KENYA SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT STUDY: SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH 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: SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH 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 a 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI EVALUATION DESIGN VI MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS VII EQ1: WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? VIII EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? VIII EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? VIII EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OFTHE PROGRAM?VIII EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE SROI ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? VIII EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 1 PURPOSE 1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND 2 AREA 1: ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT FOR THE YOUTH IN TARGETED AREAS 2 AREA 2: LINKING PROGRAM TO PEACE BUILDING AND CONFLICT PREVENTION 2 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 2 DESK REVIEW 3 ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 3 THEORY OF CHANGE WORKSHOP 4 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 4 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 4 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 4 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 4 OUTCOMES VALUATION 5 CALCULATION OF THE SROI RATIO 7 VALIDATION SESSIONS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS 7 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS: SROI IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTIONS 7 REPORTING AND USING RESULTS 7 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS 8 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS 10 FINDINGS 10 EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? 10 EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? 10 EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUES OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? 12 EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OF THE PROGRAM?18 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC ii | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE SROI ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? 18 RECOMMENDATIONS 19 CONCLUSIONS 20 ANNEX A: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 21 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 21 PROJECT INFORMATION 21 LITERATURE REVIEW SOURCES 21 ANNEX B: DETAILED METHODOLOGY 29 ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE (ENGLISH VERSION) 31 ANNEX D: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS FOR EACH STAKEHOLDER (ENGLISH VERSIONS) 34 SURVEY INSTRUMENT – YOUTH 34 SURVEY INSTRUMENT – YOUTH (POST-ELECTION) 48 SURVEY INSTRUMENT – FAMILIES OF YOUTH (POST-ELECTION) 50 SURVEY INSTRUMENT – TRAINERS OF YOUTH (POST-ELECTION) 52 SURVEY INSTRUMENT – PROGRAM STAFF (POST-ELECTION) 53 ANNEX E: IMPACT MAPS (CONDENSED) STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION 55 ANNEX F: IMPACT MAP (CONDENSED) COST-BASED VALUATION 58 ANNEX G: DETAILED RESULTS 60 WELL DEFINED OUTCOMES 60 RESULTS – STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION 62 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 66 RESULTS – COST-BASED VALUATION 69 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 72 RESULTS – STAKEHOLDER STATED PREFERENCE (POST-ELECTION) 73 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 76 ANNEX H: IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT 79 RUBRIC FOR IMPACT RISK: EVIDENCE 79 ANNEX I: COST-BASED VALUATION SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS 81 ANNEX J: LIST OF EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS 83 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | iii TABLES Box 1: Evaluation Findings..................................................................................................................................... viii Box 2: Evaluation Recommendations.................................................................................................................... ix Table 1: List of Items presented to stakeholders to establish their valuations ...........................................5 Table 2: List of Items and their corresponding valuations................................................................................6 Table 3: Key stakeholders of the program and inclusion or exclusion from SROI analysis...................10 Table 4: Key stakeholders reached ......................................................................................................................10 Table 5: Condensed Impact Map (Cost-Based Valuation Using Literature)...............................................13 Table B. 1: The SROI Analysis Process (Adapted from SVI, 2022)...............................................................29 Table B. 2: Social Value Principles (Adapted from SVI, 2022)........................................................................29 Table E. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (Low End Values)..55 Table E. 2: Condensed Impact Map – Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (High End Values)..56 Table F. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Cost-Based Valuation .........................................................................58 Table G. 1: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Youth ....................................................................60 Table G. 2: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Families of Youth Participants.........................61 Table G. 3: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Private Sector Businesses ................................61 Table G. 4: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Trainers................................................................61 Table G. 5: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for KRC Staff .............................................................62 Table G. 6: Relative Importance of Outcomes for Youth ..............................................................................63 Table G. 7: Conversion Chart used to Establish Outcome Duration .........................................................63 Table G. 8: Outcomes and their Durations.......................................................................................................63 Table G. 9: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low Values)...................................................................................................................................................67 Table G. 10: Sensitivity Analysis of based on changes to attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline High Values).........................................................................................................................................67 Table G. 11: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low End) ..............................................................................................................................................68 Table G. 12: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline High End)..............................................................................................................................................68 Table G. 13: Sensitivity Analysis of monetized outcomes at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (low end)........................................................................................................................................................69 Table G. 14: Sensitivity Analysis of monetized outcomes at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (high end)........................................................................................................................................................69 Table G. 15: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Attribution (Cost-Based) (+10% and +25% from Baseline).....................................................................................................................................72 Table G. 16: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Deadweight (Cost-Based) (+10% and +25% from Baseline).....................................................................................................................................73 Table G. 17: Sensitivity Analysis of Monetized Outcomes at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (Cost￾based)....................................................................................................................................................73 Table G. 18: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Attribution (Post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low End Values) ......................................................................................................76 Table G. 19: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Attribution (post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline High End Values)......................................................................................................76 Table G. 20: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Deadweight (post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low End Values) ......................................................................................................77 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC iv | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Table G. 21: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Deadweight (post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline High End Values)......................................................................................................77 Table G. 22: Sensitivity Analysis based on Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (post-election) (Low End Values)...................................................................................................77 Table G. 23: Sensitivity Analysis based on Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (post-election) (high end values) ....................................................................................................78 Table H. 1: Impact Risk Assessment....................................................................................................................80 Table I. 1: Cost-Based Analysis Financial Proxy Sources and Related Assumptions................................81 Table J. 1: List of Expert Advisory Group Members........................................................................................83 FIGURES Figure 1: SROI Analysis Process..............................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Map of Well-Defined Outcomes of the Program............................................................................11 Figure 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (n=58)................................................................................15 Figure 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Private Sector Businesses (n=1)...............................................15 Figure 5: Relative Value of Outcomes for Staff (n=8)......................................................................................16 Figure 6: Distribution of Value Created for each Stakeholder Group (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation)........................................................................................................................16 Figure 7: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (n=11) ......................................................17 Figure 8: Relative Value of Outcomes for Staff Post-Election (n=4)............................................................17 Figure G. 1: Distribution of Value Created by Stakeholder Group..............................................................62 Figure G. 2: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth ........................................................................................64 Figure G. 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Low End Values) ......................................................65 Figure G. 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (High End Values)......................................................65 Figure G. 5: Value of Outcomes for Private Sector Businesses ....................................................................66 Figure G. 6: Value of Outcomes for Staff............................................................................................................66 Figure G. 7: Distribution of Value Created for Each Stakeholder (Cost-Based Valuation)....................70 Figure G. 8: Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Analysis) ..............................................................70 Figure G. 9: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Analysis) ..............................................71 Figure G. 10: Value of Outcomes for Private Sector Businesses (Cost-Based Analysis) ........................71 Figure G. 11: Value of Outcomes for Staff (Cost-Based Analysis)................................................................72 Figure G. 12: Value of Outcomes for Youth Pre- and Post- Election (Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuation).............................................................................................................................................74 Figure G. 13: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuations) ...........................................................................................................................................75 Figure G. 14: Value of Outcomes Pre- and Post-Election for Staff (Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuation).............................................................................................................................................75 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | v ACRONYMS CPEYK Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in Kenya DRG-LER II Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance – Learning, Evaluation, and Research Activity EQ Evaluation Question EU European Union FGD Focus Group Discussion IIGH Institute on Inequalities in Global Health KII Key Informant Interview KRC Kenya Red Cross NORC National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago SROI Social Return on Investment SVI Social Value International USAID United States Agency for International Development USC University of Southern California SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC vi | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) 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 program was youth-led or youth-supporting, the number of beneficiaries and key stakeholder groups affected, how long the program lasted, key program activities, program location(s), availability of data, etc.) and availability of resources to conduct the study. One of the four interventions selected was Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in Kenya (CPEYK) and is the focus of this report. CPEYK was implemented in Kenya during 2016-2021 by Kenya Red Cross. 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 SROI evaluation of the program. The SROI 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 program? 