This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by 
EnCompass LLC for the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning in Senegal (Contract No. 720OAA20D00011 / Task Order No. 72068522F00003).
FEED THE FUTURE YOUTH 
IN AGRICULTURE FINAL 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING IN 
SENEGAL
March 2023
PHOTO 4-H CLUB ACTIVITY | MEL PLATFORM, 2022
i | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ABSTRACT
The final performance evaluation of the Feed the Future (FtF) Youth in Agriculture (YIA) project used a 
mixed-methods approach to examine YIA’s appropriateness in the context of the FtF Senegal strategy, 
the soundness of its implementation approach, the quality of its resource management, the adequacy and 
effectiveness of Virginia Tech’s assistance delivery, the coverage and response to beneficiaries, and the 
potential for sustainability. The report’s findings and conclusions describe positive outcomes, missed 
targets, and remaining challenges. The positive outcomes include the success of the 4-H clubs, positive 
impact felt by club members and leaders, the institutionalization of 4-H within the Ministry of Higher 
Education, Research, and Innovation (MESRI) and partner universities, and the development of curricula
for the vocational training sector. However, YIA implementation encountered many delays that resulted 
in slow implementation and failure to achieve targets. High levels of commitment have contributed to 
sustainability, but challenges including insufficient collaboration with relevant ministries and agencies, low 
motivation at universities where committee members took on extra tasks without extra compensation, 
and administrative hurdles to dispense funds represent high risk threats for effective sustainability. The 
report presents recommendations for (1) USAID and the next implementing partner to increase 
efficiency, improve MEL systems, and increase private sector engagement; (2) MESRI and partner 
universities to further institutionalize 4-H programming and streamline financial procedures; (3) 
vocational training centers to develop and validate prioritized curricula; (4) the national 4-H association 
to increase private sector engagement; and (5) 4-H clubs to expand their reach and continue training. 
ii | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CONTENTS
LIST OF EXHIBITS ..........................................................................................................................................III
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ V
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................1
Evaluation Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................ 1
Evaluation Questions........................................................................................................................................................ 1
PROJECT BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................2
EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS............................................................................................3
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Limitations........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................................6
Question 1: Activity Effectiveness................................................................................................................................. 6
Question 2: Integration of the 4-H Program into the MESRI and the Universities.........................................15
Question 3: Sustainability of the National 4-H PROGRAM..................................................................................20
Question 4: Improvement and Adaptation of Vocational Training and Business Development Services..25
Question 5: YIA Activity’s Contribution to EGO Objectives and the FtF Strategy........................................27
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................29
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................33
USAID.................................................................................................................................................................................33
The Next Implementing Partner..................................................................................................................................33
MESRI and the Universities...........................................................................................................................................34
Vocational Training..........................................................................................................................................................35
National 4-H Association...............................................................................................................................................35
4-H Clubs...........................................................................................................................................................................35
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................36
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................38
Annex A: Evaluation Team............................................................................................................................................38
Annex B: Evaluation Statement of Work...................................................................................................................39
Annex C: Detailed Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................................49
Annex D: Information Sources.....................................................................................................................................53
Annex E: Data Collection Instruments.......................................................................................................................55
Annex F: Conflict of Interest Disclosures.................................................................................................................91
Annex G: Additional Survey Data Tables..................................................................................................................93
Annex H: 4-H Regional Poles.....................................................................................................................................112
Annex I: YIA Logical Framework, Indicator Targets and Results......................................................................113
Annex J: Vocational Training Curricula ....................................................................................................................116
iii | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: YIA components and key activities..................................................................................................3
Exhibit 2: Number of data sources by type and region.................................................................................5
Exhibit 3: Most clubs have implemented at least one activity, while leaders participate more frequently 
than members..........................................................................................................................................................6
Exhibit 4: Members’ level of participation in 4-H clubs by region ..............................................................6
Exhibit 5: Members and leaders acquired new skills as a result of YIA.....................................................7
Exhibit 6: Half of the new 4-H members enrolled in YIA’s last two years...............................................9
Exhibit 7: The percentage of members receiving training and participating in club activities declined as 
club membership increased................................................................................................................................10
Exhibit 8: YIA indicator achievement rates, overall and by component..................................................11
Exhibit 9: Framework for institutionalizing PYD (4-H) in MESRI and universities................................15
Exhibit 10: 4-H members received less training than 4-H leaders............................................................24
Exhibit 11: YIA FtF Indicator Achievement Rates.........................................................................................27
Exhibit 12: Summary of data sources by region and type of data source ...............................................53
Exhibit 13: Summary of data sources by type of organization and type of data....................................53
Exhibit 14: YIA logical framework ................................................................................................................. 113
Exhibit 15: YIA indicator achievement rates............................................................................................... 114
Exhibit 16: Priority training topics for vocational training ....................................................................... 116
iv | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACP Agent Comptable Principal, Principal Accounting Agent
AMELP Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan
ANPEJ Agence Nationale pour le Promotion de l’Emploi des Jeunes
CCIR Cross-cutting intermediate result
CFP Centre de Formation Professionnelle, vocational training center
CIPA Centre d'Initiation et de Perfectionnement dans les Métiers de l’Agriculture
COP Chief of Party
CRE Centre de Recherche et d’Essai
DAIS Data Analysis, Integration, and Synthesis
DECLIC Développement-Citoyenneté-Leadership Intégré & Communautaire
DGRI Directorate General of Research and Innovation
ERA Education and Research in Agriculture
EG4ALL Economic Growth for All
EGO Economic Growth Office
FCFA West African CFA franc
FGD Focus group discussion
FtF Feed the Future
GIE Groupement d’intérêt économique, economic interest group
ISFAR Institut Supérieur de Formation Agricole et Rurale
KII Key informant interview
LTAEB Lycée Technique Agricole Emile Badiane
MESRI Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Ministry 
of Higher Education, Research and Innovation
MFPAA Ministère de la Formation Professionnelle, de l'Apprentissage et de l'Artisanat, 
Ministry of Vocational Training, Learning and Crafts
PPP Public-Private Partnership
PYD Positive Youth Development
UADB Université Alioune Diop de Bambey
UAM Université Ahmadou Makhtar Mbow de Diamniadio
UASZ Université Assane Seck de Ziguinchor
UCAD Université Cheikh Anta Diop
UGB Université Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis
UIDT Université Iba Der Thiam de Thiès
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development 
USG U.S. Government
USSEIN Université du Sine Saloum Elhadji Ibrahima Niasse
YIA Youth in Agriculture
v | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Feed the Future (FtF)/Youth in Agriculture (YIA) was a $4 million project, funded by the U.S. Agency for 
International Development (USAID) in Senegal through the Economic Growth Office (EGO) from 2017
to 2022. It was implemented by Virginia Tech Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), in 
partnership with Senegalese ministries, universities, vocational training centers, and 4-H clubs. Its 
development hypothesis was that the institutionalization of a national Positive Youth Development 
(PYD) program, plus innovative approaches to bridging Technical and Vocational Education and Training 
(TVET) institutions with private sector value chain actors, can yield increased employment and 
enterprise development, increased youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, and increased
inclusive economic growth.
The implementation strategy relied on two key components, each with a specific orientation. 
Component 1 sought to establish and institutionalize a national PYD program in partnership with the 
Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation (MESRI) and six universities to implement and 
coordinate activities. It used a training of trainers (TOT) approach to encourage and support the growth 
of 4-H clubs and members. Component 2 sought to improve vocational training and business 
development services by pilot testing innovative approaches to strengthen training institutions’ 
connections with private sector actors and markets. It included development of a vocational training 
curriculum based on an analysis of private sector needs. 
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team examined the appropriateness of YIA’s two components in the context of the FtF 
Senegal strategy, the soundness of the implementation approach, the quality of YIA’s resource 
management, the adequacy and effectiveness of Virginia Tech’s assistance delivery, the coverage and 
response to beneficiaries, and the potential for overall sustainability of YIA’s results beyond its closing. 
USAID/Senegal EGO will use findings and recommendations from the evaluation to inform future 
programming related to youth in agriculture in Senegal.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation addressed six questions, described below with associated findings and conclusions.
1. To what extent has the Activity been implemented effectively, including the timely 
completion of planned activities, the efficient use of Activity resources, and the quality 
of partnerships and collaboration? 
Stakeholders, survey respondents, and project documents confirmed that YIA encountered many delays 
in launching activities with MESRI and the universities, which had a ripple effect on other activities and 
contributed to it falling short of most of its targets. YIA’s team structure and configuration were not 
appropriate for optimal implementation as defined in its award document, suggesting that YIA was not 
implemented effectively, despite achieving important results.
vi | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
These shortcomings notwithstanding, survey respondents reported that YIA training provided them with 
new knowledge and skills, which some of the active clubs have used to implement income generation or
community service activities. These results demonstrate the value of PYD and its role in supporting 
youth engagement in economic growth. In its last two years, YIA established innovative partnerships 
with grassroots organizations and schools that accelerated the establishment of new clubs and club 
membership. The success of the 4-H clubs is one of the most important achievements of YIA, largely 
due to the high levels of motivation among leaders and members who benefited from trainings on 
several topics (leadership, entrepreneurship, etc.) and have taken ownership of the 4-H concept. 
Overall, respondents reported the project had insufficient resources to implement the project as 
designed, and that the minimal resources afforded to the project were used ineffectively. Stakeholders at 
the universities indicated that delays in receiving disbursements meant they did not receive all planned 
funds, which especially affected support for 4-H clubs. Stakeholders observed that having the Chief of 
Party based in the United States instead of Senegal impeded operating procedures and relations with 
counterparts. They also reported that the YIA team was too small to effectively implement the program.
Stakeholders and project documents reveal that YIA lacked a functional and effective monitoring, 
evaluation, and learning (MEL) system, including qualified staff. YIA entrusted club monitoring and 
routine data collection to partner universities, but they were never able to perform these functions due 
to a lack of resources and qualified personnel. As a result, YIA did not effectively monitor 4-H club 
establishment, enrollment, and functionality. 
As a result of these factors only 8 of YIA’s 24 indicators achieved at least 75 percent of their assigned 
targets. The delays in reaching an agreement with MESRI and then the universities were a central cause 
for lack of results in many of these indicators, especially those related to public-private partnerships
(PPPs) for Component 1 and curriculum development in Component 2. YIA fell short of its targets 
related to private sector engagement, entrepreneurship, and employment. The evaluation team did not 
find sufficient evidence of YIA efforts to engage the private sector. The YIA staffing plan did not include 
a private sector specialist to tackle these issues, which contributed to the lack of results. 
2. To what extent has the national youth program governance structure been embedded 
within MESRI and the universities?
Stakeholders and YIA reports confirm that MESRI successfully implemented the institutional framework 
and established YIA governance bodies with the Directorate General of Research and Innovation 
(DGRI) for steering and governance of the national PYD program. This commitment to incorporating 
the program governance resulted in a series of administrative acts (decrees) that have formalized hosting 
of the program within DGRI. Following these decrees, MESRI formally put in place several structures to 
ensure strategic governance of the program and established a national coordination team composed of
MESRI staff and government officials. This process took longer than expected (a full year) because a new 
minister was appointed and YIA had to relaunch the process for establishing the agreement with MESRI, 
which was a prerequisite for establishing partnerships with the six universities selected for participation. 
For YIA to sign grant agreements, the universities needed to meet USAID and U.S. government (USG)
requirements, which took another year. Funds transferred to the university go into a single account, 
which added delays in disbursing funds. Universities also needed to account for the funds received 
before YIA could disburse additional tranches. As a result, no university received the full amount of its 
grant, further affecting implementation. 
vii | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Partner universities have taken important steps to integrate 4-H into their structures and acknowledge 
its role in achieving their community service mission. Rectors from the six partner universities issued 
decrees to set up the regional poles and assigned staff to coordinate implementation of national 4-H 
program activities, including training of trainers, supporting leaders, and monitoring 4-H clubs, among 
other tasks. Members of the regional poles indicate that the 4-H club activities had a positive impact on 
the community service component of the partner universities, particularly in Bambey, Diamniadio, Saint￾Louis, and Thiès.
YIA successfully embedded the 4-H program governance within MESRI and partner universities, which all 
have 4-H program coordination teams to support 4-H activity implementation. This achievement
created strong foundations and fostered great ownership among national education institutions. 
Challenges remain due to unequal levels of commitment and political will, the limited duration of their 
collaboration with YIA, the lack of a transition plan, and limited staff motivation for the assigned public 
staff members in the universities.
3. What is the overall sustainability of the national 4-H program? 
YIA partners expressed their strong commitment to the program and its continuation, but additional 
steps are needed to further institutionalize the program and ensure long-term viability. Stakeholders at 
MESRI and the universities all consider the 4-H club spirit and philosophy to be in line with their 
community service mission. They report that various mechanisms and instruments that can support the 
sustainability of YIA’s achievements and the national 4-H program are in place and can be used to ensure 
the continuity of the national program’s PYD activities. DGRI plans for the Government of Senegal to 
set up a National Research and Innovation Development Fund that could contribute to the financing of 
the national 4-H program activities.
Some 4-H clubs have implemented self-sustaining initiatives with little or no outside financing that are 
likely to continue after YIA’s end because they were financed mostly through small contributions from 
individual club members. Among 4-H club members surveyed, 6 percent had implemented an income￾generating activity and 7 percent had implemented a community service activity. 
Stakeholders confirmed there was no transition plan to ensure YIA efforts would continue past the 
program’s end. Stakeholders also commented that they were not informed about the project’s 
conclusion but they also noted their hope for an extension. 
YIA followed a TOT model by providing grants to universities to train leaders who were expected to 
train members, but only 14 percent of members reported receiving any training and nearly one-third of 
the clubs visited are not functional. Club members and leaders attributed this to the lack of training and 
other support. The delays described above meant that YIA transferred fewer funds to universities, who 
provided less training than was planned.
4. To what extent have vocational training and business development services been 
improved, including tailoring to the needs of local communities?
Stakeholders agree that YIA effectively supported an analysis of the supply and demand for vocational 
training and guided vocational training centers accordingly to revise their training curricula, some of 
which adopted new pedagogical approaches. Following a highly participatory process, YIA worked with 
agricultural production actors to prioritize training topics and course offerings, but did not initiate the 
process of developing the selected offerings before the project end date. 
viii | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Working through national accreditation bodies, YIA supported the review of the training modules and 
the revision of certain training modules at the Institut Supérieur de Formation Agricole et Rurale (ISFAR), 
which stakeholders appreciated. The university in Bambey, the Lycée Technique Agricole Emile Badiane, 
and the vocational training center in Dagana have added new modules that were not included in their 
courses before their collaboration with YIA. The universities in Bambey and Diamniadio have changed
the modules and content of their training courses. Pedagogical Coordinators involved in the process 
showed a strong appropriation for the pedagogical contributions supported by YIA. Curricula have yet 
to be validated, which is the next step in the process. 
On the entrepreneurship side, YIA has supported micro-projects for youth entrepreneurial initiatives 
through six vocational training centers, providing each with grants of 11,000,000 FCFA. Stakeholders at 
the training centers and recipients provided anecdotal evidence of the activities implemented. 
While vocational training was a YIA achievement with the potential for sustainability, opportunities for 
private sector collaboration included in the project design did not materialize. The evaluation team 
found insufficient evidence of YIA efforts to develop PPPs. The YIA staffing plan did not include a private 
sector specialist, which contributed to the lack of results.
5. How effectively has YIA contributed to the EGO objectives in Senegal and, more 
globally, the FtF strategy in Senegal?
YIA activities align with EGO objectives and the FtF strategy. YIA’s project goal is increased youth 
engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, which aligns with four intermediate results in the Economic 
Growth for All (EG4ALL) project document: increased employment and small and medium enterprise 
development; improved human, organizational, and systemic performance; empowering youth and 
women; and increased access to finance. YIA had a higher achievement rate for indicators related to 
empowering youth and women and organizational performance, but YIA activities related to 
employment, enterprise development, and access to finance did not take hold, so few contributions 
were made in this area.
Eleven of YIA’s 24 indicators are standard FtF indicators and all but one of these are included in the 
Mission’s annual Program Performance Report (PPR). Of these only four achieved at least 75 percent of 
their target. Two of these focus on the number of jobs generated and the capacity of USG-supported 
institutions. Of the four indicators that reached less than 25 percent of their target, three measure the 
economic impact that YIA was intended to have: value of annual sales from farms or firms; value of 
agriculture-related financing accessed; and the number of individuals participating in group-based savings, 
microfinance, or lending programs.
The last part of YIA’s development hypothesis links its activities to “increased employment and 
enterprise development, increased youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, and finally 
increased inclusive economic growth.” There is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove the 
hypothesis that planned activities would contribute to inclusive economic growth; the lack of results 
under YIA may be related more to poor implementation than the lack of sound development design. 
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below draw on the findings and conclusions listed above, as well as a 
recommendations co-creation workshop organized with stakeholders on January 10, 2023.
ix | YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE FINAL EVALUATION USAID.GOV
STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATION
USAID should… · Encourage a more efficient, learning-focused, and sustainable approach
(EQ1, EQ4).
· Encourage more effective public-private partnerships, which are key to 
sustainability but did not materialize under YIA (EQ4).
· Engage MESRI (or other government entities) in the design phase of any 
future programming or opt for co-creation workshops that will ensure 
their perspective is reflected, thereby demonstrating USAID’s
commitment to locally led development (EQ2). 
The next 
implementing 
partner should…
· Establish an effective and adequately resourced MEL system to improve 
monitoring of program activities and introduce greater learning and 
adaptation (EQ1).
· Engage MESRI and the universities upon award and be prepared to assist 
sub-awardees with all USG procedures related to receiving funds (EQ2).
MESRI and the 
universities 
should…
· Continue to institutionalize the 4-H program by creating a 4-H 
Coordinator position, developing periodic work plans, and organizing 
regular meetings to track progress, adapt activities and pivot as needed 
(EQ2, EQ3).
· Increase their financial commitment to the 4-H program through greater
investment in the university coordinating committees, integration of 
community service in work plans and budgets, establishment of 
dedicated accounts for project funds, and additional efforts to seek 
private sector contributions (EQ2, EQ3).
MESRI, the Ministry 
of Vocational 
Training, Learning,
and Crafts should…
· Complete the process of validating the curricula developed with YIA 
support and developing the course offerings identified and prioritized 
with YIA support (EQ4).
· Engage relevant sectoral ministries to expand the impact of the 
vocational training (EQ4).
Vocational training 
centers should…
· Strengthen their dialogue with the private sector, particularly to 
incorporate their needs into course offerings (EQ4, EQ5).
The National 4-H 
Association
should…
· Develop a private sector engagement strategy to secure more 
internship, employment, and entrepreneurship opportunities for clubs 
and members (EQ3, EQ4). 
· Develop a strategy for expanding beyond the universities, drawing the 
success of working through secondary schools and local grassroots 
organizations (EQ3). 
4-H clubs should… · Develop more revenue-generating activities and implement additional 
training using the TOT model (EQ3). 
· Involve first and second year students in club management to lessen the 
activity slowdown that occurs when student leaders graduate (EQ3).
1 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION 
QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE
As Youth in Agriculture (YIA) came to an end after five years of implementation, USAID commissioned 
the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in Senegal Platform (MEL Platform) to conduct the final 
performance evaluation. The evaluation team examined the appropriateness of YIA’s two components in 
the context of the Feed the Future (FtF) Senegal strategy, 
the soundness of the implementation approach, the quality 
of YIA’s resource management, the adequacy and 
effectiveness of Virginia Tech’s assistance delivery, the 
coverage and response to beneficiaries, and the potential 
for overall sustainability of YIA’s results beyond its closing. 
The USAID/Senegal Economic Growth Office (EGO) will 
use findings and recommendations from the evaluation to 
inform future youth in agriculture programming in Senegal. 
The final evaluation design and implementation process was 
highly participatory and collaborative, including:
· Co-creation of an evaluation scope of work (SOW) and design with USAID/Senegal EGO
· Validation of findings and participatory co-creation of practical, reasonable, and actionable 
recommendations that will be beneficial to future programming through a workshop with key 
stakeholders including representatives from Virginia Tech/YIA staff, officials from the Direction 
Générale de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (DGRI) at the Ministry of Higher Education Research 
and Innovation (MESRI), Regional Poles (described in more detail below), and 4-H club 
representatives.
The audience for the evaluation includes USAID/EGO, Virginia Tech, the implementing partner for any 
future activity, MESRI, partner universities, the National 4-H Association and 4-H clubs. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
USAID initially suggested six evaluation questions in its tasking request, which the evaluation team 
reformulated into five evaluation questions, listed below. See Annex B: Evaluation Statement of Work
for a comprehensive discussion of the questions and sub-questions explored in the evaluation. 
1. To what extent has the Activity been implemented effectively, including the timely 
completion of planned activities, the efficient use of Activity resources, and the quality of 
partnerships and collaboration?
2. To what extent has the national youth program governance structure been embedded 
within the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation (MESRI) and the 
universities?
3. What is the overall sustainability of the national 4-H program?
Evaluation Objectives
1. Assess overall performance of YIA 
2. Assess the adequacy of YIA in the 
context of the Senegal FtF strategy
3. Assess overall potential for 
sustainability of project gains after 
project closure
4. Co-create practical recommendations 
to inform future programming
2 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. To what extent have vocational training and business development services been improved, 
including tailoring to the needs of local communities?
5. How effectively has YIA contributed to the EGO objectives in Senegal and, more globally,
the FtF strategy in Senegal?
PROJECT BACKGROUND 
Feed the Future (FtF)/Youth in Agriculture (YIA) is a $4 million project funded by USAID/Senegal 
through the Economic Growth Office (EGO). FtF YIA is an Associate Cooperative Agreement that ran 
from November 2, 2017, through November 1, 2022, under Award Number AID-685-LA-17-00002. It
was implemented by Virginia Tech Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), in partnership with 
MESRI and the Universities of Senegal and in collaboration with the Ministère de la Formation 
Professionnelle, de l'Apprentissage et de l'Artisanat (MFPAA) and the Ministère de la Jeunesse et de l’Emploi. Its 
objective was to increase youth engagement in driving economic growth by building young people’s
capacity and supporting the institutionalization of positive youth development and vocational training 
systems that create dynamic and profitable entrepreneurial and employment opportunities in agricultural 
value chains and markets. In coordination with other actors in the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID) and Government of Senegal (GoS), this project addressed USAID/Senegal’s 
Economic Growth for All (EG4ALL) Intervention Area 3: Entrepreneurship and Vocational Development 
Services, to contribute to increased inclusive economic growth and the reduction of poverty and 
undernourishment in Senegal.
According to Senegal’s National Agency for Statistics and Demography (ANSD, 2016), 50 percent of 
Senegal’s population is under the age of 18 and about half of these youth live in rural areas. Senegal has 
an estimated youth unemployment rate of nearly 32 percent (Agence nationale pour la promotion de 
l'emploi des jeunes—ANPEJ, 2016) with approximately 60 percent of all unemployed people in Senegal 
being under the age of 26 (ANSD, 2016). Each year, more than 100,000 young job seekers enter the 
labor market (Plan Senegal Emergent, 2019). These trends, perceived as challenges to economic 
development, can become real opportunities for quality human resources and a potential force for 
development.
The USAID/Senegal EG4ALL Program Activity Document raised several issues that hinder the 
integration of youth into modern agriculture, both on and off the farm in Senegal. The vision is clear on 
the critical role that positive youth development (PYD), youth employment, entrepreneurship, and 
innovative market-based vocational training must play in Senegal’s emerging economic and community 
development. Thus USAID/Senegal funded Education and Research in Agriculture (ERA), a “4‐H Senegal”
PYD Program focused on agriculture and entrepreneurship for sustainable community development.1
To embed the 4-H Senegal program at the institutional and local levels, YIA provided funding for six
regional 4-H consortia, or “poles,” each housed at a different university: Université Gaston Berger de
Saint-Louis (UGB), Université Chiekh Anta Diop (UCAD) in Dakar, Université Iba Der Thiam (UIDT) in 
1 From its creation in the United States, 4-H (head, heart, hands, and health) promotes the active participation of universities 
and agricultural training centers in developing a new generation of agriculturists. 4-H Senegal links agricultural institutions and 
their pedagogical expertise with local youth who seek valuable knowledge and experience in agriculture. Source: 4-H Senegal 
Positive Youth Development Fact Sheet https://cired.vt.edu/content/dam/cired_vt_edu/Youth%20in%20Agriculture%20-%204-
H%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
3 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Thiès, Université du Sine Saloum Elhadji Ibrahima Niasse (USSEIN) in the Sine Saloum, Université 
Alioune Diop de Bambey (UADB) in Diourbel, and Université Assane Seck de Ziguinchor (UASZ) in 
Casamance. Each pole, although physically and administratively focused on the leading university, is 
constituted and managed in collaboration with a consortium of stakeholder institutions. A schematic
diagram of the partners in each of the six regional poles is available in Annex H: 4-H Regional Poles.
The YIA development hypothesis is that the institutionalization of a national PYD program, plus 
innovative approaches to bridging Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions 
with private sector value chain actors, can yield increased employment and enterprise development, 
increased youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, and finally increased inclusive economic 
growth. YIA’s planned interventions are summarized in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: YIA components and key activities
COMPONENTS KEY ACTIVITIES
Component 1: Establish and 
institutionalize a national PYD 
program, building on the 4-H 
Senegal Positive Youth 
Development program of the 
USAID program Education and 
Research in Agriculture (ERA).
· Training of trainers on 4-H and PYD
· Creation and sharing of evidence-based pedagogical materials
· Management of sub-awards for Regional 4-H Sites
· Backstop creation, management, and evaluation of certified 
clubs
· Facilitation of participatory youth evaluation and research
· National 4-H program coordination meetings
· National 4-H Youth Congress
· Special agricultural, STEM, and entrepreneurship 
activities/events
Component 2: Improve vocational 
training and business development 
services by pilot testing innovative 
approaches to strengthen training 
institutions’ connections with 
private sector actors and markets. 
· Training of trainers on youth employment and 
entrepreneurship
· Workshops for integrated curricula co-creation
· Management of sub-awards for TVET partnerships
· Networking and exchange events for youth, employers, and 
investors
YIA also implements crosscutting activities touching on both components, such as the facilitation of 
public-private partnerships (PPPs) and of a PYD/Youth Employment Community of Practice. YIA 
covered the regions of Dakar, Thiès, Saint-Louis, Dagana, Bambey, and the Sine Saloum zone including 
Kaolack, Ziguinchor, and Bignona.
EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS
This section summarizes the evaluation methods and limitations. See Annex C: Detailed Evaluation 
Methodology for a more detailed description of the methodology.
METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative data 
collection to foster triangulation and increase the validity of the evaluation results. The team used a 
three-phase approach: (1) review and analysis of activity documents, (2) quantitative surveys with 4-H 
club leaders and members, and (3) key informant interviews (KIIs), group discussions (GDs), and focus 
group discussions (FGDs) with various activity stakeholders and beneficiaries. The evaluation time frame 
is from August 2022 through February 2023. Data collection took place from November 10—22, 2022.
4 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
SAMPLING
For the survey of youth members of 4-H clubs, the team used a two-stage stratified random draw to 
select the clubs and then the members to be interviewed in those clubs. In each stratum, the team 
calculated the sample size based on the number of members per club in the stratum with a 90 percent
confidence level, a 10 percent margin of error, and a design effect of 1.5. In the first stage, the team 
drew 10 clubs in four regions (Dakar, Diourbel, Saint-Louis, and Ziguinchor) from the list of clubs 
provided by YIA and selected 10 members from each club, distributed proportionally by sex according 
to the number of boys and girls in the club. In randomly selected clubs that did not have the expected 
number of members, the team interviewed all members to reach the maximum number of respondents 
in the club. For club leaders, the team calculated the sample for all four regions using the same statistical 
parameters, resulting in a sample of 140 leaders, which the team rounded to 200 leaders.
To identify stakeholders for the KIIs and FGDs, the team use purposive sampling, based on project 
activities, beneficiaries, and partners in each region. In addition to the fieldwork in four regions, the 
evaluation team met with all six university rectors. See Exhibit 2 for more details. 
PHASE 1: DOCUMENT REVIEW
The evaluation team reviewed YIA project documents to assess the conformity of implementation with 
what was planned, including the YIA award document, annual work plans, quarterly and annual 
performance reports, and the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) for targets and 
actual results. The team consulted these documents to understand YIA’s objectives, strategy, and 
implementation. Please refer to the References section for a complete list and the Limitations section 
for additional detail. 
PHASE 2: QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION
· Survey of 4-H leaders who have benefited from TOT: The evaluation team surveyed 200
4-H leaders in 40 clubs who benefited from these trainings, in particular on the knowledge and 
skills acquired in PYD, leadership and youth engagement, to assess both the YIA contribution in
setting up a critical mass of trainers and the sustainability of this approach.
· Survey of youth 4-H club members: The evaluation team surveyed 350 young 4-H 
members in 40 clubs who participated in or benefited from YIA project interventions in Senegal.
The purpose was to gauge their participation in 4-H activities and trainings and what they gained 
from their participation. 
PHASE 3: QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION
· Semi-structured KIIs and GDs: The team conducted semi-structured KIIs and GDs with 
stakeholders at the central level, including representatives of MESRI, USAID, YIA, and ANPEJ,
and with stakeholders representing organizations at the regional level such as regional university 
clusters, research centers, institutions, institutes and training centers, and club leaders. See 
Exhibit 2 for more details. 
· FGDs: To complement the quantitative data collected through the youth survey, the team
conducted FGDs with youth club members and participants in the 4-H program. The evaluation 
team conducted 19 FGDs across 4 regions: Dakar, Diourbel, Saint-Louis, and Ziguinchor. See 
Exhibit 2 for more details.
5 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 2: Number of data sources by type and region
REGION KII GD FGD SURVEY OF 4-H MEMBERS SURVEY OF 4-H LEADERS
Dakar 18 4 4 85 50
Diourbel 9 1 5 88 50
Saint-Louis 11 3 5 84 50
Ziguinchor 12 2 5 93 50
Thiès 2 0 0 -- --
Kaolack 1 0 0 -- --
Total 53 10 19 350 200
DATA SYNTHESIS, PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
To analyze data captured from the surveys, KIIs, GDs, and FGDs, the evaluation team used the standard 
EnCompass approach, called Data Analysis, Integration, and Synthesis (DAIS). This approach allowed the 
evaluation team to integrate and interpret mixed-methods data (document review, qualitative and 
quantitative components) efficiently and rigorously.
