FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Youth and Non-Violence in Guinea 
A project implemented by 
Search for Common Ground (SFCG) in Guinea 
With support from the 
US Agency for International Development (USAID) 
April 2010 
1
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Dennis Bright 
Dr. Dennis Bright currently works as Regional Director (West and Francophone 
Africa) for the international NGO Right to Play. Dennis has more than 15 years of 
professional experience working for International NGOs, plus eight years 
experience with national-level governance and policy making. Before joining 
Right to Play, Dennis held the roles of Minister of Youth and Sports and 
Commissioner for the Consolidation of Peace in the Government of Sierra Leone. 
As Minister he proposed the first national youth policy in Sierra Leone and, as 
Commissioner, organized a memorable Youth for Peace Symposium in which 
child and youth soldiers from different factions played in combined teams, 
building trust and discovering the benefits of friendship, unity and cooperation. 
Dennis has a Ph.D. from Université de Bordeaux and has worked as a Lecturer in 
Sierra Leone and the UK. 
Bernardo Monzani (Lead Writer) 
Bernardo Monzani is currently working as Design, Monitoring and Evaluation 
(DM&E) Specialist with Search for Common Ground (SFCG) in Morocco. With 
over five years of professional experience, Bernardo’s areas of expertise are the 
development and evaluation of peacebuilding and conflict resolution/ 
management programs. Before joining SFCG in Morocco, he served as the 
organization’s Representative for Policy and Programs in Brussels, Belgium. 
Bernardo has successfully completed assignments both in North and Sub￾Saharan Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Caucasus, working for both 
international NGOs and the UN. Bernardo holds an MA from the Johns Hopkins 
School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington DC (USA). 
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 3 
II. EVALUATION SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 4 
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 5 
Means of Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 7 
Challenges ...................................................................................................................................... 7 
III. PROJECT AND COUNTRY OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 8 
Project Overview ......................................................................................................................... 8 
Country Overview ....................................................................................................................... 9 
IV. RESULTS AND CHALLENGES ........................................................................................................ 10
Relevance .................................................................................................................................... 10
Effectiveness .............................................................................................................................. 12
Impact ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Other Criteria and Considerations .................................................................................... 18
V. REFLECTING ON RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 20
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................... 21
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................. 22
3
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Search for Common Ground (SFCG) in Guinea recently completed an 18-month 
project entitled Youth and Non-Violence in Guinea, whose overall goal was to 
promote the use of non-violent methods for resolving conflicts among youth in 
the cities of Kindia, Mamou and Kankan. The project had two specific objectives: 
1) To increase the knowledge of youth in conflict management techniques, 
human rights and their civic responsibilities; and 2) To build the capacity of 
youth in the target areas to resist manipulation and the use of violence to resolve 
conflicts. In order to achieve the aforementioned results and objectives, SFCG 
planned and executed three types of activities: the training of 72 young Guineans 
in the three project locations; the organization of sensitization events, including 
peace festivals; and the production and broadcast of two weekly radio programs. 
SFCG requested the present evaluation in April 2010, setting three main 
objectives: 1) to evaluate the impact of the project; 2) to collect stories of change 
caused by the project; and 3) to provide recommendations for future planning. 
Over a period of 28 days (including 14 in Guinea), the evaluation team reviewed 
the achievements of the project and identified the following results: 
Relevance 
 The relevance of the project to Guinea’s current situation cannot be stressed 
enough. All key stakeholders interviewed made explicit references to the 
role young people played during the violence of January and February 2007, 
and stressed the importance of engaging youth during the transition, lest 
violence on the scale of the 2007 events happens again. 
 Whereas the project intended to address political violence and the role 
youths tend to play in it, one outstanding result is that it uncovered many 
layers or types of violence into which both urban and rural youth are drawn, 
including for example domestic, work-related, ethnic, inter-generational etc. 
Effectiveness 
 The knowledge of project participants has definitely increased in line with 
the project’s objective. 
 In regards to the project’s different activities, the analysis of collected 
information suggests a high level of effectiveness. The responses we received 
from all those interviewed were generally very positive. 
 The radio programs were very appreciated by young participants, 
community leaders and the radio stations themselves. Participants enjoyed 
the opportunity to participate in the production of the show and even more 
so the responsibility of facilitating discussions on the interactive show. 
Impact 
 A key result in terms of impact is how the Youth and Non-Violence project 
seems to be changing the role of Radio Rurale in the three cities. As 
mentioned before, the Directors of Programs in all three locations said that 
the project’s radio programs were responsible for an increase in 
listenership, especially among young people. 
 All people interviewed—young participants, beneficiaries, local authorities 
and civil society leaders—stated that no major instances of violence have 
occurred in their respective cities after the events of 2007. They all 
4
acknowledged that violence has decreased considerably, and all appreciated 
how the youth in Kindia, Mamou and Kankan have started playing a more 
positive role in their communities. 
Some challenges were also indentified, chief among them the low level of 
participation by women and young girls. Also, the project experienced some 
logistical problems, specifically around the production and broadcast of the 
radio programs. Finally, young participants have expressed some frustrations 
with the level of resources allocated for sensitization events, which they judged 
to be below their expectations. 
The challenges do not in any way detract from the overall achievements of the 
Youth and Non-Violence project, which have been largely successful. 
Furthermore, the evaluators found that the relevance and potential impact of the 
project are even greater now as the country moves towards national elections, 
than at any other time during its implementation. 
As a consequence, the evaluators’ main recommendation is to ensure the 
continuation of the project and its activities. This will allow to consolidate the 
results so far achieved, to increase impact and to reach sustainability. Other 
recommendations include: 
 Improve the collection of relevant output- and outcome-level data by 
creating a monitoring system better tailored to the project’s specific 
formula. 
 Develop a more explicit gender strategy to ensure greater participation 
by women and young girls to all project activities. 
 Organize more consistent and regular follow-up with project 
beneficiaries—i.e. community members who are supposed to benefit 
from the sensitization events and the radio broadcasts. 
 Increase the amount of resources allocated to young participants for the 
organization of sensitization events. 
II. EVALUATION SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
According to the terms of references (TORs) developed by SFCG, the evaluation 
had three main objectives: 
1. To evaluate the impact of the project in enabling youth to deal with 
conflict and elude manipulation; 
2. To collect stories of changes brought about by the project; 
3. To provide recommendations to improve future planning and for 
replication of similar youth projects within the organization. 
Relevance, effectiveness and impact were chosen as priority criteria for the 
evaluation, although efficiency and sustainability were also considered. 
Based on the evaluation objectives and the choice of the above-mentioned 
criteria, the following lines of inquiry were developed by the evaluators in 
conjunction with SFCG staff: 
5
Criteria Lines of Inquiry
Relevance Did the project address the problem of violence among youth?
- What is the problem of violence among youth? (Political, 
criminal, domestic)
- How did the project address it? 
Did the project target the right group of beneficiaries?
- How influential are the chosen participants among peers 
and in the community? 
- Was the mix of participants right? (How have gender and 
ethnic considerations been taken into account?)
Effectiveness Did the project achieve its stated results?
- Did it increase youth knowledge about Human Rights, 
Civic responsibilities and Conflict Management? (IR 1)
- Have the project activities made these issues more 
accessible and available to young people? (IR 2)
- Did it prevent manipulation? (IR 3)
How has the project formula (trainings + festivals + media) 
contributed to the achievement of project outcomes? 
- What was the most popular activity of the project? 
- What activity of the project has reached the most people?
- What kind of support did Search provide for the 
implementation of activities? 
Impact Did the project reduce the likelihood of violence among young 
people? (Goal)
Has the project influenced the ‘system’? 
- What is the system? Institutions, processes etc. 
- What is the theory of change underlining the project?
Methodology 
The present evaluation relies on two sources of information—primary and 
secondary. Primary information has been collected through interviews and 
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted during the field visit by the 
evaluators in the three project locations. Secondary information consists of 
project reports and other documents, guidelines/manual, coaching reports and 
project documents. The main sources of information have been: 
- Project participants: the young members of the associations selected by 
SFCG to collaborate on this project 
- Project beneficiaries: young people in the three cities who participated in 
the sensitization events, the peace festivals and/or listened to the radio 
programs 
- Key stakeholders: local government representatives and community 
leaders who have been aware of the project, participated in some of the 
activities 
- Project Staff: Facilitators, Managers and Focal Points from SFCG who have 
been responsible for project implementation in Kindia, Mamou and 
Kankan. 
