1 
YOUTH 
DEVELOPMENT 
COMPETENCIES 
PROGRAM (YDCP) 
Program Evaluation Report
November, 2010 
 Social Impact, Inc.
Moscow 2010 
2 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Acknowledgements 
Glossary 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Summary of main Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM AND ITS LOGIC 
1. Program approach
2. Program results framework
III. EVALUATION PURPOSE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 
1. Description of survey respondents 
2. Description of evaluation scope and methodology 
IV. FINDINGS 
1. Young people participating in the Program demonstrate an acceptance 
of ethnic, cultural, and other diversity 
2. Young people participating in the Program report the ability to 
interact/work with their peers 
3. Young people participating in the Program report the ability to solve 
problems, show initiative, leadership, and self confidence (dealing with 
“authorities”) 
4. Young people participating in the Program report gaining practical 
professional skills as a result of the program 
5. Young people participating in the Program are knowledgeable about at 
least one advocacy issue 
6. Young people participating in the Program are involved in a community 
improvement process or other community service 
7. Young people participating in the Program report feeling that they can 
make a difference in their community 
8. Young people participating in the Program report having engaged with 
local or regional government 
V. CONCLUSIONS
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
VII. ANNEXES 
3 
DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect 
the views of IREX, the United States Agency for International Development or the 
United States Government.
 
4 
Acknowledgements 
The completion of this Program Evaluation was possible only through the advice, 
cooperation and support of many people. Most are listed in the appendix of this report, but 
special mention must be made of the following. 
The evaluation was implemented with the assistance and participation of the IREX Moscow 
office Program team. They were a constant source of technical advice and shared their local 
knowledge of the Program context. They guided the evaluation to relevant background 
reports, providing electronic copies. 
The evaluation activities benefited greatly from collaboration with Oksana Jensen ,Senior 
Program Officer of the Education Programs Division at the IREX office in Washington, DC. 
Similarly, Carol Sorrenti of the IREX Moscow office was flexible and knowledgeable regarding 
YDCP activities. Both made themselves available as required and offered useful advice and 
support throughout the assessment process. 
 
All these people gave their time, sharing their years of experience and their considered 
opinions. 
 
5 
Glossary 
Action Teams – Groups of up to five young people and one adult in the target region who 
attended the Road Shows to learn about youth programming models, project management 
and youth development.
Adapters – Action teams selected to adapt successful Innovator program models for their 
region and awarded Seed Grant funds. 
Adult Stakeholders – Adults who are invested in youth development, including parents, 
teachers, former youth leaders, representatives of local government youth departments, 
local educators, and members of the local business community.
Cognitive/cognition - Refers to both the knowledge possessed by youth and the young 
person’s ability to think, reason, learn, and understand. 
Expansion Grants – Grants awarded to Innovators to cover the costs of mentoring and 
hosting study tours for Adapters replicating their program model.
Extra-curricular activity – An activity not included into the main educational program plans 
of a particular educational institution. It is based on a positive youth development 
approach that allows youth to develop a positive attitude toward learning and a successful 
approach to living.
Innovators – Representatives of effective youth-driven engagement programs from across 
Russia who presented their program models at the Road Shows for potential replication by 
Adapters in seven of the 10 regions. 
Performance baseline – The value of a performance indicator before the implementation 
of the Program activities that contribute to the achievement of the relevant result.
Performance indicator – A particular characteristic or dimension used to measure intended 
changes defined by the Program Results Framework.
Performance target – Specific, planned level of result to be achieved within an explicit 
timeframe. 
Program objective – A statement that outlines the program’s significant, intended, and 
measurable change in the condition of a customer (target group).
Program philosophy - The program’s approach to working with youth. The Program is 
based on utilization of a positive youth development framework. 
Regional Coordinating Organizations (RCOs) – Local NGOs recruited and selected to 
coordinate YDCP program activities in their region, such as organizing a Road Show and 
monitoring local Adapters. 
Replication Grants – Grants awarded to Replicators to cover the costs of rolling out their 
programs to new regions. 
Replicators – Experienced NGOs with successful larger scale community-wide youth 
programs who received Replication Grants to directly facilitate replication of their 
programs in three regions with the support of the local community. 
6 
Seed Grants – Grants awarded to Adapters to cover costs of replicating program models in 
their regions. 
Youth – For the purposes of YDCP are defined as children and adolescents who are 14-23 
years old. 
Positive Youth development (PYD) – An approach which aims to empower youth to
successfully transition to adulthood through broad support and specific strategies. Tenets 
of PYD include the following: a focus on assets rather than deficits; approaching youth as a 
resource rather than a problem; and focusing on holistically nurturing skills and 
competencies rather than on solving specific problems. PYD empowers youth in all stages 
of program assessment, planning and implementation, while responding to the needs of 
this population. 
Youth Empowerment Road Shows (Road Shows) – Networking and training events held in 
seven of the 10 target regions intended to bring successful Innovator program models to 
Action Teams and to provide motivation and training in youth development approaches to 
young people and adult stakeholders.
Youth outcomes - The changes and gains made by youth as they grow and develop into 
adulthood. These include the knowledge, skills, attributes, and behaviors that youth must 
develop to be caring, healthy, and responsible adults. 
 
7 
Acronyms and Abbreviations 
IREX – International Research and Exchange Board 
SI – Social Impact 
YDCP – Youth Development Competencies Program 
USAID – United States Agency for International Development 
PYD – Positive Youth Development 
EG – Experimental Group 
CG – Comparison Group 
 
8 
Executive Summary 
1. Overview
The Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) 
works to empower Russian youth and develop their 
competencies to succeed and contribute as professionals 
and citizens by facilitating the replication and expansion 
of programs in line with the best practices in positive 
youth development (PYD). IREX designed this program in 
response to a request from USAID, and has implemented 
the program since 2008. In 2010, Social Impact was hired 
to conduct a program results assessment using an 
experimental/comparison group evaluation approach to 
determine the impact of this initiative. 
Through this evaluation methodology, YDCP was found
to significantly improve youth participants’ citizenship, 
personal, social, and professional competencies; these 
competencies have a direct correlation not only to a 
decrease in destructive behaviors among youth, but also 
to an increase in the positive contributions that youth 
can make to the development of their society.1
 
Participation in the program led to notably increased 
levels of engagement, empowerment, and tolerance 
across all geographic regions and program models, 
including a nearly doubled rate of involvement in 
community activities. Participant responses were 
consistently more favorable than those of their 
comparison group counterparts throughout all areas of 
program interventions. YDCP was particularly successful 
in involving youth in non-traditional activities2
 and in building vocational competencies. There is
a clear and attributable effect of the YDCP program, despite the limitations of this assessment. 
A: History and Program Overview
IREX designed YDCP in response to a request from USAID, in an effort to consolidate disparate 
investments made by USAID and other donors so that youth projects focused on competency 
building could be replicated throughout Russia. The program aims to support young people in 
developing the skills, attitudes, and abilities they need to become successful adults and active 
citizens by engaging them in addressing community needs. 
 
1
 “The Power of Assets,” Search Institute. http://www.search-institute.org/research/assets/assetpower 
2
 Non-traditional activities are considered non-traditional in the Russian context, and are defined as 
working with youth with disabilities, promoting tolerance, protecting children and youth’s rights, and other 
activities not related to athletics and arts and crafts. 
YDCP Program Impact Highlights 
• Nearly 98% of program participants 
reported involvement in a community 
improvement process or other 
community service, compared to 
approximately 50% of the comparison 
group 
• YDCP participants were two to four 
times more likely than non-participants 
to have had interactions with local or 
regional government representatives 
• Nearly 70% of program participants 
responded that their involvement in the 
program helped them to obtain 
professional skills 
• Program participants demonstrated 
significant increases in reported ability 
to interact positively with peers 
9 
The nurturing of competencies for this generation will enable them to become productive and 
thoughtful citizens and will build human capital within the country in a sustainable manner. The 
development of creative, empowered, engaged, and problem-solving citizens will ensure a more 
stable youth environment in the country, and will contribute to the more overarching 
development goals in the region. 
By facilitating the replication and expansion of programs in line with the best practices in 
positive youth development, YDCP aims to empower youth and develop their personal, 
professional, and social competencies. 
To achieve the stated objectives, YDCP utilizes two key models of youth activity: the Youth￾Driven Model and the Community Schools Model. Together, they seek to engage and inform the 
youth sector in Russia, expanding the reach of successful programs while empowering young 
people through peer-to-peer knowledge sharing. As part of YDCP, these two models were 
implemented by youth-oriented organizations in ten regions throughout Russia. 
B: Underlying Theory – Why Support Youth Competency Development?
YDCP chose models for replication based on their alignment with positive youth development 
practices. The criteria for selection of models included: success in competency-building for 
youth, a focus on youth empowerment, commitment to mentoring adapters3
, and proven 
sustainability in attracting and retaining youth leaders – all of which are in line with best 
practices in positive youth development (PYD). 
PYD theory emerged in the 1990s in the United States and aims to empower youth to 
successfully transition to adulthood through broad support and specific strategies. Tenets of 
PYD include the following: a focus on assets rather than deficits; approaching youth as a 
resource rather than a problem; and focusing on holistically nurturing skills and competencies 
rather than on solving specific problems. PYD empowers youth in all stages of program 
assessment, planning and implementation, while responding to the needs of this population. 
There is an emphasis on positive outcomes, collaboration, and inclusiveness. Furthermore, PYD 
looks to engage the whole community in supporting youth development. 
PYD has been applied successfully around the world to build youth competencies. Extensive 
research on PYD in the U.S. has demonstrated that young people with strong ‘competencies’ are 
not only significantly less likely to engage in high risk behavior (including drug use, alcohol 
abuse, and violence), but are also significantly more likely to remain on a path to make 
constructive contributions to society (indicators include remaining in school, maintaining good 
health, exhibiting tolerance for diversity, and on-going community leadership).4
 To ensure an 
economically and socially strong society, the rising generation must be prepared to contribute in 
a positive, meaningful way; PYD is the catalyst to create these attitudes and behaviors in the 
young generation. 
C: Types of Programs Replicated
 
3 Adapters are youth organizations who choose to pilot and use YDCP model programs, with support from 
YDCP. 
4
 The Search Institute. “The Power of Assets.” http://www.search-institute.org/research/assets/assetpower.
10 
In order to appeal to a broad spectrum of youth and reflect regional priorities, the project 
models cover a wide variety of themes. Some facilitate direct communication between young 
people and adult decision-makers. The Children and Youth Rights Council allows school 
students to poll the opinions of their peers and bring the results to the attention of local and 
regional government decision makers, while Focus of Attention features community “talk show” 
events that facilitate frank discussions between youth and adults on topical issues. 
YDCP also features models that promote ethnic tolerance, respect for diversity and the inclusion 
of persons with disabilities in after-school activities for young people. During the course of the 
Cameras for Kids project, children with and without disabilities work together on 
photojournalism projects and discover how much they have in common. Other models provide 
young people with practical vocational skills and career opportunities. The Real World Business
model provides young people with the opportunity to complete real tasks for local businesses, 
while Career Networking Center has established much-needed ties between educational 
institutions and potential employers. 
Other YDCP models engage young people in the design and implementation of local community 
development projects. The Community Schools program implemented in Tomsk, Murmansk, 
and Kursk, for example, teaches its young participants to conduct needs assessments, and to 
collaborate with their parents and teachers in improving local conditions. 
D: Russian Context
Understanding the social, political, and cultural context is crucial to understand the YDCP design, 
implementation, and findings. Russian youth have been particularly affected in the past two 
decades, as the Soviet education system, vocational training structures, and informal youth 
programs disintegrated and were not replaced by viable post-Soviet alternatives. Current youth 
policy is not systemic, with emphasis on unconnected, large-scale, visible one-day events. 
Furthermore, there is no significant historical background of teaching project management or 
critical thinking, which contributes to the lack of programming addressing these areas. Females 
have tended to dominate school and social work, while traditional gender structures remain and 
women defer to male authority in many areas. Most youth programming is adult-driven, 
emphasizing solving problems and mirroring existing structures rather than engaging and 
empowering youth participants in innovative ways. Similarly, positive youth development 
methodologies are not widely employed in the country. 
As Russia has been beset by ethnic strife in many areas, tolerance of immigrants, religious 
differences, and minority groups has become a particular priority. While this is more central in 
specific geographic regions, the need for tolerance of diversity, beginning with youth 
populations, has become increasingly important to ensure a stable future in the country. 
2. Results 
E. About the Program Results Assessment 
In May of 2010, IREX hired Social Impact to aid in the design and implementation of a program 
results assessment of the YDCP initiative. As YDCP aims to build competencies through the 
development of social, personal, and professional skills, the two organizations recognized the 
11 
need to develop and administer a Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey to 
determine program impact and attribution. 
The KAP survey was designed to assess the level of development of personal and professional 
competencies and skills through proxy questions within the program’s target audience: youth 
living within the selected geographic regions. Participants were asked to respond to a number of 
open and closed-ended questions. For certain questions, this included rating the level to which 
they agreed with a number of statements; and for others it entailed stating how the respondent 
would act in a given hypothetical situation. The survey intended to identify the preliminary 
impacts of the project, as well as to build understanding of the project’s progress in various 
program components. Questions were formulated in a manner which best allowed data to feed 
into indicators – including both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ questions to determine thresholds of areas such 
as tolerance. 
The survey was administered to a group of 590 participants involved in implementing the 
various YDCP models, as well as to 590 young people who were not involved in YDCP; in total, 
there were 1180 respondents in the experimental and comparison groups. Because each group 
was nearly identical in demographic composition, this methodology allowed Social Impact and 
IREX to determine the extent to which participation in YDCP was able to achieve the intended 
impacts, and to what extent changes were attributable to participation in the program. 
The use of KAP surveys and similar assessment methodologies for youth programming is largely 
unknown in Russia. In contrast with more traditional qualitative assessments that merely 
capture participant satisfaction, a KAP survey attempts to quantitatively measure the success of 
YDCP in achieving its stated objective – transmitting youth competencies to its program 
participants – using control and experimental groups. It goes beyond measuring program 
outputs (such as the number of people trained, and participant satisfaction) to determine 
outcomes and impact (e.g. changes in behavior and knowledge). As a result, the analysis 
addresses the notion of YDCP’s impact on its participants, as well as the attribution of observed 
changes to YDCP. As an approach new to Russia for assessing youth programs, this evaluation 
methodology could serve as a model for other program evaluations, and can also assist local 
government and organizations in the evaluation of their own investments in youth 
development. 
Distribution of the questionnaire was implemented by Regional Coordinating Organizations 
(RCOs) in the targeted regions of the evaluation. Participants were gathered to complete the 
survey, with IREX Moscow office and RCO staff providing instruction and clarifications. The 
quantitative aspect of the assessment was complemented by qualitative data in the form of 
open-ended questions and seven focus group discussions. These focus groups were 
implemented to clarify any questions emerging from survey results, and therefore the questions 
were developed based on initial survey findings. This component utilized participatory 
methodologies through the training of young program participants to organize and moderate 
focus groups to build youth capacity in this area and facilitate further discussion. All quantitative 
and qualitative data was triangulated, coded, and analyzed by Social Impact staff following its 
collection. 
It is important to note the limitations of the assessment, particularly the potential for self￾selection bias and the lack of substantive baseline data. Because the experimental group 
members were comprised of those who had already taken initiative to become involved in 
YDCP, it is likely that they would have started with higher levels of various competencies than 
12 
their comparison group counterparts. The use of a comparison group and experimental group 
served as an imperfect means to determine impact that could be attributed to participation in 
the program. To address this limitation, non-program-related leadership was accounted for in 
statistical calculations in order to best determine if the non-program-related leadership or 
program participation was the cause for improved competencies. 
F: Analysis of Major Impact 
Participants in the YDCP program consistently demonstrated higher citizenship competencies5
compared to those who did not participate, and YDCP was able to build upon interests and 
innovation to engage youth in non-traditional activities. The YDCP program appeared to have 
the most significant impact on youth involvement in the community, through both community 
service activities and engagement with local or regional government. Youth who participate 
actively in their communities are not only less likely to engage in destructive behavior; they are 
also more likely to build professional skills, and 
are positioned for a future of constructive civic 
engagement. 
Nearly 98% of YDCP participants reported 
involvement in a community improvement 
process or other community service (far exceeding the 60% target), compared to approximately 
50% of the comparison group. However, the response rate may reflect the nature of the 
intervention, in that YDCP participants were required to participate in community service. 
 