LIMITATIONS
Beyond the risks inherent to any research work, the team encountered some challenges and limitations
during the implementation of this evaluation. 
TIME LIMITATIONS. Given that USAID EGO intended to use the findings and recommendations of
this evaluation for future programming, the evaluation team faced a tight timeline for implementation. To 
best meet these needs, the MEL Platform readjusted the evaluation implementation schedule and 
engaged its entire team at key stages to submit deliverables on time. In addition, schedule constraints 
and the unavailability of some institutional actors (university presidents and ministries) led to successive 
postponements of the interviews, thus extending the duration of the data collection, and resulting in a 
compressed time frame for analyzing data. The evaluation team adjusted by using meeting platforms like 
Teams to carry out some interviews and working closely to develop slightly phased data analysis.
PROJECT DOCUMENT LIMITATIONS. Documentation received from the implementing partner 
was often delayed, faulty, or unavailable. The delay in receipt of the database from the implementing 
partner greatly delayed preliminary analysis and the ability to develop a robust evaluation work plan. The 
database required considerable cleaning to be usable because the list of beneficiaries was not 
disaggregated by sex and included non-standard location definitions. In addition, the evaluation team was 
unable to access certain key documents (including activity financial information and partnership 
agreements signed with some partners) which greatly limited the team’s ability to analyze certain aspects 
covered by the evaluation questions. The evaluation team used available sources to process the existing 
information, probing for additional details during KIIs.
STAFFING. The evaluation team leader withdrew the day before fieldwork was to begin. The 
Platform’s Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist replaced him, allowing the team to stay on 
schedule. For additional details on the team composition, please see Annex A: Evaluation Team.
6 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
FINDINGS 
QUESTION 1:ACTIVITY EFFECTIVENESS
FINDING 1: YIA training has provided 4-H leaders and members with new knowledge 
and skills, which they have used to implement income generation and 
community service activities.
Overall, the data show that most 4-H clubs are at least somewhat active; two-thirds of the 4-H clubs 
surveyed reported having conducted at least one activity since their charter. Leaders participated more 
actively than members (See Exhibit 3). 
Exhibit 3: Most clubs have implemented at least one activity, while leaders participate more frequently than members
BENEFITS OF TRAINING. When surveyed about their involvment in 4-H clubs, leaders most 
frequently cited training activities (72 percent), followed by community interest activities (39 percent),
while members cited community interest activities (40 percent), followed by market gardening activities 
(33 percent). The survey results show that 87 percent of leaders surveyed reported having received 
training from YIA, compared to only 17 percent of club members. Of the leaders surveyed, only 41
percent reported having replicated the training they received to their club members.
In addition, data from the survey of youth club members indicated a significant difference in member 
participation in club activities across regions (p < .001). The Ziguinchor region had the highest 
proportion of youth who participated in club activities (73 percent), followed by Diourbel (51 percent)
and Saint-Louis (48 percent). The Dakar region had the lowest level of participation in club activities (27
percent) (see Exhibit 5).
Exhibit 4: Members’ level of participation in 4-H clubs by region
7 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES. Results from FGDs, KIIs, and surveys of club leaders and youth 
members indicate that leaders and members who participated in the 4-H program activities gained new 
knowledge and skills. Club members who participated in the focus groups held by the evaluation team 
agreed that the activities carried out in their 4-H clubs allowed them to consolidate the theoretical 
lessons learned in the field of agriculture and horticulture in their university or technical training 
courses.
“The activity has helped us to better understand the spacing of plants. . . . Our club was designed to grow 
cucumbers, but there were also other crops like eggplant, so we also used spacing. . .” (Member, Bambey 
Club, Diourbel) 
“I have seen a change in some of the people I know, because with the harvest of the onions they had 
grown, I could say that they have earned something from agriculture, whereas we, who have not been 
involved in any activities due to lack of training, have not had this opportunity, and yet we are in the same 
agricultural training school. . . . They can do some practical work, but we can’t, so it’s an advantage for 
them.” (Member, Club Dakar) 
As shown in Exhibit 5, the surveys showed that 90 percent of the trained club members and 78 percent
of the trained leaders reported that they had acquired new skills as a result of their participation in 
these trainings. Surveyed leaders cited personal development (42 percent), group management (33.5
percent), and agricultural skills (10 percent) as the areas in which they gained the most skills, while 
younger club members cited agricultural skills (38 percent), communication and public speaking (24
percent), and computer skills (15 percent). The survey results also showed that participation in the 4-H 
trainings contributed to leadership development and confidence building among youth and 4-H club
leaders. In addition, 85 percent of trained leaders and 77 percent of trained members reported 
improving their life skills as a result of their ongoing participation in the 4-H program.
Exhibit 5: Members and leaders acquired new skills as a result of YIA
Leaders cited changes in attitudes (58 percent) and changes in peer relationships (43 percent) as the 
areas in which they reported the most improvement, while club members cited building self-esteem (39
percent) and improving leadership skills (22 percent) as the two main areas of improvement. Leaders
and club members confirmed these results during interviews, and most youth who participated in 
discussions held by the evaluation team in the clubs noted these changes.
8 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
“I can say that after the training, you can have more self-confidence, put your ideas into practice and not be 
afraid of failure, because that’s part of life, you can’t succeed without failure.” (Leader, Club Dakar)
INCOME-GENERATION. In addition, training to strengthen youth leadership has fostered an 
entrepreneurial spirit among youth that has led to the establishment of income-generating initiatives in a 
small number of cases. Surveys revealed that 6 percent of trained members (n = 177) reported having 
established an income-generating activity (IGA) on their own or in partnership with other youth. The 
interview data also revealed a very high level of commitment among a significant portion of the members 
who had received 4-H training, most of whom were developing autonomous initiatives on their own
without depending on external support or assistance. The team identified various membership-based 
initiatives in more than one club across different regions. 
“The activity has given me the confidence to put forward the ideas I have, to try to implement them . . .
Because this is an idea I had for a long time, but I did not know how to implement it . . . So they trained us 
on how to do business, how to implement our ideas . . .” (Leader, Club Dakar) 
“We each contributed 1,000 francs to buy 15 chicks, then each added 500 francs to get the feed, we 
bought 10 kg of feed for the chicks. . . . We repeated the same thing each time we needed it until we 
reached 4500F per person . . . [then] we went to Bambey to sell the chickens. Afterwards, we bought 30 
other chicks that we sold. . . . In the past, we used to go all the way to Bambey to buy chickens, but now if 
someone needs chickens, they buy them here at the Club.” (Leader, Club Ndialite)
COMMUNITY SERVICE. The appropriation of the 4-H spirit has led to the development of 
community service initiatives among young club members in different localities. More than half of the 
clubs visited have developed community service activities. In several communities visited by the 
evaluation team, dynamic 4-H clubs are making an effective contribution to improving the living 
environment and public spaces (schools, mosques, reforestation, set-settal, etc.). 
“We agreed that we would not just focus on the money, but that we would try to do something to help the 
village, so our first activity was to clean up a school . . . At the village entrance, we also did some 
reforestation . . .” (Leader, Club Saint-Louis)
“Yes, they got together to do the activities together. . . . The cleaning of their high school, the painting of the 
front of a wall at the CEM, they made drawings, frescos on the 4-H, drawing the logo of the 4-H, on 
education, among other things. They were supported by the 4-H club at the UGB and by the director of the 
CEM, because one of the supervisors is a drawing teacher, so he assisted them in making these drawings at 
the CEM.” (Centre d’Initiation et de Perfectionnement dans les Métiers de l’Agriculture [CIPA] Manager) 
FINDING 2: YIA encountered significant delays in launching activities and providing 
funds to university-based poles, which affected implementation of work 
plan activities.
A comparison of the work plans and implementation reports shows that there are significant gaps 
between planned and actual implementation, which the team confirmed during interviews with relevant 
stakeholders. YIA executed key activities with significant delays, ranging from 6 to 30 months behind the 
original implementation dates. 
Among the most delayed core activities of YIA were the establishment of partnership frameworks with
MESRI to ensure institutional ownership of the activity and to coordinate the implementation of 
9 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
interventions by the regional poles. YIA signed a hosting agreement with MESRI more than a year after 
YIA’s launch, delaying the establishment of partnership agreements with the universities and the creation 
of regional poles for an additional year. During interviews, implementing partners and stakeholders 
shared various factors that influenced or generated the observed delays, which included administrative 
delays related to complex procedures in establishing an award and receiving funds, as well as staff 
changes within the ministry. For example:
“This activity also suffered from administrative delays, firstly because all the institutions had to complete 
all the procedures required to receive the funds from the United States. So they did that for almost a year, 
because there were a lot of delays related to the working language of the USAID documents, which were in 
English, but also with respect to university staff’s proficiency in these systems.” (YIA staff)
“We came in 2020, the hosting agreement was signed on June 20, 2020. and the activities could not start 
until 2021 . . . Before this . . . we did not work with the YIA team . . . The Ministry as such did not join 
the program until June 2020, with the General Directorate in charge of carrying out the activities and 
coordinating all the activities.” (MESRI Coordination Cell member) 
“But it must be said that between February 2020 before the activities started concretely . . . in 2021 . . . 
there was a transitional phase between the administrative aspects of the activity as such, the files to be 
provided in order to receive the funds. . . . But before that, we had to fill out a whole bunch of files 
before we could acquire these funds and launch the activities. The activities therefore really 
started in 2021.” (Coordination team member of the UAM Pole)
The late involvement of MESRI and the universities resulted in a shorter implementation time frame, 
dropping from 60 months to 18 or 22 months, with activities starting in YIA’s third year. Survey results 
indicate that 53 percent of clubs were chartered between 2021 and 2022 and 67 percent of club 
members were enrolled in the last two years of YIA, between 2021 and 2022. Exhibit 6 illustrates the 
accelerated pace in YIA’s last two years. 
Exhibit 6: Half of the new 4-H members enrolled in YIA’s last two years
The late-stage growth of clubs was most intense in Dakar, where 85 percent of survey respondents 
were enrolled during this period, followed by Saint-Louis and Ziguinchor. Club leaders and members 
confirmed this trend.
10 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
There was a significant difference in participation between club members enrolled in the first two years 
and those enrolled in the last two years, as shown in Exhibit 7. More than 75 percent of members 
recruited into clubs between 2018 and 2020 participated in at least one club activity compared to only 
45 percent of members enrolled between 2021 and 2022. This difference in participation between the 
two groups is significant (p < .001) and there is a negative correlation between recruitment and 
participation in club activities. The number of members recruited into clubs between 2018 and 2020 was 
lower (20 percent of the total) but the quality of engagement appears to be higher and more sustained, 
whereas in the last two years (2021 and 2022) enrollment was higher, but the quality of engagement of 
these youth appears to be lower, with a lower proportion of respondents reporting having participated 
in at least one club activity.
Exhibit 7: The percentage of members receiving training and participating in club activities declined as club membership increased
The percentage of members who received 4-H training declined steadily over the five years of YIA 
implementation. A higher percentage of members recruited in the 2018 to 2020 period received training 
than those recruited in 2021 and 2022. The difference in training participation between these two 
groups is significant (p < .001).
See Finding 8 for a detailed discussion on the reasons for the delays at the universities once the 
agreements were signed. 
FINDING 3: YIA’s overall achievement rate for indicator targets was low, though 
Component 1 performance indicators had a higher achievement rate than 
those in Component 2.
Analysis of YIA documents and annual reports reveals very low achievement rates for its indicator 
targets. Of the 24 performance indicators, only eight (25 percent) reached an acceptable performance 
threshold, achieving at least 75 percent of the target, while five (21 percent) showed zero performance 
(i.e., 0 percent) and 16 (67 percent) achieved less than 50 percent of the expected target. See Exhibit 8
11 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
and Annex I: YIA Logical Framework, Indicator Targets and Results for the list of indicators and their 
achievement rates, and discussion under Finding #14 on FtF indicators.
Exhibit 8: YIA indicator achievement rates, overall and by component
Source: Annual Report, Year 5, November 2022
In Component 1, for example, YIA established only 421 of the 950 certified clubs it sought to create in 
its six regional intervention poles. Only 221 clubs are active (Annual Report, Year 5). Similarly, YIA 
expected to enroll 19,000 youth in 4-H clubs, but only enrolled 6,091 as of the end of YIA (Annual 
Report, Year 5, p. 8), or 32 percent of the target. A key Component 1 outcome indicator focused on the 
GoS budget dedicated to PYD surpassed its target (based on YIA estimates) but other key indicators fell 
short, including the number of enterprises benefitting from business development services and the 
private sector budget dedicated to PYD. 
None of the Component 2 indicators met at least 75 percent of their target. Key outcome indicators 
measured the progress toward establishing the vocational curriculum, the number of persons benefitting 
from adapted materials, and the number of institutions with a new program adapted to local needs. 
Stakeholders at MESRI, the universities, and the regional poles recognize the insufficient achievement of 
targets and objectives. Several respondents emphasized the existence of a gap to be filled in terms of 
demand at the youth and community levels, illustrated by the following remarks:
“But first, we had to kick off the activities and create interest for others so that the demand would be 
strong. So honestly, that didn’t happen and that’s what hurt me the most. That’s because beyond the 
universities and the research and testing centers, there were also schools. As I had started with the schools, 
the creation of the scientific blocks etc., I knew that it was an objective that could be reached. But 
unfortunately, it did not work out that way.” (MESRI Coordination Unit member)
“The demand is there. For example, in the Kolda and Sédhiou areas, there is great demand. . . . We really 
want to go and provide this training.” (UASZ Pole Coordination Team Member, Ziguinchor)
YIA never adjusted its targets, despite the delays encountered. 
12 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
FINDING 4: Respondents believed that YIA had insufficient resources to properly 
implement its interventions and used its limited resources inefficiently.
Stakeholders at MESRI, universities, and vocational training centers also noted the insufficiency of the 
financial resources that YIA made available to properly implement planned activities. According to most 
regional pole facilitators, club support suffered the most from the lack of financial resources. The 
managers of the vocational training centers interviewed also cited the inadequacy of the financial 
resources made available to them, which limited their ability to support the beneficiaries they were 
accompanying (Centre de Formation Professionnelle (CFP) Dagana, CIPA Saint-Louis, the Institut Supérieur 
de Formation Agricole et Rurale (ISFAR) of Bambey, and Lycée Technique Agricole Emile Badiane (LTAEB) of 
Bignona). Stakeholders at universities reported that YIA planned to disburse four payments to each 
university, but none received all four payments because of the delays described above. 
Stakeholders also observed that having the Chief of Party (COP) based in the United States instead of 
Senegal became a major constraint that impeded operating procedures and relations with counterparts 
(MESRI, Universities).
“In addition to the slowness that we experienced, I believe that we had an internal steering problem, we 
really must have the courage to say it. . . . I was saying that the activity has too many directors, but in fact 
we don’t have a driving force, and this is just to say that the COP was at Virginia Tech, and when there 
were two of us here in Senegal, there were people who helped us who were always at Virginia Tech. So, we 
only met during meetings, it’s true that they were weekly meetings, but they lasted an hour and we had to 
talk about everything that was being prepared, that was going on and often there were problems. . . . And 
that, in hindsight, even before we completed the activity, we realized that somehow it was not working, we 
tried to mitigate it but we must admit that there were problems in terms of resource people” (YIA staff) 
“There is also the fact that the top management team of the activity was not based here in Senegal. The 
COP, the activity director, was not based in Senegal . . . this also has a big impact on the decisions that had 
to be made, if agreements had to be signed, if negotiations had to take place.” (USAID/EGO Team 
member) 
Interviews with YIA staff and the document review confirm that the very small size of its operational 
team impeded effective management of activities by the team on the ground.
“We were in charge of 10,000 administrative roles that they handled as well as the administration and the 
finances and managing the vehicle fleet, although we only had two official titles. So there was all of that, 
which was too much, which was a lot for just three people to handle.” (YIA team member) 
“We had a severe lack of resource people, an activity like this needs 2 key people, who are not more key 
than us directors and program managers, they would handle monitoring and evaluation but also 
communication. These two important people were not present at the beginning of the program.” (YIA team 
member) 
FINDING 5: Interviews with stakeholders and a review of project documents reveal 
that YIA lacked a functioning MEL system.
A review of project documents identified several flaws in its MEL system. The database of beneficiaries 
provided to the evaluation team lack sex and regional disaggregation, which are USAID requirements.
13 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Reports did not describe why YIA was falling short of its targets, and YIA did not appear to make any 
efforts to revise the targets once implementation delays were encountered. Stakeholders also 
commented on the lack of activity monitoring, especially of 4-H club activities. 
Interviews with YIA staff indicate that the COP planned to manage all monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
activities directly but realized he could not do so. YIA then decided to hire a junior M&E Specialist, but 
the person recruited did not meet the project’s or USAID’s technical requirements and soon left. As a 
result, the role of M&E Specialist was vacant for more of the implementation period. 
FINDING 6: While YIA established operational partnerships with schools and local 
organizations that accelerated club formation and enrollment, the project 
did not work with line ministries relevant to vocational training or 
activate the PPP component.
Stakeholders reported that YIA established fruitful partnerships with colleges and elementary schools 
whose principals and teachers played an important role in raising awareness among young students and 
enrolling them in the clubs. 
“The school partnerships have allowed us to carry out some of the activities in some areas. Beyond that, the 
school principals where the clubs are located are very credible partners. They have made our task easier 
not only by mobilizing the members of the clubs in their schools but also by providing us with certain means, 
not financial but material, which have enabled us to carry out different activities in certain localities.” (UADB 
Pole Coordination team member) 
Project documents indicate that YIA also developed partnerships with the Centre de Recherche et 
d’Essais (CRE) and the Centres d’Initiation et de Perfectionnement Agricole (CIPA) in different regions, 
as well as collaboration with the NGO DECLIC in Ziguinchor, which allowed for a particularly rapid 
increase in club creation and enrollment and an extension of 4-H activities into the surrounding 
communities. The expansion of partnerships to these different structures made it possible to reach
vulnerable groups such as talibés2 and children excluded from the school system.
“The involvement of the CREs represented an exponential phase in the training that allowed for an increase 
in the number of clubs that were formed because even though there were many leaders who were formed 
without a club, there were many clubs that were created after the clubs were formed.” (Member, MESRI 
Coordination Unit) 
“So for us, we found them later along the way. But afterwards we did all the important activities they 
undertook and we carried them out with them.” (Head of CIPA) 
“But I must praise the support of DÉCLIC for monitoring. Sincerely, even if you could not reach them, I will 
praise their support, because they helped us in the monitoring. When the clubs were created, they were 
able to go in depth, because DECLIC has a strong presence in Ziguinchor.” (Team member, UASZ Pole 
Coordination, Ziguinchor) 
Conversely, stakeholders confirmed that YIA had limited collaboration with the other sectoral 
ministries, such as the Ministry of Vocational Training and Handicrafts, the Ministry of Agriculture and 
2 Children whose parents send them to schools to study the Koran, but who often become street beggars. 
14 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Rural Equipment, the Ministry of Youth, and their decentralized technical services. The evaluation team 
approached sectoral ministries mentioned in YIA documents. Some ministry officials cited the absence of 
a formal administrative document establishing the links, roles and responsibilities of the various 
ministries in the implementation of the activity as a factor contributing to the lack of involvement and 
collaboration. 
“This activity is under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education, but in its governance phase there 
was no regulatory text linking the Ministry of Higher Education with the other ministries, namely the 
Ministry of Vocational Training and the Ministry of Agriculture. . . . This is what was lacking in order to have 
this document (entrepreneurship curriculum) carried by the relevant institutional actors.” (Official in one of 
the sectoral ministries that was not involved) 
“I think it would have been the same for the curricula as well, it was really . . . this is the stumbling block of 
this activity. And if it is to be renewed, I think that from the beginning there should be a contractual 
document or a relationship between the different institutional actors to go towards implementation and 
execution. . . . Because there are training centers that depend on the Ministry of Technical Education, 
schools and structures that depend on the Ministry of Agriculture, and universities that work together at the 
operational level.” (Official in one of the sectoral ministries that was not involved) 
Technical services under the authority of the other ministries also emphasized their non-involvement in 
YIA’s activities, though some of the interventions fall within their functional competencies (Agriculture, 
Vocational Training, Youth). The regional branches of the ANPEJ in Ziguinchor, Saint-Louis, and 
Diourbel maintained that they had not participated in any YIA activities. In the agriculture sector as well, 
the various Agence Nationale de Conseil Agricole et Rurale (ANCAR) branches noted the same lack of 
collaboration in their respective regions. 
“I honestly did not know about the Youth in Agriculture program, I don’t think I participated in any of the 
activity’s activities.” (Regional ANPEJ manager) 
“I must say that I don’t have much experience in this activity. I only attended one meeting but since then, I 
have not actually participated in the implementation of this very important activity for the Senegalese youth 
that we serve in the context of public service. So there is technical information that I cannot provide 
because I was not at the heart of the implementation of the activity.” (Youth Ministry official) 
Stakeholders, YIA staff and reports note that YIA did not establish partnerships with the private sector, 
more specifically the PPP, which was supposed to be the main lever for mobilizing funds to ensure the 
financial sustainability of the activity and was emphasized in all planning documents. YIA did not take 
major action to attract the interest of private sector companies that might be willing to make financial 
contributions to fund the national 4-H program activities. Stakeholders point to insufficient staffing and 
insufficient communication. 
“The other thing you mentioned about fundraising, right, that was our biggest failure. We have to admit 
that. There on component 1, on fundraising for the 4-H, I think there were several challenges, challenges 
related to that, that we faced in the conceptualization of the activity. We can say that we did not really 
anticipate this, despite the fact that the activity was designed by experts in the field . . . So for different 
reasons, among others, we had difficulties in mobilizing private funds to support 4-H.” (YIA team member) 
“There was a meeting we held in Saly on fundraising. But unfortunately, we did not get to talk about raising 
funds. . . . There is a whole list of partners that was presented to us by the National Director, but . . . I 
15 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
would say that neither we nor they have ever made a trip to visit these partners. If we are not very well 
known, if there is not enough communication in the activity, it will be difficult to find sponsors to invest their 
money in it.” (MESRI Coordination Unit member)
Although they all agree on the relevance of using private sector funds to support the viability of the 
national 4-H program by exploiting the potential resources available through corporate social
responsibility, the various actors interviewed emphasized the great lack of action taken in this area.
QUESTION 2: INTEGRATION OF THE 4-H PROGRAM 
INTO THE MESRI AND THE UNIVERSITIES
Exhibit 9: Framework for institutionalizing PYD (4-H) in MESRI and universities
FINDING 7: MESRI has successfully implemented the institutional framework and 
established YIA governance bodies with the DGRI to coordinate YIA 
activities and resolve problems.
CREATION OF STEERING COMMITTEES AND COORDINATION UNITS. Stakeholders and 
YIA reports confirm that MESRI has established an institutional framework for steering and governance 
of the national PYD program. This commitment to institutionalization has resulted in a series of 
administrative acts (decrees) that have formalized hosting of the program within DGRI. In this sense, the 
first integration measure consisted of the Minister signing a hosting agreement to formalize the 
installation of the program within the Ministry and the provision of premises for YIA team (Step 1 in 
Exhibit 9).
“The hosting agreement has been signed; it is an official document. . . . Setting up the committee is also a 
decree that was taken at the ministerial level to set up the steering committee . . . with all the ministries 
16 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
involved. Setting up the national cell was also done by a ministerial decree to set up a national coordination 
cell and the appointment of its members was done by ministerial decision. . . . In other words, the 
institutionalization was really done, it was well implemented.” (MESRI Coordination Unit member) 
YIA reports indicate that this agreement made it possible to launch the process of integrating the 
program within the Ministry by creating instruments for program governance, including a Steering 
Committee and an Advisory Board. The Steering Committee’s main mission was to provide relevant 
guidance to YIA while the Advisory Board managed Component 2 strategic thinking, particularly on the 
vocational training pathways. Stakeholders report that these two bodies were only able to meet once
during 2021. A second meeting of the Steering Committee scheduled for June 2022, on the eve of YIA’s
closure, could not be held due to a lack of financial resources, according to the members of the 
Coordination Unit. YIA’s accounts were already blocked due to its administrative closing procedures. 
“When the new Director was appointed, the first thing he was interested in was this, and for him it was a 
priority that this activity be integrated into the Ministry. And when he was appointed, he was the one who 
signed the memorandum naming the activity coordinators at the Ministry level . . . . So that was a step, and 
in all our meetings at the Ministry, he talked about the 4-H activity. And his concern was really to integrate 
this activity at the Ministry level.” (MESRI Coordination Unit member)
In 2021, MESRI signed the N°0049/MESRI/SG/DC/DGRI order on the creation of the National 
Coordination Unit, composed of eight members and whose mission was to coordinate the activities of 
the 4-H program within the Ministry and to pool the efforts of the different ministries (Step 2 in Exhibit 
9). The establishment of this Coordination Unit, one of whose members is the national coordinator of 
the Research and Testing Centers, has facilitated the involvement of these structures at the different 
regional levels and their active involvement in the creation of 4-H clubs in their communities. 
“It was a Steering Committee that involved the highest authorities of the Ministries. This meant that the 
Ministers or the Directors General were involved in this steering committee . . . There was a time when 
each Ministry would say that the program was better with them, that the program was better with some 
other Ministry . . . this steering committee solved all these issues. Because they would meet up, there was a 
framework for consultation where they could reflect on the program and give guidelines.” (MESRI 
Coordination Unit member)
COORDINATION MEETINGS. Stakeholders and YIA reports indicate that the DGRI introduced 
monthly coordination meetings, chaired by its Director General and involving all activity actors (activity 
team, national coordination unit, and regional poles). These coordination meetings have helped to 
resolve many operational constraints and difficulties encountered by the poles in activity
implementation. The most significant difficulty was most universities’ ability to access funds due to the 
single treasury used to manage their institutional accounts. In this regard, DGRI showed its commitment 
by advocating for the disbursement of funds by the universities involved, which made it possible to 
overcome this constraint. 
“And it is in this regard that many issues have been resolved. Because with the problem of the SAM 
Number at the university level, the single treasury and all of that, the funds were given to the universities, to 
the management teams that were at the university level, but they did not have access to their funds. The 
Director General had to talk to the Rectors so that the funds could be released so that people could carry 
out activities on the ground.” (MESRI Coordination Unit member) 
17 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
“We can say that at the level of the Ministry of Higher Education, there is an anchoring, there is ownership, 
there is monitoring by the supervisory authority, with the support and involvement of the Director General 
of the DGRI who facilitated the creation of the cells, the signing of some decrees, etc.” (USAID/EGO Team 
member)
Interviews with members of the coordination unit, YIA staff and members of the regional poles indicate 
that these measures were not taken until the third year of YIA’s implementation (2020), reflecting the
significant delay in involving the Ministry and the universities. The COVID-19 pandemic also delayed the 
launch of activities such as the Steering Committee meeting and the relocation of the YIA team to the 
MESRI premises. 
In addition, the Pedagogical Coordinators expressed regret that they did not have time to test and 
experiment with the curricula developed by YIA within the 4-H clubs. Interviews with members of the 
National Coordination Unit revealed that the Unit was very involved in Component 1, but had far less 
knowledge of and involvement in Component 2 activities. 
“We don’t have any information on this part, on this component. Because, although I said that we had to 
come and assess the situation with the Director General, unfortunately this did not happen . . . . We had 
already found that the process had been set in motion as training courses had already been chosen, 
validated and identified with the Professional Training Department before we joined the activity. Perhaps 
that’s why we didn’t have any control over the component, because everything had already been finalized 
before the ministry’s involvement in the Feed the Future program. This is perhaps the unfortunate part.” 
(MESRI Coordination Unit member).
FINDING 8: While partner universities have taken important steps to integrate 4-H 
into their structures and acknowledge its role in achieving their 
community service mission, they encountered many delays because of the 
challenges in completing the administrative procedures required to 
receive funds and the single account principle used at the universities.
CREATION OF REGIONAL POLES (COORDINATION CENTERS). MESRI and the universities 
report that rectors of the six partner universities issued decrees to set up the regional poles and 
assigned staff to coordinate the activities (Step 3 in Exhibit 9). The objective assigned to these six 
regional poles was to ensure the coordination and implementation of Component 1 activities, including 
the training of trainers, the support of leaders and the monitoring of 4-H clubs among other tasks.
In each of the universities, the pole coordination team is composed of a Pedagogical Coordinator, an 
Administrative and Financial Coordinator and a Regional Facilitator, all of whom are university 
employees. University staff indicated that the roles of Pedagogical and Administrative Coordinator were 
assigned to faculty members, while the role of Regional Facilitator was assigned to one of the university’s
administrative, technical, and service staff members. Appointed by the Rectors, stakeholders report that
these teams were able to implement activities related to the enrollment and training of leaders, the 
establishment of 4-H clubs within and outside the universities and various other activities to benefit the 
communities as part of their community service mission. 
“The fact that the Ministry has taken ownership of this component with the establishment of dedicated 
bodies and mechanisms, appointing people to be in charge, and ensuring coordination by the Director 
General of Research and Innovation, and with the involvement of all the rectors in the activities and the 
18 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
creation of poles in all the universities are all factors that attest to good ownership.” (USAID/EGO Team 
member) 
Stakeholders at the central level, the members of the national Steering Committee, and the regional 
poles in the universities indicate that the management and coordination frameworks and bodies of the 
program are being effectively implemented at the various levels. All universities except UCAD have 
taken steps to integrate 4-H into the student experience (Step 4 in Exhibit 9). MESRI to adopt the 
administrative texts to formalize how the universities regulate and administer 4-H (Step 5 in Exhibit 9).
CONSTRAINTS. Stakeholders in the regional poles emphasized the many constraints they faced in 
implementing activities. The late availability of funds by the implementing partner, coupled with difficult 
access to funds due to the universities’ internal operating procedures based on the single account, as 
well as an overload of work due to their academic obligations are all factors that have hindered the 
optimal functioning of these regional poles. 
