MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE 
ADVANCING NATIONAL INTEGRATION (ANI) 
PROJECT IN GEORGIA
January 2014
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Mendez, England & Associates
MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF 
USAID/CAUCASUS ADVANCING NATIONAL 
INTEGRATION (ANI) PROJECT IN GEORGIA 
Final Report 
15 January 2014 
Prepared under RFTOP No. SOL-114-13-000008 
Submitted to: 
USAID/Caucasus 
Submitted by: 
Melanie Reimer (Team Leader) 
Dr. Ritu Nayyar Stone (Evaluation Expert, NORC) 
Natia Gorgadze (Local Expert) 
Contractor: 
Mendez England & Associates 
4300 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 103 
Bethesda, MD 20814 
Tel: 301- 652 -4334 
www.mendezengland.com
DISCLAIMER 
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United 
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. i
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions............................................................... i
Project Background ........................................................................................................ i
Evaluation Methods and Limitations..............................................................................ii
Findings ..........................................................................................................................ii
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................iv
Recommendations......................................................................................................... v
1.0 Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions ............................................... 1
1.1 Evaluation Purpose .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................... 1
2.0 Project Background ........................................................................................... 2
3.0 Evaluation Methods and Limitations ............................................................... 4
3.1 Qualitative Research and Analysis ..................................................................................... 4
3.2 Quantitative Research and Analysis................................................................................... 5
3.3 Evaluation Limitations .............................................................................................. 6
4.0 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations................................................ 7
4.1 Question 1: Effect on Youth Understanding of National Unity and Tolerance ..7
4.1.1. Findings.....................................................................................................................7
4.1.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................13
4.1.3 Recommendations.................................................................................................15
4.2 Question 2: Effectiveness of Collaboration with Host NGOs for Youth 
Activities ...........................................................................................................................16
4.2.1 Findings....................................................................................................................16
4.2.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................18
4.2.3 Recommendations.................................................................................................19
4.3 Question 3: Effectiveness of Support to Tolerance Center and Council on 
National Minorities and Religions ..................................................................... 20
4.3.1 Findings....................................................................................................................20
4.3.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................22
4.3.3 Recommendations.................................................................................................23
4.4 Question 4: Effect of 2012 Change of Government on Project ......................24
4.4.1 Findings....................................................................................................................24
4.4.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................24
4.4.3 Recommendations.................................................................................................24
4.5 Project Strategy and Implementation.................................................................25
4.5.1 Findings....................................................................................................................25
4.5.2 Conclusions............................................................................................................26
4.5.3 Recommendations.................................................................................................27
4.6 Progress Towards Goal and Objectives............................................................28
4.6.1 Goal: To strengthen civic integration in Georgia, particularly among 
ethnic minorities .............................................................................................................. 28
 4.6.1.1 Findings....................................................................................................28
 4.6.1.2 Conclusions............................................................................................28
 4.6.1.3 Recommendations.................................................................................28
4.6.2 Objective 1: Develop civic integration processes among young people 
across Georgia through practice and participation ................................................. 29
 4.6.2.1 Findings....................................................................................................28
 4.6.2.2 Conclusions............................................................................................28
 4.6.2.3 Recommendations.................................................................................28
4.6.3 Objective 2: Increase public awareness and education on diversity 
through the media ....................................................................................................... 30
 4.6.3.1 Findings.................................................................................................... 30
 4.6.3.2 Conclusions............................................................................................ 30
 4.6.3.3 Recommendations................................................................................. 30
4.6.4 Objective 3: Support mechanisms for interaction between the 
Government and ethnic minorities............................................................................30
 4.6.4.1 Findings................................................................................................. 280
 4.6.4.2 Conclusions............................................................................................ 31
 4.6.4.3 Recommendations................................................................................. 31
ANNEXES 
Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work 
Annex 2: Evaluation Matrix 
Annex 3: List of Persons Interviewed 
Annex 4: List of Documents Reviewed 
Annex 5: Illustrative Questionnaires for Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group 
Discussions 
Annex 6: Mini-Survey Questionnaire 
Annex 7: Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest 
FIGURES
Figure 1: Demographic composition of youth mini-survey respondents (percent) 
Figure 2: How active do you think you are? (entry) 
Figure 3: How active do you think you are? (midline) 
Figure 4: It is hard to imagine friendship between people of different religions? 
Figure 5: People of different religions cannot understand each other 
Figure 6: Would you approve of your friend marrying someone who belongs to a different 
religion? 
Figure 7: Why is it important for ethnic minorities to know the Georgian language? 
Figure 8: How would you define civic activism? 
Figure 9: How frequently do you discuss the following issues with your friends? (percent) 
Figure 10: Statements of self-efficacy; Percent answering “Exactly True”
ACRONYMS 
ACETT Applied Civic Education and Teacher Training project 
ANI Advancing National Integration project 
CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview
CITC Civic Integration and Tolerance Council 
CNM Council of National Minorities
COP Chief of Party
CR Council of Religions 
CSO Civic Society Organization 
DCOP Deputy Chief of Party 
ECMI European Centre for Minority Issues 
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GoG Government of Georgia 
GPB Georgian Public Broadcasting 
IDP Internally Displaced Person
IRMS IT, Research and Metadata Solutions 
IWG Intra-governmental Working Group 
KII Key Informant Interview
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation 
ME&A Mendez England & Associates 
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NCAP National Concept and Action Plan for Tolerance and Civic Integration 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NITG National Integration and Tolerance in Georgia project 
OSGF Open Society – Georgia Foundation 
PDO Public Defender’s Office
PG Partners-Georgia 
PMP Performance Management Plan
SOW Scope of Work 
TC Tolerance Center 
UNAG United Nations Association - Georgia 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme 
USAID United States Agency for International Development
YC Youth Center
i 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
This is a report on the mid-term performance evaluation of the Advancing National Integration (ANI) 
project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission in Georgia. 
The project is being implemented by the United Nations Association – Georgia (UNAG) between 
September 2011 and January 2015. The evaluation of ANI was conducted during the period October￾December 2013, by a team assembled by Mendez, England & Associates (ME&A). The team consisted of 
two specialists with extensive experience in civic education and integration, civil society, and youth 
participation, and one Evaluation Expert. 
The overall purpose of evaluating ANI is to “determine the effectiveness of the project and to provide 
recommendations on corrective actions and new directions for the remaining years of project 
implementation and beyond.” The main goal is to review actual progress toward achieving key expected 
results and identify accomplishments, delays, challenges, and their impact on the project, as described in 
the Statement of Work (SOW) for the evaluation (see Annex 1).
An integral part of the evaluation mission was to answer a set of four pre-determined questions, which are 
detailed in the body of this report. The questions concern: 
 The way that youth understand tolerance and national unity and how ANI has affected levels of youth 
civic engagement and participation in society. 
 The efficacy of ANI’s collaboration with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as hosts of the youth 
centers (YCs) in various cities and agents for mobilization of youth. 
 ANI’s effect on the capacity and effectiveness of the Tolerance Center (TC), Council of Religions (CR) 
and Council of National Minorities (CNM). 
 The effect on ANI of the change of government in 2012. 
The conclusions reached and suggested recommendations will be used by USAID/Caucasus to: 1) improve 
ongoing interventions in the area of national integration and tolerance; and 2) contribute to the design of 
USAID’s next generation of support in that sector.
PROJECT BACKGROUND 
ANI was designed to address a number of development challenges that are pervasive in Georgian society 
and are particularly problematic in areas of densely settled minority populations. Many citizens are not 
active in civic life and are isolated in regions far from the political and economic centers of Georgia. These 
tendencies are magnified for members of concentrated ethnic minority groups. Ethnic minorities and ethnic 
Georgians alike often point to Georgian language skills as the main impediment to integration but there 
remain deep-seated issues around religion, culture and stereotypes. These issues can be alleviated through 
direct continued interactions; yet in most regions, there is little contact between those belonging to 
different ethnic groups. 
Minorities need tools and support to become further integrated, as well as support for retaining their own 
languages, cultures and traditions. Additionally, the majority requires further awareness of Georgia’s 
diversity and its proper management. While there has been substantial progress by the Government of 
Georgia (GoG) in recent years, numerous challenges remain to building civic integration and tolerance 
across the country. It is important to build on that progress to: institutionalize mechanisms that support 
civil society in monitoring state policymaking and implementation; increase civil society capacity and 
engagement; expand networking and coalition-building; and engage citizens from the majority and 
minorities in activities that promote tolerance and civic integration. 
ANI was designed with those needs in mind. The goal of ANI is to strengthen civic integration in Georgia, 
particularly among ethnic minorities. The project has three objectives: 
1. Develop civic integration processes among young people across Georgia through practice and 
participation 
2. Increase public awareness and education on diversity through the media 
3. Support mechanisms for interaction between the GoG and ethnic minorities 
ii
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
The evaluation methodology was carefully designed to respond to the evaluation questions, and to 
determine whether ANI has made progress towards its initial objectives. The Evaluation Team collected 
quantitative and qualitative data from a broad range of stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure objectivity 
of the process, as well as accuracy and completeness of the findings, conclusions and recommendations. 
Techniques that balance each other were utilized: quantitative vs. qualitative data; individual vs. group 
responses; semi-structured interviews vs. analysis of existing surveys. 
The evaluation also examined existing data collected by ANI: a baseline conducted in 2012, entry data 
collected from youth when they became members of YCs, and midline data from a survey of members in 
the summer of 2013. The following main methods and sources were used: 
 Critical desktop review of materials related to ANI, such as quarterly reports to USAID, partner 
reports, annual work plans, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans, baseline survey report, reports 
by government, and civil society monitoring reports. 
 Focus group discussions with members of the YCs. 
 Semi-structured interviews with USAID and ANI implementers, project beneficiaries and 
stakeholders, and key informants from the government, NGOs and others. 
 Mini-survey conducted with a random sample of YC members. 
 Field visits to Kutaisi, Gori, Akhaltsikhe and Marneuli. 
 Direct observation of YC-organized activities related to 16 Days of Action Against Gender 
Violence. 
The Evaluation Team encountered some limitations inherent to the design of this evaluation and during its 
fieldwork in Georgia. The most relevant constraints were as follows: 
Biases in data collection methodologies. To identify key stakeholders and project beneficiaries, the 
Evaluation Team relied to some extent on assistance from staff of USAID, UNAG and ANI partner 
organizations. 
Lack of monitoring data. There was very limited monitoring data collected by the project to assess 
progress towards results. Additionally, the midline raw data shared with the Evaluation Team had several 
problems that limited its usefulness to the evaluation. 
Baseline data not comparable. The baseline survey of youth was confined to urban areas, and 
therefore could not be compared to entry/midline survey or mini-survey results. 
Recall bias. Since a number of questions raised during the interviews dealt with issues that took place in 
the past, recall bias cannot be excluded. 
Halo bias. The extent to which respondents were prepared to reveal their true opinions may have varied 
for some questions that called upon them to assess the performance of their colleagues or people on 
whom they depend upon for provision of services. 
Time allotted for evaluation. The project has diverse components and activities as well as numerous 
counterparts; not all of ANI’s activities could be studied in depth by this evaluation.
FINDINGS 
Question 1: Effect on Youth Understanding of National Unity and Tolerance 
Youth are the most significant target group of ANI, which has organized a wide range of activities primarily 
aimed at increasing civic engagement, awareness of diversity, and tolerance among young people in 13 
locations across the country. Key activities have included: training for youth and NGOs; camps or 
“schools” to integrate young people from across Georgia; exchange visits among regions; twinning projects 
to build ties among YCs; youth-led awareness raising activities, community projects, local advocacy and 
peer education; and social media activities. Informants consider that members of YCs are more active in 
the community than before, are more communicative, have better social skills, show more empathy, and 
have more friends from different societal groups. To date, many more girls than boys have benefited as 
members of the YCs, and urban youth have been more actively engaged than rural residents. 
YC members have demonstrated a shared general understanding of the term “tolerance,” and evidence
from the youth survey conducted by the Evaluation Team shows that levels of tolerance have increased 
among YC members the longer they have participated. However, there are still limits to acceptance of 
iii
complete integration with those of different ethnicity and especially religion; most YC members surveyed 
would not approve of a friend marrying someone of another religion. 
Question 2: Effectiveness of Collaboration with Host NGOs for Youth 
Locally based NGOs engaged to run the YCs are a diverse group with widely varying capacities, resources 
and missions. The work of the host NGOs is generally valued by stakeholders, though tensions with other 
organizations and lack of experience have in some cases limited effectiveness. The language barrier 
between Georgian-speaking YC members and those of other ethnicities who are not fluent in Georgian is 
posing difficulties in areas of mixed ethnicity. The visited host NGOs expressed high levels of commitment 
to continuation of activities after ANI; however, none was able to point to a sustainability plan. 
Question 3: Effectiveness of Support to Tolerance Center and Council on National Minorities 
and Religions 
By way of background, in addition to youth-focused activities, ANI also works to promote civic integration 
and tolerance through support to policy development, monitoring and dialogue. The evaluation focused 
primarily on the work with the TC, Council of Religions (CR) and CNM. The TC can be described as a 
“tolerance watchdog” within the Public Defender’s Office (PDO). The CR unites 26 different faiths to 
promote harmony among religious confessions and protect human rights and equality, while the CNM is 
made up of over 100 civil society organizations (CSOs) that aim to advance the interests of ethnic 
minorities in Georgia. 
ANI is currently funding the TC’s four full-time professional staff, though other donors shared the cost 
until 2012. These staff members are known as qualified professionals, and appear to have a mutually 
respectful relationship with key stakeholders. Their support to the two Councils has been effective in 
shoring up the capacity of those bodies. ANI is the only steady source of external funding for the Councils’
operations, and that support has enabled them to carry out regular fact-finding missions in relation to 
reported violations of rights, and to monitor the GoG’s implementation of its commitments to promoting 
national integration and tolerance. 
The CR has increasingly shown itself able to reach consensus on a wide range of issues, going well beyond 
religious issues. In 2012, the Council, assisted by TC staff, published a set of recommendations for the 
government ranging from removal of discriminatory elements from school textbooks to establishment of 
equal taxation rules for all religious confessions, on behalf of all members – a significant achievement. The 
Council has also been publicly speaking out in reaction to violations of religious freedoms, which in some 
cases has contributed to action by the government to address the problem. 
The CNM has been most active in annual monitoring of the National Concept and Action Plan for 
Tolerance and Civic Integration (NCAP). ANI-funded expert consultants have been working with the 
Council to monitor government actions and prepare the “alternative” reports. Informants consider the 
civil society monitoring to be very important. There are some notable examples of recommendations 
leading to action by the government, such as establishment of Language Houses in regions with heavy 
concentrations of ethnic minorities. 
Question 4: Effect of 2012 Change of Government on Project 
The evaluation identified minimal effects of the 2012 change of government on the project. Informants 
indicated that UNAG/ANI staff has had cordial and cooperative relations with the government, both before 
and after the elections. 
Project Strategy and Implementation 
With respect to project coordination, the goals and activities of the ANI YCs have a great deal in common 
with the civics clubs supported under USAID’s Applied Civics Education and Teacher Training (ACETT) 
program, and the targeted age ranges and cities overlap to some extent. However, it appears from 
interviews and document review that links between the projects have not been close, and coordination in 
most regions has been limited. Activities under different components of ANI have, in some cases, been 
linked to each other, but there are various areas where ANI has not yet taken advantage of apparent 
opportunities for synergy among components. The small grants component, in particular, based on analysis 
of the grant activities and target areas and on interviews with project partners and others, seemed to be a 
“stand-alone” element that did not clearly complement the other components. 
Monitoring of project outcomes and results has been less than optimal, judging by a critical review of 
project reporting, supplemented by interviews with project partners and USAID. With the exception of 
iv
two impact-level indicators that feed into the Mission’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) (only one of 
which links directly to ANI activities), only outputs of ANI are being tracked by UNAG, and 20+ outcome 
indicators listed in the Year 1 and 2 M&E Plans of the project have neither been clearly defined nor 
monitored to date. Quarterly reporting to USAID has been very activity-based, with no reference to 
indicators and minimal analysis of problems or possible changes of approach. 
Progress Towards Goal and Objectives 
With respect to the overall project goal of strengthening civic integration in Georgia, particularly among 
ethnic minorities, there is a limited amount of evidence at present related to progress towards that goal 
(pending the 2013 Civic Integration Index). However, the evaluation found that youth targeted by ANI 
have an increased level of civic engagement and a better understanding of tolerance, both of which can 
contribute to civic integration. The work of the TC, CR and CNM is increasingly visible, and notable 
successes have been achieved in relation to specific issues affecting minorities though effects on the general 
population are difficult to assess. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Question 1: Effect on Youth Understanding of National Unity and Tolerance 
Although no conclusions can be drawn about the overall population of youth in Georgia, ANI has had a 
measurable effect on the attitudes of YC members and their level of civic engagement. Increased levels of 
tolerance are also emerging among the participants, especially as duration of involvement increases. On 
the other hand, civic activism is still not a familiar concept to many YC members, and engagement in 
activism has not been widespread among YC members and other youth participants. 
Positive results have been especially notable in urban areas, while the involvement of rural youth has been 
constrained, primarily by lack of resources such as transport. The YCs have struggled to attract male 
members, indicating the need for a strategy to address the significant gender imbalance. Direct personal 
contact with other societal groups through exchanges and camps seems to have had the greatest effect on 
tolerance and integration. 
Question 2: Effectiveness of Collaboration with Host NGOs for Youth 
In spite of some challenges, locally based NGOs were the best option available for operation of the YCs, 
given their relatively low cost, local knowledge and links, and flexible nature. UNAG has turned the 
diversity among host NGOs into an asset by capitalizing on their links with different societal groups such as 
the disabled. On the other hand, ANI’s design has made it difficult to cater to differences in the capacity 
and resources of each organization. Links among the 11 host NGOs are not strong, which means that 
valuable experiences are not consistently shared. The youth and civic integration work of host NGOs with 
less experience and resources does not appear to be sustainable in its current form without further 
assistance. 
Question 3: Effectiveness of Support to Tolerance Center and Council on National Minorities 
and Religions 
In relation to ANI’s effect on the capacity and effectiveness of the TC, it is fundamental to note that the 
Center’s professional staff is now entirely funded by ANI. For the government to assume responsibility for 
Center staffing, while potentially feasible, would pose a significant risk to its independence. Therefore, 
international funding is important – not only in material terms but also as moral support. The Center is 
playing a valuable role in advancing the objectives of ANI. Its role as a watchdog is widely appreciated by 
civil society and the international community, and it also acts as an effective hub for the CR and CNM. 
The two Councils are largely dependent on the TC for coordination and qualified advice, as well as on ANI 
activity funding, without which it would be difficult for them to function. The fact-finding missions, 
government meetings and public statements supported by ANI have served to raise the profile of both 
Councils. The capacity and credibility of the CR has increased measurably, and there are signs that core 
members of the CNM are gradually gaining capacity and confidence as well. There are enough examples of 
policy or program changes that reflect civil society recommendations to conclude that monitoring of the 
government’s efforts on national integration is in fact making a difference. 
v
Question 4: Effect of 2012 Change of Government on Project 
The change of government has had no observable effect on project effectiveness. This should be seen as a 
credit to the diplomacy efforts of UNAG, although it is no doubt also influenced by the positive relations of 
the government with USAID. Support by projects such as ANI sends the message to the government that 
these mechanisms and processes, which are not yet strongly institutionalized, are important in the eyes of 
the international community. 
Project Strategy and Implementation 
In terms of project implementation and coordination, staffing levels at UNAG were less than optimal given 
the size and complexity of ANI and scope of activities across the country. There are areas of potential 
synergy between the ANI and ACETT projects that have not been fully exploited in the absence of a 
strategy for ensuring their complementarity. The evaluation found there was no plan for linking ANI 
components or system for ensuring that project partners were aware of what others were doing. The lack 
of monitoring data on outcome indicators makes it difficult to assess the results of ANI on an ongoing 
basis, which in turn weakens the project’s ability to identify and respond to problems as they emerge. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Question 1: Effect on Youth Understanding of National Unity and Tolerance 
With respect to the youth component, the priorities at this point are to extend the project’s reach and 
slightly adjust the activities for the final year. Building on existing foundations, ANI should support YCs to
engage more in the resolution of issues affecting their communities. It is also important to explore creative 
ways of increasing the reach of activities that allow for direct contact with other cultures/religions/regions. 
With respect to the imbalance between girls and boys in the YCs, it is urgent for ANI to roll out cross￾program strategies for getting more boys involved in activities. To expand reach into rural areas, the Gori 
example of establishing sub-clubs in villages should be analyzed and adapted for use in other cities, to the 
extent possible. Future programming should include resources to allow marginalized populations to be 
touched by these kinds of activities to a greater extent. 
Question 2: Effectiveness of Collaboration with Host NGOs for Youth 
In order to enhance the effectiveness of host NGOs in each region, more support is needed to ensure that 
they fully exploit local opportunities for collaboration. Results would also be enhanced by greater 
interaction among host NGOs. Sustainability of their youth-related work should be shored up through 
timely planning post-ANI and assistance with organizational development for weaker NGOs. In the future, 
capacity building needs and variation among partner organizations should be anticipated at the design stage, 
whenever local NGOs will play an important role in implementation. 
Question 3: Effectiveness of Support to Tolerance Center and Council on National Minorities 
and Religions 
ANI should continue to support the TC, CR and CNM, while working to diversify international sources of 
funding and strengthen independence of the TC. In order to make civil society monitoring of government 
actions more effective, the new NCAP should include clear indicators by which government performance 
can be measured. 
Question 4: Effect of 2012 Change of Government on Project 
Going forward, UNAG and USAID should closely monitor the government’s attitude towards the NCAP, 
TC, and the Councils, and take concerted action to ensure that key people in the new government and the 
new Public Defender are fully aware of the importance of the government reporting and civil society 
monitoring, and of the value of the TC in the further democratic development of Georgia. 
Project Strategy and Implementation 
Internal and external coordination have not been particular strengths of ANI. If projects similar to ANI 
and ACETT are supported in the future, there should be a clear strategy for how the initiatives will 
interact and complement each other. The targeting of small grants in 2014 should take into account how 
grants can measurably contribute to the achievement of project goals and objectives, and ideally, 
strengthen other components. USAID should assist UNAG to define and track selected outcome 
indicators during 2014, in order to better measure results and inform future decision-making. 
vi 
Progress Towards Goal and Objectives 
In relation to advancing towards the overall goal of ANI, there is a need to increase attention to the 
Georgian majority population, especially adults, including through mass media campaigns and other 
strategies to raise awareness of shared responsibility for integration and tolerance. It is also recommended 
to develop creative strategies for support of the rights of other minorities, such as religious groups, sexual 
minorities and very small ethnic minority populations, to enhance awareness and tolerance both among 
their members and among the rest of the population. 
1
1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE 
This is a report on the mid-term performance evaluation of the Advancing National Integration (ANI) 
project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Mission in Georgia. 
The project is being implemented by the United Nations Association – Georgia (UNAG) between 
September 2011 and January 2015. The evaluation covered the timeframe from ANI’s start through to 
November 2013, and was conducted by a team of three key experts: Ms. Melanie Reimer (Team Leader), 
Dr. Ritu Nayyar-Stone (Evaluation Expert), and Ms. Natia Gorgadze (Local Expert). 
In overall terms, the purpose of evaluating ANI, according to the evaluation’s Statement of Work (SOW), 
is to “determine the effectiveness of the project and to provide recommendations on corrective actions 
and new directions for the remaining years of project implementation and beyond.” The main goal of 
evaluating ANI was to review actual progress toward achieving key expected results and identify 
accomplishments, delays, challenges, and their impact on the project (the full SOW is attached as Annex 1).
In determining ANI’s effectiveness, the Evaluation Team has kept in mind that the project is designed to 
have long-term benefits, some of which may have not been fully realized given that this is a mid-term 
evaluation and that social and attitudinal change are long-term processes. 
The Evaluation Team was tasked with answering a specific set of evaluation questions posed by 
USAID/Caucasus, as described below (see Section 1.2). The team’s approach has emphasized investigation 
of those evaluation questions, but also researched and analyzed the project’s overall progress towards 
goals and objectives, as well as effectiveness of implementation in general, in order to identify lessons 
learned and areas for improvement/adjustment in the final year and future. The conclusions reached and 
suggested recommendations will be used by USAID/Caucasus to: 1) improve ongoing interventions in the 
area of national integration and tolerance by focusing on the activities that are most meaningful and critical 
for civic integration in Georgia; and 2) contribute to the design of USAID’s next generation of support to 
the national integration and tolerance. 
The intended audience of the evaluation includes USAID, in particular its Democracy and Governance 
office, as well as UNAG as implementing agency. The results may also be shared with project partners and 
other local stakeholders, such as the State Ministry of Reintegration, the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) 
and Tolerance Center (TC), Open Society – Georgia Foundation (OSGF), Partners-Georgia (PG), other 
donors working in the relevant sectors, and interested civil society organizations (CSOs). 
1.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The Evaluation Team was asked to answer a number of specific evaluation questions, outlined below. The 
methods and sources used to research each question are described in the Evaluation Matrix in Annex 2. 
Question 1: Effect on Youth Understanding of National Unity and Tolerance 
How effective has ANI been in developing a common understanding of national unity among youth? Has developing 
a common understanding of national unity differed between girls and boys? How effective has ANI been in 
developing a common understanding of tolerance among youth? Has developing a common understanding of 
tolerance differed between girls and boys? Effectiveness in this question is to be demonstrated by 
stakeholders’ (primarily youth) perceptions of the activity and whether it has made changes in youth 
engagement in local activism, levels of tolerance- and integration-related activities and cross-regional 
collaboration, youth participation in cultural exchanges; and whether any multiplier effects onto families, 
peers and/or the community are noted by the Evaluation Team. 
Question 2: Effectiveness of Collaboration with Host Non-Governmental Organizations 
(NGOs) for Youth Centers 
Has ANI’s approach of channeling youth-centered activities through local partners been effective? Effectiveness in 
this question was defined as whether working with local partners: 
2
 Developed enduring positive connections and attitudes on diversity and tolerance among young 
people from different regions and backgrounds that participated in partner-led activities; 
 Developed local partner civil society capacity in outreach, constituency mobilization, and youth work 
in diversity and tolerance; and, 
 Appears to be on target to achieve sustainability of local civic integration and youth activism by the 
end of the activity.
Question 3: Effectiveness of Support to the Tolerance Center and Councils on National 
Minorities and Religions 
How effective has ANI been in building the capacity of the Public Defender’s Tolerance Center and the Council of 
National Minorities and Religions to: promote cultural and religious diversity; undertake effective fact-finding on 
minority-biased rights violations; advocate for minority rights; establish communication with the Government of 
Georgia (GoG) on these issues; monitor and comment on minority-related state policies, programs and actions; and 
produce recommendations and advocate for effective solutions to related challenges? In this question, 
effectiveness is whether ANI’s work with Public Defender’s TC and the Council of National Minorities and 
Religions (CNMR) is recognized to have helped these two bodies promoting cultural and religious diversity, 
minority rights, and communication with government officials by GoG institutions, CSOs, and the public. 
Effectiveness also means whether ANI’s support to these bodies has enabled them to better collaborate 
with civil society to address problems between citizens and governments. 
Question 4: Effect of 2012 Change of Government on Project 
How did the change of government that followed the October 2012 elections influence ANI’s programmatic 
effectiveness in supporting the GoG on minority-related issues? Effectiveness is whether ANI was able to adapt 
its programming and establish core relationships following the elections, in a way that allowed for the 
project to continue its activities with GoG institutions in a manner consistent with its original objectives. 
Effectiveness is also whether informants can identify particular aspects of policy influenced by project￾supported mechanisms and activities, both before and after the elections. 
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 
ANI was designed to address a number of development challenges that are pervasive in Georgian society 
and are particularly problematic in areas of densely settled minority populations. Many in Georgia are not 
active in civic life and much of the population is isolated in regions far from the political and economic 
centers of the country. These tendencies are magnified for members of concentrated ethnic minority 
groups, who face linguistic barriers to inclusion and tend to have close relationships with people of the 
same ethnicity in neighboring states. Georgian society blends a complex mix of conceptions and practices 
from traditional Georgian society, the Soviet period, the turmoil of the transition, and the current post￾Rose Revolution drive to build state capacity and European integration. 
Restoring independence revived some ideas about Georgian nationalism that did not support the inclusion 
of national minorities, despite the country’s diverse population. The Rose Revolution and the development 
of stronger state institutions and policies have made important progress, but current democratic channels 
and processes provide few incentives or opportunities for the participation of citizens or their influence in 
policymaking and implementation. Currently, only 27% of Georgians believe that a typical citizen can 
influence government decisions.1 
Ethnic minorities and ethnic Georgians alike often point to Georgian language skills as the main impediment 
to integration; however, there remain issues around religion, culture, tradition, and stereotypes of groups 
that inhibit integration. These issues can be better addressed through direct continued interactions, yet, in 
most regions, there is little contact between ethnic Georgians and ethnic minorities. Information, 
geographic, and socio-economic challenges are magnified for ethnic minorities concentrated in 
economically underdeveloped municipalities bordering their titular homelands. In addition, many members 
of the two largest ethnic groups (ethnic Azeris and Armenians) have connections to people and 
organizations in Azerbaijan or Armenia. 
 
1 Georgian National Study, April 26 – May 4, 2011. Baltic Surveys/The Gallup Organization/IRI (USAID-funded), 
p.107.
3
The ideas behind civic integration come from Europe and the United States, where societies seek to 
integrate immigrant minorities into majority traditions and practices. Many members of minority ethnic 
groups have embraced these ideas; however, people seek assurances that in practice civic integration does 
not equate to cultural assimilation. They want the government to support minority languages, cultures, and 
traditions, in addition to supporting integration. While there has been substantial progress by the GoG in 
the last 10 years, numerous challenges remain to building civic integration and tolerance across the 
country, among both ethnic Georgians and minorities. 
Changes in the perceptions of minority populations in a wide range of areas are also striking. While years 
ago substantial numbers of ethnic Azeris in Kvemo-Kartli, and even more ethnic Armenians in Javakheti, 
questioned whether their future was in Georgia, now discussion is dominated by ways to further their 
futures in Georgia. Minorities need tools and support to become further integrated, as well as support for 
retaining their own languages, cultures, and traditions. Additionally, the majority requires further awareness 
of Georgia’s diversity and its proper management. Done well, government support for both integration 
and the interests of the ethnic minorities can come together to support civic integration. With careful 
attention, majority Georgians and minority groups can understand the differences between integration and 
assimilation – and become a diverse but integrated country. 
It is not expected that ANI can change these long-term structural issues regarding language and integration 
in just a few years. However, it is important to build on the recent progress that has been made to: 1) 
institutionalize mechanisms which support civil society in monitoring state policy-making and 
implementation; 2) increase civil society capacity and engagement; 3) expand networking and coalition￾building; and 4) engage citizens from the majority and minorities in activities that promote tolerance and 
civic integration. Building on these successes increasingly makes it possible for all citizens – particularly 
ethnic minorities in isolated areas – to be included in national political, economic, and social processes. 
This support is important to help provide assurance to minorities that they can retain their cultures, 
languages, and traditions and that integration does not equal assimilation. 
Based on the above, the goal of ANI is to strengthen civic integration in Georgia, particularly among ethnic 
minorities. The project has three objectives: 
1. Develop civic integration processes among young people across Georgia through practice and 
participation 
2. Increase public awareness and education on diversity through the media 
3. Support mechanisms for interaction between the Government and ethnic minorities 
Civic integration was a focus of the Mission’s 2006-2010 National Integration and Tolerance in Georgia 
(NITG) project, which helped the GoG make dramatic progress on these issues. NITG supported the 
development of the National Concept and Action Plan for Tolerance and Civic Integration (NCAP), an 
unprecedented effort among post-Soviet states to address issues of minorities, as well as a unique whole￾of-government framework for Georgia. That project also supported a new mechanism for civil society 
monitoring of GoG commitments and plans; diversity management for NGOs and youth, civic education 
clubs for young people; and television programming on national minorities and integration. 
ANI was designed to build on NITG’s successes by encouraging youth participation in civic life to build 
connections between young people and their families – both ethnic minorities and ethnic Georgians – with 
people outside their communities. The project aims to provide youth with practical experience in civic 
activism, and help them build connections with other young people and their families in other regions of 
Georgia. 
The project intended to reach a larger audience, beyond direct participants and their families, through 
television. To that end, ANI planned to support the development of a television show documenting the 
project’s activities. In addition, the project supports the Council of National Minorities (CNM) within TC
of the PDO as an important mechanism for interaction between the government and ethnic minorities, a 
means of monitoring GoG implementation of the NCAP, and a way to manage issues of diversity. 
4
3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND 
LIMITATIONS
The evaluation methodology was carefully designed to respond to the four main evaluation questions, and 
to determine whether ANI has made progress towards its initial objectives and is on track to deliver the 
expected results. The Evaluation Team collected quantitative and qualitative data from a broad range of 
stakeholders and beneficiaries to ensure independence of the evaluation process, as well as accuracy and 
completeness of the subsequent conclusions and recommendations. 
The evaluation examined existing data collected by ANI – a baseline conducted in 2012; “entry” data based 
on 20 questions asked of all youth when they applied to become members of the ANI Youth Centers 
(YCs); and midline data from a questionnaire sent by UNAG to all members in the summer of 2013. ANI 
received a response rate of just over 50%, with 1137 youth members completing the self-administered 
midline survey of 29 questions. Difficulties with the ANI data are detailed in the Evaluation Limitations 
section. 
3.1 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 
The qualitative evaluation began with a critical desk-top review of materials related to ANI, including 
project quarterly reports and annual work plans, performance management plans (PMPs), project design 
documents, and communications among partners. The Evaluation Team reviewed a wide range of project￾related documentation, such as the 2011 Youth Study, documents from the predecessor NITG project, the 
2010 Assessment of Civic Integration of National Minorities, news articles for background information, etc. 
(for a full list of materials reviewed, see Annex 4). 
The Evaluation Team conducted in-depth interviews with USAID and ANI staff, as well as key informant 
interviews (KIIs) with partners, beneficiaries, and stakeholders such as the TC under the PDO, the State 
Ministry of Reintegration, the Ministry of Education, Georgian Public Broadcasting, OSGF, PG, European 
Center for Minority Issues, NGOs hosting project-funded YCs, YC members, and others. In all, 62 KIIs 
were conducted in Tbilisi and four major cities, between November 19 and December 2, 2013. In addition 
to meetings in Tbilisi, the Evaluation Team traveled to Kutaisi, Marneuli, Gori and Akhaltsikhe to conduct 
interviews and focus group discussions (FGD), visit the YCs, and observe youth-focused activities, including 
those organized around the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence (for a full list of key informants, 
see Annex 3). 
The Evaluation Team retained the services of IT, Research & Metadata Solutions (IRMS), a Georgian firm, 
to assist in implementing the mini-survey and FGDs. To expand upon the information gained through 
individual interviews, especially from the point of view of youth beneficiaries, the Evaluation Team 
conducted four FGDs with YC members in different locations. The goal was to facilitate an open discussion 
in a non-threatening environment to probe the issues in this evaluation. FGDs covered topics including 
tolerance, national unity, civic activism, and the project’s youth-related activities. FGDs were conducted in 
the Georgian, Armenian and Azeri languages, depending on the preference of the participants. Participants 
provided verbal consent at the start of each FGD. Discussions were then recorded, transcribed, translated 
and coded into NVIVO, a qualitative data analysis software. Questions asked during FGDs are provided in 
Annex 5. 
FGD locations were chosen to capture information from youth who are ethnic Georgians, as well as from 
the two largest ethnic minorities in Georgia – Armenian and Azeri – who are participating in ANI via YCs
in Samtskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo-Kartli. It was also decided to hold a FGD in Tbilisi to get feedback from 
youth that may be subject to different influences being in the capital, with opportunities to mix with youth 
of different ethnicities in the Tbilisi universities. The dates of the FGDs were as follows: 
- Friday, November 22 in Gori; 7 participants, 5 male and 2 female. 
- Friday, November 29 in Tbilisi; 4 participants, all female. One person, male, came later and an in￾depth interview was conducted with him. 
- Saturday, November 30 in Akhaltsikhe; 9 participants, 1 male and 8 female. 
- Sunday, December 1 in Marneuli; 6 participants, 3 male and 3 female. 
5
Participants were selected from member lists provided by the host NGOs, in order to have a 
representation of men and women and different age groups. Since the data set with contact information 
provided by UNAG did not include the duration of membership in the YC, the Evaluation Team could not 
consider that criteria in choosing youth for the FGDs. In some cases, problems with participant contact 
information (phone not turned on, or changed number) required the Evaluation Team to substitute and 
invite someone else to the FGD. 
3.2 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 
The Evaluation Team conducted one mini-survey among members of the 13 YCs supported by the project. 
UNAG provided the Evaluation Team with contact lists of YC members and, after examining the mix of 
ethnicities (Georgian, Armenian, and Azeri) and gender among the youth, the Evaluation Team decided to 
draw a random sample of 160 respondents proportional to their distribution among the members.2 
It was decided to do a pre-test of the questionnaire with 15 YC members: 4 Armenian, 4 Azeri, and 7 
Georgian, with one individual of each ethnicity drawn from the Tbilisi YC. The pre-test was conducted 
over the phone on November 23-24, with all contacted youth agreeing to do the survey. The team 
included a short introduction to the project at the start of the survey followed by assurances of 
confidentiality of responses and notification that the youth had the right to not answer specific questions if 
they were uncomfortable providing an answer, and even to end the survey without completion if desired. 
Two issues were revealed by the pre-test. First, for the younger participants (sometimes not very active in 
the YC and with less years of education) the term “ethnic minority” was difficult to understand. The 
Evaluation Team decided to include a definition which could be used if needed. Second, the Evaluation 
Team received some unclear responses to the prompt of defining civic activism. However, the Team 
decided to not provide a menu of options and definitions for this term, because it wanted to check the 
youth understanding of the term since increasing awareness and building civic activism is one of the key 
objectives of ANI (see Annex 6 for the final mini-survey questions). 
Survey data was collected over the course of eight days from November 29 through December 8, 2013 
using computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). CATI was used since some contact information 
included only telephone numbers and no email addresses, and obtaining email addresses was not efficient. 
Even though the availability of the internet is widespread, not all youths have regular access, while 
practically all can be reached either via a land line or on their cell phone. 
A special data-entry system was pre-programmed and included rules and controls in line with the 
questionnaire’s logical flow. The data was exported and processed using SPSS software, and checked for 
invalid and missing data. Open-ended questions were recorded and standardized. To obtain a target of 160 
responses, a slightly larger sample was identified in case of problems with phone numbers. The final sample 
includes 166 respondents, thus providing us with a response rate of 100%. The results from this survey 
are referred to in this report as the Youth Mini-Survey. The demographic composition of the respondents 
is provided in Figure 1 below. 
After finalization in English, the survey instrument was translated into Georgian, Armenian and Azeri 
languages. 
Figure 1: Demographic Composition of Youth Mini-Survey Respondents (percent) 
Distribution across ANI Youth Centers 
Tbilisi 4.8 Akhalkalaki 4.8
Batumi 7.8 Dmanisi 3.6
Gardabani 7.2 Gori 11.4
Kutaisi 16.3 Marneuli 4.8
Ninotsminda 10.2 Ozurgeti 4.8
Telavi 9.0 Zugdidi 7.2
Akhaltsikhe 7.8
Gender
Male 37.3 Female 62.7
 
2
In the proposal, ME&A had specified a range of sample sizes with different levels of confidence regarding how 
representative it would be of the population. Due to budget and time constraints in conducting the evaluation, it 
was suggested that a sample of 160, with a confidence level of 65% be used for the mini-survey.
6
Type of settlement
Urban 93.4 Rural 6.6
Ethnicity
Georgian 73.5 Armenian 16.3
Azeri 9.0 Other 1.2
3.3 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS 
The Evaluation Team encountered a few limitations during its fieldwork in Georgia. Some of the most 
relevant limitations are listed below: 
Biases in data collection methodologies. To identify key stakeholders and project beneficiaries, the 
Evaluation Team relied to some extent on assistance from staff from USAID, UNAG and ANI partner 
organizations. Although this led to some risk of selection bias, the Evaluation Team made concerted efforts 
to balance the list of informants with those identified through other sources, and to use random selection 
methods for FGD and the mini-survey. 
Limited monitoring data. Because ANI has only been tracking output indicators, and baseline figures 
only were available for the two PMP-level indicators, it was not possible for the Evaluation Team to rely on 
project monitoring data to assess progress towards results. Preliminary analysis of the ANI-conducted 
entry and midline survey of YC members was obtained from UNAG at the end of the data collection 
process, and was of some use during report preparation. Additionally, the midline raw data shared with the 
Evaluation Team had several problems associated with it, including: 1) lack of double data-entry resulting in 
several numeric codes that were not possible responses; and 2) missing data with no explanation – skip 
pattern, not applicable, don’t know, or refused to answer. The team has not received and therefore cannot 
comment on the quality of the entry data. Results reported from the ANI midline and entry survey data 
should therefore only be considered as indicative and not precise. 
Baseline data not comparable. The Evaluation Team originally planned to use questions and data from 
the youth survey conducted by ANI in Dec 2011-Jan 2012 as a baseline for design and analysis of the 
evaluation mini-survey. However, analysis of the report and discussions with UNAG revealed several 
problems with the data that prevent it from being used as a baseline. These problems include: 1) the 
original survey was confined to urban areas; 2) the number of children chosen for the baseline survey 
within the age group 15-19 was proportional to the total within that age-group for the city, however, the 
data are not representative of the city since they were not randomly selected; 3) a snowball method was 
used for selecting respondents where one family suggested another family that had youth within the 
correct age group. 
Recall bias. Since a number of questions raised during the interviews dealt with issues that took place in 
the past, recall bias cannot be excluded. Some respondents found it difficult to accurately compare 
situations before and after the project, especially those that were involved in the predecessor NITG 
project implemented by UNAG. 
Halo bias. There is a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable answers 
and alter their responses to approximate what they perceive as the social norm (halo bias). The extent to 
which respondents were prepared to reveal their true opinions may also have varied for some questions 
that called upon respondents to assess the performance of their colleagues or people on whom they 
depend upon for the provision of services (especially in the case of partner NGOs, YC members and TC
staff). 
Time allotted for evaluation. The Team Leader was in-country for three weeks, while the Evaluation 
Expert was there for only six days. The project’s components and activities are diverse, with numerous 
counterparts in the government and civil society, and beneficiaries in far-flung regions of the country. The 
scope of the evaluation narrowed some of the questions and mitigated some of this limitation. Narrowing 
the scope also meant that some of ANI’s activities were not emphasized in the enquiry of the evaluation. 
7
4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS 
AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
4.1 QUESTION 1: EFFECT ON YOUTH UNDERSTANDING OF NATIONAL 
UNITY AND TOLERANCE 
4.1.1 Findings 
Key Findings: Overall, ANI had a positive effect on the understanding of national unity, 
integration and tolerance among youth participating in the project. Those youth have 
become more engaged in their communities and more open to interaction with others from 
different backgrounds or situations, and developed other important social and life skills 
through training, organization of events, and especially via participation in camps and 
exchanges. Youth in urban areas have been most involved in the youth-focused activities, and 
girls have been much more active than boys to date. Although there is evidence of increased 
tolerance, youth beneficiaries maintain resistance to inter-religious marriage. Civic activism 
is still not well understood by participants. 
The major focus of ANI is on youth, who were identified in the project SOW as a primary target group. 
Based on a pilot experience in two locations towards the end of the NITG project, it was decided to 
include a set of activities that would encourage youth participation in civic life and build connections 
between young people and their families that otherwise have little contact with people outside their 
communities and remain relatively inactive in society. The youth component focuses on both ethnic 
minorities and ethnic Georgians. 
Activities 
All ANI youth-related activities are targeted towards promoting civic values and activism among young 
generations of Georgians across geographic and ethnic boundaries. Through learning and practice, ANI 
aims to provide youth participants with the opportunity to grow into tolerant, socially responsible, and 
aware citizens, who think critically and are actively engaged in their community lives. Major activities 
conducted within the youth component include:
 Training NGOs and individuals on civic engagement, diversity management, and methodologies 
for working with youth. 
 YCs that conduct small-scale activities to stimulate activism, civic engagement, and diversity 
management. 
 Summer and winter “schools” to integrate young people from across Georgia through 
seminars and practical work in various thematic areas. 
 Youth exchanges to build personal connections between young people and families from 
different regions. 
 Twinning programs to build ties between different YCs as they work on joint activities.
 Youth-led awareness raising activities, community projects and local advocacy initiatives.
 Peer education and outreach activities by YC members.
 Social media activities to link YC, camp, and exchange participants. 
Youth participating in FGDs were asked which YC activity they found most useful, and which activity 
contributed to changing their life or the way they think. While there was a wide range of answers, most 
found YC-organized trainings to be very useful and said that they now use the knowledge and skills 
acquired in their everyday life. 
-“Training of psychology was useful for me. I learned what each word could do, how to speak with people. I 
was always very carefully saying something but after the training I know exactly how to speak with people 
not to offend them.” (Armenian)
-“I attended diversity training. I learned a lot there, things like difference between nationalities, religion also, 
for instance people with limited abilities they differ also. I’ve learned that you shouldn’t laugh at someone, 
difference between each other makes us more richer. So we shouldn’t offend each other.” (Armenian)
8
-“I want to underline summer school. I already had an experience of doing presentations and teamwork, 
but there I learned very many details. I used this experience in my academic courses and I get the highest 
scores in presentations.” (Georgian)
-“I can’t distinguish, because every activity gave us different knowledge, we’ve obtained different 
skills…Everything was useful, but for me more important was to get over my complexes. From this point of 
view I can distinguish Model United Nations and I am proud to participate in this project because I learned 
how to defeat my fear and complexes.” (Georgian)
The approach of the project has been to promote learning by doing among youth beneficiaries, and to 
mobilize youth to engage in their communities through activities without any political connotations. The 
YCs, coordinators and activities are highly valued by the members that participated in interviews and FGDs 
who reported that both planning and implementation are highly participatory. Parents and community 
leaders are also positive and supportive of the YCs and their activities in most cases, though they did not 
appear to be highly engaged. 
According to project reports and informants, one prominent category of YC activity has been centered 
around the celebration of various “international days” related to global issues, including Day of the Child 
and International Tolerance Day, as well as other days that are less obviously linked to project objectives. 
Youth members report that they are heavily involved in planning these activities, including research of the 
topic and preparation of presentations, as well as the implementation on the day in question. Other types 
of awareness-raising, such as public actions to discourage smoking, and charity activities such as visits to 
orphanages, have also been a significant focus of YC members. The wide variety of short-term activities 
(most are implemented for one day only, though planning takes longer) is largely a function of the shifting 
interests of the youth themselves, according to UNAG and host NGOs. 
KIIs and FGD participants, including YC members, consider that youth involved in Center activities have
changed in various positive ways: they are more active in the community than before, are more 
communicative, have better social skills, show more empathy, and have more friends from different 
backgrounds/societal groups. These trends were particularly noted among the most active YC members, 
who were reported by the visited host NGOs to number between 40 and 70 per Center. 
UNAG’s entry and midline surveys lend support to the assertion that YC members have become more 
active, as can be seen below in Figures 2 and 3. In several regions, the average change reported by 
participants after at least 10 months of YC involvement was more than a full point on the ten-point scale. 
The average of all respondents moved from 6.89 to 7.68. 
Figure 2: How active do you think you are? (entry) 
9
Figure 3: How active do you think you are? (midline) 
Most YCs have undertaken regular activities in villages surrounding their city, and made efforts to draw in 
rural youth as members. However, YC members living in cities have been the most active, according to YC 
coordinators and members. Transport has proven to be a major obstacle to regular engagement by rural 
youth, since public minibuses do not run regularly in most areas, and time is very constrained outside of 
school hours. The financial resources allocated to YCs were not sufficient to cover the cost of private 
transport except for special events from time to time. 
Comments from KIIs and FGDs on cross-cultural exchange activities such as summer schools and inter-city 
exchange visits are uniformly positive. Participants from all four visited regions indicate that these activities 
have made them more aware of other ethnic groups, more open, and less inclined to stereotype. 
Participants say that they made friends from other ethnic and religious backgrounds, some for the first 
time, and have maintained contact online with many of their new contacts. 
Tolerance 
The evaluation found that most YC members who participated in FGDs and KIIs demonstrated a shared 
general understanding of the term “tolerance,” which could be summed up as follows: “Tolerance means 
having respect for people from other nationalities, religion and sexual orientation, and accepting them as 
ordinary members of society. The most important is to be a human.” Individual participant responses 
included: 
-“Tolerance means friendship and also it means to respect each other.” (Azeri)
-“Tolerance is friendship, it means – reconciliation, and not to think like he/she is Armenian/Georgian and 
you must not talk with him/her. We all are humans, tolerance is the unity of all of us.” (Azeri)
-“Everything was mentioned what I wanted to say respect of other nationalities, religion and sexual 
orientation.” (Armenian)
-“Before I have not respect for other religions, or different color people, now I have a lot of friends; we are 
open, out of religion and talking about all topics.” (Georgian) 
-“My definition of tolerance is that you should respect different people, different ethnic and sexual 
minorities, and accept them as an ordinary member of society.” (Georgian)
The youth mini-survey conducted by the Evaluation Team corroborates the finding that increased duration 
of membership in the YC increases youth tolerance. When asked if they agreed with the statement “it is 
hard to imagine a friendship between people of different religions,” the percent of youth who “totally 
disagree” increases as the duration of membership in the YC increases. Thus, 63% of youth who have been 
members for 0 to 6 months “totally disagree” with this statement, with the corresponding figure being 71% 
for those with 7 to 12 months of membership and 75% for those with 13 to 24 months. 
10
Figure 4: It is Hard to Imagine Friendship between People of Different Religions 
Note: Chi-square is not statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Thus we cannot conclude that the duration of 
membership causes a difference in the response at the 95 percent confidence level. 
Similarly, Figure 5 below shows that when asked if they agree or disagree with the statement “people of 
different religions cannot understand each other,” the majority of the youth mini-survey respondents 
stated that they “totally disagree.” The percent stating that they “totally disagree” also increases as 
duration of membership in the YC increases. Of those who have been members 0 to 6 months, 57% 
“totally disagree,” while the corresponding figure for those who have been members for 7 to 12 months is 
61%, and for 13 to 24 months, 69%. 
Figure 5: People of Different Religions Cannot Understand Each Other 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 Totally 
Disagree
2 3 4 5 Totally 
Agree
57
11
17
6
3
61
12
17
6
2
69
8
13
4
0
0-6 months 7-12 months 13-24 months
Note: Chi-square is not statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Thus we cannot conclude that the duration of 
membership causes a difference in the response at the 95 percent confidence level. 
There was no noticeable variation between male and female participants in FGDs and KIIs when discussing 
the meaning and importance of tolerance. In the UNAG-conducted midline survey of YC members, on 
average, girls assessed themselves as being slightly more tolerant than boys towards other religions and 
ethnic groups, on a 1-10 scale. 
In spite of the above-described trends, there still appear to be limits to tolerance and acceptance of 
complete integration with those of different ethnicity, and especially of different religion, since data from 
the UNAG surveys show broad resistance to the idea of marriage between persons of different religions, 
even among YC members with more than 10 months of involvement (see Figure 6 below). As one FGD 
participant commented: “we can be friends to each other, but marriage is quite difficult...” 
11
Figure 6: Would you approve of your friend marrying someone who belongs to a different 
religion? 
National Unity and Integration 
National unity/integration was more difficult for YC members to explain, with more variation in answers, 
especially in Tbilisi. Interestingly, in Marneuli, the concept was apparently interpreted by at least two YC 
members as referring to unity among people of 
Azeri descent, rather than unity among the citizens 
of Georgia (see box at right). 
On a 1-10 scale, YC members surveyed by UNAG 
showed an average increase of .39 points between 
the time of joining the YC and September 2013, 
when asked if they agreed that diversity strengthens 
the country (1- meaning no, it undermines the 
nation; 10 - meaning yes, it is a benefit to the 
nation). 
The youth mini-survey shows that respondents place a high value on knowing the Georgian language; 96.4% 
agreed that every citizen must have knowledge of Georgian. In Figure 7, a similar percent of males and 
females can be seen responding that it is important for ethnic minorities to know the Georgian language 
for “communication,” “education,” “to feel like a real citizen of Georgia,” and for “employment.” 
However, there are some differences between males and females regarding the importance of ethnic 
minorities to know the Georgian language to “participate in society,” “access information,” “public service” 
and “trade.” 
Figure 7: Why is it important for Ethnic minorities to know the Georgian language? 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
75
31
57
73
32
50
14 10
76
33
59
67
36 41
22 21
Female Male
The following exchange took place during the 
FGD of YC members in Marneuli: 
Youth 1: For strengthening national unity more 
Azeri youth should be involved
Youth 2: Why only Azeri, what about others with 
different nationality?
Youth 3: But you’re saying about national unity
Youth 4: This is not about country, but unity of the 
people
12
Civic Activism 
Civic activism is generally understood by interviewed informants (within and outside of YCs) to mean civic 
engagement or activity, which has been the focus of YC to date. Surveyed members of YCs are unclear 
about what civic activism means. When asked to define civic activism, 50% of the youth in the mini-survey 
said “don’t know,” 25% said “active involvement in public life,” 9% said “be involved in resolving important 
issues,” and another 8% gave responses that we had to label as “unclear” (see Figure 8 below). 
Figure 8: How would you define civic activism? 
FGDs with youth also revealed a wide variety of definitions on civic activism, including civic 
engagement/involvement, helping others, solving problems in the community, and engaging with the 
government to improve development in the community. Interestingly, ideas on true civic activism or 
proactive engagement with the community and government to solve specific issues came primarily from 
ethnic Armenian and Tbilisi-based discussants. 
Some YCs are regularly engaging in activities that aim to resolve community problems (notably in 
Ozurgeti), some are confining the involvement of youth to a sort of messenger to transmit information 
between communities and local government (such as Akhaltsikhe), while other YCs have yet to get 
involved in any meaningful way in activism. ANI has taken a flexible approach to the promotion of 
activism/advocacy by YCs, based largely on the capacity, local context and familiarity of each host NGO 
with this kind of work. UNAG has, to date, not insisted that individual YCs prioritize activism, as they are 
wary of youth getting involved in what may be perceived as political activity, and are concerned that asking 
for funds from local governments may expose youth to corruption or nepotism. 
Gender Equality 
Overall there is a serious gender imbalance in membership in the YCs, with girls outnumbering boys by 
about 2:1. That pattern has manifested itself since the early days of the YCs, with the most common 
explanation offered by informants being a vague assertion that in Georgia “girls are more active.” YC 
managers and members assert that girls are not only greater in number, but also more consistently active 
in the various initiatives supported by the YCs. The youth mini-survey generated information that the 
conversational topics of boys and girls involved in the YCs are quite different. 
In Figure 9 below we see that a similar percent of males and females spend “a lot” of their time talking 
about “democracy;” however more females than males spend “a lot” of their time talking about “human 
rights,” “environment,” “politics,” “religious minorities,” “gender rights,” and “sexual minorities.” The 
topics where many more males than females tend to focus their conversation are “sports” (76% versus 
32%) and “fun plans” (76% to 63%). 
Figure 9: How frequently do you discuss the following issues with your friends? (percent) 
Issue Female Male
Human rights 74 61
Democracy 59 58
Environment 62 58
Sports 32 76
Fun plans 63 76
Politics 35 27
13
Issue Female Male
Religious minorities 48 36
Gender rights 65 47
Ethnic minorities 43 47
Sexual minorities 35 32
Multiplier Effects 
The scope of the evaluation did not allow for any comprehensive investigation of multiplier effects of 
youth-related activities on those beyond YC members. There was, however, evidence that peer education 
activities had generated interest among beneficiaries, some of whom later joined the YC. In FGDs, YC 
members had mixed ideas on whether they have different opinions from their parents and peers, and if 
they can influence them. Most felt sharp differences between themselves and their parents/peers, citing 
reasons such as differences across generations, peers being passive, and a common feeling that participation 
will not make a difference. 
-“There was such thing like gender equality, we were celebrating it and there was training devoted to the 
subject. When I mentioned about this at home, my father laughed about the gender equality. They are 
different generation, they can’t understand it.” (Armenian)
-“Not only the parents, but also others, like friends, think that their participation can’t change anything.” 
(Tbilisi) 
-“I have never discussed this issue at home. My father asks what I am doing there and I can’t give him 
clear answer, so he wonders whether I need to attend the club at all.” (Armenian)
-“Family has a great impact on others, many families do not allow their children to join us.” (Azeri)
However, in FGDs and KIIs, there were various cases where YC members felt that their opinions were the 
same as their parents, and had been so before their involvement in the YC. 
-“My mother and my father taught me before coming to this center that I should respect all nationalities, 
should not look on differences. We all think alike.” (Armenian)
-“…what we know, we know it from our parents, so they teach you how to think from childhood, so we are 
on the same page. It means that our opinions should be the same.” (Tbilisi)
Self-Confidence 
The youth mini-survey showed that YC members generally had high levels of self-confidence and belief in 
their own ability to solve problems and achieve their goals, except when facing unexpected or unforeseen 
events, as shown in Figure 10 below. These findings corroborated the views of KIIs, many of whom 
remarked on the increased self-confidence and communication skills of YC members. 
Figure 10: Statements of Self-Efficacy; Percent Answering “Exactly True”
Statement Exactly True
I can always manage to solve my problems if I try hard enough 65.1
If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want 61.4
I am certain I can accomplish my goals 68.1
I am confident that I can deal effectively with unexpected events 38.6
Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle unforeseen events 34.3
I can remain calm when facing difficulties, because I can rely on my coping abilities 39.2
When I am confronted with a problem, I can find several solutions 62.7
If I am in trouble, I can think of a good solution 45.8
I can handle whatever comes my way 22.9
4.1.2 Conclusions 
Key Conclusions: ANI has increased the level of engagement by targeted youth in their 
communities, largely via the organization of non-controversial awareness-raising and 
educational activities. By working together with youth from different backgrounds (ethnicity, 
religion, etc.) on such activities, and by linking youth from different parts of the country, 
demonstrable changes in attitudes and self-confidence have been achieved. Direct personal 
contact has been a key factor in breaking down stereotypes and prejudices. However, the 
numbers of youth reached by the project are still limited, largely due to resource constraints. 
Understanding of tolerance appears widespread among targeted youth, but national unity is 
still less well understood. 
14
The youth-related activities organized by ANI have generated a high level of enthusiasm and energy among 
participants – in particular, trainings on various topics and summer schools are widely appreciated. While 
no conclusions can be drawn about the overall population of youth in Georgia, the project has had a 
measurable effect on the attitudes of YC members and their level of civic engagement – largely in the form 
of awareness raising, volunteering, and organizing special events or charity work. The learning by doing 
approach has proven effective in mobilizing youth to contribute to society. The UNAG survey showed a 
significant increase in a self-assessed level of activity among members who had been involved in the YC for 
at least 10 months, with boys indicating a slightly greater change than girls. 
The significant emphasis by YCs on awareness-raising about non-controversial issues, including the 
celebration of a wide range of “international days,” has served as a useful first step for youth members to 
learn about global issues that also affect their communities, how to plan events and make presentations, 
appreciate the problems that other people face, and gain self-confidence. They have also served to 
generate public recognition for the youth’s efforts. Importantly, these activities have brought together 
youth from diverse backgrounds and situations to work on activities of shared interest – in some cases, 
uniting them physically, and in other cases, via the Internet. 
Therefore, these activities have served several purposes that advance the objectives of the project, and the 
effects can be seen on the youth who have been actively involved. However, the older and more 
experienced youth members are now ready to move on to more serious engagement in issues that are 
directly affecting their communities, and to work on problems in a more focused way that will lead to 
tangible results. A move in the direction of concerted action by youth as compared to awareness-raising 
on diverse topics is appropriate at this stage in the project. 
ANI was not designed or funded to include rural populations in a comprehensive manner, which has meant 
that those living in cities and major towns – who have more chance to interact with wider society and are 
generally surrounded by a more heterogeneous population – have benefited to a much greater extent than 
those residing in villages. Although it could be argued that the project was thus aiming at the “easy targets,”
the Evaluation Team considers that this was an appropriate strategy for the first major USAID project to 
promote youth engagement and tolerance/integration across the country. Now that positive results have 
been demonstrated in cities and substantial lessons have been learned, there should be an increased focus 
on the needs of rural youth. 
Direct personal contact of participants with people from other societal groups seems to have had the 
greatest effect on individual level in terms of enhancing tolerance and breaking down barriers.3 However, 
participant numbers in opportunities such as summer schools and exchange visits have been very limited –
of the YC members surveyed by UNAG, only 5% of those active in the YC for at least 10 months had 
attended summer school, and 4% had participated in an exchange visit. This is due to budgetary constraints, 
which have meant that only the “best of the best” youth have been included. Exchange visits are generally 
more cost-effective, since accommodation is with host families, which has the additional benefit of exposing 
youth to family life and adults in a community that is very different from their own. 
Understanding of the concept and importance of tolerance appears to be widespread among youth directly 
benefiting from ANI, although national unity is less well understood among them. Participation in the 
Project has clearly enhanced self-assessed levels of tolerance and increased acceptance of people of other 
backgrounds among YC members – with the greatest impact on those who have been involved for more 
than six months. However, tolerance still does not extend to acceptance of marriage between persons 
who profess different religions, indicating that there remains work to be done in breaking down barriers 
along religious lines. 
Civic activism is not a familiar concept to many YC members, and youth engagement in activism/advocacy 
has been highly variable among YCs. Each host NGO has so far been allowed to take a different path, 
based on their specific situation, and some of the YCs have achieved notable successes. There is excellent 
potential for building on those successes and taking activism work to the next level in the coming year. 
However, some host NGOs have little or no experience in this type of activity, and would benefit from 
 
3 Note: the UNAG midline survey data seems to show “better” results for summer school participants on several 
indicators of active engagement in society and support for diversity. However, since participants are selected on 
the basis of their very active participation in the YCs, such results cannot be considered as evidence of the impact 
of the summer school itself. 
15
training and hands-on mentoring as they move forward in this direction. UNAG indicates that it has plans 
to support all YCs to engage in more activism in the final year of the project, though they have legitimate 
concerns about how youth will engage with other stakeholders, notably in local government. 
Girls are dominating the YCs in terms of numbers and are often the most active members; attracting and 
engaging boys has proven more difficult for most YCs. This did not seem to surprise any of the key 
informants, nor the project implementers; what is surprising, however, is that ANI staff and partners did 
not seem to have recognized this as an issue that should be addressed, either proactively or reactively. 
Rather, informants who were asked about gender issues (as well as ANI progress reports) repeatedly 
mentioned the concern about girls either not joining or dropping out of the YCs in Kvemo Kartli – but 
even in that region they are now outstripping their male counterparts. In reality, the problem facing ANI is 
the inability to attract more than a few boys and young men as members. If boys of the targeted ages are, 
as people assert, “less active,” then they should certainly be a priority target for the project, which has the 
fundamental aim of getting youth more engaged in their communities and society. More creative strategies 
are required in order to tackle the obstacles to participation of young males in their communities. 
4.1.3 Recommendations 
1. Support all YCs to engage more in the identification and resolution of issues affecting 
their communities, with an emphasis on both duties and responsibilities of citizens, collaboration 
with local authorities, and engagement of the wider population (especially adults). Older YC members 
should take the lead in such sustained initiatives in order to provide more stability and maturity in 
dealing with other stakeholders. To provide a solid cross-cutting foundation for effective initiatives by 
YCs and minimize risks, UNAG should consult with host NGOs and prepare a clear set of basic 
guidelines for all YC activism. The experience of the Applied Civic Education and Teacher Training 
(ACETT) project-supported civics clubs in this area should also be taken into account. Support to YCs 
should also include training and mentoring, especially for inexperienced host NGOs, to ensure that 
actions are well-planned and supervised, and to minimize allegations of youth becoming political. 
2. Study the experience of the Gori YC in establishing sub-clubs in villages, as the basis for a 
common strategy for rural outreach by ANI (and future programming), then work with other 
YCs to adapt the strategy as needed – including through collaboration with ACETT, schools and other 
projects in each area. For design of future projects, take into account the cost of engagement with 
youth in rural areas, since public transport is not suitable in many areas to allow for involvement in 
extra-curricular activities in nearby towns. 
3. Develop a clear strategy for addressing the imbalance between girls and boys in the 
membership of YCs by getting more boys involved in YC-run activities as a first step – including 
through sporting events linked with project themes, to take advantage of boys’ demonstrated interest 
in sports. Once exposed to the activities in a “fun” way such as a concert or soccer match, their 
interest in other activities may well be sparked. Since this is reportedly a challenge that affects other 
youth-related projects in Georgia, UNAG should investigate whether methods used by other 
organizations have proven effective, and USAID should take these lessons into account in the design of 
future projects. 
4. Explore ways of increasing the reach of activities that allow for youth to interact on an 
intensive level with people from other cultures/religions/regions, such as the exchange visits 
and summer school. Focus more on exchange visits, but also look into lower cost options for summer 
schools, including collaboration with other projects and government agencies that organize summer 
camps. Carefully consider the targeting of such opportunities since numbers will always be limited by 
the available funds; options include a mixture of active members and those who show potential but 
are still fairly passive, urban and rural residents, etc. 
5. During the final year, work to put in place a system/network whereby YC “graduates” 
and youth being trained as diversity facilitators will be able to channel their skills and 
knowledge in strategic ways after the project ends. Their role could be especially important in 
future outreach to untouched youth in vulnerable or remote areas. It will be important to come up 
with ways of linking those youth change agents with other stakeholders in government and otherwise, 
so that they are not working in isolation. Note: UNAG is working towards this already with diversity 
facilitators’ group. 
16
4.2 QUESTION 2: EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION WITH HOST 
NGOS FOR YOUTH ACTIVITIES 
Has ANI’s approach of channeling youth-centered activities through local partners been effective? 
Effectiveness in this question was defined as whether working with local partners: 
- Developed enduring positive connections and attitudes on diversity and tolerance among young people 
from different regions and backgrounds that participated in partner-led activities; 
- Developed local partner civil society capacity in outreach, constituency mobilization, and youth work in 
diversity and tolerance; and, 
- Appears to be on target to achieve sustainability of local civic integration and youth activism by the end 
of the activity. 
4.2.1 Findings 
Key Findings: Due to the diverse contexts targeted by ANI, there was significant variation 
among the 11 host NGOs in terms of experience, resources and capacity. UNAG has adopted 
a flexible attitude to accommodate the reality of each partner, although the same funding 
and training support was provided to all. In general, host NGOs have been able to implement 
required activities and meet basic targets, though little capacity building support was 
provided (based on ANI design). However, some have had difficulties in project management, 
networking and reporting, and none could point to any concrete plans for sustainability. 
In order to support implementation of the youth-related activities that constituted the most significant part 
of the project, UNAG selected NGOs based in or near the targeted cities and towns to serve as 
coordinators of those activities on the local level and hosts of the ANI YCs. There are currently 11 “host 
NGOs” for 13 YCs; in two cases, a single NGO is covering two cities. In order to identify the host NGOs, 
ANI’s staff first undertook research to identify the most relevant NGOs in each targeted region and make 
a general assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of those NGOs. The next step was to solicit 
proposals from the NGOs that had been identified; ANI host NGOs were selected from among 31 
proposals and Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) were developed to describe the conditions of 
cooperation with the project. 
Grants of approximately $25,000 per year have been awarded to each of those NGOs in order to fund the 
establishment and operation of the YCs, including staffing and most activities. Most YCs were launched by 
the NGOs in the first half of 2012, though the university-based center in Tbilisi was started later. 
According to UNAG staff, the small number and range of active CSOs in some locations made it difficult to 
identify NGOs with suitable levels of experience and capacity to serve as hosts for the YCs. The limited 
budget for support of YCs meant that host NGOs had to have space already available that could be used 
by youth for activities and meetings, which further constrained the choices. As a result, UNAG had to be 
flexible in its requirements, and was not able to select NGOs with substantive youth project experience in 
some locations. Differences among the contexts targeted by the youth component (size of community, 
ethnic mix, etc.) also contributed to the significant amount of diversity that was observed among the 11 
host NGOs. 
It was found from site visits and interviews in the field that some of the host NGOs are entirely youth￾focused, such as the Marneuli YC, while others have missions that only target youth as part of another 
societal group, such as the Gori Center for Disabled People. In addition, some host NGOs are long￾established and well-funded, while others are relatively young and surviving from grant to grant. This 
variation of experience and focus has contributed to some differences in the approaches taken and 
activities promoted by individual YCs. For example, reports show that some YCs have actively engaged in 
community activism and advocacy initiatives, while others have yet to take that step and have kept the 
focus on civic engagement – one host NGO mentioned the fear of youth being involved in politics as a 
factor. 
UNAG reported that it had encouraged host NGOs to capitalize on connections and expertise that were 
specific to their organizational niche, whether related to disabled people, internally displaced persons 
(IDPs), residents of remote areas, or other target populations. Host NGOs have thus been able to include 
substantial numbers of disadvantaged or marginalized youth as members in the YCs; the most recent 
figures indicate that over 40% of all members are “socially disadvantaged,” which has been defined quite 
17
broadly as belonging to a religious minority (which means that most ethnic minority members are 
included), disabled, orphaned, displaced, or in conflict with the law. 
In spite of the diversity of contexts, resources and organizational capacities, project documentation 
indicates that the same funding and training support was provided to all host NGOs. UNAG staff explained 
that the standard funding amount was primarily due to the competitive solicitation mechanism used to 
select host NGOs. The overall operational strategy for YCs and youth-related activities has been defined 
centrally by ANI staff, including certain annual targets for all YCs to achieve in terms of membership and 
types of activities. The Centers have similar structures, including different thematic sub-clubs for different 
topics, such as human rights, healthy lifestyle, environment, gender, and other specific areas selected by 
members. 
The Evaluation Team visited five YCs run by NGOs, interviewed a combination of NGO staff, YC 
members, and various community stakeholders from six targeted cities, observed several YC-organized 
activities, and hosted FGDs with YC members in four locations. The Team found that the visited host 
NGOs were generally well-known in their communities and considered competent and credible 
organizations. Informants mentioned several examples where initial parental reluctance to allow their 
children to participate had been overcome through diplomatic and patient dialogue. In some cases, on the 
other hand, there was evidence that host organizations had weak links and even conflictive relationships 
with other prominent NGOs in the same community. In two cases, informants mentioned confusion 
between ANI-funded activities/host NGO and other existing groups – for example, there are two 
“Marneuli Youth Centers,” and an “Akhaltsikhe Youth Center” that runs the ACETT program but is not 
linked with ANI. 
Based on the level of activities described by informants and in UNAG reports, all host NGOs are 
maintaining a regular schedule of activities for members. YC members did not mention any difficulties with 
the NGO management of YCs, and commonly stated that the relationship between members and the 
NGO staff was participatory and friendly. No serious problems have emerged with host NGO YC 
implementation in any location; however, it was found that the language barrier between Georgian￾speaking YC members and other members who are not comfortable communicating in Georgian is posing 
difficulties for some YCs in areas of mixed ethnicity. 
In Marneuli in particular, interviews and observations generated evidence that the YC is primarily focused 
on Azeri participants and others who can speak Russian or Azeri, and most activities are conducted in one 
of those languages. They have found it difficult to be inclusive of ethnic Georgians, who constitute a 
minority in that municipality, since most of their members do not speak Georgian. Because the host NGO 
also faced general difficulties in mobilizing the area’s youth, including resistance to the involvement of girls, 
UNAG has supported them in focusing on the Azeri population for the time being. 
Lower levels of organizational capacity in some host NGOs have made it harder for them to organize 
activities with youth, network effectively, report clearly on their progress and work strategically towards 
the project’s goals, according to ANI staff. Project staff supported them, but their time for direct contact 
was limited, since only two staff members supported by the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) were focused 
on the youth component. Formal training offered by the project has been limited to a couple of events in 
2012 that targeted all host NGOs – an orientation workshop and volunteer management training by PG, 
both in 2012. In addition, hands-on financial management training has been provided to key NGO staff by 
UNAG’s finance manager, and brief program management training by the DCOP. Although training in 
diversity management was provided to ANI sub-grant recipients, that workshop has not been offered to 
host NGO staff. No resources were allocated in the budget to respond to capacity building needs of 
specific host NGOs, so mentoring by ANI staff was the only means available for addressing those gaps. 
Face-to-face contact among host NGOs has been infrequent, though the Evaluation Team found examples 
of useful sharing of ideas and methods that emerged from the few meetings that were organized, or by 
virtue of pre-existing links among NGOs. The project has tried to foster long-distance collaboration 
through Internet-based “twinning” and “double-twinning” activities,4 especially between YCs in ethnically 
homogenous areas and through the creation of a Facebook closed group for host NGOs to exchange 
 
4
The twinning projects consist of jointly conceived activities that are implemented in two different locations by two 
different YCs, in close coordination. Double twinning involves four host NGOs, carefully matched by UNAG to 
promote exchanges among YCs and their members in distinct contexts. 
18
thoughts and information. However, neither of these initiatives was mentioned by informants among the 
most useful project activities. 
Though all host NGOs have undoubtedly gained experience in youth mobilization and tolerance/integration 
work through the project, the tangible effects on capacity were not measurable with the information 
available to the Evaluation Team. The assessment done at the outset of ANI did not analyze the capacity of 
individual NGOs in a way that could constitute a baseline, since it had a different purpose. Although ANI 
staff makes fairly regular visits to host NGOs to check on their functioning and provide support, there is 
no method for systematically monitoring the performance or capacity of host NGOs. One of the host 
NGOs with considerable prior experience said their capacity had not been affected at all, while others 
were unable to point to specific areas of change that were related to this project. 
Overall, the five host NGOs visited by the Evaluation Team considered UNAG’s approach to the project 
and partner relations to be supportive, responsive and flexible. Reports and interviews indicate that UNAG 
has generally maintained positive relations with host NGOs based on an open-door partnership approach 
that encourages frequent communication via various means and collaborative problem-solving. The leaders 
and staff of those NGOs expressed high levels of commitment to the YC activities and to their 
continuation after ANI. However, all of the visited NGOs are dependent on donor funding of one kind or 
another, and none of the visited NGOs was able to point to a sustainability plan. 
4.2.2 Conclusions 
Key Conclusions: The use of NGOs to manage youth-based activities in various locations has 
proven to be an effective strategy, though it has presented challenges. Diversity among the 
NGOs’ approaches and capacities has contributed to variation in activities, and made it more 
difficult to ensure even results with the available resources – which were allocated equally 
among all YCs, in spite of their different needs. While host NGOs have gained experience, 
especially in youth and tolerance work, it was not possible to pinpoint tangible changes in 
capacity with the information available. Continuation of the youth work by NGOs and/or YC 
members will be highly variable after ANI, unless further assistance is provided. 
In spite of the various challenges encountered, it can be concluded that locally based existing NGOs were 
the best option that was available for operation of YCs under this project. Compared to other options, 
such as establishing numerous sub-offices or partnering with local governments, the use of NGOs offered 
relatively low cost (taking advantage of existing premises and infrastructure), in-depth local knowledge, 
established community links, and flexible non-bureaucratic nature that is typical of small CSOs. In some 
cases, however, host NGOs have been reluctant or slow to adopt UNAG project-wide best practice 
priorities, methods, and unified direction. Since it was not feasible for UNAG to force host NGO partners 
to follow a certain path, that tendency has heightened the level of divergence among approaches taken by 
YCs in different locations (e.g. uneven advocacy activity implementation by youth). 
UNAG has, to a certain extent, turned the diversity among host NGOs into a source of strength for the 
project by realizing the value of NGO links with different societal groups such as the disabled, orphans and 
IDPs. Those connections have paved the way to a more inclusive approach by some host NGOs and 
enabled them to foster tolerance and integration among youth in very different life situations (going beyond 
inter-ethnic and inter-faith tolerance). Thus, IDP and non-IDP youth in the Zugdidi area have had greater 
opportunities to interact with each other and form interpersonal bonds. The same can be said for disabled 
and able-bodied YC members in the Gori area. 
Generally speaking, a flexible approach has been taken to accommodate the diverse contexts and different 
priorities of local youth, and this flexibility has been appreciated by host NGOs as well as youth members. 
On the other hand, a standardized approach was taken for the financial support and training of host 
NGOs, and to the setting of targets for membership and certain activities. In this respect, the project does 
not always appear to have taken into account differences in local human capacity, infrastructural and 
technical resources of each host NGO, although those differences must have become evident through the 
initial NGO assessment. The “one-size-fits-all” approach to funding and training has limited the ability of 
the project to measurably improve the capacity of those organizations, since specific needs could not be 
accommodated or addressed, other than through some mentoring by UNAG staff. 
The difficult relationships of some host NGOs with certain other NGOs in the same region or city has had 
a negative effect on the project’s ability to coordinate and collaborate in an optimal way with local 
19
stakeholders, especially those also working with youth. That situation, unsurprising in a civil society 
environment where NGOs are constantly competing for scarce donor funding, was exacerbated in some 
locations by ANI’s host NGO selection process, which naturally pitted some NGOs against each other. In 
some cities, such tensions at local level are undermining collaboration with ACETT implementers and 
other relevant organizations. Therefore, while local connections are often an advantage of using NGOs, 
experience has shown that the opposite can also be true, especially in relation to NGOs and projects in 
closely related sectors. 
Links among the 11 host NGOs are not strong and substantive communications are infrequent, in general. 
As a result, valuable experiences and lessons learned are not consistently being shared by host NGOs with 
others, despite some clear demonstrations of the value of regular information exchange. While Facebook 
can play a useful role and is certainly economical, additional coordination and facilitation by UNAG of host 
NGO use of Internet networking tools would help to ensure their efficacy and contribution to sustainable 
links among the NGOs. 
Capacity-building of host NGOs was not a particular priority for ANI, based on the overall design, activities 
and budget. Therefore, expectations should be modest with respect to changes in capacity. Nevertheless, it 
is safe to conclude that those host NGOs with little prior experience in youth and tolerance work have 
developed some additional capacity in these areas through their involvement in project activities and 
interaction with other ANI partners. On the other hand, there is little evidence to indicate that more 
experienced NGOs have gained capacity in any significant way. 
With respect to sustainability, four or five of the better-established host NGOs will probably be able to 
find sufficient internal and external resources to continue with YC activities (at least to some extent) after 
ANI funding ends. The youth engagement and civic integration work of the host NGOs with less 
experience and resources does not appear to be sustainable in its current form without further assistance. 
However, it is possible that certain activities will be carried on by selected youth who are already being 
groomed by the project as change agents, as described in more detail under Question 1. 
4.2.3 Recommendations 
1. Provide more support to host NGOs to overcome local tensions and disconnects with 
other organizations working on youth engagement and tolerance (possibly through mediation of 
conflicts by UNAG or others), and press them more actively to exploit opportunities for 
collaboration and complementarity in their local regions. 
2. Dedicate considerable staff time (or consultants as needed) to work with YC hosts and members 
on realistic sustainability plans, well before the end of ANI funding – focusing efforts on the 
weaker ones with less ability to attract grant funding or other forms of support. To the extent 
possible, offer training/mentoring tailored to meet their most pressing organizational capacity gaps 
(strategic planning support, for example) in order to shore up their sustainability. 
3. Include a stronger focus on civil society capacity building in the design of future projects in 
which the participation of regionally-based NGOs is integral to the project design, and ensure that 
sufficient human and financial resources are allocated for that purpose. This is important not only for 
effective project implementation, but also in order to promote sustainability of activities and results. 
4. Develop strategies for future partnering with local NGOs that are fair but still take into 
account the specific situation of each organization, including the possibility of allocating variable 
amounts of funding and other support to different NGOs – even if they are contracted to play the 
same role. It needs to be recognized at the project design stage that levels of capacity and needs for 
support are going to be different, depending on the particular NGO and its context, in order to 
achieve similar results in all locations. 
5. For future projects, implement user-friendly but rigorous methods for monitoring the 
performance of partner NGOs on relevant criteria and for measuring changes in key 
capacity areas over time. Many such tools have been developed by USAID civil society projects, 
among others, and could be readily adapted to the needs of the individual project. Those same tools 
should help in identifying needs for improvement or additional support, so that long-term capacity can 
be built in a targeted manner. 
6. Although only a short period remains for implementation of ACETT, steps should be taken to identify 
the ANI locations where links with ACETT are weakest, and to come up with interim ways of 
linking ACETT civics club participants with the YCs and their members. Complementarity 
20
between these two projects is discussed in more detail later in this report. In future projects, relations 
among implementing NGOs in different locations should be closely monitored and fostered. 
7. Organize and provide resources for more interaction among host NGOs, including potential 
mentoring relationships and exchanges among YC coordinators, more frequent meetings of host 
NGOs on regional or national level, and facilitation of more meaningful links via Facebook. 
4.3 QUESTION 3: EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPPORT TO TOLERANCE CENTER 
AND COUNCIL ON NATIONAL MINORITIES AND RELIGIONS 
How effective has ANI been in building the capacity of the Public Defender’s Tolerance Center and the Councils of 
National Minorities and Religions to: 
- Promote cultural and religious diversity; 
- Undertake effective fact-finding on minority-biased rights violations; 
- Advocate for minority rights; 
- Establish communication with the GOG on these issues; 
- Monitor and comment on minority-related state policies, programs and actions; and, 
- Produce recommendations and advocate for effective solutions to related challenges? 
Effectiveness was defined as whether ANI’s work with the Tolerance Center and the Councils of National Minorities 
and Religions is recognized to have helped these bodies promoting cultural and religious diversity, minority rights, 
and communication with government officials by GOG institutions, CSOs, and the public. Effectiveness also means 
whether ANI’s support to these bodies has enabled them to better collaborate with civil society to address problems 
between citizens and governments. 
4.3.1 Findings 
Key Findings: The TC, as well as the CNM and Council of Religions (CR) which it supports, 
are primarily funded by ANI. The TC is performing a role that is appreciated by 
stakeholders, and both Councils are able to be more active and visible due to ANI support 
through the TC. The CR in particular appears to be growing in capacity and credibility, while 
the CNM plays a key role in ongoing monitoring of the government’s commitments to 
integration and equality. 
In order to analyze this question, it is important to first outline the roles of the key institutions supported 
by ANI that are pertinent to this Evaluation Question. The primary source of the following information (in 
the shaded box below) is the trilingual website of the TC (www.tolerantoba.ge), which is in fact financed by 
ANI. 
The TC can be described as a “tolerance watchdog” that assists the Public Defender in safeguarding and 
promoting the atmosphere of tolerance, equality and peace in Georgia. The Center’s activities are focused 
on protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, and promoting their integration. It works to 
facilitate constructive dialogue between the majority and minority groups, carries out educational activities, 
investigates and exposes incidents of religious and ethnic discrimination or xenophobia, takes stock of 
relevant trends, and examines systemic problems. The Center periodically monitors the situation of 
religious and ethnic minorities in Georgia. Based on monitoring results, it highlights possible threats and 
dangers stemming from intolerance, xenophobia and discrimination, and works to define ways to address 
the problems. In addition, the TC holds seminars, conferences and discussions, and prepares publications.
Based on analysis of the situation of religious and ethnic minorities in Georgia, the TC drafts relevant 
recommendations for the Public Defender; these analyses and recommendations are reflected in the Public 
Defender’s parliamentary reports and recommendations. The Center also coordinates activities of the CR
and CNM, which also operate under the auspices of the Public Defender.
The CR, which was established in 2005 by Memorandum with the Public Defender, is a forum where 
religious associations are united voluntarily. Its aim is to develop harmonious relations among religious 
confessions, protect human rights and equality, support civic integration and promote tolerance. 
Currently, the Council unites 26 confessions. Although the Council is open to all religions active in 
Georgia, the Georgian Orthodox Church has never engaged in the Council, therefore it functions as a sort 
of coalition of minority religions. Members of the Council communicate regularly to discuss problems 
facing religious groups and ways to address them. 
21
The CNM was also established in 2005. Its main objectives are: encouraging consultations and a dialogue 
between ethnic minorities and the government, offering recommendations and feedback in the process of 
elaborating minority-related governmental policies and programs; giving timely response in cases involving 
breaches of minority rights and/or emergence of conflict situations, developing recommendations for the 
Public Defender and other officials. The Council unites over 100 organizations working on minority issues 
and representing ethnic minorities. Since 2009, the CNM has been increasingly involved in monitoring the 
government’s actions to promote tolerance and protect the rights of ethnic minorities in Georgia. 
ANI is currently funding four full-time staff at the TC through direct contracts with UNAG: the Head of 
the TC, two people largely devoted to supporting the CR and CNM, and the ANI Coordinator for project 
support to the PDO. For much of the first year of ANI, the United Nations Development Programme 
(UNDP) was co-funding the TC, and the European Center for Minority Issues (ECMI) was covering a 
significant part of the costs of the CNM, but the financial support of both international bodies ended in 
2012. Since that time, ANI has been the only external source of funds for TC staff and activities. The 
government, through its funding to the PDO, has assumed responsibility for the cost of some activities of 
the TC. 
Based on observations and review of TC publications, as well as on comments by informants, TC staff 
members were found to be qualified and respected professionals in the field, with a mutually respectful 
relationship with key stakeholders. Their advice and support to the CNM and CR are considered by 
informants to be of a high standard, and their role is seen as important for boosting the capacity of those 
bodies, which are essentially coalitions of civil society groups. 
ANI is also the only steady source of external funding for operations of the CNM and CR. The key 
activities of those councils include fact-finding visits to investigate complaints of rights violations, meetings 
to share information with and advocate to government officials, and meetings of the members themselves 
to discuss emerging issues and come up with public statements and recommendations for action by the 
government. 
According to project progress reports and interviewed informants, UNAG and TC staff members were 
instrumental in enabling the CNM and CR to secure MoUs with various ministries since 2011. These MoUs 
have allowed Council representatives to follow-up on a regular basis with relevant ministers and other 
high-ranking officials on their recommendations, especially those captured in reports on implementation of 
the NCAP. More generally, this form of official recognition has enabled the Councils to have fairly 
consistent access to those officials to discuss other concerns affecting minorities as they emerge. 
During the project period, CR has shown itself able to reach consensus on a wide range of issues affecting 
society in Georgia, going well beyond religious issues. The members first developed a “social concept”5
that captured their united position on a range of fundamental principles of rule of law, human rights, and 
interaction between religions and the state. On the basis of that document, in 2012 the Council published a 
set of recommendations to the government on behalf of all members – a significant achievement 
considering that 26 religious confessions agreed on those recommendations6 which covered a wide range 
of tolerance-related issues, such as removal of discriminatory elements from school textbooks and 
establishment of equal taxation rules for all religious confessions. Coordination of that process was 
substantially assisted by the TC team. 
The CR has also been publicly speaking with a united voice in reaction to violations of religious freedoms, 
especially during 2013 when the rate of such incidents in Georgia increased significantly and Muslims were 
increasingly targeted. Very recently, the TC supported the CR to analyze and react to a situation where 
the government dismantled the minaret of a mosque. Informants indicated that the CR’s direct intervention 
helped to resolve the looming conflict with the affected Muslim minority community, and that the field visit 
of the multi-faith CR committee to the site was highly valued by local leaders who were extremely 
surprised to see how representatives of other religions were willing to assist them in protecting their 
rights. 
 
5 The Social Concept is available in English at: 
http://www.tolerantoba.ge/index.php?id=1281619890&sub_id=1359539573 
6 The Recommendations of the Council of Religions are available in English at: 
http://www.tolerantoba.ge/index.php?id=1281619892&sub_id=1359539573 
22
As well, the TC advised and coordinated behind-the-scenes to help the CR quickly mobilize to defeat a 
move to change blasphemy laws, which members perceived as detrimental to members of religious 
minorities. In another concrete example of assistance that had a clear impact, the TC staff supported the 
CR to analyze the situation then successfully advocate for a new law on registration of religious groups, in 
the face of strong opposition. That law is seen by informants a step towards greater legitimacy and legal 
recognition of minority religious confessions, which could lay the foundation for future reforms of tax rules 
and other laws that treat different religions in divergent manners. 
The CNM is a larger and very diverse group of civil society bodies with an active core of about 35 
members (out of more than 100 in all). The CNM has been less able than the CR to reach consensus on 
emerging or ongoing issues and during the project period has been most active in annually monitoring the 
NCAP. ANI-funded expert consultants in different thematic areas have been working with selected CNM 
members to perform the annual monitoring process and take the lead in writing so-called “alternative” 
reports. Informants advise that this relationship and process has become more collaborative over time, 
however, the capacity of the CNM to analyze and report on findings is still limited, so the experts generally 
lead the way. 
The monitoring process and reports have been mostly activity-related to date, as reported by informants 
and observed in the reports themselves, in part because government reports were largely focused on 
descriptions of activities (as one informant described it, “checking the boxes”) with little analytical content. 
Nevertheless, informants consider the civil society monitoring function to be very important, and the 
“alternative report,” produced by the CNM with ANI’s support, to be a significant and useful product for 
tracking government progress. There are some notable examples of recommendations of the alternative 
reports being acted on by the government: establishment of Language Houses in regions with heavy 
concentrations of ethnic minorities; substantial revision of various school textbooks; and creation of the 
“4+1 system” to facilitate university entrance for non-native Georgian speakers.7 
Informants both internal and external to ANI report that following the appointment of the new Public 
Defender there were discussions about the possibly closing down the TC. The Evaluation Team was not 
able to meet with the new Public Defender, nor with his Deputy, despite lodging several requests. 
Coordination with ECMI and UNDP on support to the TC and Councils was reported by informants to be 
open and consultative, with no evidence of overlaps or difficulties in the allocation of expenses among the 
three donor bodies (though it should be noted that the Evaluation Team was not able to meet with the 
relevant personnel at UNDP). 
4.3.2 Conclusions 
Key Conclusions: At present, the operations of the TC and two Councils are almost entirely 
dependent on financial support from ANI. Increased reliance on government funding could 
jeopardize the independence of the TC, therefore, international support continues to be 
essential to its efficacy as a watchdog body – especially in light of recent transitions in 
government and uncertain levels of political will. The TC has played an important role in 
boosting the capacity of the CR and, to a lesser extent, the CNM. Both Councils are still 
relatively young with weak coalitions, which need ongoing financial and technical assistance. 
As the TC’s structure consists of the team funded by ANI, its capacity is not built by, but rather is 
dependent on, the project’s support. At present, ANI funding is vital to the continued active operation of 
the TC, as well as both councils, since current government funding supports only a portion of their activity 
budget. This presents a serious challenge to the TC’s sustainability after ANI ends in early 2015. Although 
it might be possible for donors and other stakeholders to convince the government to assume all or part 
of the cost of staffing the TC, which would arguably be more sustainable than donor funding, there would 
be a significant risk of compromising the independence of the Center. 
Such a change would also present the risk of losing at least some existing TC staff, since civil service 
contracts would be less advantageous for them. That would be a potentially serious blow to the Center, 
since its staff are widely respected and trusted by key stakeholders. As well, it would result in limitations 
 
7 This program provides for minority students to be accepted in state-run universities based on simplified exams, 
provided that they undergo a preparatory course (heavily focused on Georgian language classes) for one year 
before commencing the regular four-year bachelor’s degree program.
23
on the TC’s ability to pay certain expenses due to government regulations (e.g. per diems cannot be paid 
to non-government personnel such as members of Councils). For these reasons, international funding is 
important both in material terms and as an indication of moral support for the Center, which continues to 
be vulnerable to political forces and changes of the Public Defender. 
The TC is playing a valuable role in advancing the goals and objectives of ANI, including through regular 
public statements on tolerance-related threats and rights violations, analysis of political and legal 
developments, and advocacy for (or against) relevant legislative and regulatory changes. Its role as a 
watchdog of tolerance issues is widely appreciated by civil society stakeholders and the international 
community, although some in government circles are less appreciative of its work since the government is 
naturally a frequent target of TC criticism. 
The TC acts as an effective hub or focal point for the CNM and CR. The advice and coordination provided 
by TC staff have made important contributions to the achievements of both Councils during the project 
period. Fact-finding missions, government meetings and public statements made possible by ANI funding 
have raised the profile of the councils and increased their credibility both on national and local levels. 
In terms of council capacity, there is sufficient evidence among the achievements reported by informants 
(and described above) to conclude that the CR’s capacity has increased, largely due to support by ANI for 
activities and advice by TC staff. While change in the CNM is not as easy to identify, there are signs that 
capacity and confidence of core members are gradually increasing – especially those involved in the 
analytical group that was created on the recommendation of TC staff to help the council function more 
effectively. However, monitoring and analysis skills are still in need of strengthening, and in general, NCAP 
reporting and monitoring is constrained by the lack of clear indicators. 
It is not possible to say with any certainty that a certain number or percentage of civil society 
recommendations on NCAP have led to meaningful action by the government, especially since many of the 
recommendations would require long-term responses, and government seldom acknowledges the role of 
civil society in their decisions. Nevertheless, there are enough examples of policy or program changes that 
reflect civil society recommendations to conclude that the NCAP monitoring exercise is in fact making a 
difference. In the words of one informant: “ANI is helping to entrench the practice of reporting…” 
The CR and CNM are largely dependent on the TC’s staff for coordination and qualified advice, and the 
affiliation with the TC and PDO is important for their credibility. Without these supports and ANI activity 
funding, it would currently be difficult for them to function as coalitions. 
4.3.3 Recommendations 
1. Continue to financially support the TC, but work with the TC staff and other allies on 
urgent efforts to convince other international donors (bilateral and/or multilateral) of the 
importance of continued international support to the Center, CR, and CNM, in an effort to diversify 
sources of funding as well as broaden political/moral support. To this end, the TC should be 
encouraged to clearly document and showcase its recent achievements and take steps to 
communicate those results and their significance with the wider donor community. 
2. Support the development of a strategic plan for the TC to identify priorities, opportunities and 
current threats, and map out the optimal path for its future financing, staffing and organizational 
development, including a review of its structure and position within the PDO. 
3. In order to make NCAP monitoring by civil society more effective, the NCAP itself should include 
objectively verifiable indicators by which government performance can be measured in as 
many areas as possible. ANI and USAID should advocate for that change to be endorsed by 
government and provide technical assistance to the government, if needed, for the process to be 
initiated. Mechanisms should be explored for more frequent progress monitoring of the new NCAP 
by both the government and civil society. 
4. Target key members of the CNM and CR with expert support to build specific skills that 
would help the Councils become less dependent on external advisors and coordinators. This 
would also boost credibility and help to level the playing field when the councils are dealing with 
government officials. Those skills may include strategic planning, communications, meeting 
management, consensus-building, fundraising, negotiation and mediation, etc. Experts engaged to 
support future NCAP monitoring should have a mandate to build capacity of CNM monitoring group 
24
members, with specific areas of attention identified and additional time included in their contracts for 
that function. 
4.4 QUESTION 4: EFFECT OF 2012 CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT ON 
PROJECT 
How did the change of government that followed the October 2012 elections influence ANI’s programmatic 
effectiveness in supporting the GOG on minority-related issues? 
Effectiveness was defined as whether ANI was able to adapt its programming and establish core relationships 
following the elections in a way that allowed for the project to continue its activities with GOG institutions in a 
manner consistent with its original objectives. Effectiveness also means whether informants can identify particular 
aspects of policy influenced by project-supported mechanisms and activities, both before and after the elections. 
4.4.1 Findings 
Key Findings: Project implementers have worked hard to maintain positive relations with the 
government, both before and after the 2012 transition. Those efforts have been largely 
successful, although collaboration with Georgia Public Broadcasting has been impeded by a 
series of upheavals and changes of direction within the state media body. 
Since the elections, ANI staff report that they have worked steadily to establish links with new government 
officials, which has cost some time and effort, especially of senior staff. Informants from various sectors 
uniformly indicated that UNAG/ANI staff has had cordial and cooperative relations with the government, 
both before and after the elections. The positive relationship is also borne out by the new government’s 
acceptance of ANI technical assistance in monitoring NCAP and in preparing the new NCAP to take effect 
in 2014. However, one informant mentioned that the new government’s commitment to NCAP was not 
guaranteed, since there had been no public or formal statement made in support of the process. Another 
commented that some ministries had been “uncooperative” in developing the new NCAP. 
The change of PD that followed the change of government resulted in some discussion of eliminating the 
TC, according to informants, and relations between the new PD and TC staff are not yet as strong as they 
were with the incumbent. Some informants assert that the CNM and CR are considered threats by certain 
factions within the new government, which consists of a very diverse group of politicians, many with scanty 
experience in politics. One commented that “now it is more important than ever to continue support to 
the TC.” 
ANI has had difficulties in reaching agreement with Georgia Public Broadcasting (GPB) on the planned 
collaboration, which was largely a continuation of support initiated under the predecessor NITG. To date, 
no MoU has been signed. The initial problems with GPB pre-dated the elections, though it is likely that the 
change of government has had some effect on the series of transitions at senior levels of GPB, which 
contributed to challenges in achieving a sustainable meeting of the minds with UNAG on the way forward. 
No other effect on ANI has been commented on by any informant, neither by any document. No changes 
to project plans were required in relation to the change of government. 
4.4.2 Conclusions 
Key Conclusion: The change of government had no observable effect on project effectiveness 
in supporting the government. 
This should be seen as a credit to the diplomacy efforts of UNAG, although it is no doubt also influenced 
by the government’s positive relations with USAID. However, there is some risk that the government, 
especially following the presidential transition in late 2013, may adjust its position in relation to the NCAP 
and the TC. Support by projects such as ANI sends the message to the government that these mechanisms 
and processes, which are not yet strongly institutionalized, are important in the eyes of the international 
community. 
4.4.3 Recommendations 
1. UNAG and USAID should closely monitor the government’s attitude towards the NCAP, 
TC, and CNM/CR, and take every opportunity – including on diplomatic levels – to ensure that key 
people in the new government and the new PD are aware of the importance of NCAP processes 
(government reporting and civil society monitoring) and of the value of the TC in the further 
democratic development of Georgia. It is advisable to engage other prominent stakeholders in the 
international community in these efforts as well. 
25
4.5 PROJECT STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION 
4.5.1 Findings 
Key Findings: The goals and activities of the ANI YCs have a great deal in common with the 
civics clubs supported under ACETT, and the age ranges and cities overlap to some extent. 
However, links between the two projects and coordination in most regions have been 
limited. Activities under different ANI components have, in some cases, been linked to each 
other, but there is room for greater synergy among components. Monitoring of project 
outcomes and results has been less than optimal. With the exception of two impact-level 
indicators that feed into the Mission’s PMP, only ANI outputs are being tracked by UNAG, 
and 20+ outcome indicators in the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan have not been 
monitored. Quarterly reporting to USAID has been very activity-based, with minimal 
analysis. 
Based on examination of project documents as well as informant interviews, the project has been managed 
by UNAG in an organized and timely fashion, including directly-implemented activities and those of key 
partners. Partner relations (with OSGF, PG and the PDO) have been mutually satisfactory, consultative, 
and without difficulties, according to staff on all sides. Although signature of the MoU with OSGF was 
delayed considerably by technical issues raised by the Open Society’s headquarters, delaying the launch of 
the sub-grants component, it seems that this delay will have little or no effect on completion of that 
component and on the duration/amount of sub-grants. The failure to secure agreement with GPB was, by 
all accounts, due to reasons beyond the control of the project team. 
Relations with host NGOs visited by the Evaluation Team appeared to be cordial, and UNAG staff was 
described by NGO informants as responsive to their requests and consultative about decision-making in 
relation to the youth component. Host NGOs in general would have benefited from more hands-on 
networking support, mentoring and monitoring, as discussed in Question 2 above. In general, UNAG ANI 
staff appears to be very dedicated and senior staff is respected by interviewed government and civil society 
counterparts. That being said, some informants commented on a lack of creativity or innovation in the way 
the project has been implemented, including its media component. 
The goals and activities of the ACETT-supported civics clubs and the ANI YCs have a great deal in 
common; both aim to enhance civic awareness and engagement of young people, and to that end they 
mobilize youth to carry out volunteer work, share information with others, and promote resolution of 
problems affecting local communities. As well, the age ranges overlap for youth from 14-17, although ANI 
also targets university students. In spite of these commonalities, interviews and document review indicated 
that the national-level links between the projects were not close and at local levels they were highly 
variable. 
In some regions, interviews with YC staff and members and those involved in ACETT civics clubs showed 
evidence of good links and even collaboration between the local implementers of ANI and ACETT. 
However, in other areas there were very weak ties, shown by lack of awareness among implementers and 
beneficiaries of other project activities and target populations, and no signs of cooperation. One example 
was the organization of two disconnected activities to mark International TC in Akhaltsikhe – one 
supported by ACETT and the other by the ANI YC. In at least three places, the same NGO manages both 
projects, but even that has not guaranteed close linkages; one such NGO emphasized its success in 
“keeping the participants separate” and “avoiding overlaps.” 
The Evaluation Team found through progress report reviews and interviews that some linkages have been 
made among different project components – for example by TC staff giving lectures to YC members, and 
both TC and YC members appearing on the “Our Yard” television show. However, the Evaluation Team 
found many examples of activities where there was an opportunity for interaction and synergy among the 
components which had not yet been taken advantage of. For example, YC members have little, if any, 
awareness of the TC and other national bodies working to promote tolerance and integration, and most of 
those interviewed have never seen the “Our Yard” talk show. The TC recently selected 15 members to 
expand the CNM Youth Group from among minority students at Georgian universities, but there was no 
consultation with ANI YCs in the process. Based on analysis of the grant descriptions and on interviews 
with ANI implementers, the Evaluation Team found that the subject matter and recipients of most sub￾grants awarded under the small grants component were in no way connected with either youth, media or 
policy components of the project. 
26
Most of the 20-odd outcome indicators listed in the project’s annual M&E plans have not been clearly 
defined and have not been tracked since the beginning of the project, according to ANI records and 
interviews with UNAG and USAID staff. No baselines or targets were established for any of those 
indicators, according to documents and interviews. The effects of training have not been closely monitored 
using tools that would actually track learning or change among participants, either during or after the 
training intervention. With the exception of two impact-level indicators that feed into the Mission’s PMP, 
and therefore required of ANI by USAID, only ANI outputs are being tracked so far (e.g., number of YCs
established, and number of participants trained). Interviews with key informants pointed to UNAG’s 
limited experience in the design and use of outcome indicators as the primary reason for these gaps. 
With respect to the two PMP indicators, there is only baseline data available at this point for the Civic 
Integration Index (also referred to as Tolerance Index), which was implemented for the first time in 2012, 
and will be updated with 2013 results by January 2014. As for the indicator of “change in beneficiary 
attitudes, perceptions and behavior with regard to integration and tolerance,” 2012 baseline data only was 
available at the time of writing this report, because UNAG’s 2013 “midline survey” of YC members was 
still being analyzed and compared to entry survey data. 
The project’s quarterly reporting to USAID has been very activity-based, with no reference to M&E plan 
indicators and minimal analysis of problems or possible changes of approach. According to interviews with 
project staff, any problematic aspects or proposed adjustments are normally handled with USAID by email 
or in person. For example, the decision to change the target age group of the YCs appears nowhere in the 
project reports, nor in other documentation reviewed by the Evaluation Team. Although the project 
planned to produce and disseminate an annual report, it was later decided not to do so. Quarterly reports 
on sub-grants by project partner OSGF are also confined largely to enumeration of grantee activities and 
monitoring trips. Quarterly and training reports by PG are similarly focused on simple description of 
activities and outputs. PDO reports are more comprehensive and include a certain amount of analysis. 
Although a database of YC members exists at the central level, the Evaluation Team found that up-to-date 
information about members was only available from the YCs themselves. In the course of seeking data to 
sample the YC members, and later contact members by telephone, it was realized that the participant lists 
are not maintained on a regular basis. In addition, it was observed that there is no system in place for ANI 
to track the degree/frequency of participation of individual members. 
4.5.2 Conclusions 
Key Conclusions: Staffing levels at UNAG were less than optimal given the size and 
complexity of the project and scope of activities across the country. There are areas of 
potential synergy between ANI and ACETT that have not been fully exploited in the absence 
of a strategy for ensuring their complementarity. There was no clear plan for linking ANI 
components or system for ensuring that project partners were aware of what others were 
doing. The lack of monitoring data on outcome indicators makes it difficult to assess ANI’s
results on an ongoing basis, which in turn weakens its ability to identify and respond to 
problems as they emerge. 
ANI staff and partners have appropriate skill levels and experience in general, and have managed the 
project activities and relationships without any major difficulties. However, staffing levels at UNAG were 
less than optimal given the size of the project and scope of activities across the country – especially taking 
into account the low capacity of some host NGOs. Additional staff would also have boosted the project’s 
ability to ensure close linkages and complementarity with other related projects at the national and local 
levels to link project components and to implement robust monitoring systems. 
There are areas of potential synergy between the ANI and ACETT projects, especially the civics club 
component of the latter, which have not been fully exploited. Although these major initiatives were 
designed and launched within a few months of each other, there is no evidence of any strategy for ensuring 
the complementarity of these two initiatives. The need for such a strategy was heightened when the target 
age group of ANI was adjusted to overlap more with the high school-age beneficiaries of ACETT, in the 
early stages of ANI. Regrettably, no regular inter-project meetings were initiated at that point, and no clear 
decision was taken on exactly how the projects would interact at implementation level. 
On the whole, ANI components were not as well integrated with each other as they could have been. That 
may be due in part to the use of diverse host NGOs, each with its own ideas of how to implement 
27
activities on the ground, and without an in-depth understanding of the overall vision of the project. Some 
amount of disconnection may also have been owing to the partnership structure of ANI, which used 
different organizations to handle the sub-grants management and training tasks. There was no apparent 
vision for linking the components or for ensuring that different project partners were fully aware of what 
other partners were doing. One UNAG staff member even commented that the youth component was 
separate from the other elements by design. 
The small grants component in particular seemed to be a “stand-alone” element that did not complement 
the other components nor contribute to project objectives in any meaningful way. The purpose of the 
component was never clearly defined, although some ANI staff and other informants saw the objective as 
encouragement of isolated minority communities or tiny minority groups, in reality many sub-grants were 
awarded to Tbilisi-based organizations with quite different aims. That was apparently “not planned,” but in 
fact was quite predictable given the generally greater ability of capital-based organizations to write 
persuasive proposals. UNAG and OSGF could have defined the sub-grants criteria much more narrowly to 
ensure coherence with the overall project. 
Monitoring ANI performance and results has been generally weak. A great deal is riding on the two impact 
indicators that are being tracked for the PMP, and on the tools that have been developed by ANI to 
measure them. More than two years into implementation, progress is only being measured by output 
indicators that amount to little more than counting beneficiaries and activities, since there is still only 
baseline data on these two PMP indicators. The Civic Integration Index is at the impact level and not 
project-specific, since it will be influenced by a wide range of other factors; therefore, it cannot really be 
considered as an indicator of ANI results. The youth participant survey by UNAG may prove valuable for 
measuring the other PMP indicator, but is an untested tool and only measures certain aspects. 
The lack of monitoring data on outcome indicators makes it difficult to assess the results of ANI on an 
ongoing basis, which in turn weakens the project’s ability to identify and respond to problems as they 
emerge and to capitalize on successful strategies that could be strengthened for even greater impact. While 
UNAG may lack specific experience with outcome indicators, the capable and experienced ANI team 
should require very little assistance to master this important project management skill. In a related point, 
the activity-based reporting method leaves no accessible record for following the project’s evolution, 
including problems and how they were solved, which would not only be useful for evaluators but for the 
designers of future projects. 
4.5.3 Recommendations 
1. If projects similar to ANI and ACETT are supported in the future, there should be a clear 
strategy for how the initiatives will interact and complement each other, both on national 
and local levels, and USAID should conduct follow-up to ensure that the strategy is being implemented 
on a consistent and ongoing basis in targeted areas (and updated as projects evolve). If two projects 
are designed, the targeted age groups should not overlap in the same geographic areas. If they do, clear 
distinctions should be drawn between the objectives and types of activities. Regular project staff 
meetings should be organized with USAID support so that collaboration can be optimized. Serious 
consideration should be given to designing a combined project that would work with youth in schools, 
as well as outside of school structures, in order to maximize synergies. 
2. Given the limited amount of information available to the Evaluation Team on the ACETT program, it is 
beyond the scope of this evaluation to make absolute recommendations of specific strategies for 
complementarity, but options that could be considered for both short and long term include: 
 Using or adapting civic education materials for use by YCs or other young people engaged 
in advocacy and liaison between communities and local government. 
 Connecting members of civics clubs to the YCs – at minimum, ensuring that all civics clubs 
teachers and members in ANI-targeted cities and nearby rural areas are aware of the YC, its 
objectives and activities. The engagement of high school graduates in YCs, who are no longer 
eligible for civics clubs, should be facilitated. 
 Connecting YC members to the civics clubs, for example by targeting them with peer 
education or using older YC members as mentors for the clubs, to support the work of teachers 
who may have less time and energy to devote to leadership of the clubs. Civics clubs in rural 
schools could potentially serve as “sub-centers” of the YC to enhance the impact and reach of 
both projects. 
28
 Plan joint activities by civics clubs and YCs in the same city, especially for major events.
3. Reconsider targeting small grants in 2014, giving careful thought to how those grants can 
measurably contribute to achievement of project goals and objectives and, ideally, 
strengthen other project components. Explore the use of sub-grants to support media and public 
relations companies to develop innovative campaigns to promote tolerance, support television stations 
and other media outlets in regions dominated by ethnic minorities to improve their coverage of 
Georgian news, and to promote joint activities by civil society and government bodies. On the other 
hand, if the objective of the sub-grants is to encourage and enhance visibility of so-called “mini￾minorities” (those ethnic groups that are neither Azeri nor Armenian), the targeting of the sub-grants 
should be refined so that the priority groups are reached. Selection criteria need to be adapted 
accordingly to allow for significant variations in capacity of applicants. 
4. For future projects, establish a project advisory committee made up of relevant internal and 
external stakeholders with expertise and connections in the project’s thematic areas. Such a 
committee would help to ensure that project management keeps sight of the “big picture” and is 
informed of pertinent political and developments and donor-funded initiatives. It would also serve to 
inject fresh ideas and perspectives into thorny problems such as the media component. 
5. Provide technical assistance to UNAG to define and track four to five priority outcome 
indicators during the remainder of the project, carefully selecting indicators that will be practical 
to measure but will provide valuable and timely information on the effects of the project. As needed, 
additional resources should be allocated to make this monitoring possible. (If possible, UNAG should 
collect data on some indicators retrospectively for 2013 to supplement the information generated by 
the midline survey of youth). This will allow the M&E plan to become a living document that helps to 
measure results on an ongoing basis, and that can feed into future UNAG and USAID decision-making. 
Ensure that future projects include the possibility of intensive capacity building for 
Georgian implementing partners (going beyond brief training workshops) and adequate 
staffing/resources for regular monitoring functions, as well as major survey tasks. 
6. Adjust reporting formats and practices for ANI (and future projects) so that progress 
reporting goes beyond activities to talk about real issues – both successes and challenges, as well 
as internal and external developments that need to be analyzed to determine how they may impact the 
project. 
4.6 PROGRESS TOWARDS GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 
4.6.1 Goal: To Strengthen Civic Integration in Georgia, Particularly Among Ethnic 
Minorities
4.6.1.1 Findings 
Pending completion of the second Civic Integration Index, there is a limited amount of evidence related to 
progress towards the goal. However, the evaluation has found through Project documents, interviews and 
the mini-survey that targeted youth have an increased level of civic engagement and a better understanding 
of tolerance, both of which can contribute to civic integration. Activities of the TC, CR and CNM have 
promoted greater integration through cross-cultural understanding while working to combat discrimination 
and intolerance. Their work is increasingly visible and notable successes have been achieved in relation to 
specific issues affecting minorities, though effects on the general population are difficult to assess. 
Most informants consider that youth is a sensible priority target group where change is more likely to be 
achieved in the short-term. However, many believe that there is an equally urgent need to work with 
adults as well, especially to promote tolerance and integration. The media component of the Project would 
have targeted adults to a significant extent, but difficulties with its implementation have resulted in a 
heavier focus on youth than was anticipated by the Project design. Informants were not able to point to 
any major initiative of government or donors that was targeting the adult population on these subjects. 
4.6.1.2 Conclusions 
Building on the solid foundation of policy and practice laid by the NITG predecessor project, ANI has made 
a contribution towards this goal, primarily through youth-centered work analyzed under Question 1 and 
support to the TC and policy-related activities, described under Question 3. The results are on a national 
level, though greater attention has been paid to ethnic minority areas and stakeholders. Effects on the adult 
population have been limited, especially as youth have little influence on adults in Georgian society. 
29
4.6.1.3 Recommendations 
1. Increase attention to the Georgian majority population, especially adults, including through 
mass media campaigns and other strategies to raise awareness of shared responsibility for integration 
and tolerance. 
2. Develop creative strategies for support of other minorities, such as religious groups, sexual 
minorities and very small ethnic minority populations, to enhance awareness and tolerance both among 
their members and among the rest of the population. 
3. For a follow-on project to promote integration and tolerance, allocate resources and 
focus as follows: 
 More for media outreach to achieve adult behavior change, in order to make use of private TV 
channels feasible and thereby reach more viewers. Revive the ideas of a soap opera or reality 
show (which were mentioned in the ANI request for applications), to attract more viewers. 
 More for project staffing and host NGOs, to ensure quality and consistency of implementation as 
well as capacity building and rigorous monitoring 
 Less for small grants, unless there is a clear strategy for targeting that will generate tangible results 
and contribute to overall objectives 
 Less for policy and support of TC, working instead to bring other donors on board, and have 
government gradually take responsibility for its own reporting responsibilities 
 More for youth component, especially to support outreach to rural youth and more exchanges and 
summer schools for direct interaction across cultural, religious and other divides 
4.6.2 Objective 1: Develop Civic Integration Processes Among Young People Across
Georgia Through Practice and Participation
4.6.2.1 Findings 
Youth actively engaged in the YCs have demonstrably increased their civic engagement through a wide 
variety of activities in which they have taken a strong initiative. There are positive signs of youth 
eagerness and ability to engage in basic social auditing and constructive forms of advocacy. There is 
also strong evidence of increased levels of tolerance and acceptance of integration among these youth. 
More details relevant to this objective are described in Question 1 above. 
4.6.2.2 Conclusions 
This objective is very broadly worded, but the project has definitely made progress towards its 
achievement in 13 targeted cities, and to a lesser extent in rural areas surrounding those centers. 
However, activity reach is limited (total YC membership is about 2,300 as of November 2013) and 
activity sustainability is questionable for most YCs. Activism among youth, as compared to engagement, 
is still at a fledgling stage in most project locations. 
4.6.2.3 Recommendations 
1. Investigate ways to scale-up the project’s limited scope (in terms of number of youth directly 
and regularly engaged, especially in rural areas) in cost-effective ways that capitalize on assets and 
energy fostered by ANI as well as structures and capacity created by other projects such as 
ACETT. Examples to explore include creating youth sub-centers in villages and lower-cost summer 
schools and exchanges. 
2. Develop sustainability plans for priority youth activities and outreach well before the 
project ends. On the local level, such plans will need to take the context into account, as well as 
the particular strengths and weaknesses of the host NGO. 
3. Support host NGOs and interested YC members (especially those 18 and over) to engage in 
small-scale initiatives to engage and collaborate with authorities on local issues, based 
on learning from the ACETT program and some YCs, and on guidelines developed by the project. 
4. Explore opportunities for more interaction between the project’s policy and youth 
components, for example by engaging local youth in ANI targeted regions in the NCAP 
monitoring process or in reporting on specific cases of rights violations, and by exploring links 
between the CNM Youth Group and the “stars” among YC members who are being groomed by 
ANI as change agents for tolerance and integration. 
30
4.6.3 Objective 2: Increase Public Awareness and Education on Diversity Through the 
Media
4.6.3.1 Findings 
The planned media component has been constrained by the ongoing difficulties in reaching a lasting 
meeting of minds with GPB leadership. Plans for revamping the “Our Yard” talk show as the 
centerpiece of the media work, have thus not advanced. The show continued to air until recently, but 
its impact and viewership are limited in both minority and majority areas. Most informants agree that 
the show is theoretically important, but has become uninteresting and few people watch it because 
GPB is generally not attracting many viewers while private channels are much more popular. Although 
ANI planned activities with regional TV stations, it was hoped that GPB would also be a partner in 
those initiatives, and therefore they were also put on hold pending the elusive agreement with GPB. 
4.6.3.2 Conclusions 
Due to these challenges, the project was unable to make much progress on public awareness and 
education on diversity, though there is evidence that major TC and YC events and videos have reached 
a small audience. The project has not, to date, made a serious effort to develop alternative strategies 
for media outreach in the renewed hope that the problems with GPB would be resolved. The result 
has been a major gap in the project’s overall strategy, with only one year remaining to make progress 
towards this objective. 
4.6.3.3 Recommendations 
1. In the short term, implement media-based activities to target the wider population 
with tolerance/integration messages. For example: 
 Make short clips of TC videos to place on Facebook and other popular sites (where people are 
more inclined to watch videos of 2 minutes or less). 
 Develop 30-60 second professional public service announcements and behavior change 
advertisements, with well-crafted messages, to be aired on popular private TV channels at prime 
viewing times. 
 Discuss with popular talk shows on private channels if they are willing to include project topics on 
their shows, and on what conditions. 
 If continuing the talk show with GPB becomes possible, ensure that it is subtitled in the main 
minority languages for broadcast in the compactly settled minority areas, in order to reach that 
audience more effectively. 
2. Support the continued monitoring of hate speech in the media and the use of monitoring 
information to generate public discussion of the problem and to influence decision makers to take 
action to prevent and sanction such speech. (Note: ANI is already in negotiations with sub-grantee 
Media Development Foundation to implement such a project during the remaining period of ANI). 
3. In the longer term, work to mainstream diversity programming at GPB, making regular 
news programs more inclusive of minority issues, etc. Reevaluate the talk show in terms of its 
target and how to best reach and interest that audience. As mentioned above, revisit the idea of 
using the format of soap opera or reality show to appeal to a much wider public, possibly using the 
vehicle of an existing program that has an established audience. 
4.6.4 Objective 3: Support Mechanisms for Interaction Between the Government and 
Ethnic Minorities
4.6.4.1 Findings 
The project has consistently and generously supported mechanisms for interaction between government 
and ethnic minorities, notably including the TC, CR and CNM, but also including the NCAP development 
and monitoring processes. The details of project support for those entities and activities, and some of the 
tangible effects of that support, are described under Question 3 Findings above. Some sub-grants awarded 
by ANI partner OSGF have supported ethnic minorities to pursue small projects, though linking with 
government did not receive much attention. 
4.6.4.2 Conclusions 
As explained under Question 3 Conclusions, the role of the TC has proven to be important as a hub for 
facilitation and support of the interaction between government and minority groups generally. Substantial 
31
support to the CNM and CR has clearly contributed to their increased interaction with the government on 
behalf of minorities – both religions and ethnic. As well, the NCAP reporting and monitoring processes 
have provided important opportunities for research and analysis of key issues, as well as interaction and 
debate between government and minorities. 
4.6.4.3 Recommendations 
1. Continue to support the work of TC and the two Councils, albeit with an increased emphasis on 
capacity building and establishing a broader base of funding support. 
2. Advocate for the government to take on full responsibility for its obligations for regular 
reporting on the new NCAP (currently under development) as a sign of its genuine commitment to 
its implementation. Provide encouragement and support as needed for the adoption and 
operationalization of indicators in the new NCAP. 
3. Continue to support the regular monitoring of the NCAP by civil society, as well as ongoing 
dialogue with government to identify priorities and the best ways to take action on the 
recommendations. 
32
ANNEXES 
33
ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 
34
STATEMENT OF WORK 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID ADVANCING NATIONAL 
INTEGRATION ACTIVITY 
I. SCOPE 
Non-personal services for a mid-term evaluation of the Advancing National Integration (ANI) 
activity. The contractor will be required to answer all evaluation questions listed under III below. 
The contractor must provide the following deliverables within the terms defined by the contract: 
- Detailed evaluation design to be submitted with the proposal. 
- In-brief and out-brief with preliminary findings with the USAID management and staff 
upon arrival to and departure from Georgia. 
- Draft report to be submitted within seven (7) working days of completing the out brief 
with USAID. 
- Final evaluation report in accordance with the USAID Reporting Guidelines. 
The timeframe to be covered by the evaluation is from the start of the activity in September 2011 
through the initiation of this evaluation. 
Activity Numbers: Cooperative Agreement No. AID-114-A-11-00002 
Activity Dates: 09/20/11 – 01/20/2015 
Activity Funding: $3,750,000 
Implementing organization: United Nations Association of Georgia 
Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR): Nino Buachidze
II. Purpose of the Evaluation and Its Intended Use 
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the 
activity to date and to provide recommendations on corrective actions and new directions for the 
remaining years of activity implementation and beyond. 
The results of the evaluation will be used by USAID/Georgia to improve ongoing interventions in 
the area of national integration and tolerance by focusing on the activities that are most 
meaningful and critical for civic integration in Georgia. The audience of the evaluation will be 
USAID/Georgia and in particular it’s Democracy and Governance (DG) office. The results of the 
study will be shared with local stakeholders (including the Ministry of Reintegration, partner 
NGOs, and the Ombudsman’s Office), and other donors working in this area. Finally, evaluation 
results will also be used for reporting purposes to Washington-based stakeholders.
III. Evaluation Questions 
The evaluation findings must be supported by evidence. The contractor must answer the following 
questions in the evaluation related to ANI: NGO-led youth work; minority rights advocacy; and, 
support for inclusive policy development. 
NGO-led youth work: ANI encourages youth participation in civic life and building connections 
among young people that otherwise would have little contact with people outside of their 
communities and may remain relatively inactive in society. The activity focuses on both ethnic 
minorities and ethnic Georgians. The program provides training and practical experience in civic 
activism and helps young people build connections to youth in other regions of the country. 
35
1. How effective has ANI been in developing a common understanding of national unity among 
youth? Has it been different for girls and boys? 
Effectiveness in this question will be demonstrated by stakeholders’ (primarily youth) perception 
of the activity and whether it has made changes in the following: 
- youth engagement in local activism, tolerance related activities and cross-regional collaboration; 
- youth participation in cultural exchanges; and 
- any multiplier effect onto families, peers and/or the community. 
2. Has ANI’s approach of channeling youth-centered activities through local partners been an 
effective method? 
Effectiveness in this question would be defined as the activity model meeting the original intention 
to: 
- develop civil society capacity in outreach, constituency mobilization, and youth work; and, 
- achieve sustainability1 of local civic integration and youth activism by the end of the activity. 
Minority rights advocacy: ANI conducts trainings and financially supports the monitoring and 
networking functions of the Council of Ethnic Minorities in the Public Defender’s Office; supports 
the Tolerance Center of the Public Defender’s Office to convene a permanent working group 
consisting of officials from relevant Government of Georgia (GOG) agencies and representatives 
from minorities’ religious, political, civil society, and business communities to maintain open lines 
of communication among the groups and to provide feedback to the GOG as it continues its 
integration programs; and, supports NGOs to serve as a rapid reaction mechanism to address 
problems between citizens and the government. 
3. How effective has ANI been in building the capacity of the Public Defender’s Tolerance Center 
and the Council of National Minorities and Religions to: 
- promote cultural and religious diversity; 
- undertake effective fact-finding on minority-biased rights violations; 
- advocate for minority rights; 
- establish communication with the GOG on these issues; and, 
- monitor and comment on minority-related state policies, programs and actions, and produce 
recommendations and advocate for effective solutions to related challenges. 
Inclusive policy development: ANI supports efforts to improve communication between the 
GOG and civic groups representing ethnic minorities to help ensure that policy development and 
implementation processes utilize grassroots feedback from the minority community. Before the 
October 1, 2012, Parliamentary Elections, ANI supported the GOG on three minority-related 
issues: a) state reporting in response to Georgia’s minority-related international commitments; b) 
extending civil society participation in minority-related policy discussions; and, c) drafting, 
reviewing, coordinating and consolidating state policed and actions. ANI continues these activities 
with the new GOG. 
4. How did the change of government that followed the October 2012 elections influence ANI’s 
programmatic effectiveness in support to the GOG on minority-related issues? 