6
The following tools: were developed to conduct the project evaluation: 
Desktop and Document Review: The evaluators reviewed all project documents, 
starting from the original proposal to the approved Performance Management 
Plan (PMP) and including the baseline, quarterly and event reports. 
Furthermore, additional documents from other sources (such as the 
International Crisis Group) were taken into consideration as needed in order to 
provide a clearer picture of the dynamic context in which the project occurred. 
Focus Group Discussions: The evaluators conducted five Focus Group Discussions 
(FGDs) in order to obtain qualitative information concerning the project’s impact 
and effectiveness—two in Kindia and Kankan and one in Mamou. 
Three FGDs were organized in each location with young participants to the 
project selected from the partner youth associations. The FGD format allowed 
the evaluators to obtain information about the level of knowledge that the 
participants (and if possible also the beneficiaries) have of conflict resolution 
and management, their perceptions of any changes that occurred during the life 
of the project, as well as their attitudes. 
Two FGDs in Kindia and Kankan were organized with beneficiaries from the 
projects activities—i.e. people who attended sensitization events and peace 
festivals or listened to the radio programs. 
Key Informant Interviews: To obtain more detailed information about the 
progress and success of the project (and in particular to triangulate information 
for greater accuracy of findings), the evaluators met and interviewed a number 
of key stakeholders in each project location. 
For a full list of the meetings (both interviews and FGDs) held and people 
interviewed for the purposes of this evaluation, please see Annex 3. Questions 
used during these meetings are also included, as Annex 4. 
Participants Questionnaires: The evaluators developed a standard questionnaire, 
which was completed by 47 project participants. The questionnaire, in French, 
was meant to collect information about the following: 
- The composition of project participants in terms of age, education, gender 
and ethnicity; 
- The level of participation to the project activities, including how regularly 
participants listened to the radio programs; 
- Changes in participants’ knowledge, attitude and behavior in relation to 
the main themes of the Youth and Non-Violence project. 
7
The questionnaires provided quantitative 
data that, triangulated with qualitative 
information, yielded more relevant and 
accurate findings than what would have 
been possible through interviews and FGDs 
alone. Table 1 summarizes the size and 
composition of respondents. 
Means of Analysis 
In order to provide as accurate an 
evaluation as possible, the evaluators 
identified a number of key questions for 
each project activity. These informed the 
collection of information and data, as well 
as their analysis. Conclusions about 
individual project activities have been 
drawn on the basis of a combination of 
both qualitative and quantitative 
information; they have been further drawn using multiple sources of 
information. 
In the case of the questionnaires, information was compiled into a table and used 
to derive the graphs used throughout the present report. An additional level of 
analysis was employed for the questions regarding knowledge change, as these 
were not developed to test what participants learned, but rather to assess their 
level of knowledge. Thus, answers were measured not as right or wrong, but in 
degrees of pertinence. 
Finally, cross-referencing and triangulation were relied upon in order to ensure 
the most accurate and useful findings. 
Challenges 
The evaluation team encountered a few challenges during the assignment. These 
did not derail the evaluation process, but are important to mention in order to 
improve similar efforts in the future. Challenges included: 
 While project documentation was by and large available and accurate, 
some elements were to date missing, including the output figures for the 
last project quarter (Jan-Mar 2010). Also, data about participants and, 
where available, beneficiaries was not systematically disaggregated. 
 The number of project beneficiaries interviewed was not very high. Only 
three such FGDs were organized because of the short length of the 
assignment, and one of them had to be cancelled (in Mamou). This limited 
the quantity and quality of information about changes among project 
beneficiaries. 
 The questionnaires were not administered in ideal conditions. 
Respondents were given the possibility of not answering to questions, 
8
which in many cases is what they did.1 For this reason, for example, we 
weren’t able to collect sufficient information concerning participants’ 
level of education. Also, the questionnaires were completed without 
supervision and in the case of Kindia, they were given to the local 
facilitator to be distributed to different participants. As a result some of 
the questionnaires had to be voided. Nevertheless, the variation and 
variety of answers provided tend to validate the findings collected 
through the questionnaires. 
III. PROJECT AND COUNTRY OVERVIEW 
Project Overview 
Search for Common Ground (SFCG) in Guinea recently completed an 18-month 
project entitled Youth and Non-Violence in Guinea. The project started in 
September 2008 and lasted until April 2010; it was funded by the US Agency for 
International Development (USAID). 
The Youth and Non-Violence project had the overall goal of promoting the use of 
non-violent methods of resolving conflicts among youth in Guinea. It was 
implemented in Kindia, Mamou and Kankan and included two specific objectives: 
1. To increase the knowledge of youth in conflict management techniques, 
human rights and their civic responsibilities; and 
2. To build the capacity of youth in the target areas to resist manipulation 
and the use of violence to resolve conflicts. 
Furthermore, according to the Performance Management Plan (PMP), SFCG 
intended to achieve the following expected outcomes or intermediary results 
(IR): 
 Youth in the targeted areas demonstrate they have gained knowledge on 
conflict management, human rights and their civic responsibilities and 
have used it in their lives (IR 1); 
 Information and platforms for dialogue on issues of conflict management, 
human rights, and non-violence communication are more available and 
accessible to youth (IR 2); 
 Youth show they can resist manipulation and demonstrate a capacity to 
resolve conflict non-violently (IR 3). 
As part of the project, SFCG executed three types of activities: 
Trainings – Three training events were organized for the benefit of young people 
in Kindia, Mamou and Kankan. The participants included members from local 
youth associations and were, through the training, exposed to modules on: 
human rights, civic duties and conflict resolution/prevention. 
 
1 This was a specific choice made by the evaluators out of concerns over participants’ literacy as 
well as their willingness to share personal information. 
9
Outreach and sensitization events – Once trained, the young participants 
organized a series of follow-on activities aimed at sensitizing their peers in each 
project location on topics relevant to non-violence. These activities included 
public fora, round-tables and debates. Participants and collaborating youth 
associations also organized Peace Festivals in each city, reaching out to broad 
segments of the population. The Festivals included theatre performances and 
competitions; they also feature speeches by local authorities and SFCG staff 
members. 
Radio Production and Broadcasting – Two types of programs were produced and 
broadcast as part of this project: the radio magazine Barada (‘teapot’), a 30-
minute reportage on topics of relevance to the project; and an interactive radio 
show where listeners could call in to discuss topics covered in the radio 
magazines. Three versions (one specific to each city) of Barada were produced 
each week by SFCG in Conakry, with stories identified and collected from the 
field. The 30-minute interactive radio show was produced by the community￾based (and state-owned) Radio Rurale in each of the three cities, with assistance 
from SFCG and usually facilitated by the young participants from the trainings. 
Both programs were broadcast in French as well as the predominant local 
language. 
Country Overview 
The Youth and Non-Violence project was developed in response to the 
deteriorating state of internal security in Guinea and the normalization of 
violence as a means of protest and complaint among young people in the 
country, as evidenced by the riots of January and February 2007. At that time, 
thousands of young people across the country, fed up with a government they 
came to see as illegitimate, took to the streets and attacked government 
buildings, looting and burning them. Aside from Conakry, the violence was 
particularly high in the cities of Kindia, Mamou and Kankan—which is one of the 
reasons why they were selected for this project. 
While the situation following the 2007 events eventually calmed down and 
normalized, the most dramatic changes to Guinea’s political situation were yet to 
come. On December 23, 2008, long-time president Lansana Conte died, putting 
an end to a 23-year-long rule that had defined much of the country’s woes. Hours 
after his death, a military junta seized power in a bloodless coup d’état and 
effectively declared a period of political transition that would last until elections 
could be called. 
At first, Guineans proved very supportive of the new government, the National 
Council for Democracy and Development (CNDD), and self-appointed President 
Moussa Dadis Camara, embracing the end of the Conte era and the promise of 
democratic elections by the end of 2009. Eventually, as the new regime took on 
habits from the old one and elections kept being postponed, popular support 
waned. On September 28, 2010, as thousands of people gathered at the Conakry 
stadium to demonstrate against the CNDD, the military responded violently; the 
result was a massacre of over 150 people that deeply shook the country and the 
10
international community. At present, the CNDD remains in power, although 
presidential elections are tentatively scheduled for June 27. 