The lack of financial compensation for this work, which takes up a large part of their personal time, has 
also been a source of demotivation for many regional pole members. In several cases, staff at the 
university poles who withdrew following their appointment appeared to do so because of this lack of 
financial support. Most pole members mentioned the absence of financial compensation as a shortfall to 
be corrected in the YIA implementation model.
“It would take internal appointees at the university level, at least those appointees would have to be 
encouraged in some way. I mean, take a few hours off from teaching, a lot more recognition, you know, we 
don't even have an office for the 4-H club. We don’t even have an office to meet up in.” (Pole Coordination 
Team member)
“Before I was even recruited, I was selected to be the facilitator . . . and something was planned, some kind 
of motivation at least for the coordinator. In the end, the coordination pole members did not receive this 
compensatory support to assist the program, it did not seem fair from this point of view. We know 
colleagues who were coordinators but who subsequently were not fully involved, we all know each other, we 
cannot single out people . . . these were blocking factors.” (Pole Coordination Team member)
Stakeholders confirmed that the time it took YIA to make funds available to the university poles affected 
the pace of implementation. Several stakeholders described the delays: 
“Very difficult execution of the activities budget. We received the first installment in 2021 and the second in 
2022, causing a lot of delay in the implementation of the other installments. . . . We started in 2021 to 
carry out 8 activities, with activities, making, sending reports, waiting for returns for 4 months, 6 months, 
which was very long. . . . We had to finish executing, to send the reports to the Activity Management in 
Dakar, and they sent them to Virginia Tech, etc. . . . There was a lot of delay.” (UGB Pole coordination 
team member, Saint-Louis) 
“So because there is the procedure for setting up the registration at the level of what is called the SAM 
Régistration there. Uh, at the level of the USAID platform to benefit from USAID grants, it requires a long 
procedure and the activities actually started in May 2021, because it was in March 2021 that we received 
the first funding.” (UADB Pole coordination team member, Diourbel) 
The universities were also subject to specific USAID requirements (e.g., obtaining a SAM Number) 
before receiving funds. 
19 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
“It was our activity team that was a little slow and our HQ (headquarters) had several phases where the 
files had to go through, for tax checks and administrative checks. The activity was implemented by the 
Virginia Tech International Education and Development Research Center, but because we are a university 
and not an NGO, there are other steps for each file, each invoice paper and supporting documents had to 
go through, which also sometimes causes slowness, that is true.” (YIA Activity staff)
“The administrative red tape as well as the mismatch with USAID procedures sometimes made it difficult or 
even impossible to finance the activities programmed by the Universities, particularly the question of the 
single fund that is typical of the Universities.” (MESRI National Coordination Unit member) 
“The first level is the USAID procedures and whether or not the Universities have mastered them. But 
regarding this, we had to build on the experience, on lived experience. So Virginia Tech has a long 
experience with USAID. They know that they cannot allocate a grant to a structure that does not have a 
SAM registration. . . . There were also internal procedures at Virginia Tech that slowed things down, and 
this was mainly related to the fact that the UCC was based in the United States and we didn’t really have a 
decision-maker with full authority on the ground in Senegal. . . .” (USAID/EGO Team member) 
The transfer of resources into the public accounts of the universities and their management by the Agent 
Comptable Principal (ACP) reflects the full integration of the 4-H instrument into the university 
operations. Due to the single account principle, the YIA implementation resources were paid into the 
universities’ accounts, which made it difficult and problematic to make them available in time for the 
implementation of activities. The special status of the ACP, which is subject to strict budget management 
rules, gives it relative autonomy in managing and prioritizing expenditures from university funds. In fact, 
this integration of activity resources into university accounts slowed quick access to activity resources. 
Stakeholders in the regional poles emphasized that the procedures for disbursing and justifying 
expenditures were cumbersome and complex, which also made it difficult to access activity resources 
quickly. To overcome these delays, some members of the regional poles pre-financed activities for which 
reimbursement was very difficult (UADB, UCAD). 
In addition, the procedures and systems for prioritizing expenditures of funds managed by the university 
accounting officers are subject to arbitration that is beyond the control of YIA and puts the 4-H activity 
at a disadvantage in the order of expenditure priorities.
“So every activity is placed in this account and there is a whole procedure that has to be followed in order 
to be able to make a disbursement to the university’s particular accounting officer. And so it is a 
cumbersome process that practically all the actors of the university are obliged to go through and it must be 
said that this really causes a problem.” (Pole Coordination Team member) 
“But the problem is that there has been a pause caused by the university since there is a university 
common fund. When the funds would be made available, the university had priorities and it took time to 
release the money based on these priorities.” (CIPA Manager) 
Tying the release of funds to the production of reports and receipts resulted in none of the six partner 
universities receiving all the installments of the awarded grant. Universities received only a part of the 
grant, e.g., three out of the five or six installments planned, while UCAD did not receive any funds. 
Thus, the regional poles did not receive the full amount of the planned resources. Vocational training 
centers reported the same delays even if they did not suffer a reduction in funds as the universities did. 
20 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
“We had to wait for almost nine months, even a year, before receiving the second installment, and so that 
delayed our activities a little.” (UGB Pole coordination team member) 
“The other aspect is in terms of releasing funds . . . this has an impact on the time frame for carrying out 
the various activities. Sometimes I admit, if we complete a program, if we complete an activity, we wait 2 or 
3 months and there is nothing at all. . . . I think that if we did not manage to finish, it is because the 
implementation of the activities was not done in a continuous way, there were many breaks, periods of 
latency with an implementation that was too sequential with long waits . . . maybe the Manager worked on 
other activities and did not have the time.” (Steering Committee member)
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF 4-H ON THE UNIVERSITIES. As part of YIA’s Component 1 activities, 
the 4-H clubs have enabled the universities to shape and give content to their institutional mission 
related to community service. Interviews with members of the regional poles indicate that the 4-H club
activities have had a positive impact on the operation of the community service component of the 
partner universities, particularly in the universities in Thiès (UIDT), Bambey (UADB), Saint-Louis (UGB), 
and Diamniadio (UAM). 
Academic authorities at UADB in Bambey stated that they have decided to implement a community 
service training module after observing positive results among students who have taken the 4-H training. 
Other examples of operationalizing community service are found at UGB in Saint-Louis and UIDT in 
Thiès, through strengthening relationships with youth in the surrounding neighborhoods and extending 
community service interventions to other regions such as Louga (activities benefiting the daara of Coki).
Stakeholders at universities report that they have been able to reach out to the communities, providing 
them with a framework to carry out their service mission to the communities, particularly on issues of 
personal development, health, environment, and improvement of the living environment. 
“We have already taken into account the concept of the activity at the university level this year by setting 
up a common component on training for community service.” (Pole Coordination Team member, UADB, 
Bambey) 
“Actually, the university’s community-based approach limited our activities in Thiès until now; it is with 4-H
that we have expanded to other departments, we have even been able to go to Louga.” (UIDT Pole 
Coordination Team member, Thiès)
QUESTION 3: SUSTAINABILITY OF THE NATIONAL 4-H 
PROGRAM
FINDING 9: YIA partners expressed their strong commitment to the program and its 
continuation, but additional steps are needed to further institutionalize 
the program and ensure long-term viability.
COMMITMENT. Stakeholders at MESRI and the universities all consider the 4-H club spirit and 
philosophy to be in line with their community service mission. They report that various mechanisms and 
instruments that can support the sustainability of YIA’s achievements and the national 4-H program are 
in place and could be used to ensure the continuity of the national program’s PYD activities. Among 
these instruments, the establishment of a revolving fund to support entrepreneurial initiatives and 
21 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
activities of young graduates of the LTAEB from YIA funding through a fixed amount agreement (FAA) 
to vocational training centers. 
To support the mobilization of private sector funds, YIA supported the creation of a National 4-H 
Association with the aim of making it a sustainable instrument for engaging and mobilizing the private 
sector and mobilizing its resources. However, the functionality of this association remains a real 
challenge. 
At the institutional level, the DGRI plans for the Government of Senegal to set up a National Research 
and Innovation Development Fund that could contribute to the financing of the national 4-H program 
activities. The existence of this fund could also mobilize other partners to finance the national PYD 
program in Senegal. 
“The ED talked about a national fund for research and innovation. So that’s the item that’s going to take 
over the 4-H program. It is an ambitious program, the President spoke of the strategic plan for research 
2023–2032. So it is in this strategic plan that the 4-H program is taken into account and will therefore be 
funded. We don’t know if it will be funded for this year or if it will be funded later, but it is already taken 
into account in the strategic plan for research and innovation.” (MESRI Coordination Cell member) 
MESRI, universities, the implementing partner, and USAID all described the commitment they have seen 
from the academic authorities, which has led to the implementation of initiatives to ensure the 
continuity of the 4-H program’s activities, including the creation of an office dedicated to 4-H at UIDT 
and the integration of the systematic presentation of 4-H into the procedures for the reception of new 
students at UAM.
Stakeholders at ISFAR, LTAEB, and the Dagana CFP described their willingness to continue the 4-H 
initiatives by integrating training modules on 4-H, community service and PYD. Representatives from the 
Dagana CFP described the establishment of a mechanism to support women involved in income￾generating activities and management commitment to continue this support beyond the end. Interviews 
with activity actors show that there are several sustainability initiatives implemented by 4-H clubs and 
structures. Their comments include:
“Yes, in terms of our reorganization perspectives, because until then we had a community service office and 
when we witnessed the launch of 4-H, and today, this is the option we have taken beyond the activity, we 
must keep the 4-H spirit alive and to keep it alive, we need an institutional anchor and the institutional 
anchor allows us today to foresee and to simultaneously bring about the co-location of the community 
service office and 4-H in order to mutualize their actions.” (UIDT Pole Coordination Team member, Thiès) 
“We can continue all of our activities, for the moment we are doing very well. . . . We carry out these 
activities without support: weeding, cleaning, etc.” (Leader, Saint-Louis Club)
LEGAL FRAMEWORK. However, regional poles revealed the nonexistence of a legal framework in 
accordance with the texts governing universities (laws and regulations) which sets the operating 
modalities of 4-H clubs within universities.
“We introduced the 4-H concept in the first year. Right in the first year through two courses on personal 
development. We have a course on citizenship and leadership and a course on community service. Because 
it’s a new mission of the university, of community service, it should not only be of interest to faculty and 
staff, but it should be of interest to students to do community service. . . . That’s the biggest impact, to have 
22 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
integrated it in the training program. We integrated it because we saw that with the clubs, that it had a 
very positive impact on the club members.” (UADB Pole Coordination Team member, Bambey, Diourbel)
“So when we talk about institutionalizing a activity, we mean integrating it into our legal corpus, but from 
the point of view of formalization and integration, it’s already done, in all the establishments there are 4-H
clubs, even at [centre régional des œuvres universitaires et sociales de Thiès] CROUST, which is a separate, 
autonomous establishment, there are 4-H clubs, so this has been formalized and integrated, now we need 
to institutionalize it, provide a legal framework.” (UIDT Pole Coordination Team member, Thiès)
FINDING 10: According to respondents, some 4-H clubs have implemented self￾sustaining initiatives with little or no outside financing that are likely to 
continue after YIA’s end because they do not require outside support.
Interviews with club leaders and members confirm that some 4-H clubs implemented several initiatives 
independently and with their own resources, regardless of support from any partner. In the areas 
visited, various clubs have implemented income-generating activities with their own resources, most 
often from individual contributions from club members, who each contributed 100 FCFA, 500 FCFA, or 
1,500 FCFA depending on the investment needs for the planned activity. In Bambey, Ziguinchor, and 
Saint-Louis, clubs have launched market gardening, poultry farming, and the production of bleach, which 
they sell to the local population. 
“The activity ended in November but we are waiting for January to gather what we have to start poultry 
farming activities again.” (Club Leader, Diourbel) 
“I have no plans to stop the activities for the School Club [NAME], because as I told you, even if it were not 
4-H, I would have tried by other means to achieve the activity in question. So, I intend to continue the 
activity, even if there are some obstacles . . . .” (Leader, Club) 
In Bambey, the Nebeday and Aviculture clubs of Ndialite have been active in processing nebeday into 
juice, producing seedlings for reforestation, and farming poultry on a self-financing basis, through 
membership fees.
“Sometimes if we organize an activity, we allocate an amount of money to carry it out. Even prior to that, 
each month we each contribute 500 francs for a total of 37,500 francs, which is part of the group’s
charter. Sometimes, for spontaneous activities, we also contribute according to our capacity.” (Member, 
Bambey Club)
“When the club was created, each of us contributed 1,000 francs to buy chicks, and I asked that each of 
us contribute an additional 500 francs so that we could have chicks and feed, and we repeated the same 
thing each time we needed to until we reached 4,500 francs in contributions.” (Leader, Poultry Club, 
Diourbel)
In Saint-Louis, the Abou Hanifa Islamic Institute club set up a school garden on the Institute’s premises 
to grow market garden produce using their own funds.
“When we came from the center for the training, we were on our own, when we arrived we bought 
everything with our own means. They found us a well with a pump, that's where we get our water. The 
children themselves worked in the field, planting crops and so on, growing okra, chili peppers and so on.” 
(Leader, Abou Hanifa Islamic Club, Saint-Louis)
23 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
In other areas, clubs have developed community service activities that, for the most part, do not require 
significant material or financial resources (e.g., cleanup, sanitation, tutoring for disadvantaged students). 
Some activities require essential inputs, for instance, seedlings for reforestation activities or shovels, 
rakes, and wheelbarrows for cleanup activities in cemeteries, schools, or neighborhood or village 
streets. In several cases, the clubs welcomed support from the decentralized Water and Forestry 
Services, particularly in the context of reforestation activities initiated by the 4-H clubs in some localities 
(Ziguinchor, Bambey, Diourbel, and Saint-Louis).
“We can continue all of our activities, for the moment we are doing very well. . . . We carry out these 
activities without support: weeding, cleaning, etc.” (Leader, Saint-Louis Club)
In Saint-Louis and Ziguinchor, the clubs “And Liguey Mpal” and “Ninky Nanka” implement activities that 
benefit their communities in the areas of reforestation, public space cleaning, and social solidarity. 
“I have already been trained on the environment, but it was not enough, we went to see the water and 
forestry agents, to learn more about reforestation, because it is not so straightforward . . . In the absence of 
support, we must not stop contributing, even if it is only small sums, in the long term it could be useful for 
the realization of our activities.” (Club Leader, Saint-Louis)
“When we left, there was some money in the cash box, we gave each member 5,000 francs to buy sports 
clothes. Before leaving we give them something as compensation because they have worked well, the school 
sells sports gear and the club has bought some.” (Club Leader, Ziguinchor)
“We got together with the other clubs that are at the school, we did reforestation, they planted fruit trees, 
trees to provide shade, we even have a video of these activities.” (Club Leader, Ziguinchor)
As part of its social work, the “Ninky Nanka” club occasionally donates a portion of the proceeds from 
its activities (10 percent) to the school where the club is located to support community services.
FINDING 11: Stakeholders confirm there was no transition plan to ensure YIA efforts 
would continue past the program’s end and several hoped for an 
extension.
Stakeholders from MESRI, universities, and vocational training centers indicated they were not prepared
for the end of YIA and lacked a transition plan. Most indicated that they were surprised by the 
announcement of the project’s end. Some indicated that they were not prepared, and others claimed 
that they were not informed of its closure. Several also indicated they hoped for an extension. 
“We were not able to accomplish everything we wanted to, the activity stopped abruptly which explains the 
failure of the 4-H week that was supposed to bring together the National Unit, the universities (UCAD and 
UAM) and the university and community clubs due to the lack of mobilization of partners and the activity.” 
(MESRI Coordination Cell member)
“I did not like the activity’s approach. I wished for them to fund a second round after having funded a first 
round. This is to say that the termination of the activity really leaves much to be desired.” (Head of 
Vocational Training Center)
24 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
FINDING 12: YIA provided limited training to members, which limits clubs’ capacity,
ownership of the 4-H concept, and the initiatives they can implement.As 
a result only one-third of established clubs are functional. 
A survey of club members revealed that only one-third of the clubs visited are functional, which club 
members and leaders traced back to the lack of training received. 
“We didn’t work, so we don’t know what the difficulties or mistakes would have been if we had worked. . . .
We don’t know, we haven’t been properly tested. That’s it, we start from scratch, we have no experience of 
that. . . .” (Dakar Club Leader)
Several constraints emerge from the data to explain 
why some clubs have struggled. Of all the club 
members surveyed, only 17 percent had received 4-
H training. YIA followed a TOT model by providing 
grants to universities to train leaders who were 
then expected to train members, but the delays 
described above meant that less training was 
completed than anticipated. See Exhibit 10.
This reflects a low level of training among members 
as well as a lack of ownership of the 4-H concept, 
which was confirmed by stakeholders. The lack of 
training among club members reveals the fragility of 
their adherence to the 4-H concept, which very few 
of them have had the opportunity to discover. 
“When we started the club, we filled out the information sheets that we sent in. After that, we were 
supposed to receive training, the leaders were supposed to be trained first, followed by the members. But 
we didn’t receive this training, and now the club is in dissolution. . . . There were very dynamic members 
who were willing to carry out activities, and I think that if we had received training and so on, we would 
have been able to carry out activities.” (Leader Club, Dakar) 
This constraint dampened the initial commitment and reduced youth enthusiasm and motivation for the 
activities promoted through 4-H. The lack of resources and support was identified as a major constraint 
by leaders and members of all clubs, including those in dynamic clubs that had initiated activities 
independently. 
This lack of resources and support inhibits the potential of some clubs that have remained lethargic 
since their inception, while for the dynamic clubs, the lack of resources limits the scope of activities and 
initiatives to those that members are able to implement autonomously. 
“We have planned many activities that we have not been able to carry out due to lack of means, we are 
only students, and we already have a lot of expenses for the school. So we limited the activities and we 
worked with the means at hand to carry out some of them.” (Leader Club, Dakar) 
“Because when there is no funding, the 4-H clubs cannot always carry out their activities. The reason is 
simple: some activities require materials; some materials must be purchased. Some activities require 
traveling.” (MESRI Coordination Unit member)
Exhibit 10: 4-H members received less training than 4-H
leaders
25 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
QUESTION 4: IMPROVEMENT AND ADAPTATION OF 
VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND BUSINESS 
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
FINDING 13: Stakeholders agree that YIA effectively supported an analysis of the 
supply and demand for vocational training and guided vocational training 
centers to prioritize course offerings, which need to be validated and 
written. Some centers adopted new pedagogical approaches.
CURRICULA DEVELOPMENT. Stakeholders at the vocational training centers confirm that YIA
supported the mapping of existing vocational training curricula and assessed their content, while also 
mapping the skills needed in the private sector. They also confirm that YIA supported the development 
of training curricula in the agricultural sector based on this cross analysis of curricula and market needs. 
Following a diagnostic study of agricultural training carried out in 2020, stakeholders in the MFPAA and 
YIA confirm that YIA supported curricula co-creation workshops with agricultural production actors in 
each of its five intervention zones. The workshops resulted in 16 priority topics across five regions. YIA 
then worked with agricultural production actors to identify and prioritize five fields of qualification 
(Annex J). YIA was not able to start the process of developing the curricula before the project ended.
TRAINING MODULES. YIA supported the review of the training modules and the revision of certain 
training modules at ISFAR in accordance with the instructions of the National Authority for Quality 
Assurance in Higher Education (ANAQ-Sup), which recommends a review of learning tools every three
years based on an accreditation process, as described by a stakeholder.
“During the accreditation process, there are standards that are met and others that are not met. In their 
recommendations, they had suggested the introduction of new subjects. We cannot introduce them just like 
that, we must go to a review and then validate them. It is in this process that we called upon [YIA], which 
supported us.” (Official at ISFAR in Bambey)
Beyond this support to ISFAR, several other centers (UADB, LTAEB, CFP Dagana) have made changes 
and adapted their training programs by adding new modules that were not included in their courses 
before their collaboration with YIA.
“There was also a module on leadership, because we thought that these young people . . . lacked a certain 
leadership and they had to learn to approach people, to explain to people their difficulties and to be able to 
grab opportunities. The other module that we added is the business administration. . . . That’s how to 
manage a business, especially in terms of accounting, administrative aspects, etc. All this was necessary so 
that young people could really be trained in these areas.” (LTAEB, Bignona)
Some of the universities, such as UADB and UAM, have also made changes in the modules and content 
of their training courses. Pedagogical Coordinators involved in the process of producing the curricula 
showed a strong appropriation for the pedagogical contributions supported by YIA.
"We introduced the 4-H concept in the first year . . . We have a course on citizenship and leadership and a 
course on community service because it is a new mission of the university . . . and it should not only interest 
the teachers and other staff, but it should interest the students too to do service to the community. That's 
26 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
the biggest impact, I can say, of having been able to integrate it into the training program.” (Member of the 
Diourbel Pole Coordination team)
MARGINALIZED GROUPS. To adapt the courses to YIA participants’ different profiles, including 
talibés and non-literate women, the vocational training centers have adopted pedagogical strategies that 
emphasize practical training to adapt their courses to all categories of learners. The CIPAs of Diourbel, 
Mbao, and Saint-Louis, and the CFP of Dagana have adjusted their pedagogical practices. Trainers from 
these centers have received training in writing syllabi and preparing courses. At the CFP in Dagana, the 
entrepreneurship trainer has been reinforced in the use of the Entrepreneurship Guide developed with 
the support of the project. The trainers in these centers have been reinforced in the use of participatory 
approaches in the teaching/learning process.
“The way we prepare the courses . . . has changed because we have done training [on] syllabus level 
preparation. And even when we call for temporary workers or people who should intervene for courses, we 
ask them to send syllabuses first and according to that, we see if it is exactly what we want or if there is 
something to modify.” (CIPA Manager, Diourbel)
“So together we put this document together, this Guide. After the training, they sent us the Guide. We 
shared it with the entrepreneurship trainer at the institution who was training women, women’s groups and 
others in entrepreneurship.” (Manager, CFP, Dagana)
“Moreover, this year we are even considering . . . [for] the oral presentation of the reports, we would like 
that instead of these reports, the projects be put together by the students and presented before a jury 
where there will be organizations that are responsible for financing young people among the members of 
the jury.” (CFPH Manager, Camberene, Dakar)
LOCAL NEEDS. However, among the vocational training centers visited, none has developed 
modules based on their local community’s needs. Although real changes are being made to existing 
training offerings and modules, along with new modules initiated by YIA (Leadership, Personal 
Development, Entrepreneurship for some facilities, etc.), the development of modules tailored to the 
needs of local communities has been less well developed. 
FINDING 14: YIA has supported micro-projects for youth entrepreneurial initiatives
through these vocational training centers.
YIA planned to provide 11,000,000 FCFA to each of the six vocational training centers
3 to support 
young people and to accompany them in setting up of micro-projects and developing their 
entrepreneurial initiatives as part of the improvement of business development services. Thanks to the 
financial resources provided by YIA, the LTAEB financed five young people to set up and develop micro￾enterprises in agriculture and processing of agricultural products.
YIA also supported women’s groups to establish income-generating activities and develop initiatives in 
the Ziguinchor and Saint-Louis regions. In Ziguinchor, YIA’s support enabled the Ecole des Eaux et 
Forêts to assist the Groupement d’Intérêt Economique (GIE) de Goudiamouran, which is composed of 48 
women, in developing their income-generating activities. The Vocational Training Center of Dagana 
3 The six training structures that received a grant are: CIPA of Saint-Louis, ISFAR of Bambey, CFP of Dagana, CFP 
of Fissel, Ecole des Eaux et Forêts of Ziguinchor, and LTAEB of Bignona
27 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
provided the same type of support to three women’s groups, with 207 members, by revitalizing their 
market gardens, formalizing them into GIEs, and strengthening their financial governance capacities 
through functional literacy training.
“The GIE de Goudiamouran was supported by the School of Water and Forests. The GIE is composed of 
48 women and many other women want to join the GIE, the village is growing more and more. The harvest 
is distributed to the members, each one leaves with a quantity weighed beforehand, and brings the revenue 
back to the GIE.” (GIE de Goudiamouran)
“So, in this project, we had to train, to accompany 207 women and also young people. We also formalized 
three women’s groups that currently have the NINEA and the trade register. We have trained these 
women’s groups in . . . in financial governance. We also trained these women’s groups in soap making, 
bleach, and soap powder. In any case, detergents. These women are now making detergents and selling 
them in the markets to strengthen their finances.” (CFP Dagana)
QUESTION 5:YIA ACTIVITY’S CONTRIBUTION TO EGO 
OBJECTIVES AND THE FTF STRATEGY
FINDING 15: YIA activities align with EGO objectives and the FtF strategy, but the 
achievement rate for FtF indicators was very low.
The evaluation team compared the YIA results framework to the cross-cutting intermediate results 
(CCIR) and the sub-intermediate results (SIR) targeting youth in the EGO’s project appraisal document, 
known as EG4ALL, as well as the objectives of the FtF strategy. YIA’s results framework references the 
EG4ALL intermediate results and establishes a close link to EGO objectives and the FtF strategy. More 
specifically, the team found alignment among the YIA objective “Increased youth engagement in Senegal’s
economic growth,” the EG4ALL intermediate result “Increased employment and small and medium enterprise 
development (SIR3),” and the cross-cutting intermediate result “Improved human, organizational, and 
systemic performance (CCIR2) and empowering youth and women (CCIR7).” The YIA results framework also 
mentions that its activities contribute to “Increased access to finance (CCIR1).”
YIA had a higher achievement rate for indicators 
related to empowering youth and women and 
organizational performance, but YIA activities related 
to PPP, employment, enterprise development, and 
access to finance did not take hold, so few 
contributions were made in this area. The results 
framework does not specifically mention private 
sector engagement, employment and 
entrepreneurship, which are central to the 
development hypothesis. YIA developed indicators 
for these areas but did not meet any of the targets it 
established. 
Similar to the approach noted under Finding 1, the 
evaluation team compared the targets and results for 
the FtF indicators in YIA’s AMELP, which are a subset 
Exhibit 11: YIA FtF Indicator Achievement Rates
28 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
of all indicators. Eleven of YIA’s 24 indicators are standard FtF indicators of which only one-third 
achieved at least 75 percent of their target while more than half (54 percent) achieved less than 50
percent of their target, demonstrating that results are far below expectations, as shown in Exhibit 11.
Only four of the 11 indicators achieved at least 75 percent or more of their target:
· Number of full-time equivalent jobs created with USG assistance (EG.3-9).
· Number of individuals who have received USG-supported degree-granting food safety training 
(EG.3.2-2).
· Percentage of female participants in USG programs designed to increase access to productive 
economic resource (GNDR-2).
· Percentage of USG-assisted organizations with improved performance [MI Level] (CBLD-9).
Similarly, only the indicator “Percentage of participants in USG-assisted programs designed to increase 
access to productive economic resources who are youth (15–29) (YOUTH-3)” achieved a performance 
threshold between 50 and 75 percent of the target.
Two FtF indicators achieved between 25 and 50 percent of their targets.
· Number of individuals participating in USG food security programs (EG.3-2).
· Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USG assistance (EG.3.2-5).
Four FtF indicators (36 percent) achieved less than 25 percent of their target, of which three measure 
the economic impact that YIA was intended to have. 
· Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USG assistance (EG.3.2-26).
· Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USG assistance (EG.3.2-27).
· Value of new USG commitments and private sector investment leveraged by the USG to
support food safety and nutrition (EG.3.1-14)
· Number of individuals participating in group-based savings, microfinance, or lending programs
with USG (EG.4.2-7).
29 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion 1: Despite a series of challenges and delays to project implementation, the success 
of the 4-H clubs stands out as one of the most important achievements of YIA, largely due to 
the high motivation levels of leaders and members who have taken ownership of the 4-H 
concept.
There was a sustained dynamism in the clubs and a high level of commitment from leaders and youth, 
which led to encouraging results in terms of empowerment, leadership, and initiative-taking by youth 
involved in the 4-H clubs and who benefited from YIA’s interventions.
Indeed, the personal development that took place as a result of participating in 4-H activities is 
intangible. It did not stem from any single training, but rather a series of trainings and activities through 
which youth could develop themselves as human beings. The trainings built technical knowledge and 
competencies, but also strengthened leadership and improved self-esteem and self-confidence among the 
youth beneficiaries. Through these trainings on personal development, leadership, and entrepreneurship, 
YIA enhanced the personal resources of the youth to better exploit the social, environmental, and 
economic resources in their communities and beyond. There was a clear progression of their skills in 
leadership, group management, and entrepreneurship, which has led to the implementation of numerous 
initiatives, including income-generating and community service activities. Through these results, although 
still limited in scope, YIA has contributed to improving the social role of youth as well as their economic 
role as development actors within their respective communities.
Conclusion 2: YIA’s team structure and configuration were not appropriate for optimal 
implementation as defined in its award document and contributed to the delays in launching 
with MESRI and the universities, which affected YIA’s ability to meet targets.
The YIA team was very small, and the COP was based outside of Senegal, which hampered YIA’s 
operational coordination, diligence of procedures, and overall management activities. The absence of a 
well-structured MEL system and of a person dedicated to this function was a major weakness, limiting 
the opportunities for learning and adjustments that this would have allowed. The two components were 
compartmentalized, with insufficient synergy and collaboration between them. 
YIA did not implement activities according to plan, due to important delays in start-up that spilled over 
into implementation. These delays were mainly caused by the late involvement of MESRI and the 
universities and the time they required to complete procedures allowing YIA to transfer funds to the 
universities. The procedures themselves are cumbersome, but there was insufficient support from YIA 
to overcome these administrative obstacles. The immediate consequence was a frequent postponement 
and systematic reprogramming of activities, some of which were not carried out before YIA ended. The 
quality of some interventions also suffered due to an acceleration of activities at the end of YIA, with 
less emphasis on quality, particularly in the establishment and enrollment of youth in 4-H clubs. 
YIA managed to implement a significant portion of its planned activities, but its overall performance was 
quite low. YIA was not able to achieve set targets, either in terms of the number of clubs to be 
established or the number of youths enrolled in 4-H clubs. After five years of implementation, most of 
the performance indicators are below target. These targets may have been overly ambitious given the 
30 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
limited resources, but the MEL system and resources were inadequate to give YIA the data it needed to 
propose adjustments. 
