Inception report

Final Evaluation of Youth for Social

Harmony in the Fergana Valley
April 2, 2022
UNDP / UNODC / UNESCO Uzbekistan

Gevorg Torosyan

Azamat Usubaliev

Davlat Uramov

0|Page
INTRODUCTION
This Inception Report is developed in response to the requirements outlined in the Terms of
Reference (ToR) of International and National Consultants for Evaluation of the "Youth for
Social Harmony in the Fergana Valley" Project (the Project).
The report outlines the main purpose of, approaches to, and key deliverables of the final
evaluation exercise. It describes the methodology that will be employed for the measurement
of main evaluation questions and objectives, which are built based on the OECD Development
Assistance Committee evaluation criteria (such as relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
sustainability, and ownership), amended with Project and context-specific dimensions (such as
coherence and conflict-sensitivity catalytic, gender-responsive/gender-sensitive, risk-
tolerance and innovation). Specifically, below are listed the evaluation objectives as defined by
the ToR:
- Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the Project in terms of 1) addressing key
drivers of conflict and the most relevant peacebuilding issues; 2) whether the Project
responded efficiently to the needs of the actual stakeholders and beneficiaries, the
youth or the affected communities in the Fergana Valley; 3) whether the Project
capitalized on the UN's added value in Uzbekistan, 4) the degree to which the Project
addressed cross-cutting issues such as conflict and gender-sensitivity in Uzbekistan; 5)
the extent of the Project financial and/or programmatic catalytic effects;
- Assess to what extent the PBF Project has made a concrete contribution to reducing a
conflict factor in Uzbekistan. With respect to PBF's contribution, the evaluation may
evaluate whether the Project helped advance the achievement of the SDGs, and in
particular, SDG 16;
- Evaluate the Project's efficiency, including its implementation strategy, institutional
arrangements as well as its management and operational systems, and value for money;
- Assess whether the support provided by the PBF has promoted the Women, Peace, and
Security agenda (WPS), allowed a specific focus on women's participation in
peacebuilding processes, and whether it was accountable for gender equality;
- Assess whether the Project has been implemented through a conflict-sensitive
approach;
- Document good practices, innovations, and lessons emerging from the Project;
- Provide actionable recommendations for future programming.
According to the ToR, the evaluation exercise will look into both processes applied during the
Project implementation and the project results. Such a comprehensive approach will allow
drawing a critical opinion of the Theory of Change on the grounds of the Project structure, its
objectives, and targets. It will allow analyzing if the conditionalities considered in the Project
design have held and if the risks and assumptions identified at the design stage were accurate
and if those were properly managed throughout the Project implementation process. Another

1|Page
product of this analysis will be a list of recommendations that might be useful for designing the
next phases of similar programming in Uzbekistan and elsewhere.
To the extent possible, the evaluation exercise will try to analyze the level of "up-to-date"
approaches utilized during the Project implementation, especially in the light of the unique
imperatives of recent years, such as COVID-19.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Evaluation Team renders its appreciation to the UN, UNDP, UNODC, and UNESCO
Uzbekistan and the Project Team for their prompt responsiveness in providing Project
documents needed for the evaluation, lists of beneficiaries for contacting them for primary data
collection, and for helping in understanding the country context.
Special thanks go to the donors, stakeholders, partners, and beneficiaries of the Project for
their time and dedication to providing meaningful information during the data collection stage.
The Evaluation Team recognizes all actors' time and effort to support the evaluation exercise
coordinated by a multi-national team, especially in the circumstances challenged by the
implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2|Page
Contents
I. Acronyms...................................................................................................................................4
II. Project Background....................................................................................................................5
III. Evaluation Approach and Methodology...................................................................................10
Utilization-focused approach.............................................................................................................10
Participatory approach......................................................................................................................10
Hybrid approach................................................................................................................................10
Combined approach..........................................................................................................................10
Methodology.....................................................................................................................................11
IV. Evaluation Timeline..................................................................................................................16
V. Limitations................................................................................................................................17
VI. Final Evaluation Report Structure.............................................................................................18
Annex 1. Logical Framework/Results Chain.......................................................................................21
Annex 2. Evaluation Questions as per the ToR..................................................................................27
Annex 3. Detailed Workplan..............................................................................................................30
Annex 4. Tentative field visit agenda.................................................................................................31
Annex 5. Evaluation Matrix................................................................................................................38
Annex 6. Tentative List of Key Informants.........................................................................................45
Annex 7. KII Questionnaires for Major Stakeholder Groups..............................................................47
Annex 8. KII Protocols........................................................................................................................57
Annex 9. The Architecture of the Coded MS Excel file.......................................................................59
Annex 10. Survey Protocols...............................................................................................................60
Annex 11. Survey Questionnaire.......................................................................................................62
Annex 12. Summarized Primary and Secondary Data Transcription Sample.....................................65
Annex 13. Survey Participants...........................................................................................................66

3|Page
 I. Acronyms
AIQGO Academic Institution and Quasi-Governmental Organization
CGP Central Government Partner
COVID 19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
EA Evaluation Assistant
EC Evaluation Consultant
ET Evaluation Team
ETL Evaluation Team Leader
KI Key Informant
KII Key Informant Interview
LG Local Government
LGP Local Government Partner
NAEMM National Association of Electronic Mass Media
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OECD The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PIMS Project Information Management System
Project "Youth for Social Harmony in the Fergana Valley" Project
PT Project Team
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SMG Small Medium Grant
ToR Terms of Reference
UN PBF The United Nations Peace Building Fund
UNDP The United Nations Development Program
UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNODC The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

4|Page
 II. Project Background
The Project aims to support communities to better adapt to the rapid reform process in
Uzbekistan while enabling local service providers to deliver the reform agenda inclusively. The
Project specifically targets young women and men in the Ferghana Valley. They
disproportionately bear the brunt of Uzbekistan's socioeconomic challenges and may perceive
that they are left behind in the ongoing transformation. The political and economic
transformation comes against the backdrop of a significant demographic shift, with the number
of young people below the age of 30 now comprising 56% of society. 1 At the same time, young
people in Uzbekistan experience differentiated levels of political, social, and economic
inclusion, which is also impacted by the ongoing transformation.
The geographic choice of the Project is conditioned by the fact that young women and men in
the Ferghana Valley face distinct political, social, and economic challenges that the
transformation may impact. The fertile valley is shared between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and
Kyrgyzstan, often featuring densely populated and multi-ethnic settlements. The valley has
witnessed disputes across communities and countries 2 and faced challenges emanating from
violent extremist groups that emerged in the immediate post-independence period. 3
Additionally, Fergana was ranked the fourth highest-ranking area regarding crimes per 100.000
people. Namangan and Andijan fared a little bit better in comparison. However, the three
regions ranked in the top 5 in terms of the proportion of juvenile criminal offenses. 4 Working-
level consultations with counterparts, such as the Ministry of Public Education, revealed a
concern with juvenile delinquency and anti-social behavior patterns, such as school bullying.
This initiative aligns with national priorities. The Government of Uzbekistan has recently
adopted the decree on "On measures to implement the national goals and objectives in
sustainable development for the period until 2030". The Five-Area Development Strategy for
2017-2021, noted to be largely in line with the SDGs, prioritizes a number of areas pertaining to
the proposed PBF intervention, including Priority Area 5.1 on security, religious tolerance, and
inter-ethnic harmony, Priority Area 4.5 on improving the state youth policy, Priority Area 4.2 on
improving the social security system and health care, enhancing the socio-political activity of
women, Priority Area 1.3 on improving the public management system, and Priority Area 2.4 on
improving the system for fighting crime and crime prevention, which emphasizes the
importance of improving the legal culture and legal awareness of the population, organizing
effective cooperation between government bodies and civil society institutions, the mass media
in this field, as well as priority areas 2.2 on providing guarantees to the protection of rights and
freedoms of citizens, and 2.5 on strengthening the rule of law in the judicial system.
1
UNESCO (2018) “TVET Policy Review Uzbekistan”
2
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/central-asia-tensions-grow-fergana-valley
3
The World Bank (2019) “Project appraisal document on a proposed loan in the amount of US$200 million to the
Republic of Uzbekistan for a Ferghana valley rural enterprise development Project”
4
Ibid.

5|Page
Major structural reforms touching all political, economic, and social spheres are being
introduced for the first time after 27 years of tightly centralized governance. The public has
welcomed the reform process. Diplomatic relations between Uzbekistan and its neighbors have
improved positively, impacting interethnic relations in border areas. In the long run, these
reforms can provide the bedrock for new job creation and national prosperity on the economic
front and a more inclusive means of governance on the political front underpinned by the rule
of law and equal access to justice.
In the short run, however, some of the forthcoming reforms may create socio-economic
challenges, such as increasing prices of consumption goods and the inability to adapt to
changing legal and regulatory frameworks, which might hamper the positive trajectory of the
reform agenda. If members of the community, particularly young people, do not perceive that
the reforms are producing equal opportunities for all, and if there are not sufficient
mechanisms to ensure that communities can raise their concerns with local officials and engage
in dialogue about decisions that influence their lives, then this may reduce their optimism
towards the ongoing reform process. Similarly, if local service providers are not equipped with
skills, approaches, and tools to ensure that reforms are delivered inclusive and with adherence
to the rule of law, these challenges may be exacerbated further.
Recent reforms undertaken to liberalize the economy, modernize the banking system (including
liberalization of the currency exchange rate), and attract foreign investment, have led to a
significant devaluation of the Uzbek sum against the dollar, 5 with a visible impact on people’s
purchasing power.6 Consumer prices increased by 17.7% in 2018, and the inflation rate was
marked at 13.2%, driven primarily by sharp increases in food prices as high as 20%. 7
While trust towards the reform agenda spearheaded by the Office of the President remains
high, with upwards of 90% optimism across all socio-economic and urban/rural segments
towards the country’s economic future and almost universal confidence that the country is on
the right track on social, political, and economic issues according to World Bank findings, 8 the
economic challenges experienced over the last year have, nevertheless, resulted in sizeable
portions of the population reporting worsening financial conditions, lack of optimism for the
future and life dissatisfaction, with risks increasing at the bottom, especially among those that
are poorer, receiving social benefits, worried about jobs and living in urban areas. 9

5
https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=UZS&to=USD&view=2Y
6
This is exemplified by Gross National Income per capita calculated by the World Bank’s Atlas method shrinking
from USD 2,660 in 2016 to USD 2,020 in 2018: https://data.worldbank.org/country/uzbekistan
7
Economist Intelligence Unit forecast, dated 26 February 2019.
8
Seitz, W. (2019) “Listening to the Citizens of Uzbekistan: Baselines Results” The World Bank, accessible at
http://l2cu.strategy.uz/files/27/L2CU_RTable1@7%20(3).pdf
9
Seitz, W. (2019) “Listening to the Citizens of Uzbekistan: Baselines Results” The World Bank, accessible at
http://l2cu.strategy.uz/files/27/L2CU_RTable1@7%20(3).pdf