The forthcoming elections for the Guinean population will mark the final break 
from decades of military stranglehold of politics and the very first experience of 
truly democratic governance. All stakeholders interviewed during the evaluation 
were unanimous about the elections: all are excited about this momentous event, 
many shared concerns about the risk of political manipulation and violence. 
IV. RESULTS AND CHALLENGES
Relevance 
Findings 
 The relevance of the project to Guinea’s current situation cannot be stressed 
enough. All key stakeholders interviewed made explicit references to the 
role young people played during the violence of January and February 2007. 
In Mamou and Kankan, the signs of that violence are still visible in spite of 
considerable efforts to rehabilitate all damaged public buildings. All 
government and civil society representatives interviewed stressed the 
importance of engaging young people during the transition, lest violence on 
the scale of the 2007 events happens again. 
 The project did not only address political violence. Rather, the formula 
adopted by SFCG, and in particular the freedom it allowed young 
participants to choose the topics they saw most relevant to them, led to 
discussions on a number of different forms of violence, including: during 
sport events, among clans (gangs), in schools, and around grains (cafes 
where young people meet to talk and drink). One project participant 
mentioned organizing an event on violence against women. Many talked 
about organizing sensitization events outside of cities, where discussion 
focused on the forms of violence most typical of rural areas including 
conflicts between cattle-owners and farmers, and between villages over the 
ownership of marshes. This is consistent with the reach of Radio Rurale into 
rural areas, and how popular the program has been among people living 
there, as demonstrated by the number of calls received during the 
interactive program in all three cities. 
 This point is worth emphasizing. Whereas the project intended to address 
political violence and the role youths tend to play in it, one outstanding 
result is that it uncovered many layers or types of violence into which both 
urban and rural youth are drawn, including for example domestic, work￾related, ethnic, inter-generational etc. This opens possibilities for further 
studies on the nature and potential of some of these forms of violence such 
as ‘clan’ violence, a rather teenage phenomenon that has roots in the image 
industry of modern global communications. For example, most of the young 
rebels in the Liberian and Sierra Leone wars took aliases such as ‘Rambo’ or 
‘Tupac’, a phenomenon that is apparently being picked up also by young 
gang leaders in Guinea. 
11
Box 1: Students Protesting Peacefully in Mamou
Demonstrations and strikes have been the norm in Guinea over the last few 
years. Normally, they arise following some conflict among groups of individuals 
or institutions; and small or large, they have always carried a high risk for 
violence. In Mamou, one such demonstration was organized by a group of 
students from a local private college in March 2010 over a perceived conflict 
regarding the need to take exams in order to obtain their diplomas—something 
which the students claim they were not aware. However, young participants to 
the Youth and Non-Violence project had just a few weeks earlier organized a 
sensitization event in that same school, to discuss non-violence and the peaceful 
resolution of conflicts. The event was much appreciated (the young participants 
even mentioned receiving a thank you letter from the school) by those attending 
and appears to have caused immediate impact. When the students organized the 
demonstration, no violence was recorded. 
 Similarly, the choice of participants to the project seems to have been 
relevant, although some challenges have been identified—and are described 
below. The average age of participants was 26 years old—well on target. The 
overall ethnic composition of participants seems also to have been balanced 
based on the questionnaire results—where 32% of respondents described 
themselves as Peule, 23% Malinke and 23% Soussou (19% did not provide 
an answer). 
 Nearly all project participants were members of local associations and all of 
them seemed well connected to peers within the community. All 
questionnaire respondents indicated having discussed the project with other 
people, and particularly with friends, family members and people belonging 
to other associations. 
Challenges 
 The gender ratio of the questionnaire sample is not balanced (26% female to 
70% male), and the imbalance seems to be reflected in project activities. 
SFCG sought to reach gender parity at least during the trainings, and was in 
their admission already challenged in meeting this target. Detailed 
information about the participation of women in the sensitization events and 
peace festivals is not available, but discussions held during the interviews 
and FGDs suggest that the activities might not have taken into sufficient 
consideration the daily situation and challenges faced by women (taking 
time off from work, leaving children behind). This is not meant to devalue 
the participation of women to the project, which has on occasion taken place 
and positively so—especially in Mamou. Nor is SFCG alone in facing the 
problem of how to ensure meaningful participating by women and young 
girls, a fact that representatives from the donor agency themselves 
recognized. Nevertheless, the gender aspect remains a problem and a 
challenge that needs to be addressed in future activities. 
 The ethnic composition of participants is less balanced if we take each 
project location separately, as the table below shows. 
12
Table 2: Ethnic composition of participants, by project location
Ethnicity
Location 
Peule Malinke Soussou Guerze Missing
Kindia 12% 6% 59% 6% 18%
Mamou 67% 6% 6% - 22%
Kankan 8% 75% - - 17%
While this might simply reflect the predominance of a specific group in each 
city (Soussou in Kindia, Peule in Mamou, Malinke in Kankan), it is worth 
asking whether efforts should be made to track and ensure more diversity 
among participants at the city and regional levels instead of nationally only. 
 Of the questionnaire respondents, 72% mentioned having participated in 
training events previous to their participation in the project. This number is 
very high, but consistent with findings from the baseline report, respondents 
to which had on average attended more than 2 training events already. The 
topics of those trainings varied from HIV/AIDS to project development, and 
many seem to have addressed the same topics as the Youth and Non-Violence
project (good governance, human rights). The high percentage of 
participants who had already been exposed to relevant topics begs the 
question of whether the project should have focused on people not 
previously sensitized. 
Effectiveness 
Findings 
 The project appears to have been very effective, although the analysis of its 
true reach and success under this aspect has been hindered by the 
limitations of the time allocated for the evaluation. 
 The knowledge of project participants has definitely increased in line with 
the project’s objective. The pre- and post-training questionnaires that SFCG 
staff used after each workshop (see Quarterly Reports) have tracked the 
positive changes in participants’ knowledge of human rights, civic duties and 
conflict resolution throughout the life of the project. This finding is 
confirmed by the results of the questionnaire used during the evaluation. 
The questionnaire included three questions meant to record participants’ 
knowledge specific to those three fields (human rights, civic duties and 
conflict resolution): 
1. Can you name the four human rights most important to you? 
2. Can you name the three civic duties most important to you? 
3. Can you list three ways to prevent and/or resolve conflict? 
The questions were not meant as a test, and were therefore not measured in 
terms of being right or wrong, but rather in terms of pertinence. As an 
example, in answer to the first question, the right to life was deemed very 
pertinent; the right to food not pertinent. The tables 3, 4 and 5 show the 
results of this analysis. 
13
 The highest pertinence of answers is 
seen for the question on human rights 
(73% of answers were very pertinent). 
More specifically, the rights most cited 
were: to health (57% of all 
respondents), to education (47%) and to 
life (36%). The pertinence of answers 
was lower in the case of civic duties, but 
still high (65% of answers were very 
pertinent). The duties most cited 
included: to safeguard public 
buildings/goods (28% of all 
respondents), to respect others/elders 
(19%) and to pay taxes (17%). In this 
case, however, it is also important to 
note that nearly one third (32%) of all 
respondents did not provide any answer. 
Finally, the pertinence of questions 
regarding conflict resolution was the 
lowest, although still in good range with 
over half of all responses (53%) deemed 
very relevant. The top three techniques 
cited included: mediation (38%), 
negotiation (26%) and dialogue (23%). 
 These results are positive and consistent 
with qualitative information collected 
during focus group discussions. 
Participants to these meetings 
emphasized two particular points. The 
first is how the project has allowed them 
to work together and increase 
collaboration among youth associations, 
which was not the case before the start of 
activities. This was particularly clear in 
Mamou and also Kankan, less so in 
Kindia. “We gained collaboration among 
ourselves”, stated a young participant 
from Mamou, when asked about what he 
liked best about the project. 
 On the achievement of the third intermediary result (“Youth show they can 
resist manipulation and demonstrate a capacity to resolve conflict non￾violently”) the findings are more ambiguous. It is undeniable that the 
participation in the project has allowed young participants to reflect on the 
upcoming elections and the role that political parties play in mobilizing 
people. Local authorities have also expressed their concern that, as electoral 
campaigning will soon start, political manipulation will become a problem. It 
14
appears, in other words, that only now is manipulation becoming the main 
target of activities, likely on account of the fact that the elections have until 
recently appeared too far away or unlikely. As Election Day comes closer, 
however, the relevance of the project to the question of manipulation will 
undoubtedly increase and, judging from the present findings, so will the 
effectiveness of activities in addressing it. 