5
 Citizenship competencies can be defined as leadership, engagement with government, community 
activism, and a sense of personal agency (the belief on the part of an individual that he/she can make a 
difference in the community). 
No, I did not participate in any community 
service activity in the last 12 months 
Experimental group 13 
Comparison group 284 
24
65
36
50
106
106
17
14
133
25
40
73
67
64
303
112
76
262
207
74
114
278
47
156
166
134
1.2.13 Other 
1.2.12 Working to promote volunteering
1.2.11 Working to advocate for the interests/rights of children/youth
1.2.10 Working to address poverty issues
1.2.9 Working to improve healthy lifestyles of children/youth
1.2.8 Working to improve the environment
1.2.7 Working to improve tolerance 
1.2.6 Working to address disability issues
1.2.5 Working to provide safe recreational opportunities
1.2.4 Working with a medical/health charity
1.2.3 Working to preserve local culture/history
1.2.2 Working with the elderly/veterans
1.2.1 Teaching, tutoring, or mentoring children
Participation in Community Activities
Experimental Group Comparison Group
13 
Further, the experimental group demonstrated nearly twice the amount of involvement in 
activities (including school clubs and sports teams) and nearly three times the amount of 
involvement in community service activities. YDCP youth not only displayed higher levels of 
general activity participation, but they exhibited an increased interest in community service and 
involvement, typically in non-traditional youth activities, relative to youth who did not 
participate in the program. 
Furthermore, program participants experienced significantly higher levels of engagement with 
local or regional government and a greater sense of their ability to work with adults to solve 
community problems. YDCP participants were two to four times more likely to have had 
interactions with local or regional representatives within the past year. Further, youth in the 
program developed a stronger sense of their ability to work with adults and to contribute to the 
resolution of community problems. The program was found to have a significant effect on this 
perception even among older youth who naturally displayed greater confidence in their ability 
to work with adults. In addition, YDCP participants consistently demonstrated higher levels of 
both concern and knowledge about challenging issues, such as juvenile justice, poverty, alcohol 
abuse, and quality of education. YDCP participants have a greater awareness of community 
challenges and an increased sense of their ability to work with local adults and leaders to solve 
these problems. 
As stated earlier in this report, YDCP focuses on providing young people with the skills that they 
will need to become successful adults. It is therefore of great interest to note that nearly 70% of 
all experimental group participants responded that their involvement in the program helped 
them obtain professional skills due to acquired contacts (networking) and more finite skills and 
knowledge. There are particularly notable increases in public speaking and project management 
competencies. YDCP participants’ ability to logically and clearly give explanations and responses 
was also significantly higher than those respondents who did not participate in the program. 
The Youth Development Competencies Program also aimed to facilitate the development of 
personal and social competencies. These competencies refer to the ability of youth to develop 
positive methods of interaction with others, and to develop behaviors and outcomes valued 
0
200
400
600
184
263
113
319 362
246
335
471 446 400
529 539
444
516
Experimental Group (high score)
before (high)
now (high)
14 
within one’s culture. YDCP participants consistently demonstrated significant increases in 
positive peer interaction in nearly every category. Participants developed the ability and 
motivation to respond accordingly to surrounding social systems, an understanding of how to 
deal with emotions, and to develop friendships and relationships through communication, 
cooperation, and negotiation. Focus group responses also indicated an increase in adaptability 
and personal responsibility. 
Social competencies include not only the ability to interact effectively with one’s immediate 
peer group, but also with a larger group of more diverse individuals. Promoting tolerance in this 
large and ethnically diverse country is indeed one of the main challenges facing Russian 
educators. The YDCP program has been able to make some headway in this rather sensitive 
area, as program participants consistently and significantly responded more positively to 
questions regarding diversity acceptance than comparison group counterparts. They also 
displayed a comparatively higher level of cultural tolerance in their selection of friends and 
acquaintances, associating with more representatives of different religious and ethnic groups. 
In spite of these improvements, however, participants demonstrate a significant need for 
further development in this area. Participant responses still echoed some of the intolerant 
attitudes towards migrants and minority religious groups that can be observed in the general 
population. Given the historical and widespread social background of this type of thinking, a 
number of highly focused interventions would be required to significantly lower its effects. 
G: Highlights, Recommendations, Closing 
The approach and processes taken by YDCP are likely much of the cause for the consistently 
higher results in achieving YDCP objectives by the experimental group than by their comparison 
group counterparts, including higher levels of leadership, tolerance, and better logical 
explanation of their answers. There is a clear and attributable effect of the YDCP program, 
despite some potential self-selection bias, with significant development of the comparison 
group’s measured competencies. A major success is in the area of youth engagement, 
particularly in the ability of the initiative to involve youth in non-traditional activities. Similarly, 
program interventions which offered participants practical professional and vocational skills 
were regarded highly and thought to be extremely effective by the participants. 
Enhanced emphasis on youth empowerment and problem-solving will be essential in ensuring 
that the competencies obtained throughout YDCP are applied following program completion. 
Similarly, should the program hope to influence youth at a stronger or deeper level with respect 
to areas such as tolerance of diversity, the initiative must work to create personal bonds 
between participants and those from other backgrounds. Of course, these aspects of the 
program should be considered in light of the cultural context in which they take place. Finally, 
since females performed at a significantly higher rate in this assessment, YDCP should look to 
involve young males more in its activities, and potentially modify certain activities to facilitate 
the development of boys’ competencies. 
YDCP has produced a significant and attributable impact on youth participants and their 
development of a number of personal, social, and professional competencies. As it aimed to 
influence diverse competency areas in a cultural environment where such approaches were 
innovative, this is a particularly notable achievement. Future initiatives should aim to take 
15 
advantage of these successes, and build upon the approaches utilized, while ensuring progress 
in those areas identified that demonstrate further need. 
 
H: About Social Impact and IREX 
Social Impact 
Social Impact is a global social enterprise dedicated to helping international agencies, civil 
society and governments become more effective agents of positive social and economic change. 
SI provides a full range of innovative management consulting, technical assistance and training 
services to strengthen international development programs, organizations and policies. SI works 
across sectors to reduce poverty; improve health, education and the lives of women and 
children; promote peace and democratic governance; strengthen civil society; foster economic 
growth; and protect the environment. Particular areas of expertise include monitoring and 
evaluation, project and program management, gender mainstreaming, and organizational 
capacity building. SI’s evaluation experiences are extensive, ranging from impact evaluations to 
participatory and empowerment evaluations at the local, national, and global levels. 
IREX 
IREX is an international nonprofit organization providing thought leadership and innovative 
programs to promote positive lasting change globally. 
The organization enables local individuals and institutions to build key elements of a vibrant 
society: quality education, independent media, and strong communities. To strengthen these 
sectors, program activities also include conflict resolution, technology for development, gender, 
and youth. 
Founded in 1968, IREX has an annual portfolio of over $60 million and a staff of over 400 
professionals worldwide. IREX employs field-tested methods and innovative uses of 
technologies to develop practical and locally-driven solutions with our partners in more than 
100 countries. 
 
16 
Description of the YDCP Program and its 
Approach 
Generally speaking, youth development is defined as a process which prepares young 
people to meet the challenges of adolescence and adulthood through a coordinated, 
progressive series of activities and experiences which help them to become socially, morally, 
emotionally, physically, and cognitively competent,6
 the ongoing process in which all young 
people are engaged. Youth development programs support young people to meet their 
basic personal and social needs and to build competencies necessary for successful 
adolescent and adult life. Positive youth development (PYD) is an approach, a framework, 
and a way to think about young people that focuses on their capacities, strengths, and 
developmental needs as well as on their weaknesses and obstacles. 
All young people have basic needs that are critical to survival and healthy development. 
They include a sense of safety and structure; belonging and membership; self-worth and an 
ability to contribute; and independence and control over one's life. At the same time, to 
succeed as adults, all youth must acquire positive attitudes and appropriate behaviors and 
skills in five areas: health; personal/social; knowledge, reasoning and creativity; vocation; 
and citizenship7
. 
PYD has been applied successfully around the world to build youth competencies. Extensive 
research on PYD in the U.S. has demonstrated that young people with strong ‘competencies’ are 
not only significantly less likely to engage in high risk behavior (including drug use, alcohol 
abuse, and violence), but are also significantly more likely to remain on a path to make 
constructive contributions to society (indicators include remaining in school, maintaining good 
health, and exhibiting tolerance for diversity and on-going community leadership.)8
 To ensure 
an economically and socially strong society, the rising generation must be prepared to 
contribute in positive, meaningful way; PYD is the catalyst to create these attitudes and 
behaviors in the young generation. 
The Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) implemented in Russia by IREX aims 
to empower youth and develop their competencies by facilitating the replication and 
expansion of programs in line with the best practices in positive youth development. A brief 
description and basic principles of this approach are provided below.
Program Approach 
Positive youth development adopted by YDCP is a set of strategies which help guide youth 
on a successful transition to adulthood. It is an approach that provides youth with the 
broadest possible support, enabling them to attain desirable long-term outcomes, including 
 
6
 http://www.nydic.org/nydic/programming/definition.htm. 
7
 Making the Case: Community Foundations and Youth Development , Bonnie Politz, Senior Program Officer, Academy 
for Educational Development, Center for Youth Development & Policy Research, Foundations for Change, 1996, 
Second Edition 
8
 The Search Institute. “The Power of Assets”. http://www.search-institute.org/research/assets/assetpower.
17 
economic self-sufficiency, development of skills and competencies, and community 
relationships. Young people who develop desirable competencies are not only less likely to 
engage in destructive behaviors on an individual or societal level, but are also much more 
likely to participate constructively in the economic and civic spheres of their communities 
and nations. 
The positive youth development approach is designed to provide the maximum positive 
impact on the life of participants. In the short term, using this approach can improve 
program results, attracting and engaging youth. In the long term, the positive youth 
development approach will help young people to make decisions that keep them away from 
negative, risky behaviors, and on track for a healthy and successful adulthood. 
Positive youth development occurs from an intentional process that promotes positive 
outcomes for young people by providing opportunities, relationships and adult, 
organizational, and community support to fully participate in their own development. PYD 
must therefore take place in families, peer groups, schools, neighborhoods and 
communities9
. 
Positive youth development can be described as a philosophy or approach promoting a set 
of guidelines on how a community can support its young people so that they can grow up 
competent and healthy and develop to their full potential. 
• Emphasis on positive outcomes: The approach highlights positive, healthy outcomes (in 
contrast to reducing negative outcomes such as youth substance abuse and violence). 
Examples of desired youth development outcomes are competence (academic, social, 
vocational skills), self-confidence, connectedness (healthy relationship to community, 
friends and family), character (integrity, moral commitment), and caring and 
compassion. 
• Youth voice: It is essential to include youth as active participants in any youth 
development initiative. They have to be equal partners in the process. Youth 
involvement presents a great challenge to adults and charges them to rethink how they 
have engaged in planning and program development and implementation. 
• Strategies aim to involve all youth: Youth development strategies are generally aimed 
at all youth. The assumption is that creating supportive and enriching environments for 
all youth will lead to the desired positive outcomes as well as reduced negative 
outcomes. However, experts in the field recognize the need to blend universal 
approaches with approaches that are targeting youth facing extra challenges. 
• Long-term involvement: Youth development assumes long-term commitment. Activities 
and supportive relationships have to endure for a long period of time to be effective. 
They have to accompany young people throughout their growing up years. While short￾term positive results may be seen and should be built on, both community-organizing 
models mentioned below state that positive community-based, youth outcomes may 
 
9
 National 4-H Leadership Trust, http://4-hyd.ext.wvu.edu/r/download/29991 
18 
not be measurable for 15-20 years. Youth development strategies have to embrace and 
ready themselves for long-term engagement. 
• Community involvement: Youth development stresses the importance of engaging the 
larger social environment that influences how young people grow up and develop. This 
includes family and friends, but also the community they live in. Community is more 
than social service and youth organizations, schools; it involves business, faith and civic 
groups, and private citizens who are not attached to any organization. 
• Emphasis on collaboration: Youth development requires people from various agencies 
and community groups to work together. Collaboration can express itself in different 
forms e.g., young people and adults coming together to write a grant proposal to 
achieve one common goal by sharing resources and expertise.10
 
All the above guidelines have been adopted and implemented under the Youth 
Development Competencies Program (YDCP) administered by IREX and supported by USAID. 
The YDCP has two main objectives: 
Objective 1: Youth develop competencies to become active, engaged, successful adults 
through replicating, tailoring, implementing, and participating in (a) Community School 
programs and (b) Youth-Driven programs. 
Objective 2: Replicated youth programs are institutionalized with community support from 
government, business, media, and educators. 
To achieve the stated objectives, IREX utilizes two key models of youth activity: the 
Community School Model and the Youth-Driven Model. Together, the Community School 
and Youth-Driven models seek to engage and inform the youth sector in Russia, expanding 
the reach of successful programs while empowering young people through peer-to-peer 
knowledge sharing. As part of YDCP, the two models are being implemented by youth￾oriented organizations in ten regions throughout Russia. 
Community School Model 
IREX implements the Community School model in three regions. NGOs from Voronezh, 
Karelia and Krasnoyarsk with a proven track record with this approach launched the 
program in Kursk, Murmansk and Tomsk. The major goal of these experienced NGOs is to 
establish community schools in their target areas. In each participating school, teachers, 
administrators and students are trained in project management, community needs 
assessment, fundraising, and social marketing. After the training, the Community School 
students implement small projects that both benefit their community and enable them to 
develop the skills they need to become successful adults. As part of the model, Community 
Schools are encouraged to partner with local government, business, and the media in order 
to become a sustainable locus of positive community development. 
 
10 Positive Youth Development Resource Manual, Jutta Dotterweich, Cornell University, Family Life Development 
Center. 
19 
Youth-Driven Model 
In seven regions (Stavropol, Karelia, Volgograd, Chelyabinsk, Tyumen, Irkutsk and Tambov) 
IREX is utilizing a model whereby effective youth programming is replicated through a peer￾to-peer transfer of knowledge. Young people involved in the implementation of successful 
youth initiatives (Innovators) were chosen to present their models to Action Teams of 
interested youth and their adult sponsors at regional events (Road Shows) in the seven 
target regions. To maintain a demand-driven approach, Action Teams chose which Innovator 
model best suits their local environment and needs. Action Teams then applied for Seed 
Grants to adapt the innovator model that best serves the needs of their region. Recipients of 
Seed Grants (adapters) then worked with innovators to adapt and implement the model in 
the adapter’s home region. After the adapters received the grants, IREX provided training in 
project management, community needs assessment, and fundraising in order to support 
program implementation and the sustainability of YDCP initiatives.11 A full description of the 
YDCP program’s technical approach can be found in Annex E this report. 
Purpose, Scope and Methodology of 
the Evaluation 
Purpose and Scope 
The purpose of this program results assessment is to examine the effect of YDCP on the 
youth beneficiaries in a comprehensive, systematic and objective manner. It intends to 
measure and assess the extent to which participants in the YDCP program developed 
competencies in specific areas identified by IREX. The evaluation identifies the extent to 
which the Program achieved its planned results under Objective 1: Youth develop 
competencies that allow them to become successful active engaged adults through 
participation in youth-driven programs. The evaluation is based on concepts taken from the 
Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Objective 1. The overall Program Results 
Framework is presented below: 
 
