SPECIAL REPORT 485

SPECIAL REPORT

NO. 485 | O cto b er 2020 UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org

What Works in Youth Projects? Lessons for 

the Youth, Peace, and Security Field

By Rebecca Ebenezer-Abiola and Jeremy Moore

Summary 

• In 2015, UN Security Council 

Resolution 2250 outlined a new 

youth, peace, and security agenda around five action areas: participation, protection, prevention, 

partnership, and disengagement 

and reintegration.

• Against the backdrop of this agenda, 

USIP commissioned a meta-review 

of youth projects it funded or implemented between 2011 and 2018 to 

identify factors likely to encourage 

or hinder project success.

• Project success was found to depend above all on high levels of 

capacity and expertise of the local 

implementer, meaningful inclusion 

of youth participants, and the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, 

particularly non-youth community 

leaders.

• Selection bias, lack of facilitation 

skills, and insecurity or political 

instability were identified as the 

factors most likely to hinder project success.

• To succeed in operationalizing the 

youth, peace, and security agenda, 

youth-serving CSOs should create 

the conditions necessary for youth 

to design, implement, and monitor 

their own projects.

• Funders also need to support 

co-creation and joint decision 

making, as well as strive to better understand the insecurity and 

instability of the local contexts 

in which youth-led projects are 

implemented.

Aluel Atem, a youth leader from South Sudan, shares her peacebuilding experiences with His 

Holiness the Dalai Lama on October 25, 2018. (Photo by USIP)

Contents

Introduction ...................................3

Portfolio of Projects

Evaluated ...................................... 5

Methodology: Process

and Criteria....................................7

Five Peacebuilding

Approaches .................................. 9

What Promotes and

What Hinders Success? .............. 11

Recommendations ...................... 14
2 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of 

the United States Institute of Peace. An online edition of this and related reports can be found on our website 

(www.usip.org), together with additional information on the subject.

© 2020 by the United States Institute of Peace

United States Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20037

Phone: 202.457.1700

Fax: 202.429.6063

E-mail: usip_requests@usip.org

Web: www.usip.org

Special Report No. 485. First published 2020.

ISBN: 978-1-60127-831-9 

NO. 485 | O cto b er 2020

SPECIAL REPORT

ABOUT THE REPORT

In 2018–19, the United States Institute of Peace commissioned the Agency 

for Peacebuilding—a nonprofit organization that specializes in designing and 

conducting research on conflict prevention, resolution and peacebuilding—to 

conduct a meta-review of fifty-one USIP youth projects that were funded and 

implemented between 2011 and 2018. This report summarizes the evaluation 

and offers recommendations for the broader youth and peacebuilding field 

along five key action areas.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Rebecca Ebenezer-Abiola is a program officer with the Curriculum and 

Training Design team at USIP’s Center for Applied Conflict Transformation. 

She works on USIP’s youth portfolio and the border Security Training 

Program. Jeremy Moore is a senior program officer for the Grants and 

Fellowships team within the Policy, Learning, and Strategy Center at USIP.

YOUTH
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 3

Introduction

Until the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2250 in 2015, the international 

community had no comprehensive framework with which to address the specific needs and 

opportunities of a key demographic group—young people. Resolution 2250 filled this gap, creating a framework for viewing, addressing, designing, and evaluating peacebuilding activities 

involving youth.

Definitions of “youth” vary across governments and international institutions. For instance, 

UNSCR 2250 defines youth as people aged eighteen to twenty-nine, whereas the African Youth 

Charter—the African Union’s strategy for achieving inclusive and sustainable development—

uses a broader definition encompassing those aged fifteen to thirty-five.1

 While age ranges 

may differ, all societies understand youth as a transitional phase from childhood to adulthood, 

although indicators of the phases in that transition differ across the globe according to social 

and cultural factors. From a peacebuilding perspective, a deep knowledge of the local context 

and culture is essential to understanding how violent conflict disrupts human transitional phases 

and to developing and implementing peacebuilding projects.

UNSCR 2250, which was unanimously adopted by the members of the Security Council, 

recognizes the immense threat to development and stability that exists when young people’s 

voices are stifled and encourages member states to actively consider ways to ensure that the 

voices of youth will be expressed and heard at local, national, regional, and international levels. 

Lupai from South Sudan and Kenaime from the Central African Republic have a moment

of comradery after a peacebuilding session on October 21, 2018. (Photo by USIP)
4 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

The resolution rebuts the narrative that had labelled young 

people as either victims or perpetrators of violent conflict. 

If youth have historically been viewed as problems to be 

solved, UNSCR 2250 puts them at the center of policies 

on peace and security and regards them as partners in 

countering violent extremism.