YIA implementation and performance were hampered by several contextual factors beyond YIA’s
control, including COVID-19 and the resulting restrictions on travel and meetings, frequent university 
strikes accompanied by multiple closures of campuses, and leadership and staff changes at MESRI and 
DGRI.
Conclusion 3: In the last two years of the program, YIA established innovative partnerships 
with grassroots organizations and schools that accelerated the establishment of new clubs and 
club membership, but YIA was not able to mobilize the PPP component due to lack of 
planning and technical capacity. 
YIA established dynamic and effective partnerships that have made a significant contribution to 
improving the establishment of clubs and the enrollment of youth at critical times when the rates of club 
formation and membership recruitment were relatively low and stagnant. The extension of the 
partnership to structures such as CREs, CIPAs, DECLIC, and the involvement of schools played a key 
role in popularizing the 4-H program and expanding coverage of different target categories, particularly 
in elementary and middle schools and at the community level. Engaging these structures also made it 
possible to increase both the number of clubs and members within a short time frame. The partnerships 
with these grassroots organizations expanded the reach of the 4-H clubs, but they were put in place 
very late in YIA’s implementation period. 
The PPP, intended to organize the mobilization of private sector funds for the financial sustainability of 
the national 4-H program, has not been successful, because of a lack of communication and the absence 
of a clear and elaborate resource mobilization strategy. YIA did not appear to have a plan or the 
technical capacity to effectively implement a PPP strategy. 
Conclusion 4: MESRI and partner universities have taken most of the steps needed to establish 
an institutional framework for PYD, which has created strong foundations and fostered great 
ownership among students. Challenges remain due to varying degrees of commitment and 
political will, the limited duration of their collaboration with YIA, the lack of a transition plan, 
and limited staff motivation. 
The establishment of program management bodies and mechanisms within MESRI and the six 
universities involved in YIA reflects a genuine commitment to ensure that YIA has institutional support. 
Both the formal procedures adopted and the composition of the bodies set up at the central level 
(National Coordination Unit, Steering Committee, Advisory Board) and in the universities (regional pole 
coordination teams), all composed of permanent civil servants, are the expression of a formal 
institutional anchoring of the program management structures within MESRI and the partner universities
and their commitment to ensure that YIA has institutional support.
Some universities involved in YIA effectively integrated the PYD approach. The dynamism of certain 
clubs and the positive effects noted among students trained in the 4-H concept have contributed to the 
gradual adoption of the 4-H PYD approach by some of the universities (UADB, UAM). The students 
31 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
who have benefited from the 4-H training have taken ownership of the concept by becoming leaders at 
the university and community levels. 
However, this integration varies greatly and seems to depend on the commitment and political will of 
the academic authorities, because of the universities and their Rectors’ autonomy in administration. At 
the institutional and programmatic levels, the existence of government programs and mechanisms 
targeting young people and/or youth entrepreneurship constitutes a very favorable opportunity for the 
integration of the national 4-H program into existing national instruments for its overall sustainability. 
There are several factors that could affect the sustainability of the national 4-H program. These include 
the lack of preparation for YIA’s end, the absence of a transition, and the lack of motivation for 
university-based regional pole coordinators who take on extra tasks without additional compensation 
and in addition to their regular duties. For the 4-H clubs, the lack of training for some leaders and 
members and the lack of support for the clubs could weaken their sustainability. 
Conclusion 5: While vocational training was a YIA achievement with potential for 
sustainability, many opportunities for private sector collaboration as per the project design
did not materialize because of inadequate planning and technical capacity within YIA.
YIA support to vocational training centers has globally contributed to the improvement in the quality of 
their training services, in terms of offerings and content, as well as the improvement of pedagogical 
approaches and practices. The availability of pedagogical tools, such as the Entrepreneurship Guide, to 
training centers as well as the adoption and appropriation of certain modules promoted by the 4-H 
program such as Leadership, Personal Development, and Entrepreneurship, among others, attest to 
YIA’s contribution to improving the quality of vocational training services for the training centers 
involved in the project. In addition, ISFAR, LTAEB and the Dagana CFP demonstrated a commitment to 
continuing the 4-H initiatives, offering good potential for sustainability. 
YIA also helped to open the training centers to vulnerable groups (talibés, children in Action Educative 
en Milieu Ouvert, non-literate women) who were not the traditional targets of these institutions. 
However, the adaptation of training offerings and modules to the needs of local communities was not 
emphasized in the activities and products supported by YIA in its collaboration with the vocational 
training centers. 
In addition, YIA’s support has enabled young people and women’s groups to develop micro-projects and 
set up income-generating activities that allow them to become self-employed by creating their own 
activities. YIA incorrectly labelled these as PPPs, when they are more accurately described as small 
grants to GIEs. The evaluation team could not find evidence of an effective PPP strategy. YIA did not 
appear to have the technical capacity to develop a strategy for private sector collaboration. 
Engaging line ministries was a missed opportunity because of their ability to either reinforce 4-H efforts 
or integrate 4-H into their own ministries. For example, the Ministry of Youth offers youth employment 
and training programs and could add PYD to its approach and offerings. Clubs that implemented 
agriculture and reforestation activities would benefit from technical support from the Ministries of 
Agriculture and Environment, respectively. Several of these line ministries already participate in the 
MESRI Steering Committee so engaging them is a feasible and logical next step. 
32 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Conclusion 6: YIA contributed to EGO objectives and the FtF strategy, but the low 
achievement rate suggests a limited contribution and makes it difficult to determine if the 
planned activities would contribute to inclusive economic growth as articulated in the YIA 
development hypothesis.
YIA objectives and activities aligned with those of the EGO and the FtF strategy. The review of the 
targets and current results of YIA’s standard indicators established a relatively low level of performance, 
suggesting that YIA’s contribution may have been limited. However, the absence of targets in the 
reference documents (EG4ALL PAD, FtF strategy) does not allow the evaluation team to establish the 
precise level of this contribution. 
The YIA development hypothesis is that the institutionalization of a national PYD program, plus 
innovative approaches to bridging Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions 
with private sector value chain actors, can yield increased employment and enterprise development, 
increased youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, and finally increased inclusive economic 
growth. 
The team found few signs of YIA activities related to private sector engagement, employment, and 
entrepreneurship, suggesting that the team did not have the skillset to tackle these issues. The last part 
of YIA’s development hypothesis links its activities to “increased employment and enterprise 
development, increased youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, and finally increased inclusive 
economic growth.” There is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove the hypothesis; the lack of 
results under YIA may be related more to poor implementation than the lack of sound development 
design. 
33 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The evaluation team held a workshop on January 10, 2023, with stakeholders from MESRI, USAID, YIA, 
and 4-H clubs to share findings and co-create recommendations. Drawing on the insights of the 
evaluation team, this section builds on the findings and conclusions in the report and expands on the 
recommendations offered during the co-creation workshop, organizing them by responsible stakeholder 
and theme. 
USAID
USAID should encourage a more efficient, learning-focused, and sustainable approach. This 
includes a requirement that the Chief of Party be present in Senegal to facilitate relationship building 
with key partners, ensure efficient decision-making, and keep the program moving. A second aspect is to 
ensure that MEL best practices are followed and encourage greater learning and adaptation. A midterm 
evaluation would also help to uncover needed improvements and adjustments. The final 12–18 months
of the program should be dedicated to transition, so that partner institutions can plan for taking over 
program activities. 
USAID should encourage more effective efforts to mobilize public-private partnerships, 
which are key to sustainability but did not materialize under YIA. Access to resources is key 
for the future success of the 4-H program and vocational training. These may include revisiting the 
private sector strategy, asking potential applicants to offer creative approaches, and/or including criteria 
in the solicitation that evaluate the rigor and realism of the approach. Technical criteria in any future 
opportunity should emphasize innovative strategies to mobilize government and private sector
resources that will support the 4-H program and its objectives. These might include co-financing of 
youth entrepreneurship opportunities and sponsoring vocational training programs or graduates. 
Participants in the co-creation workshop also suggested National 4-H Association and youth advocacy 
initiatives to engage the private sector in the 4-H program and club activities. In particular, a future 
program could support the National 4-H Association to develop a strategic plan to mobilize resources 
from civil society and the private sector and develop training on entrepreneurship. 
Following the principles of locally led development, USAID should consider engaging 
government entities charged with taking over project activities from the design stage, 
working in partnership with them to design the project. Another option is for USAID to use co￾creation workshops to identify objectives, expected results, and potential obstacles. For example, the 
delays and administrative hurdles that YIA experienced could be the subject of discussion so that 
solutions could be identified from the outset to facilitate implementation. This would serve to carry 
over important lessons from YIA to any follow-on activity that is discussed.
THE NEXT IMPLEMENTING PARTNER
The implementing partner should establish an effective and adequately resourced MEL
system to improve monitoring of program activities and introduce greater learning and 
adaptation. USAID and the implementing partner should be more realistic about what can be 
accomplished with the resources available, adjusting targets accordingly. The implementing partner 
should recruit experienced personnel to develop targets, systematically monitor activities, track results, 
develop learning questions, and organize regular “pause and reflect” sessions to address challenges. YIA 
34 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
was slow to get started and fell far short of its established targets, but the targets may have been overly 
ambitious. Better monitoring of all components would allow for understanding why targets are not being 
met, making adjustments, and generating ideas on how to be more effective. 
The implementing partner should engage MESRI and the universities upon award and be 
prepared to assist sub-awardees with all USG procedures related to receiving funds. As 
noted, YIA was slow to sign partnership agreements with MESRI and universities, resulting in significant 
delays in launching activities because of the different procedures and administrative hurdles. The 
implementing partner should make technical assistance available to support sub-awardees in addressing 
these procedures, e.g., obtaining a DUNS number, registering in SAM, and understanding the 
requirements for receiving funds. The implementing partner should train the Administrative and 
Financial Coordinators on the administrative procedures for requests, management, and justification of 
funds, which will speed the process. The implementing partner should also consider a co-creation 
approach, to develop programs in partnership with MESRI and the regional poles, to increase ownership 
and brainstorm on ways to overcome administrative hurdles that delayed YIA in its first two years. 
MESRI AND THE UNIVERSITIES
Building on the success in establishing governance centers, MESRI and partner universities 
should continue to institutionalize the 4-H program by creating a 4-H Coordinator 
position, developing work plans, and organizing regular meetings to track progress, adapt 
activities, and pivot as needed. Both MESRI and partner universities should create a 4-H 
Coordinator position, charged with supporting the 4-H program, including the PYD approach and the 
clubs. The coordinators should develop regular work plans to describe all tasks related to activity 
implementation and the governance units with MESRI and the universities. Both should organize
quarterly meetings to monitor implementation, resource allocation, and disbursement. These steps will 
further institutionalize the 4-H program by monitoring progress and addressing challenges as needed. 
Universities should increase their financial commitment to the 4-H program through 
greater investment in the coordinating committees, integration of community service in 
work plans and budgets, establishment of dedicated accounts for project funds, and 
additional efforts to seek private sector contributions. Once established, the regional poles were 
integral to program success. One step the universities should take is to offer nominal compensation to 
the individuals that form the Steering Committee, if only to acknowledge the extra tasks they manage in 
addition to their regular duties. The amount should be enough to reward a willing and dedicated 
individual to take the assignment but not so much as to overshadow that dedication with financial gain. 
Universities should use the 4-H program to expand their community service plans and consider 
allocating a line item for community service in their budgets. Universities should also consider increasing
the number of committee members and designating a 4-H Coordinator to support club development 
and activities. The university should also designate an MEL Coordinator to monitor 4-H activities, track 
challenges and achievements, and support learning and adaptation across clubs based on the results of 
this monitoring. 
The universities should consider creating a dedicated account to receive program funds, to speed up 
implementation and improve accountability. This includes establishing a specific sub-account dedicated to 
4-H resources. This will facilitate the financing of activities and help to overcome the difficulties of 
disbursement linked to the principle of the single account. 
35 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
VOCATIONAL TRAINING
MESRI and MFPAA should complete the process of validating the curricula developed 
under YIA and continue developing new course offerings identified and prioritized by 
agricultural production actors. Stakeholders saw great value in the curricula developed for the 
vocational training centers and recommend greater involvement of the Steering Committee as well as 
the sectoral ministries who are also Committee members. A final step is to validate the curricula so they
are fully institutionalized within the centers and then evaluate them over time. An additional step is to 
develop the curricula for the five prioritized certificate/diploma programs. Involving ministries such as 
agriculture and youth is important because they have relevant programs that can enhance 4-H activities. 
Stakeholders at the recommendations co-creation workshop also suggest that the centers establish a 
curriculum unit on citizenship and PYD with a course on community service, develop training modules 
related to the needs identified in the job identification activity, identify pilot implementation centers, and 
strengthen the capacity of teachers in the development of syllabi. Others suggested creating a 
framework for training centers to share the pedagogical approaches they have tested.
MESRI and MFPAA should engage relevant sectoral ministries to expand the impact of the 
vocational training. Regional poles engaged technical services, but this outreach did not take place at 
the national level. For example, coordinating with ANPEJ, which was tasked with promoting youth 
employment, could offer additional opportunities for youth graduates of vocational training programs. 
The Ministry of Youth has programs for entrepreneurship and could add 4-H to its program. The 
Ministry of Agriculture has training programs that could benefit 4-H agriculture activities. The Ministry of 
Environment can support 4-H reforestation activities. The Coordination or Steering Committee should 
initiate this outreach to relevant entities, encouraging them to establish a focal point for future 
collaboration and a schedule for periodic meetings. 
The vocational training centers should strengthen their dialogue with the private sector, 
particularly to incorporate their needs into course offerings. The private sector engagement of 
YIA never took hold, and the training centers did not take steps to identify community needs. Greater 
dialogue with the private sector could help to address both issues. 
NATIONAL 4-H ASSOCIATION
The National 4-H Association should develop a private sector engagement strategy to 
secure more internship, employment, and entrepreneurship opportunities for clubs and 
members. 
The National 4-H Association should develop a strategy for expanding beyond the 
universities, drawing on the success of working through secondary schools and local 
grassroots organizations.
4-H CLUBS
4-H clubs should involve first and second year students in club management to lessen the 
activity slowdown that occurs when student leaders graduate. Club leaders are often in their 
final year of schooling, so their departure results in a leadership vacuum at the clubs. If clubs were to 
involve more students who are in their early years of school, they would have a greater continuity in 
club management.
36 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
REFERENCES
Annex II. Ministerial Decision Creating National 4-H Coordination Cell (in Feed the Future Senegal Youth in 
Agriculture Annual Report Y4 2021)
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, 2019
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, 2020
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, 2021
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, 2022
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Mid-Year Report Year 1, Semester 1, Fiscal Year 2018
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Annual Report Year 2, Fiscal Year 2019
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Annual Report Year 3, Fiscal Year 2020
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Annual Report Year 4, Fiscal Year 2021
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Annual Report Year 5, Fiscal Year 2022 
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Booklet
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Newsletter #3, December 2021
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Positive Youth Development in Senegal: A Case Study of 4-H 
Senegal, 2021
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 1, Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2018
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 1, Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2018
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 1, Quarter 4, Fiscal Year 2018
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 2, Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2019
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 2, Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2019
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 2, Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2019
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 3, Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2020
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 3, Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2020
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 3, Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2020
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 4, Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2021
37 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 4, Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2021
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 4, Quarter 3, Fiscal Year 2021
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 5, Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2022
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Quarterly Report Year 5, Quarter 2, Fiscal Year 2022
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Technical Application
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Work Plan Year 3, Fiscal Year 2020
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Work Plan Year 4, Fiscal Year 2021
Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture, Work Plan Year 5, Fiscal Year 2022
National Agency for Statistics and Demography, ANSD 2016, Economic and Social Situation in Senegal
National Agency for the Promotion of Youth Employment, ANPEJ 2016, Presentation Report
USAID Senegal, Economic Growth for All, Project Appraisal Document, 2017
38 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEXES
ANNEX A: EVALUATION TEAM
Mr. Souleymane Barry, the MEL Platform Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, served as the 
Team Leader of this evaluation. Mr. Barry is a sociologist with 15 years of experience in designing, 
managing and conducting evaluation and field research in Senegal and neighboring countries. He has 
expertise in the design of research protocols, quantitative and qualitative data collection tools, the 
management of data collection teams and statistical and qualitative analysis. Mr. Barry has strong skills in 
field team coordination, communication with institutional partners and capacity building. His long field 
experience has allowed him to conduct several evaluations and studies throughout the 14 regions of 
Senegal in the areas of health, education, gender, agriculture and poverty. Mr. Barry has conducted 
several baselines, midterm and final evaluations of projects funded by USAID, as well as for various 
international bodies and nongovernmental organizations. Mr. Barry holds a Master's of Sociology from 
Cheikh Anta Diop University and Masters of Advance Studies in Development Sociology from the 
Sorbonne University and in Engineering of Social Surveys from University of Lille.
Souleymane Sarr, the vocational training specialist, has more than 30 years of experience in the 
vocational training sector. He has participated in the development and evaluation of several agricultural 
projects and programs in Senegal and in the sub-region. Mr. Sarr has developed vocational training 
frameworks in agriculture and project documents for agricultural, horticultural, and livestock training 
institutes. As Head of Mission at the AFD agency in Kinshasa, he carried out the diagnosis of agricultural 
and rural training. He also worked with UNESCO Madagascar on a study of the feasibility of networking 
agricultural and rural training institutions in 4 regions of Madagascar. Mr. Sarr is an expert for Senegal 
and The Gambia in the study of agro-ecology training centers and agro-ecology platforms or networks. 
These numerous experiences give him the ability to understand and evaluate the issues and strategies of 
implementation and sustainability of agricultural training projects and programs. Mr. Sarr has a Diploma 
in Agricultural Engineering from the Ecole Nationale des Cadres Ruraux of Bambey (Senegal) and a 
Diploma in Horticultural and Landscape Engineering from the Ecole Nationale des Ingénieurs des 
Techniques de l'Horticulture et du Paysage of Angers (France).
Abdou Diallo, an M&E Manager, is a specialist in monitoring, evaluation, research, learning and 
community health. He has nearly 10 years of experience working with international organizations in 
Senegal and the West Africa region. His expertise includes project evaluation, research, and learning; 
project design and management (e.g., health, nutrition, HIV, food security, WASH, gender); qualitative 
and quantitative research; statistics; and data collection systems development. Mr. Diallo has a Master 2 
in Monitoring and evaluation from the Alioune Diop University of Bambey (Senegal).
Ndate Gueye, a MEL Assistant, is a monitoring and evaluation specialist. An active community activist, 
Ms. Gueye is a member of several organizations, including the Senegalese Evaluation Association 
(SenEval), of which she was the permanent secretary. She was an intern at the USAID/Monitoring and
Evaluation Project and has participated in several project performance evaluations. She holds a master's 
degree in project management from Ecole Supérieur de Management de Projet in Dakar. and studied 
economics at UCAD.
The team was supported by ten enumerators who collected data in the field.
39 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX B: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) DETAIL
USAID SOW MANAGER Seydou Kane
MEL PLATFORM COR Fatou Thiam
MEL PLATFORM SOW 
MANAGER Souleymane Barry
ACTIVITY TITLE Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture
ACTIVITY PERIOD November 2, 2017 - November 1, 2022
AWARD/CONTRACT # AID-685-LA-17-00002
FUNDING $4,000,000
IMPLEMENTING 
ORGANIZATION Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)
GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE Dakar, Thiès, St Louis, Dagana, Bambey, Sine Saloum zone including Kaolack, 
Ziguinchor and Bignona
TASK Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture
TASK START AND END DATES August 2022-January 2023
ACTIVTY DESCRIPTION
The Feed the Future (FtF) Youth in Agriculture (YIA) is an activity implemented by Virginia Polytechnic 
Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) in partnership with its Senegalese institutional partners. 
The purpose of FtF YIA is to increase youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth. More 
specifically, this project aims to build the capacity and support the institutionalization of sustainable 
positive youth development and vocational training systems that create dynamic and profitable
entrepreneurship and employment opportunities for youth focusing especially on agricultural value 
chains and markets. In coordination with other actors in the U.S. Agency for International Development 
(USAID) and Government of Senegal (GoS), this project addresses USAID/Senegal’s Economic Growth 
for All (EG4ALL) Intervention Area 3: Entrepreneurship and Vocational Development Services, to 
contribute to increased inclusive economic growth and the reduction of poverty and undernourishment 
in Senegal. Going beyond purely economic and employment outcomes, the project’s focus on positive 
youth development (PYD) will promote holistic development of young people to help them gain life 
skills and become more engaged as positive change agents in their communities.
DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS AND IMPLEMENTATION
The FtF YIA development hypothesis is that the institutionalization of a national PYD program, plus 
innovative approaches to bridging Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions 
with private sector value chain actors, can yield increased employment and enterprise development, 
increased youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, and finally increased inclusive economic 
growth. The FtF YIA evidence‐based approach guides out planned interventions, presented by 
Component below. 
Component 1: Establish and institutionalize a national PYD program, building on the 4‐H Senegal 
Positive Youth Development program of USAID/Education and Research in Agriculture. 
· Training of trainers on 4‐H and PYD
40 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Creation and sharing of evidence‐based pedagogical materials
· Management of sub‐awards for Regional 4‐H Sites
· Backstopping creation, management, and evaluation of certified clubs
· Facilitation of participatory youth evaluation and research
· National 4‐H program coordination meetings
· National 4‐H Youth Congress
· Special agricultural, STEM, and entrepreneurship activities/events
Component 2: Improve vocational training and business development services by pilot testing innovative 
approaches to strengthen training institutions’ connections with private sector actors and markets. 
· Training of trainers on youth employment and entrepreneurship
· Workshops for integrated curricula co‐creation
· Management of sub‐awards for TVET partnerships
· Networking and exchange events for youth, employers, and investors
The FtF YIA also implements crosscutting activities touching on both Components, such as the 
facilitation of Public‐Private Partnerships (PPPs) and of a PYD/Youth Employment Community of 
Practice.
EXISTING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SOURCES
USAID/Economic Growth Office (EGO) will provide the evaluation team with a package of Activity 
background materials, including:
· Section C of the YIA award
· Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP), with targets, latest results, and 
Performance Indicator Reference Sheets
· Annual workplans
· Annual and quarterly reports
· Special studies (e.g., baseline data collection, periodic participant surveys of participants)
· Success stories.
TASK PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND INTENDED USES
The objective of this final evaluation is to assess the performance achieved by the Ftf Senegal YIA 
Activity after 5 years of implementation. Specifically, the evaluation team will examine and assess the 
41 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
adequacy of the activity’s two components in the context of the Senegal FtF strategy, the soundness of 
the project's approach, the quality of YIA management, the adequacy and effectiveness of Virginia Tech 
assistance delivery, beneficiary coverage and response, and the overall potential for sustainability of 
project gains after November 2022.
The audience for this evaluation is the USAID/Senegal EGO. Key stakeholders for the evaluation include 
Virginia Tech and the Direction Générale de la Recherche et de l'Innovation (DGRI) at the Ministry of Higher 
Education Research and Innovation (MERSI) because of their participation in YIA but also because of 
their direct interest in assessing progress and capacity built so they can carry it forward. The findings 
from the evaluation will be validated with USAID/Senegal EGO, DGRI officials, Virginia Tech and FtF YIA 
staff. The MEL Platform will facilitate a co-creation recommendations workshop with all stakeholders to 
develop practical, reasonable, and actionable recommendations beneficial to future programming.
TASK REQUIREMENT
USAID provided six research questions in its tasking request, some of which were more narrowly 
focused than others. USAID evaluation guidelines recommend 3-5 evaluation questions (EQ).1 We have 
revised and reformulated the six research questions into five evaluation questions, described below. We 
have also included a summary of how we interpret the questions and how they address USAID’s original 
research questions. The evaluation team may further refine the evaluation questions during the design 
phase. The Ftf YIA final evaluation will seek to answer the following:
1. To what extent has the activity been implemented effectively, including the timely 
completion of planned activities, the efficient use of project resources, and the quality of 
partnerships and collaboration?
Summary interpretation: This question focuses on implementation effectiveness, retaining much of 
USAID’s first research question while separating out its contribution to EGO’s overall objectives (see 
EQ 5 below). Through this question we seek to identify how Virginia Tech operationalized the project. 
Timely completion of planned activities, efficient use of project resources and the quality of partnerships 
and collaboration are all relevant. USAID questions about how curricula have been developed and 
disseminated (question 4) and the tailoring of vocational development to needs at the local level 
(question 5) speak both to efficiency and quality of partnerships, and thus are relevant to include in EQ1. 
Other issues may also emerge. 
2. To what extent has the national youth program governance structure been embedded 
within the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (MESRI) and the 
universities?
Summary interpretation: This question corresponds closely to Result 1.1 in the YIA results framework, as 
indicated in the AMELP from November 2021. Component 1 aims to establish and institutionalize a 
national youth program, part of which involves embedding a governance structure within the ministry 
and in universities. It necessarily links to Component 2, which aims to improve vocational training and 
business development services. The evaluation will explore how MESRI, university and YIA staff perceive 
the progress and sustainability of how MESRI and the universities have established an internal structure 
to support youth programs. 
3. What is the overall sustainability of the National 4-H program?
Summary interpretation: USAID has been supporting the development of a national 4-H2 program in 
Senegal for several years, through YIA and its predecessor program. We will look at the extent to which 
42 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
YIA has laid a foundation to ensure fundraising and partnership development, how it will be sustained, 
and how the curriculum has contributed to long-term sustainability of the 4-H program. Other elements 
may emerge during the evaluation, either in the document review or the fieldwork. 
4. To what extent have vocational training and business development services been improved, 
including tailoring to the needs of local communities?
Summary interpretation: This question corresponds to the second component of the YIA Activity, which 
sought to pilot test innovative approaches to strengthen training institutions’ connections with private 
sector actors and markets. The evaluation team will examine how these programs were tailored to local 
markets, and thus the needs of local communities. Vocational training also links to Component 1 in 
terms of the relationship with MESRI and the universities. 
5. How effectively has YIA contributed to the EGO objectives in Senegal and more globally the 
Ftf strategy in Senegal?
Summary interpretation: The tasking request references the desire to understand YIA’s contribution to 
the FtF strategy in Senegal, whereas the wording of the first research question in the tasking request 
refers to YIA’s contribution to EGO objectives. These are slightly different because FtF is an 
important—but not exclusive—element of EGO objectives in Senegal. Objectives are also typically a 
subset of a strategy. The evaluation will address how advancing youth participation in agriculture 
contributes to FtF strategy and EGO objectives, prioritizing based on USAID’s preferences for 
recommendations that will help it decide what to emphasize in future programming to maximize results 
for both FtF and EGO.
GENDER DISAGGREGATION AND GENDER DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS
ADS 205 requires sex-disaggregation for all person-level data and strongly recommends evaluations 
include a detailed examination of gender issues relevant to the sectors being addressed and relevant 
gender gaps that could hinder overall project outcomes. As such, the ET will look at any differences 
between male and female participants in terms of progress of how the FtF YIA has collaborated with 
them, both in terms of planned and actual activities across each of the evaluation questions. For 
example, effective Activity implementation may include efforts to reach both female and male 
participants, with targets determined in the YIA AMELP and annual workplan. This analysis will also 
explore reasons for gender differentials identified in terms of any lessons learned. For example, when 
determining sustainable improvements across program activities [e.g., 4-H program, vocational training], 
we will also examine the extent to which male and female participants were able to access, participate, 
and benefit from these interventions and the potential reasons behind any differences. As part of EQ 5, 
the ET will examine the gender components of the FtF Strategy to understand YIA’s has contributed. 
The evaluation will also consider how other social factors and the intersection of those social factors 
may have also contributed to effectiveness and outcomes of the Activity. These may include geography, 
ethnicity or age (e.g., adolescence vs. young adult). 
APPROACH
DESIGN
This final performance evaluation will combine different sources and mixed methods to foster 
triangulation and increase the validity of the evaluation results. The EnCompass Institutional Review 
Board (IRB) will review the design and data collection tools to protect the rights of all participants 
engaging in the evaluation.
43 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The evaluation will apply three methods: secondary document review, quantitative data collection 
through two quantitative surveys of YIA participants and beneficiaries, and qualitative data collection 
through key informant interviews (KII) and focus groups discussions (FGD) with YIA beneficiaries and 
relevant stakeholders.
PHASE 1: DOCUMENT REVIEW
The ET will review YIA project documents to assess the conformity of implementation with what was 
planned, including the AMELP targets and actual results. It will allow the ET to fully absorb and analyze 
the different parameters of YIA planning, implementation, and achievements. This document review will 
cover all YIA project documentation, including the Award with Virginia Tech, all quarterly and annual 
reports, the AMELP, baseline studies or other sources of data, success stories, and any other relevant 
documentation made available by USAID, Virginia Tech, or project partners and stakeholders. 
The ET will use the document review to identify the relevant actors and stakeholders for the 
quantitative and qualitative data collection and develop the data collection tools (surveys and interview 
guides). The document review will continue throughout the data collection period and will consider any 
additional documentation provided by the government entities involved in YIA implementation.
PHASE 2: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE FIELD RESEARCH
The ET will complement the data from the document review with field data collection from project 
actors, stakeholders, and beneficiaries in the different YIA intervention zones in Senegal. 
This data collection will use a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to capture the 
perspectives and opinions of the different actors. Triangulating across data sources will increase the 
validity of the evaluation findings, allowing for an objective assessment of the performance of the 
project’s different components and its expected results. 
Quantitative data collection
The ET will collect quantitative data from two categories of program participants: beneficiaries of 
training of trainers and young people enrolled in 4-H clubs set up with the support of YIA. 
· Survey of leaders who have benefited from training of trainers (TOT)
The TOT offered to youth leaders on PYD and 4-H was a key element in the deployment of activities 
for the benefit of youth enrolled in the 4-H clubs. The ET will conduct a quantitative survey of the 
leaders who have benefited from these trainings, in particular on the knowledge and skills acquired in 
PYD, leadership and youth engagement, to assess both the YIA contribution in setting up a critical mass 
of trainers and the sustainability of this approach. The survey will address the profile of the trained 
leaders, their professional profile or government affiliation, the knowledge and skills acquired, and the 
application of the knowledge and skills acquired. Though quantitative in nature, the survey may include 
open-ended questions to collect additional insights, thus adding a qualitative aspect. 