6|Page
There is a risk that the pace and depth of reforms implemented by the government of
Uzbekistan will not match the demographic change and expectations of young people, who
make up 56% of the population. To absorb these cohorts of young people, the government
needs to carry out qualitative change in the investment climate, business environment, and
competitiveness of the economy on the global market. As the conditions of every community
are different, some communities and regions may be in a better position to adapt to the
changes brought by the reform process in a manner inclusive of the needs of young people,
whereas others may not be able to experience the direct benefits of the reforms immediately.
Especially if public services are not delivered inclusively and transparently, young people in
these communities may experience a sense of injustice or believe that they do not have the
opportunity to self-fulfillment and contribute to society.
Similarly, while the reforms create conditions for enhanced dialogue in the public space,
combatting corruption and better human rights practices, it is important to provide support to
decision-makers - particularly local administrations – to implement their functions in line with
universal human rights standards and the rule of law. Important initiatives to change the
working methods of the police have been launched. Those initiatives require further support to
promote community policing rather than approaches that are not sensitive to the population's
needs or not compliant with human rights standards and the rule of law. 10 There are currently
3,900 registered lawyers in the country, mostly based in Tashkent. Lawyers outside of the
capital may not have the adequate numbers and capacity to assist citizens with their issues, 11
which may create additional challenges in light of rapidly changing legal and regulatory
frameworks as part of the reform process. Improving access to justice and ensuring that the
implementation of reforms is inclusive and responsive to the population's needs in its diversity
would help strengthen the social cohesion and harmony of the country and improve trust and
confidence in the reform process.
At a time when the reforms are creating visible socio-economic change in the short term, the
country’s social protection system remains both fragmented and inefficient. Moreover, the
state budget is experiencing increased pressure on the fulfillment of social obligations, such as a
20% increase in the number of recipients of social benefits in the 2019 fiscal year and a 4.5 fold
increase in the number of social support allowances, financial assistance, and benefits,
emanating from both the increasing number of recipients, the increase in the amount of child
support assistance, as well as compensation for increases in flour and bread prices, in addition
to further increasing expenditures on promoting employment, supporting youth and women. 12

10
In 2017, 4518 police officers were dismissed, 966 of whom for misconduct, such as bribery and abuse of office.
Cases of police misconduct are reported at regular intervals in the media. E.g. https://www.repost.uz/bespredel-v-
pogonah.
11
A survey among lawyers conducted by the Chamber of Advocates revealed relatively high levels of harassment of
lawyers and violations of their rights by law enforcement and judicial bodies.
https://www.gazeta.uz/ru/2019/02/04/advocacy

7|Page
As the reform process unfolds, the importance of and need for social protection and protection
of human rights increases. While the “development of the social sphere” has been identified
among the government’s priorities for 2017-2021, the country lacks an effective and responsive
social service system and workforce. Welcome government initiatives to ensure citizen
inclusion, engagement, and redress, such as public and virtual receptions established by the
President as part of his Year of Dialogue with the People initiative, have resulted in an average
of 100.000 inquiries per month.13 The current complaints system includes traditional paper-
based as well as online applications for high-level public officials (including the President and
Prime Minister). Ministries and agencies operate hotlines. There are many examples of positive
decisions. However, the current system cannot effectively respond to a large number of
applications due to a lack of capacity. This may result in solutions that do not fully satisfy the
applicant's demands in a just and timely manner. The low level of legal literacy and awareness
among segments of the population and particularly young people, also creates additional
challenges, such as complaints addressed to the incorrect State bodies or without sufficient
legal basis, which results in both people’s concerns not being resolved and create an additional
burden on the legal system. Furthermore, there haven’t been sufficient communication and
feedback mechanisms to enable young people to communicate better with law enforcement
and ensure better access to justice.
This Project builds on the premise that in light of the government's political and economic
reforms and increased willingness to engage with the international community a) supporting
community resilience by empowering youth as actors of positive change, b) assisting the ability
of the government to build and deliver reform and services inclusively, and c) creating platforms
between youth and local administrations that allow meaningful participation in decision making
at this critical juncture will help strengthen social cohesion and sustain peace through
increasing horizontal and vertical trust. This will help ensure that no one is left behind in the
reform processes in the long run by facilitating service delivery and development policy
informed by local needs and priorities and implemented fairly and transparently.
The Project builds on the following Theory of Change:
- IF young people from diverse backgrounds are equipped with key competencies and
opportunities to constructively participate in community life and act as key agents of
change;
- IF young people have increased access to skills and knowledge that foster their
employability and entrepreneurship and positively influence attitudes to prevent anti-
social behavior;
- IF cooperation platforms are created between young people and local administrations
and inclusive public service delivery is improved;

12
Government of Uzbekistan “Citizens’ Budget 2019” developed within the framework of UNDP and the Ministry
of Finance of Uzbekistan “Support to Public Finance Management Reforms in Uzbekistan” Project.
13
https://blogs.worldbank.org/europeandcentralasia/creating-dialogue-and-citizen-engagement-initial-observations-
uzbekistan

8|Page
 - AND IF duty bearers have the skills and approaches necessary to address the needs of
vulnerable youth based on the rule of law and a fair and humane justice system;
- THEN cooperation and trust between young people and the national and local
government are strengthened in support of the national reform agenda, and THEN
youth will have an increased ability to influence their conditions, a sense of belonging to
their communities, and confidence in the government/public services and THEN
dialogue mechanisms at the community level will be enhanced allowing young people
entry points to act as decision-makers in their communities and apply their skills to
make their communities more resilient to conflict and sustain peace;
- BECAUSE the potential of youth for constructive engagement in political, economic, and
social life will be harnessed, and young people will have the opportunity to act as
positive change agents in a period of key societal and economic transformation, thereby
strengthening social cohesion by leaving no one behind and ensuring a more equitable
distribution of reform benefits.
This theory of change is then put into the logical framework/results chain, which outlines the
main outcome and outputs that the Project intended to achieve as per the original design (see
Annex 1).

III. Evaluation Approach and Methodology

The Evaluation Team has defined several key elements of the evaluation approach.

9|Page
Utilization-focused approach
The evaluation will be based on a consultative and iterative approach, which aims to increase:
a) Team's collaboration with UNDP to clarify the expectations and objectives of the evaluation;
and b) the relevance and inclusion of recommendations by stakeholders.
Due consideration has been made for this in the choice of data collection methods and a
sample of stakeholders in the evaluation.

Participatory approach
The evaluation will also be participatory and allow key stakeholders (UNDP, UNODC, UNESCO,
and UN PBF) to provide input in the evaluation design and reflect and validate the findings
emerging from the data collection. To achieve this, the Evaluation Team will consult UNDP and
the Project Team throughout the process and present information clearly and concisely. The
Evaluation Team will also ensure that it has understood the information imparted by
participants through probing and additional questions if necessary and summarizing the points
made during the interviews to validate the information. Participants in the evaluation will be
invited to provide additional information as they feel relevant to the evaluation. Ensuring the
participation of evaluation participants is not only a matter of ethics but also of utility, as it
fosters the appropriation and buy-in of findings, conclusions, and recommendations among
stakeholders.

Hybrid approach
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated difficulties for international travel, the
evaluation will be conducted using a hybrid approach. The inception and report writing stages
will be delivered remotely, while during the KII stage, the Evaluation Team will be based in
Uzbekistan. Stakeholders and beneficiaries to be interviewed will be divided among the
Evaluation Team members.

Combined approach
The methodology to be employed by the Evaluation Team combines methods of both primary
and secondary data collection, review, and analysis. This will ensure comprehensive
understanding and examination of the Project and allow multi-dimensional findings to the
evaluation questions. In addition, qualitative and quantitative methods will be employed that
will enable a more effective triangulation of data generated through various sources and
informants.

10 | P a g e
Methodology
The Evaluation Team has thoroughly analyzed the evaluation questions outlined in the ToR (see
Annex 2) and the indicators set in the Results Framework. Based on this analysis, the evaluation
methodology has been designed that reflects upon the Theory of Change and Results
Framework and the key evaluation dimensions as per the OECD Development Assistance
Committee guidelines.
For ease of analysis and reference in the final evaluation report, the evaluation questions are
grouped into specific indicators as per the main dimensions of relevance, effectiveness
(including indicators from the Results Framework), efficiency, sustainability and ownership, and
coherence. The additional evaluation criteria outlined in the ToR, which are conflict-sensitivity,
catalytic, gender-responsiveness/gender-sensitivity, risk tolerance, and innovation, are merged
and inter-woven into the instruments designed for the main evaluation dimensions.
As for the effectiveness and efficiency indicators, the intentional focus will be drawn on the fact
that the Project was implemented in the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, which greatly
limited the mobility of the Project Team and activity. In that regard, the Evaluation Team
intends to analyze the ad hoc systems and mechanisms employed to implement the Project
successfully.
To ensure the quality of the evaluation process, the Evaluation Team developed an evaluation
matrix, which provides a comprehensive and detailed outline of data sources and data
collection methods for each evaluation question (see Annex 5). Data will be collected from
secondary and primary data sources.

Secondary data sources

The secondary data sources include:
- Project design document,
- Programmatic reports,
- Financial reports,
- Research papers,
- UNDP country and regional reports,
- Government-approved country/sectoral development strategies,
- Reports developed by donor partners.

Primary data sources

11 | P a g e
The Project beneficiaries are conditionally divided into two main groups: direct (final) and
indirect beneficiaries. Direct or final beneficiaries are the young men and women in Fergana
Valley, who were directly targeted by the Project under Output 1.1 and Output 1.2. The young
people constitute the backbone of communities in the Fergana Valley – the highest level and
the most critical grouping of beneficiaries referenced in the expected project impact (as defined
by ProDoc). In addition, the project outcome depicts the young people as the main actors of
positive change with improved mechanisms to participate equally in the political, economic,
and social life of their communities.
The Evaluation Team will reach the final beneficiaries with the survey instrument. Accordingly,
a higher number of young men and women supported by the Project will be contacted to assess
their opinion on the outputs and outcomes that the Project has generated. Also, this will allow
evaluating of the end-of Project value of the Outcome level indicators designed to measure
attitude and behavior changes that happened during the Project implementation. However, any
attribution or contribution analysis will not be possible given the limited resources and lack of
baseline information.
Local administrators, educators, and duty barriers supported/targeted by activities under
Output 1.3 and Output 1.4 of the Project are categorized as indirect beneficiaries. These
beneficiaries act as conduits for inclusive service delivery for the benefit of young people (final
beneficiaries) and the engagement of youth (final beneficiaries) as changemakers, thereby
building community resilience.
The indirect beneficiaries will be reached through qualitative methods, primarily through KII.
This will enrich the evaluation findings with deeper information, insight, and perspective
thinking of how this group of beneficiaries is and will be changing their practice for the benefit
of the final beneficiaries.
The proposed data collection approach is also aligned with the availability of contact
information for the referenced two groups of beneficiaries. Contact information for individual
beneficiaries was made available, primarily for direct beneficiaries (Telegram groups).
Meanwhile, the contact information for individuals from indirect beneficiary groups was scarce.