Box 2: Young Participants’ Engagement in the Electoral Process
At the end of the project, with the elections date set for June 27 and the official 
electoral campaign period about to start, young participants in Mamou decided 
to step up their engagement on the topic of political manipulation. Working 
among themselves, they decided to shoot a short video on the forthcoming 
elections and in particular highlighting the risk of manipulation by political 
parties. After developing the script and filming the short video, the young 
participants shared the final product with SFCG in the hope of having it polished 
and possibly utilized in further sensitization events.
 In regards to the project’s different activities, the analysis of collected 
information suggests a high level of effectiveness. The responses we received 
from all those interviewed were generally very positive. More importantly, 
they are consistent with the information collected through the 
questionnaires. 
 Table 6 shows the participation to 
the different activities among 
questionnaire respondents. The 
highest level of participation is 
registered in the sensitization 
events—an unsurprising finding 
given how many of them were 
organized in all three cities. Only just 
over 50% of all respondents 
participated to the trainings. This is 
by itself not necessarily a problem, 
since the project was meant to 
produce changes within the youth 
associations. At the same time, it’s 
worth noting as it might have influenced some of the findings, in particular 
regarding the pertinence of knowledge-related answers. In other words, had 
the questionnaire been completed by 100% of training participants, the 
pertinence of answers might have been higher. 
 The most interesting findings, however, come from Table 7 and 8, indicating 
the listenership rates among questionnaire respondents for the radio 
magazine Barada and the interactive show. Every week, 45% of all 
respondents indicated listening to Barada and 68% of them tuned in to hear 
the interactive show. These high rates are consistent with what the Directors 
of Radio Rurale in all three cities stated about the increase in the overall 
number of listeners. 
15
 
 Sensitization events were also appreciated by both the project participants 
as well as the beneficiaries interviewed during the evaluation. The 
comments were generally positive in terms of the relevance of the topics 
discussed (the difference between rights and responsibilities was often 
cited), as well as the nature of the facilitation, which was done by the young 
people trained by SFCG. 
Box 3: Success of sensitization events – an example from Kindia 
As part of the sensitization campaign in Kindia, the young participants organized 
a conference at a local school, El Hadj Souleymane Zhiam, in February 2010. 
Following this event, the school principal sent a letter to SFCG’s local facilitator, 
thanking her and the organization for holding such event. “This conference”, 
wrote the principal, “has been a perfect success and the themes—rights vs. 
responsibilities, non-violence in schools, and the peaceful resolution of 
conflicts—have interested all the actors in our institution.” The principal went on 
to say that following the event the students decided unanimously to set up a 
committee for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. 
 Less information was obtained about the peace festivals, but the little that 
was gathered was very positive. By everyone’s admission, the festivals were 
the project activities attended by the most people, a fact confirmed by SFCG’s 
quarterly reports. For example, approximately 1 200 people attended the 
Kindia event and 1 000 participated to the one in Mamou. Beneficiaries and 
organizers alike seemed to have particularly liked the interactive nature of 
the events, where cultural competition and theatre performances were 
organized for the benefit of the audience. An interesting finding is how quite 
a few of the people interviewed mentioned the festivals as a good 
opportunity to reach a wider segment of the people in terms of social class 
and age—whereas the sensitization events seem to have targeted mostly 
(but not exclusively) young people. 
 The radio programs (both the magazine Barada and the interactive show) 
were very appreciated by young participants, community leaders and the 
radio stations themselves. Young participants enjoyed the opportunity to 
participate in the production of the show and even more so the 
responsibility of facilitating discussions in the interactive show. 
16
Challenges 
 The overall reach of project activities has been difficult to assess. Indicators 
from project reports, which have been confirmed through interviews and 
focus group discussions, suggest that the total number of beneficiaries is in 
the tens of thousands, while activities have been organized in many 
neighborhoods both in and outside of the three target cities. This 
notwithstanding, the information collected through the regular monitoring 
efforts, as well as during this evaluation, is still insufficient to arrive at a 
reliable estimate of the actual number of people touched by the project. 
 Several challenges have been identified in the implementation of the radio 
component of the project. In all three cities, the Directors of Programs of the 
Radio Rurales said that the lack of adequate resources and equipment 
caused a few problems. Other challenges, like fuel shortages, are linked to 
the poor state of infrastructure in Guinea. The Directors in Kindia and 
Kankan lamented the poor state of their current equipment and how this 
should be replaced to improve the quality of programs (the Radio Rurale in 
Mamou has recently received brand new equipment from another 
international NGO). The Director in Kankan mentioned occasionally 
receiving damaged CDs and having to request new copies, thus delaying the 
broadcasting schedule. 
 A particular challenge worth highlighting is linked to the interactive radio 
program, which allows people to call in to respond and comment on the 
issues chosen for discussion. In Mamou, a caller during one of these shows 
made derogatory remarks about President Dadis Camara, leading to the 
suspension of broadcasts for two months. This has been the only such 
incident remarked, and Radio Directors are adamant about the risk of such 
occurrences being low, but it is still important to note, especially as the 
political debate is likely to heat up on account of the elections. 
 Young participants have expressed some frustrations with the level of 
resources allocated for sensitization events, which they judged to be below 
their expectations. This, in the words of many of the young people 
interviewed, has limited the reach of the project, whereas the participants 
were ready and eager to branch out and organize activities in many more 
neighborhoods. 
 Finally, it is worth noting that, albeit successful, the nature of the 
sensitization events changed during the implementation of the project. In the 
original proposal, these were in fact meant as follow-on trainings to be 
delivered by the young participants to their peers. While this has been the 
case for some events, most seem to have been debates, conferences or other 
kind of outreach events. Nevertheless, all events provided opportunities to 
discuss human rights, civic duties and the peaceful resolution of conflict. 
17
Impact 
Findings 
 All people interviewed—young participants, beneficiaries, local authorities 
and civil society leaders—stated that no major instances of violence have 
occurred in their respective cities after the events of 2007. They all 
acknowledged that violence has decreased considerably, and all appreciated 
how the youth in Kindia, Mamou and Kankan have started playing a more 
positive role in their communities. “Young people are more peaceful now”, 
said an Imam from Kindia, “they use mediation more.” The Secretary for 
Administration at the Mamou prefecture expressed his support for the 
project by stating that “young people are now abandoning violence.” One 
young participant from Kindia stated that “before [the project] there were 
always problems, but through the project and with the presence on the 
ground, things improved.” This has been one of the stronger findings of the 
current evaluation, and while more sources of information could be looked 
at to assess this claim more rigorously, there is no doubt about the 
consensus among all those interviewed. 
 To reinforce this claim, local authorities recalled their concern about the 
potential for violence by young people, most notably after the 28 September 
stadium massacre in Conakry. Some of them did not hide their surprise at 
how peaceful and calm the situation remained after that event in all three 
cities. And some young participants in Mamou, when asked about this, even 
mentioned having received rallying calls from their peers in Conakry, which 
they rejected as a result of the work in which they were fully engaged. No 
violent response was thus recorded. 
 A key result in terms of impact is how the Youth and Non-Violence project 
seems to be changing the role of Radio Rurale in the three cities. As 
mentioned before, the Directors of Programs in all three locations said that 
the project’s radio programs were responsible for an increase in 
listenership, especially among young people. This was confirmed by young 
participants and beneficiaries alike. Furthermore, all the directors remarked 
that the new programs have increased the overall quality of radio programs, 
and in Kindia and Kankan they also said that interactive shows were added 
to their broadcast on account of the popularity of the one produced with the 
assistance of SFCG. 
 Finally, another very important finding in terms of impact has been the way 
in which the project has contributed to greater collaboration among young 
people and between youth associations. According to the participants and 
authorities the new trend established by the project for youth to form 
associations and consortia has made it easier for the youth leadership to be 
recognized and consulted. The story reported in Box 4 bears witness to this 
most positive finding. It also implies the existence of platforms for 
information flow and face-to-face dialogue that were clearly not present in 
the three cities before the start of the project. 