11 Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08, IREX Second Annual Report (October 24, 2008-
October 23, 2009) 
20 
Specifically the evaluation was focused on the determining YDCP progress in achieving nine 
performance targets for the following performance indicators measuring Objective 1 of the 
YDCP, namely: 
• % of young people who demonstrate an acceptance of ethnic, cultural, and other 
diversity 
• % of young people who report the ability to interact/work with their peers 
• % of young people who report the ability to solve problems 
• % of young people reporting gaining practical professional skills as a result of the 
program 
• % of young people who are knowledgeable about at least one advocacy issue 
• % of youth who report being in a position of leadership 
• % of young people who are involved in a community improvement process or other 
community service 
• % of young people who report feeling that they can make a difference in their 
community 
• % of young people who report having engaged with local or regional government 
Methodology 
A participatory approach was used for this results assessment. IREX Program staff played a 
lead role in planning and implementing evaluation activities. Program specialists from the 
IREX Moscow office, in close collaboration with program specialists in Washington, DC, 
made decisions on the sequence and contents of various evaluation events with respect to 
Youth develop competencies that allow 
them to become successful active 
engaged adults through participation in 
youth-driven programs
IR 1 (Objective 1) Youth develop 
competencies to become active, 
engaged, successful adults 
IR 1.1 Youth 
develop 
personal and 
social 
competencies
IR 1.2 Youth 
develop 
cognitive and 
creative 
competencies
IR 1.3 Youth 
develop 
vocational 
competencies
IR 1.4 Youth 
develop 
citizenship 
competencies
IR 2 (Objective 2) Replicated youth 
programs are institutionalized with 
community support from government, 
business, media, and educators.
IR 2.1 More grant 
recipients able to 
realize youth 
projects successfully
IR 2.2 More youth 
programs receive 
support 
IR 2.3 Support 
received by youth 
programs increases
Focus of the Evaluation activities 
21 
the particular design of the questionnaire and the emphasis of the focus groups. M&E 
Specialists had a supportive role in the evaluation process providing advice and fulfilling 
specific tasks such as the delivery of training and the development of documents. 
A programmatic strategy was adopted for the evaluation based on a primarily quantitative 
methodology (survey). Qualitative methods (focus groups) were implemented to clarify any 
questions emerging from survey results. For the purposes of YDCP, the terms "young 
people" or "youth" are defined as being comprised of those between 14 and 23 years old. 
Survey 
Data was primarily collected through a questionnaire (see Annex A) designed to assess the 
level of development of personal and professional competencies and skills through proxy 
questions within the program’s target audience – young people ranging from 14 to 23 years 
old living in all ten oblasts. 
The survey intended to identify the preliminary impacts of the project, as well as to build 
understanding of the project’s progress in various program components. It aimed to 
determine whether or not certain outcomes are attributable to YDCP activities, and to 
ascertain preliminary data regarding where the program is encountering both successes and 
obstacles. Questions were formulated in a manner which best allowed data to feed into 
indicators; and are therefore analyzed through that perspective. Furthermore, the survey 
included both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ questions, which provide a better basis to analyze thresholds 
of participants’ tolerance, for example. 
Distribution of the questionnaire in both cases was coordinated by Regional Coordinating 
Organizations (RCOs) in the targeted regions of the evaluation. Survey respondents were 
gathered to fill in the questionnaire. At the beginning of the sessions, IREX Moscow office 
staff provided instructions and, in the course of filling in the questionnaire, clarifications. 
In order to achieve higher validity of the survey results in April-May 2010, the questionnaire 
was distributed among the following two groups of young people: 
Experimental Group: Defined through participation in YDCP in 10 focus regions targeted by 
the assessment. 
Comparison Group: Selected participants who were not involved in YDCP in the same 
regions. 
The use of a comparison and experimental group is particularly valuable in determining the 
extent to which participation in YDCP was able to achieve its targeted impacts. The 
comparison group participants were selected in conjunction with IREX partners in each 
region; some of the participants had attended the initial recruitment fair. The participants 
were selected with particular attention placed on maintaining a similar geographic, age, and 
gender composition as those in the experimental group. 
The breakdown of experimental and comparison groups are presented in the table below: 
22 
Experimental group Comparison group 
Total 
Questionnaires 590 590 
Female/ 
Male Ratio Female 404 Male 186 Female 384 Male 206 
Occupation 
• Study (School): 355 
• Study (College/University): 182 
• Work - 14 
• Don’t Study/Work - 1 
• Study and Work – 32 
• Study (School): 358 
• Study (College/University): 213 
• Work - 7 
• Don’t Study/Work – 5 
• Study and Work - 6 
Year 
Participant 
Joined YDCP 
2007 – 1 
2008 – 132 
2009 – 377 
2010 – 10 
N/A 
Leadership 
Role in YDCP 
Yes - 431 
No – 144 N/A 
Home Location 
23.1 City - 234 
23.2 Town - 230 
23.3 Rural area – 126 
18.1 City - 210 
18.2 Town - 243 
18.3 Rural area - 135 
As evidenced, the Experimental and Comparison groups are nearly identical in composition. 
Slight differences will therefore not have critical influence on the results of the research. 
Focus groups 
In order to really understand the "why" behind the survey results, IREX staff made a decision 
to introduce an element of qualitative study into the evaluation: specifically, via the 
utilization of focus groups. The quantitative survey was supplemented with focus groups 
targeting young people from the experimental group. Participants of the focus groups, held 
in late June 2010, had responded previously to the questions of the survey. 
A total of seven focus groups were held in Tambov, Karelia, Chelyabinsk and Murmansk. 
Two focus groups in each region were held involving program participants who study at 
school/college and in universities. One focus group was held involving young people who 
study at secondary school. 
Focus group questions were developed based on the initial survey findings. When an 
interesting trend or response rate was noted, for example, this was delved into further via 
the focus group. Participants were encouraged to explain why they responded a certain way 
23 
to various questions; and to build off of one another’s experiences. The Focus Group Guide 
is attached to this report in Annex C. 
Training component 
For the purpose of further enhancing the participatory character of the program results 
assessment and include youth as active participants in any youth development initiative, 
IREX made a decision to train regional specialists in organizing and moderating focus groups. 
Another reason for this decision was based on the program philosophy aimed at creating 
supportive and enriching practices for young people, which will lead to positive outcomes 
for youth and their communities. 
The training consisted of two main parts: a workshop followed by a practical exercise in the 
form of web-based simulation of the focus groups moderated by each of workshop 
participants in their respective regions. 
The focus group workshop took place in the middle of May 2010. The training approach for 
this workshop can be found in Annex D of this report. Training participants were two 
specialists from each evaluation focus region, RCO representatives and some of the Program 
staff members from the IREX Moscow office. During the training, participants had the 
opportunity to learn about approaches to and techniques of focus groups organization, 
moderation and reporting. After the workshop, participants received a home task to 
develop guidelines for the web-based focus groups. 
Web-based simulation of the focus groups took place at the beginning of June 2010. The 
communication software used for this purpose was Skype. Each regional specialist 
moderated a focus group in accordance with the previously developed focus group guide. 
The Social Impact M&E Specialist and IREX Moscow Program staff provided feedback for 
each region. Overall, six simulations of the focus groups were held. RCOs provided logistical 
support which also served a practical exercise for them. 
The trained regional specialists then moderated real focus groups in their respective regions 
in accordance with the Focus Group Guide developed based on the survey results. The Social 
Impact M&E Specialist and IREX Moscow Program staff members travelled to each of the 
focus group sites to provide consultations, support, and feedback as well as to collect data. 
Such an approach was based also on the assumption that focus group participants would be 
more open answering focus group questions if the discussion was facilitated by their peers 
they know rather than by an adult external unknown person. As stated in the Focus Group 
section, questions stemmed from preliminary survey findings and included questions aimed 
at both process and impact indicators. 
Analysis 
As mentioned above, evaluation activities were focused on the assessment of the program 
results achieved under Objective 1 as stated in the Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. 
This determined the scope for data analysis. Data proceeding from the survey and focus 
groups was analyzed in the light of Intermediate Results and their corresponding 
Performance Indicators under Objective 1. In each case, whenever possible and appropriate, 
24 
data was disaggregated by program participants’ gender; occupation/age – eg. study at 
school (14-18 years old) or study in college/university (19-22 years old); region; home 
location; and the particular youth-driven Innovator model in which they participated. 
Information received during the focus group discussions was used for clarification and 
support of the survey results. 
Limitations 
This assessment of program outcomes has a number of limitations which should be noted. 
Data was collected via questionnaires and focus groups, but other sources of information 
such as project files, program technical and policy papers, program reports, work plans, 
project progress reports, etc. were not included in the scope of evaluation. Similarly, 
interviews with Program and project staff members, governmental officials, Regional 
Coordinating Organizations (RCOs), and other Program stakeholders were not considered as 
sources for information for the purposes of this results assessment. 
Perhaps the greatest methodological limitation is present in likely self-selection bias. That is, 
the experimental group members were comprised of those who had already taken initiative 
to become involved in the program activities. Participants in the Experimental Group were 
likely active leaders prior to their participation in the program, and thus the results of the 
Experimental Group survey may have started out at a slightly higher level. There was no 
significant baseline data collected which could have aided our understanding of the extent 
of this bias, nor could it be factored into equation calculations. As we were unable to 
measure participants’ changes in responses over time, the use of a comparison and 
experimental group served as an imperfect means to determine impact that could be 
attributable to participation in the IREX program. 
Evaluation Findings 
Survey questions were developed and linked to established indicators in the YDCP 
Performance Monitoring Plan. Each indicator was thus measured through the responses to 
one or a number of questions in the survey. Eight additional questions which were of 
interest to IREX, but not linked to specific indicators, were included as well. A table 
describing these links between questions and indicators can be found in Annex B. 
Intermediate Result 1.1: Youth develop personal and social 
competencies 
In order to be able to analyze this Intermediate Result correctly there is a need to better 
understand what personal and social competencies are. In a general sense, competence
usually is defined as a pattern of effective adaptation to one's personal and social 
environment to provide reasonable success related to major development tasks for a given 
age and gender within specific domains of achievement.12 In other words, it is the ability to 
 
12 Perceived Personal and Social Competence: Development of Valid and Reliable Measures, Joyce V Fetro, Darson L. 
Rhodes, and David W. Hey 
25 
perform a specific task, action or function successfully. In the context of YDCP, youth need 
to develop personal and social competencies in order to become successful, active, engaged 
adults through participation in youth-driven programs. 
Personal competence consists of those attributes that young people exhibit in managing 
themselves, through their actions. Personal competence lays the foundations for 
interactions with others, both in an educational and social environment.13 Within the YDCP 
context, personal competencies include tolerance and acceptance of diversity. 
Social competence of youth is how young people deal with relationships. The most 
frequently quoted definition is that of Rubin and Rose-Krasnor (1992): Social competence is 
“the ability to achieve personal goals in social interaction while simultaneously maintaining 
positive relationships with others over time and across situations.” Within the YDCP context, 
social competencies include the capacity of youth to interact with their peers in a positive 
manner. 
In order to measure the above Intermediate Result, YDCP has developed two indicators. 
Indicator 1.1.1: % of young people who demonstrate an acceptance of ethnic, cultural, and 
other diversity 
A definition of diversity for the purposes of this indicator is the human or cultural qualities, 
patterns of common attitudes and behaviors that are characteristic of a particular group of 
peoples and are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong, yet are 
present in other individuals and groups.14
There are primary and secondary dimensions of diversity. Primary dimensions of diversity 
are the following: age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race and sexual 
orientation. Secondary dimensions of diversity are those that can be changed, and include, 
but are not limited to: educational background, geographic location, income, marital status, 
military experience, parental status, religious beliefs, family status, political beliefs, work 
experiences and life experiences. The survey included questions aimed to measure 
tolerance with respect to immigrants, disabled persons, and people of different religions. 
In order to ascertain the influence of YDCP activities on the target youth group, in the 
distributed questionnaire respondents were asked to indicate their attitude (strongly agree, 
agree, disagree, or strongly disagree) to suggested statements. To more efficiently analyze 
the data received, the above- mentioned categories of answers were merged as following: 
Strongly Agree, Agree –agreement 
Partially Agree – neutral 
Disagree, Strongly Disagree – disagreement 
 
13 Background for Community-Level Work on Social Competency in Adolescence: Reviewing the Literature on 
Contributing Factors, Elizabeth C. Hair, Justin Jager, and Sarah Garrett 
14 Pierce, G. "The Centrality of Critical Thinking in Educating for Diversity." Paper presented at the 13th Annual 
International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Sonoma, CA, 1993. (ED 361 362)
26 
Positive responses are those that demonstrate the values promoted by this program (i.e. 
tolerance, diversity acceptance). Aside from questions 8.1, 8.4 and 8.8, agreement is the 
positive response. The program target for this indicator was defined as 60% of participating 
youth demonstrating an acceptance of diversity. The percentage of positive responses to 
this question is shown in the diagram below: 
Figure 1: Acceptance of Ethnic, Cultural and Other Diversity (Positive Responses %)
For all 8 questions, Experimental Group respondents gave more positive responses than 
those from the Comparison Group. Further analysis revealed these differences to be 
statistically significant at a very high level (p<0,01). However, the Experimental Group failed 
to exceed the 60% target threshold on questions 8.1 and 8.4, and only slightly exceeded the 
target threshold for questions 8.5 and 8.7. Both groups demonstrated a high percentage of 
positive responses on questions 8.3, 8.6, and 8.8. For these 3 questions, the differences 
between the Experimental Group and Comparison Group were also small. 
Examination of the component questions provides some guidance on these results. The 
questions for which both groups provided a high percentage of positive responses seem to 
be less difficult tests of tolerance and diversity acceptance. In other words, patience with 
people with disabilities may be a more socially prevalent norm. Acceptance of people of 
other nationalities or religions appears to be less common within society, and thus a harder 
measure of tolerance. These differences in the questions offer a plausible explanation for 
the trends depicted in these results. 
In order to further explore the level of acceptance of cultural and ethnic diversity, the 
questionnaire also included questions about the respondents’ close friends and 
acquaintances. Below are answers of respondents from the Experimental and Comparison 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
8.2 It is important for me to be aware …
8.3 Я раздражаюсь, что надо ждать, когда …
8.5 Мне нравится, когда со мной вместе учатся …
8.6 Для инвалидов необходимо устанавливать …
8.7 Я согласен/нa, чтобы в моем …
8.8 When choosing friends, a person’s ethnic …
45%
69%
92%
54%
62%
95%
66%
78%
33%
52%
81%
42%
41%
86%
46%
66%
Experimental Group Comparison Group
8.1 Immigrants should adapt to the culture of their new 
country and not practice their own cultural traditions.
8.2 It is important for me to be aware of/understand the 
culture of migrants.
8.3 Even if I’m in a hurry, I am prepared to wait for a 
disabled person to get on the bus/get up the stairs
8.4 It is justified to forbid certain religions
8.5. I like that there are people of other nationalities in 
my class 
8.6 It is important to construct special equipment in 
buildings for people with disabilities, even if it is
expensive. 
8.7 I am not against people of other 
nationalities/religions living in my town/village 
8.8 When choosing friends, a person’s nationality is an 
important factor for me. 
27 
Groups about the number of close friends that are from religious or ethnic groups different
than their own: 
Figure 2: Number of Close Friends from Religious or Ethnic Groups Different than the Respondent's Own
As shown on the diagram, fewer members of the Experimental Group have no friends from 
religious or ethnic groups different than their own. Experimental Group members also have 
higher numbers of friends from different religious or ethnic groups. 
Below are answers of respondents from the Experimental and Comparison Groups about 
the number of acquaintances that are from religious or ethnic groups other than that of the 
respondent: 
Figure 3: Number of Acquaintances from Religious or Ethnic Groups Different than the Respondent's Own
The Experimental Group participant responses demonstrated a higher level of cultural 
tolerance than their Comparison Group counterparts, as measured by these questions. YDCP 
participants were more likely to have a large number of friends and acquaintances from 
different religious and ethnic groups than the Comparison Group participants. 
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
None 1-2 3-5 more than 5 Don’t know
189
168
89 103
41
271
168
39
64
45
Experimental group Comparison group
0
50
100
150
200
250
None 1-5 6-10 more than 10 Don’t know
102
170
109
133
75
161
227
63 66 70
Experimental group Comparison group
28 
Analysis 
Survey findings revealed very mixed success with respect to YDCP achievement of Indicator 
1.1.1. That is, while more than 60% of program participants responded positively to more 
than 60% of the questions, the harder measures of tolerance and acceptance revealed less 
positive results. Further analysis allows informative disaggregation of these results and a 
more nuanced understanding of levels of tolerance and acceptance among survey 
respondents. 
Categorical Differences in Levels of Tolerance 
All Respondents Experimental Group
EG 
Gender
(Female/ 
Male) 
Age
(Old/ 
Young) 
Leader 
Gender
(Female/ 
Male) 
Age
(Old/ 
Young) 
Leader 
8.1 0.49*** 0.15* 0.26*
8.2 0.44*** 0.22*** 0.25**
8.3 0.36*** 0.27*** 0.12* 0.27** 0.21** 0.26**
8.4 0.42*** 0.43*** 0.32** 0.5***
8.5 0.46*** 0.2** 0.37*** 0.22** 0.42*** 0.3*
8.6 0.27*** 0.14*** 0.18**
8.7 0.51*** 0.36*** 0.46***
8.8 0.40*** 0.31**
 *** p<0.01 **p<0.05 *p<0.1 
The table above depicts the results of the means comparison tests for each component of 
question 8. The table includes results for the entire pool of respondents, as well as the 
experimental group only. The results indicate the difference in means between the two groups 
identified in the column and the corresponding level of significance. Differences without 
commonly accepted levels of statistical significance were not included. As an example of 
appropriate interpretation, on question 8.1, the average response of females was 0.15 points 
higher than the average male response, and the difference was moderately statistically 
significant. Again, note that a higher response is classified as a more positive response, and 
indicative of greater levels of tolerance and diversity acceptance. Major trends identified in 
these results are discussed further below. 
The combined results of both the Experimental and Comparison Groups for question 8 
indicate certain characteristics associated with positive responses: 
• A comparison of means reveals that female respondents answered more positively on 
five of the eight component questions (8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.7). 
• Identification of oneself as a leader also significantly increased the average response for 
all questions except 8.2 and 8.7. 
• In a comparison of means, older participants (age 18 or above) responded more 
positively on questions 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.7. It is interesting to note that the most 
29 
statistically significant differences in response occurred for questions 8.4, 8.5, and 8.7, 
which were classified as the harder measures of tolerance and acceptance. 
These same trends were not always consistent within the Experimental Group only: 
• Females gave more positive responses on questions 8.2 and 8.3. 
• Identification of oneself as a leader increased the average response on questions 8.3 
and 8.5. 
• Age was the only variable that demonstrated similar results among the Experimental 
Group as compared to the overall group results. Again, on the more difficult tolerance 
questions (8.4, 8.5, 8.7), older participants responded more positively than younger 
participants. 
These results are encouraging. Gender and leadership had a much smaller effect within the 
Experimental Group, suggesting that participation in the YDCP program helps to minimize 
the differences in tolerance levels normally present in the youth population due to gender 
and leadership qualities. While age does continue to have a significant impact, particularly 
on the harder measures of tolerance, these results are not necessarily surprising given the 
general effects of greater life experience. 
An additional finding specific to the Experimental Group is the effect of the community 
schools model in comparison to the youth-driven model. Excluding questions 8.2 and 8.8, 
the youth-driven model participants provided more positive responses than community 
school participants. These results were also found using a means comparison test and were 
statistically significant at the p<0.01 level. It is important to note that community school 
participants are younger and less likely to consider themselves as leaders in comparison to 
youth-driven model participants. Both of these are factors that could partially drive these 
results. The effects of a particular tolerance-focused project (Rainbow Bridge) on its 
participants in reference to this indicator were difficult to determine due to its very small 
number of members. 
The size discrepancy across projects introduced challenges to identifying any trends across 
projects, and the results for the overall groups discussed above are the most reliable. In 
statistical analysis that was performed for each project, the general trends noted above were 
confirmed. Occasionally, male respondents gave a more positive response than females, which 
differed from the overall trend. For the following projects, males responded more positively on 
the question components indicated: Все гениальное - просто! question 8.4; Золотое 
поколение question 8.5; Студенческое правовое бюро questions 8.1, 8.4, 8.7. 
As demonstrated in the charts above, YDCP participants also displayed greater tolerance and 
acceptance of diversity in their selection of friends and acquaintances. Among both groups 
there were still a significant percentage of respondents with no close friends or 
acquaintances from other religious or ethnic groups. For close friends from other religious or 
ethnic groups, 32% of the EG had none compared to 47% of the CG. For acquaintances of 
varying religious or ethnic groups, 17% of the EG had none compared to 27% of the CG. Only 
32% of Experimental Group participants had 3 or more close friends from religious or ethnic 
groups different than their own. However, CG respondents were two times more likely to 
choose friends with a large emphasis on their ethnic background. 
 