In addition to recognizing the important role that young 

people play in promoting peace globally and in their communities, UNSCR 2250 provides a 

global framework that UN member states, as well as peacebuilding organizations such as the 

United States Institute of Peace (USIP), could adopt in promoting and supporting the peacebuilding efforts of young people across the globe. This new policy framework focuses on five action 

areas that make up the youth, peace, and security agenda: participation, protection, prevention, partnership, and disengagement and reintegration. Moving from recognition to action, the 

United Nations adopted a new resolution on youth, peace, and security in July 2020. Resolution 

2535 builds on Resolutions 2250 and 2419 (a second resolution on youth, peace, and security 

adopted in 2018) and reflects a significant rise in youth power and an operationalization of the 

youth, peace, and security agenda throughout the world.2 For example, UNSCR 2535 provides 

for the establishment of a reporting system that underscores the importance of young people 

on the agenda of the Security Council.

UNSCR 2250 and 2535 both call for increased funding and support for youth-led peacebuilding initiatives. The UN-mandated Progress Study on UNSCR 2250 found that nearly 50 percent 

of youth-led peacebuilding organizations operate on budgets of less than $5,000 per year.3 

Because of limited resources, youth often implement short-term, one-off activities; if they had 

larger budgets, they could implement projects with longer-term objectives and higher levels of 

impact. The report noted that youth-led organizations are frequently overlooked by funders, 

which prefer partnering with larger, more established civil society organizations (CSOs), thereby 

further diminishing youth participation in peacebuilding. 

In September 2018, inspired by the United Nations’ adoption of the youth, peace, and security 

strategy, USIP commissioned an evaluation of youth peacebuilding initiatives it had funded and 

implemented since 2011. The goals were to better understand the effectiveness of initiatives 

in different conflict contexts, to enhance future programmatic and grant-making efforts within 

USIP, and to share best practices for the benefit of the broader peacebuilding community. The 

evaluators—associates of the Agency for Peacebuilding—used a meta-review approach to assess fifty-one youth projects supported or implemented by USIP.4

 This report summarizes and 

contextualizes that evaluation, outlining the portfolio of USIP youth projects that the evaluators 

examined (including eleven in-depth case studies), explaining the methodology of the evaluation, and examining the factors that most helped or most hindered project success. The report 

concludes with recommendations, based on the meta-review, for ways in which youth-focused 

CSOs and funders can operationalize the key elements of Resolution 2250.

Because of limited resources, youth often 

implement short-term, one-off activities; 

if they had larger budgets, they could 

implement projects with longer-term 

objectives and higher levels of impact.
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 5

Portfolio of Projects Evaluated

USIP supports youth projects in 

a variety of ways. The projects 

examined by the Agency for 

Peacebuilding—all of which were 

implemented after 2011 and completed by the end of 2018—had 

been supported in one of three 

separate ways: through USIP 

grants, as part of the Generation 

Change Fellows Program, or 

through partnerships between 

USIP and local actors. 

Since the establishment of its 

grant program in 1986, USIP has 

awarded more than 2,300 grants 

intended to seed and develop 

the international conflict resolution and peacebuilding field. 

Those grants have supported a 

remarkably wide array of peacebuilding projects managed by nonprofit organizations, including educational institutions and 

research institutions, as well as CSOs.

The Generation Change Fellows Program began as a program under the US Department of 

State’s Special Representative to Muslim Communities Office. In 2013, the program was moved 

to USIP and relaunched as a partnership with the University of Southern California’s Center for 

Religion and Civic Culture. Generation Change partners with young community leaders across 

the globe to foster collaboration, build resilience, and strengthen capacity in their communities 

over the course of twenty-four months. The program carefully selects small cohorts of dedicated 

peacebuilders aged eighteen to thirty-five to tackle some of the world’s most difficult challenges, from countering violent extremism to enhancing gender equality.5

USIP implements some of the projects it funds in partnership with local actors such as CSOs, 

networks, and individual peacebuilders. The exact shape and division of labor on these projects 

varies depending on many factors, including whether USIP already has a presence in the country where a project will take place. USIP has staff in more than a dozen countries across Asia, 

the Middle East, and Africa that work with local partners on peacebuilding and conflict resolution 

initiatives. The field offices also play a critical role in supporting and monitoring USIP grant projects and the Generation Change program.

Of the fifty-one USIP projects reviewed by the Agency for Peacebuilding, 73 percent were grant 

projects and 70 percent were considered “new,” meaning they aligned with USIP’s objective to 

FIGURE 1. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION

OF EVALUATED PROJECTS

The Agency for Peacebuilding reviewed fifty-one projects, most of which were 

implemented in South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.

South Asia

(including Pakistan)

37%

Central Asia

(including Afghanistan)

22%

Middle East

and North Africa

29%

 Worldwide 2% 

 Southeast Asia 2% 

 Sub-Saharan Africa 8%
6 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

Project Geographic Area Purpose

Maktab and

Madrassa Project

Afghanistan Project sought to bridge the divide between students from madrassas (Islamic 

religious schools) and maktabs (general education schools) by inviting both groups 

to attend lectures on journalism and then to work together on joint media projects. 