· Survey of young beneficiaries of project interventions
As the priority target and ultimate beneficiaries of YIA project interventions, youth remain a key source 
of information for the analysis of project results and achievements. The ET will capture the experience 
44 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
of young YIA participants and beneficiaries through a quantitative survey, semi-structured interviews, 
and focus group discussions detailed below. 
To strengthen the quality of the data that will inform the project performance evaluation, the ET will 
conduct a quantitative survey among young people who have participated in or benefited from YIA 
project interventions in the different regions of Senegal. The ET will build a sample frame for this 
quantitative from the YIA database of youth who have been involved in the project. The ET will draw a 
statistically valid sample from this database to guide the collection of data from young people engaged in 
4-H activities and enrolled in clubs. The sample will depend on the number of beneficiaries, which we 
will identify based on information provided by YIA and include in the workplan. 
Qualitative data collection
In addition to the document review and quantitative surveys described above, the evaluation will use 
qualitative methods to purposefully gather information from stakeholders and beneficiaries. In this 
context, the ET will use two data collection techniques: semi-structured KIIs and FGDs. The data and 
information collected will deepen and supplement the data from the document review and quantitative 
surveys to better report on the achievements and performance of the YIA Activity in Senegal. The 
workplan will describe the full list of stakeholders for participation in the evaluation. 
· Semi-structured KIIs
The ET will conduct semi-structured KIIs with a variety of actors, including institutional stakeholders 
(e.g., MESRI/DGRI, MFP, Rectorates of Universities) involved in YIA implementation and 4-H leaders in 
the different implementation regions. The ET will conduct KII with YIA coordination entities, both at 
central and regional level, as well as private sector actors involved in YIA. The ET will identify the 
informants and interview guides for each group of informants in the work plan. The ET will conduct 
these interviews around the themes related to the YIA activities, the implementation approach, the 
content of the activities, the knowledge and skills acquired through these activities as well as the 
potential for sustainability of the achievements beyond the implementation period. 
· Focus Group Discussions
As part of the qualitative survey and to complement the quantitative data collected through the youth 
survey, the ET will conduct FGDs with youth club members and participants in the 4-H program. These 
discussions will capture the youth's group perspective and deepen the aspects that would emerge from 
these exchanges with young people. The ET will conduct FGD from a sample of clubs from the different 
regions where site visits will take place. Throughout the participant selection and FGD coordination 
process, the ET will pay particular attention to participant characteristics to foster active participation 
and to involve a variety of perspectives.
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
The ET will identify the geographic coverage of the evaluation in the workplan, including site visits 
outside of Dakar for KIIs and FGDs and survey participants. 
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
The work plan will include a discussion on limitations of the methodology and approach, as well as 
limitations in the data to be used, whether primary or secondary data, as part of the evaluation. The 
45 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
evaluation report will clearly outline methodological limitations and challenges encountered in the field, 
focusing on ways in which the ET mitigated these limitations. 
DELIVERABLES
The deliverables for this evaluation include:
· Work Plan: A detailed work plan will indicate methodology, data sources, data analysis plan, and 
detailed calendar. The workplan will also include data collection tools and a report outline as 
annexes. The MEL Platform will submit the work plan to the COR and Technical Point of 
Contact (POC) for approval prior to fieldwork.
· Progress Reports: As needed, a brief written report of progress made in the field will describe 
key scheduled activities, status of completion, and constraints encountered during field work. 
The progress report will also highlight key takeaways and lessons learned from ongoing work.
· Data Walk: A discussion with USAID/EGO after the data collection to review the preliminary 
findings and the supporting evidence and data collected. Input from this discussion will help 
guide the ET as they move forward with the report writing process.
· Recommendations matrix: The team will organize a workshop to create recommendations with 
USAID, the YIA staff, DGRI staff and any other relevant stakeholders. 
· Draft Evaluation Report: The ET will submit a draft report to the MEL Platform COR and 
Technical POC, who will provide comments for revision and finalization of the report within ten 
working days following the draft submission. The Activity COR may also share with the 
implementing partner for comment. 
· Final Report: A written report will follow USAID evaluation report guidelines, and include a 
table of contents, introduction, purpose, methodology, findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations sections. Unless discussed and approved in advance, the MEL Platform will 
submit the final report in English. If submitted in French, it will be translated into English once 
finalized. The report will include the following elements:
· A 30-page report with a clear discussion of the data and evidence, the subsequent 
findings to each evaluation question prompted by analysis of the data and evidence, 
conclusions driven by the findings, and recommendations (if applicable) generated from 
the conclusions. 
· Annexes3 will include the timeline, SOW, methods and limitations, data collection and 
analysis tools, sources of information, disclosure of any conflict of interest, team 
members, and statement of differences (as applicable). Other items may be added as 
relevant. 
· A three-page executive summary that provides a brief discussion of methodology, 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
· An Abstract: A short description of the purpose, questions, methodology and outcome 
of the evaluation/research; i.e., findings, conclusions and recommendations.
46 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Other learning products and events may be developed during the evaluation based on 
availability of funds and interest (e.g., a one-page infographic representing critical lessons 
learned from the evaluation).
· Mission-wide Presentation: Depending on Mission preferences, the team can offer a final 
presentation to all interested parties in the Mission, up to and including the Mission Director.
TEAM COMPOSITION
The team will include a Team Leader and a PPP Specialist.4
The Team Leader is responsible for leading the Ftf YIA Evaluation in all phases (desk review, 
identifying respondents, workplan development, data collection and analysis, report writing and 
presentations) and managing the work of the ET. The Team Leader should be a Vocational Training 
Specialist with a good knowledge of vocational development services.
The PPP Specialist contributes to the FtF YIA Evaluation in all phases, focusing on PPP systems. 
He/she should be familiar with youth development issues, in particular in the agriculture sector. 
The Senior Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist (SMES), Souleymane Barry, will serve as the task manager, 
overseeing the evaluation, ensuring that the methodology used by the team is adequate to respond to 
research questions and deliverables are of high quality, and supporting the team as needed. A Monitoring 
& Evaluation Manager will support scheduling of interviews, participate in interviews, and contribute to 
data analysis and report writing. Ten (10) enumerators will support qualitative interviews and administer 
surveys during quantitative data collection. The Chief of Party (COP) and Deputy Chief of Party 
(DCOP) will review the findings, conclusions, and recommendations matrix as well as the draft and final 
reports for technical quality. All team members are required to provide a signed statement attesting 
either that they have no conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest.
Illustrative Tasks/Deliverables, Timeline, and Level of Effort (LOE)
DATES TASKS/ 
DELIVERABLES
ESTIMATED LOE
TEAM LEADER 
(PPP SPECIALIST)
VOCATIONAL 
TRAINING 
SPECIALIST
ENUMERATORS 
(10)
TOTAL
September 14, 
2022 SOW Approval - - - -
September 30, 
2022
Finalize team leader, 
members
- - - -
October 3, 
2022
Team coordination 
meeting
1 1 2
October 4 –7, 
2022
Desk review, identify 
key informants
4 2 - 6
October 10-14, 
2022
Develop detailed work 
plan for primary field 
research and tools
5 4 - 9
October 14, 
2022
Submit workplan to 
the MEL Platform
- - - -
October 19, 
2022
Submit work plan to 
USAID
- - - -
October 20-26, 
2022
USAID reviews the 
workplan
- - - -
October 24-26, 
2022
Coordinate fieldwork 
interviews and 
logistics
- - - -
October 28, 
2022
Fieldwork Planning 
Meeting
1 1 - 2
47 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
DATES TASKS/ 
DELIVERABLES
ESTIMATED LOE
TEAM LEADER 
(PPP SPECIALIST)
VOCATIONAL 
TRAINING 
SPECIALIST
ENUMERATORS 
(10)
TOTAL
October 19-21, 
2022
Develop enumerator 
training guide
2 2 - 4
October 31-
November 1, 
2022
Train enumerators
2 2 - 4‘
November 2-
19, 2022 Field work 10 15 15 40
November 14-
25, 2022
Data analysis and 
preparation of initial 
findings
10 5 - 15
November 3-
22, 2012
Transcribe focus 
groups and interviews
5 5
November 29, 
2022
Data walk with 
technical office
1 1 - 2
November 30-
December 1, 
2022
Finalize FC table and 
prepare 
recommendation 
workshop
2 2 - 4
December 6, 
2022
Recommendations 
workshop
1 1 - 2
December 7-13, 
2022 Develop draft report 5 3 - 8
December 16-
23, 2022
Translate draft report 
into English and review 
translation
- - - -
December 27, 
2022
Submission of draft 
report
- - - -
January 10, 
2023
USAID feedback on 
draft report
- - - -
January 16-20, 
2023
Finalize report based 
on USAID feedback 
and develop abstract
2 1 - 3
January 24, 
2023
Mission wide 
presentation
1 1 - 2
January 26, 
2023 Learning workshop 1 1 2
January 30, 
2023
Post-evaluation action 
plan
1 1 2
TBD Submission of report 
to DEC
- - - -
Total Estimated LOE 49 43 20*10=200 292
PARTICIPATION OF USAID STAFF AND PARTNERS
The ET will work with the USAID/Senegal EGO team to flesh out elements of the detailed workplan, 
including the site visit locations, government key informants, and data collection tools. The EGO Team 
will also participate in an initial in-brief with the ET during the Field Planning Meeting. Upon completion 
of the work plan and tool development, the EGO Team will be expected to review and approve the 
work plan and tools. To ensure USAID-MEL Platform communication remains open, bi-weekly check-ins 
will take place, either by phone or in-person. The ET will interview USAID/EGO staff familiar with YIA. 
At the completion of the fieldwork, it is expected that USAID/EGO staff will participate in a data walk to 
present initial findings. Once the findings and conclusions are finalized, the ET will present them to the 
Ftf YIA staff and GoS officials in a co-creation workshop to develop recommendations. 
SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS
48 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The MEL platform will arrange all logistics for fieldwork. The team will request introductory 
communications from USAID/EGO for the ET. MEL platform staff will develop draft introductory letters 
in French for USAID review and signature. Staff and team members will make all appointments. 
DISSEMINATION 
The team anticipates that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from this evaluation will be 
shared with a Mission-wide audience, as well as the Ftf YIA staff. Copies of the report in French will be 
shared with any relevant stakeholders.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The MEL Platform anticipates translating the final report into French. The report itself should not be 
longer than 20 pages total, excluding the Annexes. The MEL Platform will brand the report with the 
standard USAID branding requirements and formally submit it to the USAID Development Experience 
Clearinghouse (DEC) upon approval. Additional copies of the final report in French will be made 
available to all stakeholders participating in the recommendations workshop. Copies in English will be 
shared with relevant USG offices within USAID/Senegal and any other relevant USG agencies. 
49 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX C: DETAILED EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative data 
collection to foster triangulation and increase the validity of the evaluation results. The evaluation team 
used a three phased approach: 1) review and analysis of activity documents, 2) quantitative surveys with 
youth leaders who have benefited from training of trainers (TOT) and young beneficiaries of project 
interventions, and 3) key informant interviews (KIIs), group discussions (GDs) and focus group 
discussions (FGD) with various activity stakeholders and beneficiaries. The Team Leader and 
Agricultural Vocational Training Expert led fieldwork, supported by a Monitoring and Evaluation 
Manager, a MEL Assistant, and ten enumerators who collected data during fieldwork.
PHASE 1: DOCUMENT REVIEW
The team reviewed YIA project documents to assess the conformity of implementation with what was 
planned, including the AMELP targets and actual results. During the review, the team built a solid 
foundational understanding of the different parameters of YIA planning, implementation, and 
achievements. The desk review also allowed the evaluation team to identify the various stakeholders and 
actors to for the qualitative and quantitative phases of the evaluation. The team also used the review to 
help develop and hone data collection tools and processes. Document review began as phase 1 but 
carried on through subsequent phases as new documents were received. Below is a list of documents 
reviewed by the ET:
· YIA Annual Report 2020-2021
· YIA Annual Report 2020-2021
· YIA Quarterly Reports for year 4
· YIA Quarterly Reports for year 5
· YIA AMELP
· YIA Agriculture Sector Assessment 2016
· YIA Success stories
· USAID YIA Award document
· USAID/Senegal Economic Growth for All (Project Appraisal Document)
PHASE 2: QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION
1. Survey of 4-H leaders who have benefited from training of trainers (TOT) 
The TOT offered to youth leaders on PYD and 4-H was a key element in the deployment of activities 
for the benefit of youth enrolled in the 4-H clubs. The ET conducted a quantitative survey of the leaders 
who benefited from these trainings, in particular on the knowledge and skills acquired in PYD, leadership 
and youth engagement, to assess both the YIA contribution in setting up a critical mass of trainers and 
the sustainability of this approach. The survey collected data on the profile of the trained leaders, their 
professional profile or government affiliation, the knowledge and skills acquired, and the application of 
the knowledge and skills acquired. 
To conduct the survey, the team used tablets configured with Kobo, a survey and data collection 
application. The surveys of leaders covered four of the six YiA regional poles: Dakar (UCAD & UAM), 
Saint-Louis (UGB), Diourbel (UADB) and Ziguinchor (UASZ). To select leaders to that would take part 
50 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
in the survey, the team used a two-stage stratified random draw to select the clubs and then the leaders
to be interviewed in those clubs. In each stratum, the team calculated the sample size based on the 
number of leaders per club in the stratum with a 90% confidence level, a 10% margin of error, and a 
design effect of 1.5. In the first stage, the team drew 10 clubs in each region from the list of clubs 
provided by YIA. At the second level, the team selected 10 leaders from each club, divided 
proportionally between males and females based on club members. In total, the evaluation team visited 
40 clubs, surveying 200 leaders. The team centralized and processed all data collected in the Kobo 
Toolbox server and analyzed the data with SPSS and Excel software.
2. Survey of 4-H members
As the priority target and ultimate beneficiaries of YIA project interventions, youth were a key source of 
information for the analysis of project results and achievements. To strengthen the quality of the data 
that informed the performance evaluation, the evaluation team conducted a survey of youth 4-H club 
members in the same regions described above, to complement the survey conducted with leaders. 
The team constructed a sample frame for this quantitative survey from the YIA database of youth who 
have been involved in the activity. Similar to the sampling strategy used in the survey of club leaders, the
team used a two-stage stratified random draw to select the clubs and then the members to be 
interviewed in those clubs. In each stratum, the team calculated the sample size based on the number of 
members per club in the stratum with a 90% confidence level, a 10% margin of error, and a design effect 
of 1.5. In the first stage, the team drew 10 clubs in each region from the list of clubs provided by YIA. At 
the second level, the team selected 10 members from each club, divided proportionally between males
and females based on their representation in the club. As with the survey of club leaders, team 
centralized and processed all data collected in the Kobo Toolbox server and analyzed the data with SPSS 
and Excel software for the survey of the club members. In total, the evaluation team visited 40 clubs, 
surveying 350 members. 
PHASE 3: QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION
In addition to the document review and quantitative surveys, the team used qualitative methods to 
purposefully gather information from stakeholders and beneficiaries. To collect detailed descriptive 
information, the evaluation team used three data collection techniques: semi-structured key informant 
interviews (KIIs), group discussions (GDs), and focus group discussions (FGDs). The team used the data 
and information collected to deepen their understanding of data collected through the surveys and 
better report on the achievements and performance of the YIA Activity.
Semi-structured Key Informant Interviews and Group Discussions
The evaluation team conducted semi-structured KIIs and GDs with stakeholders at the central level 
including representatives of MESRI, USAID, YIA, and ANPEJ. Additionally, the team conducted KIIs and 
group discussions with stakeholders representing organizations at the regional level including regional 
university clusters, research centers, institutions, institutes and training centers, club leaders, GIEs, 
NGOs, etc. The team conducted interviews and discussions around the themes related to the YIA 
activities, the implementation approach, the content of the activities, the knowledge and skills acquired 
through these activities as well as the potential for sustainability of the achievements beyond the 
implementation period. The group discussion format was used for convenience when meeting with 
stakeholders individually was not possible or practical. The team used the same interview guide for both
51 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
individual interviews and group discussions. In total, the evaluation team conducted 53 KIIs and 10 GDs 
across six different regions:
Region Number of KIIs Number of GDs
Dakar 18 4
Diourbel 9 1
Saint-Louis 11 3
Ziguinchor 12 2
Thiès 2 0
Kaolack 1 0
Total 53 10
Focus Group Discussions
To complement the data collected through the youth survey, the team conducted FGDs with youth club 
members and participants in the 4-H program. These discussions captured the youth's group perspective 
and deepened the team’s understanding of themes that emerged from the survey. The team conducted
FGDs from a sample of clubs from the different regions where site visits will take place. The team
conducted 19 FGDs (breakdown below). 
Region Number of FGDs
Dakar 4
Diourbel 5
Saint-Louis 5
Ziguinchor 5
Thiès 0
Kaolack 0
Total 19
Summary of Data Sources and Methods
The evaluation team has summarized the data collection methods and sources for each evaluation 
question in the table below. 
EVALUATION QUESTION DATA COLLECTION 
METHODS
SOURCES
To what extent has the Activity 
been implemented effectively, 
including the timely completion of 
planned activities, the efficient use 
of Activity resources, and the 
quality of partnerships and 
collaboration? 
Document review
KIIs and GDs
FGDs
Survey
Project documents and reports 
4-H club leaders and members
MESRI, Universities, CFP, private sector
YIA project staff 
USAID
52 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
EVALUATION QUESTION DATA COLLECTION 
METHODS
SOURCES
To what extent has the national 
youth program governance 
structure been embedded within 
the Ministry of Higher Education, 
Research and Innovation (MESRI) 
and the universities?
Document review
KIIs and GDs
FGDs
Project documents and reports 
4-H club leaders and members
MESRI, Universities
YIA project staff 
USAID
What is the overall sustainability 
of the National 4-H program? 
Document review
KIIs and GDs
FGDs
Survey 
Project documents and reports 
4-H club leaders and members
MESRI, Universities, CFP, private sector
YIA project staff 
USAID
To what extent have vocational 
training and business development 
services been improved, including 
tailoring to the needs of local 
communities?
Document review
KIIs and GDs
FGDs
Project documents and reports 
MESRI, MFPAA, vocational training 
centers, CFP, private sector
YIA project staff 
USAID
How effectively has YIA 
contributed to the EGO 
objectives in Senegal and, more 
globally, the FtF strategy in 
Senegal?
Document review
KIIs and GDs 
FGDs
Project documents and reports 
YIA project staff 
USAID
Data Analysis, Integration and Synthesis (DAIS) 
To analyze data captured from the surveys, KIIs, GDs, and FGDs, the team used the standard 
EnCompass approach to data analysis called Data Analysis, Integration, and Synthesis (DAIS). This 
approach allowed the team to integrate and interpret mixed-methods data (document review, 
qualitative and quantitative components) efficiently and rigorously. Once the qualitative data set was 
coded and the quantitative data compiled, cleaned, processed, and analyzed, the team began the overall 
data analysis reviewing and discussing emerging themes to determine the findings. 
53 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX D: INFORMATION SOURCES
Exhibit 12: Summary of data sources by region and type of data source
REGION
KEY 
INFORMANT 
INTERVIEW 
(KII)
GROUP 
DISCUSSION 
(GD)
FOCUS GROUP 
DISCUSSION 
(FGD)
TOTAL
Dakar 18 4 4 26
Diourbel 9 1 5 15
Kaolack 1 1
Saint-Louis 11 3 5 19
Thiès 2 2
Ziguinchor 12 2 5 19
Total 53 10 19 83
Fieldwork took place in four regions (Dakar, Diourbel, Saint-Louis, and Ziguinchor). The evaluation team interviewed university Rectors in 
these four regions, plus Koalack and Thiès. The team used group discussions for convenience for key informants who worked together on 
YIA. They followed the KII format.
Exhibit 13: Summary of data sources by type of organization and type of data
DATA SOURCE TYPE AND ORGANIZATION # OF KII # OF GD # OF FGD TOTAL
4-H Club 21 2 19 42
ANPEJ 2 2
ANPEJ 2 2
NGO / Association 4 4
ASPYRE AFRICA 1 1
4-H ASSOCIATION 1 1
DECLIC 1 1
GIE GOUNDIAMOURAN 1 1
Indirect beneficiary 2 2
Individual 2 2
Ministry 4 4
MESRI 3 3
MFPA 1 1
Professional training center 11 3 14
CFP Dagana 1 1
CFPH Cambérène 3 3
54 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
DATA SOURCE TYPE AND ORGANIZATION # OF KII # OF GD # OF FGD TOTAL
CIPA Saint-Louis 1 1 2
CIPA Diourbel 1 1
CIPA Mbao 1 1
CNFTGAR 1 1
CRE Saint-Louis 1 1
CRE Bambey 1 1
LTAEB Bignona 1 1
Ecole des eaux et forêts 1 1
ISFAR Bambey 1 1
REGIONAL POLE 8 3 11
UADB 1 1 2
UAM 1 1 2
UASZ 1 1 2
UCAD 1 1
UGB 1 1
UIDT 2 2
USSEIN 1 1
USAID 1 1 2
VIRGINIA TECH 1 1 2
Grand Total 53 10 19 83
55 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX E: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN PARTENAIRES TECHNIQUES
- INSTITUTIONS EFTP (bénéficiaires de FAA) -
 CONSENTEMENT/INTRODUCTION
Je suis……………, consultant de EnCompass dans le cadre de l’évaluation du projet jeune et 
agriculture qui est financé par l’USAID est mis en œuvre par l'Institut polytechnique de Virginie et 
l'Université d'État (Virginia Tech) en partenariat avec des entités sénégalaises.
Ce projet vise à renforcer les capacités et soutenir l’institutionnalisation de systèmes durables de 
développement positif des jeunes (YPD) et de formation professionnelle, dans le but de créer des 
opportunités d’emploi et d’entrepreneuriat durables pour les jeunes, spécifiquement dans les chaînes 
de valeur agricole.
Après 5 années de mise en œuvre, USAID/Sénégal veut évaluer la performance dudit projet afin de 
juger de la pertinence, de l’efficacité de la mise en œuvre du projet et la durabilité de ces interventions. 
C’est dans ce cadre que le Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en 
œuvre par EnCompass LLC, est désigné pour conduire cette évaluation. Nous vous avons choisi à ce 
titre en tant que bénéficiaire ou partie prenante du projet dans l’optique que vos perspectives 
pourraient aider à répondre aux différentes questions d’évaluation. La discussion prendra environ aux 
maximum1 heure.
Dans le cadre de cette évaluation, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives aux activités 
du projet, leur mise en œuvre ainsi que votre perception par rapport au projet et non des informations 
personnelles. Les informations que vous avez partagées seront gardés confidentielles.
Les informations recueillies seront présentées dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec 
l’USAID. 
Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire et que tout participant a le droit de 
mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Vous pouvez aussi ignorer les questions auxquelles vous 
ne souhaitez pas répondre.
Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation à cette évaluation.
Nous pensons que votre participation à cette évaluation comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, 
nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos 
réponses.
N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le 
consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, 
le responsable de l’évaluation au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez des questions ou complaintes.
Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ?
Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ?
Oui
Non
[Si Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant]
Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l'audio de cet entretien ?
Oui
Non
Si Non : Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l'aise 
de poursuivre l'entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n'enregistrais pas notre conversation 
?
Oui
56 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Non
[Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.]
[Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l'entretien.]
1. Quelle est votre appréciation du partenariat entre votre institution et le Projet FtF /YIA ? Pouvez￾vous donner des exemples ?
2. Quels étaient les objectifs visés et les résultats atteints dans le cadre de votre partenariat avec le 
Projet FtF /YIA ?
3. Avez-vous des exemples démontrant l’amélioration des services de formation professionnelle et 
le développement d’entreprises de manière plus adaptée aux besoins des communautés locales ?
4. Parlez-nous des expériences de partenariats noués avec les autres acteurs du Projet FtF /YIA dans 
la région (Université - Pôle régional, les club 4-H, des entreprises, etc.) ?
5. Comment percevez-vous l’ancrage régional du JEA au niveau de l’Université ?
6. Comment voyez-vous la pérennisation des Club 4 H ? Pourquoi ?
7. Pouvez-vous identifier les aspects du Partenariat qui ont bien fonctionné ? Selon vous quels étaient 
les facteurs clé de succès ?
8. Avez-vous vécu des cas de contre-performances ? Selon vous quels étaient les facteurs d’échecs
?
9. Quelles sont vos recommandations pour l’avenir ? 
57 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DES ACTEURS INSTITUTIONNELS
- UNIVERSITES / POLES REGIONAUX –
 CONSENTEMENT/INTRODUCTION
Je suis……………, consultant de EnCompass dans le cadre de l’évaluation du projet jeune et 
agriculture qui est financé par l’USAID est mis en œuvre par l'Institut polytechnique de Virginie et 
l'Université d'État (Virginia Tech) en partenariat avec des entités sénégalaises.
Ce projet vise à renforcer les capacités et soutenir l’institutionnalisation de systèmes durables de 
développement positif des jeunes (YPD) et de formation professionnelle, dans le but de créer des 
opportunités d’emploi et d’entrepreneuriat durables pour les jeunes, spécifiquement dans les chaînes 
de valeur agricole.
Après 5 années de mise en œuvre, USAID/Sénégal veut évaluer la performance dudit projet afin de 
juger de la pertinence, de l’efficacité de la mise en œuvre du projet et la durabilité de ces interventions. 
C’est dans ce cadre que le Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en 
œuvre par EnCompass LLC, est désigné pour conduire cette évaluation. Nous vous avons choisi à ce 
titre en tant que bénéficiaire ou partie prenante du projet dans l’optique que vos perspectives 
pourraient aider à répondre aux différentes questions d’évaluation. La discussion prendra environ aux 
maximum1 heure.
Dans le cadre de cette évaluation, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives aux activités 
du projet, leur mise en œuvre ainsi que votre perception par rapport au projet et non des informations 
personnelles. Les informations que vous avez partagées seront gardés confidentielles.
Les informations recueillies seront présentées dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec 
l’USAID. 
Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire et que tout participant a le droit de 
mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Vous pouvez aussi ignorer les questions auxquelles vous 
ne souhaitez pas répondre.
Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation à cette évaluation.
Nous pensons que votre participation à cette évaluation comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, 
nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos 
réponses.
N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le 
consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, 
le responsable de l’évaluation au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez des questions ou complaintes.
Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ?
Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ?
Oui
Non
[Si Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant]
Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l'audio de cet entretien ?
Oui
Non
Si Non : Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l'aise 
de poursuivre l'entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n'enregistrais pas notre conversation 
?
Oui
Non
[Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.]
58 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
[Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l'entretien.]
1. En quelle année, le Pôle régional (université) a été mis en place, a démarré ses activités ? Et, 
quel est son rôle et sa mission dans le cadre du Projet FtF/YIA ?
2. Quels sont les objectifs visés et les résultats attendus du Pôle régional du Projet FtF/YIA ?
3. Avez-vous un plan de travail au cours des années 2019, 2020, 2021 et 2022 ? Si oui quel a été le 
niveau d’exécution pour chaque année ?
4. Avez-vous eu des ressources pour l’exécution des plans de travail ? Si oui quelles sont ces 
ressources et leur provenance ? Et quelle est le pourcentage de couverture financière du plan de 
travail ?
5. Pouvez-vous citer des activités phares du Pôle régional et des impacts de votre intervention 
dans le milieu universitaire, notamment, au sein des structures estudiantines ?
6. Comment percevez-vous l’ancrage régional du JEA au niveau de votre Université et comment 
son institutionnalisation au niveau local est-elle établie ?
7. Que pensez-vous des club 4-H et quel est leur lien avec le Pôle régional et, également, avec 
votre université voire les structures estudiantines ?
8. Quelles sont les initiatives développées qui favorisent la durabilité des club 4-H existant et, 
surtout, le développement et la pérennité de l’approche au niveau de votre université et de la 
région ?
9. Quelle a été la stratégie d’amélioration des services de formation professionnelle au niveau du 
Pôle régional ? Les activités menées s’adaptent-elles (répondent-elles) aux besoins des 
communautés locales et comment ?
10. Quelle a été la stratégie de développement des entreprises au niveau du Pôle régional ?
11. Les activités menées répondent-elles aux besoins des communautés locales et comment ?
12. Pouvez-vous identifier les aspects du Partenariat qui ont bien fonctionné ? Selon vous quels 
étaient les facteurs clé de succès ?
13. Avez-vous vécu des cas de contre-performances ? Selon vous quels étaient les facteurs 
d’échecs
14. Quelles sont vos recommandations pour l’avenir ?
59 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DU SECTEUR PRIVE
- SECTEUR PRIVE –
 CONSENTEMENT/INTRODUCTION
Je suis……………, consultant de EnCompass dans le cadre de l’évaluation du projet jeune et 
agriculture qui est financé par l’USAID est mis en œuvre par l'Institut polytechnique de Virginie et 
l'Université d'État (Virginia Tech) en partenariat avec des entités sénégalaises.
Ce projet vise à renforcer les capacités et soutenir l’institutionnalisation de systèmes durables de 
développement positif des jeunes (YPD) et de formation professionnelle, dans le but de créer des 
opportunités d’emploi et d’entrepreneuriat durables pour les jeunes, spécifiquement dans les chaînes 
de valeur agricole.
Après 5 années de mise en œuvre, USAID/Sénégal veut évaluer la performance dudit projet afin de 
juger de la pertinence, de l’efficacité de la mise en œuvre du projet et la durabilité de ces interventions. 
C’est dans ce cadre que le Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en 
œuvre par EnCompass LLC, est désigné pour conduire cette évaluation. Nous vous avons choisi à ce 
titre en tant que bénéficiaire ou partie prenante du projet dans l’optique que vos perspectives 
pourraient aider à répondre aux différentes questions d’évaluation. La discussion prendra environ aux 
maximum1 heure.
Dans le cadre de cette évaluation, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives aux activités 
du projet, leur mise en œuvre ainsi que votre perception par rapport au projet et non des informations 
personnelles. Les informations que vous avez partagées seront gardés confidentielles.
