Community, Family and Youth Resilience (CFYR) Program Final Program Report July 2016 - November 2020

Submission Date: November 23, 2020.

Submitted by: Creative Associates International 0

Table of Contents PROJECT OVERVIEW/SUMMARY ...... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5

INTRODUCTION ...... 5

CFYR APPROACH AND OVERVIEW...... 7

KEY LIFE OF PROGRAM (LOP) RESULTS FROM JULY 1, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 30, 2020 ...... 10

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 14 COUNTRY AND COMMUNITY CONTEXTS ...... 16

SAINT LUCIA ...... 16

GUYANA ...... 18

ST. KITTS AND NEVIS ...... 20 CFYR PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS ...... 21

OUTPUT 2.1: TARGET COMMUNITIES AND YOUTH ENGAGED IN MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT AND PARTICIPATING IN LOCAL SOLUTIONS ...... 21

OUTPUT 2.2: SOCIAL SERVICES, SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS SUPPORTING AT-RISK AND VICTIMIZED YOUTH INCREASED AND STRENGTHENED ...... 36

SUB-OUTPUT: YOUTH IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW REHABILITATED AND REINTEGRATED INTO SOCIETY ..... 41

OUTPUT 2.3: POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES TO CRIME FOR YOUTH IN TARGET COMMUNITIES INCREASED ...... 42

OUTPUT 2.4: COMMUNITY BASED MODELS AND SOLUTIONS DOCUMENTED AND SHARED ...... 56 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 62

FINDINGS FROM COMMUNITY END-LINE SURVEYS ...... 62

ST. KITTS AND NEVIS FINDINGS ...... 63

SAINT LUCIA FINDINGS ...... 64

GUYANA FINDINGS ...... 67

LESSONS LEARNED AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 72 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS ...... 82

COMMUNICATIONS ...... 82

HUMAN RESOURCES ...... 82

CFYR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE...... 84

OPERATIONS AND PROCUREMENT ...... 85

FINANCE ...... 86 ANNEXES...... 87

ANNEX A: CFYR LIFE OF PROGRAM INDICATOR TABLE ...... 88

ANNEX B: CFYR FOUR-YEAR SUMMARY GRANTS TABLE ...... 99

ANNEX C: CFYR FOUR-YEAR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TABLE ...... 104

ANNEX D: CFYR PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT TABLE ...... 105

ANNEX E: INDEX OF REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL PRODUCTS PRODUCED ...... 106

Annex F: CREATIVE AND ASU IMPACT EVALUATION ADDITIONAL FINDINGS...... 110

1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAA - Caribbean Youth Advocacy & Action Agenda on Violence Prevention

ASP – After-School Program

ASU – Arizona State University

BLES - Basic Life and Employability Skills

CARICOM – Caribbean Community

CBO – Community-based Organization

CBSI – Caribbean Basin Security Initiative

CEC - Community Enhancement Committee

CFYR - Community, Family and Youth Resilience Program

CLC - Critchlow Labour College

CPTED – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

CSP - Community Safety Plan

CSSP - Citizen Security and Strengthening Programme

CSWC - Charlotte Street Wesleyan Church

CXC – Caribbean Examinations Council

DEIGR - Department of Education, Innovation, Gender Relations and Sustainable Development

DO – Development Objective

ECD – Eastern Caribbean Dollars

ESC – Eastern and Southern Caribbean

FACT - Family Awareness Consciousness Togetherness

FBO – Faith-based Organization

FRC – Folk Research Centre

GEF - Global Environment Facility

IAP – Inter-Agency Protocol

IE – impact evaluation

IR – Intermediate Result

KFC – Kentucky Fried Chicken

JJR – Juvenile Justice Reform

LOP - life of program

LYNCS - Learning for Youth Networking and Change Sessions

M&E – Monitoring and Evaluation

MEL – Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

MFD – Model Fidelity Database

MoSP - Ministry of Social Protection (Guyana)

MoU – Memorandum of Understanding

NAB – National Advisory Board

NGO - Non-government Organizations

NIA - Nevis Island Administration

NOC – New Opportunity Corps

OCA – Organizational Capacity Assessment

OCAT - Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool

PADF – Pan American Development Foundation

PHA – Public Health Approach

PIFSM - Prevention and Intervention Family Systems Model

PIRS – Performance Indicator Reference Sheet

PS – Permanent Secretary

PYD – Positive Youth Development

RCDS - Regional Cooperation and Development Strategy

RLE - Regional Learning Exchange

RLEv – Virtual Regional Learning Exchange

RLIC - Ruimveldt Life Improvement Centre

RLN - Regional Learning Network

SCP - Social Crime Prevention

SDC – Same Day Calling

3 SDCP - Social Development and Crime Prevention

SHS – Skeldon High School

SI – Social Impact

SLNYC – Saint Lucia National Youth Council

SLPSS - Skeldon Line Path Secondary School

SLS - Social and Leadership Skills

SSDF - St. Lucia Social Development Fund

SSF - Sacred Sports Foundation

STO – Social Transformation Officer

ToT – Training of Trainers

TVET – Technical and Vocational Education and Training

UK – United Kingdom

USAID - United States Agency for International Development

USAID/ESC - United States Agency for International Development/Eastern and Southern Caribbean

USC – University of Southern California

UWI – University of the West Indies

VTCT - Vocational Training Charitable Trust

VYC - Volunteer Youth Corps

WFD - Workforce development

YATTA - Youth Advocacy Through the Arts

YES - Youth Empowerment Services Project

YOFM - Youth on Fire Movement

YSET - Youth Services Eligibility Tool

YVP - Youth Violence Prevention

PROJECT OVERVIEW/SUMMARY

Program Name: Community, Family and Youth Resilience (CFYR) Program

Activity Start/ End Date: July 1, 2016 – November 30, 2020 Name of Implementing Creative Associates International Partner: Contract/Agreement AID-OAA-I-15-00011 Number: Name of Pan American Development Foundation; University of Subcontractors/Sub- Southern California; Arizona State University awardees: Geographic Coverage Guyana, Saint Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis (countries)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funded Community, Family and Youth Resilience (CFYR) Program was implemented in the Eastern and Southern Caribbean (ESC) by Creative Associates International (Creative), and sub-contracting partners Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), University of Southern California (USC) and Arizona State University (ASU). This represents the Final Report of the CFYR Program for the period July 1, 2016 to November 30, 2020.1 CFYR is managed by Creative Associates International (Creative) and this report is being submitted to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Eastern and Southern Caribbean (ESC) in compliance with Contract No. AID-OAA-I-15-00011 and Task Order No. AID-538-TO-16-00001.

Over four years, CFYR supported vulnerable youth age 10-29 in fifteen target communities across three countries: Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis and Guyana. The Program was implemented under the broader USAID Youth Empowerment Services (YES) Project to reduce youth involvement in crime and violence in target communities in the ESC2, corresponding to Development Objective 1 (DO 1), Outcome 23, under the USAID/ESC Mission’s Regional Cooperation and Development Strategy 2010-2019 (RCDS). The YES

1 During the April 1 to June 30, 2020 quarter, USAID agreed to a No-Cost Extension, from September 30, 2020, to November 30, 2020, allowing additional time needed to complete field work, data analysis and report writing for community end-line surveys in Saint Lucia and Guyana that were delayed due to COVID-19. Notwithstanding, CFYR formally concluded implementation of activities on September 15, 2020. 2 USAID/ESC countries are Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. 3 Outcome 1 is being implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as CariSECURE. Outcome 3 is being implemented by the Organisation for Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Commission as Juvenile Justice Reform Program II.

5 Project (DO 1) contributes to the Mission’s goal of ‘A safer, more prosperous Caribbean Community.’4 The purpose of the YES Project is to increase the institutional and technical capacity of regional bodies, select national government systems and community stakeholders to reduce the risk factors5 that drive youth crime, violence and victimization and to strengthen protective factors that build resiliency.

USAID/ESC Results Framework for the YES Project

CFYR applied a public health approach (PHA) to strengthen youth, family and community support systems; to improve the skills of youth to resist involvement in violence; to expand access to education and employment opportunities; and provided specialized services to youth at the highest risk of engaging in violence. Additionally, the Program worked in Guyana on Juvenile Justice Reform (JJR) to ensure that youth already in conflict with the law could be successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community. The goal was to empower youth to become productive citizens and make positive contributions to society. CFYR’s target beneficiaries were youth between the ages of 10 to 29. CFYR fulfilled an important role within USAID/ESC’s larger strategy to reduce youth involvement in crime and violence in the ESC region. Accordingly, CFYR focused its work across key communities and districts in the CFYR focus countries, as follows.

4 DO 1 complements USAID/ESC’s other DO’s; DO 2, ‘Epidemic control of human immuno-deficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) among key populations increased,’ and DO 3, ‘Risks to human and natural assets resulting from climate vulnerability reduced.’ 5 From the USAID/ESC Request for Task Order Proposal - Under the CFYR program, risk and protective factors are characteristics of individuals, communities, socio-economic contexts or physical environments that “suggest why certain individuals or groups are more or less likely to become victims of crime or to become involved in crime.” The presence of a single risk factor, however, does not predict future criminality. Moreover, some risks are associated with one type of crime but not another. The purpose of identifying and assessing risk factors is to maximize the potential for interventions to counteract the most influential drivers of crime and insecurity.

Table I: List of CFYR Target Communities

Saint Lucia Guyana St. Kitts and Nevis6

Anse La Raye Corriverton Basseterre7

Castries Central8 East La Penitence Cayon (Upper and Lower) St. Kitts Dennery East Ruimveldt Sandy Point

Soufriere Lodge Bath Village9

Vieux Fort Sophia10 Nevis Rawlins11

Rather than being community-based, CFYR’s work in JJR in Guyana was focused on key institutions to support administrative reform in line with the Juvenile Justice Act of 2018. CFYR’s support developed new tools and revised existing ones to improve how youth already in conflict with the law could be successfully rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community. CFYR also mapped the process to support new opportunities in alternative sentencing and diversion.

CFYR APPROACH AND OVERVIEW CFYR’s integrated approach to strengthening youth, family and community resilience and reducing youth crime, violence, and victimization through a range of interventions that specifically target different levels of risk is outlined in CFYR’s Theory of Change:12

IF target communities and youth engage in identifying their community security priorities through a rigorous community-based process, informed by data and local knowledge; and, IF they are provided with technical assistance, information and resources to facilitate positive youth development in partnership with local systems’ stakeholders, THEN they will be able to reduce risk factors and strengthen protective factors that lead to a sustainable reduction in youth crime, violence and victimization.

It is within this framework that Creative Associates International (Creative) and its partners are pleased to present CFYR’s Final Program Report in support of USAID/ESC’s investment in YES Outcome 2: Communities, families and youth withstand, mitigate and recover from crime and violence.

6 In consultation with USAID, CFYR concluded Primary Prevention activities in St. Kitts and Nevis on September 30, 2018, due to a reduction in overall program funding from USAID. 7 This included the areas of McKnight, The Village, and Newtown. 8 This included Grass Street, Leslie Land, Marchand, Morne Du Don and Bois Patat. 9 Expanded to the entire district of St. John Figtree district during the 2017-2018 period. 10 This includes Fields C, D and E. 11 Expanded to the entire district of St. George Gingerland district during the 2017-2018 period. 12 Due to a reduction in USAID program funding, CFYR, in consultation with USAID, discontinued Primary Prevention programming in St. Kitts and Nevis at the end of September 2018 and also reduced some Primary Prevention activities in Saint Lucia. Secondary Prevention services continued through July 2020, in all CFYR locations.

7 CFYR’s results framework complemented the YES Results Framework and included four high-level Intermediate Results (IR) for YES Output 2. Each IR and Sub-IR had indicators against which Creative reported in line with the CFYR’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MEL), with annual work plan activities contributing to achieving each of the indicators. CFYR results framework is set out below.

YES Project Goal: Reduce youth involvement in crime & violence in target communities in Eastern & Southern Caribbean

CFYR SO: Increased competence of communities, youth & families to prevent crime & violence

YES Output 2.1 YES Output 2.4 YES Output 2.2 YES Output 2.3 CFYR IR 2.1 - Target CFYR IR 2.4 - CFYR IR 2.2 - Social services, CFYR IR 2.3- Positive communities engaged in Community based systems and networks alternatives to crime for making decisions about models and solutions supporting at-risk and youth in target and participating in local documented and victimized youth are communities increased solutions strengthened shared

Sub IR Sub IR Sub IR Sub IR 2.1.1 Community violence 2.2.1 Capacity of social & 2.3.1 Youth access to 2.4.1 Capacity of agencies to prevention plan developed supporting services for at-risk employment opportunities implement community based & implemented youth enhanced increased models strengthened 2.1.2 Community capacity 2.2.2 Inter-agency collaboration 2.3.2 Youth social, leadership 2.4.2 Results of community to address crime & violence for management of at-risk youth & vocational capacity based models dissiminated enhanced increased strengthened

For CFYR, crime and violence prevention focused on identifying and analyzing the risk and protective factors experienced by youth in crime-affected communities (primary-risk youth), at-risk youth (secondary- risk youth) and youth in conflict with the law (tertiary-risk youth). Using the PHA, CFYR applied risk assessment tools, evidence-based interventions, rigorous evaluation and sharing of successful results and models. CFYR emphasized meaningful youth and community engagement and a positive youth development (PYD) approach, matching services to needs, ensuring a continuum of services and institutionalizing data collection, analysis and use of data for partners to replicate activities, adopt programs and measure results.

CFYR’s Primary Prevention activities involved a range of activities to strengthen protective factors among youth, families and communities. These included developing Community Safety Plans (CSPs) in Guyana and Saint Lucia13 designing and implementing with community members, projects around the priorities they identified in these CSPs; building the capacities of the Community Enhancement Committees (CECs) in all three focus countries through training and engagement in community project planning, community outreach, preparing funding proposals and registering as official organizations14; proactively engaging youth

13 CFYR’s Primary Prevention activities in St. Kitts and Nevis concluded prior to the preparation of CSPs. CFYR did work closely with community members prior to September 30, 2018, when these activities concluded, to develop and implement activities with community members that addressed their priority issues to reduce youth crime and violence in their communities. 14 Training to prepare funding proposals and support to register as organizations were provided later in CFYR’s implementation and was provided to CECs in Saint Lucia and Guyana. CFYR had concluded its support to CECs in St. Kitts and Nevis by September 30, 2018.

as CEC members, in CEC leadership and participating in community activities and youth dialogues to incorporate youth priorities into community engagement; implementing workforce development activities, including life skills and technical/vocational skills, for youth and providing job placement support; networking and fostering cohesion within and across communities; and a range of supplemental school programs. These activities contributed to increased self-efficacy among youth participants; increased feelings of safety among residents of target communities; and strengthened the engagement and participation of youth and communities at the local level in decision-making toward reducing youth crime and violence at the local level.

CFYR structured its Secondary Prevention activities under the Prevention and Intervention Family Systems Model (PIFSM), applied through Family Matters, that engaged participating youth and their families in an approximately seven-month cycle of structured family counseling, specifically adapted for the Caribbean context to reduce youths’ level of risk for engaging in risky behavior. Working with Creative’s subcontractor USC, CFYR adapted and applied the Caribbean Youth Service Eligibility Tool (YSET) to assess youths’ risk factors to determine eligibility for Family Matters and to measure changes in risk levels over the course of engagement. In cooperation with host government partners, CFYR implemented Family Matters in all fifteen CFYR focus communities in Saint Lucia, Guyana and St. Kitts and Nevis, through teams of CFYR-trained family counselors. The counselors worked with all family members to strengthen family cohesion (bonds that hold family members together) and protective factors; and with the youth, on an individual basis, to encourage positive and safe behavior.