5) How can the results of the SROI analysis be used to improve future programming? EVALUATION DESIGN The SROI evaluation design included a desk review of 137 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 program 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | vii 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 youth, trainers of youth, families of youth participants, private sector businesses, and program staff. It included 5 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) (2 with youth, 2 with families of youth, and 1 with program staff), and 9 key informant interviews (KIIs). Eight (8) KIIs were with the trainers of the youth participants and 1 with a representative of the private sector. 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 large numbers of participants, in this case youth participants, in order to obtain a more representative sample. Fifty-eight (58) respondents completed the surveys. Quantitative data was cleaned, then analyzed using Excel software. The outcomes identified by key stakeholders were monetized using two different approaches to valuation: cost-based valuation (using literature) and stakeholders-stated preference valuation (during FGDs, KIIs, and online surveys). The monetized values of outcomes were used to calculate SROI ratios. Preliminary results and findings were presented to key stakeholders during validation sessions, followed by revisions to the analysis as relevant. Understanding the relative value of outcomes to stakeholders during periods of heightened tension or conflict can provide further important information for peacebuilding efforts. As the national elections in Kenya took place in August 2022, this presented a unique opportunity to understand how the outcomes created by peacebuilding interventions may be valued differently by stakeholders in this context. As such, an additional round of quantitative data collection was conducted after the elections through online surveys administered in October 2022. Surveys were programmed in Google surveys. Seventeen (17) respondents completed the surveys including youth, trainers of youth participants and program staff. Data was analyzed using Excel. An additional SROI ratio in the context of the elections was calculated based on this data. 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 boxes below. 1 Standards on Applying Principle 2: Understand What Changes, Part 1. Social Value International (2021) SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC viii | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Box 1: Evaluation Findings EQ1: WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? Key stakeholders of this intervention are: • Youth participants • Families of youth participants • Trainers of youth participating in the program • Private sector businesses • Program staff EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? Youth experienced: • Becoming an upstanding member of society • Increased rehabilitation and reformation • Increased networking and opportunities • Increased business skills • Increased income Families of youth experienced: • Increased self-sufficiency of the family • Increased feeling of community safety • Increased social cohesion Trainers of youth experienced: • Increased sense of fulfillment from participation Private sector businesses experienced: • Increased community safety allowing for better business operations Program staff experienced: • Increased capacity for peacebuilding • Increased sense of fulfillment from participation EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? Based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation; • Youth most valued their becoming an upstanding member of society, • Private sector businesses most valued the increased community safety allowing for better business operations, and, • Program staff most valued their increased capacity for peacebuilding. (Note: the value of outcomes for families of youth participating in the program and for trainers are not included due to limitations as noted in the report.) EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OFTHE PROGRAM? Findings suggest a strong positive impact of the program. Results of the cost-based approach to valuation using literature, which is traditionally how economic analyses are done found an SROI of $1: $1.75 meaning that for every $1 invested in the program, it generated $1.75 in social value (with a sensitivity analysis range from $0.35 to $2.62). Results of the stakeholders-stated preference valuation, which allowed for a fuller picture of the outcomes including that which is most valuable to stakeholders experiencing the program found an SROI of $1: $6.48- $10.60, meaning for every $1 invested in the program, it generated between $6.48 and $10.60 in social value (with a sensitivity analysis range from $1.35 to $15.76). Results of the stakeholders-stated preference valuation in the context of the national elections suggest that for every $1 invested in the program, approximately $7.52 to $12.53 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $1.35 to $15.91). EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE SROI ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | ix Results of the SROI according to cost-based valuations found in the literature can be used to understand value of the intervention to the State and areas it may want to further invest in. Results of the SROI according to stakeholders-stated preference valuation 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 SROI 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, not outputs. Outputs do not reflect the whole picture but have often been the basis for many decisions in aid and development programming. Box 2: Evaluation Recommendations Three specific recommendations were identified for this program to increase value in the future. They are: 1) Programming should be designed in consultation with key stakeholders. For example, some youth expressed that they experienced jealousy and retaliation from family and community members as a result of participating in this project. Addressing this potential harm during the design phase of future programming can minimize the risk of this happening again and enable increased value for various key stakeholders. 2) Adapt programming to address all sub-groups of key stakeholders.. For example, some youth participants were able to receive funding to start their income generating activities and some did not. This created a differential experience for these youth, and while it was not possible to collect all outcomes for these sub-groups due to research constraints, 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) 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. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 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 SROI evaluation of the program Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in Kenya (CPEYK) , 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 July and September 2022, respectively. 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 J 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 SROI 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 program? 5) How can the results of the SROI analysis be used to improve future programming? SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 2 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV PROGRAM BACKGROUND Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in Kenya (CPEYK) was implemented by Kenya Red Cross from October 2016 to March 2021 in Mandera, Wajir, Garissa, Tana River, Lamu, Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale Counties. It was funded by the European Union’s (EU) Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. The overarching goal of this intervention was to increase the effectiveness and inclusiveness of community peace and security efforts involving vulnerable and marginalized youth in the regions in which the intervention operated CPEYK targeted 4,500 youth aged 18-35 to participate in its activities. The activities of this program were divided into 2 key thematic areas: AREA 1: ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT FOR THE YOUTH IN TARGETED AREAS Activities in this stream were centered around economic empowerment of the participating youth by supporting them with the tools, training, and support necessary to create income generating activities. This included activities such as support with business registration, training on group dynamics, entrepreneurship and business training, financial literacy training and support with creation of business plans. AREA 2: LINKING PROGRAM TO PEACE BUILDING AND CONFLICT PREVENTION Activities in this area were centered around alternative methods of addressing underlying conflict factors. Activities in this area included training on conflict management and accountability to communities for security actors in the regions in which the program operated, the creation of the Youth Peace Van which allowed for forums between youth and security actors as well as sporting events. Youth peace committees were also created in each of the counties where the program operated centered on spearheading community peace initiatives. The objectives of the program were: 1. Enhancing understanding of sources of conflict and exclusion, leading to informed policy and interventions, which identify means of addressing development needs and grievances. 2. To provide youth with skills that can be used to improve employment and livelihood prospects. 3. To strengthen capacity to manage and prevent conflict and improve trust between the State and communities. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The research team applied the internationally-recognized approach to SROI analysis (articulated by Social Value International) to conduct the evaluation of this program. 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. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 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 DESK REVIEW The research team conducted a literature review of peacebuilding outcomes and how they have been monetized in previous peer-reviewed literature and reports. In addition, the research team reviewed all documents pertaining to CPEYK provided by Kenya Red Cross including interim and final evaluation reports. In total, 132 documents (2 provided by the program staff and 130 from a literature search) were reviewed to either provide context, or provide further evidence to support findings for the evaluation questions. 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 4 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 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 program 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 Moderators conducted a total of 5 FGDs with key stakeholders of the intervention. Two (2) FDGs were conducted with youth, 2 with families of youth, and 1 with program 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 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), 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. Four of the focus groups were conducted in-person while the 5th (with program 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 trainers and representatives of the private sector. In total, 9 KIIs were conducted. The purpose of the KIIs was similar to the purpose of the FDGs and the same instrument was used. Interviews conducted via Google Meet or telephone. Data for FGDs and KIIs was entered into Kobo Collect. After data collection, transcripts were translated from Kiswahili to English where necessary and analyzed using content analysis and coded in Excel. 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 had large numbers of participants (in this case, youth participants) that experienced the outcomes identified during the qualitative data SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 5 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. Fifty-eight (58) respondents completed the surveys. Quantitative data was cleaned and analyzed using Excel software. OUTCOMES VALUATION The outcomes identified by key stakeholders were monetized using two different approaches to valuation: cost-based valuation (using financial proxies for similar outcomes found in the literature) and 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 show 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 were used to calculate the SROI ratios. (1): For the cost-based valuation using literature, the research team identified similar outcomes that had been valued using financial proxies in relevant published reports and literature. This approach is traditionally how economic analyses are done. Some outcomes had previously been monetized in the literature according to value to the State (i.e., how much money the government would save, or gain in tax revenue, if a specific outcome occurred). Other outcomes had been previously monetized in other SROI reports according to stated preference valuation. Where information on financial proxies was not available, the research team used the market price method to assign values (i.e., how much would it cost to purchase an experience that leads to similar outcomes). Financial values from the literature were adjusted for time horizon or purchasing power parity as appropriate (i.e., if an outcome was valued in the United Kingdom using the market price method, the research team considered what would the price be in KES factoring in purchasing power parity). (2): For the stakeholders-stated preference valuation, a list of common items in the market that stakeholders might find valuable was created by the local field research team and validated with key stakeholders in validation sessions after the first round of data collection. Each item on the list had an approximate market price (which was hidden) and items were shown in order by price. Respondents were asked to select which items from the list the outcome would fall between, if they had to say how relatively important to them the outcome in question was compared with these items. After responses were collected, the value of the outcome was equated to the average value of the market-priced items the outcome fell between. This correlation occurred by averaging the responses from the stakeholders and using the upper and lower values to estimate the valuation. For example, if the average valuation was 4.3, the valuations of items corresponding to ‘4’ and ‘5’ would be used to establish the low valuation and high valuation. Table 1 shows the item list as presented to stakeholders and Table 2 shows the items and their corresponding valuations. Table 1: List of Items presented to stakeholders to establish their valuations Item Number Item Description 1 Airtime for One Week 2 Used Mobile Phone SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 6 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Item Number Item Description 3 32” TV 4 Laptop 5 Plot of Land (40 x 80 square feet) 6 Business investment in a flock of chickens 7 Used car 8 New tuk-tuk 9 Buying a land a building a home for myself 10 Starting a tent/chair hiring business or a farm 11 Apartment in Mombasa 12 100 acres of land in the Central Region of Kenya where the land is fertile 12 Apartment in Syokimau* 13 Two Apartments in Mombasa 14 A Beachfront Property * Some stakeholders stated that they felt an Apartment in Syokimau (a highly sought-after residential area of Nairobi) was not relevant to them but that an area of land in central Kenya was. Where this secondary option was relevant, it was given. Table 2: List of Items and their corresponding valuations Items for Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuation Value in Kenyan Shillings (KSh) Value in United States Dollars (USD) 1 Airtime for one week 700 $5.83 2 Used Mobile Phone 10,000 $83.34 3 TV 32" 20,000 $166.67 4 Laptop 30,000 $250 5 Plot of Land (40x80) 100,000 $833.34 6 Business Investment in Flock of Chickens 200,000 $1,666.67 7 Used Car 300,000 $2,500 8 New Tuk Tuk 500,000 $4,166.67 9 Buying land and building a home for myself 1,000,000 $8,333.34 10 Starting a tent chair hiring business 2,000,000 $16,666.67 11 Apartment in Mombasa 5,000,000 $41,666.67 12 Apartment in Syokimau 7,000,000 $58,333.34 13 100 acres of land where the land is fertile 7,500,000 $62,500 14 Two apartments in Mombasa 10,000,000 $83,333.34 15 Beachfront Property 15,000,000 $120,000 * A rough conversion of 1 USD = 120 KSh was used throughout the project as informed by local research partners. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 7 CALCULATION OF THE SROI RATIO Calculation of the SROI ratio involved taking into account the 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 was calculated, from which the total investment was subtracted, and then the total value was divided by the total investment to arrive at the SROI ratio. After calculating the SROI ratio, sensitivity analyses were 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) were changed. The aim of such analyses were to test which assumptions have the greatest effect on the model. VALIDATION SESSIONS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS Preliminary SROI results and findings were presented to key stakeholders during validation sessions in July and September 2022, followed by revisions to the analysis as relevant. A total of 42 stakeholders participated in the validation sessions. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS: SROI IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTIONS Understanding the relative value of outcomes to stakeholders during periods of heightened tension or conflict can provide further important information for peacebuilding efforts. As the national elections in Kenya took place in August 2022, this presented a unique opportunity to understand how the outcomes created by peacebuilding interventions may be valued differently by stakeholders in this context. As such, an additional round of quantitative data collection was conducted after the elections through online surveys programmed in Google surveys, translated into Kiswahili, and administered in October 2022. Twenty-seven (27) respondents completed the surveys including youth, and program staff. Data was cleaned and analyzed using Excel. An additional SROI ratio in the context of the elections was calculated based on this data. REPORTING AND USING RESULTS Final results were presented to program 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 key recommendations to inform the strategic design of future programming to grow more social value. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 8 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS The following assumptions were made when conducting this analysis: 1. Scope. While the intervention was implemented in multiple counties, this analysis focused on the programming in Mombasa only (given limits on human and financial resources to conduct the study). All program activities conducted in Mombasa were included in the analysis. Given this limited scope, the SROI ratio calculated here will be different compared to if the intervention was analyzed in its entirety, and is likely underestimated in this analysis. 2. Investment. The estimated budget that was spent for the programming in Mombasa (out of all counties where the intervention was implemented) was $740,000 according to data provided by KRC staff. 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 does not use a randomized control trial methodology to tease out attribution and deadweight. It does 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 from stakeholders are taken into account in the SROI calculation. 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 responses from key stakeholders, especially youth, 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. 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. This was particularly problematic in the additional round of online surveys administered post the national SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 9 elections in Kenya. Response rates are noted in the report. The research team was also aware of participant fatigue due to multiple data collection efforts. 6. 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. 7. Cost-Based Valuation Using Literature. This analysis is one of the first known studies to apply SROI methodology to peacebuilding interventions. Consequently, the approach of using financial proxies to translate well-defined outcomes into monetary terms is not as well￾developed in peacebuilding literature as it has been in other areas where SROI and/or similar approaches are more commonly used (e.g. Health Program Analysis). The literature review conducted as part of this study only surfaced 5 studies where monetization of outcomes was done in the peacebuilding field. The majority of these used stakeholder preference valuation to determine their valuation. Valuations established through stakeholder preferences should be leveraged with caution as it likely that preferences are not the same across populations. Additionally, the scales or instruments used to establish stated preference valuations in other studies were not clear so it could not be established whether the scales used in this study were similar to ensure comparability of results. As such, results using this approach should be interpreted with caution. However, the research team employed an alternate approach to valuation in this study via stated preferences with stakeholders in this study, which provided a more accurate basis for results in this context. It is likely that as SROI methodologies are used more in the analysis of peacebuilding interventions, a consensus will emerge regarding the proper techniques to monetize relevant outcomes, and thus develop SROI ratios that more accurately reflect the social value created by peacebuilding interventions. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 10 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? Program 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 program, and any other parties who were significantly affected by the program. 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 in the analysis. Table 3 summarizes each stakeholder group, their relationship to the program and the rationale for inclusion or exclusion from the analysis. Table 3: Key stakeholders of the program and inclusion or exclusion from SROI analysis STAKEHOLDER GROUP DESCRIPTION RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION Youth Participants Program beneficiaries Included as intended of programming Families of Youth Participants Indirect beneficiaries Included as indirect beneficiaries of programming and experience outcomes Private Sector Businesses Program contributors Included as affected and affected by programming Trainers of Youth Participants Program contributors Included as affecting and affected by programming Religious Leaders Indirect beneficiaries Excluded given insufficient resources Civil Society Actors and State Actors Indirect beneficiaries Excluded given insufficient resources Program Staff Provider of programming Included as affecting and affected by programming EU Trust Fund for Africa Provider of funding Excluded as priorities understood through program staff Table 4: Key stakeholders reached Stakeholder Group Population Size (Mombasa) Number of Participants in Focus Groups or Interviews Number of Respondents to Survey Number of Respondents to Post-Election Survey Youth 1000 24 58* 11* Families of Youth Unable to determine 24 Not surveyed Not surveyed Trainers 8 8 Not surveyed 2* Private Sector Businesses 10 1* Not surveyed Not surveyed Staff 10 8 Not surveyed 4* *Indicates where a representative sample size was not reached. 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. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 11 Figure 2: Map of Well-Defined Outcomes of the Program SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 12 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUES OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? The relative value of outcomes experienced by each stakeholder according to the cost-based valuation (using literature) (also known as “benefit-transfer method”) is presented in Table 5. This approach of using literature is how many traditional economic analyses are done. As described in the limitations, it is worth noting that most of these outcomes have not been previously monetized in the literature. Only one outcome could be monetized according to previous literature as related to value to the State, whereas most other outcomes were monetized based on market price method, and a handful based on stakeholder stated preferences from other studies and adapted for time horizon or purchasing power parity to this context. CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M / ORDER NO. AID-OAA-M-13-00013 / DRG-LER II TASKING N055 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 13 Table 5: Condensed Impact Map (Cost-Based Valuation Using Literature) Stakeholders Outcomes Extrapolated Quantity Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Valuation approach (monetary) Monetary valuation Youth Becoming an upstanding member of society 741 20 % of value of a mentor's time (Converted from AUD to USD & Kenyan PPP) 432 13% 0% 28% -61% 200,393 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 655 Avoided costs to the State associated with reduced costs of re-offending and reduced substance abuse 3310 22% 0% 27% -54% 1,234,813 Increased income 569 Increase in income resulting from program 61 12% 0% 29% -49% 21,516 Increased networking and opportunities 776 Cost of Toastmasters for One Year 110 17% 0% 26% -55% 52,419 Increased business skills and capacity 714 Cost of one vocational education course in Kenya 350 14% 0% 27% -58% 156,950 Community jealousy/retaliation 133 Prorated Average Cash Value of tools and materials provided by Kenya Red Cross -1563 10% 0% 25% -13% -139,746 Families of Youth Participating in Program Increased Social Cohesion - - - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Improved self-sufficiency - - - 25% 15% 0% -33% - Increased feeling of community safety - - - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Private Sector Businesses Improved community safety allowing for better business operations 10 Per Capita economic gains due to reduction in prevalence of gangs in local area 297 0% 0% 0% 0% 2971 Trainers Increased sense of fulfillment from participating in program 10 - - 0% 0% 0% 0% - Staff Increased sense of fulfillment from participating in program 10 - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 14 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Stakeholders Outcomes Extrapolated Quantity Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Valuation approach (monetary) Monetary valuation Increased capacity for peacebuilding 10 Average cost of Professional Peacebuilding Course 1,664 0% 0% 0% 0% 16,642 The relative value of outcomes experienced by each stakeholder according to stakeholders-stated preference is presented in Figures 3-5. CONTRACT NO. GS-10F-0033M / ORDER NO. AID-OAA-M-13-00013 / DRG-LER II TASKING N055 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 15 Figure 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (n=58) $1,448,860 $624,929 $624,616 $937,879 $846,693 $(103,174) $2,414,767 $1,158,215 $936,924 $1,563,131 $1,270,040 $(154,761) $(500,000.00) $- $500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $3,000,000.00 Low End Valuation High End Valuation Figure 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Private Sector Businesses (n=1) $207,500 $290,500 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 Increased community safety allowing for better business operations Low End Valuation High End Valuation SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 16 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Figure 5: Relative Value of Outcomes for Staff (n=8) $166,000 $415,500 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Low End Valuation High End Valuation Outcomes for families of youth were not monetized to maintain consistency with SROI methodology. For families of youth, the total population size was not available from Kenya Red Cross meaning that a sample size could not be estimated. Additionally, any valuation calculated from an approximate sample size may overestimate the true value created violating the SROI methodological principle of not overclaiming results. For trainers of youth and project staff, the outcome of increased sense of fulfillment experienced was also not monetized as an outcome that could occur during the normal course of employment and therefore reflected in their pay (staff income is not an outcome according to Social Value International methodology). Based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation, findings suggest that the intervention created the most value for youth (91-92%), then private sector businesses (4%), followed by other key stakeholders, which is consistent with the primary targets of the intervention (see Figure 6). Figure 6: Distribution of Value Created for each Stakeholder Group (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) The additional findings of the evaluation, based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation of the value of outcomes in the context of the election, are presented below. 92% 4% 4% Low Valuation Youth Private Sector Business Staff 91% 4% 5% High Valuation Youth Private Sector Business Staff SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 17 Figure 7: Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (n=11) $1,156,356 $928,907 $885,169 $1,186,571 $1,116,587 $(280,125) $1,927,260 $1,548,179 $1,475,282 $1,977,618 $1,860,979 $(280,125) $(500,000.00) $- $500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 Low End Value High End Value Figure 8: Value of Outcomes for Staff Post-Election (n=4) $415,000 $622,500 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Increased capacity for peacebuilding Low End Value High End Value Note that while trainers and staff were surveyed to understand how the importance of the outcome they experienced (increased sense of fulfillment due to participation) changed during the post-election period, consistent with SROI methodology a value was not assigned to this outcome as monetizing it would not be consistent with Social Value International Methodology (see explanation above). SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 18 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OF THE PROGRAM? The findings of the evaluation, according to cost-based valuation (using the literature), suggest that for every $1 invested in the program, approximately $1.75 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $0.35 to $2.62). Total Monetized Impact $1,294,917 Total Present Value $554,917 Total Investment $740,000 Social Return on Investment (SROI) $1.75 The findings of the evaluation, based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation, suggest that for every $1 invested in the program, approximately $6.48 - $10.60 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $1.35 to $15.76). Total Monetized Impact $4,831,372- $7,937,634 Total Present Value $4,793,352 - $7,845,489 Total Investment $740,000 Social Return on Investment (SROI) $6.48 - $10.60 The additional findings of the evaluation, based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation of the value of outcomes in the context of the election, suggest that for every $1 invested in the program, approximately $7.52-$12.53 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $1.35 to $15.91). It’s important to note that this result should only be interpreted as suggestive given that full data was not collected for this calculation (i.e., deadweight, attribution, and drop-off were assumed to be the same as in the earlier results) and the sample was far from representative. Total Monetized Impact $5,565,734 - $9,275,840 Total Present Value $4,825,734 - $8,535,840 Total Investment $740,000 Social Return on Investment (SROI) $7.52 - $12.53 Additional detailed results and information are available in Appendix G. EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE SROI ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? Results of the SROI analysis can be used to improve future programming in multiple ways. Results from the cost-based approach to valuation (using literature), which are often based on large sample sizes and statistics, and consider the value to one key stakeholder (i.e., cost savings to the State), can generally provide insight on how the State is affected by the intervention, including areas it may want to invest in further. However, given the dearth of literature in this context, and the narrowness of the perspective on value applied, the utility of this set of results may be limited. 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 19 outcomes (for example, becoming an upstanding member of society) 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 (for example, youth who were not provided loans for income-generating activities). 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. Results from the stakeholders-stated preference valuation in the context of the national elections can be further useful in understanding the value of this peacebuilding intervention to stakeholders during periods of heightened tension. Given that many peacebuilding programs in Kenya have been developed in response to experiences of violent elections or conflict, these findings (while only suggestive) imply this intervention is even more valuable in such contexts, and contributed to what proved to be a relatively peaceful election in 2022, which is of utmost importance. RECOMMENDATIONS Three specific recommendations were identified for this program to increase value in the future. They are: 1. Programming should be designed in consultation with key stakeholders. For example, some youth expressed that they experienced jealousy and retaliation from family and community members as a result of participating in this project. Addressing this potential harm during the design phase of future programming can minimize the risk of this happening again and enable increased value for various key stakeholders. 2. Adapt programming to address all sub-groups of key stakeholders. For example, some youth participants were able to receive funding to start their income generating activities and some did not. This created a differential experience for these youth, and while it was not possible to collect all outcomes for these sub-groups due to research constraints, 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. 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. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 20 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV CONCLUSIONS Findings, based on both valuation approaches and across data collected both pre- and post-election, suggest that CPEYK has had a positive impact on the communities in which it operates. While the youth participants benefitted the most from the intervention, there was clear benefit to all stakeholder groups including trainers of youth, the families of the youth participants, private sector businesses and staff working on the program. Results of the stakeholders-stated preference valuation suggest that for every $1 invested in CPEYK, between $6.48 and $10.60 of social value is created, with the estimated social value of the intervention increasing even further in the context of an election. Despite the limitations noted in this report, using the SROI approach for this evaluation provided added value over traditional evaluation approaches used in this sector in the following ways: 1) SROI 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, SROI 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., becoming an upstanding member of society) were the most important to stakeholders (even more than their increased incomes). 2) SROI analysis provided insights to avoid or mitigate harmful effects. SROI 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) SROI examined sustainability by considering how long outcomes lasted and how they dropped off over time and factored those into the calculations of value. 4) SROI elucidated value for money. While most programming in this space has inherently been understood as valuable by program staff and donors, SROI made that value explicit by assigning a dollar value to outcomes. 5) SROI analysis encourages decision-making based on value, 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. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 21 ANNEX A: SOURCES OF INFORMATION DOCUMENTS REVIEWED PROJECT INFORMATION Kenya Red Cross.(2021). Conflict Prevention Peace and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in Kenya End￾Term Evaluation Report. Kenya Red Cross.(2021). Conflict Prevention Peace and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in Kenya End￾Term Narrative Report. 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. 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 22 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 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 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 23 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 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 24 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 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 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 25 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 Miklian, J., & Medina Bickel, J. P. (2020). Theorizing Business and Local Peacebuilding Through the “Footprints of Peace” Coffee Program 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 26 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 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 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 27 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 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 28 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 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 Young, G. (n.d.). South African land reform as peacebuilding: Integrating perspectives from Social Identity Theory and Symbolic Politics in a peacebuilding conceptual framework. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 29 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 SVI, 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: Social Value 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. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 31 ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE (ENGLISH VERSION) Guide for Focus Groups/Interviews with Key Stakeholders (i.e., Youth, Families/Communities, Program 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: SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 32 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 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? 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: SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 33 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 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 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 34 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV ANNEX D: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS FOR EACH STAKEHOLDER (ENGLISH VERSIONS) SURVEY INSTRUMENT – YOUTH Thank you for taking the time to do this survey. It should take no more than 30 minutes. Please answer truthfully. Your answers will be confidential and only used to help improve future programs like the Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in the Coast Region of Kenya. Some youth were asked about what had changed for them as a result of the Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in the Coast Region of Kenya. We will tell you what the youth we talked to said - we want to know if you have experienced the same changes or not. This first set of questions is aimed to understand who the program has reached. 1. Did you participate in the Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in the Coast Region of Kenya program? a. Yes b. No c. I don't know 2. In what year did you participate? a. 2016 b. 2017 c. 2018 d. 2019 e. 2020 f. 2021 g. 2022 3. In what county do you live? a. Mombasa b. Kilifi c. Lamu 4. What is your age? a. 18-24 b. 24-29 c. 30-35 d. other 5. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female c. Other Next, we’ll ask questions about how this program has impacted you. Outcome #1 – Upstanding Member of the Society SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 35 1. Some youth that participated in this program experienced becoming more of an upstanding member of society as a result of this program. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this program? a. I experienced becoming more of an upstanding member of society as a result of this program. (Go to next question) b. I haven’t yet experienced becoming more of an upstanding member of society as a result of this program, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience becoming more of an upstanding member of society as a result of this program. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that you became more of an upstanding member of society? (Select all that apply) a. I became more able to help other members of the community b. I helped to support others who have dropped out of school to return to school c. I became more able to provide for my children/my family d. I became more responsible e. I spent less time being idle as I participated in income generating activities instead f. I felt an increased sense of respect from the community due to my work on this program 3. By how much did your becoming more of an upstanding member of society increase as a result of this program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. For how long after you finished being involved in this program did the change of becoming more of an upstanding member of society last? a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did becoming more of an upstanding member of society change over time for you? a. The amount of change in me being an upstanding citizen continued to grow over time by a lot b. The amount of change in me being an upstanding citizen continued to grow over time by a little c. The amount of change in me being an upstanding citizen stayed the same over time d. The amount of change in me being an upstanding citizen declined over time a bit e. The amount of change in me being an upstanding citizen declined over time a lot 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to becoming more of an upstanding member of society? a. No b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 36 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 7. How much of your becoming more of an upstanding member of society would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #2 – Rehabilitation and Reformation 1. Some youth that participated in this program experienced more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this program. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this program? a. I experienced more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this program. (Go to next question) b. I haven’t yet experienced more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this program, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this program. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your rehabilitation and reformation had increased? (Select all that apply) a. I reduced the use of violence when responding to provocation b. I decreased my use of drugs or was freed from addiction c. My interpersonal relationships improved d. My personal situation improved e. I re-established ties with some family members f. Increased confidence to enter police stations 3. By how much did your rehabilitation and reformation increase as a result of this program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. For how long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience increased rehabilitation and reformation? a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did the increase in your rehabilitation and reformation change over time for you? a. The increase in rehabilitation and reformation that I experienced continued to increase a lot over time b. The increase in rehabilitation and reformation that I experienced continued to increase a bit over time c. The increase in rehabilitation and reformation that I experienced continued to stay the same over time SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 37 d. The increase in rehabilitation and reformation that I experienced declined a bit over time e. The increase in rehabilitation and reformation that I experienced declined a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased rehabilitation and reformation? a. No b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced 7. How much increased rehabilitation and reformation would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #3 – increased Income 1. Some youth that participated in this program experienced increased incomes as a result of this program. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this program? a. I experienced increased income as a result of this program. (Go to next question) b. I haven’t yet experienced increased income as a result of this program, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience increased income after participating in this program. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your income had increased? (Select all that apply) a. My ability to earn an income from legitimate sources was greater b. I was less reliant on theft and violence to earn an income c. I was able to reduce or avoid the use of sex for food or other basic needs d. I became more financially independent e. My ability to save money increased 3. By how much did your income increase as a result of this program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. For how long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience an increased income? a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did the increase in income change over time for you? a. The amount my income changed continued to increase a lot over time SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 38 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV b. The amount my income changed continued to increase a bit over time c. The amount my income changed remained the same over time d. The amount my income changed declined a bit over time e. The amount my income changed declined a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased income? a. No b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced 7. How much of your increased income would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #4 – Networking and Opportunities 1. Some youth that participated in this program experienced more networking and opportunities as a result of this program. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this program? a. I experienced more networking and opportunities as a result of this program. (Go to next question) b. I haven’t yet experienced more networking and opportunities as a result of this program, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience more networking and opportunities as a result of this program. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your networking and opportunities had increased? (Select all that apply)? a. My relationship with local chiefs, elders and security actors became better b. I had more job opportunities c. I had more opportunities to share knowledge with others d. I had more opportunity to use skills to earn an income e. I had more opportunities to share knowledge about peace f. I had more opportunity to attend local council sessions 3. By how much did your networking and opportunities increase as a result of this program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience increased networking and opportunities? a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 39 e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did the increase in your networking and opportunities change over time for you? a. The increase in my networking and opportunities continued to grow a lot over time b. The increase in my networking and opportunities continued to grow a bit over time c. The increase in my networking and opportunities stayed constant d. The increase in my networking and opportunities declined a bit over time e. The increase in my networking and opportunities declined a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased networking and opportunities for you? a. No b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced 7. How much of the increased networking and opportunities you experienced would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #5 – Increased Capacity 1. Some youth that participated in this program experienced increased capacity (e.g. an increased sense of personal skills and capacity) as a result of this program. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this program? a. I experienced increased capacity as a result of this program. (Go to next question) b. I haven’t yet experienced increased capacity as a result of this program, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience increased capacity as a result of this program. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your capacity had changed? (Select all that apply) a. Increased personal skills (i.e. cooking, ability to manage my own finances) b. Increased employable skills (i.e. metal working, decorating, being a security actor guarding materials) c. Increased ability to provide for oneself d. Increased business management skills e. Increased ability to share business knowledge with others f. Increased understanding of group dynamics and how to motivate others 3. By how much did your capacity increase as a result of this program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience increased capacity? SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 40 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did the increase in your capacity change over time for you? a. The amount of change in my capacity continued to increase a lot over time b. The amount of change in my capacity continued to increase a bit over time c. The amount of change in my capacity stayed constant over time d. The amount of change in my capacity declined a bit over time e. The amount of change in my capacity declined a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased capacity? a. No b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced 7. How much increased capacity would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #6 – Unequal access 1. Some youth who were not previously involved in gangs or criminal activities may have felt that they could only access the program's resources if they became involved in a gang. a. I was not involved in gangs or criminal activities but I felt as if I could only access the program's resources if I became involved in a gang, so I thought about joining a gang, but did not. b. I was not involved in gangs or criminal activities before, but because I could only access the program's resources if I became involved in a gang, I joined one. c. I haven’t yet experienced an increased sense that I needed to join a gang to gain access to this program's resources. (Go to next outcome) d. I do not think I will experience an increased sense that I needed to join a gang to gain access to this program's resources. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that the feeling of pressure to join a gang or become involved in criminal activity increased? (Select all that apply) a. I felt that it was unfair that resources were being invested in people who were involved in gang or criminal activity b. It seemed like only those who were troublemakers were being given access to resources c. I felt like I would have to become a troublemaker to be given access to resources d. I joined a gang in order to access the program's opportunities and resources, but still did not succeed in accessing the program's resources SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 41 e. I joined a gang in order to access the program's opportunities and resources, and then succeeded in accessing the program's resources 3. By how much did the feeling of pressure to join a gang or become involved in criminal activity increase as a result of this program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. For how long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience a feeling of increased pressure to join a gang or become involved in criminal activity? a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did the increased feeling of pressure to join a gang or become involved in criminal activity change over time for you? a. The increase in feeling like I could only access the program's resources if I were a troublemaker/in a gang continued to grow a lot over time b. The increase in feeling like I could only access the program's resources if I were a troublemaker/in a gang continued to grow a bit over time c. The increase in feeling like I could only access the program's resources if I were a troublemaker/in a gang stayed the same over time d. The increase in feeling like I could only access the program's resources if I were a troublemaker/in a gang declined a bit over time e. The increase in feeling like I could only access the program's resources if I were a troublemaker/in a gang declined a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to a feeling of increased pressure to join a gang/become involved in criminal activity? a. No b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced 7. How much of the feeling of increased pressure to join a gang/become involved in criminal activity would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #7 – Sense of Mistrust of Programming 1. Some youth that participated in this program experienced an increased sense of mistrust about whether the program might share their information in a way that posed a danger to them (for SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 42 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV example that they may be targeted by security actors). Which of these statements best describes your experience with this program? a. I experienced an increased sense of mistrust of the programming as a result of this program. (Go to next question) b. I haven’t yet experienced an increased sense of mistrust of the programming, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience an increased sense of mistrust of the programming. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that this sense of mistrust increased? (Select all that apply): a. Hesitancy to participate in this program due to concerns that I may experience retaliation from security actors b. A feeling of concern that due to my past activities I was already at risk from the police, and the program might share my whereabouts with police who would target me c. A feeling of concern that due to my past activities I was already at risk from gang members, and the program might share my whereabouts with gangs who would target me 3. By how much did your sense of mistrust or insecurity increase? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience this increased sense of mistrust or insecurity? a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did this feeling of mistrust or insecurity change over time for you? a. My feeling of mistrust increased a lot over time b. My feeling of mistrust increased a bit over time c. My feeling of mistrust stayed the same over time d. My feeling of mistrust reduced a bit over time e. My feeling of mistrust reduced a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to a feeling of mistrust or insecurity? a. No b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced 7. How much of your feeling of mistrust or insecurity would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 43 Outcome #8 – Community Jealousy/Retaliation 1. Some youth that participated in this program experienced jealousy and/or retaliation from the community. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this program? a. I experienced jealousy and/or retaliation from the community as a result of this program. (Go to next question) b. I haven’t yet experienced jealousy and/or retaliation from the community, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience jealousy and/or retaliation from the community. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that the community's jealousy and/or retaliation had changed? (Select all that apply) a. Materials I acquired due to the program were stolen b. Community members have expressed criticism or jealousy as to why I was selected to participate in this program c. I have been attacked and/or injured by a member of the community as a result of my participation 3. By how much did your experience of increased jealously and/or retaliation change as a result of this program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience this change in increased jealously and/or retaliation? a. A few days b. Weeks c. Months d. 1 year e. 2 years f. 3 years or more g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did this experience of jealousy or retaliation from the (some of the) community change over time for you? a. The amount of jealousy or retaliation I experienced from the community increased a lot over time b. The amount of jealousy or retaliation I experienced from the community increased a bit over time c. The amount of jealousy or retaliation I experienced from the community stayed the same over time d. The amount of jealousy or retaliation I experienced from the community declined a bit over time e. The amount of jealousy or retaliation I experienced from the community declined a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased jealousy/retaliation? a. No SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 44 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV b. Yes, but less than I have experienced c. Yes, at the same level I have experienced d. Yes, even more than I have experienced 7. How much increased jealousy/retaliation would you say was caused by the program a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Important! Your Preferences In each of the next few questions, we ask you to rate how important each outcome is to you, on a scale of 1 to 5. 1 = This change was unimportant to me. 5 = This change was extremely important to me. How important are these outcomes to you? 1. Becoming more of an upstanding member of society a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 2. Increased rehabilitation and reformation a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 3. increased income a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 4. Increased networking and opportunities a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 45 f. 5 5. Increased capacity: a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 6. Sense of necessity of joining a gang in order to access the program's resources: a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 7. Mistrust of the program: a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 8. Community jealousy/retaliation: a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 Important! Valuation SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 46 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV In this last part of the survey we want to understand how you would estimate the importance of the changes you experienced compared with things you might consider valuable. Please review the following chart: Where would you place the importance of that outcome in relation to two of these items? For example, if you think the change is more important than a used mobile phone, but less than a TV - choose 2. 1. Becoming more of an upstanding member of society a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 2. Increased rehabilitation and reformation a. 1 b. 2 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 47 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 3. Increased income a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 4. Increased networking and opportunities a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 5. Increased capacity a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 48 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 6. Sense of necessity of joining a gang to access program resources a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 7. Mistrust of programming a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 8. Community jealousy/retaliation a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 SURVEY INSTRUMENT – YOUTH (POST-ELECTION) Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take about 5-10 minutes to complete. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 49 Previously, we asked you about the changes you experienced as a result of the Program: Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in the Coast Region of Kenya. We also asked how you might estimate the importance of these changes compared with things you might consider valuable (according to the scale below). We want to understand if the value of these changes remained the same or perhaps became more or less important to you in context of the recent elections. Please answer truthfully. Your answers will be confidential and used to help improve future peacebuilding programs. 1. Previously, youth valued the importance of becoming an upstanding member of society, on average, as between 7-8. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) 2. Previously, youth valued the importance of increased rehabilitation and reformation, on average, as between 7-8. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 50 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) 3. Previously, youth valued the importance of increased income, on average, as between 6-7. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) 4. Previously, youth valued the importance of increased networking and opportunities, on average, as between 7-8. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) 5. Previously, youth valued the importance of increased business skills, on average, as between 6-7. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) SURVEY INSTRUMENT – FAMILIES OF YOUTH (POST-ELECTION) Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take about 5-10 minutes to complete. Previously, we asked you about the changes you experienced as a result of the Program: Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in the Coast Region of Kenya. We also asked how you might estimate the importance of these changes compared with things you might consider valuable (according to the scale below). We want to understand if the value of these changes remained the same or perhaps became more or less important to you in context of the recent elections. Please answer truthfully. Your answers will be confidential and used to help improve future peacebuilding programs. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 51 6. Previously, families valued the importance of increased social cohesion, on average, as between 11-12. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) 7. Previously, families valued the importance of improved self-sufficiency, on average, as between 11-12. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) 8. Previously, families valued the importance of increased feeling of safety in the community, on average, as between 11-12. In context of the recent elections, did its importance remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 52 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV SURVEY INSTRUMENT – TRAINERS OF YOUTH (POST-ELECTION) Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take about 5-10 minutes to complete. Previously, we asked you about the changes you experienced as a result of the Program: Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in the Coast Region of Kenya. We want to understand if the value of these changes remained the same or perhaps became more or less important to you in context of the recent elections. Please answer truthfully. Your answers will be confidential and used to help improve future peacebuilding programs. 9. How might you estimate the importance of increased sense of fulfillment compared with things you might consider valuable (according to the scale)? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 53 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 2. In context of the recent elections, did the importance of increased sense of fulfillment remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) SURVEY INSTRUMENT – PROGRAM STAFF (POST-ELECTION) Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take about 5-10 minutes to complete. Previously, we asked you about the changes you experienced as a result of the Program: Conflict Prevention, Peace, and Economic Opportunities for the Youth in the Coast Region of Kenya. We want to understand if the value of these changes remained the same or perhaps became more or less important to you in context of the recent elections. Please answer truthfully. Your answers will be confidential and used to help improve future peacebuilding programs. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 54 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV 10. How might you estimate the importance of increased sense of fulfillment compared with things you might consider valuable (according to the scale)? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 3. In context of the recent elections, did the importance of increased sense of fulfillment remain the same or do you feel this outcome became more or less important to you? Response options: • Its importance remained the same • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 55 ANNEX E: IMPACT MAPS (CONDENSED) STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION See Tables E1 and E2 for the condensed impact maps according to stakeholders-stated preference valuations. Table E. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (Low End Values) Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Monetary valuation Youth Participating in Program Becoming an upstanding member of society 741 Survey Data 2490.00 13% 0% 28% -61% 1,156,356.00 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 655 Survey Data 2490.00 22% 0% 27% -54% 928,907.38 Increased income 569 Survey Data 1660.00 12% 0% 29% -49% 590,112.83 Increased networking and opportunities 776 Survey Data 2490.00 17% 0% 26% -55% 1,186,570.86 Increased business skills 714 Survey Data 1660.00 14% 0% 27% -58% 744,391.43 Community jealousy/retaliation 133 Survey Data -1660.00 10% 0% 25% -13% -148,466.25 Families of Youth Participating in Program Increased social cohesion 200 Focus Group Data - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Improved self-sufficiency 200 Focus Group Data - 25% 15% 0% -33% - Increased feeling of community safety 200 Focus Group Data - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Private Sector Businesses Improved community safety allowing for better business operations 10 Interview Data 41500.00 50% 0% 0% -25% 207,500.00 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 56 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Monetary valuation Trainers Increased sense of fulfillment due to participation 3 Interview Data - 0% 0% 0% 0% - Staff Increased sense of fulfillment due to participation 10 Focus Group Data - 0% 0% 0% 0% - Increased capacity for peacebuilding 10 Focus Group Data 16,600.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 166,000.00 Table E. 2: Condensed Impact Map – Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (High End Values) Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Monetary valuation Youth Participating in Program Becoming an upstanding member of society 741 Survey Data 4150.00 13% 0% 28% -61% 1,927,260.00 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 655 Survey Data 4150.00 22% 0% 27% -54% 1,548,178.97 Increased income 569 Survey Data 2490.00 12% 0% 29% -49% 885,169.24 Increased networking and opportunities 776 Survey Data 4150.00 17% 0% 26% -55% 1,977,618.10 Increased business skills 714 Survey Data 2490.00 14% 0% 27% -58% 1,116,587.14 Community jealousy/retaliation 133 Survey Data -2490.00 10% 0% 25% -13% -222,699.38 Families of Youth Participating in Program Increased social cohesion 200 Focus Group Data - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Improved self-sufficiency of the family 200 Focus Group Data - 25% 15% 0% -33% - SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 57 Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Monetary valuation Increased feeling of community safety 200 Focus Group Data - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Private Sector Businesses Improved community safety allowing for better business operations 10 Interview Data 58100.00 50% 0% 0% -25% 290,500.00 Trainers Increased sense of fulfillment due to participation 3 Survey Data - 0% 0% 0% 0% - Staff Increased sense of fulfillment due to participation 10 Survey Data - 0% 0% 0% 0% - Increased capacity for peacebuilding 10 Survey Data 41,500.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 415,000.00 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 58 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV ANNEX F: IMPACT MAP (CONDENSED) COST-BASED VALUATION See Table F1 for the condensed impact map according to cost-based valuation. Table F. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Cost-Based Valuation Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Valuation approach (monetary) Monetary valuation Youth Becoming an upstanding member of society 741 20 % of value of a mentor's time (Converted from AUD to USD & Kenyan PPP) 431.51 13% 0% 28% -61% 200,393.24 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 655 Avoided costs to the state associated with reduced costs of re￾offending and reduced substance abuse 3310.00 22% 0% 27% -54% 1,234,812.62 Increased Income 569 Increase in income resulting from program 60.53 12% 0% 29% -49% 21,516.01 Increased networking and opportunities 776 Cost of Toastmasters for One Year 110.00 17% 0% 26% -55% 52,418.79 Increased business skills and capacity 714 Cost of one vocational education course in Kenya 350.00 14% 0% 27% -58% 156,950.00 Community jealousy/retaliation 133 Prorated Average Cash Value of tools and materials provided by Kenya Red Cross -1562.50 10% 0% 25% -13% -139,746.09 Increased Social Cohesion - - - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Improved self-sufficiency - - - 25% 15% 0% -33% - SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 59 Stakeholders Outcomes Quantity (scale) Express the relative importance (value) of the outcome Deadweight % Displacement % Attribution % Drop off % Impact calculation Outcome description Valuation approach (monetary) Monetary valuation Families of Youth Participating in Program Increased feeling of community safety - - - 0% 15% 0% -33% - Private Sector Businesses Improved community safety allowing for better business operations 10 Per Capita economic gains due to reduction in prevalence of gangs in local area 297.09 0% 0% 0% 0% 2970.9 Trainers Increased sense of fulfillment from participating in program 10 - - 0% 0% 0% 0% - Staff Increased sense of fulfillment from participating in program 10 - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 Increased capacity for peacebuilding 10 Average cost of Professional Peacebuilding Course 1,664.24 0% 0% 0% 0% 16,642.38 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 60 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV ANNEX G: DETAILED RESULTS WELL DEFINED OUTCOMES One of the important aspects of social return on investment analysis 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 results from the participation of the stakeholder and describes what changed for them due to their participation (either positive or negative). This section will present the well-defined outcomes for each stakeholder group and the indicators they used to help describe these outcomes. Table G. 1: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Youth OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED REHABILITATION AND REFORMATION • Youth reduced the use of violence when responding to provocation • Youth decreased their drug use or were freed from addiction • Youth experienced improvement in their interpersonal relationships • Youth experienced improvements in their interpersonal relationships • Youth re-established ties with some family members • Youth experienced increased confidence to enter police stations INCREASED NETWORKING AND OPPORTUNITIES • Youth experienced improvements in their relationships with local chiefs, elders and security/state actors • Youth experienced increased job opportunities • Youth experienced increased opportunities to share knowledge with others • Youth experienced increased opportunity to use skills to earn an income • Youth experienced more opportunities to share knowledge about peace • Youth experienced more opportunity to attend local council sessions INCREASED BUSINESS SKILLS • Increased personal skills (i.e., ability to manage own finances) • Increased employable skills (i.e., metal working, decorating, security roles) • Increased ability to provide for oneself • Increased business management skills • Increased ability to share business knowledge with others • Increased understanding of group dynamics and how to motivate others INCREASED INCOME • Increased ability to earn an income from legitimate sources • Less reliance on theft and violence to earn an income • Reduced or avoided use of sex for food or other basic needs • Increased financial independence • Increased ability to save money BECOMING AN UPSTANDING MEMBER OF SOCIETY • Increased ability to help other members of the community • Helped support others to dropped out of school to return to school • Increased ability to provide for children/family • Increased responsibility • Decreased time spent idle due to participation in income generating activities • Increased sense of respect from the community due to work on this program SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 61 OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED COMMUNITY JEALOUSY/RETALIATION • Materials that were acquired due to the program were stolen • Community members have expressed criticism or jealousy as to why I was selected to participate in this program • I have been attacked and/or injured by a member of the community as a result of my participation • I have been arrested as a result of my participation in this program Some youth that participated in this program also expressed that they experienced additional negative outcomes relating to their participation in this program. These outcomes were: • Mistrust of programming • Sense of necessity of joining a gang to access the programs resources Ultimately, upon further analysis these outcomes were not included in the final impact map as they did not persist past the end of the program. Table G. 2: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Families of Youth Participants OUTCOME INDICATOR IMPROVED SELF￾SUFFICIENCY OF THE FAMILY • Decreased hunger • Increased food security INCREASED FEELING OF COMMUNITY SAFETY • Increased sense of safety when walking at night • Ability to walk in areas of the community where it was previously too unsafe INCREASED SOCIAL COHESION • Youth now greet other community members respectfully • Increased sense of balance within the community • Improved relationship with rehabilitated youth Table G. 3: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Private Sector Businesses OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED COMMUNITY SAFETY ALLOWING FOR BETTER BUSINESS OPERATIONS • Decreased business disruption resulting from violence Table G. 4: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Trainers OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED SENSE OF FULFILMENT DUE TO PARTICIPATION • Increased personal fulfilment/happiness resulting from participation in program SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 62 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Table G. 5: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for KRC Staff OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED SENSE OF FULFILMENT DUE TO PARTICIPATION Increased personal fulfilment/happiness resulting from participation in program INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Increased program management skills • Increased confidence to engage with the community • Increased inter-personal relationship skills RESULTS – STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION Overall results suggest that for every $1 invested in peacebuilding through the CPEYK Program, between $7 and $13 in Social Value was created when using what program stakeholders said of the value their outcomes (this ranges from $1.35 to $15.76 when conducting a Sensitivity Analysis). The total value created per stakeholder group varies depending upon the valuation used (low vs. high). For youth, the percentage varies between 91% (high valuation) and 88% (low valuation). For private sector businesses, the value created is 4% across both valuations. Finally, staff follow with a range of 8% (low valuation) to 5% (high valuation). Figure G6 presents the relative social value generated at both valuations. Note that while trainers and families experienced outcomes, those outcomes were not monetized and thus not reflected in these figures. Figure G. 1: Distribution of Value Created by Stakeholder Group For each main stakeholder group identified – youth, families of youth participants, private sector businesses, trainers and staff – a set of outcomes that were experienced because of the programming was identified. These identified outcomes were then used during surveys to understand the relative importance of each outcome to the stakeholders. For youth, the relative importance of the outcomes that were experienced follows in Table G6. 