If the program didn’t exist, is there anything else that would have led to any of the same changes? 8.4. What or who else contributed to any of these changes, and how? 8.5. How much of the changes would you say was caused by the program? (0% - none, 25% - some, 50% - half, 75% -a lot, 100% - all)? nani pia aliathirika na mradi huu kwa kiasi kikubwa? 9. Who else did the program affect in a significant way? 32 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Kwa kila muhusika muathiriwa kwenye swali la awali ● Jina la muhusika ● Wameathirika kivipi? 10. for each affected stakeholder from previous question: 10.1. Stakeholder title 10.2. How were they affected un maoni yoyote kuhusiana na vile mradi ungeendeshwa kuboresha athari zake kwa siku za usoni? 11. Do you have any suggestions or ideas how the program could be improved in the future? Mwisho wa mjadiliano huu, tunataka tujue tamarind ya vitu kulingana na mabadiliko yaliyoletwa na mradi huu. Tutawaonyesha orodha ya vitu. Tuvipitie tuone thamani yake kwa sasa. (Onyesha picha, kadi, ama orotha In the last part of this focus group, we want to discuss the value of other items with regards to the change. We are now going to present you with a list of items. Let’s go over them to estimate their approximate market price. [Put up images, cards, or list of those items from lowest to highest value]. 12. For each of the most important change: 12.1. Where would you place the value of that change in relation to these items? Facilitator notes down the 2 items below and above the change. 13. Is there anything else you’d like to share with us? Thank you so much for your time! USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 33 ANNEX D: DETAILED RESULTS WELL DEFINED OUTCOMES One of the important aspects of social value analysis and SROI is the generation of well-defined outcomes which help to summarize the change experienced by a certain stakeholder group. These outcomes are then leveraged to develop a theory of change for the intervention. A well-defined outcome is a result of the participation of the stakeholder and describes what changed for them as a result of their participation (either positive or negative). This section will present the well-defined outcomes for each stakeholder group and the indicators used to help describe these outcomes in this evaluation. Table D. 1: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Young Women Not Receiving Additional Funding from IPHRD OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED NETWORKING AND OPPORTUNITIES • Increased connection to government officials and duty bearers • Increased connection to others in the mediation space • Increased opportunity to work with others in mediation work INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Increased negotiation skills • Increased mediation skills • Increased confidence to undertake/engage in mediation • Increased confidence to spread peace messaging • Increased knowledge, skills and understanding of conflict resolution and mediation Table D. 2: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators Young Women Receiving Additional Funding from IPHRD OUTCOME INDICATOR INCREASED NETWORKING AND OPPORTUNITIES • Increased platform to share the work that they are doing in the community • Increased opportunity to connect with others in the mediation space • Increased opportunity for mentorship INCREASED PERSONAL GROWTH • Increased opportunity to obtain feedback on leadership and apply it • Increased opportunity to develop leadership skills and capacity based on project functions INCREASED SENSE OF EXCLUSION • Increased sense of exclusion due to faith and/or not receiving travel reimbursements as others Table D. 3: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Indirect Beneficiaries WELL DEFINED OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT AND INCLUSION • Increased knowledge of rights of women • Increased understanding of the role of women in political processes and the importance of their participation • Increased ability to speak up and take action in the community • Increased confidence to voice opinions in the community INCREASED SENSE OF SECURITY IN THE COMMUNITY • Increased sense of safety in the community INCREASED FRIENDSHIP • Increased connection to other women in the community • Sense of friendship and camaraderie among participants • Increased opportunity sharing between women INCREASED HOSTILITY FROM COMMUNITY DUE TO PERCEPTION OF BEING A TROUBLEMAKER • Increased hostility from community to taking action to support peace in the community REDUCED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE (GBV) IN THE COMMUNITY • Increased confidence to address GBV in the community • Increased ability to share knowledge about GBV • Increased ability to support women experiencing GBV INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Increased ability to share peace messaging with the community 34 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV Table D. 4: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Trainers WELL DEFINED OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY • Increased knowledge of grassroots mediation strategies and their efficacy • Increased knowledge of programming Table D. 5: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Duty Bearers WELL DEFINED OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY • Increased knowledge of how to improve programming • Increased internal capacity • Increased deep thinking and agility INCREASED INCLUSION OF YOUNG WOMEN IN WORK • Increased hiring of young women as interns Table D. 6: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for IPHRD Staff WELL DEFINED OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Increased confidence, skills, knowledge and training capacity • Increased knowledge attainment • Increased pursuit of further education in Peacebuilding and Conflict Studies INCREASED NETWORKING AND OPPORTUNITIES • Increased connection to high-level government functionaries • Increased connection to others in the mediation space CHANGE IN PERCEPTION OR TREATMENT DUE TO PROJECT PARTICIPATION • Perceived as having more money than actual • Perceived as having more power than actual • Increased feeling that community was treating them differently as a result of their participation in the project. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 35 ANNEX E: IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT For each outcome that it seeks to deliver or understand, the project faces impact risks. According to the Impact Management Project consensus, “[i]mpact risk is the likelihood that impact will be different than expected, and that the difference will be material from the perspective of people or the planet who experience impact.” One of the primary such risks is evidence risk, which is closely related with the credibility of the assessment in the eyes of its audience. The evidence risk for each outcome used in this analysis has been rated. Three aspects of accuracy are considered in the evidence risk rubric: volume of evidence, rigor of evidence, and applicability of evidence. Additionally, the consequences of inaccuracy are rated. RUBRIC FOR IMPACT RISK: EVIDENCE A (Likelihood of Accuracy) + B (Consequences) = Evidence Risk The rating is on a 1 - 10 scale, 10 being highest risk, as follows: EVIDENCE RISK RATING: LIKELIHOOD OF ACCURACY • 1 = Extremely unlikely to be inaccurate, based on: statistically significant sample size/very large sample size relative to size of affected population, well-documented and robust methods of measurement and/or analysis, recency from 0-3 years old, and highly similar population and context to that in our study. • 2 = Very unlikely to be inaccurate, based on: nearly statistically significant sample size/sizeable sample size relative to size of affected population, well-documented and reasonable methods of measurement and/or analysis, recency from 4-6 years old or better, and similar population and context to that in our study. • 3 = Moderately likely to be inaccurate, based on: somewhat less than statistically significant sample size relative to size of affected population, mostly well-documented and reasonable methods of measurement and/or analysis given the nature of the intervention and study, recency being from 7-9 years old or better, and population and context somewhat similar to that in our study or better. • 4 = Highly likely to be inaccurate, based on: sample size not close to representative of size of affected population, patchy discussion of methods of measurement and/or analysis and/or some quality issues with methodology, study being 10-12 years old or better, and/or population and context being significantly different than that in our study. • 5 = Extremely likely to be inaccurate based on: sample size insufficient relative to size of affected population, unclear methods of measurement and/or analysis, study >12 years old or better, and population and context significantly different than that in our study. EVIDENCE RISK RATING: CONSEQUENCES • 5 = Catastrophic, in that human life is at risk if the assessment of impact is inaccurate. • 4 = Major in that severe damage to peoples' well-being could occur if the assessment is inaccurate. • 3 = Moderate in that significant damage to peoples' well-being could occur. • 2 = Minor in that some disruption to quality of life is possible. • 1 = Insignificant in that only minor problems would ensue if the assessment of risk is inaccurate. The overall assessment of the risk that evidence from this study is inaccurate, and of the severity of the consequences of that inaccuracy to stakeholders experiencing the impact of this program, is 5.2 out of 10. 36 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT USAID.GOV OUTCOME LIKELIHOOD RISK CONSEQUENCES RATING YOUNG WOMEN NOT RECEIVING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM IPHRD Increased networking and opportunities 4 1 5 Increased capacity for peacebuilding 4 1 5 YOUNG WOMEN RECEIVING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM IPHRD Increased networking and opportunities 3 1 4 Increased personal growth 3 1 4 Increased exclusion 3 2 5 INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES Increased women’s empowerment and inclusion 5 1 6 Increased sense of safety in the community 5 1 6 Increased friendship 5 1 6 Increased hostility from the community due to perception of being a troublemaker 5 2 7 Reduced Gender-Based Violence in the Community 5 2 7 Increased capacity for peacebuilding 5 1 6 TRAINERS Increased functional capacity 4 1 5 DUTY BEARERS Increased functional capacity 4 1 5 Increased inclusion of young women in work 4 1 5 STAFF Increased capacity for peacebuilding 3 1 4 Increased networking and opportunities 3 1 4 Change in perception or treatment due to participation in project 3 2 5 AVERAGE 4 1.2 5.2 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT YOUNG WOMEN LEADERS MEDIATION PROJECT | 37 ANNEX F: LIST OF EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS Table F. 1: List of Expert Advisory Group Members MEMBER’S NAME ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED Dr. Rhuks Ako African Union Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security Terri-Ann Gilbert Commonwealth Secretariat Christine Odera Commonwealth Youth Peace Ambassadors Network Viridiana Wasike-Mutere National Youth Council of Kenya Mattias Lundberg World Bank Eliska Jelinkova United Network of Young Peacebuilders Jessica O’Connor US Agency for International Development Steve Commins Scholar-practitioner Joao Felipe Scarpelini UN Population Fund Cristina Petcu United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) Mridul Upadhyay Youth Observer Adrienne Lemon Search for Common Ground Matteo Busto UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs