As elaborated in the previous sections of this guide, the unified theory of change envisions that NDI programs seeking to advance meaningful youth political participation and leadership must create changes in two key domains: youth agency and the enabling environment. Over time, changes in youth agency and the enabling environment can erode sociocultural and institutional barriers to youth participation and lead to the establishment of more youth-inclusive political practices. These two constructs thus provide the core framework for thinking about the design of programs to support youth political participation.

Although the concepts of youth agency and the enabling environment may seem clear in theory, work needs to be done to determine how to apply them in the design, monitoring, evaluation and learning of a given program. It is important at the program design stage to determine what precise changes in youth agency and the enabling environment your program intends to achieve and how these changes can be measured. This section discusses how to think about applying these concepts throughout the program design process.

Operationalizing Youth Agency

As described earlier in this youth guide, youth agency refers to the willingness and capacity of young people to act individually and collectively. More specifically, agency entails a blend of knowledge, skills and attitudes that develop and are reinforced - in large part - through direct political action. The recommended types of activities for developing the political agency of young people includes four principal elements:

• meet youth where they are, recognizing that diversity determines different starting points and needs based on identity, location, cultural and other contextual circumstances;
• build their assets through experiential forms of learning that increase knowledge, technical skills, interpersonal or “soft” skills, and practical political know-how;
• foster youth-led collective action to address self-selected issues and causes that motivate their political participation; and
• expand engagement across various political entry points so that youth are actively occupying available space and seen as playing multiple political roles.

Thus, in the context of NDI programs, outcomes in youth agency usually result from efforts to build young people’s skills and support them in organizing themselves to take strategic political action. As a result, changes in youth agency as an outcome can take various forms, including changes in technical skills like advocacy, soft skills like perceived self-efficacy in influencing political processes, changed behaviors, or combinations of these various types of outcomes. The specific form that a change in youth agency can take depends on the program scope, objective(s) and timeframe. These anticipated outcomes must also be tailored to a particular population of young people and address differences in starting points among different groups of youth. For example, programs must account for differential needs among traditionally marginalized populations, such as women, ethnic minority youth, young people with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI+) youth, that may prevent them from fully engaging in and benefitting from program activities alongside other young people. The desired type of change in youth agency must therefore be grounded in context, stakeholder and problem analysis, as is demonstrated in the following section of this guide.

Operationalizing the Enabling Environment

An enabling environment refers to political avenues and opportunities that encourage young people to express themselves, engage power holders and demonstrate their competence and contributions. Most programs face situations where politics is either closed to young people, particular young people of diverse identities, or there is only token support for their participation. The lack of support severely limits participation, even in situations where some amount of agency exists. To change this reality, a profoundly political strategy is required, which relies on relationship building. This involves interactions where understanding, trust, respect and appreciation can emerge, along with space for participation in policy discussions and decision making and collaboration between youth- and adult-led organizations. The recommended activities for fostering an enabling environment includes the following elements:

• recognize and address structural inequities that disadvantage young people based on their gender and other identities;
• create spaces for young people to interact with power holders and build relationships;
• establish the value of youth participation through demonstrations of leadership and constructive engagement; and
• strengthen intergenerational relationships through collaboration.

Achieving and detecting changes in the enabling environment is more complex and difficult than youth agency. These types of outcomes are inextricably linked to issues of power that often prevent older political leaders from providing meaningful space for young people as political leaders and decision makers. Despite the challenges associated with creating change in the enabling environment, the unified theory of change envisions that these shifts can take place as a result of both direct efforts by NDI to create space for young people in political processes, as well as indirect efforts to support young people to drive changes in the enabling environment by supporting their political agency. For example, NDI may consult with political and civic leaders on how and why youth political inclusion can be beneficial for them, while also assisting young people to develop and demonstrate the value of innovative skills and knowledge that they can bring to the table. While changes in the enabling environment take time, they can include changes in behavior by those who hold political power (such as promoting youth to leadership positions in their party or organization), collaborative relationships established between young people and older leaders, or self-reported value and commitment among senior leaders for youth participation. Similar to youth agency, the specific type of change in the enabling environment that may be desired and feasible depends on the context and scope of the particular program. It is also critical to consider the different and often multiple and intersecting environmental barriers facing young women and young people from other groups that are traditionally marginalized. The next section discusses how to approach front-end analysis (context, stakeholder and problem analysis) for youth programs, with a particular focus on youth agency and the enabling environment.

---

The next step in the program design process is to develop a logic model and theory of change that respond to the front-end analysis presented during the previous section. The logic model and theory of change are complementary; while the logic model lays out the specific results (outputs, intermediate outcomes, and objectives) as they are anticipated to occur along an envisioned pathway of change resulting from the program, the theory of change is a narrative explaining how and why the program is expected to achieve the results included in the logic model.

Although the theory of change and logic model can be developed simultaneously, it is important to craft a logic model that directly responds to the problem analysis conducted in the previous step. The logic model should be crafted so that the objectives correspond to the core problems identified, and the intermediate outcomes respond to the root causes. Since the logic model provides the basis for developing indicators for program monitoring, developing the logic model in this way ensures that program evaluations can assess the extent to which the program created change in the core problem(s) of interest. The TOC continues to be useful in this step, as root causes associated with youth agency and the enabling environment, respectively, can inform corresponding program components in the logic model. Examples from Malawi and Niger, presented below, demonstrate how a logic model can be constructed in response to a problem analysis, incorporating the concepts of youth agency and the enabling environment.

Click here for larger image

As can be seen by comparing this logic model to the problem analysis, there are two objectives corresponding to the two core problems identified, and four intermediate outcomes that are designed to address the root causes. In some cases, the program team chose to focus on particular root causes, but not others, due to limits in the scope of NDI’s program. Most importantly, the logic model includes anticipated outcomes focused on both youth agency and the enabling environment.

The logic model presented above may seem large and complex. This results from the effort to explicitly address both youth agency and the enabling environment. As explained in the section on the operationalization of these two key concepts, while NDI’s activities tend to focus on direct engagement with young people, those activities are designed to support young people to indirectly drive changes in the enabling environment by establishing working relationships with older leaders, countering stereotypes of youth as apathetic or trouble-makers, and establishing the value that young people can bring to political leadership and decision making. As a result, many NDI youth programs only intentionally design, monitor and evaluate youth agency, but not the enabling environment. To address this problem, the logic model presented above includes activities, deliverables and envisioned results specific to the enabling environment, which in many places are closely related to program components focused on youth agency. For example, while Output 1.1.4 is associated with support for youth to conduct programs to address issues in their communities (youth agency), Output 1.2.3 refers to young people’s presentation of their community program work to older community leaders in an effort to demonstrate the value of their work (enabling environment). While this results in a logic model that seems large given the scope of the program, documenting these two closely interrelated activities and their intended results provides a framework for monitoring and evaluating changes in youth agency and the enabling environment.

In addition to highlighting whether components are focused on youth agency or the enabling environment, the activities and outputs reflect the recommended program approaches from the TOC (building assets, supporting collective action, demonstrating the value of youth leadership, building intergenerational relationships, etc). This allows the program team to further think through the ways in which their initiative can contribute to changes in youth agency or the enabling environment. It is important to note that not all sub-components of the TOC are reflected in this program; different contexts and objectives require different blends of assistance. Youth agency-related activities in this program focus on building youth assets and supporting them to take collective political action. Activities targeting the enabling environment are focused on creating spaces for youth to engage with older leaders, demonstrate their value as political leaders and decision-makers, and build intergenerational relationships. One activity captures efforts to address structural inequities by ensuring equal numbers of women and men are recruited to participate in program activities.

A logic model for the Niger program is displayed in the figure below. The components that are not specific to youth are highlighted in gray, while the youth-focused components are in color.

Comparison of the image above with the original problem analysis demonstrates that this logic model includes one objective corresponding to the core problem and several intermediate outcomes addressing root causes. Youth agency components include activities to support experienced young leaders to engage in community development processes alongside a complementary set of pilot activities engaging youth from rural, ethnic minority communities. The latter activities are designed to provide opportunities for young people from more marginalized communities with less experience in civic and political participation to reflect on and identify their priority community development concerns. The program includes separate activities with both groups of youth, as well as opportunities for inter-cultural youth collaboration and relationship-building. Enabling environment components include both efforts to support young women and men from rural, cultural and linguistic minority communities to engage in the program alongside their more experienced peers, as well as other activities for youth to occupy political spaces and demonstrate their value and competence to older political leaders in their communities.

---

After the logic model is developed, the next step is to develop indicators to track the delivery of program activities (outputs) and, most importantly, the achievement of program results (outcomes and objectives). Data collected using these indicators can provide the basis for ongoing reflection, learning and adaptation throughout program implementation. This data also will be useful in the case of a midterm or final evaluation of the program.

Although indicators should be designed based on the specific results statements included in the logic model, it can also be useful to utilize standard indicators that are commonly used across the youth development sector. Drawing on these resources can create synergies between NDI and the broader youth development community and enable learning across implementing organizations. USAID’s YouthPower Learning Project has produced several resources, including indicator lists and guidance for measuring Positive Youth Development constructs, for measuring changes in youth development, engagement and participation, including a Technical Brief on Measuring Youth Engagement and the Positive Youth Development Measurement Toolkit. While these guides address a broader set of youth development outcomes that may not be relevant for the objectives and age groups targeted by NDI programs, they can provide some initial indicators and inspire further ideas about how to measure changes in youth agency and the enabling environment. The table below provides some suggested indicators, adapted from YouthPower Learning’s resources.

Although these illustrative indicators can inspire thinking about how to monitor and evaluate youth political participation programs, there is always a need for additional work to develop custom indicators for a given program. Specific program objectives, contextual factors, and level of resources available for monitoring and evaluation determine what types of change can and should be measured. After considering a list of standard indicators, such as the illustrative indicators listed above, the program team should closely review the logic model and engage in a facilitated discussion about how to effectively measure each results statement (output, outcome and objective). It is often ideal to settle on one indicator for each result, but additional indicators can be included if sufficient resources exist to gather and manage additional data.

To ensure that program indicators are useful, they should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely). When designing an indicator for a particular results statement, consider the following questions:

• What will be the observable effects of achieving this deliverable or result (output, outcome, objective)? How can those effects be measured?
• If the effects of achieving the result cannot be directly measured, what is a reasonable proxy measure that could be used to measure achievement of this result?
• Does the program have sufficient resources to collect and analyze data for this particular measure?
• Is it feasible to expect change on this indicator within the time period of the program?
• If a strong direct or indirect measure cannot be established, how can the result statement be reframed or refined to ensure that it is measurable?

The Malawi program demonstrates how indicators can be developed to measure changes in youth agency and the enabling environment based on the logic model presented in the previous section. The table below summarizes the indicators developed for the Malawi program.

Similarly, the table below presents an example of indicators for the Niger program.

Niger: Supporting Pluralistic and Inclusive Community-Led Approaches to Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism Indicator Summary Table
Result Statements	Indicator(s)
Objective 1: Reduced governance-related vulnerabilities to violent extremist recruitment in Nigerien communities	Reported level of trust among participating community members in local government and security forces
Outcome 1.1: Increased efforts by community leaders to demonstrate accountability to citizens	Number of decisions made by community leaders in relation to the implementation of action plans to address development and security challenges
Output 1.1.1: CDCs established in Nigerien communities	Number of CDCs established or reactivated with NDI assistance under this program
Output 1.1.2: CDC managers develop action plans to address development and security challenges	Number of action plans developed by CDC managers
Output 1.1.3: Political parties have increased capacity to engage community members in developing solutions to local security challenges	Number of political party representatives who participate in capacity-development interventions
Outcome 1.2: Local government demonstrates improved ability to respond to local security and development challenges	Number of strategies or initiatives implemented by local officials to improve local security and development
Output 1.2.1: Newly elected officials trained to manage violence and identify and address development challenges	Number of elected officials trained to manage violence and identify and address development challenges
Output 1.2.2: Policy recommendations shared with national-level decision makers	Number of policy recommendations shared with national-level decision makers
Outcome 1.3 [AGENCY]: Youth more effectively engage in community development	Number of community programs implemented by youth
Output 1.3.1 [ASSETS]: Youth have strengthened skills in leadership, negotiation, public speaking and planning community action	Number of youth who demonstrate improved leadership, negotiation, public speaking and planning community action skills as a result of NDI support
Output 1.3.2 [ACTION]: Youth receive support to conduct community activities	Number of youth who receive technical support to implement community program
Outcome 1.4 [AGENCY]: Community development plans reflect interests and participation of ethnically diverse youth	Number of priorities identified by rural, culturally and linguistically diverse youth that are integrated into community development plans
Output 1.4.1 [ASSETS, MEET]: Youth better understand community development plans and provide input on their priorities	Number of youth from rural areas and minority ethnic communities who participate in workshops on community development plans and priorities
Output 1.4.2 [ASSETS, MEET]: Ethnically diverse youth identify resiliences and vulnerabilities of young people and shared community develop priorities	Number of youth from rural areas and culturally and linguistically diverse communities who participate in workshops to identify resilience and vulnerabilities of young people and shared community development priorities
Outcome 1.5 [ENABLING ENVIRONMENT]: Increased support for diverse youth participation in community development	Number of actions taken by culturally and linguistically diverse groups of youth to address shared community development priorities
Output 1.5.1 [SPACES, INTERGEN]: Youth participate in CDC efforts to address development and security challenges	Number of youth who participate in CDC efforts (meetings) to address development and security challenges
Output 1.5.2 [VALUE]: Youth demonstrate policy expertise to national decision makers	Number of youth who present policy recommendations to national leaders
Output 1.5.3 [INEQUITIES]: Urban engaged youth trained on mentoring, leadership and active listening skills	Number of urban youth who are already politically engaged who receive training on mentoring, leadership and active listening skills

---