Participatory Action 

Research for Advancing 

Youth-Led Peacebuilding

Kenya Project engaged youth through training and research to enable them to become 

knowledge generators and find their own solutions to social problems related to 

conflict and governance.a

Countering

Violent Extremism

Kyrgyzstan Project aimed to strengthen relationships among key stakeholders (including state 

authorities and youth) and engender collaboration on the issue of violent extremism. 

Peace Culture in a 

Pluralistic Society

Myanmar Project sought to train youth peace leaders, expanding their understanding of 

peacebuilding and supporting them in organizing follow-on activities to raise community awareness about peace and human rights. 

Deradicalization and 

Rehabilitation Program for 

Children and Adolescents 

Involved in Militancy

Pakistan Project provided support to reintegrated youth in their new lifestyles in order to 

prevent them from reengaging in militancy and other violent activities.

Mashal e Rah Project Pakistan Project engaged over one thousand students, seeking to raise their ability to critically 

engage with online content, become more tolerant, and resist extremist narratives. 

National Youth 

Advocacy Hub

Pakistan Project sought to counter youth extremism through training and action, a youth-led 

mass media campaign, and the strengthening of peer-to-peer youth networks.

Sudanese and South 

Sudanese Youth 

Leaders Program

South Sudan Project supported Sudanese and South Sudanese youth leaders in gaining the knowledge, skills, and confidence to play a critical role in building and sustaining peace.b

Alliance of

Tunisian Facilitators

Tunisia The project supported adult and youth activists in acquiring greater facilitation 

skills and playing a more active role in addressing social tensions at national and 

community levels.

Prevent Radicalization of 

Young People through a 

Participative Approach

Tunisia The project aimed at engaging key youth leaders from the two main national university student unions, enhancing the leaders’ facilitation skills so that they would 

be able to counter violent extremism on university campuses.

Generation Change Worldwide This ongoing project aims to provide youth leaders with the skills needed to 

increase community trust, promote constructive conversations, and design and 

implement nonviolent initiatives to resolve conflict within their communities. 

TABLE 1. PROJECTS SELECTED FOR IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

Notes: 

a. This project is described in detail in Sahlim Charles Amambia et al., “Participatory Action Research for Advancing Youth-Led Peacebuilding in

Kenya,” Peaceworks no. 142, United States Institute of Peace, October 2018, www.usip.org/publications/2018/10/participatory-action-research

-advancing-youth-led-peacebuilding-kenya.

b. For more information, see United States Institute of Peace, “Sudanese and South Sudanese Youth Leaders Program,” www.usip.org/programs

/sudanese-and-south-sudanese-youth-leaders-program.
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 7

test innovative projects and approaches. Nearly half of the projects involved more than one organization in their implementation. Excluding the twenty-four-month-long Generation Change projects, most projects lasted around twelve months. Budgets varied widely from project to project, 

but nearly all initiatives had budgets below $100,000. As figure 1 shows, almost 90 percent of 

projects were conducted in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, or Central Asia.

Eleven projects, representing a cross-section of USIP’s approaches and priority countries, 

were chosen for in-depth analysis. They are listed in table 1.

Methodology: Process and Criteria

The evaluators gathered both qualitative and quantitative data and conducted the review in two 

phases: first, an extensive document review of the fifty-one youth-related projects; and second, 

fifty in-depth interviews and ten focus group discussions, most of which focused on the eleven 

projects selected for in-depth analysis. On the basis of the large amount of data collected during 

the first phase, five composite theories of change were formulated and used to assess the effectiveness and impact of each project. In the second phase, the evaluators used a “contribution 

analysis” approach “for assessing causal questions and inferring causality in real-life program 

evaluations” through an “increased understanding of why the observed results have occurred.”6

Contribution analyses apply the logic of the project’s theory of change to assess the extent to 

which the project activities contributed to observed outcomes.

The evaluators used four criteria to evaluate USIP’s youth portfolio: relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability. The youth projects scored highest on relevance, because nearly every initiative was geared toward the needs of the youth involved and project participants’ feedback was 

overwhelmingly positive regarding the usefulness of the projects. For example, the National Youth 

Advocacy Hub project implemented in Pakistan guaranteed local relevance by using a youth-led 

approach in which participants created and enacted their own local peace initiatives. They were 

continuously supported and linked to other participating youth across the country through the 

Bargad Volunteer Network, which aims to counter youth extremism through training and action 

and youth-led social media campaigns. The evaluators attributed the high rate of relevance across 

the portfolio of projects to a high level of local knowledge among USIP staff and the project implementers, but also noted that this sometimes precluded the need for a more formal needs assessment, which could have deepened understanding of project relevance to youth.

For effectiveness, the evaluators explored the extent to which outcomes were achieved in 

the short term and medium term. The evaluators found that the participating youth reported 

increased capacity and confidence, as well as greater awareness and empathy. The evaluators 

specifically noted how USIP played an integral role in strengthening networks and expanding 

safe spaces for discourse and interaction on peace and conflict issues. One interviewee who 

participated in the Mashal e Rah project in Pakistan noted that this was the first time in the history 

of the interviewee’s university that students were allowed to have a dialogue event on campus. 

The participation of a prominent religious scholar was critical to giving the project legitimacy 

as a platform to discuss religious extremism and allowed the project to address controversial 

questions surrounding increasing radicalization at Pakistan’s universities.
8 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

Regarding impact, the evaluators focused on three long-term outcomes: resistance to radicalization, conflict resolution among peers, and conflict resolution at the community level. 

Overall, however, there was too little evidence to enable any of these outcomes to be evaluated, despite some compelling individual examples such as the deradicalization project in 

Pakistan. Interviews confirmed that all participants in that project had abandoned radical activities and violence, and many had found jobs or had returned to school. The project used 

a combination of education and psychosocial support that reverberated beyond the participants themselves and into their families and local communities. Generation Change was more 

geared toward the three long-term outcomes than most USIP-supported youth projects; the 

evaluators also noted that Generation Change fellows became trainers to their peers and 

partners in the implementation of additional projects. 

When the evaluators examined sustainability outcomes, including increased capacity and 

greater empathy, they found evidence that, after a project ended, participating youth continued to apply new skills and knowledge developed through USIP programming. Additionally, 

they found evidence that the more open attitudes and greater awareness that youth developed remained with them over time. Again, Generation Change is a positive example of 

A group of youth from India, Pakistan, and Myanmar participate in a conflict management

exercise during a training in Bangkok on June 24, 2018. (Photo by USIP)
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 9

building sustainability through an evolving community of active youth peacebuilders. Once the 

program’s fellows participate in a training, they are automatically part of a global community 

that continually offers advanced training opportunities and grant support so that Generation 

Change fellows can implement projects on their own.7 Interviews confirmed the sustainability 

of the Generation Change model, with every respondent saying that he or she is still involved 

in peacebuilding activities.

The Alliance of Tunisian Facilitators is an unambiguous example of sustainability, having been 

in operation since 2011. Starting as a relatively loose network of individual members who convened for trainings, the alliance has evolved to provide internal information sharing and community dialogues. Some participants in those dialogues have subsequently become members of 

the alliance, reinforcing the sustainability of the network.

Five Peacebuilding Approaches

The evaluators identified five distinct approaches taken—sometimes individually, sometimes in 

various combinations—by USIP youth projects: educational, peer-to-peer empowerment, partnership, participation, and disengagement and reintegration: 

Educational: This approach is used to transfer skills or knowledge to enhance the awareness 

and inform the attitudes of youth. Frequently taking the form of peace education or training in 

school or informal settings, it aligns with the prevention action area in UNSCR 2250. While often 

deployed to increase the resiliency of youth to the threat of violence or extremism, the educational approach typically involves little interaction between the instructor and participants.

Peer-to-peer empowerment: Aligning with the participation and prevention action areas in 

UNSCR 2250, this approach taps into youth networks and communities with the vision that all 

youth can be peacebuilders. It is a highly participatory approach that typically starts with small 

groups or actions and can grow larger as more youth become involved.

Partnership: This approach engages youth groups and organizations as coimplementers. It squarely puts youth in a leadership role and encourages active youth participation. It aligns with the participation and partnership action areas in UNSCR 2250.

Participation: This approach focuses on bringing youth leaders into decision-making

processes or spaces. It aligns with the participation action area in UNSCR 2250, 

although the top-heavy nature of some decision-making spaces can make this an 

approach limited to elite youth leaders and not a widespread grassroots effort.

Disengagement and reintegration: This approach is applied when working directly with 

radicalized youth to reintegrate them back into society. Although similar to the educational approach, it falls under the reintegration action area of UNSCR 2250. This approach can be effective but relies on cooperation between implementing organizations and state security services.

All eleven key projects had elements of the educational approach in the form of trainings and 

information sessions as part of a preparatory phase of the project, if not as the main intended 

activity. While seven projects had elements of the peer-to-peer and participation approaches, 
1 0 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

these were rarely the main activity of the project, and the evaluators noted that this made USIP’s 

youth portfolio somewhat out of step with UNSCR 2250. Indeed, only 6 percent of the reviewed 

projects featured a direct link to a formal peace or other decision-making process, underscoring 

the difficulty in mainstreaming youth into these elite-driven processes. The disengagement and 

reintegration approach was used in just one project, in Pakistan, where the military has been 

supportive of reintegration approaches by partner NGOs. 

The evaluators matched the five peacebuilding approaches (or “change pathways”) with 

theories of change. CDA Collaborative, a peacebuilding advisory organization, defines a theory of change as a statement that “explains why we think certain actions will produce desired 

change in a given context,” typically expressed as if-then statements. Theories of change are 

critical to understanding what assumptions are implicit in the project design and what can be 

added or removed from a project to make it more effective.8

 In practice, all theories of change 

should be customized to fit the exact project location and objectives. Two examples from the 

evaluation reflect the kinds of theories of change adopted by USIP projects:

Young people from Tunisia and Somalia illustrate the importance of relationships

during a training session on October 20, 2018. (Photo by USIP)
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 11

• Peace Culture in a Pluralistic Society (Myanmar): If we increase the awareness of 

grassroots communities by providing diverse and appropriate forms of peace education through our strong youth network, then the wider public will engage in peacebuilding initiatives, conflict prevention, and social reconciliation. 