CFYR’s Tertiary Prevention activities were specific to Guyana15 and focused on engaging key state bodies and institutions in support of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018 (Act); establishing the Inter-Agency Committee to support Juvenile Justice Reform; supporting administrative reforms and technical support for the New Opportunity Corps (NOC) and the Sophia Juvenile Remand Centre (Sophia Centre); and providing a framework for diversion and alternative sentencing within the new guidelines of the Act.

CFYR developed and/or revised twenty-one administrative and/or diagnostic tools to support Guyana’s JJR efforts. CFYR provided training to staff at the NOC and the Sophia Centre, relevant ministries, supporting institutions and the Magistracy to support the needed reforms mandated under the Act. Some of the tools already being applied include:

• The Serious Incident Report • The Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Form • The Care and Reintegration Plan • The Mental Health Referral Form • The Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Form

In support of USAID/ESC’s work to promote knowledge-sharing on approaches to reduce youth violence in the ESC, CFYR facilitated the participation of more than seventeen regional partners at three regional Caribbean Basin and Security Initiative (CBSI) Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings. CFYR also

15 With restrictions on the funding obligation that USAID provided to CFYR in March 2020, CFYR was required to discontinue JJR that provided any direct support to entities that managed/provided oversight for incarcerated populations. This curtailed the balance of CFYR’s planned JJR activities for Year 4.

9 worked with regional youth leaders through the CFYR-established Learning for Youth Networking and Change Sessions (LYNCS) network to develop the Caribbean Advocacy & Action Agenda (AAA) on Youth Violence Prevention. The AAA represents what young people across the ESC region believe is required to effectively address issues of youth crime and violence. The AAA was finalized at the Caribbean Summit on Youth Violence Prevention that CFYR hosted in Guyana in January 2019, for regional youth leaders, representatives from youth-serving agencies, government and community partners and development partners from across the Caribbean, the US and the UK. CFYR built on the AAA framework with the development of the AAA Advocacy Training Toolkit, and trained regional youth leaders and people in youth-serving agencies to give voice to priorities in the AAA. Culminating CFYR’s knowledge-sharing activities, CFYR implemented the Regional Learning Exchange (RLEv) virtual webinar series with community members, youth leaders, local organizations and host government partners between June and July 2020, to share CFYR’s learning and the learning of other actors in the Caribbean on approaches to youth violence prevention.

KEY LIFE OF PROGRAM (LOP) RESULTS FROM JULY 1, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 30, 2020 Over the life of the program (LOP), CFYR engaged a wide range of youth, community members, community organizations and host government partners to achieve program results. Some key LOP results include:

• CFYR engaged a total of 750116 youth in a range of activities across Guyana, Saint Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis, with 6253 youth (83%) residing within CFYR target communities. • 9611 youth and community members were engaged in 345 Community Engagement Activities across Saint Lucia (133 activities with 3734 participants), St. Kitts and Nevis (39 activities with 965 participants) and Guyana (173 activities with 4912 participants).17 • 815 youth18 aged 16-29 completed workforce development programs (WFD)19. Of this amount, 771 were from CFYR communities (Saint Lucia - 301; Guyana - 470). Among those trained, 410 youth secured new employment (Saint Lucia – 186; Guyana - 224). • 240620 youth engaged in Supplementary School Programs as of September 30, 2020, across all locations in Saint Lucia (986), Guyana (1324) and St. Kitts and Nevis (96). Of the 1216 youth who took the pre- and post-Self-efficacy Tests, 701 youth (58%) reported increased self-efficacy upon completion of supplemental school programs across all three countries.21 These supplementary school program results comprise the following:

16 This represents a unique count of youth who participated in CFYR activities. Participation numbers below may include youth who participated in more than one activity. 17 There may be instances where persons may have participated in more than one activity. 18 These results represent October 2018 –September 2020 results, which are also Life of Project results as WFD commenced at the very end of Year 2 and start of Year 3. 19 Workforce development includes the Basic Life and Employability Skills (BLES) training and training provided by grantees in life skills and vocational/technical skills. 20 The 1919 youth engaged represent all youth who participated in supplemental school programs including: After-school Programs Summer Camps, Easter Camps and the Robotics and Coding project conducted in Saint Lucia. This figure may contain youth who have participated in more than one of the aforementioned activities. 21 This includes 313 youth in Year 2 who participated in Robotics and Coding (105) and after-school programs (208); 151 youth in Year 3 participating in after-school programs (125) and in summer camp (26) and 237 youth in year 4 who participated in afterschool programs (57) and In-School Program- Positive Connection to school (180).

22 o 988 youth aged 10-18 engaged in After-school Programs (ASPs) (396 in Saint Lucia, 527 in Guyana and 65 in St. Kitts and Nevis). Of the 595 youth who took the pre- and post-Self- efficacy Tests, 39023 youth (66%) reported an increase in self-efficacy upon completing participation in an ASP. o 617 engaged in Summer Camps in Saint Lucia (307) and Guyana (310) during Year 1 and Year 3. Of the 48 youth who completed the self-efficacy pre- and post-test assessment, 26 youth (54%) reported increases in self-efficacy.24 o 31 engaged in Easter Camps in St. Kitts and Nevis. o 279 engaged in the Coding and Robotics pilot project implemented in Saint Lucia (only in Year 2). Of the 197 youth who took the pre- and post-self-efficacy tests, 105 youth (53%) reported increased self-efficacy upon completion of their participation. Through its own funding, the Government of Saint Lucia extended the program to two additional secondary schools (Clendon Mason and Micoud). o 487 youth participated in the Positive Connection to School activity in Year 4. Of the 376 youth who took the pre- and post-self-efficacy tests, 180 of these youth (48%) reported increased self-efficacy upon completion of their participation25. • CFYR developed the Self-Efficacy Youth Scale that CFYR used to track outcomes across a diverse range of training and competency development activities through measuring improvements in self-efficacy (a natural protective factor).26 • 422 youth participated in thirty-five (35) youth dialogues, engaging in topics that included bullying, youth employment and promoting effective rehabilitation and preventing recidivism among youth offenders. Through youth dialogues, youth from CFYR communities also provided input into the development of the Action and Advocacy Agenda (AAA) Advocacy Toolkit. • CFYR trained 451 local stakeholders (community members, youth leaders, police, probations officers, youth workers) in social crime prevention to increase community participation in reducing local youth crime and violence.27 • As a result of capacity-building support from CFYR, the Vieux Fort and Dennery CECs received an initial grant of ECD 50,000 from the United Nations Global Environment Facility (GEF) to implement a mariculture and sea moss employment project for BLES graduates from these communities, with a former CFYR Basic Life and Employability Skills (BLES) Life Coach serving as the Vieux Fort CEC’s Project Manager for the activity. • 422 at-risk youth and their families (approximately 1375 total beneficiaries) concluded their participation in Cohorts 1 and 2 of Family Matters. The Ministry of Community Development, Gender Affairs and Social Services in St. Kitts and the Ministry of Human and Social Services in

22 After-school Programs include a combination of academic, cultural and recreational activities. 23 The 390 youth are a subset of the overall total of 701 youth who reported an increase in self-efficacy for all supplemental school programs. The total number includes 208 youth during Year 2 across Saint Lucia, Guyana and St. Kitts and Nevis; 125 youth during Year 3 in Saint Lucia and Guyana; and 57 youth during year 4 in Saint Lucia and Guyana. 24 There were 522 youth who participated in summer camps in Year 1 and 95 in Year 3. No self-efficacy assessment was undertaken in Year 1 as the tools was not yet developed. There were no summer camps in Year 4. 25 This activity was implemented only in Guyana. 26 There is a positive correlation between self-efficacy and resilience (Benight and Bandura, 2004). 27 CFYR’s overall community engagement decreased in Year 4 (2165 participants) as compared with Year 3 (4125). This decrease is attributed to the USAID-directed slowing of implementation while waiting for the March 2020 funding obligation, restrictions on funding to implement JJR activities and the impacts of COVID-19.

11 Guyana are continuing with full implementation of Family Matters and have hired the Family Counselors trained by CFYR. Results for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 are provided as follows: 28 o 242 at-risk youth and their families (approximately 775 total beneficiaries ) completed Cohort 1 of Family Matters (Saint Lucia – 102; Guyana – 82; St. Kitts and Nevis – 58). 29 30 o 180 at-risk youth and their families (approximately 600 total beneficiaries ) completed Cohort 2 of Family Matters (Saint Lucia – 63; Guyana – 86; St. Kitts and Nevis – 31). • 456 at-risk youth31 from Cohorts 1 and 2 of Family Matters were below secondary levels of risk following either the midline YSET (YSET-R) or end-line YSET (YSET-1). o 282 youth from Cohort 1 were below secondary levels of risk following their participation in Family Matters (Saint Lucia – 122; Guyana – 95; and St. Kitts and Nevis – 65). o 174 youth from Cohort 2 were below secondary levels of risk following their participation in Family Matters Saint Lucia – 59; Guyana – 84; and St. Kitts and Nevis – 31). • 278 (61%)32 of 456 a-risk youth from Family Matters Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were no longer at a secondary level following their participation in the activity. • CFYR trained 660 stakeholders (youth leaders, representatives of government, non-governmental organizations (NGO) and community members): Guyana – 231; St. Kitts and Nevis – 185; Saint Lucia – 244. Key areas focused on increasing knowledge and strengthening stakeholders’ skills in proposal writing, project management, monitoring and evaluation (M&E); Basic Life and Employability Skills (BLES) Training of Trainers (ToT), Social Crime Prevention (SCP) training; program and survey field work/enumeration skills; Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) training; Youth Services Eligibility Tool (YSET) Scoring; Juvenile Justice Reform tools; and the Advocacy Toolkit for youth and community workers, among others. • CFYR developed and/or updated twenty-one (21) administrative and diagnostic tools to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of justice-involved youth in Guyana, of which five (5) have been approved and adopted at time of reporting. 33 • CFYR worked with community members to prepare ten CSPs (Saint Lucia (five) and Guyana (five)). CECs implemented community-led initiatives that addressed CSP priority issues and other

28 Calculated using average family size in each country x number of youth beneficiaries; 1) Saint Lucia - avg. family size of 3 x 102 index youth; 2) Guyana – avg. family size of 3.8 x 82 index youth; 3) St. Kitts and Nevis - avg family size of 2.7 x 58 index youth. 29 These do not include sixteen cases that were incorrectly included for treatment in Cohort 2 in Saint Lucia; these do include four youth who refused the mid-line YSET. These do not include two cases in St. Kitts and Nevis that were incorrectly included for treatment in Cohort 2. 30 Calculated using average family size in each country x number of youth beneficiaries; 1) Saint Lucia - avg. family size of 3 x 63 index youth; 2) Guyana – avg. family size of 3.8 x 86 index youth; 3) St. Kitts and Nevis - avg family size of 2.7 x 31 index youth. 31 CFYR adapted the YSET for the Caribbean context. This reflects a unique count of youth who were below secondary level of risk either at the midline YSET (YSET-R) or the end-line YSET (YSET-1). Youth who were below secondary level of risk at both midline and end-line in Cohort 1 were counted only once. Cohort I constituted two six-month cycles, per the technical model, anticipating youth and families participating in both cycles. Due to unanticipated delays in the start of Cohort 1 resulting from data gathering requirements by the USAID funded impact evaluation, there was time only to implement one six-month cycle for Cohort 2. 32 CFYR updated the LOP target to 60% in the indicator table in the updated Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan in 2018, but the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) was not updated and still reflects 65%. The number includes youth from Cohort 1 who were below secondary level of risk at midline after completing Cycle 1 (midline); youth from Cohort 1 who were still at risk when starting Cycle 2, but were below secondary level of risk after completing Cycle 2 (end-line); and youth from Cohort 2 who were below secondary level of risk at midline after completing Cycle 1(midline). Due to delays in the start of Cohort 1 due to data gathering requirements by the USAID impact evaluation team, CFYR had time only to complete Cycle 1 with Cohort 2 participants. 33 These include: Serious Incident Report; Behavior Modification Tool; Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Procedure Reporting Form; Care and Reintegration Plan; and Mental Health Referral Form.

community priorities by engaging community members – including youth – to be part of implementing solutions to address youth violence in their communities. o Some Saint Lucia CEC activities included the Soufriere and Vieux Fort Job Readiness Training, an Orange Bag Dialogue on Gender-based Violence in Dennery, and a Sexual Abuse Workshop in Castries in Year 2; the Soufriere Anti-bullying Campaign, the Youth Agro- Entrepreneurial Social and Leadership Training in the Anse La Raye District of Jacmel, the Vieux Fort Chess Club Training in Year 3; and the Castries CEC Elderly Luncheon and care package distribution and Face Mask Challenge in Year 4. o Some Guyana CEC activities in Year 2 included a Partnership with the Ministry of Social Protection (MoSP) and all 4 Georgetown CECs to train Community Advocates as effective first responders to social issues and the East La Penitence and East Ruimveldt CECs’ partnership with the Ministry of Public Telecommunications to implement twelve sessions of Computer Literacy Training for young people from their communities; in Year 3 the Corriverton CEC implemented a Street Theatre activity to raise awareness about Domestic Violence; the Lodge CEC held a sporting event “Score the Goal Without the Penalty”; and the Sophia CEC held a Computer Literacy Camp for youth from that community. Year 4 activities included a Community Sports Day and Mini Expo; Clean-up and Street Lighting campaigns in Lodge and Corriverton; and the Sophia CEC’s Single Parents Outreach. o Some St. Kitts and Nevis CEC activities included Wheels Up Guns Down, an activity to promote conflict resolution and positive engagement with the Police; a ‘Football and Friends’ Project to promote teamwork and strengthen intra-community collaboration while developing football (soccer) skills; a gender development workshop; and a movie screening to raise awareness of sexual violence.34 • CFYR established LYNCS, a regional youth network comprised of fifteen youth leaders from across ten Caribbean countries, to develop the AAA for Youth Violence Prevention. The AAA is a youth-centered violence prevention manifesto that supports the implementation of CARICOM’s Social Development and Crime Prevention (SDCP) Action Plan and serves as a framework for promoting evidence-based approaches to youth crime and violence prevention in the ESC region. The AAA continues to serve as a framework for youth leaders and youth-serving agencies to develop programming and support to reduce youth violence in the ESC region.35 • CFYR hosted the Caribbean Summit on Youth Violence Prevention in January 2019, with 267 attendees, including youth (56%), policy-makers, youth-serving agency representatives, civil society representatives and development partners, from thirteen Caribbean countries, as well as Latin America, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Summit participants finalized the (AAA)36 and CFYR built on this success to develop the AAA Advocacy Toolkit with regional

34 Due to a reduction in funding from USAID, CFYR concluded all Primary Prevention activities in St. Kitts and Nevis by September 30, 2020, which was the end of Year 2. 35 One example includes representatives from the Nevis Island Administration using the AAA in some of their violence prevention programming. 36 CFYR had dialogue with the CARICOM Secretariat for the AAA to be formally endorsed as an evidence-based guide for integrating youth violence prevention and positive alternatives to crime across all sectors to benefit young people between the ages of 10-29; for all National Youth Policies to incorporate deliberate youth asset-based and youth violence prevention approaches and initiatives in accordance with the discrete pillars of the AAA; and for all social and economic development programs for youth to incorporate measurable youth violence prevention objectives in line with the AAA. The Fortieth Regular Meeting of the Conference Of CARICOM Heads Of Government held in July 2019, in Saint Lucia, also “acknowledged the role

13 youth leaders. CFYR delivered training on the Toolkit to regional youth leaders and youth-serving agencies to strengthen their skills to advocate for programs and support to reduce youth violence.

