KENYA SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT STUDY: SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA 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 PROJECT INUKA February 14, 2023 Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016 Tasking N052 Submitted to: Matt Baker, USAID COR Submitted by: Shubha Kumar, Research Team Leader & SROI Expert Sara Olsen, SROI Expert Aaron Mallett, Research Analyst Saji Prelis, Youth, Peace, and Security Expert Contractor: NORC at the University of Chicago Bethesda, MD 20814 Attention: Matthew Parry E-mail: parry-matthew@norc.org Cover Photo Credit: The cover photo was captured by the research team during a focus group in Kenya conducted as part of this study. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI EVALUATION DESIGN VI MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS VII EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY 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) OF THE PROJECT? VIII EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE SROI ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? IX EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 1 PURPOSE 1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 2 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 3 DESK REVIEW 4 ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 4 THEORY OF CHANGE WORKSHOP 4 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 4 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 5 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 8 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 VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? 12 EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OF PROJECT INUKA? 17 EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE SROI ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? 17 RECOMMENDATIONS 18 CONCLUSIONS 19 ANNEXES 20 ii | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV ANNEX A: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 21 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 21 ANNEX B: DETAILED METHODOLOGY 30 ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE (ENGLISH VERSION) 31 ANNEX D: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS FOR EACH STAKEHOLDER (ENGLISH VERSIONS) 34 SURVEY – YOUTH 34 SURVEY – ENGAGED LISTENERS OF RADIO PROGRAMMING 44 SURVEY – YOUTH (POST-ELECTION) 49 SURVEY – COMMUNITY INFLUENCERS (POST-ELECTION) 51 SURVEY – ENGAGED LISTENERS OF RADIO PROGRAMMING (POST-ELECTION) 53 SURVEY – PROJECT STAFF (POST-ELECTION) 54 ANNEX E: IMPACT MAP (CONDENSED) STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION 56 ANNEX F: IMPACT MAP (CONDENSED) COST-BASED VALUATION 59 ANNEX G: DETAILED RESULTS 61 WELL DEFINED OUTCOMES 61 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 69 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 76 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 82 ANNEX H: IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT 85 RUBRIC FOR IMPACT RISK: EVIDENCE 85 EVIDENCE RISK RATING: LIKELIHOOD OF ACCURACY 85 EVIDENCE RISK RATING: CONSEQUENCES 85 ANNEX I: FINANCIAL PROXY SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS 87 ANNEX J: LIST OF EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS 89 TABLES Box 1: Evaluation Findings..................................................................................................................................... viii Box 2: Evaluation Recommendations.................................................................................................................... ix Table 1: List of Items Presented to Stakeholders to Establish Their Valuations.........................................6 Table 2: List of Items and their Corresponding Valuations..............................................................................6 Table 3: Key Stakeholders of Inuka 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)...............................................................30 Table B. 2: Social Value Principles (Adapted from SVI, 2022)........................................................................30 Table E. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Stakeholder-Stated Preference Valuation (Low End Values)....56 Table E. 2: Condensed Impact Map – Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (High End Values)..57 Table F. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Cost-Based Valuation .........................................................................59 Table G. 1: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Youth ....................................................................61 Table G. 2: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Engaged Listeners ..............................................61 Table G. 3: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Community Influencers....................................62 Table G. 4: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Security Actors...................................................62 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | iii Table G. 5: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Search for Common Ground Staff ................62 Table G. 6: Relative Importance of Outcomes for Youth ..............................................................................63 Table G. 7: Relative Importance of Outcomes for Engaged Listeners of Radio Programming..............63 Table G. 8: Conversion Chart used to Establish Outcome Duration .........................................................64 Table G. 9: Outcomes and their Durations.......................................................................................................64 Table G. 10: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (low values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline) .........................................................70 Table G. 11: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (high values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline) .........................................................70 Table G. 12: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (low values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline)........................................................71 Table G. 13: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (high values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline)........................................................71 Table G. 14: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (low values) at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case..............................................................................................................72 Table G. 15: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (high values) at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case..............................................................................................................72 Table G. 16: Sensitivity Analysis of Cost-Based financial proxies based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline).....................................................................................................77 Table G. 17: Sensitivity Analysis of Cost-based Financial Proxies based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline).....................................................................................................77 Table G. 18: Sensitivity Analysis of Cost-based Financial Proxies at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case77 Table G. 19: Most Valuable Outcomes for Youth Pre- and Post-Election .................................................78 Table G. 20: Sensitivity Analysis of Post-Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (low values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline)..........................82 Table G. 21: Sensitivity Analysis of Post-Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (high values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline)..........................83 Table G. 22: Sensitivity Analysis of Post- Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (low values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline) ........................83 Table G. 23: Sensitivity Analysis of Post-Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (high values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline) ........................83 Table G. 24: Sensitivity Analysis based on Post-Election Low Survey Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case.......................................................................................................................84 Table G. 25: Sensitivity Analysis based on Post-Election High Survey Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case.......................................................................................................................84 Table H. 1: Impact Evidence Risk Rating .............................................................................................................86 Table I. 1: Cost-Based Valuation Financial Proxy Sources and Related Assumptions..............................87 Table J. 1: List of Expert Advisory Group Members........................................................................................89 FIGURES Figure 1: SROI Analysis Process..............................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Map of Well-Defined Outcomes for Project Inuka.........................................................................11 Figure 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (n=49)................................................................................14 Figure 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (n=16) ..............................................14 Figure 5: Relative Value of Outcomes for Community Influencers (n=24)................................................15 iv | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure 6: Relative Value of Outcomes for Program Staff (n=8).....................................................................15 Figure 7: Relative Value of Outcomes for Security Actors (n=1).................................................................15 Figure 8: Relative Value Created for Stakeholder Group...............................................................................16 Figure 9: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (n=49) ......................................................16 Figure 10: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners Post-Election (n=16) ..................16 Figure 11: Relative Value of Outcomes for Program Staff Post-Election (n=8).........................................17 Figure G. 1: Distribution of Value Created for Stakeholder Group (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation).............................................................................................................................................62 Figure G. 2: Value of Outcomes for Youth (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation – Pre￾Election)................................................................................................................................................65 Figure G. 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation: Low End)........................................................................................................................................................65 Figure G. 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation: High End)........................................................................................................................................................66 Figure G. 5: Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation).............................................................................................................................................66 Figure G. 6: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation)........................................................................................................................67 Figure G. 7: Value of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation).............................................................................................................................................67 Figure G. 8: Relative Values of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation)........................................................................................................................68 Figure G. 9: Value of Outcomes for Security Actors (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) .....68 Figure G. 10: Valuation of Outcomes for Search for Common Ground Staff (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation Pre-Election)................................................................................................69 Figure G. 11: Distribution of Value Created for Stakeholders (Cost-Based Valuation)..........................73 Figure G. 12: Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Valuation)..........................................................73 Figure G. 13: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Valuation)..........................................74 Figure G. 14: Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Cost-Based Valuation)........................74 Figure G. 15: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Cost-Based Valuation)........74 Figure G. 16: Value of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Cost-Based Valuation)..........................75 Figure G. 17: Relative Values of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Cost-Based Valuation)........75 Figure G. 18: Value of Outcomes for Security Actors (Cost-Based Valuation)........................................76 Figure G. 19: Valuation of Outcomes for Staff (Cost-Based Valuation)......................................................76 Figure G. 20: Value of Outcomes for Youth Pre- and Post- Election (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation).............................................................................................................................................79 Figure G. 21: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations) ...........................................................................................................................................80 Figure G. 22: Values of outcomes for Engaged Listeners Pre- and Post-Election (Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuation)........................................................................................................................81 Figure G. 23: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners Post-Election...........................81 Figure G. 24: Value of Outcomes Pre- and Post-Election for Staff (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation).............................................................................................................................................82 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | v ACRONYMS DRG-LER II Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance – Learning, Evaluation, and Research Activity EQ Evaluation Question FGD Focus Group Discussion KII Key Informant Interview IIGH Institute on Inequalities in Global Health NORC National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago SFCG Search for Common Ground SROI Social Return on Investment SVI Social Value International USAID United States Agency for International Development USC University of Southern California vi | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Institute on Inequalities in Global Health (IIGH) at the University of Southern California (USC), in collaboration with Search for Common Ground, was supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through NORC at the University of Chicago to develop a proof of concept to assess the social value, including quantifying the impact, of youth-led and youth-supporting peace and security efforts in Kenya using the social return on investment (SROI) model. SROI is a framework for measuring and accounting for the value of an intervention, organization or policy. It measures changes that are relevant to the people that contribute to and experience them by capturing the value of social, economic, and environmental outcomes, and uses monetary values to represent these outcomes. As part of the proof of concept, a call was initiated for youth-led and youth-supporting peace and security efforts in Kenya interested in participating in the study to be evaluated according to the SROI methodology. Response to the call resulted in a list of approximately 300 interventions which were reviewed and shortlisted for participation by the research team based on certain criteria (i.e., whether the project was youth-led or youth-supporting, the number of beneficiaries and key stakeholder groups affected, how long the project lasted, key project activities, project location(s), availability of data, etc.) and availability of resources to conduct the study. One of the four interventions selected was Project Inuka and is the focus of this report. Project Inuka was implemented in Kenya during 2018-2021 by Search for Common Ground, in partnership with Kiunga Youth Bunge Initiative (KYBI), Human Rights Agenda (HURIA), Humanity Action Knowledge Integrity in Africa (HAKI Africa), and Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI). 