• Countering Violent Extremism (Kyrgyzstan): If key stakeholders—including state 

authorities, religious leaders, and community groups comprising marginalized youth 

and women—work collaboratively to develop strategies to address the root causes 

of extremism, recommend policy changes, and implement joint programming, then all 

stakeholders will be more effectively equipped to counter extremist ideologies, and 

community cohesion and resiliencies will be strengthened. 

In addition to differing in terms of their peacebuilding approaches and theories of change, the 

projects varied in terms of how they engaged with youth. Some treated youth as beneficiaries, 

some as partners, and some as leaders. The beneficiary approach is typically an initial phase to 

dispense information and training and can be a step toward engaging with youth on a deeper 

level. Projects that treat youth as partners are more collaborative efforts where youth share 

responsibility with other project staff or partner organizations for the selection of participants 

and the choice of a project’s content and activities. Projects in which youth are seen as leaders are typically focused on more experienced young peacebuilders who are able to design 

and guide their own initiatives relatively autonomously, possibly from within their own youth-led 

organizations. Although many USIP-supported projects tend to have a blended approach, the 

grant-funded projects are more likely to use the beneficiary and partner approaches, whereas 

the Generation Change program aims to build youth into independent leaders and prepares 

them to start their own youth-led organizations.

What Promotes and

What Hinders Success?

An in-depth analysis of the five peacebuilding approaches suggests that each of them has its 

pros and cons. However, projects that adopt a blended approach—that is, that mix different 

approaches in their design and implementation—seem to yield better and more sustained outcomes. The Participatory Action Research for Advancing Youth-Led Peacebuilding project in 

Kenya, for example, integrated several approaches concurrently: it used the educational and 

partnership approaches, with participants (who are Generation Change fellows) being trained 

and supported to lead participatory action research; it adopted a peer-to-peer empowerment 

approach, because those fellows in turn trained other young people to be researchers and facilitators of community conversations; and it used a participation approach, promoting, in various 

locations, the organization of facilitated community conversations.9
1 2 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

Beyond the efficacy of a blended approach, the evaluators identified three important factors 

that enhance the prospects that a youth project will achieve its goals.

The first, and perhaps the most important, factor is the expertise and capacity of the implementer. The implementing organization must have project management skills, a deep knowledge of the local context, and an extensive network in order to identify local needs as well 

as develop strategies to address them. The Bargad Volunteer Network, for instance, already 

connected a large and diverse group of youth who were ready to devise new, locally relevant 

peacebuilding strategies and activities. It also possessed the capacity to manage youth-led 

working groups and delegate tasks that built the capacity and independence of the volunteers.

The second success factor is the meaningful inclusion of a diverse group of youth participants, in terms of bringing together youth from diverse backgrounds and giving them the opportunity to voice their needs, interests, and concerns. The Peace Culture in Pluralistic Society 

project in Myanmar is a positive example of meaningful inclusion in a highly diverse setting. The 

grantee specifically built a gender, race, and religion (GRR) criteria into its project design. The 

grantee reached its participation goal of 40 percent for females, and nearly all the major ethnic 

and religious groups participated (had more attention been given to trust building during the 

initial project outreach activities, even more groups might have participated).

To ensure meaningful inclusion, youth must not be viewed as a homogeneous group. Instead, 

they must be engaged as an heterogeneous group that includes people of different ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and genders; as such, they will have different needs and may require 

different approaches to ensure their inclusion in youth projects. For example, including young 

women might require extra effort to build trust with families by showing them that activities will be 

held in safe spaces. Being inclusive also often means considering the economic exclusion of the 

target groups and therefore, for instance, providing participants with a small stipend or reimbursing 

their transportation costs. This consideration should be an integral component of program design.

The third factor conducive to success is the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, youth and 

non-youth, in line with an initiative’s specific objectives. When this happened, projects strongly 

benefited from the trust-building relationships. For example, in the Countering Violent Extremism 

project in Kyrgyzstan, the national-level consultative group, which was created by the grantee 

and included decision makers from security forces as well as youth representatives, was effective in reframing the relations that existed between the two groups, leaving participating 

youth feeling empowered without threatening non-youth stakeholders. The most prominent 

independent activity was spurred by the grantee bringing together previously siloed groups: 

the imams, the Kyrgyz Ministry of Interior’s 10th Department (tasked with countering violent extremism), and the district police. Based on the project training and activities, the three groups 

partnered to conduct a joint initiative to educate school children on the recruitment tactics of 

terrorist organizations, specifically Islamic State, which was recruiting local youth to go to Syria. 