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Following CFYR’s engagement with a broad range of stakeholders to implement activities across a number of activity areas in a diverse range of communities, there are some important lessons that can be considered for future programming.

• During program design, consider population size and geography in regard to program participants and implementation costs. For future programming, USAID should be cognizant of community size and important differences among communities, as these have implications for staffing levels (and costs) needed for implementers to reach more/larger geographical areas and sufficient numbers of beneficiaries. • Transforming mindsets to achieve sustained buy-in for safe communities takes time. CFYR sought to incorporate a representative range of community members in the CECs. Establishing trusting relationships to achieve collective efficacy and sustained buy-in for safe communities, the premise of CECs, requires time. Consideration should be given to five-year implementation timeframes to support this engagement. • Sustainability discussions should begin early in implementation, but they are no guarantee that the activity will be adopted. While discussions in St. Kitts and Guyana were initiated much later than in Saint Lucia, local champions in each of the implementing partner agencies were closely engaged in implementation, understood the technical approach and the benefits for youth and families and were able to make the case for budget resources to continue Family Matters beyond CFYR’s implementation. As a result of a change in senior level personnel in Saint Lucia and reduced budget resources in Nevis due to the economic fallout from COVID-19, neither of these locations adopted Family Matters. • Limited engagement, if strategic, can be effective. CFYR’s work on JJR commenced in Guyana in early 2018, and concluded during February 2020, due to restrictions on a later funding obligation.37 Once the Act was in place in 2018, CFYR provided substantial technical support to redesign existing tools and develop new ones to be used by those responsible for youth in state care that will better prepare youth to successfully reintegrate into their families and communities. • Local circumstances may make it necessary to provide stipends to expand program participation in WFD. CFYR grants did not include a stipend for participants to cover costs such as transportation38 to and from training; meals; or childcare. CFYR learned from some grantees that some participants had to choose between attending training, or staying home to

of and the need to engage with international partners” to continue to “strengthen the regional security architecture, both at the institutional and the personnel levels.” The official conclusions of the Nineteenth Special Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) on Security have not been published. This reporting summarizes agreements communicated by CARICOM staff and may be subject to correction. 37 The restrictions with the March 2020 funding obligation were due to other approvals needed by AID/W and were not specific to CFYR. The restrictions also did not allow funds to be used for program staff working entirely or almost entirely on juvenile justice reform, where this support would focus on training and support to staff working at institutions such as NOC, the Sophia Training Centre or training for police who work with incarcerated youth. 38 BLES training was generally conducted in town centers and locations that were regularly frequented. WFD training provided by grantees would generally require more travel for participants to attend.

care for children, while others were not able to attend because they lacked finances to commute to training and internships. CFYR did provide support to participants in the final BLES cohort in Saint Lucia who were engaged in apprenticeships to defray transportation costs. • Recognize the importance of engaging parents, caregivers and community members; and keep things ‘local’ to the extent possible. Offering parenting skills, coping skills, self- awareness and personal development can enable parents to be of greater support to their children in the home and to be more involved in their child’s school life. It is also important to acknowledge the special needs of youth who are developmentally and behaviorally challenged and include services these youth may require. The more successful programs implemented activities designed to engage participants and serve a variety of learning styles through visual, auditory and kinesthetic materials. • Uncertainties surrounding levels and timing of obligations may have a negative impact on implementation, relationships and outcomes. The nearly four-month USAID- directed hold on new program activities in February 2018, followed by a twenty percent reduction in overall funding, required CFYR to scale down and/or eliminate a number of activities and staff positions. In December 2019, however, a smaller than anticipated funding obligation resulted in the delay/scaling back of activities. USAID’s continual engagement is needed to communicate with host country partners on timing and levels of funding so that partners appreciate changes to programming that implementers must make when funding situations change. • Building a Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) culture in partners takes time and requires continuous reinforcement. As CFYR engaged with its diverse range of local partners, CFYR provided group and organization-specific training and templates to make it easier for partners to provide the information that CFYR required for onward reporting to USAID and to strengthen partners’ use of information to inform their own program design and understand results. Keeping the M&E processes simple will support greater compliance by partners to provide the information needed. • Adhere to model fidelity when evaluating program impact. Impact evaluations (IE) can provide valuable information on how and whether program approaches achieve certain results. To ensure that evaluations inform good decisions, it is critical that program implementation is not overly influenced by expectations of evaluations. Making changes to program implementation for purposes of an IE can undermine the usefulness of the evaluation, if the program would have been implemented differently absent the IE. • Virtual engagement and expand program reach. While in-person program delivery has been the preferred mode whenever possible, the rapid increase in the use of virtual meeting platforms occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic opened opportunities for CFYR to expand engagement with additional young people and persons in youth-serving agencies. This included additional cohorts of BLES, SCP and Social and Leadership Skills (SLS) training; easier access to youth and family members participating in Cohort 2 of Family Matters; and engaging single parents who are often not able to attend in-person activities due to child-care issues, as well as additional training cohorts on the AAA Advocacy.

15 COUNTRY AND COMMUNITY CONTEXTS CFYR used an evidence-based approach to select the focus communities for program implementation. CFYR defined “target community” as:

“The core geographic and demographic area within each parish and/or district in which the majority of the risks, factors and drivers of youth violence are present and/or become consequential.”

CFYR first reviewed publicly available data from government agencies to identify a range of communities to be considered for engagement, including:

• levels of crime and violence (murder, kidnapping, shooting, robbery, rape, house-breaking, etc.) • % of youth within the community (aged 15-29) • % of youth in conflict with the law (incarcerated persons’ community of residence) • % Unemployment/Youth Unemployment • % of persons with primary or lower education/no formal qualifications • % of single mothers • poverty (Home Infrastructure index) • community size (>1000 people) • evidence of basic infrastructure (e.g. community centers) and social capital (active community leaders, community-based organizations)

CFYR used this information to identify risk factors and drivers of youth violence, as well as opportunities that were available with NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs), the private sector and host government partners to work with community members, and then engaged with local stakeholders to determine which locations to recommend for CFYR programming. Once the proposed communities were confirmed by USAID and National Advisory Boards (NAB) in each location, CFYR commenced active engagement in each of the communities. These are now discussed below.

SAINT LUCIA To allow for engagement with a sufficient number of program participants in Saint Lucia, CFYR used the local jurisdictional areas known as “districts” to define a community for four of the five CFYR communities selected for programming.39 CFYR undertook quantitative data analysis using crime, population and socioeconomic data disaggregated by geographic boundaries from available census data; community field interviews and focus groups with residents to gather qualitative information about each of the

39 For Dennery, Vieux Fort, Anse La Raye and Soufriere, CFYR employed the district boundaries as defined by the Central Statistical Office of Saint Lucia as the official boundaries for these “communities.” For Central Castries, CFYR combined the smaller communities of Grass Street, Leslie Land, Morne Du Don and Bois Patat and later, Marchand, for engagement.

communities; consultations with Government stakeholders to gather information about the relevant criminogenic features of the different communities using a structured questionnaire; and a community ranking based on the findings. After careful analyses of all the quantitative and qualitative information, the CFYR team recommended to USAID and the Saint Lucia National Advisory Board (NAB) the five communities ranked highest for intervention.40 The NAB approved these communities for CFYR engagement in March 2017.

Key characteristics and findings from the communities that were selected are set out below.

Castries Central41 In January, 2017 in Saint Lucia's District of Dennery, a focus group with residents takes place at a local school. The combined communities of Castries Central had the highest representation of convicted persons in prison among the country’s districts. It had high levels of youth involvement in crime and violence; high youth unemployment; high number of teen pregnancies; high number of school dropouts; and significant levels of drug use and drug trade. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities for implementation across Central Castries. There were active community-based organizations (CBOs) and NGO involvement in the area. As the capital of Saint Lucia, it remained the center of transportation, commerce and networking. These combined factors, including the endorsement by a range of stakeholders, provided a strong opportunity for CFYR engagement.

Vieux Fort

The district of Vieux Fort had the second highest representation of convicted persons in prison among the country’s districts. This was accompanied by high levels of youth involvement in crime and violence; youth unemployment; a high number of school dropouts; and significant levels of drug use and trade. For CFYR, there were opportunities at the time for a workforce development partnership through the proposed Desert Star Holdings Investment42. Vieux Fort also had a significant number of community assets in the form of schools and recreational facilities. It is the second largest town in Saint Lucia and at the time offered numerous opportunities for youth.

Dennery

There was significant concern about gang involvement and/or participation among youth in the district of Dennery. There was a high school dropout rate; high level of teenage pregnancy; youth unemployment;

40 As the Caribbean Development Bank was expected to implement a program to support youth in parts of Castries City (Central Castries for CFYR programming), USAID and the Caribbean Development Bank agreed that CFYR would only work in the Castries City areas of Grass Street, Leslie Land, Morne Du Don and Bois Patat and later, Marchand. Marchand was included later, after the Caribbean Development Bank project determined it would not work in Marchand. 41 Castries Central refers to the “combined community” of Grass Street, Leslie Land, Bois Patat and Morne Du Don. Marchand was included later, after the Caribbean Development Bank project determined it would not work in Marchand. 42 While the engagement with Desert Star Holdings did not materialize, the CEC was one of the more actively engaged in CFYR programming.

17 and significant drug use amongst youth. Notwithstanding, there was an active tourism and cultural industry which would potentially open opportunities for youth (Tree Top park - Zip Lining; Fishing Village; Dennery Seafood Fiesta) and an active football league.

Anse La Raye

The district of Anse La Raye had a high level of poverty; high unemployment; high levels of teen pregnancy; and high levels of youth involvement in crime and violence. Notwithstanding, there were community assets such as schools and recreational facilities for youth and a CBO that was engaged in the community. There were opportunities to collaborate with the Ministry of Tourism on revitalization of the “Friday Night Fish Fry” to enhance community engagement and employment.

Soufriere

There were concerns about youth crime and violence in key areas of the district of Soufriere. This was accompanied by increasing use and availability of drugs; high youth involvement in crime and violence; and high levels of youth unemployment. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities for partnerships with large private enterprises which CFYR could partner with to support youth employment and reintegration. There were also opportunities to collaborate with the Soufriere Regional Development Foundation and companies in the tourism industry.

GUYANA The community selection process in Guyana included two elements that were different from Saint Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis. The Inter-American Development Bank was funding the Citizen Security and Strengthening Programme (CSSP) in Guyana, which was already operating in thirty-three communities. To avoid overlap and expand outreach, the Government of Guyana requested that CFYR implement in non- CSSP communities though some of these demonstrated the highest levels of youth crime and violence. There were also great disparities in population sizes among some of the non-CSSP communities, with some substantial disparities in crime and violence data.

CFYR conducted a quantitative data analysis of crime and socio-economic data using quantitative data that was collected by the Crime Observatory for the available years (2011-2015) and used information on population and socioeconomic conditions from the 2012 Census. CFYR eliminated CSSP communities and those with populations fewer than 1000 residents from consideration. CFYR conducted some site visits to shortlisted communities; conducted focus group discussions with twenty-seven youth and adults across twenty-five communities and conducted key informant interviews with twenty NGOs; undertook a mapping of community resources (schools, churches, etc.); and had stakeholder validation workshops with Government officials. This resulted in a further shortlist which was presented to USAID and the Guyana National Advisory Board (NAB), which was approved in March 2017.

Key characteristics and findings from the communities that were selected are set out below.43

43 The first four communities are within the area of Georgetown, the capital, which is densely populated, and Corriverton, which is outside of the capital and covers a much larger geographic area.

Sophia (Fields C, D and E)44

Sophia Fields C, D and E was one of fourteen communities with the highest levels of community member incarceration. There were high levels of youth involvement in crime and violence; teenage pregnancy; high levels of youth unemployment; a high number of school dropouts; and significant levels of drug use. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities to provide much needed outreach to communities which could not be carried out by the CSSP. There were also community development initiatives and active engagement by CBOs, NGOs, and faith-based organizations (FBO). Sophia was also a center of commerce with numerous private sector entities operating nearby and to the north of the community. This would bring potential for CFYR engagement around workforce development (WFD), as well as support for interventions that were in keeping with USAID’s renewed strategy for private sector engagement.

East La Penitence

The East La Penitence community recorded high levels of youth involvement in crime and violence; teenage pregnancy; youth unemployment; a high number of school dropouts; and significant levels of drug use. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities for partnership with the Government of Guyana and active CBOs, NGOs and FBOs engaged in community development initiatives.

East Ruimveldt

East Ruimveldt recorded increasing levels of youth violence; teenage pregnancy; youth unemployment; a high level of school dropouts; and significant drug use among youth. It is also notable that the community is among the top fourteen communities with high levels of community members who were incarcerated. Given the low perception of safety by Government stakeholders, it was identified by them all Government stakeholders as a priority community. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities for partnership with the active CBOs, NGOs, FBOs, and the Centre of Commerce and Business.

Lodge

Lodge was among the top fourteen communities with high levels of community members who were incarcerated. There were increasing levels of drug use and reports of trafficking of persons. There was visible evidence of community despair and high levels of teenage pregnancy. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities to partner with the Volunteer Youth Corps (VYC), an NGO that had experience delivering primary prevention programs. There were also strong community assets such as schools, health centers, and recreational facilities.

Corriverton

Corriverton was also among the top fourteen communities with high levels of incarceration among community members. There was increasing drug use and trafficking, along with evidence of social disintegration with heightened fears of victimization in certain areas. There was a notedly high incidence of suicide among youth; high levels of youth unemployment; and the imminent downsizing of the entity GuySuCo, which was a major source of employment in the community. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities to engage around the local fishing industry as a potential area of growth and employment.

44 As CSSP was working in other areas in Sophia, CFYR engaged only in Fields C, D and E.

19 There were active NGOs involved in domestic violence prevention, HIV/AIDS prevention and outreach, family counseling, and ASPs, including Family Awareness Consciousness Togetherness (FACT).

ST. KITTS AND NEVIS45 St. Kitts and Nevis is a two-island Federation. The community selection process in St. Kitts and Nevis included quantitative and qualitative data analysis across the communities using available data. Secondly, the smallest at-risk communities identified for CFYR programming were clustered together based on geographic proximity and neighborhood similarity in order to reach a larger number of beneficiaries. CFYR conducted focus group discussions and interviews with community residents and government stakeholders to validate preliminary results and arrive at the proposed communities. CFYR presented the proposed communities to USAID and the St. Kitts and Nevis NAB, and the NAB approved these in March 2017.

Key characteristics and findings from the communities that were selected are set out below.

Basseterre46

Basseterre recorded high levels of youth involvement in crime; significant levels of drug use and drug trafficking; criminal activity originated by cohesive or semi-cohesive groups of youth and young adults; and the highest rates of burglary and robbery. Notwithstanding, there were opportunities for partnerships with the police and the Ministry of Community and Social Development and Gender Affairs. The community also had available outreach centers, a community asset infrastructure and active NGOs.

Sandy Point

This community recorded high levels of youth involvement in crime; the highest rate of juveniles in custody; high levels of teenage pregnancy; high levels of youth unemployment accompanied by lack of recreational, extracurricular and workforce development opportunities; a high number of school dropouts; and a strong need for family counseling and mentoring. Like Basseterre, there were opportunities for partnerships with the police and the Ministry of Community and Social Development and Gender Affairs. There was also the availability of outreach centers, community asset infrastructure, and the presence of active NGOs.

Cayon (Upper and Lower)

This community recorded high levels of youth involvement in crime with violence among rival youth groups; high levels of teenage pregnancy; high levels of youth unemployment; high numbers of school dropouts; and prevalent drug use among youth. Because of these factors, there was consensus among all stakeholders that Cayon should be a priority community for CFYR engagement. There were active NGOs in the community with increased awareness about the negative effects of youth violence and crime.