Where possible, the contractor must review actual progress toward achieving key expected 
results and identify accomplishments, delays, challenges, and their impact on the activity. 
IV. Evaluation Methods 
36
The evaluation design will be submitted by the contractor in response to the RFTOP and 
reviewed by USAID. The finalized evaluation design must be submitted to the Task Order 
Contracting Officer’s Representative (TOCOR) three workdays prior to the team’s arrival in 
country. The evaluation design must outline in detail what methods the contractor will use to 
prepare answers for each evaluation question. The evaluation design must include a detailed 
evaluation matrix (including the key questions, methods and data sources used to address each 
question and the data analysis plan for each question), draft questionnaires and other data 
collection instruments or their main features, known limitations to the evaluation design, a work 
plan, and a dissemination plan. The methodology section in the proposal should address strengths 
and weakness of the proposed methodology, and how the latter will be mitigated. This 
information together with the Mission’s comments will be discussed in detail during the in-brief 
meeting with USAID. Unless exempted from doing so by the TOCOR, the design will be shared 
with country-level stakeholders as well as with the implementing partners for comment before 
being finalized. The work plan must include the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements 
and delineate the roles and responsibilities of members of the evaluation team. 
V. Evaluation Team 
The evaluation must be conducted by a team composed by international and local experts. The 
contractor has to demonstrate that the proposed team members have sufficient expertise to 
carry out the task to a high standard. The contractor must justify and explain the proposed team 
configuration and distribution of roles among team members. The Team Leader (international) 
must have justifiable experience conducting evaluations and assessments in the democracy and 
governance sector including tolerance, ethnic, and civic integration fields. Experience with NGO 
development and youth NGOs will be an advantage. The expert should have a master’s level 
education or higher in the field of political science, public policy, public administration, or other 
relevant field. Experience in Georgia and/or the Europe/Eurasia region is an advantage but is not 
required. Fluency in English language is required. The team leader will be responsible for the day 
to day management of the team, data collection and synthesis, presentations, and draft and 
interim/final report preparation. 
The Evaluation Expert must have a demonstrated experience in planning and conducting 
evaluations using various data collection and analysis methodologies, preferable (not required) in 
the democracy and governance sector. The Evaluation Expert will be based in the U.S. and help 
the team with the evaluation design (methodologies and limitations in particular) and report 
writing. 
A locally-hired expert must have demonstrated experience in civic integration processes in 
Georgia, particularly among ethnic minorities. Experience of participating as a team member in 
conducting USAID or other donor-funded activity assessments/evaluations will be an advantage. 
English language knowledge is a requirement. One of the experts should have demonstrated 
expertise in gender-related issues. 
The contractor must provide information about the selected evaluation team members including 
their CVs and explain how they meet the requirements set forth in the evaluation SOW. All 
evaluation team members must be familiar with USAID’s January 2011 Evaluation Policy.
All team members are required to provide to USAID a signed statement attesting to a lack of 
conflict of interest in relation to the ANI activity being evaluated. USAID may request an 
interview with any of the proposed evaluation team member/s via conference call/Skype or any 
other means available. 
VII. Activity Documents for Review and Logistics 
37
The ANI AOR, through the Mission’s Democracy and Governance (DG) Office, will put the 
contractor in contact with its implementing partner and may provide help with organizing a small 
number of meetings, such as meeting with USG agencies, if needed. Relevant reports and other 
activity documentation will be provided by the Mission to the contractor prior to travel to 
Georgia. These documents include: 
Activity Description as is stated in the award; 
Implementing partners Quarterly Reports; 
Initial list of in-country contacts; 
 Activity results framework; 
Performance Management Plan indicator tables; 
M&E plans submitted and approved by USAID; 
Other deliverables (expert reports, publications) produced by partner. 
Prior to arriving to Georgia, the contractor may decide to interview USAID/E&E and 
USAID/DCHA officials in the United States, in addition to any other Washington-based experts as 
appropriate. The Mission will not be involved in arranging these meetings. 
While in Georgia, the contractor will conduct most of the meetings in Tbilisi. Some meetings will 
require traveling to regions outside Tbilisi inhabited by ethnic minorities such as Samtskhe –
Javakheti, Kvemo-Kartli, Shida Kartli (Gori), and Imereti (Kutaisi). 
VIII. Deliverables 
1. Detailed research (evaluation and/or assessment) design and the work plan for 
each task order: The research design must be an integral part of each proposal, and must 
explain in details methodologies that will be used to collect required information. For evaluations, 
the design must outline in details what methods the contractor will use to get answers for each 
evaluation question. The evaluation design must include a detailed evaluation matrix (including the 
key questions, methods and data sources used to address each question and the data analysis plan 
for each question), draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main 
features, known limitations to the evaluation design, a work plan, and a dissemination plan. The 
refined design must be sent to the contract COR three days prior to research team’s arrival in￾country. This information together with the Mission’s comments will be discussed in detail during 
the in-brief meeting with USAID and will be finalized per task order requirements. The work plan 
must include the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements and delineate the roles and 
responsibilities of members of the evaluation team. 
2. In brief with the mission: Within three (3) days of arrival in country, the contractor must 
present a design plan and a work plan. This will be a maximum of 15 minute presentation of how 
the questions asked in SOW will be answered. Prior to in brief research teams may have working 
meeting/s with the contract COR to agree all the details of the design. 
3. Out brief: Prior to departure, the contractor must present an outline (in bullets, possibly in 
power point or as a handout) of the evaluation report with general findings, conclusions, and 
anticipated recommendations. This will be a maximum 15 minute presentation. Prior to out brief 
research teams may have working meeting/s with the contract COR to agree all the details of the 
report. 
4. Outline of the report (in bullets, possibly in power point or as a handout to be presented at 
the out brief) including findings, conclusions and recommendations. 
5. Draft Report: The contractor must submit a draft report within seven (7) working days of 
completing the out brief with USAID. This document should explicitly respond to the 
38
requirements of the SOW, should answer the evaluation questions, be logically structured, and 
adhere to the standards of the USAID Evaluation Policy of January 2011 and the criteria to ensure 
the quality of the evaluation report. The report should follow USAID’s template attached 
(Attachment 5). 
6. Final Report6: The contractor must incorporate USAID’s comments and submit the final 
report to USAID/Georgia within five (5) working days following receipt of comments on the draft 
report. Final evaluation report should follow USAID’s template, and should not exceed 25 pages, 
excluding executive summary and annexes. The contractor will make the final evaluation reports 
publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse at http://dec.usaid.gov 
within 30 calendar days of final approval of the formatted report with USAID consent. In case it is 
determined that the full report includes sensitive information, a revised/sanitized version will be 
produced and submitted to the DEC. 
The evaluation final report should include an executive summary, introduction, background of the 
local context and the activities being evaluated, the main evaluation questions, the methodology or 
methodologies, the limitations to the evaluation, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and 
lessons learned (if applicable). The executive summary should be 3-5 pages in length and 
summarize the purpose, background of the activity being evaluated, main evaluation questions, 
methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). 
The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the 
evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated 
with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between 
comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: 
The Evaluation Scope of Work 
Any “statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved difference of opinion by 
funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team 
All tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion 
guides 
Sources of information, properly identified and listed 
Disclosure of conflicts of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a 
lack of conflict of interest or describing existing conflict of interest. 
7. All records from the evaluation. All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must 
be provided in an electronic file in easily readable format agreed upon with the COR. The data 
should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the activity or 
the evaluation. USAID will retain ownership of the survey and all datasets developed.
39
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION MATRIX
40
Research Questions & Sub-Questions Key Areas of Enquiry Data Sources Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis
1 How effective has ANI been in developing 
a common understanding of national unity 
among youth?
Has developing a common understanding 
of national unity differed between girls 
and boys?
How effective has ANI been in developing 
a common understanding of tolerance 
among youth?
Has developing a common understanding 
of tolerance differed between girls and 
boys?
Effectiveness in this question will be 
demonstrated by stakeholders’ (primarily 
youth) perceptions of the activity and 
whether it has made changes in youth 
engagement in local activism, levels of 
tolerance- and integration-related activities 
and cross-regional collaboration, youth 
participation in cultural exchanges; and 
whether any multiplier effects onto 
families, peers and/or the community are 
noted by the evaluation team. 
Stakeholder 
(primarily youth) 
perceptions of ANI 
activities via project￾collected scores
Attitudes of young 
people
Stakeholder 
(primarily youth) 
perceptions whether 
programs have 
changed youth:
activism (locally); 
engagement in, 
tolerance-related 
activities; 
cross-regional 
collaboration; and
participation in 
cultural exchanges
Stakeholder 
perceptions on any 
multiplier effect onto 
families, peers and/or 
communities
Gender and other 
Activity 
documentation: 
quarterly reports, M&E 
plan and indicator 
tracking.
Data from entry and 
exit surveys of youth 
participants 
ANI and Partner NGO 
staff
Partner NGO 
documentation.
2011 Youth Study and 
external research 
reports and survey data
Youth participants 
Officials and 
community leaders in 
targeted areas
Social media records
Document review
Key informant 
interviews with activity 
and partner NGO staff, 
and community 
members
Focus groups with 
youth participants 
Targeted mini-surveys 
of youth participants
Analysis of targeted 
results, outputs, and 
outcomes 
Verification of ANI
reporting
Reporting of 
perceptions and 
experience of focus 
group participants
Quantitative analysis of 
the results of the mini￾survey, comparison to 
baseline survey and 
entry-exit surveys
Chi-square tests of 
significance of 
difference in 
perceptions across 
gender among youth 
group members
T-tests of significance to 
determine if years of 
membership and gender 
affects youth 
perceptions
41
Research Questions & Sub-Questions Key Areas of Enquiry Data Sources Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis
systematic 
differences in 
perspectives
Critical synthesis and 
triangulation analysis of 
opinion data
2 Has ANI’s approach of channeling youth￾centered activities through local partners 
been effective?
Effectiveness in this question would be 
defined as whether working with local 
partners:
- Developed enduring positive 
connections and attitudes on diversity 
and tolerance among young people 
from different regions and backgrounds 
that participated in partner-led 
activities;
- Developed local partner civil society 
capacity in outreach, constituency 
mobilization, and youth work in 
diversity and tolerance; and,
- Appears to be on target to achieve 
sustainability of local civic integration 
and youth activism by the end of the 
activity.
Have ANI’s local 
partners developed 
civil society capacity in 
outreach, constituency
mobilization, and 
youth work?
Are ANI’s local 
partners likely to 
develop sustainable 
capacity to support 
local civic integration 
and youth activism by 
the end of the 
project?
Are any changed 
youth attitudes likely 
to be sustainable?
Progress reports
M&E documents
ANI staff, Partner NGOs
and grantee NGOs
Partner NGO 
documentation.
2011 Youth Study, NGO 
Assessment and 
external research 
reports and survey data
Ministry of 
Reintegration
Officials and 
community leaders in 
targeted areas
Document review
Key informant 
interviews with ANI, 
OSG, Partners Georgia
and partner NGO staff 
Focus groups with 
youth participants
Targeted mini-surveys 
of youth participants
On-site observations of 
partner activities
Analysis of targeted 
results, outputs, and 
outcomes 
Verification of ANI
reporting
Quantitative analysis of 
the results of the mini￾survey, comparison to 
baseline survey and 
entry-exit surveys
Chi-square tests of 
significance of different 
activities engaged by 
gender
Critical synthesis and 
triangulation analysis of 
opinion data
3 How effective has ANI been in building the 
capacity of the Public Defender’s 
Tolerance Center and the Council of 
National Minorities and Religions to:
- promote cultural and religious diversity;
- undertake effective fact-finding on 
Perceptions of 
capacity within 
institutions
Perceptions of 
capacity within 
different key 
Activity documentation
(quarterly reports, 
M&E plan & results 
reporting)
Council of National 
Minority (CNM) 
Review of project
reports, government 
and civil society 
monitoring reports, 
diversity.ge and 
tolerantoba.ge entries 
and other documents.
Analysis of targeted 
results, outputs, and 
outcomes 
Critical synthesis and 
triangulation analysis of 
opinion data
42
Research Questions & Sub-Questions Key Areas of Enquiry Data Sources Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis
minority-biased rights violations;
- advocate for minority rights;
- establish communication with the GOG 
on these issues;
- monitor and comment on minority￾related state policies, programs and 
actions; and,
- produce recommendations and advocate 
for effective solutions to related 
challenges?
Effectiveness is whether ANI’s work with 
Public Defender’s Tolerance Center and the 
Council of National Minorities and Religions 
is recognized to have helped these two 
bodies promoting cultural and religious 
diversity, minority rights, and 
communication with government officials 
by GOG institutions, CSOs, and the public. 
Effectiveness also means whether ANI’s 
support to these bodies has enabled them 
to better collaborate with civil society to 
address problems between citizens and 
governments.
constituencies 
(minority groups)
Monitoring reports and 
other documents
Project and partner 
staff
Public Defender, 
Tolerance Center staff, 
CNM/Council of 
Religions (CR) 
members, 
Ombudsman’s office, 
State Ministry of 
Reintegration
Civil society and 
thinktank 
representatives/expert
s
International 
stakeholders such as 
ECMI and UNDP
Key informant 
interviews with staff of 
entities listed in 
previous column
4 How did the change of government that 
followed the October 2012 elections 
influence ANI’s programmatic 
effectiveness in supporting the GOG on 
minority-related issues?
Effectiveness is whether ANI was able to 
Assertions in 
program/partner/GO
G reporting and 
planning
Perceptions of 
program change from 
Project documentation:
Quarterly reports, M&E 
plan
GOG (ANI
assisted) reports
Review of progress 
reports, government 
and civil society 
monitoring reports.
Key informant 
interviews with entities 
Analysis of targeted 
results, outputs, and 
outcomes 
Critical synthesis and 
triangulation analysis of 
opinion data
43
Research Questions & Sub-Questions Key Areas of Enquiry Data Sources Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis
adapt its programming and establish core 
relationships following the elections in a 
way that allowed for the project to 
continue its activities with GOG institutions
in a manner consistent with its original 
objectives. Effectiveness is also whether 
informants can identify particular aspects 
of policy influenced by project-supported
mechanisms and activities, both before and 
after the elections. 
key stakeholders Project staff
Public Defender, 
Ministry of 
Reintegration staff, 
members of Civic 
Integration and 
Tolerance Council 
under the President 
(CITC), Ministry of 
Education and Science, 
think tanks, NGOs, 
donors, and 
international 
organizations involved 
in the field.
Former government 
officials in relevant 
positions. 
listed in previous 
column
44
ANNEX 3: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED 
45
Category of 
Informant (and # of 
people interviewed)
Institution/Organization Informant Name and Position
Project Donor (2) USAID Nino Buachidze, Program 
Management Specialist, of ANI Project 
Contracting Officer’s Representative 
(COR)
Keti Bakradze, Senior Civil Society and 
Media Advisor
Project 
Implementing 
Agency (6)
UNAG Ramaz Aptsiauri, ANI Chief of Party
Rusudan Chanturia, ANI Deputy Chief 
of Party
Anna Buianova, ANI Youth Component 
Officer
Otto Kantaria, Chief Officer for 
Programs and Development Unit
Maka Chichua, ANI Media Production 
Coordinator
Iliko Natsvaladze, Western Georgia 
Representative
Project Partners (7) Partners-Georgia Sofiko Shubladze, Director
Open Society Georgia Foundation Khatuna Ioseliani
Civil Society Programs Director, AND
Konstantine Peradze
Civic Integration Program Coordinator
Public Defender’s Office including 
Tolerance Center
Beka Mindiashvili, Head of Tolerance 
Center
Mariam Gavtadze, Coordinator at 
Tolerance Center, focused on Council 
of Religions
Nino Bolkvadze, Coordinator for ANI 
Support to PDO
Madona Basiladze, PD Representative 
for Goria, Racha-Lechkhumi, and Imereti 
regions
Youth Center Host 
NGOs and Sub￾Grantee NGOs (14)
ALPE Foundation, host of YC in Tbilisi 
at Ilia State University
Zurab Guntsadze, Director of ALPE, 
Merab Basilaia, Program Director, and 
Ivlita Lobjanidze, YC Coordinator
Marneuli Youth Center, host of YC in 
Marneuli
Emin Akhmedov, former Coordinator 
of ANI Youth Center
Rena Nurmamedova, Director of 
MYC and current Coordinator of ANI 
YC
Union of Democratic Meskhs (UDM), 
host of YCs in Akhaltsikhe and 
Akhalkalaki
Gia Anguladze, Director of UDM
Natia Gelashvili, Coordinator of 
Akhaltsikhe Youth Center
46
Category of 
Informant (and # of 
people interviewed)
Institution/Organization Informant Name and Position
Shorena Tetvadze, Coordinator of 
Akhalkalaki Youth Center
Kutaisi Center for Education 
Development and Employment 
(KEDEC), host of YC in Kutaisi
Natia Namicheishvili, Director
Eka Arveldze, Coordinator of Youth 
Center
Gori Center for People with 
Disabilities, host of YC in Gori
Tina Shalamberidze, Director 
Pikria Gelashvili, Coordinator of 
Youth Center
Center for Civil Integration and Inter￾Ethnic Relations (CCIIR) 
Shalva Tabatadze, Chairman of Board
Analytical Centre for Interethnic 
Cooperation (ACICC), member of 
Council of National Minorities 
Agit Mirzoev, Executive Director
Government 
Officials (9) (current 
and former)
Civic Integration and Tolerance Council 
(under the President)
Tamar Kintsurashvili, Chair of CITC, 
and Deputy Secretary of Office of 
National Security Council
State Ministry for Reintegration Tina Gougeliani, Head of Civic 
Integration Department
State Ministry of Reintegration Irakli Porchkidze, former First 
Deputy Minister (currently Vice 
President of Georgian Institute for 
Strategic Studies)
Ministry of Education and Science 
(National Center for Teacher 
Professional Development)
Mako Chilashvili, Coordinator of 
Teaching English as a Second Language 
Program 
Marneuli Municipal Government Ramil Isamoilov, Deputy Head
Kutaisi Municipal Government Vova Bukhaidze, Head of youth and 
sports department
Akhaltsikhe Municipal Government Marine Gogoladze, Cultural Specialist, 
and Maia Skhirtladze, Sport and 
Youth Specialist
Gori Municipal Government Nino Tsetsvadze, Deputy Head 
International 
community (6)
European Center for Minority Issues 
(ECMI)
Ewa Chylinski, Regional Director
USAID Applied Civic Education and 
Teacher Training Program (ACETT, 
implemented by Project Harmony 
International)
Marina Ushveridze, Director
USAID Center for Civic Engagement, 
Marneuli
Mariam Samkharadze, Coordinator
USAID Center for Civic Engagement, 
Kutaisi
Nino Bibilshvili, Coordinator
47
Category of 
Informant (and # of 
people interviewed)
Institution/Organization Informant Name and Position
World Vision International, Kutaisi and 
Akhaltsikhe
Diana Janashia, Economic 
development project in Imereti region –
youth sub-component
Kakha Gorgadze, Director for 
Samtskhe-Javakheti Region
Other CSOs (9) Multi-Ethnic Georgia, Tbilisi (member of 
Council of National Minorities)
Arno Stepanyan, Director
Civil Development Agency (CiDA), 
Tbilisi
Nino Chitorelidze, Project Manager
Charity Humanitarian Center –
Abkhazeti, Gori
Iamze Gochashvili – Coordinator of 
the livelihood and development 
program, and Marto Bibilashvili –
Coordinator of youth clubs
Biliki Association, Gori Lia Gorelashvili, Deputy Director
Marneuli Youth Center (different NGO 
with same name as ANI host NGO)
Nargiz Nabieva, Director
Georgian-Azeri Youth Unity (member 
of Council of National Minorities)
Leila Mamedova, Director (also Public 
Defender Representative in Marneuli)
Akhaltsikhe Youth Center (NGO 
implementing ACETT)
Maka Sudadze, Head of Program
Education and Universe (NGO in 
Kutaisi)
Iveta Shalamberidze
Media (4) Georgia Public Broadcaster Giorgi Gugushvili, Host of “Our 
Yard” talk show
Media Development Foundation (ANI 
small grant recipient)
Tamar Khorbaladze, Executive 
Director and Keti Mskhiladze, 
Founder
Southern Gate Newspaper, Akhaltsikhe Nino Narimanishvili
Youth Center 
members (10)
Tbilisi Youth Center Aleksi Shashviashvili (formerly of 
Telavi YC)
Marneuli Youth Center Aysun Nabieva and Ramil Kalayev
Akhalkalaki Youth Center Tigran, Martin and Vartan
Akhaltsikhe Youth Center Shota Narimanishvili and Seda 
Saparyan
Kutaisi Youth Center Natia Abuladze and Giorgi 
Okribelashvili
School Civics Clubs 
(supported by 
ACETT) (10)
Marneuli Nargiz Babieva (teacher)
Teona, Shura, and Tamuna
(students)
Akhaltsikhe Tama Chapchadze (teacher)
Giorgi and Mari (students)
48
Category of 
Informant (and # of 
people interviewed)
Institution/Organization Informant Name and Position
Kutaisi Lali Ushveridze (teacher)
Tekla Meburishvili and Gurab 
Liluashvili (students)
Total people interviewed: 76
Total number of interviews: 62
49
ANNEX 4: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 
50
I. USAID documents 
 RFA-114-11-000002
 Cooperative Agreement AID-114-A-11-00002 for ANI Project
 ANI Project Description 
 USAID Evaluation Policy 
 USAID Evaluation Report Template 
II. ANI Documents 
 ANI Branding Strategy and Marking Plan 
 Baseline Survey: 2011 Youth study report with presentation file 
 Quarterly Progress Reports for Years 1 and 2 
 Work plans (narrative) and detailed implementation plans for Years 1 and 2 
 Monitoring and Evaluation Plans, Years 1 and 2 
 Operational Plans, FY12 and FY13 
 Performance Plan and Report FY12 and FY13 
 Performance Indicator Reference Sheets for ANI indicators 
 Terms of Reference for collaboration with ANI partners 
 Progress reports submitted by ANI partners 
 ANI Publications, including: 
a. NCAP Assessment by Columbia University Team, 
b. Youth NGO Assessment (Georgian only), 
c. Italian Yard/Our Yard viewership assessment (Georgian only) 
 Weekly updates submitted to USAID for bi-weekly newsletter 
 Map and List of NGO Partners 
 Terms of Reference for MoUs with Youth Center host NGOs 
 Calls for sub-grant proposals and list of sub-grant recipients 
 Baseline, Entry and Midline Survey Questionnaires 
 Preliminary Analysis of Midline Survey Results 
 Other Reports: summer school reports, exchange program snapshots 
III. Other Documents 
 NITG Final Report 
 Government Policy Documents & Reports: 
a. National Concept for Tolerance and Civil Integration (NCAP) 
b. NCAP reports by government for 2010, 2011 and 2012 
c. Government report under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for Protection 
of National Minorities, 2012 
 NCAP Monitoring: civil society monitoring report 2010-11, produced by PDO 
 Assessment of Civic Integration of National Minorities, USAID et al, 2010 
 Newsletters produced and disseminated by the Council of National Minorities 
 “Multi-ethnic Society in Georgia”, Report on Survey in Kvemo Kartli and Samstkhe Javakheti, Civil 
Development Agency, 2011 
 Media monitoring reports, produced by Media Development Foundation in 2013 
IV. Websites 
 Tolerantoba.ge 
 Civil.ge 
 Diversity.ge 
 UNAG (una.ge) 
 USAID/Caucasus 
 ACETT program (ph-int.org/what_we/pr171/) 
 Caucasus Research Resource Centers (crrc.ge) including online database for Caucasus Barometer 
for Georgia 2011 and EU Survey for Georgia 2011 
51
 ANI Youth Network Facebook page 
 European Center for Minority Issues (ecmicaucasus.org/) 
52
ANNEX 5: ILLUSTRATIVE QUESTIONNAIRES FOR KEY INFORMANT 
INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 
53
A. Interview Questions for Host NGOs (Youth Centers) 
General Results/Challenges 
1. Tell me about your Youth Center generally – who is involved, who works there, how often do the 
members attend, what happens on a daily basis there? Have you noticed a lot of interest among 
university students, or have you had to work to attract members? 