A similar initiative was independently created in southern Kyrgyzstan between religious women 

and the 10th Department, which held joint conferences at schools aimed at countering violent 

extremism and radicalism among youth.

While this trio of factors can spur success, the evaluators also identified three factors that can 

hinder progress. 
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 13

One factor that can have a significant negative impact is selection bias. A reliance on third parties to select participants for a youth program, while it might be beneficial in terms of tapping into 

existing networks, can exclude potential participants who are not part of the third party’s network. 

Some projects reported that they mostly targeted youth who already had strong convictions about 

the importance of peacebuilding, creating a “preaching to the converted” effect that excludes 

youth who may not have been exposed to peacebuilding training and dialogues before. Selecting 

young people who are already active in the peacebuilding space and belong to known networks 

may be convenient, but it greatly undermines the relevance of the project to the intended outcome and reinforces blind spots that limit inclusion. To avoid problems created by selection bias, 

project participants should be selected in the most inclusive and transparent way possible. 

A second hindering factor is the lack of facilitation skills. Projects that involve a diverse 

group of participants coming from a variety of backgrounds require excellent facilitation skills. 

If not properly managed and facilitated, interactions between diverse groups can surface suspicion, mistrust, and competitiveness, which can make participants wary of exchanging views 

and experiences. Lack of cultural awareness and effective facilitation and mediation can result in misperception and misunderstanding among groups, which can have lasting negative 

Munira Hamisi, a youth researcher from Kenya, leads a participatory action research session 

on March 2, 2017, at August 7th Memorial Park in Nairobi. (Photo by USIP)
1 4 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

impacts. Additionally, the evaluators found that some projects with inexperienced facilitators 

tended to avoid diving deep into contentious issues between groups and opted to pursue 

more superficial agreement. 

Insecurity and political instability make up the third hindering factor. Evaluators found that 

more than one-third of the reviewed projects mentioned (in their project reports) the existence 

of a challenging security situation, generally caused by political instability and violent extremism. Insecurity often prompted changes in the implementation of planned activities; in a few 

cases, it made implementation entirely impossible. For example, a project in Pakistan reported 

that several parents asked the project implementers to avoid organizing activities in schools 

due to the risk of attacks. 

Recommendations

Since the adoption of the UNSCR 2250 in 2015, many organizations and stakeholders in the 

youth, peace, and security field have been trying to operationalize the key elements of the 

resolution. Several findings from the meta-review seem pertinent, directly or indirectly, to this 

effort. Members of USIP’s Youth Advisory Council—a group of fourteen youth thought leaders and peacebuilding experts who live and work in conflict-affected communities and provide youth-focused input to USIP programs—carefully mined the meta-review as they devised 

additional recommendations for steps to take toward operationalizing the tenets of UNSCR 

2250.10 The recommendations are divided into two categories: those for youth-serving CSOs, 

and those for funders.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUTH-SERVING CSOs

Based on the review of youth projects, recommendations for civil society are centered around 

engagement, support, and continued development of the field.

Aim to engage youth at higher levels of participation. Sociologist Roger Hart, in his 1997 

book Children’s Participation, identified eight degrees to which young people can be engaged, 

each a rung on what is now known as “Hart’s ladder of participation”—from the “decorative” 

or “token” involvement of young people up through young people actively sharing in decision-making processes with adults.11 While many organizations and initiatives already work on 

participation, one of the five pillars of UNSCR 2250, as both a key principle and outcome, the 

peacebuilding approaches most often employed to ensure participation (the educational and 

peer-to-peer empowerment approaches) are the ones that fall lower on Hart’s participation 

ladder. To achieve better and more sustainable outcomes, practitioners who design, implement, 

and monitor youth programs should aim for the highest rung of the ladder, which rightly places 

young people in the position to co-lead and co-decide. Greater emphasis needs to be put on 

meaningful inclusion. Inclusion should go beyond checking a box to satisfy the desire to “decorate” a project with young people (the second rung on Hart’s ladder); efforts should be made to 

ensure that young people are engaged as partners. This also means that practitioners should 

have a strategy in place to ensure that diverse youth voices are represented, taking note of 

the heterogeneity of youth and their varying needs. The strategy must incorporate measures to 
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 15

include voices of marginalized and minority groups (such as girls and economically disadvantaged youth), going beyond mere representation, while analyzing specific challenges to participation that these groups may face and devising measures to address them.

Focus on learning. As practitioners engage youth from different contexts, it is important that 

experiences and knowledge generated are shared with others through an effective knowledge 

management and reporting system. From the project design phase, guidelines for reporting 

should be clearly defined and communicated to ensure that data generated is useful in better 

understanding youth engagement. All data gathered should also be disaggregated to help project managers learn how much inclusion is being achieved in their youth programming. 

Focus on a blended approach. Each of the five peacebuilding approaches highlighted in this 

report (educational, peer-to-peer empowerment, partnership, participation, and disengagement 

and reintegration) can be valuable by itself, but, as noted earlier, they are most effective when 

used in combination. Practitioners should choose the most appropriate combination depending 

on a project’s goals and context. 