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 Project Inuka. 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 project? 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 133 documents as well as data collection using mixed methods. This included focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and quantitative online surveys. Data was collected between June 2022 – October 2022. At the outset of the evaluation, members of the research team conducted discussions with the staff of the intervention to define the scope of the analysis, including the identification of main activities, key stakeholders and how best to engage them. In addition, a theory of change workshop was conducted with project staff to identify from their perspectives what were the key outcomes of the intervention and their underlying assumptions. A map of the “well-defined outcomes,” meaning specific changes in wellbeing experienced by stakeholder groups “that provide the best opportunity to increase or decrease USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 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, community influencers, security actors, engaged radio listeners, and program staff. It included 7 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) (2 with youth, 2 with community influencers, 2 with engaged radio listeners, and 1 with project staff), and 1 key informant interview (KII) with a security actor. 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 and engaged listeners of radio programming, to obtain more representative samples. Sixty-three (63) 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. Thirty (30) respondents completed the surveys including youth, engaged listeners of radio programming and 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) viii | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Box 1: Evaluation Findings EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? Key stakeholders of this intervention are: • Youth participants • Community influencers • Engaged listeners of radio programming • Security actors • Project staff EQ2: WHAT OUTCOMES DO KEY STAKEHOLDERS EXPERIENCE? Youth experienced: • Changed relationship with police • Increased rehabilitation and reformation • Increased networking and opportunities • Increased inclusion of youth in peace- and decision-making processes • Increased empowerment • Increased capacity for peacebuilding Community influencers experienced: • Increased capacity for peacebuilding • Increased networking and opportunities Engaged listeners of radio programming experienced: • Increased collaboration to solve problems • Increased capacity for peacebuilding Security actors experienced: • Increased capacity for peacebuilding Project staff experienced: • Increased capacity for peacebuilding EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE OUTCOMES TO KEY STAKEHOLDERS? Based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation; • Youth most valued their increased networking and opportunities, • Community influencers most valued their increased networking and opportunities and equally their increased capacity for peacebuilding, • Engaged listeners of radio programming most valued their increased capacity for peacebuilding, • Security actors most valued their increased capacity for peacebuilding, and, • Project staff most valued their increased capacity for peacebuilding. EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OF THE PROJECT? USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | ix Findings suggest a strong positive impact of the project. Results of the cost-based valuation using literature, which is traditionally how economic analyses are done, suggest that for every $1 invested in the project, approximately $1.15 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $0.23 to $1.72). 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 project, suggest that for every $1 invested in the project, approximately $2.33-$9.10 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $0.47 to $13.76). Results of the stakeholders-stated preference valuation in the context of the national elections suggest that for every $1 invested in the project, approximately $6.10-$12.66 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $1.22 to $18.77). EQ5: HOW CAN THE RESULTS OF THE SROI ANALYSIS BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE PROGRAMMING? 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 project to increase value in the future. They are: 1) Programming should be designed in consultation with key stakeholders. Participants expressed that they may have had more value through additional engagement methods. For example, participants told the research team that including activities for economic empowerment (such as training in income￾generating activities or support with finding paid jobs) and psycho-social support (such as group therapy for those who have experienced trauma) could be beneficial to them. 2) Include longer-term engagement across all activities. The activities that tend to generate the most value are those that occur over longer periods of time, and this should be taken into account in future programming and resource allocation. 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. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 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 Project Inuka, 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 project? 5) How can the results of the SROI analysis be used to improve future programming? 2 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV PROJECT BACKGROUND Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in community peace and security efforts in Coastal Kenya (Inuka) was implemented by Search for Common Ground, HAKI Africa, Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI), Human Rights Agenda (HURIA), and Kiunga Youth Bunge Initiative (KYBI) from January 2018 to May 2021 in the Coast Region of Kenya (Kilifi, Mombasa, Kwale and Lamu Counties). It was funded by the European Union’s External Action Service (EEAS) Instrument Contributing to Peace and Stability (IcSP). 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. Inuka targeted 2,000 youth aged 18-35 to participate in its activities. The activities of Inuka were organized into 3 main streams: 1. Capacity-building, coordination and networking activities for community-based youth and youth groups. This included activities such as: • Training on conflict identification and transformation • Youth-led training restitutions and group discussions • Youth leadership training • Peace and security information sessions 2. Outreach and media activities involving adults in communities about the potential of at-risk youth to positively contribute to peace and security. This included activities such as: • Radio programs intended to amplify project messaging • Social media messaging • Adult outreach/sensitization workshops led by youth • Town hall meetings • Deployment of ICT Cards to Fisherman in Lamu County to support with identification 3. Action-oriented activities, among and between youth, and between youth and local leaders, to support community peace and security efforts. This included activities such as: • Dialogues between youth and security actors • Youth peace and security dialogues • Advocacy visits • Youth-led community initiatives The objectives of the project were: 1. Strengthening the capacity of and coordination among community-based youth and youth groups to be more active and effective in peace and security efforts in their communities 2. Increasing the awareness of target communities of the potential of at-risk youth to positively contribute to peace and security. 3. Creating opportunities for at-risk youth to engage with youth peers and with local leadership in support of community peace and security efforts. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 3 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 project. This included a stakeholder-centric mixed-methods approach including a document review and qualitative and quantitative data collection to generate credible evidence to answer the evaluation questions. The design included focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs), and quantitative online surveys with key stakeholders. Local research staff worked closely with USC to validate instruments and translate them from English to Kiswahili for data collection. Figure 1 provides a high-level overview of the SROI analysis process. An extended methodology section can be found in Annex B – Extended Methodology. 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 4 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 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 Project Inuka provided by Search for Common Ground including interim and final evaluation reports. In total, 133 documents (3 reports provided by project staff and 130 from a literature search) were reviewed to either provide context or provide further evidence to support findings for the evaluation questions. ESTABLISHING THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS At the outset of the evaluation, members of the research team conducted discussions with the staff of the intervention to define the scope of the analysis. This stage included identifying the key activities that were part of the intervention, the time period over which they occurred, and their locations, and which of those would be included in the analysis. In addition, this stage included identifying the key stakeholders of the intervention and the best methods for engagement with key stakeholders for data collection. THEORY OF CHANGE WORKSHOP Members of the research team conducted a theory of change workshop with project staff to identify from their perspectives what were the key outcomes of the intervention and their underlying assumptions. A map of well-defined outcomes was developed through engagement with all key stakeholders to understand from each of their perspectives the outcomes they experienced, including intended and unintended, and any positive and negative outcomes. (Given the focus was on identifying key outcomes, and not so strictly the cause and effect over time to the extent that formal theories of change typically do, this resulted in a map of well-defined outcomes instead of a traditional theory of change diagram.) QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS. Five moderators conducted a total of 7 FGDs with key stakeholders of the intervention. Two FGDs were conducted with youth, 2 with community influencers, 2 with engaged listeners of the radio programming, and 1 with project staff. The purpose of the FGDs was to understand from stakeholders’ perspectives what were the key outcomes they experienced as a result of the intervention, how they would describe the changes they experienced (indicators), how long outcomes lasted (duration), their relative importance or value, what would have happened 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. Six of the focus groups were conducted in-person while the 7th (with project staff) was conducted online via Zoom. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS. The local research team also conducted semi-structured KIIs with additional key stakeholders of the intervention who were unable to be engaged via focus groups USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 5 including security actors. In total, 1 KIIs was conducted. The purpose of the KII was similar to the purpose of the FDGs and the same instrument was used. Thee interview was conducted via Google Meet. 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 and engaged listeners of radio programming) that experienced the outcomes identified during the qualitative data collection phase, along with how long outcomes lasted (duration), their relative importance or value, what would have happened anyways without the intervention (deadweight), how much of the outcomes they experienced they would attribute to the intervention (attribution), if the outcomes dropped off over time (drop-off), etc. Online surveys were translated into Kiswahili and programmed in Kobo Collect. Sixty-three (63) 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 6 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 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 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 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 7 Items for Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuation Value in Kenyan Shillings (KSh) Value in United States Dollars (USD) 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. 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 was 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 55 stakeholders participated in the final 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. Thirty (30) respondents completed the surveys including youth, engaged listeners, community influencers and project staff. Data was cleaned and analyzed using Excel. An additional SROI ratio in the context of the elections was calculated based on this data. 8 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV REPORTING AND USING RESULTS Final results were presented to project staff and additional key stakeholders in December 2022. This included discussion of how the results can be used, including key strengths of the interventions as well as recommendations to inform the strategic design of future programming to grow more social value. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS The following assumptions were made when conducting this analysis: 1. Scope. While the intervention was implemented in multiple counties, this analysis focused on the programming in Mombasa only (given limits on human and financial resources to conduct the study). In addition, this analysis only included a subset of activities implemented in Mombasa, focusing on those activities that occurred over a longer time period and were therefore more likely to have a sustained and recognizable outcome. The activities included in the analysis were: radio programming, training on conflict identification and transformation, and youth leadership training and youth-led training restitutions and group discussions. 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 $396,300 according to data provided by SFCG staff. However, an estimated budget for the subset of activities in Mombasa included in the analysis was not available. As such, the research team used the total budget amount for Mombasa when calculating the results, which is likely to result in an underestimation of the SROI ratio. 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 displacement. 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 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 9 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 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. Environmental Factors. Factors such as the national election in Kenya led to difficulties in data collection with security actors in particular. Multiple interviews had to be delayed or cancelled as security actors were busier and more difficult to reach around this period. The research team extended the data collection timeline and was able to conduct one of the planned interviews, however, this environmental factor could have influenced the quality of data collected from the respondent due to distractions or incomplete responses. 