45 At CFYR’s recommendation, the St. Kitts and Nevis NAB agreed at an NAB meeting in September 2017 to expand the boundaries of implementation in Nevis to cover the entire district. Arising from this, implementation in Rawlins was expanded to include the wider district of St. George Gingerland and implementation in Bath Village was expanded to include the wider district of St. John Figtree. Expanding these boundaries enabled CFYR to engage with a larger number of program participants. 46 Includes the combined communities of districts of McKnight, Newtown, and The Village.

Rawlins

This community was noted to have a deteriorated social fabric; youth violence accompanied by an increasing murder rate; increasing drug use; areas of the community falling into disrepair; and increasing rates of teen pregnancy. Because of these factors, there was strong involvement in the community from Government stakeholders, with the potential for primary and secondary prevention services. As noted, a decision was taken in a meeting of the St. Kitts and Nevis National Advisory Board (NAB) in September 2017 to expand the boundaries of implementation to the wider district of St. George Gingerland.

Bath Village

This community recorded the highest level of poverty in Nevis. This was accompanied by high levels of alcoholism and drug use; high levels of teen pregnancy and youth unemployment; and the lack of educational, extracurricular and development opportunities for youth. Stakeholders at the time believed that the growing tourism industry offered opportunities for workforce development activities. As noted, a decision was taken in a meeting of the St. Kitts and Nevis National Advisory Board (NAB) in September 2017 to expand the boundaries of implementation to the wider district of St. John Figtree.

CFYR PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS CFYR achieved significant accomplishments over its four-year period of implementation. These accomplishments span CFYR’s key activities across the four output areas, among the three focus countries, highlighted below.

OUTPUT 2.1: TARGET COMMUNITIES AND YOUTH ENGAGED IN MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT AND PARTICIPATING IN LOCAL SOLUTIONS

Implementing Community Safety Plans and Community Initiatives

With a mandate to identify local solutions and implement them at the community level, CFYR worked closely with youth, families and community members to strengthen their roles as change-makers and to collaborate with them to design initiatives to reduce youth violence. CFYR worked with community members to establish Community Enhancement Committees (CECs) in each target community across each country. Working with the CECs, CFYR supported opportunities for community members to determine their local priorities to reduce youth crime in violence The Dennery CEC in Saint Lucia received its formal Certificate in their communities. CFYR worked with CECs to of Registration on September 26, 2019 from the Ministry of establish and strengthen linkages among community Equity, Social Justice, Local Government and Empowerment. members, local service providers and NGO and national level service providers to better identify and utilize available services to increase protective factors and reduce youth risk factors for youth in their communities. Much of this work was linked to the priorities

21 outlined in the Community Safety Plans (CSPs) developed by the CECs, and other community initiatives identified by the CECs. By the end of CFYR’s implementation, seven CECs47 were registered as legal entities and will continue to provide services to community members although CFYR has concluded.

The CSPs provided a blueprint for action that mobilized local support and provided the CECs with a level of legitimacy. The CSPs demonstrated to community members that the CECs had a level of understanding of the needs of the communities that community members mobilized around. This was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CECs adapted their activities and implemented key activities, such as a Face Mask Challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic, and were still able to link these around CSP priorities.

CFYR supported a total of 345 community engagement activities that included the participation of 9611 youth and community members.

Some of the main highlights are provided below.

Saint Lucia

Key CEC activities in Saint Lucia included the Violence Opposition Initiative for Community Engagement (VOICE) during the October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 period. VOICE was an initiative of the CEC in collaboration with the Department of Youth using their curriculum. The initiative targeted youth leaders and focused on the level, impact, mitigation and prevention of violence. VOICE built on the capacity of youth leaders to reduce violence and crime, particularly among their peers. It was designed to assist young people to identify the effects of violence within communities, schools and the workplace, and to establish the links between those effects and the consequences now facing A Screenshot from the short film 'Me The Change,’ those communities. The outcome of that project in Anse La Raye written and produced by young people in Anse La was the production of a short film “Me The Change,” which was Raye, Saint Lucia, in September 2019 following their training in VOICE. (The film can be seen on written and produced entirely by youth in Anse La Raye. YouTube.)

47 These include Vieux Fort, Castries Central and Dennery in Saint Lucia. These include Sophia, East Ruimveldt, East La Penitence and Lodge in Guyana. The Corriverton CEC started its registration process, but this was interrupted first by the delay in the outcome of the national elections in 2020 and then due to civil unrest following the murder of two youth, which prevented CEC members from traveling to Georgetown. The Corriverton CEC is expected to complete its registration process.

Each of the five CECs hosted a community event to launch their activities and invite the support of additional community members. These took the form of centrally staged events with youth showcasing their talents in singing, dancing, playing music, cheerleading, cricket, karate and offered activities to interest youth in the communities to join the CECs. Additionally, CEC members participated in a series of gender workshops in 2018 following which each CEC implemented an activity in support of International Women’s Day to highlight the importance of gender issues to Highlights from CEC launches in Saint Lucian communities. addressing youth violence. These included a workshop in Vieux Fort, “The Progressive Woman,” for young, unemployed mothers, the Orange Bag dialogue in Dennery, a Sexual Harassment Dialogue in Central Castries and an activity in Soufriere to honor Women Heroes from that community. All communities produced shirts for a collaboration with the Department of Gender Affairs’ Clothesline activity, to highlight issues surrounding gender-based violence in Saint Lucia.

The Dennery CEC implemented the Youth Advocacy Through the Arts (YATTA) activity during the November, 2019 period. This was part of the CEC’s effort to build a visible stakeholder coalition against violence and abuse by engaging youth and community members in activities such as drama, music, On March 27, 2018, CEC members in Saint Lucia produced shirts for dance and other art forms, and consistent with an activity called The Clothesline - a collaboration with the Department CSP priorities to reduce the rate of domestic of Gender Affairs to raise awareness of gender-based violence. The Clothesline was hung in Serenity Park in Castries. violence, sexual violence and abuse in homes and in the community. The CEC’s objective was to reduce the rate of domestic violence, sexual violence and abuse in accord with the Dennery CSP. Forty-nine youth participated in YATTA and of the forty-one who completed both pre- and post-training tests, 83% improved their knowledge on the topics discussed.

The Dennery CEC implemented another key training activity from November 11, 2019 to December 6, 2019, geared towards fostering youth empowerment by increasing the employability skills of youth in the community to be self-reliant and improving livelihood opportunities. The training had two components: a) social and job readiness skills with thirty youth participants and b) vocational training with twenty youth participants, in cake-making and decoration (10) and (ceramic) tiling (10). The CEC engaged a number of partners to collaborate on this activity, including the Ministry of Youth Development and Sports, Ministry

23 of Commerce, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Department of Probation and the Ministry of Equity, among others.

The activity incorporated training in Social and Leadership Skills (SLS) among the various components to impart these specific life skills to youth in the community.

The Castries CEC made inroads on behalf of community members when they met with the Mayor of Castries in April 11, 2019, to identify areas of partnership between the Mayor’s office and the CEC and to discuss any support the Mayor’s office could extend to the CEC in supporting community activities. The Mayor and his team were pleased to meet the CEC members and agreed to support a community outreach event in collaboration with the Caribbean Youth Conference. The outreach activity, to paint a mural on the wall of the Anglican Primary School, was implemented by the Castries CEC on May 1, 2019, with the support of the Anglican Church, regional youth delegates who attended the Caribbean Youth Conference in Saint Lucia (April 28-30, 2019) and participants in the Saint Lucia Cohort #3 of the BLES Training. The mural, which depicts positive family life of youth, family and community, is adjacent to a bus stop in Central Castries. The nearby pedestrian crossing and a safety handrail were also repainted as part of the project. The mural received excellent feedback from On May 1, 2019 in Saint Lucia, there was a collaborative effort spearheaded by the Castries CEC, with multiple stakeholders, to paint a mural depicting community and family life, and to members of the community repaint the nearby pedestrian crossing and handrail. and other CECs expressed interest in similar activities to improve the look and feel of the surroundings in their own communities.48

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CECs adapted their planned activities and arrived at innovative ways to engage with youth and community members despite the challenges of remote engagement and social distancing protocols. With CFYR’s support, the Castries CEC implemented a Face- Mask Challenge49 as part of the CEC’s efforts to stimulate income generating opportunities and to provide assistance to residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. To further support community members, on May

48 The Dennery CEC implemented a community clean-up and mural painting in 2020. The mural included inspirational phrases from a local youth leader. 49 The activity was in line with the Central Castries CSP objective “Reduce the rate of unemployment, particularly among at risk youth”, whose specific objective is: “Increase innovative employment opportunities,” Table 5.1, Pg. 32.

24, 2020, eleven volunteers from the Castries Central Youth Council assisted the Castries CEC to deliver fourteen care packages to vulnerable families within the CEC’s neighborhoods of Marchand, Morne Du Don, Bois Patat and Grass Street. On June 17, 2020, the CEC delivered sixty face masks to needy families in the CEC’s communities and on June 25, 2020 they delivered forty face masks to the Blind Welfare Association.

The Vieux Fort CEC’s engagement with the Youth Empowerment Leading to Positivity (YELP)50 program also led to a partnership that included the Saint Lucia National Youth Council to complete a beautification project in the Aupicon Gap area of Vieux Fort. The activity, which was a clearing and de-bushing of the bus stop area to improve safety, took place as part of the Caribbean Youth Conference community service activities on May 1, 2019.

Toward the end of Year 3, several Vieux Fort CEC members wrote a short story about domestic abuse, prepared a script to perform the story and filmed it. In support, CFYR engaged a videographer to help the CEC with the production. The experience gave new skills and a sense of accomplishment for the youth and raised the stature of the CEC in the community. The CEC is interested in repeating the experience focusing on other social issues and has kept the idea alive in subsequent CEC meetings.

The Anse La Raye CEC implemented a In Saint Lucia, the Vieux Fort CEC produced a short film ‘Breaking The Cycle’ to highlight issues of domestic abuse and neglect. These are scenes from the Youth in Agriculture community project film which can be seen on YouTube. The cast is pictured (bottom left) at the with eighteen participants during the July screening of the film, which took place on July 9, 2019 in Vieux Fort. to September 30, 2019 period. The youth completed Social and Leadership Skills training in addition to their technical training on crop production and land preparation. This project was undertaken to address several of their CSP priorities, including reducing youth unemployment, boosting skills and promoting safety. This culminated with a graduation ceremony on August 29, 2019 with the eighteen participants. The provided an opportunity for the participants to partner with other youth already involved in the agricultural sector in Anse La Raye and it attracted support from the private sector and the Ministry of Agriculture.

In June 2019, the Soufriere CEC implemented an Anti- In Saint Lucia, 18 young people from the District of Anse La Raye graduated at the end of a training program in Bullying Campaign which emerged as a priority from CFYR- social and leadership skills and crop production.

50 This is a community-based youth organization in Vieux Fort, focusing on environmental activities/engagements.

25 hosted youth dialogues. The activity, which the CEC implemented in collaboration with the Soufriere Regional Development Foundation, included a community forum, antibullying march and rally, mural painting and an Essay Competition. The CEC used the competition to support efforts to increase awareness among students in three primary schools and one secondary school of the negative effects of bullying, to encourage primary and secondary level students to express their thoughts on the subject of bullying at schools and to have them propose ways to reduce bullying. The essays described forms of verbal, In Saint Lucia, the Soufriere CEC spearheaded an antibullying campaign. Shown here are students who took part in the rally, the essay competition winners and photos of social, physical and cyber-bullying, the mural painted by the students in 2019. highlighting cyber- bullying as the most prevalent among the youth, given the rise in the use of technology. The campaign brought the problem into focus for the community and made the public realize that bullying is a real issue in their own community, neighborhoods and families.

Guyana

CECs in Guyana began implementing community engagement activities even before their CSPs were finalized in the July 1 to September 30, 2019 period. With the support of CFYR, the Corriverton CEC hosted a workshop focused on Gender-based Violence in May 2019, which emerged as a priority issue during community consultations. The twenty-five participants were sensitized about the issue, including from the Child Care and Protection Agency, and information was provided on institutions and organizations that could provide help. Feedback on related issues emanating from the workshop resulted in the CEC following up with an online discussion focused on gender-based violence. Following this event, the CEC partnered with a local football club to host a football tournament that incorporated a life skills element to tackle drug abuse among youth, another issue identified as a priority among community members.

The Corriverton CEC conducted a social and leadership skills training component for youth in January 2020, focused on communications and public speaking. To demonstrate their skills, the participants were asked to deliver presentations around key aspects of the CSPs. The CEC also undertook a “Street Lighting Project”51 to improve the safety of community spaces and hosted a Miss and Mr. Corriverton Youth Peace Ambassador Pageant in February 2020, partly to defray costs of the street lighting project. In the run up to the Pageant, the contestants along with CEC members engaged youth at primary and high schools in

51 This activity is in line with Priority I of the Corriverton CSP to “Improve Street Light Facilities” Pg. 3 and 4.

the area, encouraging them to stay in school and raising awareness around issues having to do with domestic violence and child abuse.

As the Corriverton CEC highlighted the issue of youth dropping out from school as a priority, the CEC focused on this to build awareness of the negative effects that it has on the life chances of youth. The CEC incorporated presentations and discussions on the topic in schools as tasks for the contestants in their Miss and Mr. Corriverton Peace Ambassador Pageant. The contestants hosted a discussion on school dropouts at the Berbice Technical Institute in January 2020. Those in attendance were urged to remain focused, attend school regularly and to make the best use of the opportunities for skills development and certification presented at the institute. The in-school sessions were a chance for the entrants in the Miss and Mr. Corriverton Peace Ambassador contest to practice the communication and public speaking skills they were taught in an earlier workshop. The topics on which they presented at the in-school sessions were also a key part of the presentations at the pageant on which they would be judged.

The Miss and Mr. Corriverton Peace Ambassador contestants later hosted sessions for students at the Corriverton Primary School in February 2020 on the negative impact that bullying has on self-esteem. Sixty youth in the higher grades at the primary school and thirty from Form 5 at the Skeldon High School were engaged on the topics. This was followed by a session on teenage pregnancy at the Tagore Secondary School in February 2020, and a separate session on domestic violence held in a space In Guyana, the Corriverton CEC hosted the Miss and Mr. Corriverton Peace Ambassador, with contestants hosting discussions with students from local schools to address social provided by CFYR’s ASP grantee, issues about which they were concerned. These activities took place in February 2020, Family Awareness Consciousness with the Pageant finals held on February 8, 2020. Shown here are (top) the Pageant finalists and (below left and middle) sessions at local schools where finalists presented on Togetherness (FACT). various social issues.

27 In August 2018, the Sophia CEC hosted a vacation camp for over forty-five youth from the community, incorporating dance classes and drama sessions. Organizations that work with the community, including the police and Child Care and Protection Agency, offered workshops on topics including the dangers of drug abuse and peer pressure to use drugs, as well as sexual abuse and appropriate responses. In August 2019, the Sophia CEC commenced the Computer Literacy Training, as preparing youth for the workforce was an emerging community priority. The Sophia CEC partnered with the Ministry of Public Telecommunications to host the training for youth from the community. The training incorporated a life skills component which focused on building the capacities of youth to safely navigate the In Guyana, young people from the community of Sophia participated in a internet and build their resilience against computer camp in partnership with the Ministry of Public internet predators and cyber-bullying. Telecommunications. The camp took place in August 2019.