Qualitative data collection and analysis: KII and direct observations

Key Informant Interviews (KII) will be conducted with key stakeholders/counterparts of the
Project, donor partners, and the UN agencies/Project Team. For that purpose, these actors are
divided into respective groups of:
- Central government representatives,
- Local government representatives,
- Academic institutions and quasi-governmental organizations,
- Non-governmental organizations,
12 | P a g e
 - Project Team and donors.
The Evaluation Team developed separate Questionnaires for each major stakeholder group (see
Annex 7). First, the KII Questionnaires will be piloted with 4-5 stakeholders (and if needed,
updated) to ensure that the questions the Evaluation Team asks are understood by key
informants and serve the purpose of the evaluation. Tentatively, a total of 60 KII are planned to
be conducted. See Annex 6 for detailed distribution of KII per group of stakeholders. The final
number of KII will depend on the availability of KI for the interview. The Team Leader and Local
Consultant will spend ten working days each in the field (cumulative level of effort of 20
working days) to ensure the highest possible number of planned KII is conducted, as well as the
best quality of data collection, coding, cleaning and further analysis is maintained. The Team
Leader will interview KII in Tashkent, primarily, while the Evaluation Consultant will interview
the stakeholders in Ferghana14. Direct beneficiaries will be included in the group of key
informants to provide additional nuance by engaging the final beneficiaries of the project in the
structured interviewing process. The detailed field visit agendas of the Team Leader and the
Evaluation Consultant are presented in Annex 4. Online interviews will be scheduled to
accommodate the time requirements of the Key Informants, should some of KI not be reached
during the period when the Team Leader and the Local Consultant are not in Uzbekistan for
some outstanding reasons (e.g., unavailability of the Government officials during the period of
the field stage),
A detailed description of qualitative data collection protocols during KII is outlined in Annex 8.
To analyze the data/results of KII, the Evaluation Team will upload summarized interview
transcripts in a Microsoft Excel file (see Annex 9), assign codes for major stakeholder groups
(CGP, LGP, AIQGO, NGOs, and PT), host regions (Andijan, Namangan, or Ferghana), the scope of
interventions (country or regional), data sources, etc. The Evaluation Team will use the codified
data entries of KII responses for pattern analysis in the next step.
Direct observations of respective Project outputs will be another source of qualitative data with
proper video/photo documentation15. The Evaluation Team will utilize the following protocols
for collecting data during direct observations: taking detailed field notes that were recorded in
Evaluators' field notebook; (although typically textual notes), taking photo/video recordings of
outreach/awareness-raising documents, other beneficiary-provided documentation, visual
confirmation of delivered activities, etc.; expanding those notes within 24 hours; transcribing
them into the laptop and grouping them with the archive of written KII notes.
14
Recently, the Team Leader and the Evaluation Consultant utilized the same modality for a performance
evaluation commissioned by another donor. The referenced experience and the established, standardized and
scrutinized KII protocols (see Annex 8 and Annex 9) will ensure the highest standards of data collection (interview)
and analysis.
15
The Evaluation Team will utilize the following when conducting direct observations: taking detailed field notes
that were recorded in Evaluators' field notebook; although typically textual notes, data also taking photo/video
recording and beneficiary-provided documentation (financial statements, pr/outreach/awareness raising
documents); expanding those notes within 24 hours; transcribing them into the laptop and adding them to the
archive of written interview notes.

13 | P a g e
Quantitative data collection and analysis: survey
A survey will be conducted with direct beneficiaries of the Project, namely young men and
women in the Fergana Valley. To ensure the gender-inclusive and gender-sensitive nature of
collected information, special attention will be given to surveying beneficiaries involved in
activities that target solely or primarily women. The survey participants will be offered an
opportunity to mark their gender in the survey questionnaire, thus enabling the Evaluation
Team to embed the gender disaggregation into the survey results.
The survey sample size is a function of the number of direct beneficiaries targeted by respective
Project activities. At the moment of finalizing this inception report, the Evaluation Team
received incomplete information about the total number of beneficiaries and the availability of
contact information for those beneficiaries.
As of April 1, 2022, the Evaluation Team did not have access to the contact information of
several beneficiary groups involved in the following activities delivered by the Project: Training
for life skill programs, Seven youth initiatives in Fergana Valley, Volunteers, Dialogue with
young woman, and Training of Youth Union representatives (see Annex 13). Fragmented and/or
incomplete contact information was made available for beneficiaries involved in the other five
activities. Due to contact information limitations, the Evaluation Team will utilize the
convenience sampling approach during the survey. In inconvenience sampling, the prime
consideration is accessibility. Only those easily reached by interviewers will be included in the
sample.
The survey questionnaire consists of close-ended questions pertaining to the Project's
relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability (see Annex 11). The questionnaire will be tested
with five beneficiaries in the initial stage to ensure that the surveyees understand the questions
and contribute to the evaluation results. The survey questionnaire will be translated into Uzbek
and Russian languages to avoid language bias or ensure the engagement of all potential
respondents.
Data collection will be conducted via Kobo16, an open-source data collection platform, by
distributing the web link for the questionnaire primarily through Telegram channels/groups
emails. The Evaluation Team will upload raw data to a Microsoft Excel file and/or KoBo to
analyze the survey data to further analyze and integrate findings into the evaluation report. A
detailed description of data collection protocols during the survey is outlined in Annex 10.

Data triangulation

16
Proposed by the UNDP team

14 | P a g e
To summarize the findings of the primary and secondary data (both qualitative and
quantitative) analysis activities, the Evaluation Team will complement key findings of KII
questions (complemented by direct observations) with the records of survey and desk review
findings (see Annex 12). Triangulation of data generated from both secondary and primary data
sources, including KII and survey, will be the final exercise of data analysis. It will be reflected in
the evaluation report to illustrate how various data do support or vary within a range of
responses.

Confidentiality and Personal Data Protection

Once the Project Team provides the contacts of the survey participants, those will immediately
be coded as separate entries into an Excel file. The file will then be used to enter the survey
results and analysis.
The confidentiality of survey subjects will be protected in full, including the protection of
identifying information.

15 | P a g e
 IV. Evaluation Timeline
The following timeline is suggested as part of this Inception Report (see the table below). The
detailed evaluation work plan is presented in Annex 3, while the tentative field visit agenda of
the Evaluation Team members – in Annex 4.
# Deliverable Timing Responsibilities

1 Draft Inception Report March 28, 2022 Evaluation Team

Commentary to the Draft

2 April 4, 2022 UNDP
Evaluation report

3 Final Evaluation Report April 11, 2022 Evaluation Team

Presentation/validation of
4 preliminary findings to relevant in- May 23, 2022 Evaluation Team
country stakeholders and PBF

5 Draft Evaluation Report June 20, 2022 Evaluation Team

Commentary to the Draft

6 July 4, 2022 UNDP
Evaluation report

7 Final Evaluation Report July 18, 2022 Evaluation Team

UNDP, Evaluation
8 Audit Trail August 5, 2022
Team

16 | P a g e
 V. Limitations
Several limitations should be documented as part of this Inception Report. These limitations
should be taken into account to set the right scope of expectations both during the evaluation
by the Evaluation Team and after the evaluation – by the client. The main limitations identified
at this point are:
- There is no baseline value set at the start of the Project, particularly for the two
indicators at the Outcome level, which are formulated to demonstrate perception and
attitude change. This fact limits the Evaluation Team's ability to conduct a comparative
analysis to demonstrate the pre-and post-intervention situation. However, the
evaluation tools (particularly the survey questionnaire) are designed to enable some of
this analysis.
- At the time of submission of this report, limited (incomplete amount of) contact
information of potential Key Informants (KI) and survey participants was made available
to the Evaluation Team.

17 | P a g e
 VI. Final Evaluation Report Structure
As stipulated by the ToR, the content of the Evaluation Report will include:
i. Title page
- Title of UNDP-supported PBF-financed Project
- UNDP PIMS ID and PBF ID
- Evaluation timeframe and date of final evaluation report
- Region and countries included in the Project
- PBF Focal Area/Strategic Program
- Executing Agency, Implementing partner and other Project partners
- Evaluation Team members
ii. Acknowledgments
iii. Table of Contents
iv. Acronyms and Abbreviations
1. Executive Summary (3-4 pages)
- Project Information Table
- Project Description (brief)
- Evaluation Rating Table
- Concise Summary of findings, conclusions, and lessons learned
- Recommendations' summary table
2. Introduction (2-3 pages)
- Purpose and objective of the evaluation
- Scope
- Methodology
- Data Collection & Analysis
- Ethics
- Limitations to the evaluation
- Structure of the evaluation report
3. Project Description (3-5 pages)
- Project start and duration, including milestones
- Development context: environmental, socioeconomic, institutional, and policy
factors relevant to the Project objective and scope
- Problems that the Project sought to address, threats and barriers targeted
- Immediate and development objectives of the Project
- Expected results
- Main stakeholders: summary list
- Theory of Change
4. Findings

18 | P a g e
 (in addition to a descriptive assessment, all criteria marked with must be given a
rating17)
4.1 Project Design/Formulation
-Analysis of Results Framework: Project logic and strategy, indicators
-Assumptions and Risks
-Lessons from other relevant Projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into
Project design
- Planned stakeholder participation
- Linkages between Project and other interventions within the sector
4.1 Project Implementation
- Adaptive management (changes to the Project design and Project outputs during
implementation)
- Actual stakeholder participation and partnership arrangements
- Project Finance and Co-finance
- Evaluation: design at entry, implementation, and overall assessment of
evaluation
- UNDP implementation/oversight and Implementing Partner execution, overall
Project implementation/execution, coordination, and operational issues
- Risk Management, including Social and Environmental Standards (Safeguards)
4.2 Project Results and Impacts
- Progress towards objective and expected outcomes
- Relevance
- Effectiveness
- Efficiency
- Overall Outcome
- Sustainability: financial, socioeconomic, institutional framework and governance,
environmental, and overall likelihood
- Country ownership
- Gender equality and women's empowerment
- Cross-cutting Issues
- PBF Additionality
- Catalytic/Replication Effect
- Progress to Impact
5. Main Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons
- Main Findings
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Lessons Learned
6. Annexes
17
See ToR Annex F for rating scales.

19 | P a g e
- Evaluation ToR (excluding ToR annexes)
- Evaluation Mission itinerary, including Summary of field visits
- List of persons interviewed
- List of documents reviewed
- Evaluation Question Matrix (evaluation criteria with key questions, indicators,
sources of data, and methodology)
- The questionnaire used and Summary of results
- Co-financing tables (if not included in the body of the report)
- Evaluation Rating scales
- Signed Evaluation Consultant Agreement form
- Signed UNEG Code of Conduct form
- Annexed in a separate file: Evaluation Audit Trail

20 | P a g e
 Annex 1. Logical Framework/Results Chain
At the impact level, the Project has defined the following goal: The reform agenda is
able to benefit the communities in the Fergana Valley in an inclusive manner, which
improves community resilience and harmony and the ability of the population to
benefit from the reforms. The below objectives were designed to contribute to the
impact level change:
Outcomes and Performance Indicators Indicator Targets and Milestones
Outputs Baseline (initial as per Project
Document)

Outcome 1: Young Indicator 1.1: Rate of young people expressing N/A At least 25% of Project
people can act as confidence in their self-efficacy, agency, beneficiaries display
actors of positive community participation, socioeconomic improvements in attitudes
change and have inclusion and sense of belonging. Share of youth and perceptions 65%.
the mechanisms to (women and men) considering themselves as
ensure inclusive citizens who are capable to positively influence
service delivery to the policy of local administrations and
build community responsible for community resilience.
resilience in a
period of political Indicator 1.2: Number of official decisions, N/A At least 2
and economic resolutions of the Fergana region administrations decisions/resolutions of one
transformation adopted based on proposals of Fergana youth of the khokimiyats from
initiatives. Fergana region, including 1
based on young women
initiative.

Indicator 1.3: Number of youth initiatives N/A 15 initiatives, at least 5 that

focusing on civic engagement and community are led by young women,
development initiated through the Project and are sustained 6 months
sustained beyond the Project lifecycle. The after the Project
proportion of citizens satisfied by the work, termination through local
attitude and ethics of public servants of state budgets or other
knokimiyats and social protection divisions of sources of funding.
three districts of Fergana valley. Increment of satisfaction
rate increased by 25
percentage points during
the Project implementation
period.

Indicator 1.4: Number of meetings/community N/A The Project has created the
dialogues/town hall discussions/consultations demand within the
held between youth and duty bearers without community and duty
the direct intervention of the Project. bearers to sustain and
utilize dialogue platforms
created by the Project
without the direct

21 | P a g e
 involvement of RUNO
engagement.
Output 1.1: Young Indicator 1.1: Number of public initiatives and 20 initiatives announced or
N/A
people are Projects regarding most urgent needs of regional exposed for public
equipped with development at local level, proposed and discussion.
capacities and promoted by youth for public discussions in mass
knowledge that media.
foster their civic
participation and Indicator 1.1.1: Number of young women and - 35 young women and 65
N/A
socioeconomic men who have successfully completed the young men have
inclusion trainings. successfully completed the
trainings.
Number of young women and men who have
participated in summer camps. - Quarterly reports.

- Participant's registry
records.

- Photo and video footage

of completion event.