30 
As Russia has been beset by ethnic strife in many areas, tolerance of immigrants, religious 
differences, and minority groups has become a particular priority. While focus group 
participants stated the development of tolerance and understanding for ethnic, cultural, and 
other diversity as a key personal quality that was “developed as a result of participation in the 
YDCP,” it would seem there is more work to be done in this area. Experimental Group 
participants undoubtedly responded much more positively to measures of acceptance and 
tolerance than did those in the Comparison Group, but did not achieve the 60% target threshold 
on all responses. 
Indicator 1.1.2: % of young people who report the ability to interact/work with their peers 
The opportunity to interact with peers at their same ability level is critical for the social, 
emotional, intellectual, and academic growth and development of young people. In letting 
young people work together, YDCP enabled peers to serve as a new source of explanations, 
hints, and answers to unresolved questions and misunderstandings. Additionally, the ability 
to interact with others introduces a social component into the youth-driven activity that 
serves as a motivation for youth engagement and retention in the project. However, just 
because young people in these development environments can engage in productive 
dialogue with their peers doesn’t necessarily mean that they will. A variety of approaches 
have been pursued during the YDCP to create productive collaborations in this age group, 
including: encouraging specific types of engagement and interaction, determining 
appropriate opportunities during the course of a project to prompt young people with 
suggestions of a particular question to raise or topic to discuss, and defining specific roles or 
responsibilities for each project participant. 
The program target for this indicator was defined as 60% of participating youth effectively 
interacting with their peers. This interaction will be based on interpersonal skills, including 
communication, cooperation, empathizing and negotiation. 
In order to determine the influence of YDCP activities on the target youth group 
respondents were asked to indicate their attitude (strongly agree, agree, disagree, or 
strongly disagree) to suggested statements. For convenience of the analysis of data received 
the mentioned categories of answers were merged as following: 
Strongly Agree, Agree –agreement; 
Partially Agree – neutral; 
Disagree, Strongly Disagree – disagreement 
For user convenience, charts below represent data separated specifically for experimental 
and comparison groups. The overall picture of the ratings provided by the experimental 
group is presented on the following diagram: 
31 
The overall picture of the ratings provided by the comparison group is presented on the 
following diagram: 
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
7.1 My peers 
respect my 
opinion
7.2 I have 
friends who I 
can rely on in 
difficult 
situations
7.3 I can 
accomplish 
more by 
myself, 
because other 
people can get 
in the way of 
getting things 
done
7.4 I get 
frustrated 
when I don’t 
get my way in 
a group
7.5 I can 
accomplish 
more working 
with other 
people than 
by myself
7.6 I can learn 
a lot from my 
peers
7.7 Working in 
a group is 
more difficult 
than doing 
things by 
myself
443
526
117 113
312 358
80
117
42
221 201
157 158
101
8
13
234 235
85
48
362
Interact with peers (EG) 
agree neutral disagree
0
100
200
300
400
500
7.1 My peers 
respect my 
opinion
7.2 I have 
friends who I 
can rely on in 
difficult 
situations
7.3 I can 
accomplish 
more by 
myself, 
because other 
people can get 
in the way of 
getting things 
done
7.4 I get 
frustrated 
when I don’t 
get my way in 
a group
7.5 I can 
accomplish 
more working 
with other 
people than by 
myself
7.6 I can learn 
a lot from my 
peers
7.7 Working in 
a group is 
more difficult 
than doing 
things by 
myself
374
497
172 163
240 263
126
160
58
224
187
117
201
122
31
23
177 219
150
97
308
Interact with peers (CG)
agree neutral disagree
32 
The EG reports a much higher capacity to work and interact with peers than their 
Comparison counterparts. A much higher ‘neutral’ response rate was reported by the 
Control Group participants, which may be due to a variety of factors. The element with the 
greatest difference in responses was “I can learn a lot from my peers”, with nearly 1/6 of CG 
respondents disagreeing, and 100 more participants responding positively in the 
Experimental Group. 
In order to have a clearer picture of the ability of young people to interact/work with their 
peers and differences between experimental group and comparison group, data have been 
presented in one chart below: 
Analysis 
Answers in the Experimental Group for the statements 7.1; 7.2; 7.6 and 7.7 are above the 
program target for this indicator, although the second two only do so by 1%. Answers for 
the 7.5 statement is below the indicator target at 52%, and nearly exactly 60% of 
respondents answered ‘correctly’ to questions 7.3 and 7.4 . Overall based on the data 
presented the conclusion could be made that the program achieved its targeted result. 
As was mentioned above, YDCP participants demonstrate higher scores in the 
agree/disagree categories, which proves the positive impact of IREX activity. The 
Experimental Group participant responses demonstrated a higher level of 
interacting/working with their peers as measured by these questions. Again, participation in 
0 200 400 600
7.1 My peers respect my opinion
7.2 I have friends who I can rely on in difficult situations
7.3 I can accomplish more by myself, because other people 
can get in the way of getting things done
7.4 I get frustrated when I don’t get my way in a group
7.5 I can accomplish more working with other people than 
by myself
7.6 I can learn a lot from my peers
7.7 Working in a group is more difficult than doing things 
by myself
443
526
234
235
312
358
362
374
497
177
219
240
263
308
Experimental Group Comparison Group
75%
63% 
89% 
84% 
60% 
30% 
60% 
37% 
52% 
41% 
61% 
45% 
61% 
52% 
33 
the experimental group was shown to be very statistically significant (p<0.00) for all 
questions except for that of 7.4; while self-identification as a leader was statistically 
significant for questions 7.1, 7.3, 7.6, and 7.7. Interestingly, the only disaggregated 
characteristic found to very significant for question 7.4 was gender, with males responding 
that they get frustrated more than their female counterparts. 
Based on this information, it can be stated that YDCP met its target for Indicator 1.1.2. 
Again, the harder questions revealed less success than might have been hoped. Because the 
questions such as that of 7.5 get at the difference between teamwork and leadership, this 
type of question is more difficult for respondents to automatically pick the ‘correct’ answer, 
and tends to serve as a nuanced measure. While the trends of responses remain consistent 
throughout between the CG and EG, participation in YDCP was statistically significant in 
increasing the scores. 
During the YDCP participant focus groups, respondents answering the question of what they 
gained during the program with respect to professional skills (an issue which will be 
discussed later in this report) pointed out the strengthening of such abilities as working in 
teams and communicating with other people. Several participants also mentioned that they 
had learned how to develop their own potential. Also, when answering the question about 
the development of personal qualities as a result of participation in the YDCP, young people 
mentioned the ability to communicate successfully with other people, including adults, as 
well as self-esteem, a greater sense of responsibility, optimism, leadership, activism and 
modesty. Each of these areas contributes to an enhanced ability of youth to interact and 
work with their peers, as measured in Objective 1.1. 
Based on the information presented above, the conclusion could be made that young 
people participating in YDCP developed the ability and motivation to respond accordingly to 
surrounding social systems; an understanding of how to deal with emotions; and the 
capacity to work well with others, while developing friendships and relationships through 
communication, cooperation, and negotiating. 
Participants of the program demonstrated higher ability to adapt and be flexible and assume 
personal responsibility for one's actions as well as evaluating situations. Overall, based on 
the survey and opinions received through the focus groups, YDCP had mixed results in 
achieving demonstrated personal and social competencies through acceptance of ethnic, 
cultural, and other diversity as well as the ability to interact/work with their peers. The 
program was more successful in enhancing peer interaction than it was with increasing 
tolerance and acceptance of ethnic, cultural, and other diversity. That stated, participation 
in the program proved to be a significant factor in enhancing both the personal and social 
competencies of youth. 
Intermediate Result 1.2: Youth develop cognitive and creative 
competencies
To succeed as adults, youth must acquire adequate attitudes, behaviors, and skills in 
cognitive development. This means that young people as result of participation in the 
34 
program expand knowledge, develop critical thinking and reasoning skills, and experience 
competence through academic achievement. On the basis of the expanded knowledge, 
program participants will demonstrate an ability for creative expression (originality). YDCP 
measures the development of cognitive and creative competencies through its indicator 
1.2.1: 
Indicator 1.2.1 % of young people who report the ability to solve problems 
The ability to solve problems is an important skill for resiliency. Problem solving, in any area, 
involves being presented with a situation that requires a resolution. Being a problem-solver 
requires the ability to come up with a means to resolve the situation fully. Taking the above 
into account, one could deduct that problem-solving skills include the ability to recognize 
and define problems, invent and implement solutions, and track and evaluate results. 
Creative thinking not only requires the ability to understand problem-solving techniques, 
but also possess logical and sequential thinking, making the leap to innovation. 
The program target for this indicator was defined as 60% of participating youth able to 
evaluate the problem, make decisions, and plan for and implement a solution. Respondents 
had to react to a suggested situation on a destroyed sport facility, providing their plan of 
action to solve the problem. The data received was the following: 
In the experimental group, only 5% (33 respondents) did not answer the question. In the 
comparison group the percentage was higher– almost 13% (76 respondents) who did not 
answer the question. 
All answers were divided into two big groups – answers describing clearly proactive 
approaches and answers with passive approaches to problem solving. The criteria for both 
approaches are described below: 
Proactive approach 
• Positive problem-solving attributes: 
o personal initiative 
o clear idea of what they can do 
o active role in solving the problem 
o leadership 
o self confidence (dealing with “authorities”) 
o creativity 
Passive approach
• Negative problem-solving attributes: 
o lack of initiative/not sure what to do 
o wait for someone else 
o try to find another venue 
o complain to family/friends/authorities (without any follow-on solution) 
o fatalism/can’t do anything 
o passivity/don’t care 
35 
The diagram below illustrates the differences in problem solving approaches among the 
Experimental and Comparison Groups. Within the Experimental Group, 34% demonstrated a 
passive approach compared to 67% within the Comparison Group. As 65% of YDCP 
participants responded with a positive approach, they seem largely able to invent and 
implement solutions. The EG demonstrated much higher levels of activism and readiness to 
implement acquired knowledge and skills for problem solving. The YDCP achieved its 
program target for the above performance indicator. 
The survey also asked respondents to provide their reaction to a challenging situation, in 
order to provide another indication of their problem-solving ability. Respondents were 
asked to respond to the following situation: “Young people in some communities encounter 
many problems, such as lack of safe facilities where they can get together, play sports, hold 
dances, and spend time with their friends. If you were in such a community, how you would 
react to this problem?” The respondents were given six options, as outlined in the table 
below. These responses were categorized into four levels of perception of ability to make a 
difference in one’s community, also displayed in the chart below. 
Perception of own 
ability to make a 
difference in one’s 
community 
Response to the following question: Young people in some 
communities encounter many problems, such as lack of safe 
facilities where they can get together, play sports, hold dances, 
and spend time with their friends. If you were in such a 
community, which of the following statements best describes 
how you would react to this problem? 
Low 13.2 I would complain to my friends and parents that there was 
no place to go after school. 
13.6 I would do nothing, as I don’t feel like I’m in a position to do 
something about this. 
Moderately low 13.1 If one of my friends would take the lead, I would be willing to 
go with him/her to talk to the authorities. 
Moderately high 13.3 I would try to organize my friends to come up with a request 
that we would present to the authorities. 
13.4 The first thing I would do would be to get together with my 
friends and try to find out why we don’t have a good youth 
192
365
346
168
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Passive Approach Positive Approach
Experimental Group
Comparison Group
36 
center. 
High 13.5 Although it would take a lot of time and energy, I would 
work with other young people to organize a campaign to 
cooperate with authorities to raise funds to establish a suitable 
youth center. 
The chart above displays the distribution of responses regarding ability to make a difference 
in the community. In the experimental group 5% (33 respondents) did not answer the 
question, compared to almost 13% non-respondents in the comparison group. 
YDCP participants had far more responses indicating a high or moderately high perception of 
their own ability to make a difference, with 68% of respondents in the top two categories. 
Comparison group respondents registered only 34% in the top two categories, leaving the 
vast majority of CG respondents in the bottom two categories. These differences were 
found to be statistically significant. 
Analysis 
Statistical tests reveal that YDCP participation did significantly increase perception of one’s 
ability to make a difference in the community. In the overall group, responses also varied 
among regions, as shown in the chart below that displays the percentage of respondents in 
each category by region. Irkutsk and Tomsk both have a higher percentage of respondents 
with a high or moderately high perception of their ability to make a difference in the 
community. Tyumen has the highest number of respondents in the combined low and 
moderately low categories. This could be due to a number of factors, including the cultural 
context in the regions as well as potential problems that may have arisen in these areas 
when youth have involved themselves. 
165
214
127
70
26
160
239
158
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Low perception of own ability to make a 
difference in one's community
Moderately low perception of own ability 
to make a difference in one's community
Moderately high perception of own ability 
to make a difference in one's community
High perception of own ability to make a 
difference in one's community
Experimental Group Comparison Group
37 
Figure 4: Perception of Ability to Make a Difference in the Community: Percentage of Respondents by Region
Among all respondents, gender was not found to be a significant factor. Age was found to 
have very little statistical significance in the determination of these responses, with older 
participants having a slightly higher perception of their ability to influence community 
change. These results find some explanation in the focus group results. Focus group 
participants reported that they had little or no experience of solving or participating in the 
solution of a social problem. Only participants of higher age, who were already studying in 
institutes or universities, reported their participation in the solution of such social problems 
as: cleaning a river, raising awareness against bad habits (smoking), conducting an anti￾drugs campaign, cleaning public spaces, helping elderly people, organizing legal services, etc. 
Even in such cases, respondents pointed out that in most cases the initiative was suggested 
and organized by a project leader or an adult. 
The survey findings and analysis suggest that as a result of participating in the YDCP, young 
people have developed cognitive and creative competencies, including problem solving. 
Over 60% of YDCP participants were able to use a logical reasoning process to break down 
and work through a situation or problem to arrive at a solution in the first question. YDCP 
participants also demonstrated an increased perception of their ability to make a difference 
in their community. A comprehensive analysis indicates that while YDCP participants have 
developed these competencies, they face challenges in taking action and doing so without 
the prompting of others, particularly adults. The YDCP Intermediate Result has been 
achieved, but further actions should be taken to stimulate the initiative and proactive 
behavior of young people. 
Intermediate Result 1.3: Youth develop vocational 
competencies 
0 10 20 30 40 50
Tambov
Tyumen
Karelia
Stavropol
Chelyabinsk
Irkutsk
Tomsk
Murmansk
Kursk
Volgograd
High
Moderately high
Moderately low
Low
38 
Vocational Competence for the purpose of YDCP is understood as effective adaptation to 
one's professional and social environment to provide reasonable success related to major 
development tasks. The development of vocational competencies helps young people to 
better understand life options and the steps to take in making choices. The development of 
such competencies ensures adequate preparation of youth for future life and an 
understanding of the value and purpose of future professional and social activities. For YDCP 
purposes, the achievement of Intermediate Result 1.3 was measured via the following 
indicator: 
Indicator 1.3.1: % of young people reporting gaining practical professional skills as a result 
of the program 
For better understanding of the above indicator, a skill is defined as the learned capacity to 
carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both. 
Skills, or the “personal tools” used to achieve effective results, include time management, 
goal setting, public speaking, teamwork, practical professional experience in their field of 
study, communication, conflict management, negotiation, etc. 
The program target for this indicator was defined as 60% of participating youth reporting 
increased professional skills as a result of the program. Respondents were asked on a scale 
of 1-5 (1-low; 5-high) to rate their confidence with professional skills both before 
participation in YDCP and at the time of the survey. For convenience of data analysis, the 
overall scoring under each professional skill was divided in two main categories, which are 
low (including 1, 2, 3) and high (including 4, 5). 
The chart below shows the change in those within the experimental group who rated their 
skills in each category as high before and now. The percentage of experimental group 
members who rated their abilities in each area at the top of the scale significantly increased. 
Also interesting is the consistency between the “before” ratings of the experimental group 
and the “now” ratings of the comparison group. These results demonstrate a decreased self￾selection bias for these questions, as members of both groups initially scored themselves at 
similar levels. Further, while the complete impact of YDCP in these areas is difficult to prove 
and subject to many conditions (e.g. experimental group participants may now better 
acknowledge their lack of understanding with respect to these areas previously), the data 
certainly demonstrates YDCP’s capacity to influence the development of vocational 
competencies. 
39 
Young people in the experimental group consistently report gaining practical professional 
skills as a result of the program. In the questionnaire, participants were further asked to 
provide information on other practical professional skills they felt they developed as a result 
of the program, if any. More than 80% (475 participants) reported that they gained other 
professional skills. Only 19% (115 participants) said that they did not develop other skills 
than those targeted within the program activities. 
Mainly these “other professional skills” fit within the above-mentioned categories. It worth 
mentioning that frequently repeated skills that were not mentioned explicitly among 
categories suggested in the questionnaire included:
• Communication skills 
• Fundraising 
• Feeling of responsibility 
• Tolerance 
• Self-confidence 
• Openness 
• Knowledge of law 
The survey also asked YDCP participants how helpful the program was for work in a future 
professional setting. The distribution of answers is shown below: 
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
3.1 Public 
Speaking
3.2 Ability to 
meet 
deadlines
3.3 Project 
management
3.4 
Teamwork
3.5 
Networking
3.6 
Leadership
3.7 Skills in 
your field of 
work/study
253 259
129
397 413
280
351
184
263
113
319
362
246
335
471
446
400
529 539
444
516
CG High (now) EG High(before) EG High(now)
40 
Nearly 74% of YDCP participants believed the program to be a useful resource for future 
professional activities, although 25% of the respondents had difficulty answering the 
question. When discussed in the focus group setting, it was determined that this was largely 
due to the fact that 60% of those in the group were in secondary school and had not made a 
decision about their future career. Many participants cited newly acquired contacts with 
other people and newly developed skills and knowledge as key results of their experience 
which will play a role in their professional future. Only two respondents provided answers 
regarding their ‘no’ response, stating that they have “no intention of working with 
community/social organizations.”
Analysis 
Members of both the experimental and comparison groups reported initially high skill levels 
in some areas. For teamwork and networking skills, the number of respondents in the 
comparison group that are confident with these skills actually exceeded the numbers in the 
experimental group. CG respondents reported nearly 70% who were confident with 
teamwork and networking skills, in comparison to only 54% and 60% of EG respondents 
before the program. For the experimental group, these numbers rose to 90% for both 
teamwork and networking skills. 
Certain categories also demonstrate particularly high increases in skill levels before and 
after the YDCP program, such as public speaking and project management, indicating that 
the program is having particular success in those components. These results are especially 
clear in comparison to the CG responses. Many CG respondents scored their project 
management, public speaking, and ability to meet deadlines skills as low. As these are skills 
that received high scores in the experimental group, the data points to a positive impact of 
YDCP activities. Furthermore, upwards of 70% of all experimental group participants 
responded that the program has helped them learn professional skills, both due to the 
acquired contacts (networking) as well as due to the more finite skills and knowledge. 
435
3
150
Experimental Group (YDCP helpful for my future)
5.1 Yes
5.2 no
5.3 Difficult to answer 
41 
Figure 5: The Percentage of Respondents Reporting High Confidence Levels
A self-examination of confidence levels for a variety of professional skills imply that YDCP 
has had a significant impact in increasing confidence in and understanding of all skill sets 
mentioned, especially those which were included in the YDCP training curriculum and 
project implementation. As shown clearly in the diagram above, YDCP can be confident in 
stating that it has reached Objective 1.3, far surpassing the targeted threshold. 
Intermediate Result 1.4: Youth develop citizenship 
competencies (skill-building, activism and service, policy and 
leadership) 
To succeed as adults, youth as a result of YDCP acquire attitudes, behaviors, and skills in 
understanding national, community, and racial, ethnic, or cultural group history and values. 
All this is comprised in the category of citizenship competencies. By participating in youth￾driven models, it is hoped that young people will develop a desire to be ethical and to be 
involved in efforts that contribute to the broader good. 
In a broader sense, citizenship competence, one of the goals of positive youth development, 
refers to the quality of a person’s participation in civic and public life. Competent citizens 
make thoughtful decisions. They communicate effectively with others. Competent citizens 
promote and protect their interests as members of society in responsible ways. As members 
of society, young people as well as adults are involved, directly or indirectly, in citizenship 
problems and tasks which they need to solve or fulfill. 
For YDCP purposes, Intermediate Result 1.4 is measured through 5 indicators. 
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
3.7 Skills in field of work/study
3.6 Leadership
3.5 Networking
3.4 Teamwork
3.3 Project management
3.2 Ability to meet deadlines
3.1 Public speaking
Experimental Group Comparison Group
42 
Indicator 1.4.1: % of young people who are knowledgeable about at least one advocacy 
issue 
In practice, advocacy involves many complex activities such as:
• Raising awareness of issues and concerns to produce change. 
• Organization of information into arguments to convince a specific group to take 
action on a specific goal. 
• Generation and utilization of reliable information to help leaders, policy-makers and 
decision-makers to adopt responsible and relevant policies and programs. 
• Purposive efforts to change specific policies or practices on behalf of, or with, a 
specific group. 
Basic elements of advocacy activities could be the following: 
• A problematic or oppressive situation that must be changed. 
• A clear analysis of, and position on, the situation. 
• A proposal in the form of legislation/policy or project. 
• Actors such as the advocate, the target and the allies. 
• The strategies and tactics. 
• The process. 
The program target for this indicator was defined as 60% of participating youth who 
promote a particular issue or argue in defense of the rights of a particular group. To obtain 
data for this indicator, a matrix of issues was presented and participants were asked to 
reflect on their concern and knowledge of these issues. 
In order to identify how knowledgeable participants of the survey were about at least one 
advocacy issue, the questionnaire asked participants to indicate how concerned and 
informed they were about the listed issues. 
All answers in each group and under each category (concern & knowledge) were divided 
into two levels: high and low. Low level of concern or knowledge includes 1 and 2.High level 
of concern or knowledge includes 3 and 4. 
The charts below present some of the data received for experimental and comparison 
groups by category in accordance with the layout of the issues in the questionnaire. Other 
areas measured included those of social issues (including environment, poverty, corruption, 
tolerance, trafficking), and youth issues (such as child welfare, youth employment, rights of 
children and youth, availability of recreational opportunities, and juvenile crime). 
 