With the COVID-19 pandemic creating additional stress for families, the Sophia CEC hosted online training for single parents in August 2020 to provide them with new parenting and coping skills to positively engage with their children. While the training would usually be delivered in- person, the CEC used the online platform to comply with social-distancing requirements. A number of participants appreciated the online approach as they noted it was easier for them to participate as they did not have to identify alternative childcare or incur those costs in order to participate. CFYR provided In Guyana, an online parenting workshop was held in August 2020 for single parents, who learnt data packages to participants new coping skills to encourage positive engagement with their children. Here are some images who required this support in they shared of these interactions and vision boards created together with their children. order to participate.

The Lodge CEC engaged in a community “Street Lighting and Clean-Up Project” in November 2019, as part of the CEC’s CSP priority to improve infrastructure and surroundings. The activity included participation from community members and a wide range of organizations. The event attracted support from the Lodge Community Policing Group, whose members came out to assist with the cleaning. Support also came from private sector entities such as Church’s Chicken, Grill Kings, Princess Kitchen and Lodge Mini Mart, which all donated food and beverages over both days. In Guyana, the Lodge CEC participated in activities to make their community safer: Members distributed face masks and supplies to residents in August 2020 (left Additionally, the Ministry of and top center); in October and November 2020, the CEC spearheaded a clean- Communities, the Environmental up and street lighting project with support from local stakeholders (right and bottom center). Protection Agency, Food for the Poor and the Georgetown City Council provided trash bags, tools and other supplies to support the clean-up effort. The CEC received a substantial contribution of fifteen streetlights from the Ministry of Public Infrastructure.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Lodge CEC partnered with the Builders in Christ World Outreach Ministries, which produced and donated sixty face masks to the CEC, for distribution to vulnerable persons within the Lodge community.

The East La Penitence CEC hosted its regular Movie Night fundraiser each week throughout the program, until government measures due to COVID-19 were enacted from March 2020. The event served as a medium to bring the community, and more specifically the youth, together while promoting the CEC and community cohesion. To support community members through the economic hardships posed by COVID-19, the CEC undertook a hamper distribution throughout the community in June 2020. The activity assisted families whose wage earners lost employment during the period and the CEC distributed a total of ninety-five hampers to community members.

St. Kitts and Nevis

The CECs in St. Kitts and Nevis implemented a number of activities to address some of the priority issues regarding youth violence in their communities.52 In the Basseterre community of Newtown, the CEC applied the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) methodology and implemented a Community Garden activity, which helped to integrate community members around shared community enhancement goals. In support of children from lower income homes from the community, the CEC also

52 In consultation with USAID, CFYR concluded programming in Output 2.1 and 2.3 by September 30, 2018, as a result of a reduction in program funding from USAID. While CECs in St. Kitts and Nevis had not yet prepared CSPs, the CECs had identified priority issues to address youth crime and violence and implemented activities to address these priorities.

29 sponsored a community swimming activity, providing these youth with an opportunity to positively engage with other young people from their communities.

The Cayon CEC in St. Kitts, in partnership with Cayon Primary School and the Department of Community Development (DOCD), hosted a five- day, Life Skills Easter Camp in April 2018. The camp engaged thirty-one students from Grades Five and Six in social and life skills development, using culinary arts and agricultural science. Students learned how to prepare the national dish of St. Kitts and Nevis - stewed saltfish served with spicy plantains, coconut dumplings and seasoned breadfruit. They were introduced to the basic techniques of land preparation and the sowing of seeds, seedlings and cuttings, as well as crop maintenance. In the community of Cayon in St. Kitts, students from Grades 5 and 6 participated in an Easter Camp in April 2018. In Sandy Point, the need to forge positive relationships between young men and the police blossomed into a working partnership arising from the “Wheels Up, Guns Down” violence prevention initiative in February 2018. This activity arose from a youth dialogue that CFYR hosted in November 2017. The event showcased the talents of local cyclists and promoted positive community relationships between the youth and the local police. The young riders were addressed on road safety by a local Police Inspector, who encouraged them to embrace the

Wheels Up! Guns Down! Young people in Sandy Point, St. Kitts and Nevis get ready to show their riding skills through the community, as members of the Sandy Point Bikers Club take to the streets in support of violence prevention in February 2018.

opportunity to empower themselves and avoid getting caught up in crime and violence. Community residents applauded the young men as they performed stunts and displayed their riding skills through the streets of Sandy Point. The event heightened awareness of the CFYR program and the CEC was able to recruit volunteers, who expressed interest in getting their children involved and offered support for future activities to be hosted by the Sandy Point Bikers Club.

The members of the Sandy Point Bikers Club continued on their path to personal empowerment. One activity included a First Aid Training in March 2018 at the Sandy Point Community Centre. CFYR facilitated the training session, inviting a Certified Red Cross Instructor from the Sandy Point Community to deliver the training. The training exposed twenty male participants to safety tips related to road use on bicycles. It also enhanced their practical skills in treating minor cuts, fractures and how to attend to choking victims. They were given tips on using these skills in the event of an accident until first responders arrive on scene. The interactive session provided the participants with an opportunity to demonstrate the various skills learned and were very appreciative of the skills gained in furtherance of their personal development and their “Wheels Up, Guns Down” mission.

Through this initiative, young men who complained of being harassed by the police for riding their bikes came to understand proper road safety use and compliance. The Police also came to understand the philosophy of the bikers – preferring to exercise with their bikes to “let off steam.” This shared understanding became a visible and active youth innovation within their community, and a credible form of advocacy for positive alternatives to crime.

Youth Dialogues

CFYR utilized youth dialogues as an approach to hear, directly from youth, their priority issues on youth crime and violence. During Year 2, CFYR hosted twenty-six youth dialogues with 339 participants across all three CFYR focus countries. These dialogues provided avenues for youth in CFYR target communities to inform and influence a youth-centered agenda within their communities to address youth crime and violence. Some of the topics included bullying, youth employment, promoting effective rehabilitation and preventing recidivism among youth offenders, among others.

During Year 3 and Year 4, CFYR hosted nine youth dialogues specific to the Action and Advocacy Agenda (AAA) Advocacy Toolkit, with eighty-three participants from Saint Lucia (29), Guyana (23), and St. Kitts and Nevis (31) participating. CFYR developed the AAA Advocacy Toolkit after the AAA was finalized at the Regional Youth Summit in January 2019. The AAA Advocacy Toolkit provides approaches for youth and those in youth-serving agencies to advocate for programs and services in support of reducing youth crime and violence in the

ESC region. On September 12, 2019, CFYR hosted a dialogue with youth from Castries, Anse La Raye and Soufriere to discuss elements of the AAA Advocacy Toolkit designed for their use.

31 CFYR hosted a total of 35 youth dialogues with a total of 422 youth participants from CFYR’s focus countries.

Highlights from the countries are discussed below.

Saint Lucia

In October 2017, CFYR hosted a one-day national youth dialogue in Castries with representatives from all five CFYR communities to identify the issues that they perceived to be those most affecting youth and resulting in youth involvement in crime and violence. This forum provided an opportunity for intra- community networking and for brainstorming on interventions and approaches most suitable for reaching youth at the community level. A subsequent intra-community dialogue was held in Vieux Fort in November 2018 with youth representatives from Anse La Raye, Central Castries, Soufriere and Vieux Fort. Issues identified by the participants included youth unemployment, violence in the home, corporal punishment and toxic masculinity, among others.

CFYR also hosted a youth dialogue in Dennery in February 2019 with twenty- three attendees, including students from In Saint Lucia, youth dialogues were held in Castries (top) on October 6, 2017 and in Vieux Fort (bottom) on November 29, 2018. Clendon Mason Secondary School and Grande Riviere Secondary. The students from both secondary schools suggested projects to implement in the community and in their school, including a school feeding program targeting vulnerable students and capacity development for out-of- school youth. Arising from this, the Dennery CEC implemented the YATTA program, which included skills building in cake decorating and tiling, as noted above.

The youth dialogue that CFYR hosted in Castries in April 2019 focused on sexually responsible behavior. The session informed participants on effective family planning practices and the implications of sexually transmitted diseases. The session also provided participants with information about family planning services and discussed gender-based violence and how In Dennery, Saint Lucia, a youth dialogue was held on February 1, 2019 with students from 2 secondary schools in the District. to prevent it.

Guyana

In Guyana, CFYR utilized youth dialogues to bolster capacities to sustain youth engagement and participation, as well as to further engage youth in the process of addressing safety issues in their communities. CFYR conducted a Youth Dialogue Facilitators Training in March 2019 with CEC members and the Guyana National Youth Council. The ten participants engaged in an eight-hour interactive training on communications, facilitating community and youth dialogues and dealing with disruptive persons. The Social Crime Prevention teaching aids and Instructor’s Manual were used to guide the training session. Participants were given the opportunity to plan a community and youth dialogue and then walked through the steps to ensure that all aspects were considered. The participants also had opportunities after the sessions for role-playing to test their application of the skills they learned.

In March 2019, the Corriverton CEC conducted a youth dialogue at the Skeldon High School that was co-facilitated by participants from the Facilitators Training. The activity exposed the school’s student government to an interactive sharing session, having the students identify their safety and security issues and to identify possible solutions. Students identified issues of bullying, disrespectful students, drugs, fighting, weapons, inappropriate student teacher relationships and peer pressure, among others. Students determined that the three highest priority issues were fighting, bullying and drugs. After further discussion, the participants decided to showcase at student assembly measures their peers can utilize to promote safety and security within the school.

The Corriverton Stars Football Club Youth Dialogue was held in March 2019 and engaged the youth athletes to identify safety and security concerns, which included poor lighting, drugs, unemployment, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, peer pressure, robbery and child abuse. The group suggested family counseling for the parents who were dealing with issues of abuse, more police presence in the community to address robbery, training for unemployed youth and a ‘light-up program’ especially In Guyana, the Corriverton Stars Football Club held a youth dialogue with discussions on safety and security issues that affected them, in addition to playing 5-a-side games in March 2019. in the recreational spaces for youth. The Corriverton CEC did implement a community activity to improve street lighting, and the Miss and Mr. Corriverton Pageant, also sponsored by the CEC, helped defray costs of the lighting.

Build Capacity of Community Enhancement Committees

CFYR worked with CECs as the key entry point for overall community engagement. To ensure that these newly formed community groups could serve their communities effectively, CFYR provided a range of capacity-building support over the LOP. In addition to regular, ongoing meetings that CFYR conducted with CEC leadership in the three focus countries to strengthen community outreach, CFYR conducted capacity-building workshops over the LOP53 so that the CECs could serve as effective community service organizations during and after CFYR implementation.

As part of CFYR’s work to support the sustainability of the CECs, CFYR conducted a range of capacity- building support. This included training-of-trainers (ToT) components, such as for SCP, so that the CECs could continue to train others following the conclusion of CFYR. Other capacity-building support in Saint Lucia included governance; leadership and networking; holding effective meetings; how to engage communities; monitoring and evaluation; engaging the private and public sectors; fundraising; and proposal writing. In Guyana, the topics included project management; monitoring and evaluation; community mobilizing; fundraising; proposal writing; budgeting; and gender-mainstreaming.

In February 2018 fifteen representatives from CECs in St. Kitts and Nevis and thirteen vetted members of the St. Kitts and Nevis Police Force participated in SCP training. The workshop provided integrated modules on best practices in social crime prevention, risk and protective factors for youth, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and the creation of community action plans. The training enabled CEC members to design initiatives to address youth crime and violence priorities in their communities, including the Easter Camp and community garden discussed above.

CFYR used the Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) in April 2020, to train representatives from the Dennery, Castries and Vieux Fort CECs, along with Social Transformation Officers from the Ministry of Equity and Youth and Sports Officers from the Ministry of Youth. The OCAT is used to critically assess organizational and management capacities and enables organizations to determine what areas of their organization they may need to improve. Arising from this training, the Dennery and Castries CECs prepared Strategic Plans that CFYR reviewed with them to continue to prepare the CECs for independent action following CFYR’s conclusion. To further prepare these CECs for community engagement post-CFYR, CFYR provided accounting assistance to establish their accounting policies. As a sign of preparedness, the Saint Lucia CECs hired accountants and field coordinators in August 2020, to support the CECs’ engagement with community members following CFYR.

An important outcome of CFYR’s capacity-building support to the Vieux Fort and Dennery CECs is reflected in the award of an initial ECD 50,000 grant from the United Nations Global Environment Facility (GEF) to implement a mariculture and sea moss employment project for BLES graduates from these communities. CFYR arranged the initial meeting with the GEF and worked with the Vieux Fort and Dennery CECs to approach the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) in

53 As previously noted, CFYR discontinued work with CECs as of September 30, 2018, due to a reduction in program funding.

the United Kingdom to provide the 25% project cost-sharing that was needed. A former BLES Life Coach is serving as the Vieux Fort CEC’s Project Manager for the activity.

Arising from CFYR’s support and the commitment of the CEC leadership, the CECs are likely to continue as functioning organizations after CFYR.54 CFYR provided the capacity-building learning resources to the CECs to assist with their transition and sustainability after CFYR. In Saint Lucia the Castries, Dennery, and Vieux Fort CECs were all formally registered and will open individual bank accounts following new guidelines from the Ministry of Equity. They also have earmarked office space from which to function. In Guyana, all of the CECs except Corriverton are formally registered, with Corriverton expected to complete the registration process.

Social Crime Prevention Training

CFYR used Social Crime Prevention Training as an approach to target CECs, community engagement officers from government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), youth groups and vetted police officers, whose work centrally contributes to community development, public health, education and other services that intersect with efforts related to crime and violence prevention. This training enhanced their capacity to work together on crime and violence prevention and built more trust among the relevant stakeholders to identify and anticipate common causes of crime and work together to reduce the incidence of these occurring. The SCP curriculum included training in the key areas of communication and leadership; root causes of youth crime and violence; understanding domestic violence; the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) methodology; evidence-based programs; and community outreach.

In addition to CEC members in Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis and Guyana, CFYR also trained partners in Saint Lucia from the Ministry of Equity, the Ministry of Youth Development and Sports55, representatives from the Saint Lucia National Youth Council and other local NGOs56. In St. Kitts and Nevis, CFYR trained CEC members and vetted members of the police force. SCP training in Guyana included participants from CECs, Councilors from the Georgetown Municipal Council; the Corriverton Town Council; the Ministry of Communities; members of the Community Policing Group of the “A” Division Georgetown; selected Child Care and Protection Officers; as well as Probation Officers from the Ministry of Social Protection and Human Services.

CFYR delivered 19 cohorts of SCP training for 457 participants.

To foster sustainability of the SCP approach, CFYR provided SCP Training-of-Trainers to local partners from ten agencies57 who became certified trainers.

54 Only the CECs in Castries, Dennery, and Vieux Fort remained active. 55 The Ministry of Youth Development has included BLES and SCP as “New Initiatives” in their submission for budget approval for the upcoming fiscal year programs (April 2021-March 2022). The Ministry wants to implement the training on a community level, which will enable them to engage representatives from the district police stations for both SCP and for BLES. 56 Some of the organizations included Upton Gardens Girls Centre, the Youth Empowerment Project and Boys Training Centre 57 Participating agencies include: Ministry of Youth & Development, La Ressource Combined School. Choiseul Secondary School, Mega Contracting Inc., Division of Human Services, Sandals Regency La Toc, Saint Lucia National Youth Council, Marchand Public Library, Special Education Centre and Ministry of Education.

35 The Saint Lucia National Youth Council and the Ministry of Youth Development and Sports established an inter-agency protocol to guide their strategic collaboration to deliver SCP training and build the capacity of other organizations in SCP approaches.

In Guyana, after participating in SCP workshops, members of the Community Policing Groups noted that the training gave them resources to make their work more effective and attractive to younger persons and the wider community. The Lodge CEC noted that SCP training helped to increase involvement of the Lodge Community Policing Group in the CEC’s activities.