88% 4% 8% Low Valuation Youth Private Sector Business Staff 91% 4% 5% High Valuation Youth Private Sector Business Staff SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 63 Table G. 6: Relative Importance of Outcomes for Youth OUTCOME RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO YOUTH Becoming an upstanding member of society 1 Increased networking and opportunities 1 Increased income 1 Increased business skills 3 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 5 Community Jealousy/Retaliation 6 One key insight delivered by this analysis was around the duration of outcomes. Participants were asked to quantify how long after the program ended did they continue to experience the outcome in question on the following scale: a few days, a few weeks, a few months, 1 year, 2 year, 3 years or more than 3 years. It was found that not all groups experienced outcomes that lasted for a full year after the program ended. To establish the duration of each outcome, a weighted average of the answers was calculated using the conversion outlined in Table G7. Note that this was applied to both valuation techniques. Table G. 7: Conversion Chart used to Establish Outcome Duration SURVEY RESPONSE FRACTIONAL YEAR DECIMAL USED TO CALCULATE DURATION A few days 3/365 0.00821918 A few weeks 3/52 0.05769231 A few months 5/12 0.4166667 1 Year 1/1 1 2 Years 2/1 2 3 Years 3/1 3 Outcomes and their durations are presented in Table G8. Table G. 8: Outcomes and their Durations STAKEHOLDER AND OUTCOME OUTCOME DURATION (YEARS) YOUTH PARTICIPANTS Becoming an upstanding member of society 1.26 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 0.76 Increased income 1.06 Increased networking and opportunities 0.79 Increased business skills 1.14 Community jealousy/retaliation 0.69 PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESSES Improved community safety allowing for better business operations 1* TRAINERS Increased job satisfaction 1* SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 64 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV STAKEHOLDER AND OUTCOME OUTCOME DURATION (YEARS) STAFF Increased job satisfaction 1* Increased capacity for peacebuilding 1* * For outcomes that were collected in focus groups and interviews, specific questions to establish duration were not always asked. As a result, it is assumed that these outcomes lasted for 1 year (minimum amount of time used in Social Value International Methodology). To ensure that results align with the Social Value International principle of not overclaiming results, results were adjusted to account for these durations. As the Social Value International Impact Map Template uses years as the unit of analysis, the value created in the first year was multiplied by the fractional year (where there was one) in order to get a more accurate representation of the value created. Using stakeholders-stated preference valuation, all outcomes were able to be monetized. The three outcomes that generated the most value for youth across both low and high valuations were: (1) Increased Networking and Opportunities, (2) Becoming an upstanding member of society and (3) Increased rehabilitation and reformation. Youth also experienced other outcomes (as shown in Figure G2) that created positive social value. Importantly, youth expressed that they experienced an outcome that generated negative social value for them – community jealousy and retaliation. Figure G2 presents all outcomes and their valuations across both low valuations and high valuations. Figures G3 and G4 present these valuations relative to one another. Figure G. 2: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth $1,448,860 $624,929 $624,616 $937,879 $846,693 $(103,174) $2,414,767 $1,158,215 $936,924 $1,563,131 $1,270,040 $(154,761) $(500,000.00) $- $500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $3,000,000.00 Low End Value High End Value SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 65 Figure G. 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Low End Values) Figure G. 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (High End Values) 32% 14% 14% 20% 18% -2% Becoming an Upstanding Member of Society Increased rehabilitation and reformation Increased income Increased networking and opportunities Increased business skills Community jealousy/retaliation 32% 15% 13% 21% 17% -2% Becoming an Upstanding Member of Society Increased rehabilitation and reformation Increased income Increased networking and opportunities Increased business skills Community jealousy/retaliation For families of youth participants, three key outcomes were experienced. These were: (1) increased social cohesion and (2) improved self-sufficiency and (3) increased feelings of community safety. These outcomes were not monetized as a true population size was not available and using an assumed sample size could overstate the SROI of the program. Trainers experienced one key outcome – increased sense of fulfilment due to participation. This outcome was not monetized as per SROI principles (as trainers were remunerated by KRC for their participation this was not monetized). Private sector businesses experienced one key outcome – increased community safety allowing for better business operations. Stakeholders described that through the change in community environment SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 66 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV created through CPEYK they experienced less business disruptions. The valuation for this outcome is presented in Figure G5. Figure G. 5: Value of Outcomes for Private Sector Businesses Staff members working on the CPEYK program also experienced two key outcomes – (1) Increased sense of fulfilment due to participation in the program and (2) increased capacity for peacebuilding. Like the outcomes for trainers, the first outcome could be monetized due to SROI principles. However, the second outcome could be monetized and valuations for this outcome are presented in Figure G6. Figure G. 6: Value of Outcomes for Staff $207,500 $290,500 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 Increased community safety allowing for better business operations Low End Value High End Value $166,000 $415,500 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Low End Valuation High End Valuation SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS To understand how changes to any of the assumptions may affect the overall social value found, a range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. The first scenario tested changes to the attribution assumptions. It was assumed in the analysis that the values for attribution were what stakeholders told us about what amount of the change experienced is caused by CPEYK. Attribution was calculated by asking stakeholders how much of the change that they experienced was caused by the program. Stakeholders responded as follows: none, a little, half or a lot. These were correlated with percentages as follows: none (0%), a little (25%), half (50%) or a lot (75%). A weighted average was then taken to determine an attribution percentage. While CPEYK did contribute to the changes that participants experienced, the reality is that multiple interventions operate in the same communities in which CEPYK operates, potentially contributing to SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 67 CPEYK’s effects in a way that is difficult to tease apart. Therefore, adjusting the assumed attribution values will account for the effect of this potential overlapping. Attribution values were increased from their baseline (surveyed) result by 10% and 25%. The resulting social value can be found in Table G9 (low valuation) and Table G10 (high valuation). Table G. 9: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low Values) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $4,831,372 $4,404,632 $3,391,021 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $4,793,352 $4,330,393 $3,332,553 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $6.48 $1: $5.85 $1: $4.50 Table G. 10: Sensitivity Analysis of based on changes to attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline High Values) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $7,937,614 $6,872,128 $5,273,900 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $7,845,489 $6,730,319 $5,162,713 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $10.60 $1:$9.10 $1: $6.98 Across all levels of attribution, the program has a strong positive SROI. A further sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand how changes to deadweight can also affect the total SROI. The original deadweight assumption was calculated again using a weighted average of stakeholder responses. However, this time stakeholders were asked how much of the change would have occurred in the absence of the program using the same scale. The answers were correlated to the same percentages to allow the calculation of a weighted average. Similarly to attribution, by increasing deadweight values it is testing assumptions on how much change would have occurred in the absence of CPEYK. Change may occur in the absence of one specific program, such as CPEYK due to other factors such as the population growing tired of economic disruption after COVID-19 – understanding how the social value created by CPEYK is affected by this is key to understanding overall social value. Tables G11 and G12 outline how changes to deadweight (+10% from Baseline and +25% from baseline) affect the social value created at both low and high stakeholders-stated preference valuations. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 68 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Table G. 11: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low End) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $4,831,372 $4,465,288 $3,542,661 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $4,793,352 $4,394,670 $3,493,246 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $6.48 $1:$5.94 $1: $4.72 Table G. 12: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline High End) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $7,937,614 $6,974,059 $5,528,728 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $7,845,489 $6,837,819 $5,431,463 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $10.60 $1:$9.24 $1:$7.34 Across all levels of deadweight, the program has a strong positive SROI. A final sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the assumed valuations. Analyses were conducted at 20% of the base case financial proxy, 50% of this proxy and 150% of this proxy in order to test if social value is still created at these levels. Table G13 presents the results of this scenario when testing the low survey proxies and Table G14 presents this for the high survey proxies. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 69 Table G. 13: Sensitivity Analysis of monetized outcomes at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (low end) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY) FINANCIAL PROXY 20% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 50% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 150% OF BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $4,831,372 $1,016,074 $2,540,186 $7,620,558 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $4,793,352 $999,124 $2,497,810 $7,793,430 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $6.48 $1:$1.35 $1:$3.38 $1:$10.13 Table G. 14: Sensitivity Analysis of monetized outcomes at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (high end) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY) FINANCIAL PROXY 20% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 50% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 150% OF BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $7,937,614 $1,587,523 $3,948,807 $11,906,421 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $7,845,489 $1,555,078 $3,887,695 $11,663,085 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $10.60 $1:$2.10 $1:$5.25 $1:$15.76 Across all valuations and scenarios, the program still has a strong positive SROI. Based on the totality of these sensitivity analysis, when using stakeholders-stated preference valuations – CPEYK has a Social Return on Investment Ratio between $1: $2 and $1:$16. RESULTS – COST-BASED VALUATION When estimating the value for outcomes using financial proxies for outcomes based on market rates and other financial proxies identified through the literature search, it was found that for every $1 invested in the program - $1.75 in Social Value is created (with a range of $0.30 to $2.62 after Sensitivity Analysis). When using this strategy, the value created for each stakeholder group is similar to that of the survey valuation approach. The most value is created for youth (87%), followed by staff (8%) and private sector businesses (5%). This is largely consistent with the primary targets of the intervention. The relative importance of outcomes to each stakeholder group did not change from the stakeholders￾stated preference valuations and therefore will not be presented in this section. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 70 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Figure G. 7: Distribution of Value Created for Each Stakeholder (Cost-Based Valuation) In this valuation approach, all outcomes were able to be monetized. The three outcomes that generated the most value for youth were: (1) Becoming an upstanding member of society, (2) Increased rehabilitation and reformation and (3) Increased business skills. Youth also experienced other outcomes (as shown in Figure G8) that created positive social value. Importantly, youth reported an outcome that created negative value – Increased community jealousy and retaliation. Figure G8 presents all outcomes and their values and Figure G9 presents these valuations relative to one another. Figure G. 8: Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Valuation) 87% 8% 5% Youth Families KRC Staff Private Sector Business Trainers $251,083 $923,781 $22,718 $41,432 $178,520 $(139,746) $(200,000.00) $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 71 Figure G. 9: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Valuation) Similarly to the approach for stakeholders-stated preference valuation – outcomes for both families of youth participants and trainers could not be monetized. As explained earlier, monetizing these outcomes would not be consistent with SROI principles. Private sector businesses experienced one key outcome – increased security allowing for better business operations. This valuation is presented in Figure G10. Figure G. 10: Value of Outcomes for Private Sector Businesses (Cost-Based Valuation) 16% 59% 1% 3% 12% -9% Becoming an Upstanding Member of Society Increased rehabilitation and reformation Increased income Increased networking and opportunities Increased business skills Community jealousy/retaliation $2,971 $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 Increased community safety allowing for better business operations Finally, the approach for valuing the outcomes experienced by staff is consistent with the stakeholders￾stated preference valuation. Recall, only one of the two outcomes – increased capacity for peacebuilding can be monetized in order to stay consistent with SROI principles. The valuation is presented in figure G11. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 72 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Figure G. 11: Value of Outcomes for Staff (Cost-Based Valuation) SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS To understand how changes to any of the assumptions made affect the overall social value created, a range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. The same analyses were conducted on the literature valuations as were done on the stakeholders-stated preference valuations. To summarize, the following were tested: 1) Changes to attribution (+10% and +25% to base case) 2) Changes to deadweight (+10% and +25% to base case) 3) Changes to valuation (20%, 50% and 150% of base case) The base case for attribution and deadweight were the levels established through stakeholders, and for financial proxies it was the valuation established through the literature. Results for each of the sensitivity analyses are presented in Tables G15-17. Table G. 15: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Attribution (Cost-Based) (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $1,294,917 $1,324,289 $1,016,882 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $554,917 $1,107,520 $882,519 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$1.75 $1:$1.50 $1:$1.15 Across all levels of attribution, the program has a positive SROI. $16,642 $- $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 73 Table G. 16: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Deadweight (Cost-Based) (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $1,294,917 $1,123,254 $882,446 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $554,917 $383,254 $142,446 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$1.75 $1:$1.52 $1: $1.19 Across all levels of deadweight, the program has a positive SROI. Table G. 17: Sensitivity Analysis of Monetized Outcomes at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (Cost-based) BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 20% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 50% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 150% OF BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $1,294,917 $258,984 $872,143 $1,942,407 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $554,917 $-481.016 $132,142 $1,202,407 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$1.75 $1:$0.35 $1:$1.18 $1:$2.62 At both 50% and 150% of scenarios, the program has a positive SROI. However, at 20% the analysis shows a negative ratio. This is not likely due to the program diminishing social value for participants but rather a combination of factors including a high budget figure used for calculations. Based on the totality of these sensitivity analyses, when using cost-based valuation – CPEYK has a Social Return on Investment Ratio between $1: $0.35 and $1: $3. RESULTS – STAKEHOLDER STATED PREFERENCE (POST-ELECTION) As previously mentioned, the timeframe of this analysis afforded the unique ability to understand how the 2022 Kenyan national elections influenced the value of outcomes, through repeating the Social Return on Analysis process. Results from the analysis show that for every $1 invested in CPEYK between $7 and $13 in value was created. To understand the value that was created in context of the election, outcomes were valued based on stakeholders-stated preferences. This ratio changed to $1: $1.35 and $1: $16 when conducting a sensitivity analysis. Due to limitations within the data collected (number of responses), the relative social value created for each stakeholder group is not clear. However, presented below are the valuations and sensitivity analyses for the results that were able to be collected and monetized. The stakeholder groups that results can be presented for are: youth and staff. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 74 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV In this monetization approach, all outcomes for youth were able to be monetized. When compared to the pre-election period, there is a shift in the outcomes that have created the most value for youth. In the post-election period these are: (1) Increased networking and opportunities, (2) Becoming an upstanding member of society and (3) Increased business skills. All valuations in this period are shown in Figure G12. Figure G. 12: Value of Outcomes for Youth Pre- and Post- Election (Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuation) $1,156,356 $928,907 $590,113 $1,186,571 $744,391 $(280,125) $1,156,356 $928,907 $885,169 $1,186,571 $1,116,587 $(280,125) $1,927,260 $1,548,179 $885,169 $1,977,618 $1,116,587 $(280,125) $1,927,260 $1,548,179 $1,475,282 $1,977,618 $1,860,979 $(280,125) Low Valuation Pre-Election Low Valuation Post-Election High Valuation Pre-Election High Valuation Post-Election These results demonstrate that in the post-election period, there is a significant growth in value creation. There is a marked shift in the relative value of outcomes during the post-election period. The relative value of outcomes at both low and high valuations is presented in Figure G13. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 75 Figure G. 13: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations) Analysis also included how the election affected the outcomes that staff members working on the CPEYK program experienced. Based on this, it is evident that staff also had increased social value created for them during the election period. Figure G14 compares this value to pre-election valuations. Figure G. 14: Value of Outcomes Pre- and Post-Election for Staff (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) 21% 17% 16% 21% 20% -5% Low Valuation Post-Election Becoming an Upstanding Member of Society Increased rehabilitation and reformation Increased income Increased networking and opportunities Increased business skills 21% 17% 16% 22% 21% -3% High Valuation Post-Election Becoming an Upstanding Member of Society Increased rehabilitation and reformation Increased income Increased networking and opportunities Increased business skills $415,000 $415,000 $415,500 $622,500 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Increased capacity for peacebuilding Low Valuation Pre-Election Low Valuation Post-Election High Valuation Pre-Election High Valuation Post-Election SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 76 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Consistent with both pre-election scenarios, sensitivity analysis was conducted to ensure the robustness of the data presented. The sensitivity analyses were conducted on both low and high valuations obtained from the post-election surveys and tested the following scenarios follows: 1) Testing levels of attribution (+10% and +25% from Base Case) 2) Testing levels of deadweight (+10% and +25% from Base Case) 3) Testing levels of valuation (20%, 50% and 150% of Base Case). The results are presented in the following tables: 1) Attribution – Tables G18 and G19 2) Deadweight – Tables G20 and G21 3) Valuation – Tables G22 and G23 Table G. 18: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Attribution (Post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low End Values) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $5,565,734 $4,330,393 $3,332,553 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $4,825,734 $3,590,393 $2,592,553 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $7.52 $1: $5.85 $1: $4.50 Table G. 19: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Attribution (post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline High End Values) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $9,275,840 $7,997,840 $6,104,177 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $8,535,840 $7,237,840 $5,364,177 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$12.53 $1:$10.78 $1: $8.25 Based on this sensitivity analysis, at all levels of attribution the program has a strong positive SROI in the post-election period. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 77 Table G. 20: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Deadweight (post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline Low End Values) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $5,565,734 $4,394,670 $3,493,246 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $4,825,734 $3,654,670 $2,753,246 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $7.52 $1: $5.94 $1: $4.72 Table G. 21: Sensitivity Analysis based on changes to Deadweight (post-election) (+10% and +25% from Baseline High End Values) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $9,275,840 $8,150,315 $6,535,364 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $8,535,840 $7,410,315 $5,795,364 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$12.53 $1:$11.01 $1:$8.83 Again, the results of this sensitivity analysis demonstrate that the program generated a strong positive Social Return on Investment in the Post-Election period. Table G. 22: Sensitivity Analysis based on Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (post-election) (Low End Values) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY) FINANCIAL PROXY 20% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 50% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 150% OF BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $5,565,734 $999,124 $2,497,810 $7,493,430 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $4,825,734 $259,124 $1,757.810 $6,753,430 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $7.52 $1:$1.35 $1:$3.38 $1:$10.96 SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 78 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Table G. 23: Sensitivity Analysis based on Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case (post-election) (high end values) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY) FINANCIAL PROXY 20% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 50% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 150% OF BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $9,275,840 $1,569,925 $3,924,812 $11,774,435 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $8,535,840 $829,925 $3,184,812 $11,034,435 TOTAL INVESTMENT $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 $740,000 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$12.53 $1:$2.12 $1:$5.30 $1:$15.91 Based on the results of this sensitivity analysis, there is positive social value generated across all levels of valuation. Based on the totality of these sensitivity analysis, when using stakeholder valuations in the post-election context– CPEYK has a Social Return on Investment Ratio between $1: $1.35 and $1: $16. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 79 ANNEX H: IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT For each outcome that it seeks to deliver or understand, the program faces impact risks. According to the Impact Management Program 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 and financial proxy used in this analysis is 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: • 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. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 80 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV Table H. 1: Impact Risk Assessment STAKEHOLDER AND OUTCOME IMPACT RISK LIKELIHOOD IMPACT RISK CONSEQUENCES OVERALL IMPACT RISK RATING Youth Participants Changed relationship with police 3 2 5 Increased capacity 3 1 4 Increased empowerment 3 1 4 Increased inclusion in in peace- and decision-making processes 3 1 4 Increased networking and opportunities 3 2 5 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 3 2 5 Community Influencers Increased capacity for peacebuilding 4 1 5 Increased networking and opportunities 4 2 6 Engaged Listeners Increased collaboration with other youth to solve problems 4 2 5 Increased capacity for peacebuilding 4 1 4 Security Actors Increased capacity for peacebuilding 4 1 4 Staff Increased capacity for peacebuilding 3 1 4 Average 3.4 1.4 4.58 The overall assessment of the risk that the evidence is inaccurate, and of the severity of the consequences of that inaccuracy to stakeholders experiencing the impact of this program, is 4.58 out of 10. SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 81 ANNEX I: COST-BASED VALUATION SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS Table I. 1: Cost-Based Valuation Financial Proxy Sources and Related Assumptions WELL￾DEFINED OUTCOME FINANCIAL PROXY SOURCES RELATED ASSUMPTIONS Being an Upstanding Member of Society 20 % of value of a mentor's time (Converted from AUD to USD & Kenyan PPP) https://www.niaa.gov.au/sites/defaul t/files/publications/indigenous/Yout h-Prevention-and-Diversion￾Circular-Head-Aboriginal￾Corporation/pdf/CHAC_YPD_For ecast_SROI_PDF.pdf SROI of Prevention and Diversion efforts for Indigenous Youth in Australia. Valued the time of mentorship over 5 years, as program participants only participated in this study over 1 year, can only take 20% of the value. Financial Proxy in AUD, Converted to USD using 0.66 AUD: USD (as of 1/10/2022) then to Kenyan PPP as 43.8 LCU/INT) Increased Rehabilitation and reformation Avoided costs to the state associated with reduced costs of re-offending and reduced substance abuse (EUR converted to USD, Converted to Kenyan PPP) https://socialvalueuk.org/wp￾content/uploads/2018/12/Final￾Report-3-March-2017.pdf SROI analysis of Youth Programs in Ireland monetized this outcome as the sum of the value of reduced costs to the criminal justice and health systems of re-offending Youth and reduced substance Abuse Used EUR to USD to conversion of 1:1 as of (1/10/2022) then used conversion of 43.8 LCU/INT to for Kenyan PPP Increased Income Increases in income resulting from the program Program provided data N/A Increased Networking Opportunities Cost of Joining Toastmasters for One Year https://www.toastmasters.org/mem bership/my-first-meeting Local Kenyan Toastmasters did not publish localized prices as of (1/10/2022), market rate established with prices published by Toastmasters international Increased Business Skills and Capacity Cost of One Vocational Education Course in Kenya https://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/def ault/files/2019-01/ie37-kenya￾vocational-education.pdf 2019 SROI analysis of Vocational Education Vouchers in Kenya established this as the market rate for vocational education in Kenya as this was the value of the vouchers given to participants. Increased Community Jealousy and Retaliation Prorated Average Cash Value of tools and materials provided by Kenya Red Cross Program Provided data Program provided the total cash values of tools and materials provided to participants by Kenya Red Cross. Prorated by 25% as 4 year intervention and analysis only covered 1 year. Increased Social Cohesion . - Not monetized as a population size could not be determined Improved self￾sufficiency of the family - - Not monetized as a population size could not be determined Increased feeling of community safety - - Not monetized as a population size could not be determined SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC 82 | OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) USAID.GOV WELL￾DEFINED OUTCOME FINANCIAL PROXY SOURCES RELATED ASSUMPTIONS Improved community safety allowing for better business operations Per capita economic gains associated with reductions in gang violence in the local area (El Salvador PPP in USD, Converted to Kenyan PPP) https://www.nber.org/digest/20201 2/gang-culture-and-economic￾development-evidence-el-salvador USD used as basis for Proxy, converted to USD PPP using 0.46 LCU/INT then to Kenyan PPP using 43.8 LCU/INT. Increased sense of fulfillment due to participation in the program (Trainers) - - Not monetized due to SROI principles Increased sense of fulfillment due to participation in the program (Staff) - - Not monetized to SROI principles Increased capacity for peacebuilding (Staff) Market rate for professional peacebuilding education https://www.undp.org/jposc/course s-governance￾peacebuilding?utm_source=EN&ut m_medium=GSR&utm_content=U S_UNDP_PaidSearch_Brand_Englis h&utm_campaign=CENTRAL&c_sr c=CENTRAL&c_src2=GSR&gclid= CjwKCAjwg5uZBhATEiwAhhRLHq mu7BFMrr8J￾cjfyPQDwhJPUKkp8ZzrVx1hAApX QMhjW Assumed that knowledge gained through participation of Security Actors is more than what would be gained through introductory course. Average cost of all courses listed by UNDP as professional peacebuilding education (converting to USD from CHF, EUR and GBP all at 1:1 on 1/10/2022). KENYAN PPP CONVERSION: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PPP?locations=KE Logical Basis for PPP Conversion: https://littlebighelp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SROI-2020- LittleBigHelp-Boys-Home.pdf SROI EVALUATION OF CONFLICT PREVENTION, PEACE, AND ECONOMIC USAID.GOV OPPORTUNITES FOR THE YOUTH IN KENYA (CPEYK) | 83 ANNEX J: LIST OF EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS Table J. 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