7. Timing of the Analysis. Generally, peacebuilding interventions seek to create long-term community change through their actions. The intervention analyzed ended within the 12 months preceding the analysis. While this timeframe may lend to more accurate recall of the impacts of the program by its participants than if the study were done later, longer-term outcomes that may have been created by the program were not yet possible to observe and analyze. 8. 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. 10 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS FINDINGS EQ1: WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS OF THE INTERVENTION? Project staff identified key stakeholders of the intervention, including all groups who participated in programming, those who were involved with the coordination and delivery of the project, and any other parties who were significantly affected by the project. In addition, to ensure that any other stakeholders or sub-groups of stakeholders were not missing, participants were asked during qualitative data collection to identify other groups who they felt may be affected by the programming. The groups who were deemed to be materially affected based on (1) staff report, (2) self-reported outcomes from the qualitative data collection, and/or (3) identification by parties included in the qualitative data collection were then included in the analysis. Table 3 summarizes each stakeholder group, their relationship to the project and the rationale for inclusion or exclusion from the analysis. Table 3: Key Stakeholders of Inuka and Inclusion or Exclusion from SROI Analysis Stakeholder Group Description Rationale for Inclusion or Exclusion Youth Program beneficiaries Included as intended beneficiary of programming Engaged Listeners of Radio Programs Program beneficiaries Included as intended beneficiary of programming Community Influencers Program beneficiaries Included as intended beneficiary of programming State Actors (Security Actors) Indirect beneficiaries Included as indirect beneficiary of programming Program Staff Provider of programming Included as affecting and affected by programming European Union Instrument Contributing to Peace and Security 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 Interview Number of Respondents to Survey Number of Respondents to Post-Election Survey Youth 160 24 49* 13* Engaged Listeners of Radio Programming 50 24 16* 11* Community Influencers 24 24 - 0 Security Actors 30 1 - Not surveyed Project Staff 8 8 - 6 *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. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 11 Figure 2: Map of Well-Defined Outcomes for Project Inuka Time Youth SFCGStaff Program Activities Increased rehabilitation and reformation Increased capacity for peacebuilding Increased networking and opportunities Inclusion of youth in peace- and decision￾making Processes Changed relationship with police Increased capacity for peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Increased networking and opportunities Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased capacity for peacebuilding Engaged Listeners Community Influencers Increased empowerment Security Actors Increased capacity for peacebuilding 12 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV EQ3: WHAT IS THE RELATIVE VALUE 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. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 13 Table 5: Condensed Impact Map (Cost-Based Valuation Using Literature) 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 Changed Relationship with Police 150 Value of Never Being Arrested (HACT, Converted to Kenyan PPP) $2,594.28 23% 0% 27% -57% $218,736.72 Increased capacity for peacebuilding 157 Cost of introductory peacebuilding course $200.00 23% 0% 27% -61% $17,604.49 Increased Empowerment 147 Cost to join football team/year $333.00 28% 0% 31% -62% $24,263.71 Inclusion of Youth in Peace- and Decision-Making Processes 147 Willingness to be a leader in the community (AUD converted to USD + Kenyan PPP) $3,088.05 34% 0% 25% -58% $224,192.43 Increased Networking Opportunities 150 Cost of Joining Toastmasters for One Year $110.00 23% 0% 27% -63% $9,274.65 Increased Rehabilitation and reformation 129 Avoided costs to the State associated with reduced costs of re-offending and reduced substance abuse $3,310.00 28% 0% 23% -53% $236,164.76 Community Influencers Increased capacity for peacebuilding 24 Cost of introductory peacebuilding course $200.00 0% 0% 0% 0% $4,800.00 Increased Networking and Opportunities 24 Cost of Joining Toastmasters for One Year $110.00 0% 0% 25% 0% $1,980.00 Engaged Listeners Increased capacity for peacebuilding 50 Cost of introductory peacebuilding course $200.00 40% 0% 29% -43% $4,260.00 Increased collaboration to solve problems 50 Value of improved peer relations $3,511.00 38% 0% 29% -58% $77,277.11 Security Actors Increased capacity for peacebuilding 28 Market rate for professional peacebuilding education $1,664.24 0% 0% 0% 0% $46,598.67 Staff Increased capacity for peacebuilding 11 Market rate for professional peacebuilding education $1,664.24 0% 0% 0% 0% $18,306.62 14 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV The relative value of outcomes experienced by each stakeholder according to stakeholders-stated preference are presented in Figures 2-6. Figure 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (n=49) $68,567 $128,013 $131,640 $98,628 $199,729 $81,279 $102,850 $213,356 $263,280 $164,380 $399,458 $135,465 $- $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $400,000.00 $450,000.00 Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation Low End Valuation High End Valuation Figure 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (n=16) $22,730 $13,049 $34,095 $19,573 $0.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $35,000.00 $40,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Low End Valuation High End Valuation USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 15 Figure 5: Relative Value of Outcomes for Community Influencers (n=24) $44,820.00 $44,820.00 $1,045,800 $1,045,800 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased Networking and Opportunities Low End Valuation High End Valuation Figure 6: Relative Value of Outcomes for Program Staff (n=8) $91,300.00 $186,200.00 $- $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $200,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Low End Valuation High End Valuation Figure 7: Relative Value of Outcomes for Security Actors (n=1) $- $1,626,800.00 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,600,000.00 $1,800,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Note security actors did not give a range, only a single value. Based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation, findings suggest that the intervention created the most value for youth (35-81%), then community influencers (11-58%), followed by other key stakeholders, which is consistent with the primary targets of the intervention (see Figure 8). 16 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure 8: Relative Value Created for Stakeholder Group 81% 11% 8% 0% 0% Low Valuation Youth Community Influencers Engaged Listeners Security Actors Staff 35% 58% 2% 0% 5% High Valuation Youth Community Influencers Engaged Listeners Security Actors Staff 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. Figure 9: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (n=49) $171,418 $426,712 $131,650 $164,380 $399,459 $541,865 $342,835 $853,425 $263,280 $328,760 $798,915 $1,354,653 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,600,000.00 Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation Low End Valuation High End Valuation Figure 10: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners Post-Election (n=16) $227,301 $130,488 $568,254 $326,220 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Low End Valuation High End Valuation USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 17 Figure 11: Relative Value of Outcomes for Program Staff Post-Election (n=8) $91,300.00 $186,200.00 $- $100,000.00 $200,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Low End Valuation High End Valuation EQ4: WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) OF PROJECT INUKA? The findings of the evaluation, according toto cost-based valuation (using the literature), suggest that for every $1 invested in the program, approximately $1.15 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $0.23 to $1.72). Total Monetized Impact $883,459 Total Present Value $454,602 Total Investment $396,300 Social Return on Investment (SROI) $1.15 The findings of the evaluation, based on stakeholders-stated preference valuation, suggest that for every $1 invested in the program, approximately $2.33-$9.10 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $0.47 to $13.76). Total Monetized Impact $1,660,441 - $4,888,709 Total Present Value $924,576 - $3,606,658 Total Investment $396,300 Social Return on Investment (SROI) $2.33 - $9.10 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 $6.10-$12.66 in social value is created (with a sensitivity analysis range from $1.22 to $18.77). 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 $4,759,812 - $9,822,022 Total Present Value $2,416,198 - $5,018,942 Total Investment $396,300 Social Return on Investment (SROI) $6.10 - $12.66 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. 18 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Results from the cost-based 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 outcomes as ones that should be continued or expanded. For example, increased networking and opportunities was identified by youth as most important to them in this study, which is consistent with what is known about drivers of conflict in terms of the reasons that people join violent groups often having to do with social status and not just whether one is employed or not. 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, while most youth described having experienced a better relationship with the police, some described having a worse relationship with the police). 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 from the SROI analysis for this project to increase value in the future. They are: 1) Programming should be designed in consultation with key stakeholders. Participants expressed that they may have had more value through additional engagement methods. For example, participants told the research team that including activities for economic empowerment (such as training in income-generating activities or support with finding paid jobs) and psycho-social support (such as group therapy for those who have experienced trauma) could be beneficial to them. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 19 2) Include longer-term engagement across all activities. The activities that tend to generate the most value are those that occur over longer periods of time, and this should be taken into account in future programming and resource allocation. 3) Focus on extending the duration of desired outcomes: While many outcomes created positive value for stakeholders, they 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. CONCLUSIONS Findings, based on both valuation approaches and across data collected both pre- and post-election, suggest that Inuka 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 engaged project of radio programming, community influencers, security actors and staff working on the project. Results of the stakeholders-stated preference valuation suggest that for every $1 invested in Inuka, between $2.33 and $9.10 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 their 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., increased empowerment and inclusion, and increased networking) were the most important to stakeholders. 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. 20 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV ANNEXES USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 21 ANNEX A: SOURCES OF INFORMATION DOCUMENTS REVIEWED PROJECT REPORTS Agency for Peacebuilding (2019). Evaluation Report: Justice for Peace, Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in community peace and security efforts in Coastal Kenya. Search for Common Ground (2019). Inuka Annual Report Jan – Dec 2019 Search for Common Ground (2018). Combined Baseline Study: Inuka! Supporting Vulnerable Youth to Participate in Community Peace and Security Efforts in Coastal Kenya project and Justice for Peace: Preventing Violent Extremism through Constructive Engagement between Criminal Justice Sector Actors and Communities in Kenya. 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 22 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Brown, K. (2019). Political commemoration and peacebuilding in ethno-national settings: The risk and utility of partisan memory. Peacebuilding, 7(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2018.1491275 Bruch, C., Jensen, D., Nakayama, M., & Unruh, J. (n.d.). The Changing Nature of Conflict, Peacebuilding, and Environmental Cooperation. Cahill, L. S. (2019). Just War, Pacifism, Just Peace, and Peacebuilding. Theological Studies, 80(1), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040563918819808 Call, C. T., & de Coning, C. (Eds.). (2017). Rising Powers and Peacebuilding: Breaking the Mold? Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60621-7 Cárdenas, M. L. (2019). Women-to-Women Diplomacy in Georgia: A Peacebuilding Strategy in Frozen Conflict. Civil Wars, 21(3), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2019.1667713 Clements, K. P. (2018). Authoritarian Populism and Atavistic Nationalism: 21ST-Century Challenges to Peacebuilding and Development. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 13(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2018.1519354 Commonwealth Secretariat. (2021). Global Youth Development Index and Report. Commonwealth Secretariat. Cravo, T. A. (2017). PEACEBUILDING: ASSUMPTIONS, PRACTICES AND CRITIQUES. 8. Datzberger, S., & Mat, M. L. (2018). JUST ADD WOMEN AND STIR? Education, gender and peacebuilding in Uganda. International Journal of Educational Development, 59. de Carvalho, B., Schia, N. N., & Guillaume, X. (2019). Everyday sovereignty: International experts, brokers and local ownership in peacebuilding Liberia. European Journal of International Relations, 25(1), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118759178 de Coning, C. (2018). Adaptive peacebuilding. International Affairs, 94(2), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix251 de Coning, C. (2019). Complexity thinking and adaptive peacebuilding. Accord, 28. de Soto, A., & de Castillo, G. (1994). Obstacles to Peacebuilding. Foreign Policy, 94, 69–83. Deiana, M.-A., Komarova, M., & McCall, C. (2019). Cross-Border Cooperation as Conflict Transformation: Promises and Limitations in EU Peacebuilding. Geopolitics, 24(3), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2019.1599518 Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2000). International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.2307/2586208 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 23 Džuverović, N., & Vidojević, J. (2018). Peacebuilding or ‘Peacedelaying’: Social Exclusion of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Post-war Serbia. Ethnopolitics, 17(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2017.1340476 Eckhard, S., & Dijkstra, H. (2017). Contested Implementation: The Unilateral Influence of Member States on Peacebuilding Policy in Kosovo. Global Policy, 8, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758- 5899.12455 Fernández, M., & Guerra, L. (2020). Peacebuilding and Postcolonial Subject. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies (pp. 1–12). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-030-11795-5_81-1 Forde, S., Kappler, S., & Björkdahl, A. (2021). Peacebuilding, Structural Violence and Spatial Reparations in Post-Colonial South Africa. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 15(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1909297 Forsyth, M., Kent, L., Dinnen, S., Wallis, J., & Bose, S. (2017). Hybridity in peacebuilding and development: A critical approach. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(4), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2017.1448717 Ganson, B. (2019). Business and peace. In J. Miklian, R. M. Alluri, & J. E. Katsos (Eds.), Business, Peacebuilding and Sustainable Development (1st ed., pp. 3–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429057229-1 George, N., & Kent, L. (2017). Sexual violence and hybrid peacebuilding: How does silence ‘speak’? Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(4), 518–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2017.1395710 Gippert, B. J. (2017). Legitimacy and Coercion in Peacebuilding: A Balancing Act. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 11(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2017.1353753 Gnoth, A. (n.d.). A CRISIS OF CRITICALITY? REIMAGINING ACADEMIA IN INTERNATIONAL PEACEBUILDING. Goodhand, J., Meehan, P., Bhatia, J., Ghiabi, M., & Sanín, F. G. (2021). Critical policy frontiers: The drugs￾development-peacebuilding trilemma. International Journal of Drug Policy, 89, 103115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103115 Harris, D. (2021). The state of peacebuilding in Africa: Lessons learned for policymakers and practitioners. International Affairs, 97(4), 1272–1274. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiab107 Hersh, M. A. (2022). Professional ethics and social responsibility: Military work and peacebuilding. AI & SOCIETY, 37(4), 1545–1561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01238-5 Högberg, S. (n.d.). Women and Peacebuilding in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Howe, B. (2019). Human Security, Peacebuilding, and the Responsibility to Protect in East Asia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 7(2), 183–218. https://doi.org/10.18588/201911.00a093 24 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Howe, B. M. (2017). Korea’s Role for Peacebuilding and Development in Asia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 5(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.18588/201711.00a017 Idbudni McCormack, F. (2017). Regionalism and Peacebuilding in West Africa: Addressing the Challenge of Roaming Combatants. University of Sussex. Iñiguez de Heredia, M. (2017). Everyday Resistance, Peacebuilding and State-making: Insights from “Africa’s World War.” Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_628403 Iñiguez de Heredia, M. (2018). The Conspicuous Absence of Class and Privilege in the Study of Resistance in Peacebuilding Contexts. International Peacekeeping, 25(3), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2018.1449650 Isike, C. (2017). Soft Power and a Feminist Ethics of Peacebuilding in Africa. Peace Review, 29(3), 350– 357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2017.1344535 Jarikre, M. (2017). The Media and Post-Election Peacebuilding in Nigeria, 1999–2015. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 5(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.18588/201711.00a011 Juichiro Tanabe. (2017). Beyond Liberal Peacebuilding: A Critique of Liberal Peacebuilding and Exploring a Postmodern Post-liberal Hybrid Model of Peacebuilding. International Relations and Diplomacy, 5(8). https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2134/2017.08.001 Juncos, A. E. (2018). Resilience in peacebuilding: Contesting uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2018.1491742 Kappler, S. (2017). The Securitization of International Peacebuilding. In T. Bonacker, W. Distler, & M. Ketzmerick (Eds.), Securitization in Statebuilding and Intervention (pp. 29–52). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845285825-29 Karlsrud, J. (2019). From Liberal Peacebuilding to Stabilization and Counterterrorism. International Peacekeeping, 26(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2018.1502040 Kasherwa, A. C. (2020). ‘The role of youth organizations in peacebuilding in the African Great Lakes Region: A rough transition from local and non-governmental to the national and governmental peacebuilding efforts in Burundi and eastern DRC.’ Journal of Peace Education, 17(2), 123–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1688139 Kharisma, M. W. (2017). The Philosophical Worth of Liberal Peacebuilding. Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional, 19(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.7454/global.v19i1.146 Krampe, F. (2019). Climate Change, Peacebuilding AND Sustaining Peace (SIPRI Policy Brief) [Policy Brief]. Kreutz, J. (2018). New Rebels in Postconflict Settings: The Principal-Agent Dilemma of Peacebuilding. Peace & Change, 43(2), 218–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/pech.12284 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 25 Kumar, S. (2011). Social Return on Investment (SROI) Analysis: A New Tool for Strategic Decision Making, Planning, and Evaluation for Managers, Investors, and Policy Makers in International Aid and Development. Dissertation. University of California Los Angeles. Leib, J., & Ruppel, S. (2021). The Dance of Peace and Justice: Local Perceptions of International Peacebuilding in West Africa. International Peacekeeping, 28(5), 783–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2021.1927726 Lewis, A., & Winn, N. (2018). Understanding the Connections between the EU Global Strategy and Somali Peacebuilding Education Needs and Priorities. Global Policy, 9(4), 501–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12573 Lingane, A., & Olsen, S. (2004). Guidelines for Social Return on Investment. California Management Review, 46(3), 116–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166224 Marsili, Marco. (2019). The Twilight Zone of Political Transition: Between Revolution and Democratic Change. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3517223 Martin de Almagro, M. (2018). Hybrid Clubs: A Feminist Approach to Peacebuilding in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 12(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1482125 Martin, M., Bojicic-Dzelilovic, V., & Benraïs, L. (2020). Mind the gaps. A Whole-of-Society approach to peacebuilding and conflict prevention. In M. Martin & V. Bojicic-Dzelilovic (Eds.), Whole-of-Society Peacebuilding (1st ed., pp. 1–12). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429282652-1 McAuliffe, P. (2017). Reflections of the nexus between justice and peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 11(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2017.1287636 McCandless, E. (2021). Peacebuilding–Development Nexus. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies (pp. 1–8). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795- 5_145-1 McDowell, S., Braniff, M., & Murphy, J. (2017). Zero-sum politics in contested spaces: The unintended consequences of legislative peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Political Geography, 61, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2017.09.001 McKeown, S., & Taylor, L. K. (2017). Intergroup contact and peacebuilding: Promoting youth civic engagement in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(2), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i2.769 Medinilla, A., Tadesse Shiferaw, L., & Veron, P. (2019). Think local. Governance, humanitarian aid, development and peacebuilding in Somalia (Discussion Paper DISCUSSION PAPER No. 246). European Centre for Development Policy Management. Miklian, J. (2019). The role of business in sustainable development and peacebuilding: Observing interaction effects. Business and Politics, 21(4), 569–601. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.28 26 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Miklian, J., & Medina Bickel, J. P. (2020). Theorizing Business and Local Peacebuilding Through the “Footprints of Peace” Coffee Project in Rural Colombia. Business & Society, 59(4), 676–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317749441 Moe, L. W., & Stepputat, F. (2018). Introduction: Peacebuilding in an era of pragmatism. International Affairs, 94(2), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy035 Morales-Muñoz, H., Löhr, K., Bonatti, M., Eufemia, L., & Sieber, S. (2021). Assessing impacts of environmental peacebuilding in Caquetá, Colombia: A multistakeholder perspective. International Affairs, 97(1), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa175 Nakagawa, Y. (2018). Theorizing Postcolonial Deliberation and Deliberative Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 12(2), 253–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1464353 Nyadera, I. N., Ahmed, M. S., & Agwanda, B. (n.d.). Transformation of the Somali Civil -War and Reflections for a Social Contract Peacebuilding Process. Ochen, E. A. (2017). Women and Liberal Peacebuilding in Post- Conflict Northern Uganda: Community social work agenda revisited? 21. Öjendal, J., Bachmann, J., Stern, M., & Leonardsson, H. (2021). Introduction – Peacebuilding Amidst Violence. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 15(3), 269–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1913006 Paffenholz, T. (2021). Perpetual Peacebuilding: A New Paradigm to Move Beyond the Linearity of Liberal Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 15(3), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1925423 Panter-Brick, C. (2021). Resilience Humanitarianism and Peacebuilding. In M. Ungar (Ed.), Multisystemic Resilience (1st ed., pp. 361-C19.P73). Oxford University Press New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190095888.003.0020 Paone, M. (n.d.). From Civilising Mission to Civilian Power: Rethinking EU Peacebuilding from a Postcolonial Perspective. Parida, S. (n.d.). Local ownership in Peacebuilding: The role of Youth movements in Kosovo’s Peace Process. Paris, R. (2002). International peacebuilding and the ‘mission civilisatrice.’ Review of International Studies, 28(4), 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021050200637X Pepper, M. (2018). Ethnic Minority Women, Diversity, and Informal Participation in Peacebuilding in Myanmar. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 13(2), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15423166.2018.1472030 Petrov, P., Dijkstra, H., Đokić, K., Zartsdahl, P. H., & Mahr, E. (2019). All hands on deck: Levels of dependence between the EU and other international organizations in peacebuilding. Journal of European Integration, 41(8), 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1622542 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 27 Pherali, T. (2021). Social justice, education and peacebuilding: Conflict transformation in Southern Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2021.1951666 Piccolino, G. (2018). Peacebuilding and statebuilding in post-2011 Côte d’Ivoire: A victor’s peace? African Affairs, 117(468), 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady020 Pingeot, L. (2020). International Peacebuilding as a Case of Structural Injustice. International Peacekeeping, 27(2), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2019.1673739 Pogodda, S. (2020). Revolutions and the liberal peace: Peacebuilding as counterrevolutionary practice? Cooperation and Conflict, 55(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720921881 Pugh, M. (n.d.). The political economy of peacebuilding: A critical theory perspective. International 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 28 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Shah, Q. A., Nawab, B., & Mehmood, T. (2020). The Role of Stakeholders in Post Conflict Peacebuilding in Swat, Pakistan. Lex Localis - Journal of Local Self-Government, 18(1), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.4335/18.1.211-229(2020) Sherriff, A., Veron, P., Deneckere, M., & Hauck, V. (2018). Supporting peacebuilding in times of change. European Centre for Development Policy Management. Simangan, D. (2020). A Case for a Normative Local Involvement in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding. International Peacekeeping, 27(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2019.1654380 Singh, P. (n.d.). South African peacebuilding needs new purpose. Sloan, T., Dinnen, S., Sweaney, N., & Chevalier, C. (n.d.). Perceptions of Peacebuilding in Solomon Islands Post-RAMSI. Smith, S. (2018). Gendering Peace: UN Peacebuilding in Timor-Leste (S. Smith, Ed.; 1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351261043 Swaine, A., Spearing, M., Murphy, M., & Contreras-Urbina, M. (2019). Exploring the Intersection of Violence Against Women and Girls With Post-Conflict Statebuilding and Peacebuilding Processes: A New Analytical Framework. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 14(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1542316619833877 Taka, M. (2020). The role of education in peacebuilding: Learner narratives from Rwanda. Journal of Peace Education, 17(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201.2019.1669146 Tronc, E., Grace, R., & Nahikian, A. (2019). Realities and Myths of the “Triple Nexus”: Local Perspectives on Peacebuilding, Development, and Humanitarian Action in Mali. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3404351 Uduji, J. I., Okolo-Obasi, E. N., & Asongu, S. A. (n.d.). Sustainable Peace building and Development in Nigeria’s Post-Amnesty Programme: The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Oil Host Communities. Valente, A. A. (n.d.). Financing for Young People in Peacebuilding—An Overview. von Billerbeck, S., & Tansey, O. (2019). Enabling autocracy? Peacebuilding and post-conflict authoritarianism in the Democratic Republic of Congo. European Journal of International Relations, 25(3), 698–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066118819724 Wallis, J., Kent, L., Forsyth, M., Dinnen, S., & Bose, S. (Eds.). (2018). Hybridity on the ground in peacebuilding and development: Critical conversations. ANU Press. Weiss, R. (2020). Peacebuilding, Democratization, and Political Reconciliation in Cambodia. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 8(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.18588/202005.00a069 World Health Organization & WHO Collaborating Centre for Violence Prevention. (2010). Violence prevention: The evidence. In Prevención de la violencia: La evidencia. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77936 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 29 Young, G. (n.d.). South African land reform as peacebuilding: Integrating perspectives from Social Identity Theory and Symbolic Politics in a peacebuilding conceptual framework. 30 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 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 value to investment). This ratio is then tested for sensitivity. Stage 6: Reporting, using, and embedding. This last step of the SROI process involves sharing 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 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. Principle 7: Verify the result. SROI Analysis results should be independently assured to ensure that the decisions made by those responsible for the analysis were reasonable. Principle 8: Be responsive. Social value should be optimized through timely decision making, supported by appropriate accounting and reporting. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 31 ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE (ENGLISH VERSION) Guide for Focus Groups/Interviews with Key Stakeholders (i.e., Youth, Families/Communities, Project Staff, Security Actors, 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) 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: 32 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA 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: USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 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 34 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV ANNEX D: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS FOR EACH STAKEHOLDER (ENGLISH VERSIONS) SURVEY – 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 projects like Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in community peace and security efforts in Coastal Kenya. Some youth were asked about what had changed for them as a result of the Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in community peace and security efforts in Coastal 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 Inuka program? a. Yes b. No c. I don't know 2. In what year? a. 2017 b. 2018 c. 2019 d. 2020 e. 2021 f. 2022 3. In what county do you live? a. Mombasa b. Kilifi c. Lamu 4. Age (Range) a. 18-24 b. 25-29 c. 30-35 d. other 5. Gender a. Male b. Female c. Other Next, we’ll ask questions about how this program has impacted you. Outcome #1 – Changed relationship between youth and police 1. Some youth that participated in this project experienced a changed relationship with police as a result of this project. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this project? USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 35 a. I have experienced an improved relationship with police as a result of this project. (Go to Question 2) b. I haven’t yet experienced an improved relationship with police as a result of this project, but think I might in the future. (Go to outcome 2) c. I do not think I will experience an improved relationship with police as a result of this project. (Go to outcome 2) d. I have experienced a worsened relationship with police as a result of this project. (Go to question 2). 2. How could you tell that your relationship with police had changed? (Select all that apply) a. Increased trust of police b. Attendance at football matches or fitness events hosted by the police c. Attendance at the community police station level d. More interaction with police at peace events e. Confidence and trust to enter and visit police stations f. Increased mistrust/skepticism of police g. Increased fear of police h. Arrest 3. By how much did your relationship with the police change as a result of this project? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience the changed relationship with police? 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 much did your relationship with police change? a. It kept changing a lot over time b. It changed a bit over time c. No change d. The change faded a bit over time e. The change faded a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to a changed relationship with the police? 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 changed relationship with the police would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot 36 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV d. All Outcome #2 – Capacity Building 1. Some youth that participated in this project experienced increased capacity as a result of this project. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this project? a. I experienced increased capacity as a result of this project. b. I haven’t yet experienced increased capacity as a result of this project, but think I might in the future. (Skip to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience increased capacity as a result of this project. (Skip to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your capacity had increased? (Select all that apply) a. Better business management skills to support in running programming b. Increased personal skills to lead programming c. Better communication skills (e.g. presentations, writing, facilitation skills) d. Increased skills that allow other youth to be mentored e. Better understanding of peace and security processes 3. By how much did your capacity increase as a result of this project? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. For how long after you finished being involved in this program did you continue to experience increased capacity? a. A few days after the program ended b. Weeks after the program ended c. Months after the program ended d. 1 year after the program ended e. 2 years after the program ended f. 3 years or more after the program ended g. This change ended once the program ended. 5. How did your capacity change over time? a. My capacity continued to increase a lot over time b. It continued to increase a bit over time c. The amount of increase stayed the same d. The change decreased a bit over time e. The change decreased 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 of the increased capacity would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #3 – Youth Empowerment USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 37 1. Some youth that participated in this project experienced increased empowerment (sense of personal confidence and authority) as a result of this project. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this project? a. I experienced increased empowerment as a result of this project. b. I haven’t yet experienced increased empowerment as a result of this project, but think I might in the future. (Skip to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience increased empowerment as a result of this project. (Skip to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your empowerment had changed? (Select all that apply) Increased self￾confidence a. Increased sense of ability to contribute to the community b. Better interpersonal relationships c. Increased sense of authority to make decisions that can contribute positively to the community d. Increased ability to travel to other locations around the community 3. By how much did your empowerment increase as a result of this project? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience increased empowerment? 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 amount you felt your empowerment had increased change over time? a. My empowerment continued to increase a lot over time b. It continued to increase a bit over time c. The amount of increased empowerment I felt stayed the same d. The change decreased a bit over time e. The change decreased a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to an increase in empowerment? 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 empowerment would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #4 – Inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes 38 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 1. Some youth that participated in this project experienced more inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes as a result of this project. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this project? a. I experienced more inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes as a result of this project. b. I haven’t yet experienced more inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes as a result of this project, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience more inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes as a result of this project. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes had increased? (Select all that apply) a. Participation in local decision making structures b. Participation in the development of the local PCV c. Participation in committees at local deputy county commissioners offices d. Participation in the formation of policy briefs e. Incorporation of youth in the national government constituency fund 3. By how much did inclusion in decision making and policy processes increase as a result of this project? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience more inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes? 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 inclusion in decision making and policy processes change over time for you? a. My inclusion in decision making and policy processes continued to increase a lot over time b. It continued to increase a bit over time c. The amount of increase stayed the same d. The change decreased a bit over time e. The change decreased a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to more inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes? 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 inclusion of youth in decision making and policy processes would you say was caused by the program? USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 39 a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #5 – Increased Networking 1. Some youth that participated in this project experienced increased networking as a result of this project. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this project? a. I experienced increased networking as a result of this project. (Go to Question 2) b. I haven’t yet experienced increased networking as a result of this project, but think I might in the future. (Go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience increased networking as a result of this project. (Go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your networking had increased? (Select all that apply) a. Relationships have been built with government and private sector actors b. Invitations to participate in community events as a guest speaker c. Increased connection to other youth in the community d. Relationships have been built with other youth participants e. Relationships have been built with reformed/rehabilitated youth 3. By how much did your networking increase as a result of this project? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience increased networking? 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 networking change over time for you? a. My increased networking continued to increase a lot over time b. It continued to increase a bit over time c. The amount of increase stayed the same d. The change decreased a bit over time e. The change decreased a lot over time 6. If the program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased networking? 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 would you say was caused by the program? a. A little b. Half 40 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV c. A lot d. All Outcome #6 – Rehabilitation and reformation of youth 1. Some youth that participated in this project experienced more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this project. Which of these statements best describes your experience with this project? (Go to Question 2) a. I experienced more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this project. b. I haven’t yet experienced more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this project, but think I might in the future. (Go to next section) c. I do not think I will experience more rehabilitation and reformation as a result of this project. (Go to next section) 2. How could you tell that your own rehabilitation and reformation had increased? (Select all that apply) a. Reduced drug use b. Engagement in casual employment among those who used to engage in drug use c. Reduction in theft and violence d. I am contributing positively to the community e. Reformed youth I began sharing peace messaging f. I have increased ability to engage with other reformed youth g. Change of narrative of maskani 3. By how much did your rehabilitation and reformation increase as a result of this project? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished being involved in this program, did you experience the 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 when the program ended 5. How did the amount of rehabilitation and reformation change over time for you? a. My increased rehabilitation and reformation continued to increase a lot over time b. It continued to increase a bit over time c. The amount of change I experienced stayed the same d. The change decreased a bit over time e. The change decreased 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 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 41 7. How much of the increased rehabilitation and reformation 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. How important are these outcomes to you? 1 = This change was unimportant to me. 5 = This change was extremely important to me. 1. The changed relationship with police that you have experienced as a result of this project a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 2. The increased capacity that you have experienced as a result of this project? a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 3. The increased empowerment that you have experienced as a result of this project? a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 4. The increased inclusion of youth in decision making and peace processes that you have experienced as a result of this project? a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 5. The increased networking opportunities that you have experienced as a result of this project. 42 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 6. The increased rehabilitation and reformation that you have experienced as a result of this project? a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 Important last part! Valuation 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 (listed in the chart below). 1. The changed relationship with police that you have experienced as a result of this project a. 1 b. 2 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 43 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 2. The increased capacity that you have experienced as a result of this project? 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. The increased empowerment that you have experienced as a result of this project? 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. The increased inclusion of youth in decision making and peace processes that you have experienced as a result of this project? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 44 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 5. The increased networking opportunities that you have experienced as a result of this project. a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 6. The increased rehabilitation and reformation that you have experienced as a result of this project? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 Thank you for your time. SURVEY – ENGAGED LISTENERS OF RADIO PROGRAMMING 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 projects like Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in community peace and security efforts in Coastal Kenya. Some engaged listeners of the radio programs were asked about what had changed for them as a result of the Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in community peace and security efforts in Coastal Kenya. We will tell you what the engaged listeners of the radio programs 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 as a listener of this radio program? USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 45 a. Yes b. No c. I don't know 2. In what year did you listen to the radio program? a. 2017 b. 2018 c. 2019 d. 2020 e. 2021 f. 2022 3. In what county do you live? 4. Age (Range) a. 18-24 b. 24-29 c. 30-35 d. other 5. Gender a. Male b. Female c. Other Next, we’ll ask questions about how this program has impacted you. Outcome #1 – Increased Youth Collaboration to Solve Problems 1. Some listeners that heard this radio program experienced more collaboration with other youth to solve problems (for example, learning from each other to solve community problems) as a result of this radio program. Which of these statements best describes your experience? a. I experienced more collaboration with other youth to solve community problems as a result of this radio program. b. I haven’t yet experienced more collaboration with other youth to solve community problems a result of this radio program, but think I might in the future. (go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience more collaboration with other youth to solve community problems as a result of this radio program. (go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your collaboration with other youth had increased? (Select all that apply) a. Engagement with youth from other communities b. Collaboration with other youth to create strategy to address drug use in the community c. Sharing of problem-solving methods with other youth d. Increased school attendance rates due to reduced drug use in the community 3. By how much did your collaboration with other youth as a result of this radio program? a. A little b. Significantly c. A lot 46 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 4. How long after you finished listening to this radio program, did you experience increased collaboration with other youth? 