OUTPUT 2.2: SOCIAL SERVICES, SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS SUPPORTING AT-RISK AND VICTIMIZED YOUTH INCREASED AND STRENGTHENED

CFYR’s work focused on two main areas of activity. The first focused on CFYR’s Secondary Prevention approach by implementing the Prevention and Intervention Family Systems Model (PIFSM), referred to as Family Matters, in CFYR communities in Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia. The second area of CFYR activity, focused on Tertiary Prevention, supported Juvenile Justice Reform (JJR) in Guyana.

Family Matters

Family Matters is a proven secondary violence prevention method that targets youth between 10 and 17 years of age who are at a secondary or tertiary level of risk of engaging in delinquent behaviors leading to crime and violence. CFYR identified eligible youth for Cohort 1 through mass assessments of youth in CFYR communities, through the YSET assessment58, which was adapted to the Caribbean context by USC, to determine a youth’s level of risk. Family Matters engaged beneficiary youth and their families in an approximately seven-month cycle of structured family counseling.

58 The USAID impact evaluation of Family Matters required CFYR to change the way eligible youth were identified for assessment in Cohort 1. In other locations where Family Matters is implemented, programs establish referral networks that include schools, family members, clergy and other community organizations to identify youth for assessment. To meet impact evaluation requirements, CFYR undertook mass YSET assessments of youth in CFYR communities and in schools that served youth from CFYR communities. To meet requirements of the impact evaluation, rather than having Family Counselors do any of the YSET assessments (baseline; midline; or end-line), which is the standard approach, CFYR was required to use trained enumerators for Cohort 1. The impact evaluation only included participants from Cohort 1. Cohort 2 included at-risk Control group youth from the impact evaluation Cohort 1 and referrals.

Throughout the implementation cycle, family counselors trained by CFYR in the Family Matters methodology held regular face-to-face counseling sessions with participating youth and their families. During these meetings, typically held in the family’s home, counselors strengthened the family’s cohesion (bonds that hold family members together) and connected the family to the wider community. Family counselors also worked with youth on an individual basis to help them adopt positive and safe behavior, such as youth self-esteem and emotional self- regulation).

By the end of a cycle, family members In Guyana, a Family Matters counseling session takes place in the family home. were expected to interact more frequently, communicate more effectively, make joint decisions more regularly, demonstrate a stronger sense of family pride and exhibit a stronger reliance on community networks for support. After six months of treatment, youth risk levels are reassessed using the YSET-R to evaluate progress, and all seven phases are repeated for a treatment cycle of one year.59

CFYR awarded in-kind grants to the Ministry of Equity, Social Justice, Empowerment, Youth Development, Sports, Culture and Local Government (Ministry of Equity) in Saint Lucia; the Ministry of Community Development, Gender Affairs and Social Services (Ministry of Community Development) in St. Kitts60; and the Ministry of Social Protection in Guyana, to serve as the local implementing partners of Family Matters in their respective locations. Cohort I of Family Matters commenced fully by August 2018 across all three countries61 and concluded by December 31, 2019 in Guyana and St. Kitts and Nevis, and by January 31, In St. Kitts, a participant in Family Matters thanks his Family 2020, in Saint Lucia. CFYR commenced with Cohort Counselor for her visit and ongoing support.

59 Due to the delays in the start of Cohort 1, there was time only to complete Cycle 1 in Cohort 2. 60 The Nevis Island Administration did not initially express interest in directly implementing Family Matters. CFYR worked with the Ministry of Community Development to implement Cohort 1 in St. Kitts and in Nevis. Toward the second part of Cohort 1 implementation, the Nevis Island Administration expressed interest to directly participate. With a modification of the grant agreement in September 2019, CFYR provided support to the Nevis Island Administration to hire Family Counselors from Nevis to implement Cohort 2 of Family Matters in Nevis. 61 CFYR had planned for Family Matters to commence fully in August 2017. Though the initial YSET assessments for Family Matters did commence then, there were delays due to the need to undertake additional YSET assessments to assure a representative

37 2 immediately after the conclusion of Cohort I and concluded engagement by July 31, 2020.62

Following their participation in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 of Family Matters, 278 of 456 at-risk youth63 (61%) were below secondary levels of risk.

Family Matters positively impacted participating youth and their families across all three CFYR focus countries. Participating families noted a range of positive changes, including healthier family dynamics, better communication and respect for the family unit, as well as improvements in youth relative to anger control, willingness to help around the house and efforts to perform well in school.

Midline results for Cohort I noted positive results.64

A family in Saint Lucia shares how Family Matters has improved • In Guyana, 73% of the participating youth their family dynamics overall. demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 56% below the secondary level of risk. • In Saint Lucia, 53% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 31% below the secondary level of risk. • In St. Kitts and Nevis, 59% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 44% below the secondary level of risk.

End-line YSET results for youth completing Cohort I noted more substantial positive results.

• In Guyana, 85% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 79% below the secondary level of risk. • In Saint Lucia, 68% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 45% below the secondary level of risk. • In St. Kitts and Nevis, 65% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 44% below the secondary level of risk.

sample size for treatment and control groups for the impact evaluation that USAID was conducting, through Social Impact (SI), of this activity. There was a further delay to provide time for SI to conduct a Caregiver Survey among caregivers from the treatment and control groups. Consequently, the family counseling aspect of Family Matters did not commence until June through August 2018, depending on the CFYR country. 62 Due to the delays in the start of Cohort 1, there was time only to complete Cycle 1 in Cohort 2. 63 This reflects a unique count of youth who were below secondary level of risk either at the midline YSET (YSET-R) or the end- line YSET (YSET-1). Youth who were below secondary level of risk at both midline and end-line in Cohort 1 were counted only once. Cohort I constituted two six-month cycles, per the technical model, anticipating youth and families participating in both cycles. Due to unanticipated delays in the start of Cohort 1 resulting from data gathering requirements by the USAID funded impact evaluation, there was time only to implement one six-month cycle for Cohort 2. 64 These constitute the results after Cycle1 of the intervention.

A total of 422 at-risk youth and their families (approximately 1375 total beneficiaries) completed Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 of Family Matters.65

The independent evaluation of Family Matters YSET data from Cohort 1 by Creative’s sub-contracting partner, The Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety at Arizona State University (ASU), noted that when data were combined from all three countries, youth who received more treatment, even if they did not complete the activity, experienced significant improvements in risk factor scores. ASU also noted that as measured by effect size, the magnitude of the effect of the program on risk factor reduction in Guyana was similar or greater to the impact of the Communities that Care program on risk factor reduction in the United States.66

A separate USAID funded impact evaluation was undertaken by Social Impact (SI) on Cohort I of Family Matters to measure the impact that Family Matters had on reducing risky behavior among youth beneficiaries ages 10 – 17. SI used a randomized control trial (RCT) to conduct the evaluation. They assessed whether the program was more effective for certain groups, based on age, gender, school status, risk level at baseline, and country. Both treatment and control youth experienced a substantial drop in estimated risk levels between baseline and end-line. There are, however, some statistically significant differences between treatment and control youth from baseline to end-line. On average, treatment youth experienced a 34 percent reduction in their mean number of risk factors from baseline to end-line (from 5.12 to 3.37), and control youth experienced a 26 percent reduction (from 5.09 to 3.75). In other words, treatment youth experienced a reduction that is 0.42 points larger (in the zero to nine YSET scale) than that of the control group.

SI’s analysis showed strong effects of Family Matters in Guyana, but not in St. Kitts and Nevis or Saint Lucia.67 The results showed that Guyana had a statistically significant one-point difference (in the 0-9 YSET total) in overall risk reduction as compared with St. Kitts and Nevis. While the simplest explanation is that the intervention did not have the intended effects, SI's overwhelmingly positive qualitative findings appear to contradict this assumption. One plausible explanation is the reduction in sample size from baseline to end-line, resulting from youth dropping out of the program. Another potential explanation is the presence of “social desirability bias” whereby respondents tend to answer surveys in a way that satisfies the enumerator, as opposed to responding honestly to the question. Lastly, it is possible that the presence of 'noise' attributable to the validity of the risk factor scales could influence the strength of the findings.

65 This includes only youth and families who participated throughout all of Cohort 1 or Cohort 2. Calculated using average family size in each country x number of youth beneficiaries. For Cohort 1: Saint Lucia - avg. family size of 3 x 102 index youth; Guyana – avg. family size of 3.8 x 82 index youth; St. Kitts and Nevis - avg family size of 2.7 x 58 index youth. For Cohort 2: Saint Lucia - avg. family size of 3 x 63 index youth; Guyana – avg. family size of 3.8 x 86 index youth; St. Kitts and Nevis - avg family size of 2.7 x 31 index youth. 66 See Feinberg, Mark E., et al. "Effects of the Communities That Care model in Pennsylvania on change in adolescent risk and problem behaviors." Prevention Science 11.2 (2010): 163-171. 67 Prior to the start of the impact evaluation and throughout the impact evaluation period, CFYR noted that the requirement to have external enumerators conduct all YSETs, rather than have Family Counselors administer these, was an approach that was different to that applied by any other programs/locations that implemented a Family Matters intervention. CFYR also noted that treatment commenced between 8 and 10 months following the administration of the baseline YSET. CFYR noted that the impact evaluation did not measure any effects that the delay in commencing treatment and using external enumerators to conduct YSETs may have had on outcomes.

39 Creative and ASU conducted additional analyses on the data, which provided some important insights across all three countries. For example, after fine tuning the YSET assessment tool to remove "noise" related to the reliability of some risk factor scales within the Caribbean context, the Creative-ASU analysis found that Family Matters had an impact as large as three-quarters of a standard deviation, which is considered to be a large effect. The analysis also demonstrated that when data were combined from all three CFYR focus counties, youth who received more treatment dosage experienced significant improvements in risk factor scores. Annex F provides information on additional data analysis and findings conducted by Creative and ASU.

Midline results following the conclusion of Cycle 1 for Cohort 268 also noted positive results.

• In Guyana, 81% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 63.1% below the secondary level of risk. • In Saint Lucia, 71.2% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 45.8% below the secondary level of risk. • In St. Kitts and Nevis, 90.3% of the participating youth demonstrated a reduction in risk factors, with 80.6% below the secondary level of risk.

USAID and CFYR commenced sustainability discussions on Family Matters with the Ministry of Equity in Saint Lucia in 2018, even before Family Matters had fully started. USAID had similar discussions in St. Kitts and Nevis and in Guyana in 2019. As the midline results from Cohort I were shared, partners in St. Kitts and Guyana became increasingly interested to adopt Family Matters as a permanent service offering to youth and families in their respective countries. As Cohort 1 concluded, the Ministry of Community Development in St. Kitts had secured budget support to permanently hire four of the eight Family Counselors69. The Ministry of Social Protection in Guyana secured budget support to finance close to 90% of the costs for fourteen Family Counselors.

To ensure that CFYR partners were able to fully implement all facets of Family Matters, CFYR conducted training with partners in St. Kitts and Nevis and Guyana on the use of the Model Fidelity Database (MFD) and YSET scoring. The MFD is the database that Family Counselors use to track the progress of families through the Family Matters phases. CFYR delivered remote training in MFD management during April 2020. CFYR also delivered remote training on YSET scoring to partners in Guyana during April 2020, and in June 2020 to partners in St. Kitts and Nevis. CFYR reinforced the YSET scoring training through practice exercises that CFYR sent to participants over the May through September 2020 period. The YSET scoring

68 Cohort 2 only included Cycle 1 due to delays previously noted to commence Cohort 1. These results can be compared to the midline results from Cohort 1, rather than with the end-line results of Cohort 1. 69 Four Family Counselors were working with families in Nevis. Financial arrangements between St. Kitts and Nevis for government provided services vary based on which government agency has responsibility to deliver these. At the conclusion of Cohort 1, CFYR continued to provide funding for an additional four Family Counselors who worked with youth and families in St. Kitts and four Family Counselors who worked with you and families in Nevis. These are in addition to the four Family Counselors that were permanently hired by the Ministry of Community Development to work in St. Kitts. As Cohort 1 was concluding, the Nevis Island Administration committed to adopting Family Matters into its service offerings and permanently hiring the four Nevis Family Counselors at the conclusion of Cohort 2. Due to financial constraints resulting from COVID-19, the Nevis Island Administration informed CFYR in August 2020 that they would not be able to continue with Family Matters.

trainings were undertaken by the CFYR-trained representative from the University of the West Indies Criminology Department70.

As of September 2020, the Ministry of Human and Social Services in Guyana71 was already conducting YSET interviews to begin a new cohort of Family Matters, independent of CFYR.

Although USAID and CFYR continued to engage partners in Saint Lucia on adopting Family Matters, including discussions with the St. Lucia Social Development Fund, which expressed some interest in adopting some aspects of Family Matters, Saint Lucia did not move forward with this initiative.

SUB-OUTPUT: YOUTH IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW REHABILITATED AND REINTEGRATED INTO SOCIETY Despite some advances that Guyana had made in the area of justice-involved youth, additional work was required to align Guyana’s juvenile justice system with international standards and best practices. This became more critical after the Government of Guyana passed the Juvenile Justice Act that in 2018. CFYR’s activities supported administrative reform work that developed new and improved processes and approaches that are being used by those who provide care and services to youth who are housed in government detention centers, to allow for better outcomes when youth are released from detention. CFYR’s engagement also worked with the magistracy, legal practitioners and civil society partners to develop a framework and options for diversion and alternative sentencing, building on existing programs in Guyana and approaches that have been undertaken elsewhere in the Caribbean region.

CFYR commenced work on JJR in Guyana during the October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019 period, with some additional activities completed early in Year 4. While CFYR had planned additional activities, particularly in the area of alternative sentencing and diversion, for the balance of the final year, USAID restrictions on funding with CFYR’s March 2020 funding obligation did not enable CFYR to complete all of the activities.

CFYR revised and/or developed twenty-one administrative (15) and diagnostic tools (6) efforts to support improved approaches with youth who are in juvenile care institutions in Guyana.

Five administrative and diagnostic tools and procedures have already been implemented by the New Opportunity Corps (NOC). These tools are:

• The Serious Incident Report • Behavior Modification Tool • The Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Procedure Reporting Form • The Care and Reintegration Plan, and • The Mental Health Referral Form.

70 To ensure that YSET scoring skills would be available in the ESC region, CFYR trained a partner in the Criminology Department at the University of the West Indies. 71 Following the national elections in Guyana, the Ministry of Social Protection was renamed the Ministry of Human and Social Services.

41 CFYR trained 221 participants from forty-five agencies and organizations on the new diagnostic and administrative tools and alternative sentencing and diversion approaches.

The implementation of the tools at the NOC is already providing for the development of Care and Reintegration Plans for juveniles, which allows the NOC to properly refer juveniles who are suspected of requiring mental health treatment, to be referred for support. This tool has also provided NOC with guidelines on what it is required to do in order to comply with the Act and international standards.72

CFYR was also able to provide strategic support on Guyana’s approach toward diversion and alternative sentencing based on the Act, which included a more rehabilitative approach. CFYR’s engagement with a broad range of stakeholders to outline new processes for diversion and alternative sentencing, and associated training on these, forced considerations of how the reforms would be implemented. This was

In Guyana, CFYR provided training for officers in the justice system in the use of revised tools and approaches related to diversion and alternative sentencing for juveniles. Child Care and Protection Officers and Probation Officers were trained in November 2019. particularly important in setting out a pathway and decision points for alternative sentencing and diversion, Magistrates, Legal Aid Attorneys, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Child Care and Protection and Probation Officers, Vocational Training Institutions and NGOs involved in providing support to children in difficult circumstances. This resulted in a practical operational framework for diversion and alternative sentencing, to be carried forward by the Director of Juvenile Justice.