Indicator 1.1.2: Number of youth union - 45 women and 75 men

N/A
representatives who have successfully from youth unions have
completed the trainings. successfully completed the
trainings.

- Quarterly reports.

- Participants register
records.

- Photo and video footage

of the completion event.

Indicator 1.1.3: Number of youth union 50 young women and 50

N/A
representatives who have successfully young men have
completed the trainings. successfully completed the
trainings.

Indicator 1.1.4: Number of small grant Projects - 10 SM Projects received

N/A
received the funding. the funding, including 3
proposed by women.

- 20 SM Projects
successfully are
accomplished, or launched /
provided outputs, including
8 proposed by women.

Indicator 1.1.6: Endorsed and reproduced Guide 1. Developed and endorsed

N/A
for the School leavers "Getting a Job in GUIDE in Uzbek and Russian
Uzbekistan and Globally" [GUIDE] (title is subject languages;

22 | P a g e
 to change). 2. Online version of the
Guide in Uzbek and Russian
languages is functional and
hosted by the MoPE; Print
versions in Uzbek-5,000 (1
copy per school); and in
Russian-1,000.

Indicator 1.1.7: Number of assessments Assessment with 2100

0
conducted in Andijan, Fergana and Namangan conducted in Andijan,
regions. Fergana and Namangan
regions. 5 Capacity Building
workshops on MIL in
Fergana Valley.

Indicator 1.2: Number of initiatives discussed 10 initiatives are discussed

Output 1.2: Young N/A
with local administrations and officials on the on round tables. 5
people are
round tables organized by local youth activists. initiatives are discussed via
provided with
online or tv broadcasted
opportunities to Number of initiatives, discussed via tv or online
round tables.
constructively broadcasted round tables.
participate in
decision making, Indicator 1.2.1: Number of hubs established and 3 hubs are established and
N/A
socio-political life operational. operational till July 1, 2021.
and act as key 150 monthly visitors, on
Average monthly number of visitors.
agents of change average for each hub.

Indicator 1.2.2: Number of public awareness At least 6 campaigns held

N/A
raising campaigns held on the occasion of UN by July 1, 2021.
days.

Indicator 1.2.3: Number of small grant - 60 SMG youth

N/A
infrastructural Projects initiated by youth. infrastructural Projects
received the funding,
including 20 proposed by
women.

- 60 SMG youth
infrastructural Projects
successfully are
accomplished, or launched /
provided outputs, including
20 proposed by women.

Indicator 1.2.4: Number of civic engagement At least 20 initiatives,

N/A
initiatives initiated by youth. including 30% proposed by
women.

Indicator 1.2.5: Volunteerism is provided with a - Draft legal acts enabling

N/A
legal base. formal launch of volunteers'
organizations are prepared
Number of television and online broadcasted
and submitted for the

23 | P a g e
 round tables and open discussions conducted. attention of national
partners.
Number of regional volunteer organizations
established. - Mass-media promotion
strategy on volunteerism is
developed and adopted by
national partners.

- At least 4 television and

online broadcasted round
tables and open discussions
conducted.

- At least 4 promo-video
footage is prepared.

- At least 1 regional
volunteer organization
established.

Indicator 1.3: The rate of successful completion Above 75% of training

Output 1.3: The N/A
of the trainings delivered to public servants at participants-public servants
capacity of local
three districts of Fergana valley. from three districts of
administrators and
Fergana region have
educators to
successfully completed each
implement
of the training courses.
government
policies and Indicator 1.3.1: Analytical report elaborated. - Conflict analysis is
ensure inclusive N/A
prepared.
public service Number of surveys, consultations and
delivery is discussions conducted. - At least 3 rounds of
improved consultations and expert
discussions are conducted.

- At least 2 surveys are

conducted (e.g.,
victimization survey,
corruption risk assessment).

Indicator 1.3.2: Number of schools apply new 18 pilot schools.

N/A
competency-based school curricula.

Indicator 1.3.3: Number of guides and course 300 set of teacher training
N/A
materials developed. consisting of course
materials in digital and hard
copies.

Indicator 1.3.4: Number of policy makers, - Andijan – 100;

N/A
teachers and educators trained in Andijan,
- Namangan – 100;
Fergana and Namangan.
- Fergana – 100.

Indicator 1.3.5: Number of civil servants - At least 300 civil servants

N/A

24 | P a g e
 covered. are trained.

Number of government agencies delegated - At least 20 government

servants for trainings. agencies delegated servants
for training. Over 70% of
Successful training completion rate.
trainees have successfully
completed training
programs. All training
modules are available
online for registered public
servants.

Indicator 1.3.6: Number of young women and At least 450, including 50%
N/A
men reached by life skills programs. young women and girls.

Indicator 1.3.7: Number of policy papers - At least 1 policy paper

N/A
elaborated. elaborated on conflict
analysis is prepared.
Number of consultations and discussions
conducted. - At least 3 rounds of
Whether a draft national plan of action on consultations and expert
alignment of public service protocols to human discussions are conducted.
rights standards is developed.
- Draft national plan of
action is developed.

Indicator 1.4.: Number of participatory and At least 6 in 6 pilot

Output 1.4: Duty N/A
inclusive youth prevention plans developed and municipalities in 3 provinces
bearers have the
implemented. of Fergana Valley.
skills and
approaches Indicator 1.4.1: Number of participatory At least 12 in 6 pilot
necessary to N/A
consultations held. municipalities.
address the needs
of vulnerable Indicator 1.4.2: Number of police officers Number of police officers
N/A
youth on the basis trained. trained.
of rule of law and
Indicator 1.4.3: Number of communication and At least 2.
a fair and humane N/A
feedback mechanisms targeting youth created.
justice system
Indicator 1.4.4: Number of lawyers trained to At least 60 from 3 provinces
N/A
provide legal support to young women and men. of Fergana Valley.

Indicator 1.4.5: Number of information materials At least 3000 copies of

N/A
disseminated. brochures and leaflets
disseminated.

Indicator 1.4.6: Number of prosecutors trained At least 60 from 3 provinces

N/A
to strengthen their communication skills, of Fergana Valley.
effectiveness and transparency in handling
complaints and grievances of young women and
men in targeted areas.

Indicator 1.4.7 (1): October 1, 2020 Training At least 12 initiatives (2 per

N/A

25 | P a g e
program developed January 1, 2021 Training plan in 6 municipalities
conducted. and/or broader policy level
initiatives on human rights
and anti-corruption in the
Fergana Valley).

Indicator 1.4.7 (2): Number of practical guides 1 guide in Uzbek language.

0
developed on preventing corruption in the
education system of Fergana valley (continuum
of indicator 1.3.1.2.

Indicator 1.4.7 (3): UNESCO- number of trained - 30 persons (key

0
key stakeholders on anti-corruption policies and stakeholders).
practices in the education system of Fergana
valley (continuum of indicator 1.3.1(2)).

26 | P a g e
Annex 2. Evaluation Questions as per the ToR
The evaluation will take into account criteria such as relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
sustainability and ownership, coherence, conflict-sensitivity, catalytic,
gender-responsive/gender-sensitive, risk-tolerance and innovation to review the final results
and progress of the Project. The list of evaluation questions referenced in the TOR is presented
below.
Relevance:
- Was the Project relevant in addressing issues of unemployment among youth and
gender inequality that were identified as driving factors of tensions in a conflict
analysis? Were there any substantial background changes that impacted the relevance
of Project goals and approach?
- Did the Project meet the needs of the stakeholders and beneficiaries and was it relevant
to national priorities set in the sphere of youth policy?
- Was the Project appropriate and strategic to assist the government in mitigating the
socioeconomic challenges that the young women and men may face during the
reforms? Did relevance continue throughout implementation?
- How were stakeholders involved in the Project's design and implementation?
- Was the Project relevant to the UN's peacebuilding mandate and the SDGs, in particular
to which the Project was expected to contribute: SDGs 5, 8, 10, 16??
- Was the Project relevant to the needs and priorities of the young women and men, girls
and boys residing in the Fergana Valley? Were they consulted during design and
implementation of the Project?
- Was the Project well-timed to address a conflict factor or capitalize on a specific window
of opportunity?
- Did the Project's theory of change clearly articulate assumptions about why the Project
approach is expected to produce the desired change? Was the theory of change
grounded in evidence?
- Did the pandemic create new tensions or exacerbate existing drivers of conflict and if so,
how well did the Project adapt?

Efficiency:
- How efficient was the overall staffing, planning and coordination within the Project
(including among RUNOs, implementing agencies and with stakeholders)? Have Project
funds and activities been delivered in a timely manner?
- How efficient and successful was the Project's implementation approach, including
procurement, number of implementing partners and other activities?
- How efficiently did the Project use the Project board?
- Were there any significant factors that led to delays in Project implementation?
- How well did the Project team communicate with implementing partners, stakeholders
and Project beneficiaries on its progress?

27 | P a g e
 - Overall, did the PBF Project provide value for money? Have resources been used
efficiently?
- To what extent did the PBF Project ensure synergies within different programs of UN
agencies and other implementing organizations and donor with the same portfolio?

Effectiveness:
- To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its intended objectives and contribute to the
Project's strategic vision?
- To what extent did the PBF Project substantively mainstream a gender and support
gender-responsive peacebuilding?
- How appropriate and clear was the PBF Project's targeting strategy in terms of
geographic and beneficiary targeting?
- To what extent has the Project contributed to gender equality, the empowerment of
women and the realization of human rights?

Sustainability and Ownership:

- Did the PBF Project contribute to the broader strategic outcomes identified in national
youth policy, legislative agendas and policies?
- Did the intervention design include an appropriate sustainability and exit strategy
(including promoting national/local ownership, use of national capacity etc.) to support
positive changes in peacebuilding after the end of the Project?
- How strong is the commitment of the government and other stakeholders to sustaining
the results of PBF support and continuing initiatives, especially women's participation in
decision making processes, supported under PBF Project?
- How has the Project enhanced and contributed to the development of national capacity
in order to ensure suitability of efforts and benefits?

Coherence:
- To what extent did the PBF Project complement work among different entities,
especially with government and World Bank?

Conflict-sensitivity:
- Did the PBF Project have an explicit approach to conflict-sensitivity?
- Were RUNOs and NUNOs' internal capacities adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict-
sensitive approach?
- Was the Project responsible for any unintended negative impacts?
- Was an ongoing process of context monitoring and a monitoring system that allows for
monitoring of unintended impacts established?

28 | P a g e
Important Note to evaluation managers: within the structure of the report, the below criteria
may either be reflected separately or integrated into the above evaluation criteria. Regardless,
the evaluation must identify specific evaluation questions on the below criteria.

Catalytic:
- Was the Project financially and/or programmatically catalytic?
- Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work and/or has it helped to
create broader platforms for peacebuilding?

Gender-responsive/Gender-sensitive:
- Did the Project consider the different challenges, opportunities, constraints and
capacities of women, men, girls and boys in Project design (including within the conflict
analysis, outcome statements and results frameworks) and implementation?
- Were the commitments made in the Project proposal to gender-responsive
peacebuilding, particularly with respect to the budget, realized throughout
implementation?

Risk-tolerance and Innovation:

- Were the risks of the PBF Project properly estimated at the design stage and were there
any changes during implementation?
- Did the Project take suitable risks mitigation actions while implementing the
interventions?
- How novel or innovative was the Project approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform
similar approaches elsewhere?