Define a theory of change. Theories of change are fundamental for any successful social 

change initiative, including one focused on youth and peacebuilding. Theories of change describe not only the expected outcomes resulting from an intervention, but also the causal relationship between actions and outcomes, from the short term to the long term. Developing a 

theory of change should therefore be the starting point for anyone involved in either designing 

an initiative or assessing one.

Increase support for youth-driven organizations. In many cases, young people are engaged primarily as individuals with less attention being given to the organizations or initiatives that they run. UNSCR 2250 stresses the need to engage not only individuals but also 

youth-led organizations, groups, and movements. Practitioners who design or support youth 

engagement projects should include, in logical frameworks or performance-monitoring plans, 

specific outcomes, targets, and indicators related to strengthening the organizational capacities of partners or target groups.

Conduct more formal conflict analysis and needs assessments. The meta-review shows 

that youth-serving organizations and practitioners in the youth, peace, and security space 

have a deep knowledge and understanding of the context in which they operate as well as 

the communities they serve. However, they tend to rely heavily on this existing knowledge 

to identify key target groups and their needs, which could lead to blind spots—for example, 

favoring educated over uneducated youth as participants. The evaluators found that only 18 

percent of all projects reviewed were preceded by a formal or explicit conflict analysis. Only 

25 percent had conducted a formal needs assessment. Given these findings, it is clear that 

youth-serving organizations should devote more effort to ensuring that formal needs assessments and conflict analyses are undertaken regularly, especially where recent information 

relating to a specific context or target group is not readily available. This is of particular importance for projects that feature increased capacity as a key outcome. It is also important to 

ensure that the tools used to conduct the assessments are regularly reviewed to ensure their 

continuing relevance and effectiveness.
1 6 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDERS

Based on the review of youth projects, recommendations for funders are centered around cooperation, support, and flexibility.

Partner with youth-led organizations. Although there are many small grant opportunities for 

young people, few of these funding programs have intergenerational cooperation and partnership at their core. Hart’s ladder of participation places this form of partnership at the highest rung 

of the ladder and it has been shown to have many benefits, including creating the space for 

adults and young people to learn from one another and, by understanding the needs and issues 

of different generations, to develop effective and relevant solutions.12 Funders for youth-led or 

youth-driven organizations should include a framework for cross-learning, experience sharing, 

and meaningful partnership between adults and young people. Some important practical tips 

should be considered when carrying out intergenerational work to ensure that it is productive 

and relevant for all involved. These include setting out clear expectations, encouraging differences and creativity, finding common issues of concern across generations, providing mentorship and support, and communicating openly and respectfully.

Sulaiman, an Afghan youth, makes a contribution during a peacebuilding training in

Dharamsala, India, on October 20, 2018. (Photo by USIP)
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 17

Adopt inclusive decision-making and programming approaches. There needs to be a 

more inclusive and transparent method for filling the traditional gap that exists between funders 

and grantees. Grantees often feel the pressure to tailor their project ideas to satisfy funder interests, but this risks neglecting issues that are not high on the funder’s agenda but are important 

for the grantees. Greater attention should be given by funders to learning from those on the 

ground and to mapping strategies jointly with young people who know firsthand what issues 

most affect their lives. This inclusive and meaningful decision-making approach is more likely to 

generate sustainable outcomes.

Provide core funding. Funding programs for youth-led organizations should include allocations for those organizations’ internal capacity. Providing only the funds needed to implement 

a project without helping to support the organization’s running costs (in terms of overhead and 

personnel) can threaten its survival.

Be flexible to meet changing needs. The youth, peace, and security space is dynamic and 

unpredictable. The needs of young people in fragile states are constantly shifting as the sociopolitical and economic situations in those countries change. Funders should include in their strategy 

a plan to continually assess and engage young people in meeting these changing needs.
1 8 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

Notes

1. See UN Security Council (UNSC), Resolution 2250, Youth, Peace, and Security, S/RES/2250 (December 9, 2015), https://undocs

.org/S/RES/2250(2015); and African Union, “African Youth Charter,” 2006, www.au.int/sites/default/files/treaties/7789-treaty

-0033_-_african_youth_charter_e.pdf. 

2. See UNSC, Resolution 2535, Youth, Peace, and Security Biennial Reporting Requirement, S/RES/2535 (July 14, 2020),

https://undocs.org/S/RES/2535(2020); and Resolution 2419, Reaffirmation of the Importance of Youth in Peacebuilding,

S/RES/2419 (June 6, 2018), https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/2419(2018). Resolution 2419 urged stakeholders to facilitate the full

and equal participation of young people in peace and decision-making processes at all levels. The resolution also requested 

the secretary-general to report on the implementation of Resolutions 2250 and 2419 no later than May 2020.

3. United Nations, Agenda Item 65, The Missing Peace: Independent Progress Study on Youth, Peace, and Security, 

A/72/761–S/2018/86, March 2, 2018, https://undocs.org/en/A/72/761.