Les informations recueillies seront présentées dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec 
l’USAID. 
Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire et que tout participant a le droit de 
mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Vous pouvez aussi ignorer les questions auxquelles vous 
ne souhaitez pas répondre.
Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation à cette évaluation.
Nous pensons que votre participation à cette évaluation comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, 
nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos 
réponses.
N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le 
consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, 
le responsable de l’évaluation au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez des questions ou complaintes.
Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ?
Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ?
Oui
Non
[Si Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant]
Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l'audio de cet entretien ?
Oui
Non
Si Non : Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l'aise 
de poursuivre l'entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n'enregistrais pas notre conversation 
?
Oui
Non
[Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.]
60 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
[Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l'entretien.]
1. Depuis combien de temps (mois ou année), êtes-vous en partenariat avec les acteurs du Projet 
FtF / YIA ? Qui sont les acteurs du projet avec qui vous collaborez (Bureau national, Pôle 
régional, ETFP, Club 4 H). ?
2. Quels étaient les objectifs visés et les résultats obtenus dans le cadre de votre partenariat avec 
le Projet FtF /YIA et ses acteurs ? Qu’est ce qui a favorisé l’obtention de ces résultats ?
3. Avez-vous des exemples démontrant le développement de votre entreprise par l’amélioration 
des services de formation professionnelle de manière plus adaptée aux besoins des 
communautés locales ?
4. Comment appréciez-vous l’ancrage régional du JEA au niveau de l’Université ? Avez-vous des 
exemples pour mieux nous expliquer votre perception ?
5. Cette approche favorise-t-elle la durabilité des acquis, notamment, le développement des 
entreprises, l’adéquation des services de formation professionnelle et la pérennisation des Club 
4-H ?
6. En plus des aspects évoqués plus haut, pouvez-vous nous citer des facteurs clé de succès du 
Projet FtF / YIA ?
7. Avez-vous vécu des cas de contre-performances ? Selon vous quels étaient les facteurs d’échecs 
?
8. Quelles sont vos recommandations pour l’avenir ? 
61 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DES ACTEURS INSTITUTIONNELS
- MESRI /MEFPA
 CONSENTEMENT/INTRODUCTION
Je suis……………, consultant de EnCompass dans le cadre de l’évaluation du projet jeune et 
agriculture qui est financé par l’USAID est mis en œuvre par l'Institut polytechnique de Virginie et 
l'Université d'État (Virginia Tech) en partenariat avec des entités sénégalaises.
Ce projet vise à renforcer les capacités et soutenir l’institutionnalisation de systèmes durables de 
développement positif des jeunes (YPD) et de formation professionnelle, dans le but de créer des 
opportunités d’emploi et d’entrepreneuriat durables pour les jeunes, spécifiquement dans les chaînes 
de valeur agricole.
Après 5 années de mise en œuvre, USAID/Sénégal veut évaluer la performance dudit projet afin de 
juger de la pertinence, de l’efficacité de la mise en œuvre du projet et la durabilité de ces interventions. 
C’est dans ce cadre que le Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en 
œuvre par EnCompass LLC, est désigné pour conduire cette évaluation. Nous vous avons choisi à ce 
titre en tant que bénéficiaire ou partie prenante du projet dans l’optique que vos perspectives 
pourraient aider à répondre aux différentes questions d’évaluation. La discussion prendra environ aux 
maximum1 heure.
Dans le cadre de cette évaluation, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives aux activités 
du projet, leur mise en œuvre ainsi que votre perception par rapport au projet et non des informations 
personnelles. Les informations que vous avez partagées seront gardés confidentielles.
Les informations recueillies seront présentées dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec 
l’USAID. 
Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire et que tout participant a le droit de 
mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Vous pouvez aussi ignorer les questions auxquelles vous 
ne souhaitez pas répondre.
Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation à cette évaluation.
Nous pensons que votre participation à cette évaluation comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, 
nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos 
réponses.
N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le 
consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, 
le responsable de l’évaluation au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez des questions ou complaintes.
Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ?
Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ?
Oui
Non
[Si Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant]
Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l'audio de cet entretien ?
Oui
Non
Si Non : Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l'aise 
de poursuivre l'entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n'enregistrais pas notre conversation 
?
Oui
Non
[Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.]
62 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
[Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l'entretien.]
1. Quelles sont les activités conduites par votre ministère dans le cadre du Projet FTF/YAI ? Et 
quelles sont vos fonctions et missions dans le cadre du Projet FtF/YIA ?
2. Quels sont les objectifs visés et les résultats attendus de votre participation dans le Projet 
FtF/YIA ?
3. Avez-vous un plan de travail au cours des années 2019, 2020, 2021 et 2022 ? Si oui quel a été le 
niveau d’exécution pour chaque année ?
4. Avez – vous des ressources pour l’exécution des plans de travail ? Si oui quelles sont ces 
ressources et leur provenance ?
5. Comment appréciez-vous ces ressources mobilisées pour l’exécution des plans de travails 
annuels en termes de procédures de mise à disposition, de délais, de montants et de taux 
d’exécution ?
6. Pouvez-vous citer des activités phares de votre ministère et des impacts de vos interventions 
pour l’enseignement supérieur, la recherche et l’innovation (MESRI), pour la formation 
professionnelle (MEFPA) ?
7. Comment percevez-vous l’ancrage du projet JEA au niveau de votre structure (MESRI MEFPA) ? 
Qu’est ce qui matérialise cet ancrage ?
8. Que pensez-vous des club 4-H et quels sont les liens avec le développement de l’enseignement 
et de la formation professionnelle ? Comment leur mise en place et leur fonctionnement 
contribuent t ils à l’atteinte des objectifs globaux de la politique de votre ministère ?
9. Quelles sont les initiatives développées par votre ministère pour favoriser la durabilité des club 
4- H existant et, surtout, le développement et la pérennité de l’approche au niveau de votre 
ministère ?
10. Quelle a été globalement la stratégie d’amélioration et mise en cohérence de la politique 
d’éducation et de formation professionnelle que le projet a apporté à votre ministère, et 
comment ?
11. Quelles ont été les activités du projet qui ont contribué au renforcement des mesures de 
développement de l’éducation et de la formation ?
12. Quelle est votre appréciation sur la contribution du Projet FtF/ YIA pour l’atteinte des objectifs 
de développement de la jeunesse, de la formation professionnelle et du développement des 
entreprises ? Avez-vous une expérience ou un exemple à partager ?
13. (EQ5) Quelles sont vos recommandations pour pérenniser, institutionnaliser, renforcer le projet 
FTF/JEA
63 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN DES ACTEURS DE MISE EN ŒUVRE DU 
PROJET
-National/Régional
CONSENTEMENT/INTRODUCTION
Je suis……………, consultant de EnCompass dans le cadre de l’évaluation du projet jeune et agriculture 
qui est financé par l’USAID est mis en œuvre par l'Institut polytechnique de Virginie et l'Université d'État 
(Virginia Tech) en partenariat avec des entités sénégalaises.
Ce projet vise à renforcer les capacités et soutenir l’institutionnalisation de systèmes durables de 
développement positif des jeunes (YPD) et de formation professionnelle, dans le but de créer des 
opportunités d’emploi et d’entrepreneuriat durables pour les jeunes, spécifiquement dans les chaînes de 
valeur agricole.
Après 5 années de mise en œuvre, USAID/Sénégal veut évaluer la performance dudit projet afin de juger 
de la pertinence, de l’efficacité de la mise en œuvre du projet et la durabilité de ces interventions. C’est 
dans ce cadre que le Projet de Suivi, Evaluation et Apprentissage de l’USAID/Sénégal, mis en œuvre par 
EnCompass LLC, est désigné pour conduire cette évaluation. Nous vous avons choisi à ce titre en tant 
que bénéficiaire ou partie prenante du projet dans l’optique que vos perspectives pourraient aider à 
répondre aux différentes questions d’évaluation. La discussion prendra environ aux maximum1 heure.
Dans le cadre de cette évaluation, nous ne collecterons que des informations relatives aux activités du 
projet, leur mise en œuvre ainsi que votre perception par rapport au projet et non des informations 
personnelles. Les informations que vous avez partagées seront gardés confidentielles.
Les informations recueillies seront présentées dans un rapport final que nous partagerons avec l’USAID. 
Nous vous signalons également que la participation est volontaire et que tout participant a le droit de 
mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment. Vous pouvez aussi ignorer les questions auxquelles vous ne 
souhaitez pas répondre.
Nous ne fournissons aucune compensation pour votre participation à cette évaluation.
Nous pensons que votre participation à cette évaluation comporte un risque minimal. Encore une fois, 
nous ferons tout ce qui est en notre pouvoir pour assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses.
N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le 
consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Nous vous prions de contacter Monsieur Souleymane Barry, le 
responsable de l’évaluation au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez des questions ou complaintes.
Avez-vous des questions à me poser avant de commencer ?
Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cette enquête et répondre à nos questions ?
Oui
Non
[Si Non, remerciez-le pour son temps et passez à un autre répondant]
Etes-vous d’accord à ce que nous enregistrons l'audio de cet entretien ?
Oui
Non
Si Non : Je comprends votre décision de ne pas enregistrer notre conversation. Seriez-vous à l'aise de 
poursuivre l'entretien si je ne prenais que des notes écrites et n'enregistrais pas notre conversation ?
Oui
64 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Non
[Si l’enquêté accepte les notes manuscrites, poursuivez l’entretien.]
[Si la personne interrogée ne consent pas à prendre des notes manuscrites, mettez fin à l'entretien.]
1. Quel est le rôle de la Direction nationale (ou Coordination régionale) dans le cadre de la mise 
en œuvre du Projet FtF/ YIA ?
2. Comment est organisé la Direction nationale (ou Coordination régionale) pour assurer son rôle 
dans la mise en œuvre du Projet FtF/ YIA ? Quel est son staff ?
3. Avez-vous un plan de travail annuel (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022) ? Et, quel le taux d’exécution pour 
chaque année ?
4. Quelle est votre appréciation de ces taux d’exécution ? Pourquoi ?
5. Comment les différents plans de travail étaient financés ? Par qui ?
6. Et, les autres acteurs (par Etat, USAID, Secteur Privé, Membres club, etc ) ont –ils contribués 
(en nature ou espèces) ?
7. Que pouvez-vous nous dire sur les objectifs du Projet et les résultats obtenus ? (au niveau 
national et au niveau régional) ?
8. Comment appréciez-vous les ressources mises à votre disposition pour la mise en œuvre des 
plans de travail annuel en termes (procédure de mise à disposition, de délais de mobilisation, de 
montants, taux d’exécution, etc. ) ?
9. Avez-vous un commentaire à faire entre les taux d’exécution des activités du plan de travail 
annuel et le niveau d’exécution des ressources mobilisées ?
10. Quelle a été globalement la stratégie d’amélioration et mise en cohérence de la politique 
d’éducation et de formation professionnelle que le projet a apporté au niveau régional et au 
niveau national ? Comment cela est apprécié par les partenaires ?
11. Pouvez-vous citer les impacts au niveau de la politique de développement de l’éducation et de la 
formation professionnelle, du développement de la jeunesse et de l’amélioration de la croissance 
économique (particulièrement dans l’agriculture) ?
12. Pouvez-vous citer tous les résultats non atteints (les cibles non réalisées) annuellement et leurs 
impacts au niveau de la mise en œuvre du projet dans la région, dans le pays ?
13. Comment percevez-vous l’ancrage du projet JEA au niveau de votre région, du pays ? Qu’est ce 
qui matérialise cet ancrage ?
14. Que pensez-vous des club 4-H et quels sont les liens avec le développement de l’enseignement 
et de la formation professionnelle ? Comment leur mise en place et leur fonctionnement 
contribuent t ils à l’atteinte des objectifs globaux du projet dans la région, dans le pays ?
15. Quelles sont les initiatives à développer pour garantir la durabilité des club 4-H existant et, 
surtout, le développement et la pérennité de l’approche au niveau de la région, du pays ?
16. Quelles ont été les activités du projet qui ont contribué au renforcement des mesures de 
développement de l’éducation et de la formation dans la région ? Comment le projet contribue￾t-il à l’accroissement économique de la région du pays ?
17. Quelles sont vos recommandations pour pérenniser, institutionnaliser, renforcer le projet 
FTF/JEA dans la région, au niveau national (pays)?
65 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN FOCUS GROUP AVEC LES MEMBRES 
DES CLUBS 4-H
Thème 1 : ADHESION AU CLUB 4-H ET FONCTIONNEMENT DU CLUB 4-H 
§ Pouvez-vous vous présenter et nous parler brièvement de comment vous avez 
adhéré au club ? 
§ Comment fonctionne votre club ? 
o Réunions ?
o Activités ?
o Rencontres ?
§ Comment appréciez-vous le fonctionnement du Club ? 
o Qu’est-ce qui marche bien dans votre Club ?
o Qu’est-ce qui ne marche pas bien dans votre club ? et pourquoi ? 
o Barrières, difficultés entravant la participation aux activités du club ?
§ Participation aux activités du Club 4-H
o Quelles sont les principales activités menées par votre club 4-H depuis votre adhésion 
depuis votre adhésion
o Quelle est la fréquence des activités ? 
o Parmi les activités menées par vote club quelles sont celles auxquelles vous avez participé ?
o Comment appréciez-vous le niveau de participation des membres dans les activités du 
club ? 
Thème 2 : CONNAISSANCE DU PROGRAMME 4-H ET DES ACTIVITES DU CLUB 4-H 
§ Que connaissez-vous sur le 4-H ? C’est quoi le 4-H ? A quoi sert l’approche 4-H ?
§ Quelles sont les difficultés rencontrées par le club dans la mise en œuvre de ses activités ?
§ Comment appréciez-vous les formations offertes par le programme 4-H aux membres de votre 
club ? [Sur le contenu ? Sur les domaines de formation ? Sur la couverture des bénéficiaires ? Sur la qualité 
de la formation ?]
Thème 3 : APPORTS DU CLUB 4-H ET IMPACTS DES ACTIVITES SUR LES MEMBRES 
§ Comment appréciez-vous les effets des activités du programme 4-H sur les jeunes membres de 
votre club ? 
§ Est-ce les activités menées ont amélioré ou changé quelque chose pour les jeunes qui en ont 
bénéficié ? [Si oui, creuser pour identifier quels changements et comment. Si non, demander pourquoi 
pas eu de changement non plus]
§ Dans quelle mesure les activités du club ont-elles été bénéfiques à la communauté ? [Creuser et 
sonder pour aprofondir et demander des exemples concrets]
§ Quels sont les plus grands succès de ce projet dans votre club ? 
Thème 4 : APPROPRIATION ET DURABILITE DES CLUBS 4-H 
§ Quelles activités menées par le club sont poursuivies actuellement ? (Après la fin du projet]
§ Parmi les différentes activités menées par votre club, quelles activités pourront être poursuivies 
sans l’appui du projet JEA ? 
66 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Thème 5 : RECOMMANDATIONS ET SUGGESTIONS 
§ Quels conseils et recommandations pouvez-vous formuler pour les projets ultérieurs ciblant des 
clubs 4-H ?
§ Quels conseils pour améliorer le fonctionnement ou l’atteinte des résultats par les clubs 4-H ? 
GUIDE D’ENTRETIEN AVEC LES LEADERS OU RESPONSABLES DE CLUBS 4-H
Thème 1 : ADHESION AU CLUB 4-H ET FONCTIONNEMENT DU CLUB 4-H 
§ Pouvez-vous vous présenter et nous parler brièvement de comment vous avez été 
désigné leader (ou Responsable – Président, Vice-Président, etc.) du Club 4-H ? 
§ Quel est le mode de fonctionnement de votre club ?
o Réunions ?
o Activités ?
o Rencontres ?
§ Comment appréciez-vous le fonctionnement du Club ? 
o Qu’est-ce qui marche bien dans votre Club ?
o Qu’est-ce qui ne marche pas bien dans votre club ? et pourquoi ? 
o Barrières, difficultés entravant la participation aux activités du club ?
§ Participation aux activités du Club 4-H
o Quelles sont les principales activités menées par votre club 4-H depuis sa création ? 
o Quelle est la fréquence des activités ? 
o Comment appréciez-vous le niveau de participation des membres dans les activités du 
club ? 
Thème 2 : CONNAISSANCE DU PROGRAMME 4-H ET DES ACTIVITES DU CLUB 4-H 
§ Que connaissez-vous sur le 4-H ? C’est quoi le 4-H ? A quoi sert l’approche 4-H ?
§ Quelles sont les difficultés rencontrées par le club dans la mise en œuvre de ses activités ?
§ Comment appréciez-vous les formations offertes par le programme 4-H aux membres de votre 
club ? [Sur le contenu ? Sur les domaines de formation ? Sur la couverture des bénéficiaires ? Sur la qualité 
de la formation ?]
§ Comment appréciez-vous la duplication des formations par les jeunes ayant bénéficié de 
formations ? (Régularité et Qualité de ces activités de duplication]
Thème 3 : APPORTS DU CLUB 4-H ET IMPACTS DES ACTIVITES SUR LES MEMBRES 
§ Comment appréciez-vous les effets des activités du programme 4-H sur les jeunes membres de 
votre club ? 
§ Est-ce les activités menées ont amélioré ou changé quelque chose pour les jeunes qui en ont 
bénéficié ? [Si oui, creuser pour identifier quels changements et comment. Si non, demander pourquoi 
pas eu de changement non plus]
§ Quels sont les plus grands succès de ce projet dans votre club ? 
Thème 4 : APPROPRIATION ET DURABILITE DES CLUBS 4-H 
§ Quelles activités menées par le club sont poursuivies actuellement ? (Après la fin du projet]
67 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
§ Parmi les différentes activités menées par votre club, quelles activités pourront être poursuivies 
sans l’appui du projet JEA ? 
Thème 5 : RECOMMANDATIONS ET SUGGESTIONS 
§ Quels conseils et recommandations pouvez-vous formuler pour les projets ultérieurs ciblant des 
clubs 4-H ?
§ Quels conseils pour améliorer le fonctionnement ou l’atteinte des résultats par les clubs 4-H ? 
68 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
QUESTIONNAIRE 
JEUNES MEMBRES DES CLUBS 4-H
CONSENTEMENT/INTRODUCTION 
Je m’appelle……………, je travaille pour une structure américaine appelée EnCompass chargée de 
conduire l’évaluation finale du projet « Jeunesse en Agriculture », financé par l’USAID, et qui avait pour 
objectif de renforcer les capacités des jeunes et de soutenir l’institutionnalisation de systèmes durables de
développement positif des jeunes (YPD) et de formation professionnelle, dans le but de créer des 
opportunités d’emploi et d’entrepreneuriat durables pour les jeunes, spécifiquement dans les chaînes de 
valeurs agricoles. 
Après 5 années de mise en œuvre, USAID/Sénégal nous a chargé de mener l’évaluation finale de ce Projet 
afin de juger de sa pertinence, de l’efficacité de sa mise en œuvre du projet et la durabilité de ses résultats. 
Dans le cadre de cette évaluation, nous souhaitons rencontrer et parler avec l’ensemble des acteurs, 
parties prenantes et bénéficiaires du projet, pour recueillir leurs opinions et leurs appréciations sur le 
projet, sur les activités menées et les résultats obtenus. 
En tant qu’acteur/partie prenante (ou bénéficiaire des activités du projet), nous souhaiterions avoir un 
entretien avec vous pour recueillir vos avis et opinions. Cette discussion prendrait environ 40 minutes. 
Les informations recueillies seront présentées dans un rapport final destiné à l’USAID et à ses partenaires 
du Gouvernement du Sénégal et servira à améliorer des interventions similaires dans le futur. 
Cependant, sachez que la participation a cet entretien est libre et volontaire et que, même après avoir 
démarré un entretien, le participant a le droit de mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment sans aucun 
préjudice. Vous pouvez également choisir de ne pas répondre à toute question à laquelle vous ne souhaitez 
pas répondre. 
En outre, sachez que votre participation à cette évaluation comporte ne comporte pas de risque majeur 
de quelque nature que ce soit. Sachez que nous prendrons toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour assurer 
la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. 
Toutefois, nous voudrions aussi clarifier qu’aucune compensation ni rémunération ne sont prévues en 
contrepartie de la participation à cet entretien. 
Avez-vous des questions à me poser sur l’étude ou sur ce que je viens de dire ? 
o Oui 
o Non 
[Si le répondant à des questions, Répondre à ses questions à hauteur de vos possibilités et le référer au Responsable 
de l’évaluation s’il s’agit de questions auxquelles vous n’avez pas de réponse. S’il n’a pas ou n’a plus de questions, 
demander de façon explicite son Accord de participation] 
N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le 
consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Vous pourrez aussi contacter le Responsable de l’évaluation, M. 
Souleymane Barry, au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez d’autres questions ou préoccupations après cet entretien. 
Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cet entretien et répondre à nos questions ? 
o Oui 
o Non 
69 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
[Démarrer l’entretien si le répondant accepte de participer, s’il n’accepte pas de participer, le REMERCIER pour 
son temps et passer à un autre répondant sur la liste des répondants tirés.] 
Région : 
Département…………………………….Commune…………………..
Nom de l’université/ école/ institut qui abrite le club : Nom du Club (Tiré de la base) : 
……………
Nom enquêteur ayant réalisé l’entretien : 
Heure de début de l’entretien : Heure de fin de l’entretien : 
1. CARACTERISTIQUES DU REPONDANT
1. Sexe du répondant : Masculin 〇 Féminin 
2. Date de naissance du répondant : 
3. Niveau d’étude le plus élevé atteint :
· Aucun
· Primaire
· Moyen 
· Secondaire
· Supérieur
4. Quel est le nom de votre Club 4-H ? 
5. A quelle date avez-vous adhéré au Club-H : 
6. Ancienneté dans le club en mois – Depuis combien de temps êtes-vous membre de ce club 4-
H ? : 
2. PARTICIPATION AUX ACTIVITES DU CLUB (MEMBRE ACTIF OU PASSIF)
1. Depuis votre adhésion au Club 4-H avez-vous participé dans des activités du Club [Que 
ce soit des formations ou toute autre activité. Mais ne pas lister ni suggérer de type d’activité] ?
· Oui
· Non
· Ne répond pas
2. A quels types d’activités avez-vous participé dans le club depuis votre adhésion ? 
· Formations
· Sensibilisations
70 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Activités à intérêt communautaire (Set-Setal, Don de sang, Reboisement, etc.)
· Autres activités : Préciser lesquelles
3. A quelle fréquence avez-vous participé aux activités de votre club depuis votre 
adhésion ? 
· Rarement
· Occasionnellement (De temps en temps)
· Régulièrement
· Ne répond pas 
4. A quand remonte votre dernière participation aux activités de votre Club 4-H? 
· Une semaine
· Un mois
· Plus de 1 mois (mais moins de 3 mois)
· Trois mois
· Plus de trois mois (mais moins de Six mois)
· Six mois 
· Plus de six mois 
3. FORMATION PROFESSIONNELLE
Dans cette première section, nous allons vous poser des questions sur les formations auxquelles vous auriez 
participé dans le cadre du projet 4H ainsi que leur pertinence par rapport à vos besoins.
5. Avez-vous participé à des activités de formation organisées dans le cadre du 
programme 4-H ? 
Réponse unique
· Oui [-> Q6]
· Non [-> Q8]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q8]
6. Si oui, à combien de formations organisées dans votre club avez-vous participé ? 
Réponse unique – Ne pas lire les modalités
· Une 
· Deux 
· Trois 
· Plus de trois 
· Ne Répond pas
7. Quels sont les domaines dans lesquels vous avez reçu une formation dans votre club 
4-H ? 
Question à Choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. MAIS, NE PAS lister les modalités. Laisser le répondant citer 
spontanément les réponses. Se contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après chaque formation citée jusqu’à 
71 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
épuisement des réponses par le répondant. Pour chaque formation citée par le répondant, demander la durée en 
nombre de jours. 
· Agriculture
· Maraichage/jardinage
· Élevage 
· Leadership 
· Management 
· Citoyenneté / Civisme
· Éthique
· Esprit d’équipe
· Entreprenariat
· Protection de l’environnement
· Emploi des jeunes
· Autre domaine à 
préciser :_____________________________________________________
· Ne Répond pas
8. Avez-vous réalisé des activités de duplication de la formation (ou des formations) que 
vous avez reçues au profit d’autres jeunes de votre club ou au profit d’autres jeunes ? 
Réponse unique
· Oui [-> Q9]
· Non [-> Q10]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q10]
9. Si oui, à combien de jeunes avez-vous fourni ces activités de duplication des 
formations que vous avez reçu de votre club 4-H ? 
· 1 seul jeune
· 2 à 3 jeunes
· 4 jeunes
· Entre 4 et 8 jeunes
· Plus de 8 jeunes
· Ne se rappelle plus
· Ne répond pas
10. Cette (ou ces) formation(s) que vous avez reçu vous a-t-elle (ou vous-ont-elles) 
permis d’acquérir des connaissances que vous n’aviez pas avant votre enrôlement 
dans le club 4-H ?
· Oui
· Non [-> Q12]
· Ne Répond pas Non [-> Q12]
72 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
11. Si oui, quelles connaissances nouvelles avez-vous acquises à travers ces formations ? 
Question ouverte. Laisser le répondant citer spontanément les connaissances et aptitudes acquises. Se 
contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après chaque réponse jusqu’à épuisement des réponses 
par le répondant. 
12. Cette (ou ces) formation(s) que vous avez reçu vous a-t-elle (ou vous ont-elles) 
permis d’acquérir des aptitudes ou compétences nouvelles que vous n’aviez pas avant 
votre enrôlement dans le club 4-H ?
· Oui
· Non [-> Q14]
· Ne Répond pas [-> Q14]
13. Si oui, quelles aptitudes ou compétences nouvelles avez-vous acquises grâce à ces 
formations ? 
Question ouverte. Laisser le répondant citer spontanément les connaissances et aptitudes acquises. Se 
contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après chaque réponse jusqu’à épuisement des réponses 
par le répondant. 
14. Dans quels domaines les connaissances ou aptitudes que vous avez acquises à travers 
ces formations ont-elles été le plus utile ? 
Question à Choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. NE PAS lister les modalités. Laisser le 
répondant citer spontanément les réponses. Se contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après 
chaque formation citée jusqu’à épuisement des réponses par le répondant. Pour chaque formation citée 
par le répondant, demander la connaissance ou compétence la plus importante acquise dans ce domaine. 
· Techniques agricoles 
· Techniques maraichères
· Pratiques d’élevage
· Développement de business modèle
· Gestion des risques et Gestion des conflits
· Entreprenariat 
· Gestion des groupes/Gestion d’équipes
· Développement personnel 
· Autre à préciser :______________________________________________________
· Ne répond pas 
· Aucune 
15. Dans quelle mesure ces formations ont-elles répondu à vos besoins de formation ? 
Question à réponse unique. 
· Très fortement 
· Fortement 
73 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Pas vraiment 
· Pas du tout
· Ne répond Pas
4. AUTRES ACTIVITES EXTRA-FORMATION MENEES PAR LES CLUBS 4-H 
AU PROFIT DES JEUNES
16. En dehors des formations, avez-vous bénéficié d’autres activités (ou participé à 
d’autres activités) de votre club 4-H ? 
· Oui 
· Non [-> Q18]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q18]
17. Si Oui, de quelles autres activités (ou dans quelles autres activités) de votre Club 
avez-vous participé ou bénéficié ?
…………………………………………………………………………….
18. Comment appréciez-vous l’utilité de ces autres activités hors formation menées par 
votre club auxquelles vous avez participé ? 
Question à réponse unique.
· Très utiles
· Utiles
· Pas très utiles
· Pas du tout utiles
· Ne répond pas 
5. IMPACT DES ACTIVITES DU CLUB-H SUR L’ENTREPRENARIAT, LE 
DEVELOPPEMENT D’INITIATIVES ET L’INSERTION PROFESSIONNELLE 
DES JEUNES
Dans cette deuxième section, nous allons vous poser des questions sur les initiatives que les activités menées 
dans le cadre de votre Club 4-H vous ont permis de réaliser, les partenaires qui vous ont fourni un appui ainsi 
que votre niveau de satisfaction par rapport aux appuis reçus des partenaires.
19. Les formations et/ou autres activités reçues à travers votre club 4-H vous ont-elles 
permis de développer des activités ou initiatives génératrices de revenus ? 
· Oui [-> Q20] 
· Non [-> Q25] 
· Ne répond pas [-> Q25] 
74 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
20. Dans quels domaines avez-vous développé des activités ou mis en place des initiatives 
grâce aux interventions menées par votre club 4-H ? 
Question à choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. Ne pas citer les modalités, laisser le répondant 
citer spontanément les réponses 
· Agriculture
· Maraichage/jardinage
· Élevage 
· Transformation des produits agricoles
· Commerce
· Autres à préciser ______________________________________________________
· Ne répond pas 
21. Quels types d’activités ces formations ou activités vous ont-elles permis de mettre en 
place ? 
Question à choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. Ne pas citer les modalités, laisser le répondant 
citer spontanément les réponses suivant son expérience personnelle. 
· Création d’une activité génératrice de revenus (AGR)
· Exploitation d’un champ agricole
· Mise en place d’un GIE, d’une association ou d’un regroupement avec d’autres jeunes pour 
développer une activité
· Développement d’une activité d’élevage ou avicole 
· Autre à préciser _____________________________________________________
· Ne répond pas 
· Aucune 
22. Ces activités ou initiatives que vous avez mises en place ont-elles été rentables ?
Question à réponse unique. 
· Oui
· Non 
· Ne répond pas 
23. Les activités que vous aviez mises en place sont-elles toujours en cours ? 
Question à réponse unique 
· Oui, toujours en cours [-> Q25]
· Non, temporairement suspendu ou arrêté [-> Q24]
· Non, définitivement arrêté [-> Q24]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q25]
24. Si non, expliquer pourquoi l’activité a-t-elle été suspendue ou arrêtée ? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
75 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
25. Les formations reçues à travers le programme 4-H vous ont-elles permis de bénéficier 
d’opportunités d’emploi, de stage ou d’apprentissage ? 