29 | P a g e
Annex 3. Detailed Workplan

Responsible Fe March April May June July A

W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1
Phase: Inception Report
1.1 Developing the inception report ET
1.2 Reviewing and commenting the inception report UNDP
1.3 Updating the inception report ET
Phase 2: KII and Survey
2.1. Fergana mission ET/ local exp.
2.2. In-country mission ET/ int. exp.
2.3. Survey ET
Phase 3: Validation Exercise
3.1. Initial data analysis ET
3.2. Validation exercise ET
PHASE 4: Evaluation Report
4.1. Finalizing data analysis ET
4.2. Preparation of draft evaluation report ET
4.3. Reviewing and commenting the draft evaluation
UNDP
report
4.4. Updating and finalizing the evaluation report ET
Phase 5: Audit traill
5.1. Audit trail UNDP/ET

Deliverable, to be submitted on Monday of proceeding week (except validation exercise)

30 | P a g e
 Annex 4. Tentative field visit agenda18

Team Leader

Stakeholder Partner
Agency in
Time Key Informant (name, Contact info Meeting organizer
Organization the UN
position) System
Day 1 in Tashkent: Monday, 19 April 2022
13:00-13:45 Reserve
14:15-15:00 Reserve
15:30-16:15 Reserve
Day 2 in Tashkent: Tuesday, 19 April 2022
Sherzodbek Sharipov,
09:00-09:45 UNDP UNDP (90) 984-34-85 EA
Programme Associate
10:00-10:45 UN Missing UN EA
11:15-12:00 UNESCO Missing UNESCO (91) 501-00-99 EA
12:30-13:00 UNODC Missing UNODC EA
13:00-14:00 Lunch
14:00-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 3 in Tashkent: Wednesday, 20 April 2022
Presidential
09:00-09:45 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Administration
Youth Affairs Islombek Okhunov,
10:15-11:00 UNODC (99) 808-33-77 UNDP
Agency Position?
Youth Affairs Ilyos Matlabov,
11:15-12:00 UNESCO (94) 676-96-41 UNDP
Agency Position?
12:00-13:00 Lunch
13:00-17:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
UN PBF (online
17:00-18:00 UN
meeting)

18
Working document of the Evaluation Team updated on daily basis.

31 | P a g e
 Stakeholder Partner
Time Agency in Contact info Meeting organizer
Key Informant (name,
Organization the UN
position)
System
Day 4 in Tashkent: Thursday, 21 April 2022
Ministry of
Employment and
09:00-09:45 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Labor Relations

Ministry of
10:15-11:00 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Economy
General
Nosirjon Askarov,
11:30-12:30 Prosecutor’s UNODC (93) 410-26-10 EA
Position?
office
Alexandra Nam,
Academy for Head of the
13:00-13:45 Public International UNDP (97) 080-71-11 UNDP
Administration Relations Department
of the APA
13:45-14:45 Lunch
14:45-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 5 in Tashkent: Friday, 22 April 2022
National
Shirin Abidova,
09:00-09:45 Association of UNDP (90) 908-08-11 UNDP
Head of NAV
Volunteers
Bakhodir Ismailov,
Head of the Anti-
Academy for
10:15-11:00 corruption UNDP (94) 079-00-65 UNDP
Prosecutors
department of the
AGPO
Sadulla Inoyatullayev,
Academy for
11:15-12:00 Researcher from the UNESCO (94) 190-00-07 EA
Prosecutors
Academy of GPO
Davron Aripov,
12:30-13:00 ITSM, MoPE UNESCO (94) 603-65-83 EA
Position?
13:00-14:00 Lunch

32 | P a g e
 Stakeholder Partner
Time Agency in Contact info Meeting organizer
Key Informant (name,
Organization the UN
position)
System
14:00-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 8 in Tashkent: Monday, 25 April 2022
Republican
Javlonbek Meliboyev,
09:00-09:45 Education Center UNESCO (93) 250-01-93 EA
Position?
of MoPE
Tashxis
Durdona
Republican
10:15-11:00 Hodjabekova, UNESCO (90) 908-08-11 EA
Diagnosis Center
Position?
of MoPE
Ministry of Public Missing
11:30-12:15 UNESCO Missing UNODC and UNDP
Education
Ministry of Public Akbar Tagaev, Head of
12:30-13:00 UNODC (90) 121-38-77 EA
Education Deptartment
13:00-14:00 Lunch
14:00-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 9 in Tashkent: Tuesday, 26 April 2022
Tashkent State Otabek Narziev,
09:00-09:45 UNODC (97) 830-07-37 EA
University of Law Trainer
Ministry of
10:00-10:45 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Justice
Ministry of the
11:00-11:45 Support to Missing Missing Missing Missing
Mahalla
Anticorruption
12:15-13:00 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Agency
13:00-14:00 Lunch
14:00-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 10 in Tashkent: Wednesday, 27 April 2022
Development
09:00-09:45 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Strategy Center

33 | P a g e
 Stakeholder Partner
Time Agency in Contact info Meeting organizer
Key Informant (name,
Organization the UN
position)
System
Probation
10:15-11:00 Missing Missing Missing Missing
services
11:30-12:15 NGO “Yuksalish” Missing Missing Missing Missing
National
Association of
12:45-13:30 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Electronic Mass
Media (NAEMM)
13:30-14:30 Lunch
14:30-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 11 in Tashkent: Thursday, 28 April 2022
State TV and
09:00-09:45 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Radio Company
Chamber of
10:15-11:00 Missing Missing Missing Missing
Advocates
11:30-12:15 USAID Missing Missing Missing Missing
12:45-13:30 The World Bank Missing Missing Missing Missing
13:30-14:30 Lunch
14:30-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 12 in Tashkent: Friday, 29 April 2022
Name and the
09:00-09:45 ILO Missing Missing Missing
contact of the KII
Name and the
10:15-11:00 JICA Missing Missing Missing
contact of the KII
11:30-12:15 Reserve
12:15-13:00 Lunch
13:00-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Reserve day

34 | P a g e
 Evaluation Consultant

Stakeholder Partner
Agency in
Time Key Informant (name, Contact info Meeting organizer
Organization the UN
position) System
Day 1 in Andijan: Sunday, 10 April 2022 – Arrival
Day 2 in Andijan: Monday, 11 April 2022
Farruhbek Karimov,
13:00-13:45 Youth Hub UNDP (97) 991-99-91 Local Consultants
Focal point for Hub
UNDP, Youth
14:15-15:00 Youth Union Missing Missing Missing
Affairs Agency
Local
15:30-16:15 government/khok Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
imiyat
Day 3 in Andijan: Tuesday, 12 April 2022
Regional office of
09:00-09:45 Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
prosecutors
Local police
10:15-11:00 Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
departments
11:30-12:15 Partner schools Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
12:15-13:15 Lunch
13:15-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 4 in Andijan: Wednesday, 13 April 2022
09:00-09:45 SMG recipients Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
Travel to Namangan
Day 1 in Namangan: Thursday, 14 April 2022
09:00-09:45 Youth Hub Missing UNDP Missing Local Consultants

35 | P a g e
 Stakeholder Partner
Time Agency in Contact info Meeting organizer
Key Informant (name,
Organization the UN
position)
System
UNDP, Youth
10:15-11:00 Youth Union Missing UNDP Missing
Affairs Agency
Local
11:30-12:15 government/khok Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
imiyat
12:15-13:15 Lunch
13:15-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 2 in Namangan: Friday, 15 April 2022
Regional office of
09:00-09:45 (93) 250-01-93 Local Consultants
prosecutors
10:15-11:00 Makhalla Missing UNODC Missing Local Consultants
Local police
11:30-12:15 Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
departments
12:15-13:15 Lunch
13:15-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 5 in Namangan: Monday, 18 April 2022
09:00-09:45 Partner schools Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
Legal Clinic of
10:15-11:00 Namangan State Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
University
11:30-12:15 SMG recipients Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
12:15-13:15 Lunch
13:15-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 6 in Namangan: Tuesday, 19 April 2022 – Travel to Ferghana
Day 1 in Ferghana: Wednesday, 20 April 2022
09:00-09:45 Youth Hub Missing UNDP Missing Local Consultants
UNDP, Youth
10:15-11:00 Youth Union Missing UNDP Missing
Affairs Agency

36 | P a g e
 Stakeholder Partner
Time Agency in Contact info Meeting organizer
Key Informant (name,
Organization the UN
position)
System
11:30-12:15 Media Hub Missing UNODC Missing Local Consultants
12:15-13:15 Lunch
13:15-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 2 in Ferghana: Thursday, 21 April 2022
Regional office of
09:00-09:45 Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
prosecutors
Local police
10:15-11:00 Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
departments
11:30-12:15 Partner schools Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
12:15-13:15 Lunch
13:15-18:00 Expanding, coding, and structuring interview notes
Day 3 in Ferghana: Friday, 22 April 2022
09:00-09:45 SMG recipients Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
Local
10:15-11:00 government/khok Missing Missing Missing Local Consultants
imiyat
Departure

37 | P a g e
Annex 5. Evaluation Matrix
Key Indicators Data Source/Mean of Data collection
Evaluation questions
Dimensions Verification methods
Relevance Extent to which the Was the Project relevant in addressing issues of - Secondary data: - Desk review;
Project was unemployment among youth and gender progress and - KII with Central
relevant to the localinequality that were identified as driving factors of monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
priorities; tensions in a conflict analysis? Were there any reports; Academia, Project
substantial background changes that impacted - Primary data. team;
Extent to which the relevance of Project goals and approach? - Survey with
Project was youth.
relevant to the Did the Project meet the needs of the - Secondary data: - Desk review;
national priorities, stakeholders and beneficiaries and was it relevant progress and - KII with Central
including to national priorities set in the sphere of youth monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
international policy? reports; Academia, Project
commitments. - Primary data. team;
- Survey with
youth.
Was the Project appropriate and strategic to assist - Secondary data: - Desk review;
the government in mitigating the socioeconomic progress and - KII Central Govt,
challenges that the young women and men may monitoring LG, NGOs,
face during the reforms? Did relevance continue reports; Academia, Project
throughout implementation? - Primary data. team.
How were stakeholders involved in the Project's - Secondary data: - Desk review;
design and implementation? Project design - KII with Central
document; Govt, LG, NGOs,
- Primary data. Academia.
Was the Project relevant to the UN's - Secondary data: - Desk review;
peacebuilding mandate and the SDGs, in particular progress and - KII with Central
to which the Project was expected to contribute: monitoring Govt, Project
SDGs 5, 8, 10, 16? reports; team.

38 | P a g e
 - Primary data.
Was the Project relevant to the needs and - Secondary data: - Desk review;
priorities of the young women and men, girls and Project design - KII with Central
boys residing in the Fergana Valley? Were they document, Govt, LG, NGOs,
consulted during design and implementation of progress and Academia, Project
the Project? monitoring team;
reports; - Survey with
- Primary data. youth.
Was the Project well-timed to address a conflict - Secondary data: - Desk review;
factor or capitalize on a specific window of progress and - KII with Central
opportunity? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Academia, Project
- Primary data. team;
- Survey with
youth.
Did the Project's theory of change clearly - Secondary data: - Desk review;
articulate assumptions about why the Project Project design - KII with the
approach is expected to produce the desired document; Project team.
change? Was the theory of change grounded in - Primary data.
evidence?
Did the pandemic create new tensions or - Secondary data: - Desk review;
exacerbate existing drivers of conflict and if so, progress and - KII with Central
how well did the Project adapt? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Academia, Project
- Primary data. team.
Effectiveness Extent to which the To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its - Secondary data: - Desk review;
Project achieved its intended objectives and contribute to the progress and - KII with Central
targets Project's strategic vision? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Academia, Project
Extent to which the - Primary data. team;
Project managed - Survey with

39 | P a g e
the risks, both youth.
those identified at To what extent did the PBF Project substantively - Secondary data: - Desk review;
the design stage mainstream a gender and support gender- Project design - KII with LG, NGOs,
and those that responsive peacebuilding? document, Project team;
emerged during the progress and - Survey with
implementation; monitoring youth.
reports;
Extent to which the - Primary data.
Project How appropriate and clear was the PBF Project's - Secondary data: - Desk review;
mainstreamed targeting strategy in terms of geographic and progress and - KII with Central
gender-responsive beneficiary targeting? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
or gender-sensitive reports; Academia, Project
approaches. - Primary data. team;
To what extent has the Project contributed to - Secondary data: - Desk review;
gender equality, the empowerment of women and progress and - KII with Central
the realization of human rights? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Academia, Project
- Primary data. team.
Catalytic: Was the Project financially and/or - Secondary data: - Desk review;
programmatically catalytic? progress and - KII with Central
monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Project team.
- Primary data.
Catalytic: Has PBF funding been used to scale-up - Secondary data: - Desk review;
other peacebuilding work and/or has it helped to progress and - KII with Central
create broader platforms for peacebuilding? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Project team.
- Primary data.
Gender-responsive/gender-sensitive: Did the - Secondary data: Desk review.
Project consider the different challenges, Project design
opportunities, constraints and capacities of document,

40 | P a g e
women, men, girls and boys in Project design progress and
(including within the conflict analysis, outcome monitoring reports.
statements and results frameworks) and
implementation?
Gender-responsive/gender-sensitive: Were the - Secondary data: - Desk review.
commitments made in the Project proposal to Project design
gender-responsive peacebuilding, particularly with document,
respect to the budget, realized throughout progress and
implementation? monitoring reports.