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 collaboration with youth change over time for you? a. Increased a lot over time b. Increased a bit over time c. No change d. Decreased a lot over time e. Decreased a bit over time 6. If this radio program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased collaboration with other youth? 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 collaboration with other youth would you say was caused by this radio program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All Outcome #2 – Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 1. Some listeners that heard this radio program experienced more capacity for peacebuilding as a result of this radio program. Which of these statements best describes your experience? a. I experienced more capacity for peacebuilding as a result of this radio program. b. I haven’t yet experienced more capacity for peacebuilding a result of this radio program, but think I might in the future. (go to next outcome) c. I do not think I will experience more capacity for peacebuilding as a result of this radio program. (go to next outcome) 2. How could you tell that your capacity for peacebuilding had increased? (Select all that apply) a. Increased trust among community members b. Increased confidence to act as a mentor within the community c. Increased collaboration with Chiefs and elders to share peace messaging d. Increased personal confidence to speak publicly e. Increased confidence to share peace messaging a. Increased confidence to understand other youth’s perspectives 3. By how much did your capacity for peacebuilding increase as a result of this radio program? a. A little USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 47 b. Significantly c. A lot 4. How long after you finished listening to this radio program, did you experience increased capacity for peacebuilding? 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 capacity for peacebuilding change over time for you? a. Increased a lot over time b. Increased a bit over time c. No change d. Decreased a lot over time e. Decreased a bit over time 6. If this radio program did not exist, is there anything else that would have led to increased capacity for peacebuilding? 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 for peacebuilding would you say was caused by this radio program? a. A little b. Half c. A lot d. All 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. How important are these outcomes to you? 1 = This change was unimportant to me. 5 = This change was extremely important to me. 1. Increased youth collaboration to solve community problems a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 48 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV f. 5 2. Increased capacity for peacebuilding a. I did not experience this change b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. 5 Important! Valuation 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: here would you place the importance of that outcome that you experienced due to the project, 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. Increased youth collaboration to solve community problems a. 1 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 49 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 2. Increased capacity for peacebuilding a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. 7 h. 8 i. 9 j. 10 k. 11 l. 12 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. SURVEY – 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 Project: Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in peace and security efforts in Coastal 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. 50 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 1. Previously, youth valued the importance of changed relationship with police, 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) 2. Previously, youth valued the importance of increased capacity for peacebuilding, 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) 3. Previously, youth valued the importance of increased empowerment, on average, as between 8-9. 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) USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 51 4. Previously, youth valued the importance of increased inclusion of youth in peace and decision-making processes, 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 networking and opportunities, on average, as between 8-9. 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) 6. 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 • Its importance increased (if selected, select new range) • Its importance decreased (if selected, select new range) SURVEY – COMMUNITY INFLUENCERS (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 Project: Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in peace and security efforts in Coastal 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. 52 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 7. Previously, community influencers valued the importance of increased capacity for peacebuilding, on average, as between X-Y. 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, community influencers valued the importance of increased networking and opportunities, on average, as between X-Y. 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) USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 53 SURVEY – ENGAGED LISTENERS OF RADIO PROGRAMMING (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 Project: Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in peace and security efforts in Coastal 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. 9. Previously, engaged radio listeners valued the importance of increased capacity for peacebuilding, 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) 54 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV 10. Previously, engaged radio listeners valued the importance of increased collaboration to solve problems, 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 – PROJECT STAFF (POST-ELECTION) Thank you for participating in this survey. It should take about 5 minutes to complete. Previously, we asked you about the changes you experienced as a result of the Project: Inuka! Supporting vulnerable youth to participate in peace and security efforts in Coastal 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. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 55 11. How might you estimate the importance of increased capacity for peacebuilding 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 12. In context of the recent elections, did the importance of increased capacity for peacebuilding 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) 56 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV ANNEX E: IMPACT MAP (CONDENSED) STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION See Tables E1 and E2 for the condensed Impact Maps using stakeholders-stated preference valuation. Table E. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Stakeholder-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 Changed Relationship With Police 150 Survey Data 1,660.00 23% 0% 27% -57% 139,962.90 Increased Capacity for peacebuilding 157 Survey Data 2,490.00 23% 0% 27% -61% 219,175.95 Increased Empowerment 147 Survey Data 4,150.00 27% 0% 31% -62% 306,585.40 Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes 147 Survey Data 2,490.00 31% 0% 25% -58% 188,991.00 Increased Networking and Opportunities 150 Survey Data 4,150.00 24% 0% 27% -63% 345,363.00 Increased Rehabilitation and reformation 129 Survey Data 2,490.00 24% 0% 23% -53% 187,528.61 Community Influencers Increased capacity for peacebuilding 24 Survey Data 2,490.00 0% 0% 25% 0% 44,820.00 Increased networking and opportunities 24 Survey Data 2,490.00 0% 0% 25% 0% 44,820.00 Engaged Listeners Increased capacity for peacebuilding 50 Survey Data 1,660.00 40% 0% 29% -43% 35,358.00 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 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 Collaboration to Solve Problems 50 Survey Data 1,660.00 38% 0% 29% -58% 36,536.60 Security Actors Increased capacity for peacebuilding 28 Interview Data 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 Staff Increased capacity for peacebuilding 11 Survey Data 8,300.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 91,300.00 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 Participants in Programming Changed Relationship With Police 150 Survey Data 2,490.00 23% 0% 27% -57% 209,944.35 Increased Capacity for peacebuilding 157 Survey Data 4,150.00 23% 0% 27% -61% 365,293.24 Increased Empowerment 147 Survey Data 8,300.00 27% 0% 31% -62% 613,170.80 Inclusion of Youth in Peace- and Decision-Making Processes 147 Survey Data 4,150.00 31% 0% 25% -58% 314,985.00 Increased Networking and Opportunities 150 Survey Data 8,300.00 24% 0% 27% -63% 690,726.00 58 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA 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 Increased Rehabilitation and reformation 129 Survey Data 4,150.00 24% 0% 23% -53% 312,547.69 Community Influencers Increased capacity for peacebuilding 24 Focus Group Data 58,100.00 0% 0% 25% 0% 1,045,800.00 Increased networking and opportunities 24 Focus Group Data 58,100.00 0% 0% 25% 0% 1,045,800.00 Engaged Listeners Increased capacity for peacebuilding 50 Survey Data 2,490.00 40% 0% 29% -43% 53,037.00 Increased Collaboration to Solve Problems 50 Survey Data 2,490.00 38% 0% 29% -58% 54,804.90 Security Actors Increased capacity for peacebuilding 28 Interview Data 58,100.00 0% 0% 0% 0% - Staff Increased capacity for peacebuilding 11 Focus Group Data 16,600.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 182,600.00 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 59 ANNEX F: IMPACT MAP (CONDENSED) COST-BASED VALUATION See Table F1 for the condensed Impact Map using cost-based valuation. Table F. 1: Condensed Impact Map – Cost-Based Valuation Stakeholder 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 Participants in Programming Changed Relationship with Police 150 Value of Never Being Arrested (HACT, Converted to Kenyan PPP) 2,594.28 23% 0% 27% -57% 218,736.72 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 157 Cost of introductory peacebuilding course 200.00 23% 0% 27% -61% 17,604.49 Increased Empowerment 147 Cost to join football team/year 333.00 28% 0% 31% -62% 24,263.71 Inclusion of Youth in Peace- and Decision￾Making Processes 147 Willingness to be a leader in the community (AUD converted to USD + Kenyan PPP) 3,088.05 34% 0% 25% -58% 224,192.43 Increased Networking Opportunities 150 Cost of Joining Toastmasters for One Year 110.00 23% 0% 27% -63% 9,274.65 Increased Rehabilitation and reformation 129 Avoided costs to the state associated with reduced costs of re-offending and reduced substance abuse 3,310.00 28% 0% 23% -53% 236,164.76 Community Influencers Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 24 Cost of introductory peacebuilding course 200.00 0% 0% 0% 0% 4,800.00 Increased Networking and Opportunities 24 Cost of Joining Toastmasters for One Year 110.00 0% 0% 25% 0% 1,980.00 Engaged Listeners Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 50 Cost of introductory peacebuilding course 200.00 40% 0% 29% -43% 4,260.00 60 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Stakeholder 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 Increased Collaboration to Solve Problems 50 Value of improved peer relations 3,511.00 38% 0% 29% -58% 77,277.11 Security Actors Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 28 Market rate for professional peacebuilding education 1,664.24 0% 0% 0% 0% 46,598.67 Staff Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 11 Market rate for professional peacebuilding education 1,664.24 0% 0% 0% 0% 18,306.62 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 61 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 • Reduced drug use • Engagement in casual employment among those who used to engage in drug use • Reduction in theft and violence • Youth identify as contributing positively to their community • Youth identify as sharing peace messaging with their community • Change of narrative of Maskani within the community CHANGED RELATIONSHIP WITH POLICE • Increased trust of police • Attendance at football matches or fitness events hosted by police • Attendance at the community police station level • More interaction with police at peace events • Confidence and trust to enter and visit police stations • Increased mistrust/scepticism of police INCREASED NETWORKING AND OPPORTUNITIES • Relationships have been built with government and private sector actors • Invitations to participate in community events as a guest speaker • Increased connection to other youth in the community • Relationships have been built with other youth participants • Relationships have been built with reformed/rehabilitated youth INCLUSION OF YOUTH IN PEACE AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES • Participation in local decision-making structures • Participation in the development of the local PCV • Participation in committees at local deputy county commissioners’ offices • Participation in the formation of policy briefs • Incorporation of youth in the national government constituency fund INCREASED EMPOWERMENT • Increased sense of ability to contribute to the community • Better interpersonal relationships • Increased sense of authority to make decisions that can contribute positively to the community • Increased ability to travel to other locations around the community INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Better business management skills to support in running programming • Increased personal skills to lead programming • Better communication skills (e.g., presentations, writing and facilitation skills) • Increased skills that allow other youth to be mentored • Better understanding of peace and security processes Table G. 2: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Engaged Listeners OUTCOME INDICATOR INCREASED COLLABORATION TO SOLVE PROBLEMS • Engagement with youth from other communities • Collaboration with other youth to create strategy to address drug use in the community • Sharing of problem-solving methods with other youth • Increased school attendance rates due to reduced drug use in the community INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Increased trust among community members • Increased confidence to act as a mentor within the community • Increased collaboration with Chiefs and elders to share peace messaging • Increased personal confidence to speak publicly • Increased confidence to share peace messaging • Increased confidence to understand other youth’s perspectives 62 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Table G. 3: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Community Influencers OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Increased ability to sensitize youth to peace messages • Increased ability to create community dialogue • Increased ability to resolve conflict within the community • Increased ability to create community change through dialogue INCREASED NETWORKING AND OPPORTUNITIES • Increased connection to local government officials • Increased connection to other Civil Society Organizations in the community • Increased connections to community members to support conflict resolution Table G. 4: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Security Actors OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Deeper understanding of community needs Table G. 5: Well Defined Outcomes and Indicators for Search for Common Ground Staff OUTCOME INDICATORS INCREASED CAPACITY FOR PEACEBUILDING • Increased empathy for women in conflict situations • Deeper understanding of community needs • Increased leadership capacity • Increased ability to act as a champion for youth RESULTS – STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION (PRE-ELECTION) Overall results suggest that for every $1 invested in the Inuka! Project, between $2 and $9 in value was created when using what project stakeholders said to value outcomes. This ratio ranges from $0.47 to $14 when conducting sensitivity analyses. The total value created per stakeholder group varies depending upon the valuation used (low vs. high). For youth, the percentage varies between 35% (high valuation) and 81% (low valuation). For community influencers, the value created ranges between 11% (low valuation) and 58% (high valuation). Engaged listeners follow with a range of 8% (low valuation) to 2% (high valuation) (see Figure G1). Figure G. 1: Distribution of Value Created for Stakeholder Group (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) 81% 11% 8% 0% 0% Low Valuation Youth Community Influencers Engaged Listeners Security Actors Staff 35% 58% 2% 0% 5% High Valuation Youth Community Influencers Engaged Listeners Security Actors Staff USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 63 It is important to note that using this technique, the true value created as a result of the program falls somewhere within the range of the low and high values. Based on the results, it is clear that the value created is between the low and the high values – but there is not enough precision to know exactly where this stands. It is therefore important to look at the results in the context of the range in which they sit. For each main stakeholder group identified – youth, community influencers, engaged listeners, security actors and staff – a set of outcomes that were experienced as a result of the programming was identified. These identified outcomes were then presented during the surveys (or interviews) to understand the relative importance of each outcome to the stakeholders. Note that for community influencers, due to limitations in the data collection relative importance cannot be reported. For security actors and staff, as these groups experienced only 1 outcome, there is no relative importance of different outcomes. Relative importance of outcomes for youth and community influencers are presented in Tables G6 and G7. Table G. 6: Relative Importance of Outcomes for Youth OUTCOME RANKING Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 1 Increased Empowerment T2 Increased Inclusion of Youth in Peace- and Decision-Making Processes T2 Increased Networking and Opportunities T2 Changed Relationship with Police 5 Increased Rehabilitation and Reformation 6 Table G. 7: Relative Importance of Outcomes for Engaged Listeners of Radio Programming OUTCOME RANKING Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding 1 Increased Collaboration to Solve Problems 2 One key insight that emerged from the analysis was 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. 