Question à réponse unique 
· Oui [-> Q26]
· Non [-> Q25]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q25]
26. Quelle est la nature de l’activité (emploi, stage ou apprentissage) dont vous avez pu 
bénéficier à la suite de votre participation aux activités du projet (ou du club 4-H) ? 
Question à réponse unique 
· Emploi temporaire
· Emploi saisonnier
· Emploi à temps partiel
· Stage professionnel
· Apprentissage de métier
· Emploi salarié
· Prestataire de services
· Autre à préciser _________________________________________________________
· Ne répond pas 
27. En dehors des apports et bénéfices socio-économiques favorisés par les interventions 
du projet, y’a-t-il des aspects positifs que vous avez tiré de votre engagement dans les 
activités du projet (ou du club 4-H) sur votre vie sociale et dans votre perception de 
votre vie (ou avenir) ? 
Question à réponse unique
· Oui 
· Non
· Ne répond pas
28. Quels autres bénéfices ou avantages votre participation au projet (ou dans le club 4-
H) vous ont-ils apporté dans votre vie personnelle ou dans votre vie dans votre 
communauté (vie sociale) ? 
Question ouverte
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dans les questions ci-dessous, nous allons discuter des appuis ou assistances que vous auriez reçu, 
éventuellement, de la part de certaines institutions qu’elles soient impliquées ou non dans le projet YIA. 
76 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
29. En dehors des activités ou formations dont vous avez bénéficié de la part du projet à 
travers votre Club 4-H, avez-vous reçu des appuis de la part d’autres structures ou 
institutions ?
Question à réponse unique 
· Oui [-> Q30]
· Non [-> Q33]
· Ne sait pas [-> Q33]
30. De quels types d’appuis avez-vous bénéficié de ces institutions ? 
Question à choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. Ne pas citer les modalités, laisser le répondant 
citer spontanément suivant son cas et son expérience personnelle. 
· Formation 
· Accompagnement / Coaching 
· Financement 
· Mise en relation / Réseautage 
· Appui en nature, matériel ou intrants (intrant agricole, matériel bureautique…)
· Autre à préciser _______________________________________________________
· Ne répond pas [-> 23]
31. De quelles structures avez-vous bénéficié de ces appuis ? 
Question à choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. Ne pas citer les modalités, laisser le répondant 
citer spontanément suivant son cas et son expérience personnelle. 
· Ministère de l’Emploi, de la Formation Professionnelle, de l’Apprentissage et de l’Artisanat
· Université
· Institut de la Formation Agricole et Rurale
· Centre d’Initiation, de Perfectionnement dans les Métiers de l’Agriculture
· Collectivités Territoriale
· ANPEJ
· CFP
· Autre à préciser _____________________________________________________
32. Parmi les structures ou institutions desquelles vous avez bénéficié d’appuis et de 
soutien, quelles sont celles avec lesquelles vous êtes le plus satisfait ? [Classer par 
ordre de mérite et par ordre de satisfaction].
Question à choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. Ne pas citer les modalités, laisser le répondant 
citer spontanément suivant son cas et son expérience personnelle. 
· Ministère de l’Emploi, de la Formation Professionnelle, de l’Apprentissage et de l’Artisanat
· Université
77 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Institut de la Formation Agricole et Rurale
· Centre d’Initiation, de Perfectionnement dans les Métiers de l’Agriculture
· Collectivités Territoriale
· ANPEJ
· CFP
· Autre à préciser : _____________________________________________________________
6. APPRECIATION DES APPORTS DU PROGRAMME 4-H ET EFFETS DE LA 
PARTICIPATION SUR LES JEUNES MEMBRES DES CLUBS 
Nous allons maintenant aborder la dernière section du questionnaire je vais vous poser des questions sur votre 
niveau de satisfaction par rapport au programme 4H et les changements que le projet a apportés pour vous et à 
votre communauté
33. Comment évalueriez-vous votre niveau de satisfaction de votre participation aux 
activités du club 4-H ?
 Question à réponse unique, ne pas citer les modalités de réponse. 
· Très satisfait
· Satisfait
· Plutôt satisfait
· Pas satisfait
· Pas du tout satisfait
· Ne répond pas
34. Quels sont les changements les plus importants que votre participation au club 4-H 
vous a apporté ?
Question à choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. Ne pas suggérer de réponse, laisser le répondant 
citer spontanément et librement les changements qu’il juge plus importants. 
· Amélioration de l’accès à la formation professionnelle 
· Création d’opportunité d’emploi
· Faciliter l’accès au crédit / financement dans les chaînes de valeurs agricoles
· Faciliter l’accès au marché
· Amélioration des capacités en leadership 
· Amélioration des capacités en management 
· Plus fort estime de soi 
· Le projet n’a pas d’impact sur moi 
· Autres à préciser ____________________________________________________
· Aucun changement particulier
78 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Ne répond pas 
35. Quels sont les changements les plus importants que le programme 4-H a apportés à 
votre communauté ?
Réponse multiple, ne pas suggérer
· Amélioration de l’accès à la formation professionnelle 
· Création d’opportunité d’emploi
· Faciliter l’accès au crédit / financement dans les chaînes de valeur agricole
· Faciliter l’accès au marché
· Amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire
· Le projet n’a pas d’impact sur ma communauté 
· Autres à préciser _________________________________________________
· Ne sait pas 
Nous arrivons au terme de cet entretien, nous vous remercions très vivement d’avoir pris le 
temps de participer à cette évaluation et de répondre à nos questions. 
Merci beaucoup.
Avez-vous des questions à me poser ?
79 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
QUESTIONNAIRE LEADERS
AYANT BENEFICIE DE LA FORMATION DES FORMATEURS
Je m’appelle……………, je travaille pour une structure américaine appelée EnCompass chargée de 
conduire l’évaluation finale du projet « Jeunesse en Agriculture », financé par l’USAID, et qui avait pour 
objectif de renforcer les capacités des jeunes et de soutenir l’institutionnalisation de systèmes durables 
de développement positif des jeunes (YPD) et de formation professionnelle, dans le but de créer des 
opportunités d’emploi et d’entrepreneuriat durables pour les jeunes, spécifiquement dans les chaînes de 
valeurs agricoles. 
Après 5 années de mise en œuvre, USAID/Sénégal nous a chargé de mener l’évaluation finale de ce 
Projet afin de juger de sa pertinence, de l’efficacité de sa mise en œuvre du projet et la durabilité de ses 
résultats. 
Dans le cadre de cette évaluation, nous souhaitons rencontrer et parler avec l’ensemble des acteurs, 
parties prenantes et bénéficiaires du projet, pour recueillir leurs opinions et leurs appréciations sur le 
projet, sur les activités menées et les résultats obtenus. 
En tant qu’acteur/partie prenante (ou bénéficiaire des activités du projet), nous souhaiterions avoir un 
entretien avec vous pour recueillir vos avis et opinions. Cette discussion prendrait environ 40 minutes. 
Les informations recueillies seront présentées dans un rapport final destiné à l’USAID et à ses 
partenaires du Gouvernement du Sénégal et servira à améliorer des interventions similaires dans le 
futur. 
Cependant, sachez que la participation a cet entretien est libre et volontaire et que, même après avoir 
démarré un entretien, le participant a le droit de mettre fin à sa participation à tout moment sans aucun 
préjudice. Vous pouvez également choisir de ne pas répondre à toute question à laquelle vous ne 
souhaitez pas répondre. 
En outre, sachez que votre participation à cette évaluation comporte ne comporte pas de risque majeur 
de quelque nature que ce soit. Sachez que nous prendrons toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour 
assurer la sécurité et la confidentialité de vos réponses. 
Toutefois, nous voudrions aussi clarifier qu’aucune compensation ni rémunération ne sont prévues en 
contrepartie de la participation à cet entretien. 
Avez-vous des questions à me poser sur l’étude ou sur ce que je viens de dire ? 
o Oui 
o Non 
[Si le répondant à des questions, Répondre à ses questions à hauteur de vos possibilités et le référer au Responsable de 
l’évaluation s’il s’agit de questions auxquelles vous n’avez pas de réponse. S’il n’a pas ou n’a plus de questions, demander de 
façon explicite son Accord de participation] 
N'hésitez pas à interrompre cette discussion à tout moment pour poser des questions sur le 
consentement ou sur tout autre sujet. Vous pourrez aussi contacter le Responsable de l’évaluation, M. 
Souleymane Barry, au 76 696 94 16 si vous avez d’autres questions ou préoccupations après cet 
entretien. 
Êtes-vous d’accord pour participer à cet entretien et répondre à nos questions ? 
o Oui 
80 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
o Non 
[Démarrer l’entretien si le répondant accepte de participer, s’il n’accepte pas de participer, le REMERCIER pour son temps 
et passer à un autre répondant sur la liste des répondants tirés.] 
Région : ………………………………Département…………….
Commune…………….Club : ……….
Date de l’entretien (Jour/mois/année) : …/…./….
Nom Agent enquêteur : 
I. Profil et caractéristiques du répondant
 Dans cette première section du questionnaire, nous allons demander quelques informations liées à votre âge, à 
votre niveau d’études et à votre profession ou activités professionnelle. 
1. Sexe du répondant : Masculin 〇 Féminin 
2. Niveau d’étude le plus élevé atteint :
· Aucun
· Primaire
· Moyen 
· Secondaire
· Supérieur
· Ne répond pas
3. A quelle date avez-vous adhéré au Club-H : 
4. Ancienneté dans le club en mois – Depuis combien de mois êtes-vous membre de ce club 4-
H ? : 
5. Quelle est votre Profession ou activité principale ? 
· Enseignant (Elémentaire ou Collège)
· Leader communautaire (Président ASC, Présidente GPF, Chef de village, etc.)
· Etudiant universitaire (ou établissement supérieur Post-bac)
· Personnel d’une institution partenaire (ANPEJ, ANCAR, SYNAPSE, etc.)
· Autre : Préciser la fonction ou la Profession : ……………………………………..
· Ne répond pas
7. PARTICIPATION AUX ACTIVITES DU CLUB (MEMBRE ACTIF OU PASSIF)
6. Depuis votre adhésion au Club 4-H avez-vous participé dans des activités du Club 
[Que ce soit des formations ou toute autre activité. Mais ne pas lister ni suggérer de type d’activité] ?
· Oui
81 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Non
· Ne répond pas
7. A quels types d’activités avez-vous participé dans le club depuis votre adhésion ? 
· Formations
· Sensibilisations
· Activités à intérêt communautaire (Set-Setal, Don de sang, Reboisement, etc.)
· Autres activités : Préciser lesquelles
8. A quelle fréquence avez-vous participé aux activités de votre club depuis votre 
adhésion ? 
· Rarement
· Occasionnellement (De temps en temps)
· Régulièrement
· Ne répond pas 
9. A quand remonte votre dernière participation aux activités de votre Club 4-H? 
· Une semaine
· Un mois
· Plus de 1 mois (mais moins de 3 mois)
· Trois mois
· Plus de trois mois (mais moins de Six mois)
· Six mois 
· Plus de six mois 
II. FORMATIONS RECUES DANS LE CADRE DU PROGRAMME 4-H 
 Dans cette section, nous allons parler des formations que vous avez reçues en tant que leader dans le cadre du 
programme 4-H ainsi les apports que ces formations ont eu pour vous. 
10. Avez-vous bénéficié de formations organisées dans le cadre du programme 4-H ? 
Réponse unique
· Oui [-> Q11]
· Non [-> Q14]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q14]
11. Si oui, à combien de formations organisées dans le cadre du programme 4-H avez￾vous participé ? 
Réponse unique – Ne pas lire les modalités
· Une 
· Deux 
· Trois 
82 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Plus de trois 
· Ne Répond pas
12. Quels sont les domaines dans lesquels vous avez reçu une formation en tant que 
leader dans le cadre du programme 4-H ? 
Question à Choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. MAIS, NE PAS lister les modalités. Laisser le répondant citer 
spontanément les réponses. Se contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après chaque formation citée jusqu’à 
épuisement des réponses par le répondant. Pour chaque formation citée par le répondant, demander la durée en 
nombre de jours. 
· Dans le domaine du 4-H
· Agriculture
· Maraichage/jardinage
· Élevage 
· Leadership 
· Management 
· Citoyenneté / Civisme
· Éthique
· Esprit d’équipe
· Entreprenariat
· Protection de l’environnement
· Emploi des jeunes
· Autre domaine à préciser ________________________________________________
· Ne Répond pas
13. Quelles sont les formations que vous avez reçues dans le cadre du programme 4-H ? 
Question à choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. Ne pas suggérer, laisser le répondant 
citer spontanément les formations auxquelles il a participé. 
· XXXXXXXX 
· XXXXXXXX
· XXXXXXXX
· XXXXXXXX
· XXXXXXXX
· Aucune formation reçue (-> Q19)
III. CONNAISSANCES ET APTITUDES ACQUISES A TRAVERS LES 
FORMATIONS RECUES EN TANT QUE LEADER DANS LE CADRE DU 
PROGRAMME 4-H 
83 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Nous allons maintenant parler des connaissances et aptitudes que vous avez acquises à travers ces formations 
que vous reçues dans le cadre du programme 4-H. 
14. Cette (ou ces) formation(s) que vous avez reçu vous a-t-elle (ou vous-ont-elles) 
permis d’acquérir des connaissances que vous n’aviez pas avant votre recrutement 
comme leader dans le club 4-H ?
· Oui
· Non [-> Q16]
· Ne Répond pas Non [-> Q16]
15. Si oui, quelles connaissances nouvelles avez-vous acquises à travers ces formations ? 
Question ouverte. Laisser le répondant citer spontanément les connaissances et aptitudes acquises. Se 
contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après chaque réponse jusqu’à épuisement des réponses 
par le répondant. 
16. Cette (ou ces) formation(s) que vous avez reçu vous a-t-elle (ou vous ont-elles) 
permis d’acquérir des aptitudes ou compétences nouvelles que vous n’aviez pas 
avant votre enrôlement comme leader dans le club 4-H ?
· Oui
· Non [-> Q18]
· Ne Répond pas Non [-> Q18]
17. Si oui, quelles aptitudes ou compétences nouvelles avez-vous acquises grâce à ces 
formations ? 
Question ouverte. Laisser le répondant citer spontanément les connaissances et aptitudes acquises. Se 
contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après chaque réponse jusqu’à épuisement des réponses 
par le répondant. 
18. Dans quels domaines les connaissances ou aptitudes que vous avez acquises à 
travers ces formations ont-elles été le plus utile ? 
Question à Choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles. NE PAS lister les modalités. Laisser le répondant citer 
spontanément les réponses. Se contenter de RELANCER par « Quoi d’autre… » après chaque formation citée jusqu’à 
épuisement des réponses par le répondant. Pour chaque formation citée par le répondant, demander la connaissance 
ou compétence la plus importante acquise dans ce domaine. 
· Techniques agricoles 
· Techniques maraichères
· Pratiques d’élevage
· Développement de business modèle
· Gestion des risques et Gestion des conflits
· Entreprenariat 
· Gestion des groupes/Gestion d’équipes
84 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Développement personnel 
· Autre à préciser ____________________________________________________
· Ne répond pas 
· Aucune 
19. Dans quelle mesure ces formations ont-elles répondu à vos besoins de 
renforcement de capacités ? 
Question à réponse unique. Ne pas lister les modalités. 
· Très fortement 
· Fortement 
· Pas vraiment 
· Pas du tout
· Ne répond Pas
20. Quel est votre niveau de satisfaction par rapport aux formations de formateurs que 
vous avez reçues dans le cadre du projet YIA (ou dans le cadre du programme 
national 4-H) ? 
 Question à réponse unique, ne pas citer les modalités de réponse. 
· Très satisfait
· Plutôt satisfait
· Pas satisfait
· Pas du tout satisfait
· Ne répond pas
IV. DUPLICATION DES FORMATIONS RECUES ET FORMATION DES 
JEUNES MEMBRES DES CLUBS 4-H 
21. Avez-vous réalisé des activités de formation au profit d’autres jeunes membres de 
clubs après votre formation ? 
Réponse unique
· Oui [-> Q22]
· Non [-> Q23]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q23]
22. Si oui, à combien de jeunes membres de clubs avez-vous fourni ces formations ? 
· 1 seul jeune
· 2 à 3 jeunes
· 4 jeunes
85 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Entre 4 et 8 jeunes
· Plus de 8 jeunes
· Ne se rappelle plus
· Ne répond pas
23. Avez-vous réalisé des activités de formation au profit d’autres jeunes autres que les 
membres des clubs après votre formation ? 
Réponse unique
· Oui [-> Q24]
· Non [-> Q25]
· Ne répond pas [-> Q25]
24. Si oui, à combien de jeunes, autres que les membres des clubs, avez-vous fourni ces 
formations ? 
· 1 seul jeune
· 2 à 3 jeunes
· 4 jeunes
· Entre 4 et 8 jeunes
· Plus de 8 jeunes
· Ne se rappelle plus
· Ne répond pas
25. Les jeunes des clubs 4-H que vous avez formés organisent-ils des activités de 
duplication des formations qu’ils ont reçu à d’autres jeunes membres de leurs 
clubs ? 
· Oui [-> Q26]
· Non [-> Q27]
· Ne sait pas [-> Q27]
26. A quelle fréquence les jeunes que vous avez formés dupliquent-ils les formations 
reçues au profit d’autres jeunes de leurs clubs ? 
Question à Réponse unique, ne pas lister les modalités de réponse 
· Systématiquement [Tout le temps, et à chaque fois qu’ils sont formés]
· Souvent [La plupart du temps mais pas toujours]
· Rarement [Pas souvent]
· Presque jamais
· Ne sait pas
· Ne répond pas
86 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
27. Pensez-vous avoir reçu toute la capacitation nécessaire pour pouvoir mener 
correctement les formations des jeunes ? 
 Question à réponse unique, ne pas citer les modalités de réponse. 
· Oui, tout à fait
· Oui, plus ou moins (partiellement)
· Non, pas vraiment
· Non, pas du tout
· Ne répond pas 
28. Pensez-vous avoir reçu toutes les ressources matérielles, pédagogiques et 
didactiques nécessaires pour conduire correctement les formations des jeunes dans 
le cadre du programme 4-H? 
 Question à réponse unique, ne pas citer les modalités de réponse. 
· Oui
· Non
· Ne répond pas 
29. Quelles sont les ressources (connaissances, materielles, didactiques, pédagogiques) 
que vous jugez nécessaires pour une bonne formation que vous n’aviez pas reçues ? 
Question ouverte. Texte. Laisser le répondant indiquer sa réponse de façon libre, spontanée et 
indépendante. 
30. Y’a-t-il des domaines (ou aspects) sur lesquels vous auriez voulu avoir plus de 
renforcement pour mieux remplir votre rôle de formateur ? 
Question ouverte. Laisser le répondant lister les domaines concernés où il aurait souhaité être 
renforcé pour mieux exercer son rôle de formateur. 
· XXXXX
· XXXXX
· XXXXX
· XXXXX
31. Les ressources pédagogiques qui vont été fournies par le programme 4-H vous ont￾elles été utiles pour la formation des membres des clubs ?
 Suggérer, réponse unique 
· Très utiles
· Assez utiles
· Pas très utiles
87 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Pas du tout utiles
· Ne répond pas
32. Si la réponse est égale 3 ou 4, demander pourquoi : [Question ouverte]
 ------------------------------------------------------
33. Auriez-vous besoin de ressources pédagogiques additionnelles qui vous semblent 
utiles ou nécessaires pour une meilleure conduite de vos formations au profit des 
jeunes ? 
· Oui 
· Non
· Ne répond pas
34. Si oui, précisez lesquelles [Au maximum jusqu’à trois les plus importantes ou nécessaires].
· XXXX
· XXXX
· XXXX
35. A quel niveau situeriez-vous l’intérêt et l’engagement des jeunes pour les 
formations que vous leur avez dispensé dans le cadre du programme 4-H ? 
Question à réponse unique. Lister les modalités. 
· Très intéressés 
· Assez intéressés
· Pas très intéressés
· Pas du tout intéressés
· Ne sait pas 
· Ne répond pas
36. En tant que leader du club, avez-vous observé des différences dans la participation 
des garçons et des filles dans les activités du club ? 
· Pas de différence de participation entre les garçons et les filles (Participation égale ou 
équilibrée entre les garçons et les filles) 
· Participation différenciée (déséquilibrée ou inégale) entre les garçons et les filles 
(Participation inégale entre les filles et les garçons dans les activités du club)
37. Si oui, demander pourquoi ? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. A votre avis, dans quelle mesure les formations dispensées aux jeunes dans le cadre 
du programme 4-H répondent-elles à leurs besoins ?
Lister les modalités, réponse unique 
88 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Oui, tout à fait
· Oui, partiellement
· Non pas vraiment
· Non pas du tout
· Ne sait pas
· Ne répond pas
39. Y’a-t-il des aspects ou contenus que vous auriez amélioré ou changé si ces 
formations devaient être recommencées ? 
 Ne pas suggérer, réponse unique 
· Oui [-> Q40]
· Non [-> Q41]
· Ne sait pas [-> Q41]
40. Si oui, quels sont les aspects que vous souhaiteriez améliorer ou changer si le projet 
devait être repris ? 
V. AUTRES ACTIVITES EXTRA-FORMATIONS REALISEES DANS LES CLUBS
Dans cette partie, nous allons vous poser des questions sur la nature et la fréquence des autres activités que 
vous avez menées auprès des clubs 4-H.
41. En dehors des formations, y’a-t-il des activités que vous avez réalisées au profit des 
jeunes membres de votre club (ou des clubs dont vous assurez la formation) ? 
· Oui [-> Q42]
· Non [-> Q44]
· Ne sait pas [-> Q44]
42. Quelle est la nature de ces activités complémentaires que vous avez menées au 
profit des membres de votre club 4-H ? 
Ne pas suggérer, réponse multiple 
· Appui-conseil 
· Supervision 
· Mentorat/Coaching
· Intermédiation (mise en relation) avec organisme de crédit (banque micro finance)
· Sensibilisation des jeunes sur le programme 4-H
· Mise en place de clubs 4-H
· Planifier et mettre en œuvre un plan de leçon 4-H
· Autre à 
préciser__________________________________________________________
89 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
· Ne répond pas [->27]
43. A quelle fréquence ces activités ont-elles été réalisées dans votre club 4-H? 
Réponse unique ne pas suggérer 
· Une seule fois 
· Hebdomadaire (Chaque semaine)
· Occasionnelle (non fréquente, ni régulière)
· Tous les mois (Mensuellement) 
· Tous les 3 mois (Trimestrielle)
· Tous les 6 mois (Semestrielle)
· Ne répond pas 
VI. DUPLICATION DES FORMATIONS PAR LES JEUNES FORMES, 
DEVELOPPEMENT D’INITIATIVES (ENTREPRENARIAT) ET INSERTION 
SOCIOPROFESSIONNELLE 
Maintenant, nous allons aborder l’avant-dernière section du questionnaire. Je vais vous poser des questions sur la 
possibilité que les membres des clubs ont pour nouer des partenariats, mobiliser des ressources et trouver des 
opportunités d’emploi.
44. A votre avis et selon votre expérience dans votre club, quels ont été les 
résultats/effets les plus importants des formations sur les jeunes membres des clubs 
ayant été formés dans le cadre du programme 4-H ? 
Question à Choix multiple, plusieurs réponses possibles MAIS ne pas lister les modalités et laisser le 
répondant répondre spontanément. [Identifier les 3 résultats/effets les plus fréquents ou les plus 
importants selon lui] 
· Changement sur la personnalité (façon de voir, raisonnement, mentalité, etc.)
· Changements dans les rapports avec les autres ou avec les pairs (Attitudes, comportements, 
etc.)
· Adhésion (ou plus grande adhésion) à de nouveaux principes (Justice, Civisme, Equité/Egalité, 
Droits humains, Respect de l’autre, Genre, etc.)
· Développement d’initiatives / entreprenariat
· Mise en réseau avec les pairs pour développer quelque chose
· Développement d’une AGR
· Développement d’une activité à but/intérêt communautaire 
· Insertion professionnelle (Trouvé un stage, un emploi ou apprentissage)
· Autre : Préciser :
· Ne sait pas
· Ne répond pas 
90 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
VII. APPRECIATIONS DU PROGRAMME 4-H ET POINTS D’AMELIORATION 
EVENTUELS 
Cette dernière section aborde les questions relatives à vos appréciations par rapport au programme 4-H et les 
changements que le programme à apporter aux jeunes, aux membres des clubs, et aux communautés. 
45. Quel est votre niveau de satisfaction globale par rapport au programme 4-H ?
Question à choix unique, une SEULE réponse possible. Lister les modalités au répondant pour 
recueillir son positionnement. 
· Très satisfait
· Relativement satisfait
· Pas vraiment satisfait
· Pas du tout satisfait
· Ne répond pas
46. Si la réponse est égale à 3 ou 4, demander pourquoi ?
Question ouverte
47. Quelle est la plus importante chose que votre participation au programme 4-H vous 
a apporté personnellement en tant que leader ? 
Question ouverte
48. Quels sont les aspects essentiels (ou importants) que vous auriez changé ou modifié 
si le programme 4-H devait être repris ou poursuivi ? 
Question ouverte
Nous arrivons au terme de cet entretien, nous vous remercions très vivement d’avoir pris le 
temps de participer à cette évaluation et de répondre à nos questions. 
Merci beaucoup.
Avez-vous des questions à me poser ?
91 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX F: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
92 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
93 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX G: ADDITIONAL SURVEY DATA TABLES
Survey Data : Club Leaders
Tableau 1 : Hommes et de femmes parmi les leaders enquêtés
SEXE EFFECTIFS %
Féminin 97 48.5
Masculin 103 51.5
Total 200 100
Tableau 2 : Niveau d’étude des leaders 
NIVEAU EFFECTIFS %
Aucun 2 1
Moyen 17 8.5
Primaire 12 6
Secondaire 33 16.5
Supérieur 136 68
Total 200 100
Tableau 3 : Leader ayant un club 
DISPONIBILITE DE CLUB EFFECTIFS %
Non 48 24
Oui 152 76
Total 200 100
Tableau 4 : Profession du leader 
PROFESSION EFFECTIFS %
Enseignant (Elémentaire ou Collège) 58 29
Agent eaux et forêt /Ingénieur Agricole 4 2
Informaticien 2 1
Maître d'enseignement technique professionnelle 6 3
Entrepreneur 5 2.5
Leader communautaire 8 4
Étudiant universitaire 63 31.5
Personnel d’une institution partenaire 2 1
Autres 34 17
Commerçant/employé de commerce 8 4
Enseignant-chercheur 3 1.5
Agent de santé 7 3.5
Total 200 100
94 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Tableau 5 : Date de création du club 
ANNEE EFFECTIFS %
2018 24 17
2019 16 11
2020 25 18
2021 44 31
2022 31 22
Total 140 100
Manquant =12 leaders ont oublié la date 
Tableau 6 : Leaders ayant participé au moins à une activité du club 
PARTICIPATION AUX ACTIVITES DU CLUB EFFECTIFS %
Non 24 16
Oui 128 84
Total 152 100
Tableau 7 : Activités organisées par les leaders au niveau des clubs
ACTIVITES (REPONSE MULTIPLE) N=128 EFFECTIFS % 
Formations 92 72%
Sensibilisations 32 25%
Activités à intérêt communautaire 50 39%
Autres activités 15 12%
Maraichage 20 16%
Élevage 3 2%
Agriculture 2 2%
Réunion 4 3%
Tableau 8 : Fréquence de la participation des leaders aux activités organisées dans les clubs 
FREQUENCE EFFECTIFS %
1. Rarement 19 15
2. Occasionnellement (de temps en temps) 40 31
3. Régulièrement 69 54
Total 128 100
Tableau 9 : Leaders formés par le programme 4-H
LEADERS FORMES EFFECTIFS %
Non 25 12.5
Oui 175 87.5
Total 200 100
95 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Tableau 10 : Nombre de formations dont les leaders ont bénéficié 
NOMBRE DE FORMATIONS REÇUES PAR LES 
LEADERS 
EFFECTIFS %
Une 122 70
Deux 34 19
Trois 8 5
Plus de trois 11 6
Total 175 100
Tableau 11 : Domaines dans lesquels les leaders ont été formés
DOMAINES (REPONSE MULTIPLE) N=175 EFFECTIFS % 
Agriculture 22 13%
Maraichage/jardinage 17 10%
Élevage 14 8%
Leadership 101 58%
Management 5 3%
Citoyenneté / Civisme 11 6%
Éthique 2 1%
Esprit d’équipe 11 6%
Entrepreneuriat 20 11.5%
Protection de l’environnement 11 6%
Emploi des jeunes 2 1%
Planification 1 1%
Communication 3 2%
Gestion des maladies 0 %
Développement personnel 43 25%
Domaine 4H 80 46%
Autre à préciser 4 2%
Domaine 4h 2 1%
Tableau 12 : Leaders ayant acquis de nouvelles connaissances après les formations
NOUVELLES CONNAISSANCES EFFECTIFS %
Ne répond pas 1 1
Non 27 15
Oui 147 84
Total 175 100
Tableau 13 : Connaissances acquises par les leaders après les formations 
CONNAISSANCE (REPONSE MULTIPLE) 
N=147 
EFFECTIFS %
Technique agricole 29 20%
96 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CONNAISSANCE (REPONSE MULTIPLE) 
N=147 
EFFECTIFS %
Technique d’élevage 6 4%
Développement personnel 39 26.5%
Technique d’entrepreneuriat 14 9.5%
Management/leadership 24 16%
Organisation des activités dans les clubs 15 10%
Technique de communication 9 6%
Gestion des équipes/groups 25 17%
Soutien à la communauté 7 5%
Programme 4H 15 10%
Autres 8 5%
Tableau 14 : Leader ayant acquis de nouvelles compétences après les formations
NOUVELLES COMPETENCES EFFECTIFS %
Ne répond pas 1 1%
Non 37 21%
Oui 137 78%
Total 175 100%
Tableau 15 : Compétences acquises par les leaders après les formations
COMPETENCES (REPONSE MULTIPLE) /N=135 EFFECTIFS % 
Développement personnel 56 41.5%
Technique en agriculture 14 10%
Création d’AGR 12 9%
Technique d’élevage 3 2%
Capacité à entreprendre 8 6%
Protection de l’environnement 1 1%
Techniques et méthodes pour les formations 12 9%
Technique de communication 13 10%
Capacité en management 10 7%
Déroule un programme 4H 1 1%
Gestion des groupes et des équipes 45 33%
Autres 12 9%
97 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Tableau 16 : Niveau de satisfaction des leaders par rapport à la formation des formateurs 
NIVEAU DE SATISFACTION EFFECTIFS %
1. Très satisfait 56 32
2. Plutôt satisfait 90 51
3. pas satisfait 22 13
4. Pas du tout satisfait 7 4
Total 175 100
Tableau 17 : Leaders ayant démultiplié les formations auprès de jeunes 
DEMULTIPLICATION DES FORMATIONS EFFECTIFS %
Non 103 59
Oui 72 41
Total 175 100
Tableau 18 : Leader déclarant ayant reçu la capacitation nécessaire pour mener correctement les formations
AVEZ-VOUS REÇU LA CAPACITATION 
NECESSAIRE POUR LA FORMATION DES 
JEUNES
EFFECTIFS %
Oui, tout à fait 46 26
Oui plus ou moins (partiellement) 68 39
Non, pas vraiment 40 23
Non, pas du tout 19 11
Ne répond pas 2 1
Total 175 100
Tableau 19 : Leader ayant réalisé des activités extra formation
ORGANISATION D’ACTIVITE EXTRA FORMATION EFFECTIFS POURCENTAGE
Non 61 40
Oui 91 60
Total 152 100
Tableau 20 : Type activités extra formation organisées par les leaders
ACTIVITES EXTRA FORMATION (REPONSE MULTIPLE) N=91 EFFECTIFS POURCENTAGE
Appui-conseil 26 29%
Supervision 16 18%
Mentorat/Coaching 13 14%
Intermédiation (mise en relation) avec organisme de crédit (banque micro 
finance)
0 %
Sensibilisation des jeunes sur le programme 4-H 32 36%
98 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ACTIVITES EXTRA FORMATION (REPONSE MULTIPLE) N=91 EFFECTIFS POURCENTAGE
Mise en place de clubs 4-H 15 17%
Planifier et mettre en œuvre un plan de leçon 4-H 8 9%
Autre à préciser 15 17%
Agriculture/élevage 14 16%
Transformation produits locaux 6 7%
Reboisement 10 11%
AGR 5 6%
Setsetal 5 6%
Tableau 21 : Compétences de vie acquises par les jeunes membres des clubs 
COMPETENCES DE VIE (REPONSE MULTIPLE) N=130 EFFECTIFS POURCENTAGE
Changement sur la personnalité (façon de voir, raisonnement, mentalité, 
etc.)