Risk tolerance and Innovation: Were the risks of - Secondary data: - Desk review;
the PBF Project properly estimated at the design Project design - KII with LG, NGOs,
stage and were there any changes during document, Project team.
implementation? progress and
monitoring
reports;
- Primary data.
Risk tolerance and Innovation: Did the Project - Secondary data: - Desk review;
take suitable risks mitigation actions while progress and - KII with the
implementing the interventions? monitoring Project team.
reports;
- Primary data.
Risk tolerance and Innovation: How novel or - Secondary data: - Desk review;
innovative was the Project approach? progress and - KII with Central
monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Project team.
- Primary data.
Risk tolerance and Innovation: Can lessons be - Secondary data: - Desk review;
drawn to inform similar approaches elsewhere? progress and - KII with Central
monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Project team;

41 | P a g e
 - Primary data. - Survey with
youth.
Efficiency Extent to which the How efficient was the overall staffing, planning - Secondary data: - Desk review;
Project resources and coordination within the Project (including procurement, HR, - KII with the
were utilized to among RUNOs, implementing agencies and with financial and Project team.
their maximum stakeholders)? Have Project funds and activities monitoring
capacity; been delivered in a timely manner? reports;
- Primary data.
Extent to which the How efficient and successful was the Project's - Secondary data: - Desk review;
Project implementation approach, including procurement, procurement, HR, - KII with the
management number of implementing partners, and other financial and Project team.
consulted the activities? monitoring
governing board; reports;
- Primary data.
Extent to which the How efficiently did the Project use the Project - Secondary data: - Desk review;
Project board? progress and - KII with Central
management was monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
informed through reports; Academia, Project
the participation of - Primary data. team.
stakeholders and Were there any significant factors that led to - Secondary data: - Desk review;
partners. delays in Project implementation? progress and - KII with Central
monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Academia, Project
- Primary data. team.
How well did the Project team communicate with - Secondary data: - Desk review;
implementing partners, stakeholders, and Project progress and - KII with Central
beneficiaries on its progress? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Academia, Project
- Primary data. team;
- Survey with
youth.

42 | P a g e
 Overall, did the PBF Project provide value for - Secondary data: - Desk review;
money? Have resources been used efficiently? financial and - KII with the
monitoring Project team.
reports;
- Primary data.
To what extent did the PBF Project ensure - Secondary data: - Desk review;
synergies within different programs of UN progress and - KII with Central
agencies and other implementing organizations monitoring Govt and Project
and donor with the same portfolio? reports; team.
- Primary data.
Sustainability Did the Project Did the PBF Project contribute to the broader - Secondary data: - Desk review;
and produce outcomes strategic outcomes identified in national youth progress and - KII with Central
Ownership that will sustain policy, legislative agendas and policies? monitoring Govt, Project
after the Project reports; team.
close-out? - Primary data.
Did the intervention design include an appropriate - Secondary data: - Desk review;
sustainability and exit strategy (including progress and - KII with Central
promoting national/local ownership, use of monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
national capacity etc.) to support positive changes reports; Project team ;
in peacebuilding after the end of the Project? - Primary data. - Survey with
youth.
How strong is the commitment of the government - Secondary data: - Desk review;
and other stakeholders to sustaining the results of progress and - KII with Central
PBF support and continuing initiatives, especially monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
women's participation in decision making reports; Project team.
processes, supported under PBF Project? - Primary data.
How has the Project enhanced and contributed to - Secondary data: - Desk review;
the development of national capacity in order to progress and - KII with Central
ensure suitability of efforts and benefits? monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Project team .
- Primary data.

43 | P a g e
Coherence How well was the To what extent did the PBF Project complement - Secondary data: - Desk review;
Project synergized work among different entities, especially with progress and - KII with Central
with other actors? government and World Bank? monitoring Govt, Project
reports; team .
- Primary data.
Conflict Did the PBF Project Did the PBF Project have an explicit approach to - Secondary data: - Desk review;
Sensitivity have an explicit conflict-sensitivity? progress and - KII with Central
approach to conflict monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
sensitivity? reports; Project team.
- Primary data.
Extent to which the Were RUNOs and NUNOs' internal capacities - Secondary data: - Desk review;
"Do No Harm" adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict- progress and - KII with the
principles were sensitive approach? monitoring Project team.
respected by the reports;
Project . - Primary data.
Was the Project responsible for any unintended - Secondary data: - Desk review;
negative impacts? progress and - KII with Central
monitoring Govt, LG, NGOs,
reports; Academia, Project
- Primary data. team;
- Survey.
Was an ongoing process of context monitoring - Secondary data: - Desk review;
and a monitoring system that allows for progress and - KII with the
monitoring of unintended impacts established? monitoring Project team.
reports;
- Primary data.

44 | P a g e
Annex 6. Tentative List of Key Informants
Relevant
Stakeholders # of KII
Output
Stakeholders' Group 1 - Central Govt
Presidential Administration 1 1
Ministry of Justice 1 1,4
Ministry of Public Education 1 1,3
Ministry of Employment and Labor Relations 1 1
Ministry of Economy 1 1
Ministry of Support to Makhalla and Family 1 2,3
General Prosecutor’s Office 1 3
Ministry of Interior (regional representative) 1 4
Anticorruption agency 1 4
Youth Affairs Agency 2 1,2

Stakeholders' Group 2 - Local Govt

Local government/Khokimiyats (Andijan, Fergana,
3 1,3
Namangan)
Regional offices of prosecutors 3 4
Local police departments 3 4
Probation services 1 4
Mahalla "Bunyodkor" (Namangan) 1 4

Stakeholders' Group 3 - Academic institutions and

quasi-governmental organizations
Academy for Public Administration 1 3
Academy for Prosecutors 2 3
Legal Clinic, Namangan State University 1 4
Tashkent State University 1 4
Partner schools 3 4
State TV and Radio Company 1 2
Chamber of Advocates 1 4

Stakeholders' Group 4 - NGOs,

Youth Union 3 1
National Association of Volunteer 1 2
Youth Hub: Namangan, Andijan, Fergana 3 2
Media Hub 1 2
SMG recipients (start-up Projects) 3 1
 Relevant
Stakeholders # of KII
Output
Development Strategy Center 1 2
NGO “Yuksalish” 1 2
National Association of Electronic Mass Media (NAEMM) 1 2

Stakeholders' Group 5 - Project Team

Project management 1
UNDP 3
UNODC 1
UNESCO 1
PBF 1
Aga Khan Foundation 1
USAID 1
EU Delegation 1
The World Bank 1

Total Number of KII: 60

46 | P a g e
Annex 7. KII Questionnaires for Major Stakeholder Groups

KII QUESTIONNAIRE: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

N Question
RELEVANCE
Was the Project relevant in addressing unemployment issues among youth and
1. gender inequality that were identified as driving factors of tensions in a conflict
analysis?
Were there any substantial background changes that impacted the relevance or
2. timeliness of Project goals and approach? (This might include any context change,
e.g., COVID-19)
Did the Project meet the needs of the local stakeholders and beneficiaries, and was it
3. relevant to the national priorities for youth policy? Were you as a stakeholder
involved in the Project's design and implementation?
Was the Project appropriate and strategic to assist the government in mitigating the
4. socioeconomic challenges that the young women and men may face during the
reforms? Did relevance continue throughout implementation?
Was the Project relevant to the SDGs, in particular, to which the Project was expected
5.
to contribute: SDGs 5, 8, 10, 16?
EFFECTIVENESS
To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its intended objectives and contribute to
6. the Project's strategic vision, as communicated to the government at the emergence
of the Project?
To what extent did the PBF Project substantively mainstream a gender and support
7.
gender-responsive peacebuilding? Is it in line with the national development targets?
How appropriate and clear was the PBF Project's targeting strategy in terms of
8.
geographic and beneficiary targeting?
EFFICIENCY
9. How efficiently did the Project use the Project board?
10. Were there any significant factors that led to delays in Project implementation?
How well did the Project team communicate with implementing partners,
11.
stakeholders, and Project beneficiaries on its progress?
To what extent did the PBF Project ensure synergies with other implementing
12.
organizations in your region?
SUSTAINABILITY
Did the PBF Project contribute to the broader strategic outcomes identified in
13.
national youth policy, legislative agendas, and policies?
14. Did the intervention design include appropriate sustainability and exit strategy
(including promoting local ownership, etc.) to support positive peacebuilding changes

47 | P a g e
 N Question
after the Project's end?

How strong is the commitment of the national government and other stakeholders to
15. sustaining the results of PBF support and continuing initiatives, especially women's
participation in decision-making processes, supported under the PBF Project?
How has the Project enhanced and contributed to developing national capacity to
16.
ensure the suitability of efforts and benefits?
COHERENCE
To what extent did the PBF Project complement work among different entities,
17.
especially with government and World Bank?
CONFLICT-SENSITIVITY
18. Was the Project responsible for any unintended negative impacts?
CATALYTIC
Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work, and/or has it
19.
helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding?
RISK TOLERANCE AND INNOVATION
How novel or innovative was the Project approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform
20.
similar approaches elsewhere?
FINAL REMARKS
Are there any DON'T DO's that you would recommend considering in future
21.
programming?

48 | P a g e
KII QUESTIONNAIRE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

N Question
RELEVANCE
Was the Project relevant in addressing unemployment issues among youth and
1. gender inequality that were identified as driving factors of tensions in a conflict
analysis?
Were there any substantial background changes that impacted the relevance or
2. timeliness of Project goals and approach? (This might include any context change,
e.g., COVID-19)
Did the Project meet the needs of the local stakeholders and beneficiaries, and was it
3. relevant to the local priorities for youth? Were they consulted during the design and
implementation of the Project?
Was the Project appropriate and strategic to assist the local government in mitigating
4. the socioeconomic challenges that the young women and men may face during the
reforms?
5. Were you as a stakeholder involved in the Project's design and implementation?
EFFECTIVENESS
To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its intended objectives and contribute to
6. the Project's strategic vision, as communicated to the local government at the
emergence of the Project?
To what extent did the PBF Project substantively mainstream a gender and support
7.
gender-responsive peacebuilding? Is it in line with the LG development targets?
How appropriate and clear was the PBF Project's targeting strategy in terms of
8.
geographic and beneficiary targeting?
EFFICIENCY
9. How efficiently did the Project use the Project board?
10. Were there any significant factors that led to delays in Project implementation?
How well did the Project team communicate with implementing partners,
11.
stakeholders, and Project beneficiaries on its progress?
To what extent did the PBF Project ensure synergies with other implementing
12.
organizations in your region?
SUSTAINABILITY
Did the intervention design include appropriate sustainability and exit strategy
13. (including promoting local ownership, etc.) to support positive peacebuilding changes
after the Project's end?
How strong is the commitment of the local government and other stakeholders to
14. sustaining the results of PBF support and continuing initiatives, especially women's
participation in decision-making processes, supported under the PBF Project?
CONFLICT-SENSITIVITY
15. Did the PBF Project have a straightforward approach to conflict sensitivity?