18
Box 4: Reconciliation between Youth and Local Authorities in Mamou 
The city of Mamou witnessed some of the worst violence during the events of 
2007. Nearly all public buildings were targeted, looted and several burned down, 
with young people playing a central role in the destruction. When the 
government decided to rehabilitate the regional prefecture, representatives from 
different youth organizations engaged in the Youth and Non-Violence project
agreed that, given the responsibility of their peers in the events of 2007, a 
symbolic act of reconciliation with local authorities was necessary. Therefore, 
they initially agreed to coordinate amongst themselves to take care of the 
cleaning up of the building. Eventually they decided to do more. They set quotas 
for donations from each willing association and with the money collected they 
bought some chairs and tables, which they then donated to the prefect. The act 
was symbolic, but it was much appreciated by local government representatives; 
on their side, the youth representatives were glad about the recognition they 
received, as well as the appreciation local authorities demonstrated. To this day, 
collaboration between young people and local authorities in Mamou is regular, 
genuine and positively felt by both sides. 
Challenges 
 Guinea has over the past two years undergone radical political changes. Just 
as the project started, for example, long-time president Lansana Conte died, 
an event that eventually led to a military coup and the political transition the 
country is currently still navigating. 
 The coming elections are a potential threat to the results the project 
achieved in discussing non-violence among youth. Some authorities and 
even older youth fear that the vulnerable adolescent youth especially those 
in schools can still be manipulated into violent political conduct. 
Other Criteria and Considerations 
Efficiency
 Table 9 summarizes the outputs delivered by the project from October 2008 
to December 20092: 
Table 9: Project Outputs
Output Indicator Achieved 
(Apr 2010)
Original 
Target
%
1. Training of 
trainers for youth 
leaders held
1.1. # of TOTs held 3 3 100%
1.2. # of youth trained 76 72 106%
1.3. # of people trained in conflict 
mitigation/ resolution skills with 
USG assistance (PS 6.1)
76 72 106%
2. Follow-on 
training for youth 
group members
2.1. # of trainings held 90 36 250%
2.2. # of people trained 7283 1080 674%
2.3. # of people trained in conflict 
mitigation/ resolution skills with 
USG assistance 
7283 1080 674%
 
2 Information about the last project quarter (Jan-Mar 2010) was not available at the time of the 
evaluation. It is, however, forthcoming. 
19
3. Peace festivals 
organized
3.1. # of peace festivals organized 3 3 100%
3.2. # of USG-assisted 
reconciliation activities conducted 
and completed with the 
participated of two or more 
conflicting parties
3 3 100%
3.3. # of people participating in 
USG-assisted reconciliation 
activities conducted and completed 
with the participation of two or 
more conflicting parties
2700 750 360%
4. Radio magazine 
programs 
produced
4.1. # of radio magazines produced 93 120 77%
4.2. # of USG-assisted public 
information campaigns to support 
peaceful resolution of conflicts
93 120 77%
5. Radio call-in 
shows facilitated
5.1. # of call-in shows hosted 61 90 68%
5.2. # of USG-assisted public 
information campaigns to support
peaceful resolution of conflict
61 90 68%
 The project has been very efficient, not only delivering most outputs 
promised, but also generally exceeding targets. This is particularly 
impressive in the case of the follow-on trainings, where SFCG was able to 
hold nearly three times the number of events originally proposed and 
reaching over six times the number of intended beneficiaries. 
 The targets for the media outputs have, at the time of the evaluation, not yet 
been met. However, with one more quarterly report due, SFCG is on pace to 
meet the original targets of 120 episodes of Barada and 90 interactive 
shows. 
Sustainability 
 By training youth associations in the thematic areas, and involving them in 
the organization of festivals, the use of theatre and arts as a medium for 
sensitization on issues and facilitation of radio programs, youth have been 
significantly empowered and equipped to create their own projects and 
continue positive action in non-violence and civic education. For example, 
following their participating to the project, the young participants in Mamou 
worked together to develop a project proposal focusing on the establishment 
of peace committees in selected neighborhoods across the city. The project 
was submitted to PROBEB and funded. 
 The creation of conflict resolution committees took place also in other cities 
(see Box 3), generally as an offshoot of the sensitization exercises and to 
bring together youth who handle issues that are likely to lead to violence. 
This was not an intended part of the project but should be envisaged in 
future projects as a factor of sustainability, supported in its initial stages of 
existence. 
 Any assessment of the progress made by SFCG towards sustainability of 
results should be balanced by context considerations as well as the limited 
duration of the project, which after all lasted only 18 months. The 
20
combination of these factors made planning for sustainability much harder: 
it created on one side a cloud of uncertainty over the implementation of 
activities; on the other, it required constant adaptation from SFCG. The 
project’s efficiency and effectiveness attest to the project staff’s ability to 
respond to these extraordinary circumstances. As activities will hopefully 
continue in a more predictable environment, it will become important to 
address the topic of sustainability as early on in the implementation of 
activities as possible. 
V. REFLECTING ON RESULTS
The Youth and Non-Violence project has shown how inclusion and recognition 
can transform youth into positive agents of change, releasing their huge potential 
and creativity in the process for the benefit of the entire community. Secondly, 
communication whether through radio, theatre and the arts seems to have been 
a powerful driver of change. The theatre competitions were most effective 
according to a variety of participants. It is also worth noting that the quality of 
radio programs produced by SFCG induced change in many ways: in the radio 
listening habit of the youths; and in the style of broadcasting by the producers, 
now leaning more to phone in inter-active programs. It can also be argued that it 
is largely through effective and positive use of communication that possible 
danger was averted in the three project locations at the time of the September 28 
stadium massacre. 
What the project has done for the Radio Rurales in all three locations is 
particularly interesting and worth looking at in greater detail—perhaps as part 
of future monitoring and evaluation efforts. The information collected as part of 
the present effort strongly suggests that the project is changing the role the radio 
station plays in the community and among young people in particular. Apart 
from the already mentioned increase in listenership and programming quality, 
the radio directors also pointed out the project allowed them to break taboo and 
discuss topics—about governance, accountability, etc.—that were never 
approached on the radio before. Naturally, this has been made possible by a freer 
media environment—a consequence of the end of the Conte regime. 
Nevertheless, the project seems to be taking the most advantage of this situation, 
and Radio Rurale staff members appreciate this effort. 
Why is this so important? Arguably for two reasons: first, Radio Rurale has a 
wide reach, especially in the country’s hinterland (the director of programs in 
Kankan mentioned that the radio there operated on 3 000 kW instead of 300 or 
500, which is more usual). Secondly, Radio Rurale is state-owned and as such 
represents an important nexus between government and civil society. Working 
with and through Radio Rurale might lead to greater levels of social cohesion and 
reconciliation while avoiding the risk of the project becoming politicized. 
21
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
The evaluation has uncovered very many findings, about the effectiveness and 
relevance of the action, but also its impact. The largely positive nature of the 
results achieved by the Youth and Non-Violence project provides the best 
evidence in support of the continuation of activities. The consensus among all 
project participants and stakeholders interviewed is also for the project to be 
continued. As a consequence, the evaluators’ main recommendation is to ensure 
the continuation of the project and its activities. This will allow to consolidate 
the results so far achieved, to increase the intervention’s impact and to reach 
sustainability. 
Furthermore, the evaluation team has identified a number of other 
recommendations for future planning and implementation: 
 Improve the collection of relevant output- and outcome-level data by 
creating a monitoring system better tailored to the project’s specific 
formula. 
 Develop a more explicit gender strategy to ensure greater participation 
by women and young girls to all project activities. One possibility would 
be to commission a study on the topic, looking at women’s role in 
different kinds of violence (political, domestic, etc.). This study could be 
developed in conjunction with USAID and/or other agencies working in 
Guinea, as its value is likely to benefit a wide array of international and 
local actors also facing the question of how to effectively mainstream 
gender considerations into their programs. 
 Be clearer in the definition of key project terms, such as who the 
stakeholders are and who make up the primary and secondary target 
groups. 
 Organize more consistent and regular follow-up with project 
beneficiaries—i.e. community members who are supposed to benefit 
from the sensitization events and the radio broadcasts. SFCG has 
successfully established a presence in each city and effectively liaises with 
project participants and partners. Beneficiaries have, however, remained 
largely out of this loop, making it difficult to judge what changes the 
project is promoting among them. This could easily be corrected by 
ensuring a more regular collection of feedback (letters, call-ins) and the 
organization of regular (perhaps quarterly) FGDs with community 
members in project locations. 