76 58.5%
Changements dans les rapports avec les autres ou avec les pairs (Attitudes, 
comportements, etc.)
57 44%
Adhésion (ou plus grande adhésion) à de nouveaux principes (Justice, 
Civisme, Équité/Égalité, Droits humains, Respect de l’autre, Genre, etc.)
15 11.5%
Développement d’initiatives / entrepreneuriat 28 21.5%
Mise en réseau avec les pairs pour développer quelque chose 7 5%
Développement d’une AGR 32 25%
Développement d’une activité à but/intérêt communautaire 25 19%
Insertion professionnelle (Trouvé un stage, un emploi ou apprentissage) 1 1%
Autre : Préciser 20 15%
Tableau 22 : Niveau de satisfaction globale des leaders par rapport aux programmes 4-H 
NIVEAU DE SATISFACTION GLOBALE EFFECTIFS POURCENTAGE
1. Très satisfait 32 16%
2. Relativement satisfait 109 54.5%
3. Pas vraiment satisfait 43 21.5%
4. Pas du tout satisfait 15 7.5%
5. Ne répond pas 1 .5%
Total 200 100
Tableau 23 : Raisons de non-satisfaction des leaders du programme 4-H 
RAISON DE NON-SATISFACTION (REPONSE MULTIPLE) N=55 EFFECTIFS POURCENTAGE
Absence de suivi 27 49%
Formation très théorique 10 18%
99 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
RAISON DE NON-SATISFACTION (REPONSE MULTIPLE) N=55 EFFECTIFS POURCENTAGE
Manque de communication 7 13%
Formation de courte durée 7 13%
Pas d'appui technique ou financier 4 7%
Absence de formation 3 5.5%
Absence d'activité 3 5.5%
Lenteurs administratives 2 4%
Non-respect des engagements du projet 1 2%
Manquant =3
Tableau 24 : Leaders formés ayant participé aux activités des clubs 
PARTICIPATION AUX ACTIVITES DU 
CLUB 
AVEZ-VOUS BENEFICIE DES 
FORMATIONS
TOTAL
NON OUI
Non Effectif 9 15 24
% 56% 11% 16%
Oui Effectif 7 121 128
% 44% 89% 84%
Total Effectif 16 136 152
% 100% 100% 100%
p < .001
100 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Survey Data : Club Members
Tableau 25 : Sexe des membres des clubs 
SEXE DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL 
Féminin Effectif 56 45 33 55 189
% 66% 51% 39% 59% 54%
Masculin Effectif 29 43 51 38 161
% 34% 49% 61% 41% 46%
 Total Effectif 85 88 84 93 350
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 26: L’âge moyen des membres des clubs 
REGION AGE 
MOYENNE MAXIMUM MINIMUM
Dakar 20 31 10
Diourbel 23 46 9
Saint-Louis 24 61 7
Ziguinchor 17 60 5
Global 21 61 5
Tableau 27 : Niveau d’étude des membres des clubs
NIVEAU D’ETUDE DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Aucun Effectif 0 6 5 1 12
% % 7% 6% 1% 3%
Primaire Effectif 10 28 15 43 96
% 12% 32% 18% 46% 27%
Moyen Effectif 11 12 15 30 68
% 13% 14% 18% 32% 19%
Secondaire Effectif 5 4 14 14 37
% 6% 4.5% 17% 15% 11%
Supérieur Effectif 58 36 33 5 132
% 68% 41% 39% 5% 38%
Coranique/alphabétisation Effectif 1 2 2 0 5
% 1% 2% 2% % 1%
101 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
NIVEAU D’ETUDE DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Total
Effectif 85 88 84 93 350
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 28 : Date d’adhésion des membres aux clubs 
DATE DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Ne se souvient 
plus
Effectif 1 24 18 4 47
% 10% 27% 21% 40% 13%
2018
Effectif 0 0 0 9 9
% 0% 0% 0% 10% 3%
2019
Effectif 8 5 0 11 24
% 90% 6% 00% 12% 7%
2020
Effectif 3 15 9 8 35
% 3.50% 17% 11% 9% 10%
2021
Effectif 33 30 40 30 133
% 39% 34% 48% 32% 38%
2022
Effectif 40 14 17 31 102
% 47% 16% 20% 33% 29%
Total
Effectif 85 88 84 93 350
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 29 : Participation des membres aux activités des clubs 
PARTICIPATION AUX ACTIVITES 
DU CLUB
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL 
Ne répond 
pas
Effectif 0 1 0 0 1
% % 1% % % %
Non Effectif 62 42 43 25 172
% 73% 48% 51% 27% 49%
Oui Effectif 23 45 41 68 177
% 27% 51% 49% 73% 51%
Total Effectif 85 88 84 93 350
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 30 : Activité à laquelle le membre du club a participé.
TYPE 
D’ACTIVITE 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE)
N=177
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Formations 11 48% 10 22% 8 19.5% 12 18% 41 23%
Sensibilisation 3 13% 4 9% 0 % 1 1.5% 8 4.5%
102 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TYPE 
D’ACTIVITE 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE)
N=177
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Activité d’Intérêt 
communautaire 
14 601% 15 33% 22 54% 20 29% 71 40%
Maraîchage 3 13% 17 38% 6 15% 34 50% 60 34%
Élevage 0 % 6 13% 1 2% 17 25% 24 14%
Collecte de 
fonds
0 % 0 % 0 % 10 14,7% 10 6%
Transformation 0 % 4 9% 0 % 1 1.5% 5 3%
Réunion club 0 % 3 7% 5 12% 0 % 8 4.5%
Informatique 0 % 1 2% 0 % 2 3% 3 2%
Autres 2 9% 3 7% 4 9,8% 1 1.5% 10 6%
Tableau 3 : Fréquence de la participation des membres des clubs aux activités.
FREQUENCE DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL 
1-Rarement Effectif 2 8 8 1 19
% 9% 18% 19.5% 1.5% 11%
2-Occasionnellement 
(de temps en temps)
Effectif 11 7 12 17 47
% 48% 16% 29% 25% 27%
3-Régulièrement Effectif 10 30 21 50 111
% 43.5% 67% 51% 73.5% 63%
Total Effectif 23 45 41 68 177
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 32 : Participation des membres des clubs aux activités de formation 
PARTICIPATION AUX 
FORMATIONS 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL 
1. Oui Effectif 15 11 11 24 61
% 18% 12.5% 13% 26% 17%
2. Non Effectif 69 76 73 69 287
% 81% 86% 87% 74% 82%
3. Ne sait pas Effectif 1 0 0 0 1
% 1% % % % %
4. Ne réponds pas Effectif 0 1 0 0 1
% % 1% % % %
Total Effectif 85 88 84 93 350
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
103 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Tableau 33 : Fréquence des formations dont sont bénéficiaires les membres des clubs formés 
FREQUENCE DE LA PARTICIPATION 
AUX FORMATIONS 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
1. Une Effectif 6 5 7 20 38
% 40% 45.5% 64% 83% 62%
2. Deux Effectif 8 3 3 2 16
% 53% 27% 27% 8% 26%
3. Trois Effectif 0 2 1 0 3
% % 18% 9% % 5%
4. Plus de trois Effectif 1 1 0 2 4
% 7% 9% % 8% 7%
Total Effectif 15 11 11 24 61
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 34 : Domaine dans lesquelles les membres des clubs ont été formés.
DOMAINE 
DE 
FORMATION 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) 
N=61
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
%
Agriculture 2 13% 3 27% 2 18% 3 12.5% 10 16%
Jardinage 8 53% 1 9% 0 % 13 54% 22 36%
Élevage 0 % 1 9% 0 % 6 25% 7 11.5%
Leadership 7 47% 5 45.5% 4 36% 0 % 16 26%
Management 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Citoyenneté / 
Civisme
0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Éthique 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Esprit d’équipe 0 % 2 18% 2 18% 0 % 4 7%
Quels sont les 
Entreprenariat
0 % 1 9% 1 9% 0 % 2 3%
Protection de 
l’environneme
nt
0 % 1 9% 1 9% 1 4% 3 5%
Emploi des 
jeunes
0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Ne sait pas 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Ne répond pas 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Planification 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Communicatio
n
0 % 1 9% 1 9% 0 % 2 3%
Gestion des 
maladies
0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Développeme
nt positif 
0 % 5 45.5% 3 27% 0 % 8 13%
Domaine 4H 0 % 1 9% 3 27% 0 % 4 7%
104 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
DOMAINE 
DE 
FORMATION 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) 
N=61
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
% EFFEC
TIF
%
Informatique 
bureautique 
7 47% 0 % 1 9% 4 17% 12 19,7%
Développeme
nt personnel 
0 % 0 % 1 9% 0 % 1 2%
Transformatio
n
0 % 0 % 0 % 1 4% 1 2%
Autre à 
préciser
0 % 3 27% 0 % 1 4% 4 7%
Tableau 35 : Membres des clubs formés et ayant démultiplié les formations auprès des jeunes 
DEMULTIPLICATION DES 
FORMATIONS 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Non Effectif 11 10 10 20 51
% 73% 91% 91% 83% 84%
Oui Effectif 4 1 1 4 10
% 27% 9% 9% 17% 16%
Total Effectif 15 11 11 24 61
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 36 : Membres des clubs ayant acquis de nouvelles connaissances après les formations 
CONNAISSANCE APRES 
FORMATION
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Non Effectif 0 1 3 1 5
% % 9% 27% 4% 8%
Oui Effectif 15 10 8 23 56
% 100% 90% 73% 96% 92%
Total Effectif 15 11 11 24 61
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 37 : Les types de connaissances acquises par les membres des clubs après les formations 
CONNAISSANCES 
ACQUISES 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) N =56
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Les techniques 
d’élevage
0 % 1 10% 0 % 9 39% 10 18%
Les techniques 
agricoles 
7 47% 4 40% 0 % 12 52% 23 41%
Compétence en 
communication
1 7% 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 2%
105 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CONNAISSANCES 
ACQUISES 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) N =56
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Développement 
personnel
3 20% 3 30% 4 50% 0 % 10 18%
Protection de 
l’environnement
0 % 1 10% 1 12.5% 2 9% 4 7%
Compréhension 4H 0 % 2 20% 1 12.5% 0 % 3 5%
Informatique 
bureautique 
4 27% 0 % 1 12.5% 2 9% 7 12.5%
Entrepreneuriat 0 % 0 % 1 12.5% 0 % 1 2%
Leadership 2 13% 2 20% 0 % 0 % 4 7%
Autres 1 7% 1 10% 0 % 2 9% 4 7%
Tableau 38 : Membres des clubs ayant acquis de nouvelles compétences après les formations 
AVEZ-VOUS OBTENU DE NOUVELLES 
COMPETENCES 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Ne répond pas Effectif 0 0 0 1 1
% % % % 4% 2%
Non Effectif 0 2 3 0 5
% % 18% 27% % 8%
Oui Effectif 15 9 8 23 55
% 100% 82% 73% 96% 90%
Total Effectif 15 11 11 24 61
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 39 : Les types de compétences acquises par les membres des clubs après les formations 
COMPETENCES
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) 
N=55 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF N % 
Technique 
agricole 
6 40% 2 22% 0 % 13 56.5% 21 38%
Technique 
élevage 
0 % 0 % 0 % 2 9% 2 4%
Technique en 
aviculture 
0 % 0 % 1 12.5% 3 13% 4 7%
Management 
/leadership 
2 13% 0 % 0 % 1 4% 3 5.5%
Entrepreneuriat 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Communication 3 20% 6 67% 4 50% 1 4% 14 25.5%
Organiser des 
formations
1 7% 1 11% 0 % 0 % 2 4%
Les approches et 
techniques pour 
protéger 
l’environnement
0 % 1 11% 2 25% 0 % 3 5.5%
106 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
COMPETENCES
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) 
N=55 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF N % 
Faire un 
plaidoyer sur le 
droit des enfants 
1 7% 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 2%
Informatique 5 33% 0 % 0 % 3 13% 8 14.5%
Autres 0 % 1 11% 2 25% 2 9% 5 9%
Tableau 40 : Niveau de concordance des formations reçues avec les besoins de formation des jeunes
CONCORDANCE DES 
FORMATIONS REÇUES AVEC 
LES BESOINS DE FORMATION 
JEUNES.
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
1. Très fortement Effectif 5 0 4 10 19
% 33% % 36% 42% 31%
2. Fortement Effectif 8 9 6 13 36
% 53% 82% 54.5% 54% 59%
3. Pas vraiment Effectif 2 2 1 1 6
% 13% 18% 9% 4% 9,8%
Total Effectif 15 11 11 24 61
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 41 : Jeunes membres des clubs ayant participé à des activités extra formation
PARTICIPATION A DES 
ACTIVITES EXTRA FORMATION
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Non Effectif 7 11 13 26 57
% 30% 24% 32% 38% 32%
Oui Effectif 16 34 28 42 120
% 70% 76% 68% 62% 68%
Total Effectif 23 45 41 68 177
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 42 : Activités extra formation auxquelles les jeunes ont participé
ACTIVITE 
EXTRA 
FORMATION 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) 
N=120 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Maraichage 3 19% 10 29% 4 14% 21 50% 38 32%
Élevage 0 % 5 15% 1 4% 13 31% 19 16%
Agriculture 0 % 2 6% 0 % 2 5% 4 3%
Collecte de 
fond
0 % 0 % 0 % 6 14% 6 5%
107 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ACTIVITE 
EXTRA 
FORMATION 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) 
N=120 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Activités inter 
communautaire
11 69% 8 23.5% 13 46% 8 19% 40 33%
Développement 
AGR
0 % 1 3% 0 % 2 5% 3 2.5%
Transformation 0 % 4 12% 1 4% 0 % 5 4%
Autres 3 19% 2 6% 8 29% 1 2% 14 12%
Tableau 43 : Jeune participant aux activités des clubs ayant développé une activité génératrice revenue (AGR) 
DEVELOPPEMENT AGR DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Non Effectif 22 43 39 63 167
% 96% 96% 95% 93% 94%
Oui Effectif 1 2 2 5 10
% 4% 4% 5% 7% 6%
Total Effectif 23 45 41 68 177
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 44 : Domaines dans lesquels les AGR ont été développées 
DOMAINE AGR DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Commerce Effectif 0 0 1 0 1
% % % 50% % 10%
Élevage Effectif 0 0 0 2 2
% % % % 40% 20%
Élevage et Maraichage Effectif 0 0 0 1 1
% % % % 20% 10%
Maraichage et Agriculture Effectif 1 0 1 0 2
% 100% % 50% % 20%
Maraichage et Élevage Effectif 0 0 0 2 2
% % % % 40% 20%
Maraichage et Transformation des 
produits agricoles
Effectif 0 1 0 0 1
% % 50% % % 10%
Transformation des produits 
agricoles
Effectif 0 1 0 0 1
% % 50% % % 10%
Total Effectif 1 2 2 5 10
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
108 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Tableau 45 : Membres des clubs formés ayant bénéficié d’opportunités d’emploi, de stage ou d’apprentissage 
MEMBRE DES CLUBS AYANT 
BENEFICIE D’OPPORTUNITES 
D’EMPLOI, DE STAGE OU 
D’APPRENTISSAGE 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Non Effectif 13 11 10 23 57
% 87% 100% 901% 96% 93%
Oui Effectif 2 0 1 1 4
% 13% % 9% 4% 7%
Total Effectif 15 11 11 24 61
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 46 : Nature des opportunités, emploi ou stage
TYPE D’EMPLOI, STAGE DAKAR SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Emploi à temps partiel Effectif 1 0 1 2
% 50% % 100% 50%
Apprentissage de métier Effectif 1 0 0 1
% c 50% % % 25%
Prestataire de services Effectif 0 1 0 1
% % 100% % 25%
Total Effectif 2 1 1 4
% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 47 : Club ayant reçu un appui des institutions ou programme 
Tableau 48 : Appui reçu des institutions ou programme 
TYPE D’APPUI 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) N=35 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Formation 3 37.5% 1 50% 0 % 0 % 4 11%
Accompagnement / 
Coaching
4 50% 0 % 0 % 7 44% 11 31%
BENEFICIAIRE 
D’APPUI 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
Ne sait 
pas
Effectif 4 11 12 4 31
% 4,7% 12.5% 14% 4% 9%
Non Effectif 73 75 63 73 284
% 86% 85% 75% 78.5% 81%
Oui Effectif 8 2 9 16 35
% 9% 2% 11% 17% 10%
Total Effectif 85 88 84 93 350
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
109 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TYPE D’APPUI 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) N=35 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % 
Financement 2 25% 0 % 1 11% 5 31% 8 23%
Mise en relation 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Appui en nature, 
matériel ou intrants 
(intrant agricole, 
matériel 
bureautique…)
0 % 1 50% 8 89% 4 25% 13 37%
Autre à préciser 3 37.5% 0 % 1 11% 0 % 4 11%
Ne répond pas 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Tableau 49 : niveau de satisfaction des jeunes par rapport à la participation aux activités du club
NIVEAU DE SATISFACTION DES 
JEUNES PAR RAPPORT A LA 
PARTICIPATION AUX ACTIVITES DES 
CLUBS
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
1. Très satisfait Effectif 8 4 7 28 47
% 35% 9% 17% 41% 27%
2. Satisfait Effectif 9 18 20 34 81
% 39% 40% 49% 50% 46%
3. Plutôt satisfait Effectif 5 18 10 5 38
% 22% 40% 24% 7% 21.5%
4. Pas satisfait Effectif 1 5 3 1 10
% 4% 11% 7% 1.5% 6%
5. Ne répond pas Effectif 0 0 1 0 1
% % % 2% % ,6%
Total Effectif 23 45 41 68 177
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tableau 50 : Changement les plus importants apportés aux jeunes participants aux activités des clubs 
CHANGEMENTS 
APPORTES PAR LA 
PARTICIPATION 
AUX ACTIVITES 
DU CLUB 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) N=177
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF %
Amélioration de 
l’accès à la formation 
professionnelle
1 4% 2 4% 0 % 1 1.5% 4 2%
Création 
d’opportunité 
d’emploi
2 9% 3 7% 2 5% 8 12% 15 8.5%
Faciliter l’accès au 
crédit / financement 
dans les chaînes de 
valeurs agricoles
0 % 2 4% 0 % 0 % 2 1%
110 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CHANGEMENTS 
APPORTES PAR LA 
PARTICIPATION 
AUX ACTIVITES 
DU CLUB 
(REPONSE 
MULTIPLE) N=177
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT-LOUIS ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL
EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF % EFF %
Faciliter l’accès au 
marché
0 % 0 % 0 % 6 9% 6 3%
Amélioration des 
capacités en 
leadership
8 35% 17 38% 6 15% 8 12% 39 22%
Amélioration des 
capacités en 
management
2 9% 9 20% 3 7% 2 3% 16 9%
Plus forte estime de 
soi
13 56.5% 28 62% 16 39% 12 18% 69 39%
Ne sait pas 0 % 3 7% 0 % 3 4.5% 6 3%
Engagement 
communautaire 
0 % 2 4% 9 22% 2 3% 13 7%
Changement des 
rapports par rapport 
aux autres 
0 % 0 % 4 9,8% 0 % 4 2%
Capacités à 
entreprendre 
1 4% 0 % 0 % 2 3% 3 2%
Protection de 
l'environnement
0 % 1 2% 2 5% 2 3% 5 3%
Connaissance 
agriculture et élevage
2 9% 2 4% 2 5% 3 4.5% 9 5%
Développement AGR 0 % 1 2% 0 % 1 1.5% 2 1%
Autres à préciser 3 13% 4 9% 5 12% 5 7.5% 17 9,7%
Tableau 51 : Participation des membres des clubs aux activités selon la région
PARTICIPATION AUX ACTIVITES 
DU CLUB 
DAKAR DIOURBEL SAINT￾LOUIS
ZIGUINCHOR TOTAL 
Non Effectif 62 42 43 25 172
% 73% 48% 51% 27% 49%
Oui Effectif 23 45 41 68 177
% 27% 52% 49% 73% 51%
Total Effectif 85 87 84 93 349
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
01 ne répond pas 
p < .001
Tableau croisé 52 : date d’adhésion au club et participation aux activités 
PARTICIPATION AUX 
ACTIVITES DU CLUB 
DATE D’ADHESION TOTAL
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Non Effectif 1 4 12 63 61 141
% 11% 17% 29% 49,6% 59,8% 46.5%
111 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
PARTICIPATION AUX 
ACTIVITES DU CLUB 
DATE D’ADHESION TOTAL
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Oui Effectif 8 20 29 64 41 162
% 89% 83% 71% 50% 40% 53.5%
Total Effectif 9 24 41 127 102 303
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
13% (47) des jeunes membres de club ne sont pas souvenus de la date d’adhésion au club 
Tableau croisé 53 : Date d’adhésion et participation aux formations 
PARTICIPATION AUX 
FORMATIONS 
DATE D’ADHESION TOTAL
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Non Effectif 6 11 34 103 90 244
% 67% 46% 83% 82% 88% 81%
Oui Effectif 3 13 7 23 12 58
% 33% 54% 17% 18% 12% 19%
Total Effectif 9 24 41 126 102 302
% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
13% (47) des jeunes membres de club ne sont pas souvenus de la date d’adhésion au club
01 ne répond pas 
112 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX H: 4-H REGIONAL POLES
Source: Feed the Future Senegal Youth in Agriculture Annual Report Y2, 2019
113 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX I: YIA LOGICAL FRAMEWORK, INDICATOR 
TARGETS AND RESULTS
Exhibit 14: YIA logical framework
The YIA development hypothesis is that the institutionalization of a national PYD program, plus 
innovative approaches to bridging Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions 
with private sector value chain actors, can yield increased employment and enterprise development, 
increased youth engagement in Senegal’s economic growth, and finally increased inclusive economic 
growth.
Six of 24 indicators achieved at least 75% of their target, four of which could be considered central to 
measuring activity outcomes. For the remaining 18 indicators, YIA did not meet their targets. Delays in 
reaching an agreement with MESRI and then the universities were a central cause for lack of results in 
many of these indicators, especially those related to curriculum development in Component 2. The team 
found few signs of YIA activities related to private sector engagement, employment, and 
entrepreneurship, suggesting that the team did not have the skillset to tackle these issues.
114 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 15: YIA indicator achievement rates
TAUX DE 
COUVERTURE
INDICATEURS
Composante 1
+ 75 % 2 indicateurs sur 7 (29%) avec un niveau de couverture acceptable
Montant du budget annuel du gouvernement du Sénégal consacré au programme 
(JEA-B4)
Nombre de programmes d'enseignement fondés sur des données probantes adaptés 
(JEA-B6)
25-50% 1 indicateur sur 7 (14%) avec un niveau de couverture faible
(JEA-B8) Nombre de clubs certifiés
Nombre de jeunes inscrits dans des clubs 4-H certifiés (JEA-D4)
1-25% 3 indicateurs sur 7 (43%) avec un niveau de couverture critique
Nombre de MPME bénéficiant de services de développement commercial (JEA-A4)
Nombre de programmes d'enseignement fondés sur des données probantes utilisés 
(JEA-B7)
0 1 indicateurs sur 7 (14%) avec un niveau de couverture critique
Montant du budget annuel du secteur privé consacré au programme (via des PPP, 
etc.) (JEA-B5)
Composante 2
+ 75 % Aucun indicateur atteint avec un taux de couverture acceptable
50-75% 1 indicateur sur 6 (17%) avec un niveau de couverture compris entre
Nombre de personnes ayant bénéficié de programmes ou de matériels adaptés (JEA￾B15)
25-50% 1 indicateur sur 6 (17%) avec à un niveau de couverture compris entre
Nombre d'institutions ayant au moins un nouveau programme adapté aux besoins 
locaux (JEA-B10)
0 4 indicateurs sur 6 (67%) avec un niveau couverture compris entre
Nombre de nouveaux programmes adaptés aux besoins locaux (JEA-B11)
Nombre de matériels de formation élaborés pour remédier à l'inadéquation des 
compétences (JEA-B12)
Nombre de kits de matériel de formation destinés à remédier à l'inadéquation des 
compétences en cours d'utilisation (JEA-B13)
Nombre de kits de matériel de formation destinés à remédier à l'inadéquation des 
compétences partagés avec d'autres institutions (JEA-B14)
YIA Project
+ 75 % 6 indicateurs sur 24 (25%) avec un niveau de couverture acceptable
Montant du budget annuel du gouvernement du Sénégal consacré au programme 
(JEA-B4)
Nombre de programmes d'enseignement fondés sur des données probantes adaptés 
(JEA-B6)
Nombre d'emplois équivalents temps plein créés grâce à l’assistance du 
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis (EG.3-9)
Nombre d'individus ayant reçu une formation en sécurité alimentaire sanctionnée 
par un diplôme et soutenue par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis (EG.3.2-2)
Pourcentage de femmes participant à des programmes soutenus par le 
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis visant à accroitre les ressources Productives (GNDR￾2)
115 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TAUX DE 
COUVERTURE
INDICATEURS
Pourcentage d'organisations assistées par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis ayant 
amélioré leur performance [niveau IM] (CBLD-9)
50-75% 2 indicateurs sur 24 (8, 3%) avec un niveau de couverture compris entre
Pourcentage de participants aux programmes d'aides du Gouvernement des Etats￾Unis pour augmenter l'accès aux ressources économiques productives qui sont des 
jeunes (15-29) (YOUTH-3)
Nombre de personnes ayant bénéficié de programmes ou de matériels adaptés (JEA￾B15)
25-50% 4 indicateurs sur 24 (20%) avec un niveau de couverture compris entre
Nombre de clubs certifiés (JEA-B8)
Nombre de jeunes inscrits dans des clubs 4-H certifiés (JEA-D4)
Nombre d'institutions ayant au moins un nouveau programme adapté aux besoins 
locaux (JEA-B10)
Nombre d'individus participant aux programmes de sécurité alimentaire du 
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis (USG) (EG.3-2)
Nombre de partenariats public-privé établis grâce à l'assistance du Gouvernement 
des Etats-Unis (EG.3.2-5)  
1-25% 6 indicateurs sur 24 (25%) avec un niveau de couverture critique
Nombre de MPME bénéficiant de services de développement commercial (JEA-A4)
Nombre de programmes d'enseignement fondés sur des données probantes utilisés 
(JEA-B7)
116 | FTF YIA FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX J:VOCATIONAL TRAINING CURRICULA 
Through co-creation workshops organized by YIA, agriculture production actors developed priority 
training topics. These are described in Exhibit, organized by region.
Exhibit 16: Priority training topics for vocational training
REGION PRIORITY TOPIC 
Dakar · Licensed Seed Producer
· Irrigation system manager
· Specialist packaging and packaging of agricultural products
Thiès · Specialist in processing horticultural products
· Technician in maintenance of agricultural equipment
· Commercial Technician (sale of agricultural products)
Kaolack · Renewable energy technician
· Farmer/Horticulturist Producer
· Provider of extension advisory services
Ziguinchor · Beekeeper
· Harvesting, processing and marketing of agricultural and forestry products
· Processing fish and animal products
Saint-Louis · Animal Health Officer/Veterinary Assistant
· Rice conservation and processing technician
· Horticultural Producer
· Technician in maintenance of agricultural equipment
Following this process, YIA worked with these same actors to prioritize the following five certificate or 
diploma offerings:
· Certificate of Professional Aptitude in Animal Health Agent/Veterinary Assistant 
· Higher Technician Certificate/Diploma of the Higher Institute of Professional Education in 
Agricultural Commercial Technician 
· Professional Specialized Certificate in Conservation and Processing of Rice 
· Professional Specialized Certificate in Rural Agricultural Consultancy 
· Professional Specialized Certificate in Beekeeping