4. For information about the Agency for Peacebuilding, see www.peaceagency.org/en/.

5. For more information on the United States Institute of Peace’s grants program and its Generation Change Fellows Program, 

see www.usip.org/grants-fellowships/grants and www.usip.org/programs/generation-change-fellows-program, respectively.

6. For an explanation of this methodology, see Better Evaluation, “Contribution Analysis,” www.betterevaluation.org/en/plan

/approach/contribution_analysis.

7. For details of the Generation Change youth grant program, see “USIP Announces New Grants for Youth Peacebuilders,” United 

States Institute of Peace, October 22, 2019, www.usip.org/press/2019/10/usip-announces-new-grants-youth-peacebuilders.

8. See Peter Woodrow and Nick Oatley, “Practical Approaches to Theories of Change in Conflict, Security & Justice Programmes,” 

CDA Collaborative and UK Department for International Development, March 2013, www.cdacollaborative.org/wp-content

/uploads/2016/02/Practical-Approaches-to-Theories-of-Change-Part-I.pdf.

9. Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an approach to enquiry that involves “researchers and participants working together 

to understand a problematic situation and change it for the better” (“Participatory Action Research,” Institute of Development 

Studies, University of Sussex, www.participatorymethods.org/glossary/participatory-action-research). 

10. Three Youth Advisory Council members—Sarra Messaoudi, Mridul Upadhyay, and Abdiweli Waberi—led the process of mining 

the meta-review for recommendations.

11. Roger A. Hart, Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and 

Environmental Care (London: Taylor & Francis, 1997).

12. Ilona Dougherty, “The Youth-Friendly Guide to Intergenerational Decision-Making Partnerships,” National Democratic Institute, 

2004, www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/2061_citpart_youth_010104_5.pdf.
USIP.ORG SPECIAL REPORT 485 19

The United States Institute of Peace is a national, 

nonpartisan, independent institute, founded by Congress 

and dedicated to the proposition that a world without 

violent conflict is possible, practical, and essential for US 

and global security. In conflict zones abroad, the Institute 

works with local partners to prevent, mitigate, and resolve 

violent conflict. To reduce future crises and the need 

for costly interventions, USIP works with governments 

and civil societies to help their countries solve their own 

problems peacefully. The Institute provides expertise, 

training, analysis, and support to those who are working 

to build a more peaceful, inclusive world.

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

Stephen J. Hadley (Chair), Principal, Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC, Washington, DC •

George E. Moose (Vice Chair), Adjunct Professor of Practice, The George Washington 

University, Washington, DC • Judy Ansley, Former Assistant to the President and Deputy 

National Security Advisor under George W. Bush, Washington, DC • Eric Edelman, Roger 

Hertog Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International 

Studies, Washington, DC • Joseph Eldridge, Distinguished Practitioner, School of International 

Service, American University, Washington, DC • Kerry Kennedy, President, Robert F. Kennedy 

Human Rights, Washington, DC • Ikram U. Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC, 

Las Vegas, NV • Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations, 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA • John A. Lancaster, Former Executive Director, National 

Council on Independent Living, Potsdam, NY • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin 

Scalia Law School, George Mason University, Arlington, VA • J. Robinson West, Former 

Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, DC • Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC 

Members Ex Officio

Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State • Mark T. Esper, Secretary of Defense • Frederick J. Roegge, 

Vice Admiral, US Navy; President, National Defense University • Joe Lataille, Acting President; 

Chief Financial Officer, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2 0 SPECIAL REPORT 485 USIP.ORG

2301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 457-1700

www.USIP.org

Since its inception in 1991, the United States Institute of Peace Press has published 

hundreds of influential books, reports, and briefs on the prevention, management, and 

peaceful resolution of international conflicts. All our books and reports arise from research 

and fieldwork sponsored by the Institute’s many programs, and the Press is committed to 

expanding the reach of the Institute’s work by continuing to publish significant and sustainable 

publications for practitioners, scholars, diplomats, and students. Each work undergoes 

thorough peer review by external subject experts to ensure that the research and conclusions 

are balanced, relevant, and sound.

OTHER USIP PUBLICATIONS

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE PRESS

• Why Burma’s Peace Efforts Have Failed to End Its Internal Wars by Bertil Lintner 

(Peaceworks, October 2020)

• China-Venezuela Relations in the Twenty-First Century: From Overconfidence to 

Uncertainty by Matt Ferchen (Special Report, September 2020)

• Digital Inclusion in Mediated Peace Processes: How Technology Can Enhance 

Participation by Andreas T. Hirblinger (Peaceworks, September 2020)

• After the Agreement: Why the Oversight of Peace Deals Succeeds or Fails by Aly Verjee 

(Peaceworks, September 2020)

• Nonviolent Action in Myanmar: Challenges and Lessons for Civil Society and Donors by La Ring, 

Khin Sandar Nyunt, Nist Pianchupat, and Shaazka Beyerle (Special Report, September 2020)