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 G8. Note that this was applied to both valuation techniques. 64 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Table G. 8: 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 G9. Table G. 9: Outcomes and their Durations STAKEHOLDER AND OUTCOME OUTCOME DURATION (YEARS) YOUTH PARTICIPANTS Changed relationship with police 0.49 Increased capacity 0..58 Increased empowerment 0.43 Increased inclusion in in peace- and decision-making processes 0.52 Increased networking and opportunities 0.58 Increased rehabilitation and reformation 0.43 COMMUNITY INFLUENCERS Increased capacity for peacebuilding 1* Increased networking and opportunities 1* ENGAGED LISTENERS Increased collaboration with other youth to solve problems 0.36 Increased capacity for peacebuilding 0.65 SECURITY ACTORS Increased capacity for peacebuilding 1* STAFF Increased capacity for peacebuilding 1* * For outcomes that were collected in focus groups and interviews, specific questions to establish duration were not 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 these 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 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 65 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 Opportunities, (2) Increased Empowerment and (3) Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding. Youth also experienced other outcomes (as shown in Figure G2) that created positive social value. 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: Value of Outcomes for Youth (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation – Pre-Election) $68,567 $128,013 $131,640 $98,628 $199,729 $81,279 $102,850 $213,356 $263,280 $164,380 $399,458 $135,465 $- $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00 $300,000.00 $350,000.00 $400,000.00 $450,000.00 Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation Low End Valuation High End Valuation Figure G. 3: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation: Low End) 10% 18% 19% 14% 28% 11% Low Valuation Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation 66 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure G. 4: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation: High End) 8% 17% 20% 13% 31% 11% High Valuation Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation For engaged listeners of radio programming – two key outcomes were experienced. These are: (1) Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding and (2) Increased Collaboration to Solve Problems. Their valuations and relative value are shown in Figures G5 and G6. Note that for this group, the relative valuation of these outcomes was consistent across both low and high stakeholders-stated preference valuations which is why only one figure is shown. Figure G. 5: Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) $22,730 $13,049 $34,095 $19,573 $0.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Low End Valuation High End Valuation USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 67 Figure G. 6: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) 51% 49% Survey Valuation Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Community influencers experienced two key outcomes – (1) Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding and (2) Increased Networking and Opportunities. Their valuations are presented in Figure G7 and relative values in Figure G8. Like the outcomes experienced by engaged listeners, the relative value of outcomes are the same across both low and high valuations. Figure G. 7: Value of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) $44,820 $44,820 $1,045,800 $1,045,800 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased Networking and Opportunities Low End Valuation High End Valuation 68 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure G. 8: Relative Values of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) 50% 50% Survey Valuation Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased Networking and Opportunities Security actors experienced one key outcome – increased capacity for peacebuilding. Security actors described that through Inuka! they were better able to understand the communities that they serve. The valuation for this outcome is presented in Figure G9. The low valuation for this range is at zero as that is the low end of the valuation range that was reported by this group. Figure G. 9: Value of Outcomes for Security Actors (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) Finally, staff members working on the Inuka! project also experienced one key outcome – increased capacity for peacebuilding. Valuations for this outcome are presented in Figure G10. $- $1,626,800 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,600,000.00 $1,800,000.00 Low End Valuation High End Valuation USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 69 Figure G. 10: Valuation of Outcomes for Search for Common Ground Staff (Stakeholders￾Stated Preference Valuation Pre-Election) $91,300 $186,200 $- $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $140,000.00 $160,000.00 $180,000.00 $200,000.00 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. 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 Inuka! did contribute to the changes that participants experienced, the reality is that multiple interventions operate in the same communities in which Inuka! operates, potentially contributing to Inuka!’s effects in a way that is difficult to tease apart. Therefore, adjusting the estimated 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 G10 (Low Valuation) and Table G11 (High Valuation). 70 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Table G. 10: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (low values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $1,660,441 $1,377,655 $1,051,952 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $924,576 $760,296 $582,352 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$2.33 $1:$1.92 $1:$1.47 Table G. 11: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (high values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $4,888,709 $4,231,506 $3,245,703 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $3,606,658 $3,126,256 $2,405,653 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,600 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$9.10 $1:$7.89 $1:$6.07 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 social return on investment. The original deadweight assumption was calculated 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 Inuka!. Change may occur in the absence of one specific program such as Inuka! due to other factors, such as the population growing tired of economic disruption after COVID 19. Understanding how the social value created by Inuka! is affected by this is key to understanding overall social value. Tables G12 and G13 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. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 71 Table G. 12: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (low values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $1,660,441 $1,383,330 $1,066,137 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $924,576 $764,672 $593,292 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$2.33 $1:$1.93 $1:$1.50 Table G. 13: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (high values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $4,888,709 $4,516,408 $3,453,057 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $3,606,658 $3,408,219 $2,587,661 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,600 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$9.10 $1:$8.60 $1:$6.53 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 G14 presents the results of this scenario when testing the low survey proxies and Table G15 presents results for the high survey proxies. 72 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Table G. 14: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (low values) at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case 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 $1,660,441 $328,088 $797,396 $2,440,662 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $924,576 $184,915 $439,463 $1,386,864 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,300 $396,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$2.33 $1:$0.47 $1:$1.11 $1:$3.53 Table G. 15: Sensitivity Analysis of Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (high values) at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case 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 $4,888,709 $977,742 $2,444,354 $7,333,063 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $3,606,658 $721,332 $1,803,329 $5,409,987 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,600 $396,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$9.10 $1:$1.82 $1:$4.55 $1:$13.76 Across all valuations and scenarios, the program still has a strong positive SROI. Based on the totality of these sensitivity analysis, when using stakeholder valuations – Inuka! has a Social Return on Investment Ratio between $1: $0.47 and $1: $13.76 RESULTS – COST-BASED VALUATION (PRE-ELECTION) When estimating the value for outcomes using financial proxies for outcomes based on market rates and other costs identified through the literature search, it was determined that for every $1 invested in the program, $1.15 in social value is created (with a range of $0.23 to $1.73 per sensitivity analysis). When using this valuation strategy, the value created for each stakeholder group is similar to that of the stakeholders-stated preference valuation approach. The most value is created for youth (63%), followed by engaged listeners of radio programming (20%), followed by community influencers (11%), and staff (4%) and security actors (2%). This is largely consistent with the primary targets of the intervention. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 73 Figure G. 11: Distribution of Value Created for Stakeholders (Cost-Based Valuation) 63% 2% 20% 11% 4% Youth Community Influencers Engaged Listeners Security Actors Staff The three outcomes that generated the most value for youth across both low and high valuations were: (1) Increased rehabilitation and reformation, (2) Changed relationship with police and (3) Increased Empowerment. Youth also experienced other outcomes (as shown in Figure G12) that created positive social value. Figure G12 presents all outcomes and their valuations and G13 presents these valuations relative to one another. Figure G. 12: Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Valuation) $109,368 $8,802 $12,132 $7,706 $4,637 $118,082 $- $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $140,000.00 Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation 74 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure G. 13: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth (Cost-Based Valuation) 42% 3% 5% 2% 3% 45% Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation For Engaged Listeners of Radio Programming – two key outcomes were experienced. These are: (1) Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding and (2) Increased Collaboration to Solve Problems. Their valuations and relative value are shown in Figures G14 and G15. Figure G. 14: Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Cost-Based Valuation) $4,260 $77,277 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Figure G. 15: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners (Cost-Based Valuation) 5% 95% Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 75 Community Influencers experienced two key outcomes – (1) Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding and (2) Increased Networking and Opportunities. Their valuations are presented in Figure G16 and Relative Values in Figure G17. Figure G. 16: Value of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Cost-Based Valuation) $4,800 $1,980 $- $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased Networking and Opportunities Figure G. 17: Relative Values of Outcomes for Community Influencers (Cost-Based Valuation) 71% 29% Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased Networking and Opportunities Security Actors experienced one key outcome – increased capacity for peacebuilding. Security Actors described that through Inuka! they were better able to understand the communities that they serve. The valuation for this outcome is presented in Figure G18. 76 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure G. 18: Value of Outcomes for Security Actors (Cost-Based Valuation) $46,598 $- $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $50,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Finally, staff members working on the Inuka! program also experienced one key outcome – increased capacity for peacebuilding. Valuations for this outcome are presented in Figure G19. Figure G. 19: Valuation of Outcomes for Staff (Cost-Based Valuation) $18,307 $- $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS To understand how changes to any of the assumptions may affect the overall social value created, a range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. The same analyses were conducted on the cost-based 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 the surveys of stakeholders, and for financial proxies it was the valuation established through the literature. Results for each of the sensitivity analyses are presented in Tables G16, G17 and G18. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 77 Table G. 16: Sensitivity Analysis of Cost-Based financial proxies based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $883,459 $590,734 $291,444 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $454,602 $306,102 $165,844 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $1.15 $1:$0.77 $1:$0.42 As attribution increases, there is a shift from a positive SROI to a negative SROI. This is not likely a result of Inuka! creating negative social value, it is more likely a result of the limited scope of analysis. Table G. 17: Sensitivity Analysis of Cost-based Financial Proxies based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $883,459 $553,933 $286,739 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $454,602 $300,740 $166,255 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $1.15 $1: $0.71 $1: $0.41 Similar to attribution - as deadweight increases, there is a shift from a positive SROI to a negative SROI. This is not likely a result of Inuka! creating negative social value, it is more likely a result of the limited scope of analysis. Table G. 18: Sensitivity Analysis of Cost-based Financial Proxies at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case BASE CASE (FULL VALUATION) FINANCIAL PROXY 20% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 50% OF BASE CASE FINANCIAL PROXY 150% OF BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $883,459 $176,692 $337,340 $1,328,189 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $454,602 $90,921 $172,824 $681,904 TOTAL INVESTMENT $393,300 $396,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1: $1.15 $1:$0.23 $1:$0.44 $1:$1.72 78 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Based on these results, there is a negative SROI when the financial proxies are 20% and 50% of their base cases. Again, this is likely not as Inuka! is creating negative social value but of various other factors including low financial proxies (from market rates) and a high budgetary figure used. Based on the totality of these sensitivity analysis, when using financial proxies from the literature– Inuka! has a social return on investment ratio between $1: $0.23 and $1: $1.72. RESULTS – STAKEHOLDERS-STATED PREFERENCE VALUATION (POST-ELECTION) As previously mentioned, the timeframe of this study afforded the unique ability to understand how the 2022 Kenyan national elections influenced stakeholders’ experience of outcomes through repeating the stakeholder valuation exercise. See data collection protocol for more detail on response rates and how the data was captured. Results from the analysis show that for every $1 invested in Inuka!, between $6 and $17 in social value was created. To understand the social value that was created during the election, outcomes were valued based on stakeholders stated preferences. This ratio changed to $1: $1.22-$18.77 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 able to be determined. However, valuations and sensitivity analyses for the results that were collected can be presented. The stakeholder groups that results can be presented for are: Youth, Engaged Listeners and Staff. 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 rehabilitation and reformation, (2) Increased capacity for peacebuilding and (3) Increased networking and opportunities. Table G19 compares the most valuable outcomes in both periods. All outcomes still generated positive value for youth. All valuations in this period are shown in Figure G20. Table G. 19: Most Valuable Outcomes for Youth Pre- and Post-Election Pre-Election Post-Election 1 Increased networking and opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation 2 Increased empowerment Increased capacity for peacebuilding 3 Increased capacity for peacebuilding Increased networking and opportunities While this clearly demonstrates that there is value created for youth during the election period, it is also important to understand how this value compares relative to outside of the election context. Figure G20 presents the value created for youth both before and after the election. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 79 Figure G. 20: Value of Outcomes for Youth Pre- and Post- Election (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) $69,981 $109,588 $153,293 $94,496 $172,682 $93,764 $174,954 $365,293 $306,585 $157,493 $345,363 $625,095 $104,972 $182,647 $306,585 $157,493 $345,363 $156,274 $349,907 $730,586 $306,585 $314,985 $690,726 $1,562,738 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,600,000.00 $1,800,000.00 Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities Increased rehabilitation and reformation Low Valuation (Pre) Low Valuation (Post) High Valuation (Pre) High Valuation (Post) 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 stakeholders placed on outcomes during the post-election period. The relative value of outcomes at both low and high valuations are presented in Figure G21. 80 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure G. 21: Relative Value of Outcomes for Youth Post-Election (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations) 9% 23% 7% 9% 22% 30% Low Valuation Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes Increased Networking Opportunities 9% 22% 7% 8% 20% 34% High Valuation Changed Relationship With Police Increased capacity for peacebuidling Increased Empowerment Inclusion of Youth in Peace and Decision Making Processes The values of empowerment and rehabilitation/reformation are more sensitive to changes in assumptions or values than the other outcomes. For engaged listeners of radio programming – there was no change post-election in the two key outcomes experienced. These are: (1) Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding and (2) Increased Collaboration to Solve Problems. Their valuations and relative value are shown in Figures G22 and G23. Note that for this group, the relative valuation of these outcomes were consistent across both low and high stakeholders-stated preference valuations. As with youth, it is clear that more value is created in the post-election period for this stakeholder group. This is also shown through figure G22 that shows this value compared to the pre-election period. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 81 Figure G. 22: Values of outcomes for Engaged Listeners Pre- and Post-Election (Stakeholder Stated Preference Valuation) $44,820 $44,820 $353,580 $365,366 $53,037 $54,805 $883,950 $913,415 $- $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $300,000.00 $400,000.00 $500,000.00 $600,000.00 $700,000.00 $800,000.00 $900,000.00 $1,000,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Low Valuation (Pre) Low Valuation (Post) High Valuation (Pre) High Valuation (Post) Figure G. 23: Relative Value of Outcomes for Engaged Radio Listeners Post-Election 51% 49% Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Increased collaboration to solve problems Finally the election affected the value of outcomes that staff members working on the Inuka! program experienced. There were no changes to the one key outcome – increased capacity for peacebuilding – however the valuation did change. Based on this, it is evident that staff also had more social value created for them during the post-election period. Figure G24 compares this value to pre-election valuations. 82 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Figure G. 24: Value of Outcomes Pre- and Post-Election for Staff (Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation) $91,300 $91,300 $182,600 $182,600 $- $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $140,000.00 $160,000.00 $180,000.00 $200,000.00 Increased Capacity for Peacebuilding Low Valuation (Pre) Low Valuation (Post) High Valuation (Pre) High Valuation (Post) 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 as 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 G20 and G21 2) Deadweight – Tables G22 and G23 3) Valuation – Tables G24 and G25 Table G. 20: Sensitivity Analysis of Post-Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (low values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $4,759,812 $4,113,564 $3,144,171 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $2,416,198 $2,089,574 $1,812,439 TOTAL INVESTMENT $396,300 $396,300 $3,96,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$6.10 $1:$5.27 $1:$4.04 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 83 Table G. 21: Sensitivity Analysis of Post-Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuation (high values) based on changes to Attribution (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, ATTRIBUTION AS SURVEYED) ATTRIBUTION +10% FROM BASE CASE ATTRIBUTION +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $9,881,022 $8,555,579 $6,552,414 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $5,018,942 $4,343,468 $3,330,257 TOTAL INVESTMENT $396,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$12.66 $1:$10.96 $1:$8.40 Based on this sensitivity analysis, at all levels of attribution the program has a strong positive SROI in the post-election period. Table G. 22: Sensitivity Analysis of Post- Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (low values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (LOW FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $4,759,812 $4,107,487 $3,128,953 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $2,416,198 $2,086,712 $1,592,484 TOTAL INVESTMENT $396,300 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$6.10 $1:$5.27 $1:$4.02 Table G. 23: Sensitivity Analysis of Post-Election Stakeholders-Stated Preference Valuations (high values) based on changes to Deadweight (+10% and +25% from Baseline) BASE CASE (HIGH FINANCIAL PROXY, DEADWEIGHT AS SURVEYED) DEADWEIGHT +10% FROM BASE CASE DEADWEIGHT +25% FROM BASE CASE TOTAL MONETIZED SOCIAL VALUE $9,881,022 $8,529,151 $6,486,345 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $5,018,942 $4,330,922 $3,298,892 TOTAL INVESTMENT $396,300 $396,300 $386,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$12.66 $1:$10.93 $1:$8.23 Again, the results of this sensitivity analysis demonstrate that Inuka! generated a strong positive social return on investment in the context of the elections. 84 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Table G. 24: Sensitivity Analysis based on Post-Election Low Survey Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case 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 $4,759,812 $961,962 $2,376,906 $6,926,928 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $2,416,198 $482,240 $1,208,099 $3,510,647 TOTAL INVESTMENT $396,300 $396,300 $396,300 $396,00 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$6.10 $1:$1.22 $1:$3.05 $1:$8.86 Table G. 25: Sensitivity Analysis based on Post-Election High Survey Monetized Values at 20%, 50% and 150% of base case 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 $9,881,022 $1,978,204 $5,935,494 $14,745,233 TOTAL PRESENT SOCIAL VALUE $5,018,942 $1,033,788 $3,048,009 $7,437,113 TOTAL INVESTMENT $396,300 $393,600 $396,300 $396,300 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT $1:$12.66 $1:$2.53 $1:$7.69 $1:$18.77 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 stakeholders-stated preference valuations – Inuka! has a SROI between $1: $1.22 and $1: $19. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 85 ANNEX H: IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT For each outcome that it seeks to deliver or understand, Inuka! faces impact risks. According to the Impact Management Project consensus, “[i]mpact risk is the likelihood that impact will be different than expected, and that the difference will be material from the perspective of people or the planet who experience impact.” One of the primary such risks is evidence risk, which is closely related with the credibility of the assessment in the eyes of its audience. The evidence risk for each outcome and financial proxy used in this analysis was calculated. Three aspects of accuracy are considered in the evidence risk rubric: volume of evidence, rigor of evidence, and applicability of evidence. Additionally, the consequences of inaccuracy are rated. RUBRIC FOR IMPACT RISK: EVIDENCE A (Likelihood of Accuracy) + B (Consequences) = Evidence Risk The rating is on a 1 - 10 scale, 10 being highest risk, as follows: EVIDENCE RISK RATING: LIKELIHOOD OF ACCURACY • 1 = Extremely unlikely to be inaccurate, based on: statistically significant sample size/very large sample size relative to size of affected population, well-documented and robust methods of measurement and/or analysis, recency from 0-3 years old, and highly similar population and context to that in this 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 this 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 this 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 this 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 this 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. 86 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV Table H. 1: Impact Evidence Risk Rating 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 study 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. USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 87 ANNEX I: FINANCIAL PROXY SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS Table I. 1: Cost-Based Valuation Financial Proxy Sources and Related Assumptions WELL￾DEFINED OUTCOME FINANCIAL PROXY SOURCES RELATED ASSUMPTIONS Changed Relationship with Police Value of Never Being Arrested (HACT, Converted to Kenyan PPP) HACT VALUE: https://digital.library.carleton.ca/con cern/research_works/mp48sc79x?l ocale=en Financial Proxy in CAD, Converted to USD using FX of 1.35 CAD: USD (as of 1/10/2022) then to Kenyan PPP as 43.8 LCU/INT (from World Bank) Increased capacity for peacebuilding Cost of introductory peacebuilding course https://africapeaceinstitute.org/regis tration/ Level of peacebuilding education provided by Program similar to that provided by Introductory Peacebuilding course Market rate established through search of Introductory Peacebuilding course in Kenya Increased Empowerment Cost to join football team/year https://www.teamkenya.co.ke/news /2815-list-football-academies￾nairobi-amount-they-charge Valuation methodology consistent with SROI Analysis of Youth Programs in remote Central Australia (CALYUS) conducted by NOUS Group ( https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5006 1cbb84ae216bb5cb9339/t/59d30529e5dd5b 2e94a7c302/1507001676651/The%2Bimpac t%2Bof%2Byouth%2Bprograms%2Bin%2Bre mote%2Bcentral%2BAustralia- %2Ba%2BSocial%2BReturn%2Bon%2BInvest ment%2B%28SROI%29%2Banalysis-1.pdf) Valued in KSH (40,000) used 120 KSH: USD = 333 USD/yr Inclusion of Youth in Peace￾and Decision￾Making Processes Willingness to be a leader in the community (AUD converted to USD + Kenyan PPP) https://www.ganbina.com.au/wp￾content/uploads/2018/08/SROI￾Report-2012.pdf SROI Analysis of Indigenous Youth Program in Australia used “Willingness to Be a leader in the community” to express a similar outcome. 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 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 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 capacity for peacebuilding (Community Influencers) Cost of introductory peacebuilding course https://africapeaceinstitute.org/regis tration/ Level of peacebuilding education provided by Program similar to that provided by Introductory Peacebuilding course Market rate established through search of Introductory Peacebuilding course in Kenya Increased Networking and 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 capacity for peacebuilding (Engaged Listeners) Cost of introductory peacebuilding course https://africapeaceinstitute.org/regis tration/ Level of peacebuilding education provided by Program similar to that provided by Introductory Peacebuilding course Market rate established through search of Introductory Peacebuilding course in Kenya Increased collaboration to solve problems Value of improved peer relations (EUR converted to USD, https://socialvalueuk.org/wp￾content/uploads/2018/12/Final￾Report-3-March-2017.pdf SROI analysis of Youth Programs in Ireland monetized this outcome using Fujiwara’s Subjective Wellbeing Framework 88 | SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA USAID.GOV WELL￾DEFINED OUTCOME FINANCIAL PROXY SOURCES RELATED ASSUMPTIONS Converted to Kenyan PPP) (estimated amount of money needed to keep individuals satisfied with life if they could not enjoy the good/service) 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 capacity for peacebuilding (Security Actors) 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). 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 USAID.GOV SROI EVALUATION OF PROJECT INUKA | 89 ANNEX J: LIST OF EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS Table J. 1: List of Expert Advisory Group Members NAME ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED 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