OUTPUT 2.3: POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES TO CRIME FOR YOUTH IN TARGET COMMUNITIES INCREASED

CFYR worked with communities and stakeholders over the LOP to support positive alternatives to crime and violence for at-risk youth. These included a range of workforce development (WFD) activities that provided and/or strengthened life skills; offered technical and vocational training; and after-school, in-school and summer programs that engaged youth through sports, summer camps, edutainment and other activities to fortify protective factors that minimize risky behavior or violence.

72 The NOC had also adopted the Serious Incident Reporting Form. At the time of reporting the NOC had not used it because there had not been any incidents requiring its use.

Basic Life and Employability Skills (BLES) Training

CFYR’s BLES Program, adapted for the CFYR focus countries, was a five-week training package delivered to young people 17-29 years in Saint Lucia and Guyana, by a trained group of BLES facilitators and life coaches as part of CFYR’s workforce development activities (WFD). BLES uses a community-based, peer- to-peer approach and includes training in soft skills, employability skills and reproductive health. BLES includes follow-on coaching and mentoring to help identify employment opportunities for BLES graduates and to provide mentoring support to enhance job retention post-employment, generally for up to 12 months. The BLES training was a main contributor to greater employment prospects for early school- leavers and youth who have been in conflict with the law.

CFYR prepared a number of local partners in Saint Lucia and Guyana through ToT workshops to deliver the BLES training post-CFYR.73

Saint Lucia

Working with BLES Facilitators in Saint Lucia, CFYR delivered seven cohorts of the BLES training to 134 participants from four communities during the October 2018 through June 2019 period. Throughout the implementation, BLES Life Coaches facilitated the job placement of eighty-eight graduates in the tourism, food services and retail sectors, among others. CFYR also sponsored forty-six BLES graduates for further training at the Saint Saint Lucia graduated its first cohort of participants in Basic Life and Lucia Youth Business Trust and the Employability Skills (BLES) in October 2018 in Castries. National Enrichment Learning Unit.74

While CFYR had concluded the final planned BLES training in Saint Lucia in Year 3, to help mitigate the devastating economic impacts of COVID-19, CFYR delivered an additional BLES training during July through September 2020. Using the services of a short-term employment specialist to identify opportunities outside of the tourism sector, CFYR assisted participants to obtain apprenticeships; pre- qualify for second interviews at call centers; and provided support to several trainees to expand existing small businesses to increase self-employment income. CFYR provided a travel stipend to those in the unpaid apprenticeships to defray the travel costs to work. At the time of reporting, four apprentices were being considered for permanent employment with the Saint Lucia National Trust in the environmental

73 Other than an initial BLES training in St. Kitts during 2018 to adapt the curriculum, CFYR did not directly implement BLES training or other workforce development activities. This was the result of the reduction in program funding which required CFYR to conclude Primary Prevention activities in St. Kitts and Nevis by September 30, 2018. The Department of Youth in Nevis is using BLES modules in summer programs that it conducts with youth. CFYR also provided the St. Kitts and Nevis Chamber of Commerce, one of the organizations that participated in adapting the BLES curriculum for St. Kitts and Nevis, with the BLES training manuals. 74 The contracts for the BLES Life Coaches concluded in December 2019. CFYR had planned to extend these to provide additional job placement support to BLES graduates, but the USAID-requested slow down in implementation while waiting for the next funding obligation did not make this possible.

43 management and clerk/admininistration departments and two were being considered for permanent employment with Northern Electric. Three BLES participants expanded their own small businesses, applying support provided by CFYR. Fifteen BLES apprentices were invited to the recruitment assessments for permanent employment with two call centers.

Guyana

Working with BLES Facilitators in Guyana, CFYR delivered five cohorts of the BLES training to 303 participants from all five CFYR target communities during the October 2018 through December 2019 period. Throughout implementation, BLES Life Coaches facilitated the job placement of 155 BLES graduates in the retail, security services, telecommunications and oil industry, among others.

Though the BLES Life Coach contracts ended in mid-February 2020, CFYR’s Guyana WFD Specialist began providing direct job placement support to BLES graduates.75

In order to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, over the April through June 2020 period, CFYR conducted online training for participants from Saint Lucia and Guyana for BLES graduates and other youth from CFYR communities. During April and May 2020, CFYR conducted an online Employment Readiness training focused on CV USAID Regional Representative for the Eastern and Southern writing for fifty-eight youth from Guyana Caribbean, Clinton White, presents a certificate to BLES participating. Due to the high demand, CFYR Graduate at the graduation ceremony for BLES Guyana’s final cohort of students. conducted a second round of the Employment Readiness Training during May and June 2020, which included forty-three participants from both Guyana and Saint Lucia. Some of the former BLES Life Coaches assisted in facilitating some of the modules.

75 The Life Coaches’ contracts were not renewed while CFYR awaited its new funding obligation. While the obligation was received just after the General Election, the situation was very unsettled. This was followed shortly thereafter by COVID-19 restrictions. CFYR decided not to renew the contracts and the support was accordingly provided by the CFYR WFD Specialist.

CFYR added another BLES workshop in Guyana, delivered remotely due to COVID-19, during August and September 2020. CFYR’s partner, FACT, which participated in the BLES TOT (discussed below) delivered this BLES training to participants in Corriverton, with coaching support from CFYR. CFYR organized apprenticeships for twenty of the participants that started while the training was underway. The Guyana Revenue Authority, the Institute of Private Enterprise Development and Designs360 Custom Apparel had firmly expressed an interest in hiring these BLES beneficiaries. One apprenticeship resulted in permanent employment, while others are being Participants in the BLES workshop that was delivered remotely in considered. One of the youth who benefited from August and September 2020 were able to secure apprenticeships to gain work experience during the training. the apprenticeship was a former resident of Sophia Juvenile Remand Centre who was released on good behavior.

CFYR delivered BLES training to 14 cohorts with 389 participants.

Adoption of the BLES Model

In St. Kitts and Nevis, the BLES Manual was handed over to national stakeholders during a ToT workshop in the October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018 period, before CFYR concluded Primary Prevention activities there. Stakeholders included organizations that work in health and family life education, technical training, employability skills development, youth development and entrepreneurship development. The buy-in from the Chamber and Commerce was a key win, as it began using the BLES curriculum to train at-risk youth. The Departments of Youth in St. Kitts and in Nevis also incorporated modules of the BLES curriculum in their standard skills-building training curricula for summer camps. In this way, BLES became customized and integrated for ongoing training of youth populations across St. Kitts and Nevis.

In Saint Lucia, on October 3, 2019, CFYR presented the BLES model to stakeholders in Saint Lucia who explicitly expressed initial interest in the BLES curriculum. CFYR conducted a Training-of-Trainers (TOT)

In Saint Lucia, CFYR held a workshop in Castries to introduce the BLES model to stakeholders on October 3, 2019. from October 29 to November 1, 2019, where six former BLES Life Coaches from Saint Lucia participated,

45 along with thirteen interested stakeholders. These stakeholders were required to demonstrate their commitment by submitting a BLES Action Plan to CFYR. As of December, 2019, six entities submitted their Action Plans.76 CFYR hosted BLES ‘teach-backs’ during the January to March, 2020 period, where four stakeholders delivered some of the BLES modules and CFYR and the Life Coaches provided feedback.

By the conclusion of the CFYR program, the Saint Lucia National Youth Council and the Ministry of Youth signed an inter-agency protocol to cost share and co-deliver BLES training. Representatives from the Castries, Dennery and Vieux Fort CECs were also trained to deliver the BLES training. The St. Lucia Social Development Fund agreed that they would continue collaborating with the Ministry of Equity and the Social Transformation Officers (STOs) in the Ministry to deliver the BLES curriculum.

Similar to Saint Lucia, CFYR prepared stakeholders in Guyana to continue providing BLES training post-CFYR. CFYR conducted a BLES Stakeholder Transfer Workshop in October 2019, that included organizations/entities from across the country. Attendees were asked to confirm their interest to participate in a Training-of-Trainers (TOT) workshop, In Georgetown, Guyana, CFYR convened a Stakeholder Transfer Meeting that CFYR conducted in November 2019, on October 23, 2019 to confirm organizations interested in being trained for twenty-four institutional participants.77 Following the TOT workshop, some participants completed their ‘teach-backs’ and submitted Action Plans to CFYR. In January 2020, the A Training-of-Trainers Workshop in the BLES curriculum was held in Saint Lucia Ministry of Public Telecommunications from October 29 – November 1, 2019 for interested stakeholders. requested and received a list of names of BLES graduates who were interested in employment opportunities.

In Guyana, a BLES Training-of-Trainers Workshop was held from November 4-6, 2019 in Georgetown.

76 These were the Ministry of Equity; the Saint Lucia Social Development Fund (SSDF); the Vieux Fort CEC; the Saint Lucia National Youth Council; the Celestial Self-Development Centre; and the Upton Gardens Girls Centre. 77 These were the Ministry of Social Protection (Women’s Leadership Institute; New Opportunity Corps, Social Services, Board of Industrial Training, Manpower Recruitment Agency); Ministry of Education; Ministry of the Presidency (Youth Empowerment Unit); Ministry of Public Security (Sophia Juvenile Holding Centre); Carnegie School of Home Economics; Family, Awareness, Consciousness & Togetherness (FACT); Roadside Baptist Skills Training Centre; Teleperformance; Sophia Community Development Association; Life Reform; Assembly of God Skills Training and Outreach Centre; Church of God of Prophecy; Ruimveldt Life Improvement Centre; and the CFYR Life Coaches.

It is noteworthy that Guyana’s Probation Department independently commenced BLES training over the July to September 2020 period with sixteen participants. CFYR provided workbooks and manuals for the workshop.

Technical/Vocational Skills Training and Job Placement Services

CFYR provided grants to community-based NGOs to provide technical/vocational and life skills training to further prepare youth for employment opportunities, including job placement support and coaching and after-care job placement support services. Grantees in In Guyana, the Probation Department commenced BLES training for youth in July 2020. Saint Lucia included Springboard Training and Consulting Ltd. (referred to as Springboard) and the MAMPA Training Institute (referred to as MAMPA), while grantees in Guyana included Critchlow Labour College (CLC), Family Awareness Consciousness Togetherness (FACT) and Volunteer Youth Corps (VYC).

CFYR provided technical/vocational and life skills training through grantees to a total of 401 youth from Saint Lucia (165) and Guyana (236).

Saint Lucia

The grantees targeted fifty-six youth from Anse La Raye and Soufriere participating in MAMPA training, and 109 youth from Anse La Raye, Dennery and Castries who participated in the MAMPA and Springboard training, respectively.

MAMPA’s ‘Second Chance’ program included pre-employment training, soft skills and technical/vocational training in hospitality services. The project was officially launched in Vieux-Fort in December, 2018 and achieved positive results by the end of the technical training component in March 2019. Fifty-six (93%) of the trainees (twenty-eight from Vieux-Fort and twenty-eight from Soufriere) completed the technical training, which surpassed the 85% target. Of the fifty-six who completed their training, twenty-nine were sent on internships, with seven securing full-time employment. MAMPA also recruited some of the trainees for jobs with cruise lines. Successful applicants received letters of employment from MAMPA, which could be used to obtain funding from the Saint Lucia Development Bank to cover the costs of medical fees and airfare required to secure employment with the cruise lines. CFYR concluded the grant with MAMPA in August 26, 2019, In Saint Lucia on March 11, 2020, CFYR presented MAMPA trainees with their three months early, due to MAMPA’s Certificates. consistent delays in training certification

47 and failing to meet job placement deliverables. In January 2020, fifty-two of the fifty-six trainees who had completed the training with MAMPA did receive certification from the United Kingdom’s (UK) Business and Technology Education Council in Hospitality and Catering Principles. CFYR presented trainees with their certificates in March 2020.

The Springboard Workforce development program was delivered in two phases during the period September 2018 to June 2020. The objective was to equip at-risk youth from the Dennery, Anse La Raye and Castries communities with the required life skills, workplace skills and technical skills to find them sustainable employment in customer-facing positions (i.e., restaurant and beverage service roles) within the hospitality sector and to provide ongoing support during the early part of their careers. Phase One involved the training of sixty youth, followed with a grant amendment for Phase Two and training of an additional forty-five youth.

At the completion of Phase One, fifty-six participants graduated in June 2019, with accreditation from the UK-accredited Vocational Training Charitable Trust (VTCT) and provided with Level 2 certificates in Hospitality Industry Skills Food and Beverage Service Training. Of the fifty-six who graduated, forty-eight were placed in permanent employment. Springboard achieved 93% certification and 86% employment with

In Saint Lucia, graduates of the Springboard hospitality training program’s first phase received their certificates at a ceremony held in Castries on June 12, 2019. the Phase One graduates, significantly exceeding the agreed certification and employment targets of 85%

and 50%, respectively. Springboard secured employment for graduates at a number of resorts in Saint Lucia, including with the major hotels Royalton Saint Lucia, St. James’ Club and The Landings Resorts.

Towards the end of Phase Two, forty-one trainees successfully completed the technical training and were awarded VTCT certifications at a graduation ceremony in January 2020. One of the graduates, Junior Mathurin from Central Castries, after completing his hospitality training, was placed at the Capella Resort in Marigot Bay. He was called “Upseller” after having been recognized by the hotel for his hard work, dedication and increased self-confidence while on the job. Thirty-five (35) of the 41 trainees who completed their training were placed in permanent employment. Springboard again exceeded targets, with a 91% rate of for certification, as compared with the target of 85%. Springboard also exceeded the 65% employment target and achieved an 85% employment rate.

Guyana In Saint Lucia, Junior ‘Upseller’ Mathurin, graduate from the second phase of The workforce development grants in Guyana provided opportunities Springboard’s hospitality training program, for youth from all of the CFYR communities, with a total of 236 youth receives his VTCT Certificate from Debra participating in the three programs. Wahlberg, CFYR Chief of Party.

The VYC workforce activity during September 2018 to November 2019, worked to reduce risk factors associated with crime and violence by increasing access to employment opportunities for eighty youth between the ages of 16-29 years residing in four CFYR communities (East La Penitence, Lodge, East Ruimveldt and Sophia (Fields C, D and E)). The activity was designed to empower youth with soft and hard skills by providing employment readiness and basic life skills; establishing a collaborative partnership with the Government Technical Institute to provide competency-based skills training covering the Technical and Vocational Education Training (TVET) curriculum in Electrical Installation, Data Operations and Motor Vehicle Repairs; and providing aftercare services to successful trainees in the form of mentoring and case management support before and after job placement over a period of six months. By the end of the program, 77% of the participants completed the training and thirty-six were employed in jobs against the of 85% percent and 50% employment targets. Out of the 77% completing their training, fifty-eight were deemed competent and received TVET certifications.78

From September 2018 to November 2019, FACT implemented a workforce development program in the community of Corriverton targeting thirty-six In Guyana, FACT in Corriverton held a graduation ceremony for participants in its workforce development program on April 30, youth. FACT delivered training in garment 2019.

78 Thirty-eight trainees discontinued the program for various reasons including financial challenges, deciding to pursue other training opportunities and disengaging because they did not yet have the required certification for some jobs they were pursuing.

49 construction, food and nutrition and driving instruction and certification. Trainees were also exposed to basic life skills, computer training and sexual reproductive health training. FACT achieved 100% success with participants in the technical training for the garment and food and nutrition components. At the end of the program, all twelve participants in the garment construction training achieved certification from the Upper Corentyne Industrial Training Centre and the twelve participants who completed the food and nutrition training received food handler certificates from the Department of Health. Of the twelve trainees who completed the driving course, only three successfully completed written examinations, however all twelve were awarded certificates of participation. By the end of the grant, twenty-two of the twenty- seven trainees who successfully completed their certification/exams trainees were in full-time employment.