43 
EG Concern 
High 
EG Concern 
Low 
CG Concern 
High 
CG Concern 
Low 
Crime and 
Violence 
451 135 378 199
Local Armed 
Conflict 
372 180 279 264
Education 
Reform 
361 168 235 289
Quality of 
Education 
479 97 382 184
Drug Abuse 447 142 361 216
Alcohol Abuse 452 133 376 197
HIV/AIDS 433 154 358 211
EG Knowledge 
High 
EG Knowledge 
Low 
CG Knowledge 
High 
CG Knowledge 
Low 
Crime and 
Violence 
401 177 322 245
Local Armed 
Conflict 
299 250 221 317
Education Reform 361 217 235 324
Quality of 
Education 
440 129 311 241
Drug Abuse 406 168 332 228
Alcohol Abuse 426 144 351 213
HIV/AIDS 386 188 285 272
Respondents of the survey also mentioned other issues of concern for survey participants. In 
particular, 167 members of the experimental group indicated such issues as advocacy, 
human rights, smoking, sports, support for young families, relationships between teachers 
and pupils, terrorism, and youth policy as important. 
In the comparison group, 54 members indicated issues such as terrorism, education of blind 
people, deaf people and kids with Down Syndrome, smoking, sports, suicide among young 
people, youth policy, and kidnapping. 
In both groups, issues of high concern included: 
• Juvenile Justice 
• Availability of Recreational Opportunities 
• Rights of Children and Youth 
• Youth Employment 
• Child Welfare 
44 
• Domestic Violence 
• Trafficking 
• Disability Rights and Protection 
• Poverty 
• Environment 
• HIV/AIDS 
• Alcohol Abuse 
• Drug Abuse 
• Quality of Education 
• Crime and Violence 
Some of the above issues were also mentioned by the focus group participants in particular: 
• Alcohol Abuse 
• Drug Abuse 
• Disability Rights and Protection (including the accessibility of public buildings) 
• Quality of Education 
• Availability of Recreational Opportunities 
• Youth Employment 
Focus group participants mentioned additional issues of concern as: 
• Relationship between young people and adults 
• Psychological depression among young people 
• Opportunities for developing personal potential 
• Quality of communal services 
• Quality of urban transportation 
• Low level of citizen activism 
As seen above, members of the experimental group consistently reported higher levels of 
both concern and knowledge (on average about 15% higher) for the issues listed. That 
stated, there were a significant number of issues which constituted areas of high concern for 
both groups. Other areas of interest/concern to both EG and CG which were not listed as 
options included smoking, terrorism, and youth policy. Furthermore, members of the EG 
were able to more clearly explain issue importance, although all answers tended to be brief 
and based on the immediate external environment of the respondent. 
In order to further explore respondents’ knowledge of advocacy issues, the questionnaire 
asked them to choose an advocacy issue they were most concerned about and explain its 
importance. This was used to ensure that participants did not write that they were 
knowledgeable without being able to demonstrate some level of comprehension regarding 
those issues. 
Explanations of issue importance were very brief. Respondents from the experimental group 
provided clearer explanations (both logical and more to the point). Most of these responses 
refer to the immediate external environment of the respondent. Some examples are below: 
Experimental Group 
45 
• Ethnic intolerance due to living in a region with diverse cultures and nationalities. 
Neighboring regions: Dagestan, Republic of Karachavo-Cherkesk, Kabardino￾Balkarskaya Republic, Ingushetia, Chechnya, North Ossetia. 
• Crime and violence: many remain unpunished due to bribery, etc. Quality of 
education: suffers from problems of corruption. 
• Youth Policy, because my profession deals with adolescent children, and additionally 
I have my own child, I would like to know more about the rights of children and 
youth, the available forms of recreation for children, and about youth employment. 
• Ethnic and religious intolerance: since I live in a multi-national region and 
understanding between people is important for me, regardless of ethnicity or 
religious belief. 
• Drug Addiction: this topic is indeed a critical issue. After all, nowadays a lot of 
teenagers suffer from this terrible disease. 
• Necessity for young people to conduct a campaign against HIV/AIDS. It is necessary 
that everyone understands the etiology and pathogenesis of this disease. 
Comparison Group 
• For me, all races are equal. What worries me is that recently there has been a 
growth in the number of nationalist-minded people, who are ready to kill those who 
differ from them in skin color or beliefs. 
• They closed the sports clubs, etc, due to lack of fire alarms. Sports/athletic 
development is at a low level. 
• From one side, you want to treat people of different nationalities with tolerance, 
but observing the behavior of most of them, the desire disappears. Ultimately, you 
end up treating them with suspicion and caution. 
• The situation in the country and the welfare of society depends on the performance 
of officials. 
Analysis 
Advocacy is defined in the YDCP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as a promoting a particular 
issue or arguing in defense of the rights of a particular group. It is difficult to judge if the 
respondents in both groups were clear of these implications while providing the answers of 
their level of knowledge about an issue. Thus it may be more prudent to refer to conclusions 
as youth awareness rather than categorizing it as advocacy. Taking this into account, we 
could conclude that experimental group demonstrated a higher level of awareness of social 
problems. 
YDCP far surpassed its 60% target for Experimental Group participants who were 
knowledgeable about at least one issue. The extent to which these youth will take action on 
the listed items, or the extent to which they fully understand the context of each issue 
outside of their immediate external environment, should be explored for a more nuanced 
understanding. 
46 
Indicator 1.4.2: % of youth who report being in a position of leadership 
Acting as leaders, young people gain skills and knowledge necessary to lead civic 
engagement and community organizing activities. Youth leadership is part of the positive 
youth development process and supports the young person in developing: (a) the ability to 
analyze his or her own strengths and weaknesses, set personal and vocational goals, and 
have the self-esteem, confidence, motivation, and abilities to achieve these goals (including 
the ability to establish support networks in order to fully participate in community life and 
effect positive social change); and (b) the ability to guide or direct others on a course of 
action, influence the opinions and behaviors of others, and serve as a role model.15
In YDCP’s Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, the program target for this indicator is 
defined as 60% of participating youth acting in positions of leadership, including leadership 
roles in school or in out of school activities. 
In order to measure this indicator, the survey asked participants to list their involvement in a 
number of activities, and to specify their role in such organizations. The distribution of 
answers in both groups (experimental and comparison groups) is shown on the diagram 
below: 
The diagram shows that the highest score of participation as members in the experimental 
group was “community service/volunteer project”; the lowest – “youth council outside of 
school”. This activity was not popular among respondents of the experimental group 
neither as leaders (see previous diagram) nor as members. Due to YDCP activities, 
respondents from the experimental group better understood the terms “community 
service” or “volunteer project” and they were able to qualify their activities as such. In 
addition, many YDCP projects were specifically addressing these issues. 
 