2. How would you describe the purpose of the Youth Center? How much do the members 
understand that purpose? Is it talked about often, or just once in a while? 
3. How would you describe the collaboration between your organization and ANI Project, in general? 
Have your expectations as an organization been met? 
a. What have been the positive aspects of that collaboration? What about any difficulties? 
4. Have there been any difficulties in the setup and management of the YC with the resources that 
you have available? If so, how could the situation be improved? What are your other assets and 
resources for the YC? 
5. What have been the most useful/popular activities of the YC? What kind of training or other types 
of capacity building activities have been organized so far? What is your view of them – useful? How 
did the students react? Any change in the participants? 
6. Have the YC and its activities had any effect on the general student population? Or perhaps 
beyond the university? For parents or other adults? 
a. If yes, which specific activities have affected individuals beyond the immediate members or 
leaders of the YC? Do you think those activities have made a difference in the attitudes or 
behavior of those people? Why or why not? 
b. If not, what could be done to widen the effect of the YC in the community? 
Support to NGOs
7. Has the ANI Project provided any support to strengthen your organization and its personnel? 
What kind of support? Was it useful? How do you know? What effect have you observed? 
(Probe for specifics—esp. related to outreach to public, mobilization of youth, and 
diversity/tolerance.) 
8. How do you see the future of the Youth Centers and youth-related work of the host NGOs, once 
this Project is completed? 
a. How might you and other NGOs be able to carry on the work with youth (either similar 
activities or in a different way)? Is there a need to build links with other institutions –
government or non-government? 
9. Has the Project done any work on coalition-building or networking among NGOs working in areas 
related to the Project? 
a. Do you see this as important? If so, how could the Project better support coalitions or 
similar collaborations among NGOs? 
10. What additional support does civil society need to work more effectively to promote tolerance 
and national integration? 
Youth Engagement 
11. One of the key pillars of this Project is the engagement of young people from various regions in 
civic activism/engagement in a wide range of thematic areas (including some tolerance/integration 
activities). How do you see this strategy as a means of advancing the overall goal of better “civic 
integration” in Georgia? What are its strengths and weaknesses? 
12. Which activities have been most effective in mobilizing youth to engage in their communities and 
to increase their appreciation of diversity (other cultures, disabled, etc.)? Why do you think so? 
Which have been less effective? 
13. The activities of the YCs are very diverse, and many seem to be “one-off” in nature (ex. 
celebration of a day in honor of a certain issue). Does this raise any potential difficulties for their 
effectiveness? Should YCs be more focused on certain issues relevant to the project, or on ongoing 
campaigns around specific issues? 
54
14. Although the YCs are expanding steadily, the total number of youth involved is still just over 
2000—which is very few when considering the entire population of young people in the country. Is 
it possible for a project of this relatively small scale to have a real impact on the attitudes and 
behavior of Georgian youth in general? How could the effects be spread to the wider population? 
a. Is there a different approach that might have more impact—for example, by focusing 
resources on certain activities or regions? By having more YCs with less activities? By using 
social media more effectively? 
Other 
15. One of the Project objectives was to raise public awareness of diversity, via social media, television 
shows, production of short videos, etc. How effective have those activities been up to now? Why 
do you think so (any evidence?) 
b. What have been the major challenges? (Probe into difficulties with GPB) 
c. How could the Project be more effective in this area? Do you think more focus on 
awareness would be useful? 
16. Are there other organizations or projects working with youth in this town or nearby area? What 
kind of activities/services do they offer? Did you ever cooperate with those organizations? Was 
there any overlap or confusion? 
17. Do you believe that girls and boys have had equal chances to participate in (and benefit from) the 
Youth Center? Has the YC made any special efforts to reach out to and include females – in 
NGOs, among youth, in government, etc.? (Probe about why many more girls than boys are 
involved in YCs.) 
General/Recommendations 
18. If you found out about a problem related to ethnic or religious minorities in your community, what 
would you do? Where could you go for help? Do you see it as part of your role to take some 
action in these cases? Why or why not? 
19. Does your NGO/YC have any links with the CNM or CR? Can you describe briefly what their role 
is? (Testing for awareness and links among project components). Do NGOs need better links with 
national mechanisms such as CNM and CR? How could that be achieved? 
20. Generally, what do you consider to be the most important achievements of the Project as a whole 
since 2011? (Probe for specifics and reasons.) 
21. Considering the whole picture of promoting tolerance, national integration and youth engagement, 
which Project strategies and activities were most useful? Why? 
a. Which activities have been the least useful? Why? (Probe to see if anything harmful or 
negative) 
22. What have been the major challenges or obstacles to achieving the objectives of the Project? 
(Probe for internal factors, such as process or implementation difficulties, design of the Project, as 
well as external factors such as lack of government cooperation.) 
23. What recommendations do you have for the next two years of the Project? For future USAID 
programming in tolerance, national integration and management of diversity in Georgia? 
B. Questions for Youth Center Participants 
1. What were the reasons you joined the Youth Center? Has the YC met your expectations? 
a. Are there any other similar clubs or groups in this area? And are you involved in them? 
Were you before? 
b. How is this Club different? 
2. What is your opinion on the types of activities offered by your Youth Center? 
a. Are these activities useful in some way in your lives? If yes, which ones? If no, why not? 
b. In what activities have you participated in the last month or two? What did you think about 
them? Did you ever participate in this kind of activity before? 
3. Has anything changed in your lives since you started to participate in the YC? In the way you think 
or act? 
a. If yes, what has changed and were the changes good or bad? 
b. If no, what is the reason for no change? 
55
4. Have the YC and its activities had any effect on the wider community in your area? For youth that 
have not participated? For your parents or other adults? 
a. Which specific activities have affected people beyond the members of the YC? 
b. Do you think those activities have made a difference in the thinking or actions of those 
people? Why or why not? 
c. If YC activities have not had any effects on those people, what could be done to widen the 
effect of the YC in your community? 
5. What do you think of the NGO that has organized the YC your area? 
a. Have there been any difficulties in the management of the YC or has it been well run? 
Please explain. What, if anything could have been done better? 
b. Have the organizers been responsive to your needs and interests? 
c. Did you have opportunities to provide feedback on how to improve management or 
program activities? If yes, were any changes made as a result? 
6. Does the YC promote civic activism? What kind of activities? What do you think is the purpose 
of those activities? Do you think they are a good idea? Why or why not? 
7. What does the word “tolerance” mean to you? 
a. Is tolerance important for you? Why? 
b. For others such as your family and friends? Your country? Why? 
c. Is your idea of tolerance different from that of your parents or others in your community? 
In what way? What has caused this difference? 
d. Has the YC organized any activities to increase tolerance? 
8. What do you think about national integration/unity? What does it mean to you? And is it 
important? 
a. Is your idea of national unity different from that of your parents or others in your 
community? In what way? What has caused this difference? 
b. Has the YC organized any activities to promote national unity? 
9. What recommendations would you make for future activities of the Youth Centers? Of the ANI 
Project generally? What other kinds of initiatives would help to promote youth engagement, 
tolerance and national unity? 
C. Guide for Focus Group Discussions 
1. Please introduce yourself, where do you come from, and what do you do? 
2. What were the reasons you joined the Youth Club [NAME OF YC] and what did you hope to 
accomplish as a member? Did the YC meet your expectations? 
a. Are there any other similar clubs or groups in your town? If yes, how is this Club 
different? 
b. What are the main reasons why other youth in your community have not joined the youth 
club (NAME OF YC)? Do they know about its existence and are not willing to join? If yes, 
why not? 
3. From the different types of Youth Club activities offered by your club which have been most 
useful? 
a. Which activities have contributed to changing your life or the way you think? 
4. What does the word “tolerance” mean to you? And is it important?
a. Is your perception of tolerance different from that of your parents or others in your 
community? In what way? What has caused this difference in perception? If there is no 
difference why not? 
b. What additional activities could the YC undertake to strengthen tolerance in your 
community? 
5. What does the word national unity mean to you? And is it important? 
a. Is your perception of national unity different from that of your parents or others in your 
community? In what way? What has caused this difference in perception? 
b. What additional activities could the YC undertake to strengthen national unity? 
6. What does the word civic activism mean to you? And is it important? 
a. Is your perception of national unity different from that of your parents or others in your 
community? In what way? What has caused this difference in perception? 
b. What additional activities could the YC undertaken to strengthen civic activism? 
56
7. Have the YC and its activities had any effect on the wider community in your area? For youth that 
have not participated directly? For your parents or other adults? 
a. Which specific activities have affected individuals beyond the immediate members or 
leaders of the YC? 
b. If YC activities have not had any noticeable effects on the wider community what could be 
done to widen the effect of the YC in the community? In which specific areas? 
8. What do you think of the NGO [NAME OF THE SPECIFIC NGO] that has organized the YC your 
area? Has the YC been well organized? What, if anything could have been done better? 
a. Did you have opportunities to provide feedback on how to improve management or 
program activities? If yes, were any changes made as a result? 
57
ANNEX 6: MINI-SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 
58
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION about a respondent 
Q1.Gender
female 1
male 2
Q2. Indicate your age 
___________________________
 
Q3.To which ethnic group do you belong? 
Georgian 1
Armenian 2
Azeri 3
Russian 4
Greek 5
Abkhazian 6
Osethian 7
Kurd 8
Ukrainian 9
Jewish 10
Other (indicate) 11
Q4.To which religious group do you belong? 
Orthodox Christian 1
Catholic 2
Muslim 3
Protestant 4
Jewish 5
Follower to the Armenian Church 6
I do not follow any of the religious 7
Other 8
 
Q5.Please, indicate your highest level of education 
Primary school (1 to 9 grades) 1
Secondary / High school student (10 to 12 2
Respondent ID 
 Interviewer code:
Settlement:
____________________
59
grades)
Technical university 3
High education (BA/MA) 4
Other (please specify) 7
Q6.What language do you mostly speak at home?
Georgian 1
Russian 2
Armenian 3
Azeri 4
Other 5
Q7.Do you speak Georgian?
Georgian is my native language 5
Yes, completely (I can freely speak, read and 
write)
4
I can speak, communication 3
I can understand all but can’t speak 2
I can hardly understand, I can’t speak 1
I do not speak at all 0
YOUTH INTEGRATION QUESTIONS 
Q8.For how long have you been a member of the YC [Interviewer Notes: put “0” in the corresponding 
field if respondent names only years or month. Put “-1” if respondent can’t answer, or “-2” refuses to 
answer the questions]
Month: ____________ Year: ________________ 
Q9.On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = cannot influence, and 5 = can influence, do you think that youth in 
your city can or cannot influence different aspects of public life? Please indicate a scale between 1 
to 5 (1 = cannot influence; 5 = can influence) for the following statements 
Statement Scale Can’t 
answer
No 
answer
a. Students of my school/university can influence 
the school/university life
-1 -2
b. I can positively influence the local issues 
together with other members of the society
-1 -2
c. My peers can influence city public life -1 -2
d. I can positively influence the challenges that 
are faced by the public
-1 -2
e. I can influence my own life -1 -2
60
Q10. How would you define civic activism? [Interviewer Notes: Put “-1” if respondent can’t answer, 
or “-2” refuses to answer the questions]
Q11. How frequently do you discuss the following issues with your friends? 
A lot Somewhat Not at 
all
Can’t answer 
/ don’t know
Refused to 
answer
Fun plans – where to go, what to see 1 2 3 -1 -2
Education 1 2 3 -1 -2
Social networking sites 1 2 3 -1 -2
Movies, theater 1 2 3 -1 -2
Sport 1 2 3 -1 -2
Fashion 1 2 3 -1 -2
Human rights 1 2 3 -1 -2
Democracy 1 2 3 -1 -2
Environment 1 2 3 -1 -2
Politics 1 2 3 -1 -2
Religion minorities 1 2 3 -1 -2
Gender rights 1 2 3 -1 -2
Ethnic minorities 1 2 3 -1 -2
Sexual minorities 1 2 3 -1 -2
Q12. Please tell us if the following statements are (1) not at all true, (2) hardly true, (3) moderately 
true, (4) exactly true. [Interviewer Notes: Put “-1” if respondent can’t answer, or “-2” refuses to 
answer the questions]
1 Not at 
all true
2 Hardly 
true
3 Moderately 
true
4. Exactly 
true
I can always manage to solve my problems if I 
try hard enough
If someone opposes me, I can find the means and 
ways to get what I want
I am certain I can accomplish my goals
I am confident that I can deal effectively with 
unexpected events
Thanks to my resourcefulness, I can handle 
unforeseen events
I can remain calm when facing difficulties, 
because I can rely on my coping abilities
When I am confronted with a problem, I can 
find several solutions
If I am in trouble, I can think of a good solution
I can handle whatever comes my way
Q13. How well are youth in your region connected with other regions? 
No contacts 1
Weak contacts 2
Some contacts 3
Strong contacts 4
Don’t know -1
No Response -2
61
Q14. What are the key factors that create obstacles to strong connection between you and your 
peers from other regions? 
Youth indifference 1
Roads/transportation 2
Language barrier 3
Youth attitudes towards their peers in other regions 4
Don’t find it important 5
Ethnic origin 6
Religious belonging? 7
Don’t know -1
No response -2
Q15. Who are more successful in your region? Boys or girls? 
Girls 1
Boys 2
Both equally 3 Q17 Don’t know -1
No response -2
Q16. What are the factors that cause this gender to be more successful? (check all that apply) 
1. Social attitude 1
2. Family tradition 2
3. Personal opportunities 3
4. Degree of Activeness 4
5. Natural capability 5
6. Other (specify) 6
7. Don’t know -1
8. No response -2
Q17. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = totally disagree and 5 = totally agree please tell us if you totally 
disagree or totally agree with the following statements regarding ethnic minorities in Georgia. 
[Interviewer Notes: Put “-1” if respondent can’t answer, or “-2” refuses to answer the questions]
Statement Scale
1. Ethnic minority issues are addressed by the government
2. People of different religions have different values
3. Religious minority rights are addressed by the government
4. Ethnic Georgian and ethnic minority values are very different
5. Ethnic minorities have bigger political power in ethnic minority regions that they 
should have
6. Ethnic Georgians do not have enough respect for ethnic minorities
7. Ethnic minorities do not have enough respect for ethnic Georgians
8. People of different religions do have enough respect for each other
9. Ethnic Georgians and ethnic minorities cannot understand each other
10. It is hard to imagine a friendship between people of different religions
11. People of different religions cannot understand each other
Q18. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 = totally disagree and 5 = totally agree please tell us if you totally 
disagree or totally agree with the following statements about relationships between ethnic 
Georgians and ethnic minorities [Interviewer Notes: Put “-1” if respondent can’t answer, or “-2” 
refuses to answer the questions]
Statement Scale
62
1. Youth are poorly aware of the traditions and lifestyles of people of different 
ethnic origins
2. Ethnic Georgian and ethnic minorities are not friendly with each other
3. Exchange of mockery happens frequently
4. Physical offenses happen frequently
5. Verbal insults happen frequently
Q19. In which language do you receive most of your information? Check all that apply. 
Georgian 1
Russian 2
Armenian 3
Azerbaijani 4
Ossethian 5
English 6
Other (please specify) 7
Q20. Can you access the internet from home? 
Yes 1
No 0
Don’t know -1
No answer -2
Q21. Do you think that every citizen must have knowledge of the state language? 
Yes 1
No 0
Don’t know -1 Q23
No response -2
Q22. Why is it important for ethnic minorities to know the Georgian language? (check all that 
apply) 
Yes No
1. For communication with ethnic Georgian population 1 0
2. Education 1 0
3. To feel like a real citizen of the country 1 0
4. Participate in society 1 0
5. Employment 1 0
6. To access information 1 0
7. For public service 1 0
8. Trade 1 0
9. Don’t know / can’t answer -1
10. No response -2
Q23. Comments 
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________ 
63
ANNEX 7: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
Attachment J.4
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members
Name Melanie Reimer
Title Team Leader
Organization ME & A
Evaluation Position? X Team Leader Team Member
Evaluation Award Number (contract or other
instrument)
Task Order AID-114-I-13-00001/AID-114-TO-14-00001
USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project 
name(s), implementer name(s) and award
number(s), if applicable)
Advanced National Integration (ANI) Project, UN Association 
Georgia
I have real or potential conflicts of interest to 
disclose.
 Yes X No
If yes answered above, I disclose the following 
facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include,
but are not limited to:
1.Close family member who is an employee of the 
USAID operating unit managing the project(s) 
being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
2.Financial interest that is direct, or is significant 
though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being
evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation.
3.Current or previous direct or significant though 
indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project 
design or previous iterations of the project.
4.Current or previous work experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID operating unit 
managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
5.Current or previous work experience with an 
organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
6.Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of the particular 
projects and organizations being evaluated that 
could bias the evaluation.
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature Melanie Reimer 
Date 11 December 2013
40
Attachment J.4
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members
Name Natia Gorgadze
Title Local expert
Organization ME & A
Evaluation Position? Team Leader X Team Member
Evaluation Award Number (contract or other
instrument)
AID-114-I-13-00001/AID-114-TO-14-00001
USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project 
name(s), implementer name(s) and award
number(s), if applicable)
ME&A (Mendez England & Associates
I have real or potential conflicts of interest to 
disclose.
 Yes X No
If yes answered above, I disclose the following 
facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include,
but are not limited to:
1.Close family member who is an employee of the 
USAID operating unit managing the project(s) 
being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant 
though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being
evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation.
3.Current or previous direct or significant though 
indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project 
design or previous iterations of the project.
4.Current or previous work experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID operating unit 
managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
5.Current or previous work experience with an 
organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of the particular 
projects and organizations being evaluated that 
could bias the evaluation.
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature 
Date 15.01.2014
40