 Increase the amount of resources allocated to young participants for the 
organization of sensitization events. All young leaders have shown their 
willingness to do very much with limited resources; many, however, also 
lamented that the level of resources did not match their expectations. 
Given the importance of the sensitization events, it would be important 
22
for participants to have the resources to properly expand their reach and 
play an even greater role in their communities and cities. 
 Support the formation of area or neighborhood youth conflict resolution 
committees as a sustainability feature of the project. Some young 
participants are already doing this (in Mamou); most community leaders 
interviewed seemed favorable to greater youth involvement. 
 Support the strengthening of capacities of Radio Rurale. 
 Address other forms of violence among the youth apart from political 
violence. 
ANNEXES
1. Evaluation Terms of References 
2. Evaluation Plan 
3. List of Meetings Held and Interviewees 
4. Evaluation Questions 
5. Evaluation Questionnaire 
23
ANNEX 1 – TERMS OF REFERENCE (TORS) 
Terms of Reference, Final Evaluation of the USAID-funded project “Youth and Non￾Violence in Guinea “ 
1. Context: 
A year and nearly three months after the military seized power in the transition from the regime 
of the late President Lansana Conte, Guinea has experienced several incidents of civil unrest and 
political violence among which the 28th September 2009 events where the presidential guard 
massacred 157 people and raped several women at a pro-democracy rally in the capital Conakry. 
These events isolated internationally the military regime and tensions continued to grow up 
within the country. 
With the near fatal shooting on 3 December 2009 of Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, President of 
the Conseil National de Democratie et Development (CNDD) in power, and the appointment of the 
Junta Defense Minister Sékouba Konaté as interim President after the Ouagadougou agreement 
on 15th January 2010, a number of actions to support a democratic transition has been taken 
although the transition remains itself vulnerable to the individual strategies of politicians. A new 
government led by an opposition leader and the National Council for the Transition have been 
appointed; negotiations to reform the Guinea security system are taking place with the 
international community, and presidential elections are likely to take place on 27 June 2010 
under the leadership of General Sekouba Konate who in his several speeches has mentioned his 
determination for a successful transition. 
These elections, if held in a credible and transparent manner, will provide a window of 
opportunity to end the current crisis and put Guinea on the path to stability. However, it’s 
important to keep in mind that further political violence and disenfranchisement can easily 
derail the process if the seeds of political divisions continue to be fueled among the populations 
especially during the sensitive period of electoral campaign. Community tensions are easily to 
arise throughout the country as it happened recently in N’zerekore if people and especially 
youths are not well prepared to resist violence and political manipulation 
Youths in Guinea have been several times involved in violent protests movements to express 
their frustration with hope to be heard by country leaders. The worst violence took place during 
strikes in January 2007 when more than 137 people, mostly youth, were killed. 
In response to this approach of normalization of violence as a means of protest and complaint 
among young people in the country and in order to prepare youth resist violence and political 
manipulations ahead the elections time, SFCG initiated an 18 months youth and Non violence 
project starting 15th September 2008 in three targeted areas; Kindia, Mamou, and Kankan 
funded by USAID. This project has been completed and its overall objective was that youth in the 
targeted areas use non-violent methods to resolve conflict. The project was based on a concept 
that information is a powerful driver of change, and had two objectives: 
• To increase the knowledge of youth in conflict management techniques, human rights 
and their civic responsibilities; and 
• To build the capacity of youth in the target areas to resist manipulation and the use of 
violence to resolve conflicts. 
2. Evaluation Objectives: 
1. To evaluate the impact of the 18 month project “Youth and non violence in Guinea” in 
enabling youth to deal with conflict and elude manipulation 
2. Collect stories of changes brought about by the project 
24
3. Provide recommendations to improve future planning and for replication of similar 
youth project within the organization. 
3. Scope of Work 
The consultant is expected to apply the evaluative criteria selected below and address the key 
evaluation questions proposed: 
3.1 Evaluation criteria and key evaluation question 
Relevance: 
 To what extent the project approach was relevant to address the use of violence among 
youth? Was the set of activities sufficient? To what extent did the different categories of 
activities complement each other? 
 Did the project target the right group of beneficiary? Who has received support and why? 
(Inclusion/exclusion bias in selection of stakeholders and bias in selecting the 
participants within the category of youth leaders)? 
 Was the approach of working with youth leaders relevant to reach their peers at large? 
 What unexpected results did the project bring about? 
Effectiveness: 
 To what extent did the project reach the purposes it has planned to achieve? What major 
factors contributed to achieve or not its objectives (factors of success and challenges)? 
 To what extent did the participating youth use the learned skills to resolve conflicts? To 
what extent can the information collected on that be attributed to the project success? 
 To what extent did the project empower youth to resist manipulation? 
 How successfully have the trained youth leaders been in undertaking replication of the 
trainings (or parts of the training) among youth associations? What successes and 
challenges did they experience in this regard? What was the degree and quality of SFCG 
assistance to youth leaders to help them to prepare those trainings? 
 To what extent did the Peace festivals show a potential constructive engagement of 
youth in their own community? 
 What is the ex-post level of willingness to act and resolve conflict among participating 
youth? 
Additionally, the consultants are requested to measure the following project indicators as 
defined in the proposal (see the Performance Management Plan in the project proposal) 
- # of stakeholders in the target cities who say there is a decrease in violent behavior 
among youth in their areas 
- Percentage of listeners to radio program who have gained information from the program 
on conflict management techniques and human rights 
- # of trained youth who report resolving a conflict in their lives through non-violent 
means in the past month 
It should be noted that given the time and budget constraints the measurement of some of these 
indicators might be not feasible. The consultants have to justify in the methodology proposed 
the decision to relinquish measurement of any of these indicators. 
3.2 Other assignment 
25
The consultants are asked to conduct a review workshop before writing the draft report. Time 
allowing, the consultants will present the main findings to be discussed with the key SFCG staff 
and partners. The consultants will then incorporate the feedback and input into the first draft of 
the evaluation report. 
4. Theories of Change 
Behind every peacebuilding initiative there is at least one theory of change. A theory of change is 
a set of beliefs about how change happens. For example, one is that culture changes when a 
critical mass of people takes on new values or morals. In this proposal we stated that 
information can drive change and it’s related to the critical mass theory. Often 
The theories of change remain implicit, unstated, and unexplored. CMM has become very explicit 
since this proposal was approved about their theories of change. Therefore this evaluation 
should also use this rubric to examine the theories that underlie the design of this proposal and 
undertake the analysis with these in mind. 
5. Methodology 
The evaluation methodology will be defined by the consultants, taking into account budget and 
time constraints. However, the SFCG Guinea requests that the methodology suggested by the 
consultant incorporates the following principles or approaches: 
a) The evaluation methodology will include a desk review of project proposal, project 
reports and other relevant documentation related to the project 
b) The evaluation methodology is expected to incorporate mixed methods (qualitative and 
quantitative) which will include the collection of qualitative information through key 
informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD). 
Potential key informants may be (not limited to): 
- Key staff of local implementing partners 
- Relevant NGO working in the same field 
- Youth leaders 
- Youth group members 
- Local government leaders 
c) To incorporate in the analysis the data collected from the project monitoring when 
relevant (notably regarding the effectiveness criterion; this includes taking into account 
the training evaluation results done during the project implementation) 
6. Deliverables 
The following specific deliverables will be expected (in English) 
• Final Technical Offer from the consultants to include a detailed evaluation work plan and 
detailed methodology. If some requirements or objectives of the evaluation as defined 
hereby cannot be met or taken out, the consultant should justify his decision in the technical 
offer. 
• Questionnaires, discussion guides and other data collection tools 
• Fieldwork report provided within 3 working days after the end of the data collection 
phase (report describing how the data collection tools were developed, how the recruitment 
26
and training of the enumerators, how the fieldwork went off and what challenges were 
faced). The fieldwork report shouldn’t exceed 3 pages. 