15 Wehmeyer, Agran, & Hughes, 1998 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
2.1 Student government (i.e. student parliament or student …
2.2 School/university club (theater club, film club, …
2.3 Youth council outside of school/university
2.4 Nonprofit organization
2.5 Community service/volunteer project
2.6 Sports team
2.7 Youth club/organization outside of your school
203
283
120
181
419
200
240
109
196
52
59
160
198
113
Membership
Experimental group Comparison group
47 
Respondents in the comparison group gave the highest score to participation as members of 
“sports team” and the lowest score to “youth council outside of school.” Sports activities are 
very popular among youth, which is why they were scored highly by comparison group 
respondents. In fact, the scoring was almost the same in comparison and experimental 
groups. 
In the demographic section of the questionnaire for the Experimental Group, 73% of the 
respondents (431 respondents) answered that they are playing a leadership role in their 
YDCP projects. The answers for this question on the survey support this data: 457 (77%) of 
respondents had a leadership role in their projects. Overall, respondents were consistent in 
their answers to both questions. 
In the experimental group, the lowest score was that of “youth council outside of 
school/university.” In the comparison group this was the case when looking at a leadership 
role in a “nonprofit organization.” 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2.1 Student government (i.e. student parliament or student …
2.2 School/university club (theater club, film club, …
2.3 Youth council outside of school/university
2.4 Nonprofit organization
2.5 Community service/volunteer project
2.6 Sports team
2.7 Youth club/organization outside of your school
97
75
36
46
99
52
45
35
44
17
7
18
35
28
Leadership role
Experimental group Comparison group
48 
The diagram speaks for itself. An insignificant number of experimental group respondents 
declared that they have not been involved with any kind of listed activity, while this was not 
the case for a large percentage of the control group. 
For activities not included in the survey’s matrix, the responses were as follows: 
Group Total 
Respondents 
Leader Not a 
Leader 
Hard 
to say 
% 
Leaders 
Experimental 400 78 270 52 19.5%
Comparison 292 44 105 143 15%
Analysis 
As might be expected, participants from the experimental group reported much more 
activity involvement – about twice the amount in every category but sports teams. 
Interestingly, there was a significantly higher rate of non-response for the experimental 
group than there was for the control group on this question. The experimental group did, 
however, respond strongly to the question regarding activity in community service – at 
about 3x the level of the comparison group’s participation. This can point to the fact that 
YDCP was successful in engaging youth in non-traditional youth activities. Similarly, the 
experimental group was much more involved in organizations outside of school, although 
depending on how the question was construed participants may have included YDCP in that 
option. The EG showed about 2.5 times the leadership positions as the CG (457 vs. 184), 
although about 2/3 of the types of activities where respondents play a leadership role 
overlap. 
While analyzing this and other questions of the survey we should take into account the fact 
that YDCP activities are being implemented in the context of so called extra-curricular 
education of youth in the Russian Federation. This sector is regulated by multiple laws and 
regulation acts developed on federal and local levels. Some activities implemented in the 
program are in line with those being implemented in educational institutions under their 
0 100 200 300 400 500
2.1 Student government (i.e. student parliament or …
2.2 School/university club (theater club, film club, …
2.3 Youth council outside of school/university
2.4 Nonprofit organization
2.5 Community service/volunteer project
2.6 Sports team
2.7 Youth club/organization outside of your school
2
3
3
3
1
4
5
389
297
438
431
342
293
373
No involvement
Experimental group Comparison group
49 
“additional education activities” umbrella and such a fact influences the answers of the 
respondents in the experimental and comparison groups. 
The distribution of data, although reflecting the same tendencies in the experimental and 
comparison groups, clearly demonstrates the positive impact of YDCP activities on 
experimental group respondents. They demonstrate higher levels of activism and 
involvement across the board. There were a number of other statistically significant factors 
found. Age was found to be extremely important (at a p<0.00 level), with participants’ age 
incrementally tied to higher participation as a leader. That is, those who were 22 or above 
had a larger percentage of leadership positions (23.4% of age group) than did those aged 19-
21 (16.7%), who had more than those between ages 15-18 (8.4%), and the smallest 
percentage of leaders (4.6%) was found among those aged 12-14. 
Also interesting is the finding of correlation between region and leadership, as displayed in 
the diagram below. These results were found to be very statistically significant (p<0.00), with 
respondents from Chelyabinsk and Murmansk having relatively fewer leadership roles (3.7% 
and 3.5% respectively) and those from Tyumen and Karelia had relatively more (16.9% and 
20.7% respectively). It may be worthwhile to consider the types of programs within each 
region and the types of people attracted to these programs to better understand these 
differences. 
While YDCP can positively ascertain success in surpassing the 60% threshold of youth who 
report being in a position of leadership, it is difficult to determine to what extent the success 
was due to self-selection bias (e.g. participants were already leaders and thus became 
involved), and to what extent the nature of the implementation itself was reflected in the 
responses (e.g. because they were in the YDCP program, they were involved in these 
activities). That stated, there is no doubt as to YDCP’s success in engaging youth in non￾traditional youth activities. 
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
30
12 23
7 4
11 9 9 8 9
196
71
111 114 107
86
112
255
69 59
Number of Leaders Total Number of Respondents
50 
Indicator 1.4.3: % of young people who are involved in a community improvement process 
or other community service 
Through involvement in community improvement and community service, youth gain 
empathy, self-esteem, confidence and creativity. Involvement in community improvement or 
community service helps young people build a sense of connectedness and long-term 
commitment to the community and its values. In promoting community service, youth-driven 
projects teach young people how community structures work, and help them understand 
community strengths and weaknesses. As a result, youth develop a sense of belonging and 
start to feel responsible for the community. 
Community improvement and service help young people to gain life skills including 
leadership, teamwork, cooperation, problem solving, organizational skills, public speaking, 
responsibility and other social and personal skills. It is also worth noting that communities are 
benefiting from youth community service in many ways. 
YDCP’s program monitoring and evaluation plan defined the program target for this indicator 
as 60% of participating youth who are involved in any organized or individual activity for the 
benefit of a community. Respondents were asked to discuss their involvement in community 
service and volunteer work over the past year. More than half of each group reported 
involvement in these types of activities, with those not involved responding as follows: 
No, I did not participate in any community service activity in the last 12 months
Experimental group 13
Comparison group 284
For those who were involved in community activities, their involvement was broken down: 
0 100 200 300 400
1.2.1 Teaching, tutoring, or mentoring children
1.2.2 Working with the elderly/veterans
1.2.3 Working to preserve local cultural and history
1.2.4 Working with a medical/health charity (such as the …
1.2.6 Working to address disability issues
1.2.8 Working to improve the environment
1.2.10 Working to address poverty issues
1.2.11 Working to advocate for the interests/rights of …
1.2.12 Working to promote volunteering
1.2.13 Other (please describe)
134
166
156
47
278
114
74
207
262
76
112
303
64
67
73
40
25
133
14
17
106
106
50
36
65
24
Participation in community activities
Experimental group Comparison group
51 
In the Experimental Group respondents selected 3.5 activities on average. 
Issues that received scoring above average in the Experimental Group were: 
• Working to promote volunteering 
• Working to provide safe recreational opportunities for children and youth 
• Working to improve healthy lifestyles of children/youth 
• Working to improve the environment 
• Working with the elderly/veterans 
• Working to preserve local cultural and history 
These issues mainly reflect the themes of the implemented projects within the YDCP workframe. 
In comparison, respondents from the CG selected 2.5 activities on average. 
Issues that received scoring above average in comparison group are: 
• Working to provide safe recreational opportunities for children and youth 
• Working to improve healthy lifestyles of children/youth 
• Working to improve the environment 
• Working with the elderly/veterans 
• Teaching, tutoring, or mentoring children 
• Working to promote volunteering 
Comparison of the issues that received high scoring in experimental and comparison groups: 
Experimental group Comparison group
1.2.12 Working to promote volunteering 1.2.5 Working to provide safe recreational 
opportunities for children and youth 
1.2.5 Working to provide safe recreational 
opportunities for children and youth 
1.2.9 Working to improve healthy lifestyles of 
children/youth 
1.2.9 Working to improve healthy lifestyles of 
children/youth 1.2.8 Working to improve the environment 
1.2.8 Working to improve the environment 1.2.2 Working with the elderly/veterans
1.2.2 Working with the elderly/veterans 1.2.1 Teaching, tutoring, or mentoring children
1.3.3 Working to preserve local cultural and 
history 1.2.12 Working to promote volunteering 
Topics in red are those which do not overlap between the two groups. 
Analysis 
Nearly one half (48%) of the comparison group did not participate in any community service 
activity within the past year, while that was only true for 2% of the experimental group. The 
proportion of involvement within various types of community service projects remains 
somewhat consistent throughout the two groups (with significantly higher participation by 
the EG), with a notable difference in working to promote volunteering (50% of the EG 
52 
volunteers involved in this activity, and only 20% of CG volunteers). This may well be a direct 
result of YDCP programming, as this is often a component activity. 
Data demonstrates a greater involvement of YDCP Program participants in the community 
improvement process. Almost half of the respondents from the comparison group did not 
participate in any community improvement process or other community service. 
In both groups, respondents scored almost identical issues above average. It could suggest 
that these issues are normally those in which youth are involved through school activities 
(given that over 50% of the respondents in both groups are pupils. Minimal scoring in the 
experimental group was given to such issues as “Working with a medical/health charity 
(such as the Red Cross).” In the comparison group, the scoring of this issue was also 
relatively low. In the comparison group the lowest-scored issue was “Working to address 
disability issues.” In the experimental group this issue’s score was also low. These areas of 
interest and work were echoed in the focus group findings as well. 
YDCP far surpassed its targeted 60% of youth involved in a community improvement process 
or other community service, with 98% of Experimental Group participants responding 
positively. The Comparison Group did not score above this threshold, and much of the 
difference can be directly attributed to participation in the YDCP program. Furthermore, the 
selection of issues by participants in both groups suggests many similarities of interest. This 
could be used in future projects to better engage youth in community service by taking 
advantage of these areas where participants have demonstrated passion and interest. 
Indicator 1.4.4: % of young people who report feeling that they can make a difference in 
their community 
Complementing Indicator 1.2.1 (% of young people who report the ability to solve problems) 
is the feeling by these young people that they are able to make a positive impact on their 
community, school, or profession. As such, YDCP aimed to reach 60% of participating youth 
who report feeling that they can make a difference.
165
214
127
70
26
160
239
158
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Low perception of own ability to make a 
difference in one's community
Moderately low perception of own ability 
to make a difference in one's community
Moderately high perception of own ability 
to make a difference in one's community
High perception of own ability to make a 
difference in one's community
Experimental Group Comparison Group
53 
Analysis 
The analysis for this particular indicator is included more fully in the analysis section for 
Objective 1.2. Again, YDCP participants had far more responses indicating a high or 
moderately high perception of their own ability to make a difference, with 68% of 
respondents in the top two categories. As such, YDCP was able to reach its targeted 
threshold of 60% for respondents who feel they can make a difference in their community. 
Comparison group respondents registered only 34% in the top two categories, leaving the 
vast majority of CG respondents in the bottom two categories. These differences were 
found to be statistically significant. 
Indicator 1.4.5: % of young people who report having engaged with local or regional 
government 
It is important that youth be encouraged to take interest in government policy/decision￾making activities and that opportunities be created to foster civic participation by young 
people. Through the political process, young people develop important skills and improve 
self-confidence. They also gain a greater understanding of human rights and governance 
that is important in democratic society. For youth themselves, active and equal participation 
in decisions affecting their lives provides a better understanding of community issues and a 
sense of inclusion and belonging. The exclusion of youth from policy-making processes and 
power structures can create significant tensions in society which can manifest itself in crime 
and violence. The resolution of The World Program of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and 
Beyond (A/RES/50/81) asks policy makers to “Take into account the contribution of youth in 
designing, implementing and evaluating national policies and plans affecting their 
concerns.” 
This indicator implies interacting with government representatives, attending government 
events/meetings, contacting government offices, serving on a youth advisory board, writing 
and delivering policy suggestions, etc. 
The YDCP Program Monitoring and Evaluation Plan defined the program target for this 
indicator as 60% of participating youth who report having engaged with local or regional 
government. To measure this, respondents were asked to indicate what types of 
interactions they had had with local or regional government representatives during the past 
12 month. The answers provided were as follows: 
54 
Interaction with Government Representatives. 
Members of the Experimental Group were between 2 and 4 times more likely to have 
reported interactions with local or regional representatives during the past year than their 
Control Group counterparts. They also recorded higher participation levels in the political 
life of their communities, although participation in political parties remains low for both 
groups. 
Additionally, respondents were asked to rate their activity in the political life of their 
community, with 1 as do not participate and 10 as very active. All answers in each group and 
under each category were divided into two levels: low and high. Low level of activism 
includes scores from 1 to 5. High level includes scores from 6 to 10.
0 100 200 300 400 500
14.1 Attended an event where a government 
representative spoke
14.2 Wrote a letter to a government representative
14.3 Spoke on the phone
14.4 Spoke in person 
14.5 Received (asked for) material support for a project 
or initiative 
14.6 None (no engagement)
14.7 Other (please explain)
407
136
122
197
255
58
11
204
36
39
69
74
295
10
Comparison group Experimental group
55 
Both groups demonstrate a relatively low level of political involvement. This may be due to 
the current political and/or social contexts in Russia, or due to some other factor. 
Analysis 
YDCP participants far exceeded the 60% target of engagement with local or regional 
government. The program seems to be the most significant factor in affecting this indicator, 
and was enormously successful in often more than doubling youth involvement with 
relevant parties. This is an area which likely demonstrates the need for no significant 
changes in implementation strategy, and should be built upon in the future. Depending on 
the rationale for the lower levels of direct political involvement, the momentum built from 
engagement with officials could be targeted to influence the latter issue. 
As a whole, YDCP was successful in achieving its targets for Objective 1.4, as youth 
participants demonstrated increased citizenship competencies as compared to their 
Comparison Group counterparts. While not all areas of intervention were able to exceed 
targets, the majority of them were able to do so, with a significant number of targets 
surpassed. Participation in YDCP was found across the board to be the most statistically 
significant factor in higher-level responses, although the findings regarding age, region, and 
gender should not be discounted. Similarly, it is difficult to attribute all impact directly to the 
YDCP intervention, due to the limitations listed in the introductory section of this 
assessment. That stated, participants in the program consistently demonstrated higher 
citizenship competencies than those who did not participate, and YDCP was able to build 
upon interests and innovation to engage youth in activities that are typically non-traditional, 
as is demonstrated in the responses to community service and engagement with 
government representatives. These successes should be built upon, with further emphasis 
placed on improving young peoples’ sense of empowerment. 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
15.1 Participate in meetings and demonstrations 
15.2 Participate in elections 
15.3 Participate in the activity of political parties
15.4 I am a member of a youth political organization
342
326
429
388
89
128
22
36
461
404
494
489
91
130
24
38
Comparison group (high) Comparison group (low) Experimental group (high) Experimental group (low)
56 
Additional questions (not in indicators, but are of interest to IREX) 
A number of additional questions were included in the survey which are not directly tied to 
indicators, but which complement them or provide additional insight regarding the context 
and obstacles to success in programmatic implementation. These are discussed briefly 
below. 
Comment: In order to more efficiently analyze data, categories were merged as following:
Strongly Agree, Agree –agreement (agr); Partially Agree – neutral (n); Disagree, Strongly 
Disagree – disagreement (disagr) 
0
100
200
300
agreement neutral disagreement
117
196
269 256
163 144
Young people like me are in no position to influence the decisions of 
government officials
Experimental group Comparison group
0
200
400
600
agreement neutral disagreement
518
60
7
476
83
22
When making decisions concerning young people, adults (teachers, parents, 
etc.) should seek our input
Experimental group Comparison group
57 
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
agreement
neutral
disagreeme
nt
320
178
62
165
194
199
I can contribute to solving problems in my village/city/town
Comparison group Experimental group
416
133
28
305
192
76
I am capable of working with adults on an equal level
Experimental group
Comparison group
0
100
200
300
400
500
agreement neutral disagreement
47 75
451
97 108
370
Adults should not listen to young people when making decisions...
Experimental group Comparison group
58 
As illustrated by the graphs above, the experimental group demonstrated higher results 
than the comparison group on each question. The EG consistently demonstrated an 
increased perception of their ability to work with adults, influence decisions and solve 
problems within their community. Further analysis indicates additional factors that 
influence these results. In addition to program participation, age was the only other factor 
that significantly increased average answers. More specifically, participants 18 and older 
demonstrated higher results than participants younger than 18 for all five components of 
question 16. As older respondents (those 18 and over) are more likely to consider 
themselves as adults and capable of influencing decisions made by adults, this result is fairly 
intuitive. It should be noted that this age distribution (younger than 18 vs. 18 and above) is 
approximately the same in both groups, and as such does not take away from the effect of 
program participation on this indicator. Furthermore, an analysis of each component 
question within each age group indicates that those 19 and older within the experimental 
group consistently demonstrated higher results than those 19 and older in the comparison 
group. Accordingly, both program participation and increases in age are likely to have a 
positive effect on perception of ability to work with adults to solve community problems. 
Conclusions 
The basis for positive youth development is to empower youth to take risks and assume 
responsibility in ways that may make both youth and adults nervous. For adults, it can be 
hard to step back and let youth lead. For both adults and young people, there is a clear and 
inherent risk of youth rejection and adult disapproval – not to mention failure – in the 
process. 
Positive youth development conflicts with many complex cultural challenges that youth, 
parents and providers must recognize, respect, and address. Activities which fit well into a 
positive youth development approach can threaten or appear to threaten traditions and 
customs of Russian society. That is why the main barrier to the implementation of the 
positive youth development approach is institutional and cultural resistance, especially 
when applied within the Russian context. 
Practitioners in Russia hold a deep attachment to the traditional models of youth programs. 
Many youth specialists in Russia are resistant to youth leadership; as adults they often take 
the position – sometimes accurately, sometimes not – that they know what is best for young 
people. While the positive youth development movement is gaining strength, much work 
remains before this approach is widely accepted and implemented. 
Fortunately, YDCP practiced youth empowerment as a cornerstone of the implemented 
youth-driven projects. In these projects, young people have been viewed as partners. 
Regional Coordinating Organizations (RCOs) successfully overcame the phenomenon of 
“adultism”—the behaviors and attitudes flowing from assumptions that adults are superior 
to young people and are entitled to act upon young people without agreement or consent. 
Young people found in YDCP strong support for pursuing youth-led civic engagement in 
order to find respect, leadership, and development opportunities. 
59 
The approach and process taken by YDCP likely is much of the cause for the consistently 
higher results in achieving YDCP objectives by the Experimental Group than demonstrated 
by their Comparison Group counterparts, including higher levels of leadership, tolerance, 
and better logical explanation of their answers. There is a clear and attributable effect of the 
YDCP program, despite some potential self-selection bias, with an average development 
over the Comparison Group participants of somewhere between 14% and 23%. 
Major successes were encountered particularly in the areas of youth engagement. This took 
a variety of forms, but the ability of the initiative to involve youth in non-traditional 
activities is a significant success. Furthermore, YDCP was extremely successful in building 
vocational competencies. Program interventions which offered participants practical 
professional skills were regarded highly, and thought to be extremely effective. YDCP 
encountered other successes in the areas of tolerance, collaboration, and problem-solving, 
but each of these areas can be built upon in future implementation activities. 
Recommendations 
YDCP was largely successful in its activities and in the development of a number of social, 
personal, creative, vocational, and citizenship competencies throughout its implementation. 
The following recommendations aim to build upon these successes, and to strengthen 
weaker areas based on key assessment findings. 
1. Place larger emphasis on youth empowerment through a variety of activities. This could 
include the utilization of a cooperative decision-making process at the organizational 
level for YDCP, and involving youth in finding solutions to difficulties encountered in 
program implementation. This will aid in empowerment, as well as in the areas of 
collaboration and problem-solving. This could start with a process including IREX 
partners and adults, but by the end of the program should entail participant leadership 
of problem identification and resolution. 
2. Encourage retreats which require team-building and trust, as well as leadership. Each 
participant should have the chance to be both a leader and a non-leader member of a 
group. Openly discuss the different experiences in each, as well as the pros and cons to 
each method. 
3. Create close opportunities and links between participants and marginalized populations. 
While soft levels of acceptance were relatively high, many YDCP participants still did not 
have too many close friends from other religious or ethnic backgrounds; and did not 
demonstrate higher levels of tolerance. This is particularly relevant with respect to 
immigration issues. By partnering participants up on a more personal basis with people 
from different backgrounds, and having open dialogue regarding some of these issues, 
you can hope to build a higher, stronger level of acceptance. 
4. Engage more men in the program. YDCP had significantly more women in the program, 
and even within the Experimental Group women tended to score more highly than their 
60 
male counterparts. While this is promising, it also points to the need to develop male 
competencies in these areas. 
5. Understand the different effects of interventions on each age group and geographic 
region and modify activities accordingly. Age and region were found to be statistically 
significant factors in respondents’ answers for a number of the survey questions. A 
better understanding of why some ages and regions perform better than others will 
allow YDCP to alter program activities and processes as necessary to best enhance 
program effectiveness. 
 