49 | P a g e
 N Question
16. Was the Project responsible for any unintended negative impacts?
CATALYTIC
Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work, and/or has it
17.
helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding?
GENDER-RESPONSIVE/GENDER-SENSITIVE
Did the Project consider the different challenges, opportunities, constraints, and
18. capacities of women, men, girls, and boys in Project design (including within the
conflict analysis, outcome statements, and results frameworks) and implementation?
RISK TOLERANCE AND INNOVATION
How novel or innovative was the Project approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform
19.
similar approaches elsewhere?
FINAL REMARKS
What are the main recommendations that you have drawn from the PBF Project for
20.
your agency or others?
Are there any DON'T DO's that you would recommend considering in future
21.
programming?

50 | P a g e
KII QUESTIONNAIRE: ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS AND QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS

N Question
RELEVANCE
Was the Project relevant in addressing unemployment issues among youth and
1. gender inequality that were identified as driving factors of tensions in a conflict
analysis?
Were there any substantial background changes that impacted the relevance or
2. timeliness of Project goals and approach? (This might include any context change,
e.g., COVID-19)
Did the Project meet the needs of the local stakeholders and beneficiaries, and was it
3. relevant to the national priorities for youth policy? Were you as a stakeholder
involved in the Project's design and implementation?
EFFECTIVENESS
To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its intended objectives and contribute to
4. the Project's strategic vision, as communicated to the government at the emergence
of the Project?
To what extent did the PBF Project substantively mainstream a gender and support
5.
gender-responsive peacebuilding? Is it in line with the national development targets?
To what extent has the Project contributed to gender equality, women's
6.
empowerment, and the realization of human rights?
EFFICIENCY
7. How efficiently did the Project use the Project board?
How well did the Project team communicate with implementing partners,
8.
stakeholders, and Project beneficiaries on its progress?
To what extent did the PBF Project ensure synergies with other implementing
9.
organizations in your area of operations?
SUSTAINABILITY
Did the PBF Project contribute to the broader strategic outcomes identified in
10.
national youth policy, legislative agendas, and policies?
Did the intervention design include appropriate sustainability and exit strategy
11. (including promoting local ownership, etc.) to support positive peacebuilding changes
after the Project's end?
How strong is the commitment of the stakeholders to sustaining the results of PBF
12. support and continuing initiatives, especially women's participation in decision-
making processes, supported under the PBF Project?
How has the Project enhanced and contributed to developing the national capacity to
13.
ensure the suitability of efforts and benefits?
CONFLICT-SENSITIVITY
14. Was the Project responsible for any unintended negative impacts?

51 | P a g e
 N Question
CATALYTIC
Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work, and/or has it
15.
helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding?
RISK TOLERANCE AND INNOVATION
How novel or innovative was the Project approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform
16.
similar approaches elsewhere?
FINAL REMARKS
Are there any DON'T DO's that you would recommend considering in future
17.
programming?

52 | P a g e
KII QUESTIONNAIRE: NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
N Question
RELEVANCE
Was the Project relevant in addressing unemployment issues among youth and
1. gender inequality that were identified as driving factors of tensions in a conflict
analysis?
Were there any substantial background changes that impacted the relevance or
2. timeliness of Project goals and approach? (This might include any context change,
e.g., COVID-19)
Did the Project meet the needs of the local stakeholders and beneficiaries, and was it
3. relevant to the national priorities for youth policy? Were you as a stakeholder
involved in the Project's design and implementation?
Was the Project relevant to the needs and priorities of the young women and men,
4. girls and boys residing in the Fergana Valley? Were they consulted during the design
and implementation of the Project?
EFFECTIVENESS
To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its intended objectives and contribute to
5. the Project's strategic vision, as communicated to the government at the emergence
of the Project?
To what extent did the PBF Project substantively mainstream a gender and support
6.
gender-responsive peacebuilding? Is it in line with the national development targets?
How appropriate and clear was the PBF Project's targeting strategy in terms of
7.
geographic and beneficiary targeting?
To what extent has the Project contributed to gender equality, women's
8.
empowerment, and the realization of human rights?
EFFICIENCY
9. How efficiently did the Project use the Project board?
How well did the Project team communicate with implementing partners,
10.
stakeholders, and Project beneficiaries on its progress?
To what extent did the PBF Project ensure synergies with other implementing
11.
organizations in your area of operations?
SUSTAINABILITY
Did the PBF Project contribute to the broader strategic outcomes identified in
12.
national youth policy, legislative agendas, and policies?
Did the intervention design include appropriate sustainability and exit strategy
13. (including promoting local ownership, etc.) to support positive peacebuilding changes
after the Project's end?
How strong is the commitment of the stakeholders to sustaining the results of PBF
14. support and continuing initiatives, especially women's participation in decision-
making processes, supported under the PBF Project?
How has the Project enhanced and contributed to developing the national capacity to
15.
ensure the suitability of efforts and benefits?

53 | P a g e
 N Question
CONFLICT-SENSITIVITY
16. Was the Project responsible for any unintended negative impacts?
CATALYTIC
Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work, and/or has it
17.
helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding?
RISK TOLERANCE AND INNOVATION
How novel or innovative was the Project approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform
18.
similar approaches elsewhere?
FINAL REMARKS
Are there any DON'T DO's that you would recommend considering in future
19.
programming?

54 | P a g e
KII QUESTIONNAIRE: PROJECT TEAM

N Question
RELEVANCE
Was the Project relevant in addressing unemployment issues among youth
1. and gender inequality that were identified as driving factors of tensions in a
conflict analysis?
Were there any substantial background changes that impacted the
2. relevance or timeliness of Project goals and approach? (This might include
any context change, e.g., COVID-19)
Did the Project meet the needs of the local stakeholders and beneficiaries,
3. and was it relevant to the national priorities for youth policy? Were you as a
stakeholder involved in the Project's design and implementation?
Was the Project relevant to the needs and priorities of the young women
4. and men, girls and boys residing in the Fergana Valley? Were they consulted
during the design and implementation of the Project?
Was the Project appropriate and strategic to assist the government in
mitigating the socioeconomic challenges that the young women and men
5.
may face during the reforms? Did relevance continue throughout
implementation?
How were stakeholders involved in the Project's design and
6.
implementation?
Was the Project relevant to the UN's peacebuilding mandate and the SDGs,
7. in particular to which the Project was expected to contribute: SDGs 5, 8, 10,
16?
Did the Project's theory of change articulate assumptions about why the
8. Project approach is expected to produce the desired change? Was the
theory of change grounded in evidence?
EFFECTIVENESS
To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its intended objectives and
9. contribute to the Project's strategic vision, as communicated to the
government at the emergence of the Project?
To what extent did the PBF Project substantively mainstream a gender and
10. support gender-responsive peacebuilding? Is it in line with the national
development targets?
How appropriate and clear was the PBF Project's targeting strategy in terms
11.
of geographic and beneficiary targeting?
To what extent has the Project contributed to gender equality, women's
12.
empowerment, and the realization of human rights?
EFFICIENCY
13. How efficient was the overall staffing, planning, and coordination within the
Project (including among RUNOs, implementing agencies, and

55 | P a g e
 stakeholders)? Have Project funds and activities been delivered in a timely
manner?
14. How efficiently did the Project use the Project board?
How efficient and successful was the Project's implementation approach,
15. including procurement, number of implementing partners, and other
activities?
How well did the Project team communicate with implementing partners,
16.
stakeholders, and Project beneficiaries on its progress?
Were there any significant factors that led to delays in Project
17.
implementation?
To what extent did the PBF Project ensure synergies with other
implementing organizations? To what extent did the PBF Project ensure
18.
synergies within different programs of UN agencies and other implementing
organizations and donors with the same portfolio?
Overall, did the PBF Project provide value for money? Have resources been
19.
used efficiently?
SUSTAINABILITY
Did the PBF Project contribute to the broader strategic outcomes identified
20.
in national youth policy, legislative agendas, and policies?
Did the intervention design include appropriate sustainability and exit
21. strategy (including promoting local ownership, etc.) to support positive
peacebuilding changes after the Project's end?
How strong is the commitment of the stakeholders to sustaining the results
22. of PBF support and continuing initiatives, especially women's participation
in decision-making processes, supported under the PBF Project?
How has the Project enhanced and contributed to developing national
23.
capacity to ensure the suitability of efforts and benefits?
CONFLICT-SENSITIVITY
24. Was the Project responsible for any unintended negative impacts?
CATALYTIC
Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work, and/or
25.
has it helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding?
RISK TOLERANCE AND INNOVATION
How novel or innovative was the Project approach? Can lessons be drawn
26.
to inform similar approaches elsewhere?
FINAL REMARKS
Are there any DON'T DO's that you would recommend considering in future
27.
programming?

56 | P a g e
Annex 8. KII Protocols
The Evaluation Team will use the following qualitative data collection protocols during KII:

STEP
TASK STEP
OWNER
1.1. Develop open-ended interview questions for each ETL19 &
major stakeholder group. EC20
Task 1
1.2. Review, select and link each interview question with
Developing ETL
the corresponding evaluation question.
questionnaires
1.4. Test draft evaluation questionnaire with 3-4 KI
ETL & EC
representing different stakeholder groups.
1.5. Update and finalize the questionnaires. ETL & EC
Task 2 2.1. Present to UNDP the purposive sampling as a
Selecting KI proposed sampling approach for KI and define the
following preselection criteria:
- type of stakeholders: government stakeholders vs.
academic institutions and quasi-governmental
organizations vs. NGOs vs. donor partners,
- location: stakeholders located in the capital city vs.
stakeholders located in regions,
- type of government stakeholders: central government ETL
stakeholders vs. local government stakeholders,
- type of support institutions: academic institutions vs.
quasi-governmental organizations vs. NGOs,
- type of Project partner: higher-level academic
institutions vs. youth centers (hubs) vs. public schools,
- gender criteria: stakeholders engaged in women-
targeted initiatives vs. stakeholders engaged in other
Project activities.
2.2. Present to UNDP the proposed sample size: ETL
- 10-12 KI in each region,
- 20-25 KI in the capital city and 30-35 KI in regions,
- 12-14 central and local government stakeholders,
- 10-12 NGOs,
- 9-10 Academic institutions and quasi-governmental
organizations,
- 7 Project Team, including at least one representative of
each donor
- At least 3 KI meeting the gender criteria,
- other recommendations.
19
Evaluation Team Leader
20
Evaluation Consultant

57 | P a g e
 STEP
TASK STEP
OWNER
2.3. Develop the list of prospective KI based on the
EC & EA21
preselected criteria and sample referenced above.
2.4. Review and approve (in consultations with EC) the
ETL
final list of KI.
2.5. Set up interviews a week before ETL's and EC's field
EA
trip commencement date.
3.1. Adhere to the following guidelines during the
interview:
- present yourself,
- explain to the KI the meeting purpose,
- outline the confidentiality rules,
ETL & EC
- conduct interviews for 40-50 minutes,
- ask a question at a time, avoid leading questions, and
Task 3
clarify ambiguous answers,
Conducting
- allow the KI to ask questions,
interviews
- thank the KI.
3.2. ETL may invite an EA to participate in the interview if
ETL & EA
the KI is not fluent in English or Russian.
3.3. If the client representative elects to participate in an
interview, discuss the rationale of that request with the
ETL
client representative and, potentially, invite them to join
the interviews22.
4.1. Document the interview, taking written notes and ETL, EC &
upon KI's concurrence using an audio recording. EA
4.2. Transcribe the audio files into computer-stored text
Task 4 EC & EA
records (doc files).
Documenting
4.3. Expand written notes within 24 hours and upload
interviews EC & EA
them to shared Google Drive.
ETL, EC &
4.4. Upload extracts from the written notes to an excel file.
EA
4.5. Set the responses up for pattern analysis. ETL & EC

21
Evaluation assistant
22
For example, the participation of client representatives in interviews may be requested by senior government
counterparts. The evaluator may agree with those requests, since country-level counterparts for bilateral technical
and related assistance agreements play a pivotal role in defining the scope of technical assistance, are not merely
stakeholders, but are deemed to be local development partners.