• Data electronic files 
• Final evaluation Report. The final report shall include the following sections: executive 
summary, table of project indicators covered, findings and analysis, recommendations, and 
the common annexes (template of data collection tools, terms of reference, the evaluation 
schedule, list of people met (by group) and list of document consulted. Lastly, the consultant 
will format the executive summary in a separate document: “key findings”. (Format provided 
by SFCG) 
7. Timeframe 
The evaluation will start from April 5 and last to May 5: 
April 5, 2010: Technical offer from consultant 
April 8-12: Desk review, development and revision of data collection tools, preparation of 
fieldwork 
April 13 - 21: Fieldwork 
April 27: Draft report 
May 5: Final report (including feedback and comments) 
8. Logistics 
SFCG will supply the following: 
 Hotels for consultants in Conakry and up country 
 Round trip and transportation for local trip up country 
 Per Diem at $400 for the 12 days spent in the field 
 Payment as agreed after negotiation within the budget limits 
 Accident Insurance (see attached policy) 
9. Requirements 
The consultant should meet the following requirements 
 Respect of Ethical Principles (adapted from the American Evaluation 
Association Guiding Principles for Evaluators, July 2004): 
 Comprehensive and systematic inquiry: Evaluators should make the most of the existing 
information and full range of stakeholders available at the time of the evaluation. Evaluators 
should conduct systematic, data-based inquiries. They should communicate their methods and 
approaches accurately and in sufficient detail to allow others to understand, interpret and 
critique their work. They should make clear the limitations of the evaluation and its results. 
27
 Competence: Evaluators should possess the abilities and skills and experience appropriate to 
undertake the tasks proposed and should practice within the limits of their professional training 
and competence. 
 Honesty and integrity: Evaluators should be transparent with the contractor/constituent 
about: any conflict of interest, any change made in the negotiated project plan and the reasons 
why those changes were made, any risk that certain procedures or activities produce misleading 
evaluative information. 
 Respect for people: Evaluators respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents, 
program participants. Evaluators have the responsibility to be sensitive to and respect 
differences among participants in culture, religion, gender, disability, age and ethnicity. 
 Quality Control 
SFCG reserves the right to carry out quality control during the fieldwork without interfering 
with the consultant team work. 
28
ANNEX 2 – EVALUATION PROPOSAL AND PLAN 
Introduction 
SFCG has requested a formal evaluation of the project entitled Youth and Non-Violence in 
Guinea, which was implemented in three cities of Guinea between September 2008 and 
April 2010. The present document is a proposal concerning the methodology and the 
plan to conduct the aforementioned evaluation. 
Bernardo Monzani and Dennis Bright will compose the proposed team for the 
assignment. Mr. Monzani is a Design, Monitoring and Evaluation (DM&E) Specialist with 
SFCG in Morocco; Mr. Bright is the West and Francophone Africa Regional Director for 
the international NGO Right to Play. The team members’ combined experience is ideal 
for the present assignment: Mr. Monzani brings expertise specific to the field of 
monitoring and evaluation, having conducted and managed several evaluations; Mr. 
Bright is a civil society activist and a long-time manager of youth-focused programs. 
From Sierra Leone and currently living in Ghana, Mr. Bright has an unparalleled 
knowledge of the region and its socio-political dynamics. 
According to the terms of references (TORs), the evaluation has three objectives: 
1. To evaluate the impact of the project in enabling youth to deal with conflict and 
elude manipulation; 
2. To collect stories of changes brought about by the project; 
3. To provide recommendations to improve future planning and for replication of 
similar youth project within the organization. 
The evaluation is to focus on the following criteria: 
Criteria Lines of Inquiry
Relevance  To what extent the project approach was relevant to address the use 
of violence among youth? Was the set of activities sufficient? To 
what extent did the different categories of activities complement 
each other?
 Did the project target the right group of beneficiary? Who has 
received support and why? (Inclusion/exclusion bias in selection of 
stakeholders and bias in selecting the participants within the 
category of youth leaders)?
 Was the approach of working with youth leaders relevant to reach 
their peers at large?
 What unexpected results did the project bring about?
Effectiveness  To what extent did the project reach the purposes it has planned to 
achieve? What major factors contributed to achieve or not its 
objectives (factors of success and challenges)?
 To what extent did the participating youth use the learned skills to 
resolve conflicts? To what extent can the information collected on 
that be attributed to the project success?
 To what extent did the project empower youth to resist 
manipulation?
 How successfully have the trained youth leaders been in 
undertaking replication of the trainings (or parts of the training) 
among youth associations? What successes and challenges did they 
experience in this regard? What was the degree and quality of SFCG 
assistance to youth leaders to help them to prepare those trainings?
 To what extent did the Peace festivals show a potential constructive 
29
engagement of youth in their own community?
 What is the ex-post level of willingness to act and resolve conflict 
among participating youth?
Impact  Although no specific lines of inquiry are defined, the first goal of the 
present evaluation is to assess what—if any—impact the project has 
had. 
Efficiency and sustainability will also be considered, although priority will be given to 
the three above-mentioned criteria. 
Evaluation Methodology 
In order to collect all the necessary data to respond to the lines of inquiry identified 
above, the evaluation team proposes a methodology based on the following tools: 
Desktop and Document Review: The evaluators will review all project documents, 
starting from the original proposal to the approved PMP, the baseline, quarterly and 
event reports. Furthermore, other documents will be taken into consideration to 
provide a clearer picture of the dynamic context in which the project occurred. 
Although started in September 2008, the project was implemented in a context very 
different from that in which it was designed. The death of long-time president Conte in 
December 2008 and the subsequent coup drastically changed the political context in 
which activities were to take place. Subsequent developments, including the stadium 
massacre of September 2009 and the preparation of presidential elections require a 
thorough analysis of contextual changes, one that takes into account of the perspectives 
of individuals and agencies outside of SFCG. A possible list of sources includes: 
- International Crisis Group (ICG) reports 
- UN reports 
- Articles or other studies conducted between Dec 2008 and Jan 2010 
SFCG internal strategic and project documents will naturally constitute the starting 
point of the analysis. 
Focus Group Discussions: The evaluators will conduct at least 6 FGDs in order to obtain 
qualitative information concerning the project’s impact and effectiveness—two in each 
of the three target cities. 
The first FGD in each location will draw participants from the 72+ young people whom 
SFCG has trained since the beginning of the project. The FGD format will also allow the 
evaluators in obtaining information about the level of knowledge that the participants 
(and if possible also the beneficiaries) have of conflict resolution and management. 
The second FGD in each location will include listeners to the radio programs—i.e. the 
project’s final beneficiaries of the project. FGD participants could also include 
individuals who have attended outreach events. 
Key Informant Interviews: To obtain information about the progress and success of the 
project (and in particular to triangulate information for greater accuracy of findings), 
the evaluators will meet and interview a series of key stakeholders to the project 
(maximum 6 individuals). The list (tentative and non-exhaustive) would include: 
- Project implementing partners in the 3 locations: 
o Youth associations 
o Radio Stations 
30
- Local community leaders (including government officials) 
- Other NGOs working on the same issues 
Meetings with government representatives will in particular be sough, if conditions 
allow them. 
Questionnaires: The evaluators will develop a standard questionnaire with responses 
about the knowledge, attitude and behavior changes among the project’s key 
stakeholders. The questionnaires will provide quantitative data that, triangulated with 
qualitative information, will hopefully yield more relevant and accurate findings. The 
envisioned respondents include project participants (from partnering youth 
associations) and beneficiaries (listeners, people who attended sensitization events, 
etc.). 
Because the questionnaire will be completed by individuals with different exposure to 
the project and its activities, the results and data it will generate will be cross￾referenced with an “exposure index”—i.e. a measurement of an individual’s involvement 
in the project. Cross-referencing will tentatively provide an indication of the difference 
the project made and, therefore, of its impact. 
The proposed length of assignment is 21 days, of which 10 will be spent in country (14 
for Mr. Monzani) with visits to each of the three project locations. 