61 
Annex A: Questionnaire 
Question 1 (1.4.3): Are you currently or have you been in the past 12 months involved in 
community service/volunteer work or any other activity intended to improve your community?
Community service is a non-paid activity to improve the life of people in your village/town/region 
or a specific situation in your community, such as cleaning a park, fixing a playground, helping at 
a hospital, organizing a celebration for local veterans, collecting clothing/toys for an orphanage, 
etc.) 
1.1 __No, I did not participate in any community service activity in the last 12 months
1.2 __Yes, I participated in community activities from the list below (please check all that 
apply): 
1.2.1 __Teaching, tutoring, or mentoring children (without pay) 
1.2.2 __Working with the elderly/veterans 
1.3.3 __Working to preserve local cultural and history 
1.2.4__Working with a medical/health charity (such as the Red Cross) 
1.2.5 __Working to provide safe recreational opportunities for children and youth 
1.2.6__Working to address disability issues 
1.2.7__Working to improve interethnic and interreligious tolerance 
1.2.8__Working to improve the environment 
1.2.9__Working to improve healthy lifestyles of children/youth 
1.2.10__Working to address poverty issues 
1.2.11 __Working to advocate for the interests/rights of children and youth 
1.2.12 __Working to promote volunteering 
1.2.13 __Other (please describe)__________________ 
 
Question 2 (1.4.2): Are you currently or have you been in the past 12 month been involved in the 
following activities and have you had leadership role: 
Yes,I am/was a 
member
Yes, I had/have a 
leadership role in the 
activity
No, I have not been 
involved in this activity
2.1 Student 
government (i.e. 
student parliament or 
student council) 
 
2.2 School/university 
club (theater club, film 
club, geography club, 
English club) 
 
2.3 Youth council 
outside of 
school/university 
 
2.4 Nonprofit 
organization 
 
2.5 Community 
service/volunteer 
project 
2.6 Sports team 
62 
2. 7 Youth 
club/organization 
outside of your school 
 
Please describe any other activities (such as non-school recreational activities, hobbies, paid 
employment, etc.) you have been involved in during the last 12 months and your role in them: 
Activity: Role: 
______________________ ______________________ 
 
______________________ ______________________ 
______________________ ______________________ 
Question 3 (1.3.1): On a scale of 1-5 (1-low; 5-high), please rate your confidence with the 
following professional skills before your participation in YDCP and now. 
 Before Now 
3.1 Public speaking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
• 1-you are afraid to stand up and give a public speech 
• 5- you enjoy public speaking and feel comfortable doing it 
3.2 Ability to meet deadlines 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
• 1-you are usually late in meeting deadlines 
• 2-you take pride in always meeting deadlines 
3.3 Project management 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
• 1-you did not have an opportunity to manage your own projects
• 5-you are a capable project manager
3.4 Teamwork/working with other people 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
• 1-you experience difficulties in working effectively in a team with other people 
• 5-you are able to effectively and successfully work in a team
3.5 Networking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
• 1-you do not know how to reach out and network with other people
• 5-you enjoy and seek opportunities to network with other people
3.6 Leadership 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
• 1-you have a difficult time leading people or lack opportunities to be a leader
• 5-you are an effective leader and seek out leadership opportunities
3.7 Skills in your field of work/study 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 
 (if employed or university/college student) 
• 1-you are not confident of your skills in your field of work/study 
• 5-you are very confident of your skills in your field of work/study and are consulted on the 
subject by others 
Question 4 (1.3.1): What other professional skills do you feel you developed during YDCP? 
Question 5 (1.3.1): Do you think your YDCP experience will help you work in a professional 
setting? 
63 
6.1 Yes 6.2 No 6.3 Difficult to answer 6.4 Does not apply 
Question 6 (1.3.1): If “Yes”, please describe how: 
Question 7 (1.1.2): For each item below, please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, 
disagree, or strongly disagree: 
Strongly 
Agree
Agree Neither 
Agree Nor 
Disagree 
Disagree Strongly 
Disagree
7.1 My peers respect my 
opinion
 
7.2 I have friends who I can 
rely on in difficult situations 
 
7.3 I can accomplish more 
by myself, because other 
people can get in the way of 
getting things done 
7.4 I get frustrated when I 
don’t get my way in a group 
 
7.5 I can accomplish more 
working with other people 
than by myself
 
7.6 I can learn a lot from my 
peers 
 
7.7 Working in a group is 
more difficult than doing 
things by myself
 
Question 8 (1.1.1): For each statement below, please indicate whether you strongly agree, 
agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. 
Strongly 
Agree
Agree Partially 
Agree
Disagree Strongly 
Disagree
Not Sure
8.1 Immigrants should adapt to 
the culture of their new country 
and not practice their own 
cultural traditions. 
 
8.2 It is important for me to be 
aware of/understand the culture 
of migrants. 
 
8.3 Even if I'm in a hurry, I am 
prepared to wait for a disabled 
person to get on the bus/get up 
the stairs. 
 
8.4 It is justified to forbid certain 
religions 
 
8.5 I like that there are people 
of other nationalities in my 
class. 
8.6 It is important to construct 
special equipment (elevators, 
lifts, etc.) in buildings for people 
64 
with disabilities, even if it is 
expensive. 
8.7 I am not against people of 
other nationality/religion living in 
my town/village. 
 
8.8 When choosing friends, a 
person’s nationality is an 
important factor for me. 
 
Question 9 (1.1.1): 
9.1 How many of your close friends are from religious or ethnic groups other than your own? 
9.1.1 __None 
9.1.2 __1-2 
9.1.3 __2-5 
9.1.4__ More than 5 
9.1.5 __Don’t know 
9.2 How many of your acquaintances are from religious or ethnic groups other than your own? 
9.2.1 __None 
9.2.2 __1-5 
9.2.3 __6-10 
9.2.4__ More than 10 
9.2.5 __Don’t know 
Question 10 (1.2.1): Your favorite gym has been badly damaged in the recent snowstorm, and 
the facility does not have any money to fix it. It was the only place where you and your friends 
could practice sports when it’s cold outside and you like spending your time there on weekends 
and after school. Now, you cannot use it until it’s fixed. Please describe in five steps what you 
would do in this situation:
Question 11 (1.4.1): Below is a list of issues that may affect your life, the life of your peers, and 
your community. Please indicate how concerned and informed you are about these issues. 
Rating for concern 
1-The issue does not concern you in any way 
2-You are somewhat concerned about this issue 
3-You have a strong concern about this issue 
4-This issue is a very big concern for you 
Rating for knowledge: 
1-Don’t know anything about it 
2-Somewhat familiar with this issue-know basic information about it 
3-Pay attention to this issue and follow it closely in the media and other 
discussions 
4-Very interested and knowledgeable about this issue; you are consulted by 
others on this topic 
 
 Concern Knowledge
 
65 
Safety 
11.1 Crime and Violence 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.2 Local Armed Conflict 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
Education 
11.3 Education Reform 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.4 Quality of Education 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.5 Food at Educational Institutions 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
Health 
11.6 Drug Abuse 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.7 Alcohol Abuse 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.8 HIV/AIDS 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
Social Issues 
11.9 Environment 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.10 Poverty 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.11 Corruption 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.12 Disability Rights and Protection 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.13 Ethnic and Religious Tolerance 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.14 Trafficking 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.15 Domestic Violence 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.16 Policy Towards the Elderly 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
Youth Issues 
11.17 Child Welfare 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.18 Youth Employment 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.19 Rights of Children and Youth 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.20 Availability of Recreational Opportunities 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.21 Juvenile Crime 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
11.22 Other (please describe)__________________________ 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 
Question 12 (1.4.1): Please select one issue from above that you are most concerned about and 
briefly explain why it is important to you: 
Question 13 (1.4.4): Young people in some communities encounter many problems, such as 
lack of safe facilities where they can get together, play sports, hold dances, and spend time with 
their friends. If you were in such a community, which of the following statements best describes 
how you would react to this problem? (Please check one) 
13.1 If one of my friends would take the lead, I would be willing to go with him/her to talk to the 
authorities. 
13.2 I’d complain to my friends and parents that there was no place to go after school. 
13.3 would try to organize my friends to come up with a request that we would present to the 
authorities. 
13.4 The first thing I would do would be to get together with my friends and try to find out why we 
don’t have a good youth center. 
13.5 Although it would take a lot of time and energy, I would work with other young people to 
organize a campaign to cooperate with authorities to raise funds to establish a suitable youth 
center. 
13.6 I would do nothing, as I don’t feel like I’m in a position to do something about this. 
Question 14 (1.4.5): Please indicate what types of interactions you have had with local or 
regional government representatives during the past 12 month (please choose all that apply):
66 
14.1 __Attended an event where a government representative spoke 
14.2 __Wrote a letter to a government representative 
14.3 __Spoke on the phone 
14.4 __Spoke in person 
14.5 __Received material or non-material support for a project or initiative 
14.6 __Other (please explain) 
14.7 __None (no engagement) 
Question 15 (1.4.5): On a scale of 1-10, please rate how active you are in the political life of your 
community? (1 – do not participate, 10 – very active). An answer should be stated in every line.
15.1 __Participate in meetings and demonstrations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
15.2 __Participate in elections 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
15.3 __Participate in the activity of political parties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
15.4 __I am a member of a youth political organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Question 16: For each statement below, please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, 
disagree, or strongly disagree: 
Strongly 
Agree
Agree Partially Agree Disagree Strongly 
Disagree
Not Sure
16.1 Young people like 
me are in no position to 
influence the decisions 
of government officials. 
 
16.2 When making 
decisions concerning 
young people, adults 
(teachers, parents, etc.) 
should seek our input. 
 
16.3 I can contribute to 
solving problems in my 
village/city/town. 
 
16.4 I am capable of 
working with adults on 
an equal level. 
16.5 Adults should not 
listen to young people 
when making 
decisions—we just 
don’t have the life 
experience to make 
valid contributions. 
 
Demographic Questions
Question 17: Gender: 17.1 Female___ 17.2 Male__ 
Question 18: What is your age? ____ 
Question 19: What is your occupation/what do you do? (please pick one) 
 
67 
19.1 student at a secondary school 
19.2 student at a college/university 
19.3 work at______________________________ 
19.4 don’t go to school/don’t work 
Question 20: When did you join the project (month/year) 
Question 21: Have you or do you currently hold a leadership role in this project (responsible for 
managing the project, make important decisions, etc.)? 
21.1 Yes___ (please choose) 
21.1.1 ___I serve as a project coordinator 
21.1.2 ___I serve as an assistant project coordinator
21.1.3 ___I make key decisions 
21.1.4 ___I’m responsible for organizing events 
21.1.5 ___ Another leadership role (please explain)
________________________________________________________________ 
 
21.2 No___ 
Question 22: Where is your home located: 
23.1 __City 
23.2 __Town 
23.3 __Rural area 
Question 23: What oblast do you live in? 
22.1 Tambov 
22.2 Tyumen 
22.3 Karelia 
22.4 Stavropol 
22.5 Chelyabinsk 
22.6 Irkutsk 
22.7 Tomsk 
22.8 Murmansk 
22.9 Kursk 
22.10 Volgograd 
Annex B: Questions Linked to Indicators: 
Objective 1.1 Youth develop personal and social competencies 
Indicator 1.1.1: % of young people who 
demonstrate an acceptance of ethnic, 
cultural, and other diversity 
Questions 8-9 
Indicator 1.1.2: % of young people who 
report the ability to interact/work with their 
peers 
Question 7 
Objective 1.2 Youth develop cognitive and creative competencies 
Indicator 1.2.1: % of young people who 
report the ability to solve problems 
Questions 10 and 13 
Objective 1.3 Youth develop vocational competencies 
Indicator 1.3.1: % of young people 
reporting gaining practical professional 
skills as a result of the program 
Questions 3-6 
Objective 1.4 Youth develop citizenship competencies 
Indicator 1.4.1: % of young people who are 
knowledgeable about at least one 
advocacy issue 
Questions 11-12 
Indicator 1.4.2: % of youth who report 
being in a position of leadership 
Question 2 
Indicator 1.4.3: % of young people who are 
involved in a community improvement 
process or other community service 
Question 1 
Indicator 1.4.4: % of young people who 
report feeling that they can make a 
difference in their community 
Question 13 
Indicator 1.4.5: % of young people who 
report having engaged with local or 
regional government 
Questions 14-15 
Other 
Additional data on youth perception with 
respect to positive youth development 
theory 
Question 16 
Demographic data Questions 17-23 
 
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
69 | 
Annex C: Focus Group Guide 
Сценарий фокус-группы
проводимой в рамках Программы АЙРЕКС «Программа поддержки молодежных
инициатив» 
I. Вступление 15 мин
1. Добрый вечер (день). Меня зовут……
2. Спасибо, что откликнулись на наше приглашение и пришли для участия в работе
фокус-группы. Кто-то из Вас принимал раньше участие в обсуждениях в таких
группах? (не надо опрашивать участников; кто захотел, тот отреагировал; тем не
менее, посмотрите на реакцию участников – могут определиться активные и
пассивные)
16 Многие, после участия в таких дискуссиях, мне говорили, что потратили
время с пользой. 
3. Сегодня мы собрались здесь для того, чтобы поговорить о Вашем мнении и
отношении к участию Вас и ваших сверстников, в обсуждении и решении
проблем молодежи. 
4. Данная фокус-группа является частью большого исследования, которое проводит
АЙРЕКС по Программе поддержки молодежных инициатив финансируемой
Агентством США по международному развитию. Первым этапом исследования было
анкетирование участников Программы, в котором вы все уже принимали участие. 
5. Наше обсуждение будет длиться не более 2 часов. Я буду просить ответить Вас на
вопросы. Я уверен(а), у Вас есть много интересной и полезной информации, которой
Вы захотите поделиться. Однако, если Вы не хотите высказываться по какому-либо
вопросу, это Ваше право. 
6. Во время нашей работы будет вестись аудио- и видеозапись. Это нужно для того, 
чтобы мы могли после дискуссии внимательно проанализировать все, что здесь
происходило. Я уверен, что Вы об этом забудете, как только мы начнем. Все, что Вы
скажете мне сегодня, не будет связано (ассоциироваться) с Вашим именем. Нам
интересно разнообразие Ваших мнений. 
7. Если Вас интересует, почему отобрали именно Вас, то основным критерием отбора
было стремление представит различные группы людей, которые участвовали в
Программе АЙРЕКС. 
8. Моя работа, как ведущего, состоит в том, чтобы сосредоточить наше внимание на теме
общения, предоставить возможность каждому участнику высказаться и обеспечить
динамичную работу. 
9. Прежде чем мы приступим к обсуждению, я хотел(а) бы напомнить о некоторых
правилах нашего общения: 
• мобильные телефоны должны быть поставлены в режим работы звонка «без звука» 
• не существует правильных или неправильных ответов, а есть различные точки
зрения; 
• негативное отношение столь же важно для нас, сколь и позитивное; 
• мнение каждого человека очень важно для нас; 
• что бы можно было услышать каждого, мы будем говорить по одному; 
 