58 | P a g e
 23
group

AIQGO,
NGOs, PT
CGP, LGP,
Category 1

Stakeholder

Host
region
Andijan,

Ferghana
Category 2

Namangan,
Scope of

local level
Country or
Category 3

intervention

output
linkage
Project
Category 4

Was the Project relevant in

addressing unemployment issues
2

Were there any substantial

process. The evaluation team present this document for illustrative purposes.
background changes that impacted
Annex 9. The Architecture of the Coded MS Excel file23

Did the Project meet the needs of

the local stakeholders and
RELEVANCE

Was the Project appropriate and

strategic to assist the local
5

Were you as a stakeholder involved

in the Project's design and
6

To what extent did the PBF Project

achieve its intended objectives and
7

To what extent did the PBF Project

substantively mainstream a gender
KII QUESTIONS

8
EFFECTIVENESS

How appropriate and clear was the

PBF Project's targeting strategy in
9

How efficiently did the Project use

the Project board?
10

Were there any significant factors

that led to delays in project
11
EFFICIENCY

How well did the Project team

communicate with implementing
12

To what extent did the PBF Project

ensure synergies with other
This is an internal working document of the evaluation team. The content and structure of the document might me amended/updated during the evaluation
13

Did the intervention design include

appropriate sustainability and exit
Annex 10. Survey Protocols

STEP
TASK STEP
OWNER
Task 1 1.1. Develop closed survey questions for beneficiaries. EC
Developing 1.2. Review, select and link each survey question with the
questionnaires ETL & EC
corresponding evaluation question.
1.4. Test draft evaluation questionnaire with 5-6 beneficiaries. EA
1.5. Update and finalize the questionnaires. ETL & EC
Task 2 2.1. Present to UNDP the convenience sampling as a proposed
Selecting number of sampling approach for the survey and define the following
beneficiaries preselection criteria:
- young people, aged between 18-30, who participated in any
components of the Project,
- beneficiaries participated in Summer camp,
- beneficiaries participated in Just Start start-up accelerator,
- beneficiaries of Small grants for start-ups,
- beneficiaries of Technovation girls,
- beneficiaries of Youth hubs,
- beneficiaries of Volunteers' Association, ETL
- beneficiaries of Youth Discussions – Y-Fikri,
- beneficiaries of Small grants for infrastructural projects,
- beneficiaries of civil servants' capacity building,
- beneficiaries of Rule of Law Training,
- beneficiaries of Fergana Valley Model UN Conference,
- gender criteria: male and female participants of the Project's
initiatives,
- Activity' 's reported share in expenditures of the Project,
- other recommendations.
2.2. Participate in the training on online data collection
EC & EA
platform – Kobo, organized by UNDP.

general youth 2.4. Review and approve (in consultations with

EC) the final list of beneficiaries. ETL
2.5. Notify surveyees about the upcoming survey. EA
 STEP
TASK STEP
OWNER
Task 3 3.1. Adhere to the following guidelines during the survey
Conducting surveys process:
- transfer the survey questionnaire into the Excel file and
upload it on an online data collection platform,
- generate separate survey links for every category of
beneficiaries,
- send the link to the survey to beneficiaries through EA
Telegram channel/group or via email,
- explain to the beneficiaries the survey purpose by
contacting them over the phone or through messages,
- outline the confidentiality rules,
- provide guides on filling the survey for beneficiaries if
necessary.
3.2. EA might use the service of translators to get survey
questionnaires translated into Russian and Uzbek languages in EA
order to ensure the accuracy of the data collection.
Task 4 4.1. Upload extracts from the responses to questionnaires to
EA
Data analysis an excel file and/or KoBo platform.
4.2. Provide analysis of the data using excel and/or KoBo
EC
platform.
4.3. Integrate the analysis into the evaluation report. ETL & EC

61 | P a g e
Annex 11. Survey Questionnaire

Relevant
N Question Answer
EQs
- Gender
- Age
General Profile of the Respondent - Region
- Occupation
Relevance
In which type of the events/activities organized - Activity 1
1.
by this Project have you participated - Activity 2
approximately? - …
- Advertising or Media - 2.5
(Print/Electronic/Internet)
- Word of mouth/previous
participants
2. How did you first hear about this respective - Public authority
event or activity? (Government
Agency/Khokimiat/Youth
Agency)
- UNDP/UNODC/UNESCO
- NGO/Partner
- High degree of alignment - 1.2
and address - 1.6
- Medium degree of -
3. To what extent do you feel that the Project was alignment and address
aligned with your needs and addressed them? - Minimal alignment and
address
- Not aligned at all and
address
- Excellent - 3
- Good
4. Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of - Fair
Youth for Social Harmony in the Fergana Valley? - Difficult to say (No
opinion)
Effectiveness
5. On a 5 point scale, where 1 is no impact, and 5 is - 3.1
a significant impact, what impact do you believe - 3.2
your overall participation in the Project's -
respective activity/event has had on you in
terms of:

62 | P a g e
 Relevant
N Question Answer
EQs
- Increasing your knowledge and skills
- Increasing your opportunities to participate
in decision making and socio-political life
- Attitude and capacity of local administrations
and educators
- Approaches of duty bearers to youth
- Excellent - 2.1
- Good
6. How well were the activities/events of the - Fair
Project managed? - Difficult to say (No
opinion)
- To a great extent - 1.7
- Sufficiently
7. To what extent do you think it was the right time - Very little
to implement this Project? - Not at all
- Don't know
- To a great extent - 3.2
To what extent have you noted advocation for - Sufficiently
8.
gender equality and women's participation in - Very little
the Project's activities? - Not at all
- Don't know
- To a great extent - 3.1
To what extent have the Project activities - Sufficiently - 3.3
9.
positively impacted your livelihoods and those - Very little - 4.1
who live with you? - Not at all -
- Don't know
- To a great extent - 4.1
- Sufficiently - 7.1
10. To what extent has participation in the Project's
- Very little - 8.1
activities/events positively changed your plans? - Not at all
- Don't know
- To a great extent - 4.1
To what extent have you faced any challenges - Sufficiently - 6.1
11. because of participating in the Project's activities
- Very little - 6.3
or events (with/within you family, friends, or - Not at all - 9.1
community)? - Don't know - 8.1
12. Do you think the Project's activities led to a - To a great extent -
decrease in conflict potential within your - Sufficiently
community (mahalla/district/village/city)? - Very little
- Not at all

63 | P a g e
 Relevant
N Question Answer
EQs
- Don't know
- To a great extent - 2.5
- Sufficiently - 1.6
13. To what extent did you have an opportunity to
- Very little
give your feedback on an activity or event? - Not at all
- Don't know
Sustainability
- To a great extent - 4.2
- Sufficiently - 7.1
14. To what extent are the material, services, and
equipment support likely to continue after the - Very little - 7.2
Project has finished? - Not at all
- Don't know
- To a great extent - 7.1
- Sufficiently
15. To what extent do you think there is a need to
- Very little
have more of those types of Projects? - Not at all
- Don't know
- To a great extent - 7.1
- Sufficiently
16. To what extent are you willing to continue to
communicate/collaborate with the new network - Very little
of people resulting from the Project? - Not at all
- Don't know

64 | P a g e
Annex 12. Summarized Primary and Secondary Data Transcription Sample24
Responses on interview question 8 in Region XYZ (criteria of effectiveness):
- To what extent did the PBF Project achieve its intended objectives and contribute
to the Project's strategic vision, as communicated to the government at the
emergence of the Project?
- 9 out N statistical forms have been eliminated thanks to the
Respondent 1 electronic information collection;
- response to the pandemic by guiding youth.
- Capacity building of the local authorities;
Respondent 2
- Youth needs assessment helped to see clearer challenges.
Respondent 3 - Supporting institutions such as Youth hubs.
- Helped to build up a sense of ownership for own
Respondent 4
KII communities.
- An opportunity for young people to communicate with
Respondent 5
government authorities.
- Capacity building broadened tools to develop further steps
Respondent 6 for the Concept for developing state youth policy in
Uzbekistan until 2025.
- Helped to decrease conflict potential among direct
Respondent 7 beneficiaries and generate positive externalities on a local
level.
Direct observations - Awareness-raising materials.
- Helped youth to find new and higher-paid jobs (number
and/or percentage).
Survey
- Developed important institutions for Youth in IT (number
and/or percentage).
- The Just Start accelerator created a spillover effect involving
Desk review quasi-governmental organizations to support and provide
more opportunities for youth.

24
This is an internal working document of the evaluation team. The content and structure of the document might
me amended/updated during the evaluation process. The evaluation team present this document for illustrative
purposes.

65 | P a g e
Annex 13. Survey Participants25

Number of Covered by the Contact information Additional

Activity Output(s) UN Agency
beneficiaries survey availability Information

Small Grants for The Project team will

10 1 UNDP Yes
start-uppers provide

Voice of Girls The Project team will

20 1 UNDP Yes Only women
network provide

Training of Youth
Union 83 1 UNDP Yes Missing
representatives

Available
Summer Camp 84 1 UNDP, UNODC Yes Telegram Group with
74 members

Partially available
Technovation Girls 100 1 UNDP Yes Telegram channel with Only women
62 subscribers

25
Working document of the Evaluation Team updated on daily basis.
 Number of Covered by the Contact information Additional
Activity Output(s) UN Agency
beneficiaries survey availability Information

Partially available
Just Start_Start-Up
332 1 UNDP Yes Telegram channel with
Accelerator
120 subscribers

Dialogs with young

47 2 UNODC Yes Missing Only women
women
Volunteers 120 2 UNDP Yes Missing

Youth-led platform - Partially available

Fergana Valley
150 2 UNODC Yes The Project team will
Model United
Nations Conference provide

Seven youth
initiatives in 300 2 UNODC Yes Missing
Fergana Valley
Partially available
Youth Hubs 300 2 UNDP, UNODC Yes The Project team will
provide

Y-Fikri_TED talks Partial availability

type Youth 301 2 UNDP, UNODC Yes Telegram channel with
Discussions 15 subscribers

67 | P a g e
 Number of Covered by the Contact information Additional
Activity Output(s) UN Agency
beneficiaries survey availability Information
Small grants for No activity was
infrastructural 2 UNDP Yes delivered under this
projects component
Civil Servants'
Capacity 400 3 UNDP No N/A
building_APA_AGPO
104 educators
and more
TOTs on Rule of Law than 9000 3 UNODC No N/A
school
students

Training for life skill Partially, only

418 3 UNODC Missing
programs youth

Key stakeholders N/A

30 4 UNESCO/UNODC No
trained

Police officers N/A

80 4 UNODC No
trained

Anticorruption N/A
100 4 UNESCO/UNODC No Schools
training programs

Training young Partial availability

Partially, only
lawyers and 65 4 UNODC Telegram group with
youth
students of Law training participants,

68 | P a g e
 Number of Covered by the Contact information Additional
Activity Output(s) UN Agency
beneficiaries survey availability Information
faculties 41 members

69 | P a g e