Work Plan 
What Who Where When
Document review Bernardo, Dennis Home-based 5-12 April
Arrival in Conakry Bernardo, Dennis Conakry 12 April
Inception Meeting & 
Questionnaire development
Bernardo, Dennis Conakry 13 April
Questionnaires 
Dissemination/Collection
SFCG Guinea Kindia, Mamou 
and Kankan
13-21 April
Field Visit – Kindia
- FGD (1 or 2)
- Interviews
Bernardo, Dennis + 
SFCG staff
Kindia TBD
Field Visit – Mamou
- FGD (1 or 2)
- Interviews
Bernardo, Dennis + 
SFCG staff
Mamou TBD
Field Visit – Kankan
- FGD (1 or 2)
- Interviews
Bernardo, Dennis + 
SFCG staff
Kankan TBD
Return to Conakry Conakry 19 April
Team Self-Review Bernardo, Dennis + 
SFCG project staff
Conakry TBD
Data analysis Bernardo, Dennis Conakry 19-20 April
Departure from Guinea Dennis Conakry 20-21 April
First Draft Report Bernardo, Dennis Conakry 22-24 April
Departure from Guinea Bernardo Conakry 24 April
Final Report Bernardo, Dennis Home-based 26 April-5 
May
31
Evaluation Plan 
Evaluation 
Criteria
Lines of Inquiry Means of 
Verification
Data source and 
Quantity
Location of Data 
Collection
Time needed
Relevance  To what extent the project approach was 
relevant to address the use of violence among 
youth? Was the set of activities sufficient? To 
what extent did the different categories of 
activities complement each other?
 Did the project target the right group of 
beneficiary? Who has received support and 
why? (Inclusion/exclusion bias in selection of 
stakeholders and bias in selecting the 
participants within the category of youth 
leaders)?
 Was the approach of working with youth 
leaders relevant to reach their peers at large?
 What unexpected results did the project bring 
about?
FGDs 
Questionnaires
Key Information 
Interviews
Trained youth 
Idem as above
Project 
stakeholders
Key Stakeholders 
Each of the 3 
project locations
3 days (1 in each 
location)
Included in 
above
8 days
4 days
Effectiveness  To what extent did the project reach the 
purposes it has planned to achieve? What 
major factors contributed to achieve or not its 
objectives (factors of success and challenges)?
 To what extent did the participating youth use 
the learned skills to resolve conflicts? To what 
extent can the information collected on that be 
attributed to the project success?
 To what extent did the project empower youth 
to resist manipulation?
 How successfully have the trained youth 
leaders been in undertaking replication of the 
trainings (or parts of the training) among 
youth associations? What successes and 
challenges did they experience in this regard? 
Document Review
FGDs
Questionnaires
KII
Project and other 
reports
Trained youth
Project 
Stakeholders
Project Staff
Key stakeholders 
Home-based and 
Conakry
Idem as before
Idem as before
Conakry
Conakry and the 3 
locations
4 days
3 days
8 days
½ day
4 days
32
What was the degree and quality of SFCG 
assistance to youth leaders to help them to 
prepare those trainings?
 To what extent did the Peace festivals show a 
potential constructive engagement of youth in 
their own community?
 What is the ex-post level of willingness to act 
and resolve conflict among participating 
youth?
Impact  Although no specific lines of inquiry are 
defined, the first goal of the present evaluation 
is to assess what—if any—impact the project 
has had. 
TBD TBD TBD TBD
Efficiency  Did the project deliver our outputs and 
outcomes in an efficient manner (results 
against costs)?
Document Review Project and other 
reports
Project Staff
Home-based and 
Conakry
Conakry
4 days
½ day
33
ANNEX 3: LIST OF MEETINGS HELD AND INTERVIEWEES 
In Conakry: 
Event Who No (M/F) Agency Date
Interview Production Assistants, Field 
Coordinator
3 (2/1) SFCG 04/14
Interview Country Director 1 (1/0) SFCG 04/20
In Kindia: 
Event Who No (M/F) Agency Date
Interview Mayor of Kindia 1 (1/0) Local Government 04/15
Interview Centre d’information de 
proximité (CIP/UNDP)
1 (1/0) NGO 04/15
Interview Imams 3 (3/0) Community Leaders 04/15
FGD Project beneficiaries 14 (3/11) Community members 04/15
FGD Young participants 19 (15/4) Youth associations 04/15
Interview Director of Programs for 
Radio Rurale, President of 
Kindia’s Listeners 
Associations 
2 (2/0) Media Partner 04/15
In Mamou: 
Event Who No (M/F) Agency Date
Interview Secretary for 
Administration
1 (1/0) Local Government 04/16
Interview Governor, Chief of Staff, 
Charge de Mission
3 (3/0) Local Government 04/16
Interview Priest 1 (1/0) Community Leader 04/16
Interview Chef de quartier 1 (1/0) Community Leader 04/16
Interview Imam 1 (1/0) Community Leader 04/16
FGD Young participants 15 (11/4) Youth associations 04/16
Interview Director of Programs for 
Radio Rurale
1 (1/0) Media Partner 04/16
In Kankan: 
Event Who No (M/F) Agency Date
FGD Project beneficiaries 7 (6/1) Community members 04/18
FGD Young participants 11 (10/1) Youth associations 04/18
Interview Delegue prefecturale a la 
jeunesse (DPJ)
1 (1/0) Local government 04/18
Interview School directors, chef de 
quartier
3 (3/0) Community leaders 04/18
Interview Director of Programs for 
Radio Rurale
1 (1/0) Media Partner 04/18
TOTAL: 
 13 interviews, 24 total participants (23 male and 1 female) 
 5 Focus Group Discussions, 66 total participants (45 male and 21 female) 
34
ANNEX 4 – EVALUATION QUESTIONS (INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS 
GROUP DISCUSSIONS) 
Questions for Government Representatives and Civil Society Leaders 
1. What do you know about the project? Have you participated in any of the 
activities? Which ones? 
2. Have you listened to the radio magazine and/or call-in program? 
3. What has the project done for you and your community/society? 
4. What do you see as the most important challenges/problems in the community? 
5. What is your perception of young people in the community/society? 
6. What factors (or who) do you think are most influential in determining how 
young people act? 
7. In your opinion, has the project changed the role youth play? 
8. Do you think your relationship with young people in your community has 
changed during the life of the project? How? 
Questions for Media and Civil Society Partners 
1. What has your involvement in the project been? 
2. What kind of support have you received from SFCG? 
3. What has the project done for you and your community/society? 
4. What do you see as the most important challenges/problems in the community? 
5. What is your perception of young people in the community/society? 
6. What factors (or who) do you think are most influential in determining how 
young people act? 
7. In your opinion, has the project changed the role youth play? 
8. Do you think your relationship with young people in your community has 
changed during the life of the project? How? 
9. What would you change about the project in the future? 
Questions for Youth Participants and Beneficiaries (Discussions) 
A. Intro/General 
1. In which part of the project did you participate? 
2. What did you hope to get from the project? Did you get what you wanted? 
3. What types of violence do you recognize in your community? 
B. Knowledge 
4. What is the most important thing that you have learned by participating in the 
project? 
5. What does non-violence mean to you? 
C. Attitudes 
6. Did anyone apart from your association colleagues talk to you about the radio 
programs? What was their impression? 
35
7. Do you think the program will contribute to curtail violence among youth in 
future? 
8. Has the program changed the way you look at yourself in society? Or the way 
you look at the authorities? 
D. Behavior 
9. Can you give a concrete example that you are aware of in which people who 
participated to this program had to confront violence? What was their reaction? 
10. Have you used any of the things you learned in the activities (training, radio, 
peace festival) in your daily life? 
36
ANNEX 5 – EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE 
11. General Information 
Age: Gender: M ou F Ethnic Group:
Location: Education: Employed: Y ou N
12. Are you a member of an association? YES / NO 
13. How many times have you listened to the radio magazine “Barada”? (Check one)
Every week Every month
Irregularly but more than 10 times Irregularly but less than 10 times
I never heard the radio magazine
14. How many times have you listened to the radio call-in program? (Check one) 
Every week Every month
Irregularly but more than 10 times Irregularly but less than 10 times
I never heard the radio call-in program
15. To what activities did you participate: 
Training Outreach/Sensitization events
Peace festivals Radio discussions
I did not participate in any activity Other (Please specify): 
16. Have you discussed any of the activities with other people? YES / NO 
17. If yes, with whom? ______________________________ 
18. Have you attended trainings before? YES / NO 
19. If yes, on what subjects? _________________________________ 
20. How often do you meet and relate to other youth in your community apart from 
members of your association? 
Every day Every week
Every month Irregularly
Never 
21. Did you learn anything about human rights during the program? YES / NO 
22. Can you name four human rights, which are the most important for you? 
23. Did you learn about your responsibilities as a young citizen? YES / NO 
24. Name three civic responsibilities which are the most important for you?