16 Здесь и далее выделенный курсивом текст предназначается только вниманию модератора и служит для
него как справочная информация. «Возможные ответы», предложенные к вопросам могут служить лишь
подсказкой модератору для формулировки уточняющих (не наводящих) вопросов. 
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
70 | 
• я искренне заинтересован(а) в Ваших точках зрения и хочу, чтобы Вы выражали их
как можно более точно; 
• у меня нет цели в чем-то кого-то убедить, нам важно разнообразие мнений; 
• на правах ведущего я могу прервать Вас - и заранее прошу прощения - или я могу
намеренно переключить Вас на другую тему разговора. 
10. Для удобства общения каждый может написать свое имя или то, как он(она) хочет
чтобы его называли, на карточке и прикрепить ее так, чтобы видели остальные
участники. 
11. Мы для Вас приготовили чай/кофе, воду. В ходе обсуждения можно этим
пользоваться. Я надеюсь на Вашу помощь и на ваше искреннее и заинтересованное
участие. 
12. Теперь я хотел(а) представить Вам своих (своего) помощника(ов)…….. И хотел(а) бы
Вас попросить представиться самим: 
• Пожалуйста, скажите, как Вас зовут, чем Вы занимаетесь и что любите делать в
свободное время?? 
II. Разминка (установление контакта) 15 мин
1. Расскажите о Вашем участии в Программе? (опросить всех участников)
o Какая была Ваша роль в проекте? Как долго? Какое впечатление у Вас
сложилось от участия в проекте? (можно не уточнять, следите за временем
1-2-мин) 
III. Основная часть – глубинное интервью 95 мин
2. Представим себе ситуацию, что я приехал(а) из другого города. Там не было
подобных проектов и поэтому я не знаю что это такое. Я встретил(а) Вас и Вы
захотели убедить меня присоединиться к деятельности по проекту. Что Вы мне
скажите? опросите всех, следите за временем – дайте каждому 1-2 минуты на
объяснение – после ответов уточняйте (если необходимо): «Что Вы имеете ввиду? 
Можете ли вы пояснить?») Время на вопрос: 8 мин.
o (если не услышите ответ на вопрос: Почему я должен(а) участвовать в
проекте? – задайте его всем)
3. Что Вы узнали, участвуя в проекте? (следите за тем, чтобы отвечали про знания, 
а не про умения или навыки (т.е. то что научились делать). При необходимости
разъясните, что знания – это новая информация) Время на вопрос: 6 мин.
o Как Вы оцениваете эти знания? (опросите всех, следите за временем – после
ответов уточняйте, фиксируйте мнения юношей и девушек)
o (в случае положительных ответов) Как Вы сможете использовать эти
знания в будущем? (после ответов уточняйте (если необходимо): Можете
ли вы пояснить? Приведите пример?)
4. Пред Вами лежат листы бумаги. Возьмите один листок и напишите на нем три
самых важных конкретных примера того, что Вы научились делать во время
участия в проекте в порядке важности (1 – очень важно; 3 – менее важно). Когда
закончите, передайте Ваши листки мне. У нас с Вами на это есть 3 минуты. Время
на вопрос: 4 мин.
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
71 | 
5. Какие, по Вашему мнению, личные качества помогло Вам развить участие в
проекте? (следите за тем, чтобы отвечали именно про личные качества, т.е. 
индивидуальные особенности, которые вы получаете при рождении и можете
развить в процессе участия в проекте (или работы). Примерами личных качеств
являются терпение, оптимизм и воображение, сострадание, уважение и т.д.)
Время на вопрос: 6 мин.
6. Приведите пример Вашего участия в решении социальной проблемы (пусть
небольшой) или защите интересов группы людей или конкретного человека
(напр. вашего сверстника). (опросите всех, следите за временем – после ответов
уточняйте) Если никто не участвовал, то переходите к вопросу №7 и все подвопросы
задавайте там. Время на вопрос: 7 мин.
7. Почему Вы решили так поступить? (Если никто не участвовал, то переходите к
вопросу №8 и все подвопросы задавайте там). Время на вопрос: 8 мин.
o Кто еще Вам помогал? 
o Как Вы принимали решения? Если Вы принимали решения совместно с
другими людьми, чем они от Вас отличались? (уточняющие вопросы: Какие
у них были особенности? Каким образом Вы их учитывали?) 
o Кто был лидером? 
o Опишите ситуацию, когда другие приняли Вашу точку зрения/мнение. 
8. Расскажите о наиболее значимом для Вас успехе, которого Вы достигли за время
проекта? (опросите всех, следите за временем – после ответов уточняйте: Почему
они считают это успехом, фиксируйте мнения юношей и девушек) 
Время на вопрос: 7 мин.
9. Как, по-вашему, должна проявляться активная жизненная позиция? (опросите
всех, следите за временем – после ответов уточняйте: Почему?, Приведите пример?, 
фиксируйте мнения юношей и девушек) Время на вопрос: 6 мин.
o Как должен вести себя молодой человек? 
o Если Ваша активная жизненная позиция ведет (привела) к конфликту как
Вы поступите? (вообще-то надо конфликты предотвращать либо
находить взаимоприемлемые решения, идти на разумный компромисс) 
10. Приведите пример проблемы, которая затрагивает Вас и Ваших друзей, 
знакомых? (опросите всех, следите за временем) Что можно сделать, чтобы решить
эту проблему? (опросите всех, следите за временем, ответы ассистент должен
записать на флип-чарте) (вероятно, начнут предлагать варианты ответов как в
10-м вопросе анкеты. Тогда спросите: 
o Что из предложенных вариантов можно отнести к активной, а что к
пассивной жизненной позиции? Почему? (попросите обосновать). 
o Если необходимо решить проблему отсутствия молодежного центра в одном
из районов города (или в селе), что для этого могут сделать молодые люди? 
o Как, по-вашему, распределиться ответственность между молодыми людьми
и взрослыми? Время на вопрос: 7 мин.
11. Какими, по-вашему, должны быть отношения между молодыми людьми
(Вашими сверстниками) и взрослыми, участвующими в процессе решения
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
72 | 
проблем молодежи на местном или региональном? (опросите всех, следите за
временем) Время на вопрос: 6 мин.
o Поясните, почему Вы так считаете? 
12. Если бы вы написали сценарий рекламного ролика об участии взрослых в
решении проблем молодежи, что бы вы хотели показать? Кто был бы героем
ролика? Кто стал бы его смотреть? (опросите всех, следите за временем) Время на
вопрос: 7 мин.
13. Какие у Вас есть возможности для участия в решении проблем молодежи в
Вашем Городе (селе)? (опросите всех, следите за временем, уточняйте ответы, 
фиксируйте мнения юношей и девушек) Время на вопрос: 6 мин.
14. Что Вы понимаете под термином «партнерство молодежи и взрослых»? (опросите
всех, следите за временем, уточняйте ответы) Время на вопрос: 6 мин.
15. Как, на Ваш взгляд, можно охарактеризовать отношения молодежи и взрослых
сегодня? (опросите всех, фиксируйте ответы юношей и девушек, уточняйте
ответы: Что вы имели ввиду? Приведите пример?) Время на вопрос: 6 мин.
o Поясните, почему Вы так считаете? 
16. Где (в каких программах) могло бы быть эффективным участие молодых людей в
партнерстве со взрослыми? (Необходимо от каждого участника добиться
максимально конкретного ответа через уточняющие вопросы) Время на вопрос: 6 
мин.
IV. Заключение 10 мин
1. Уважаемые друзья! Пришло время подвести итог нашего обсуждения. 
2. Тема нашего обсуждения была: Вашем мнении и отношении к участию Вас и
ваших сверстников, в обсуждении и решении проблем молодежи. Надеюсь, что
дискуссия у нас получилась интересной не только для меня как ведущего и
организаторов фокус-группы, но и для Вас. 
За время дискуссии мы выяснили, что _________________________________________ 
Мы определили, что _____________________________________ 
3. Хочу Вас искренне поблагодарить за активную работу и вклад в исследование. За
Ваши интересные высказывания. Спасибо большое за Вашу открытость и желание
поделиться Вашими мнениями, убеждениями и идеями. Спасибо! Работа
закончена! 
 
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
73 | 
Annex D: Training Agenda 
 
Семинар
НАВЫКИ ПРОВЕДЕНИЯ ФОКУС ГРУПП
в рамках Программы поддержки молодежных инициатив 
Даты проведения: 14 – 15 мая
Место проведения: Москва, гостиница Максима Панорама, ул. Мастеркова, д. 4 
Участники: участники Программы, которые будут проводить фокус группы в регионах
исследования
Цель: Участники семинара знают порядок организации и умеют проводить фокус группы. 
Концепция тренинга: В ходе тренинга участникам будут предложены теоретические
материалы (раздаточные материалы, презентация), а также будут проведены практические
упражнения. Основной акцент в ходе занятий будет сделан на отработку практических
навыков. Для целей проведения практических занятий участники будут разбиты на
группы; каждой группе будет дана разработанная тренером ситуация (case); на основе
предложенной ситуации участники будут отрабатывать навыки по подготовке и
проведению фокус группы). В ходе тренинга каждый участник сможет отработать навыки, 
побывав в разных ролях. Для отработки навыков будет проводиться видеозапись ролевых
игр с последующим анализом. 
Повестка дня
14 мая
Начало 11:00
Сессия 1 
Знакомство. Ожидания участников. Цели и задачи семинара, представление повестки дня, 
учебных материалов. Введение: Что такое фокус группа. Фокус группа как один из
методов исследования. 
ОБЕД 13:00 -14:00
Сессия 2 
Как формулировать цели фокус группы? Предварительная работа по подготовке фокус
группы. Практическое упражнение. Разработка плана мероприятий по подготовке фокус
группы. 
Перерыв 15:45 
Сессия 3 
Отбор и приглашение участников. Критерии отбора участников. 
Практическое упражнение. Разработка методики отбора участников фокус группы. 
Кофе-брейк 17:30 
Сессия 4 
Составление вопросов для фокус группы. Разработка сценария проведения фокус группы. 
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
74 | 
Практическое упражнение. Разработка сценария фокус группы, распределение ролей
организаторов фокус группы. 
Ужин 19:00
15 мая
Начало 09:30
Сессия 5 
Выбор координатора и места проведения фокус группы. Что должен знать и уметь
координатор фокус группы? Техническое оснащение места проведения фокус группы. 
Практическое упражнение. Разработка «должностной инструкции» координатора фокус 
группы. Проведение интервью с кандидатом. 
Перерыв 11:15
Сессия 6 
Навыки фасилитации. Ведение записей выступлений участников. 
Практическое упражнение. Ролевая игра: проведение фокус группы. 
ОБЕД 13:00-14:00
Сессия 7 
Навыки фасилитации (продолжение) 
Практическое упражнение. Ролевая игра: проведение фокус группы (просмотр
видеозаписей, комментарии участников и тренера) 
Перерыв 15:45
Сессия 8 
Интерпретация и отчет о результатах проведения фокус группы. Дальнейшие контакты с
участниками фокус группы. 
Практическое упражнение. Представление отчета о результатах фокус группы (в ролевой
игре) 
Кофе-брейк 17:30
Сессия 9 
Заключительная сессия. Планирование фокус групп в рамках программы IREX – 
определение сроков действий по подготовке и проведению фокус групп. 
Вопросы и ответы. 
Ужин 19:00
 
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
75 | 
Annex E: IREX Technical Approach 
IREX designed YDCP in response to a request from USAID, in an effort to consolidate disparate 
investments made by USAID and other donors so that youth projects focused on competency building 
could be replicated throughout Russia. The program aims to support young people in developing the 
skills, attitudes, and abilities they need to become successful adults and active citizens by engaging them 
in addressing community needs. 
The nurturing of competencies for this generation will enable them to become productive and 
thoughtful citizens and will build human capital within the country in a sustainable manner. The 
development of creative, empowered, engaged, and problem-solving citizens will ensure a more stable 
youth environment in the country, and will contribute to the more overarching development goals in 
the region. 
By facilitating the replication and expansion of programs in line with the best practices in positive youth 
development, YDCP aims to empower youth and develop their personal, professional, and social 
competencies. 
To achieve the stated objectives, YDCP utilized two key models of youth activity in the first three years 
of implementation: the Youth-Driven Model and the Community Schools Model. Together, they seek to 
engage and inform the youth sector in Russia, expanding the reach of successful programs while 
empowering young people through peer-to-peer knowledge sharing. As part of YDCP, these two models 
were implemented by youth-oriented organizations in ten regions throughout Russia. 
In its 4th year extension period, YDCP works to strengthen youth policies and position young people at 
the center of youth programming through: 
• Supporting youth-led community projects; 
• Increasing local government’s understanding of youth needs and addressing them holistically; 
• Training youth-serving organizations and professionals to improve programming, build skills in positive 
youth development, and influence policy; and 
• Facilitating collaboration between government, nonprofit representatives, and young people. 
Youth-Driven Model
The YDCP program selected the best youth-driven programming currently practiced in Russia, and 
facilitated its replication by local youth, through funding, training and mentoring. Additionally, the YDCP 
program worked with regional adult stakeholders from government, business and media in order to 
ensure ongoing community support for youth, and the institutionalization of the replicated programs. 
In seven regions (Republic of Karelia, Stavropol Kray, and the regions of Irkutsk, Volgograd, Chelyabinsk, 
Tambov and Tyumen), IREX used a youth–driven model (based on peer to peer interaction) to impart 
information and experience. Young representatives of effective youth programs throughout Russia 
(innovators) exhibited their programs at youth empowerment road shows held in each of the seven 
regions. Groups of local youth (action teams) then had the opportunity to compete for funding to adapt 
the program of their choice (thus becoming adaptors). Further support was provided to facilitate 
interaction between the innovators and the adaptors as well as to assist the adaptors in securing 
community support for their projects. 
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
76 | 
Identifying innovators with proven, successful youth-driven programs was central to the successful 
implementation of YDCP. Their models formed the backbone of the activities implemented in each of 
the seven regions. Innovators exhibited their models at the Youth Empowerment Road Shows and later 
hosted and mentored the local young adaptors who selected their programs for replication. A selection
committee made up of professionals in NGO development and youth policy participated in the selection 
of innovators, giving preference to projects that: 

 Are youth-driven (i.e. young people play a critical role in implementation); 

 Engage young people (14-20 years old) in the following types of projects: recreation, skill 
building, activism and service and policy and leadership; 

 Are sustainable (should have existed for more than one full program cycle); 

 Can be concretely described and budgeted; 

 Can be easily replicated in other areas and circumstances; and 

 Are associated with an institution (NGO, school, university) that can provide guidance and 
infrastructure, and that has a proven track record in financial reporting and responsibility. 
During the first year of program activity, youth empowerment road shows were held in each of the 
seven target regions for the youth-driven model. These large colorful gatherings, covered heavily by the 
local press, brought together all of the major local groups with a stake in youth issues, and introduced 
them to progressive youth-driven programming from all over Russia, and to the tenets of the well 
respected and extensively utilized theory of positive youth development. IREX worked closely with the 
Regional Coordinating Organizations (RCOs) to recruit the action teams (young people between the ages 
of 14 and 20 plus an adult coordinator) that would attend the event. By the end of the road shows: 

 Action Teams learned tools for determining local demand and selecting programs to adapt for 
their region/city/village; gained motivation and inspiration to launch adapted programs; learned 
about successful youth models from across Russia and how to collaborate effectively with youth 
who implement them. They also understood how to apply for the seed grants that allowed them 
to become adapters. 

 Adult Stakeholders learned the benefits of and methods for conducting youth-empowering 
programs on the basis of positive youth development; learned about successful youth models 
from across Russia; networked with other stakeholders and youth from their region and across 
Russia. 

 Innovators gained public speaking and presentation skills; networked with other motivated 
youth and adult stakeholders; and began a working relationship with adapters interested in 
replicating their programs. 
After the road shows, the action teams applied for seed grants; those selected became adaptors and 
started replicating their chosen project model with technical assistance and oversight from the 
innovators, RCOs, and IREX. 
Community Schools Model
In three regions (Kursk, Murmansk and Tomsk), IREX worked with local partners to implement the 
Community Schools model, which equips schools to serve as hubs for positive youth development activities. 
This model aims to help young people develop confidence, self-esteem and belief in their own abilities to 
effect change by working on school-based projects to improve their communities. 
The major goal of the experienced partner NGOs is to establish Community Schools in their target areas. In 
each participating school, teachers, administrators and students were trained in project management, 
Youth Development Competencies Program (YDCP) #118-A-00-08 
IREX Evaluation Report 
77 | 
community needs assessment, fundraising, and social marketing. After the training, the Community School 
students implement small projects that both benefit their community and enable them to develop the skills 
they need to become successful adults. As part of the model, Community Schools are encouraged to partner 
with local government, business, and the media in order to become a sustainable locus of positive 
community development. 
To ensure lasting change, Community School projects were required to garner support from local business 
and government in order to receive funding from YDCP. Matching grants of just $100 to $500 were awarded 
to stimulate low-cost, high-impact projects and prove the value of community investment to local 
stakeholders.