The CLC workforce activity, ‘Improving Employment though Skills Development and Employment Readiness Training,’ was offered in the communities of Sophia (Field C, D, and E), East La Penitence, East Ruimveldt, Lodge and Corriverton. The program commenced in September 2018 and was intended to be completed in January 2020. CLC targeted 125 youth and offered technical training in fisheries and aquaculture as well as in building construction. Trainees were offered life skills and employment readiness training. In March 2019, 110 youth, or 88%, had completed the training, against the target of 85%. Out of the 110 youth completing, ninety-six were awarded CLC certificates in August 2019. Twenty-three graduates received certification in fisheries and aquaculture, thirty-four in information communication technology and thirty-nine in building skills. Due to consistent delays in meeting certification and job placement components, CFYR terminated the grant in October 2019. In subsequent follow-up, CFYR learned that twenty of the graduates successfully obtained permanent employment.

Table 2 provides information on CFYR’s WFD grant activities through the end of CFYR’s support:

Table 2: Summary of Grantee Employment Objectives and Outcomes

COUNTRY GRANTEE EMPLOYMENT TARGET EMPLOYED 79 NOT EMPLOYED80

MAMPA81 30 7 15

Saint Lucia SPRINGBOARD82 45 86 -

VYC83 34 37 -

Guyana CLC84 90 20 76

79 Employment means those whose roles were converted from ‘internship’ to ‘permanent’. Figures note employment during the period of grantees’ job placement support provided to graduates. 80 ‘Not employed’ means those from the expected target number who were not placed in employment during the duration of the WFD grant program. 81 Per its grant agreement, MAMPA had a target to employ 30 youth, representing 50% of the total youth who were expected to complete the training and obtain certification. MAMPA did not meet its target. 82 Per its grant agreement, Springboard had a target to employ 45 youth, representing 50% of the total youth who were expected to complete training and certification. Springboard exceeded its target. 83 Per its grant agreement, VYC had a target to employ 34 youth, representing 50% of the total youth who were expected to complete training and certification. VYC exceeded its target. 84 Per its grant agreement, CLC had a target to employ 90 youth, representing 85% of the total youth who were expected to complete training and certification. CLC did not meet its target.

FACT85 1686 22 -

TOTAL 215 172 91

Supplemental School Programs

Research shows that the first four hours after the end of the school day, and summer and holiday breaks, are considered critical intervention points to reduce risky behaviors. Young people who are not supervised during after-school hours are much more likely to use alcohol, drugs and tobacco; engage in criminal and other risky behavior; do poorly in school; and drop out of school, compared with those who participate in after-school programs that provide constructive activities supervised by caring and responsible adults. These programs strengthen resilience factors related to behavior, school attendance, academic performance and social skills. To support access to supplemental school programs (SSP), CFYR provided grants to NGOs and host government partners in all three CFYR countries to strengthen protective factors for youth and provide positive alternatives to crime and violence. Programs included homework assistance, life skills and extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, dance, cooking, drama, and art), with highlights provided below. (See Annex B for a complete list of CFYR grantees).

240687 youth participated in CFYR Supplemental School Programs.

St. Kitts and Nevis88

The faith-based organizations Antioch Baptist Church, Potters Clay Inc. and Wesleyan Holiness Church implemented ASPs during the October 2017 to September 2018 period. The ASPs helped to develop working relationships between parents and schools and allowed parents to monitor progress in academic development. They offered opportunities to children who would have been otherwise unable to pursue activities in karate, fencing, steel pan, dance and arts and crafts. It also allowed the youth to gain skills and a sense of self- worth. The training and exposure provided to In St. Kitts and Nevis, students attended one of 3 after- implementing partners, as well as handover of school programs in 2017-2018. equipment and tools to them after the conclusion

85 Per its grant agreement, FACT had a target to employ 16 youth, representing 50% of the total youth who were expected to complete training and certification. FACT exceeded its target. 86 Nine of the 36 targeted participants were unsuccessful completing required assessments. As such, they did not qualify for job placement. 87 The 2406 youth engaged represent all youth who participated in supplemental school programs, including: After-school Programs, Summer Camps, Easter Camps; the Coding and Robotics Pilot Project conducted in Saint Lucia and the Positive Connection to Schools Pilot Program in Guyana. This figure may contain youth who have participated in more than one of the aforementioned activities. 88 CFYR concluded Primary Prevention programming in St. Kitts and Nevis by September 30, 2018, following a reduction in program funding from USAID. This included the conclusion of ASPs in St. Kitts and Nevis.

51 of the programs, provided an important investment in further supporting at-risk children, their families and the system of school supports.

Saint Lucia

CFYR implemented six ASPs, with a total of 396 youth in Saint Lucia participating during December 2017 and May 2020. Sacred Sports implemented two ASPs focused on academic assistance that was integrated with sports for development. The initial program was implemented in the community of Soufriere for fifty participants from December 2017 to August 2018. This was followed by a further program in Vieux-Fort during December 2018 to May 2020.

Stepping Stones offered afterschool sessions to twenty-four students from the Castries Central community from December 2017 to August 2018. The ASP was the continuation of an existing academic support program that it had implemented, and CFYR’s assistance enabled it to expand and offer a music component and additional teaching assistance for participants.

The Folk Research Centre (FRC) implemented an ASP called Vilaj Manmay La (The Children’s Village) with fifty students from the Castries Central and Dennery communities between December 2017 through July 2018. The program integrated academic components with local cultural heritage and the arts. The program was cut short after a fire ravaged the premises of FRC in March 2018, which was also home to the Castries ASP and where most of the program resources for the ASP were located.

Ti Mamai Events implemented the Building the Future ASP which it implemented between January through August 2018. This was a small community-based program that offered opportunities to youth, family members, teachers and the wider in the La Ressource area of Vieux-Fort engaging participants in arts, crafts and music activities.

The Belair Development Committee implemented an ASP in the Millet area in Anse La Raye between December In Saint Lucia, TiMamai events held a closing ceremony on August 7, 2018 for 2017 and August 2018. The ASP children who participated in the after-school program held in Vieux Fort. engaged forty-one students (surpassing the target of thirty), noting a major success with the outstanding performance of ASP participants in their performance in the Common Entrance Examination. The Millet Primary School attained a ranking of seventh place among all public schools in Saint Lucia, improving from a ranking of fifteenth. Nineteen of the twenty-three students who took the exams participated in the ASP and received tutoring to prepare for the examinations.

CFYR partnered with the Youth and Fire Movement (YOFM) for an ASP in Anse La Raye. CFYR supported fifty youth in the program for two years during the period December 2017 to August 2018, and from

December 2018 to August 2019. YOFM attributes the success of participants in the 2018 Common Entrance Examination to the intensive work done by the facilitators in mathematics and English with ASP participants. One ASP participant scored an average of 89.63%, placing seventeenth out of all students in Saint Lucia in the Common Entrance Examinations that year. This placed him among the top performers of his school, the district and on the island. Other students received averages above the national mean of 65% and their hard work placed the school in second place in the District. A vast improvement was also noted with one particular student who first wrote the exam in 2017 and scored an average of 60%. After repeating the exam, the student 76.3%. This improvement is attributed to the individualized assistance he received through the ASP prior to him writing the exam.

Overall, all the afterschool programs met their objectives of providing safe spaces, life skills training and academic support to at-risk youth during afterschool hours and provided opportunities to learn a new skill either through arts, sports or music.

In September 2017, CFYR formalized a partnership with the Department of Education, Innovation, Gender Relations and Sustainable Development (DEIGR) in Saint Lucia to develop and deliver a computer coding curriculum for approximately 240 students in four secondary schools within CFYR target communities. During the October 2017 to September 2018 period, CFYR conducted an intensive training exercise for seven teachers and two student volunteers in coding and robotics, including the development of the curriculum to train students over a one-year period. The curriculum helped to keep students engaged in formal education and provide them with a usable skill upon graduation. CFYR’s contribution of 124 laptop computers and seventy-two robotics kits to the DEIGR made it possible for instruction on the coding curriculum to begin in March 2018, with interest in the pilot over-subscribed. One teacher noted she had

On March 28, 2018, H.E. Linda Taglialatela, US Ambassador to Barbados and Eastern Caribbean, participated in an event in Dennery, Saint Lucia, to hand over computers and robotics equipment to Hon. Gale Rigobert, Minister of Education, in support of the Robotics Program in 5 schools, being piloted by CFYR. Also pictured are officials from the Ministry of Education and students from the Grande Riviere Secondary School.

53 never seen students so excited to participate in a school activity - staying long hours after school, doing independent research and following instructions as required.

Accordingly, in October 2018, CFYR collaborated with a number of private sector companies in Saint Lucia to stage a two-day Hackathon as the culminating event for the pilot. The event brought together a total of forty-three students from the four schools participating in the pilot to compete on a range of coding and robotics challenges over two days. At the end of the event, Grand Rivière Secondary School in Dennery was given the award for Champion School and the pilot was deemed a success by key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Education.

On October 12, 2018 in Saint Lucia, CFYR staged the finals in a 2-day Hackathon for four participating schools. The young people who participated are pictured here with their teachers, mentors and representatives from Saint Lucia’s Ministry of Education.

The Hackathon event garnered good media coverage locally, and was live-streamed internationally, which contributed to the willingness of two private sector actors, LUCELEC and the Saint Lucia National Lottery Authority, to fund the continuation and expansion of the program to other schools following the conclusion of the pilot program. The Ministry of Education expanded the program to two more schools (Clendon Mason Secondary School and Micoud Secondary School) and added a two-day teacher training component.

Guyana

The ASPs in Guyana provided opportunities for targeted interventions which led to improved behavior change and school performance at school. CFYR’s grant partner, FACT, recounted the experience of a child who had weekly visits from the Child Protection Agency for bullying behavior and truancy. After various counseling sessions, FACT learned that the child was usually without meals at home and so provided these to him on a regular basis. To stop the bullying, FACT offered him leadership roles to help him develop positive social skills to positively interact with his peers. In August 2018, midway through the program, the visits from the Child Protection Agency were no longer necessary as the child began to exhibit positive behavior.

RLIC’s ASP provided students with additional academic tutoring, something that was not available to all youth in the community because of their economic situation. One youth who participated in the ASP was part of a single-parent household that, over time, became a difficult environment for the youth. Having participated in the ASP, this youth become the only child from the household who completed high school and obtained Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) qualifications. The family attributes the academic

success to the tutoring provided by RLIC, given that the family could not afford to pay for extra lessons to prepare for the CXCs. The child also received financial assistance from RLIC to offset examination fees. As a further measure of success, this student went on to study for the Caribbean Advanced Proficiency Examinations and is now preparing to pursue her law degree at the University of Guyana, with support from RLIC.

Positive Connection to Schools in Guyana to Reduce School Dropout Rates

An important aspect of strengthening protective factors for at-risk youth includes strong, positive relationships that youth and their families have with service providers in their community, including schools. CFYR implemented a pilot initiative with two schools in Corriverton, the Skeldon Line Path Secondary (SLPS) and Skeldon High School (SHS), with students aged 11 to 14 in Forms 1-3, that was designed to strengthen measures to keep children in school, as well as support re-engagement by the school of those children who had been recently excluded because of maladaptive behaviors, pregnancy, being justice-involved, or who were not coping because of financial or learning issues.

The pilot, implemented during October through December, 2019, used Same Day Calling (SDC), which had school representatives contact caregivers on the day that a student was absent from school to find out if the absence was legitimate. Immediately after the SDC commenced, some caregivers and parents visited the school to check up on their children when they were notified of their child’s absence.

The preliminary results from the pilot were presented to the Steering Committee in November, 2019. There were sixteen persons present including senior teachers, the principal of one of the schools, representatives of the business community and Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs). Key findings presented were follow:

• Attendance for all grades was up 10%-20% for the term compared with the baseline term. • One school explored removing the “late book,” as punctuality improved significantly. • Parents of seventy-seven students across the two schools were identified for special focus, as despite repeated calls to the parents, they continued to be frequently absent. • 3250 absences were followed up over the period, with a contact ratio of 70% for one school and 65% for the other.

The conclusion of the pilot program in January 2020 provided additional, important findings.

Zero Monthly Attendance Rate

There was an improvement in the reduction of zero monthly non-attendances at SLPSS. The cases were, on average, seven students per month as compared with eighteen in the previous term, with a slightly higher prevalence among girls. While the total zero monthly non-attendances for SLPSS in the August Term were seventy-three, this number was reduced to thirty during the Christmas Term. This represents a 59% reduction in students with zero monthly non-attendances.89

Sessional Absenteeism

89 This was the term in which SDC was introduced.

55 SDC had a positive impact on attendance and school re-entry. The average sessional absences in the

August Term for Form 290 show that for SLPSS, the average sessional absence was sixty-eight. In the Christmas Term, with SDC in place, the average sessional absences fell to forty-one, a 40% reduction. For Form 3, the average sessional absences in the August Term were forty-six, while in the Christmas Term, the average sessional absences were thirty-five, a 24% improvement in attendance. Finally, it was noted that at SHS, there was generally a lower improvement in sessional attendances in comparison to SLPSS. At SHS, there was a general lower improvement in sessional attendances when compared to SLPSS. For Form 2, the average sessional absence of eight-five in the August Term fell to seventy-eight in the Christmas Term with SDC in place. This represents an 8% reduction. For Form 3 at SHS, a reduction of 11% in sessional absences was observed in the Christmas Term compared to the August Term, with average sessional absences falling to sixty-five from seventy-three.

The following were reported as reasons for the absences noted:

• Financial constraints – 40% of respondents. • Ill-health of the child – 35% of respondents. • Calls made before the child arrived at school – 15% • Other (no single reason) – 10% • Migration – 5%

Stakeholders from both schools indicated that they would seek funds from local authorities to hire staff to continue with the SDC.

OUTPUT 2.4: COMMUNITY BASED MODELS AND SOLUTIONS DOCUMENTED AND SHARED

USAID promotes a strong learning agenda, which CFYR supported by developing and applying new tools in the ESC region to address youth crime and violence; serving as a convener of regional knowledge sharing events to disseminate information on promising practices and approaches; establishing youth-led fora to develop new tools to prioritize crime and violence issues from the youth perspective; and training youth leaders and those in youth-serving agencies to better advocate for programs and services to support youth and families.

Recognizing that there already existed a number of youth networks, NGO and development partner programs that work on various aspects of youth violence in the Caribbean, CFYR engaged with these partners to better integrate the discussions around youth-centered approaches toward reducing crime and violence in order to target resources to effect measurable change. CFYR shared approaches with partners in CFYR focus countries and the ESC region that can be used to reduce youth violence during and following CFYR implementation.

CFYR utilized targeted webinars to strengthen the practice of youth-focused violence prevention programming and advocacy work outlined in the three pillars of the Caribbean Advocacy and Action Agenda

90 The pilot included students from Form 2 and Form 3.

on Youth Violence Prevention (AAA). An advocacy toolkit demonstrates recommended practices and approaches for youth violence prevention, to operationalize the AAA.

In a series of webinars, a select group of practitioners received training in the design and implementation of advocacy strategies to work with diverse youth populations on peace-building events and transformational initiatives. To further support regional learning, CFYR convened a Virtual Regional Learning Exchange (RLEv) that served as a forum to share knowledge and facilitate learning across partners, drawing from the CFYR experience. This exchange showcased mechanisms for supporting the adoption of local and regional innovations and promising practices. Some of these key resources and events are discussed below.

Self-efficacy Youth Scale

CFYR developed the Self-Efficacy Youth Scale to facilitate reporting on one of CFYR’s outcome indicators, ‘Number of youth who report increased self-efficacy at the conclusion of USG assisted training/programming.’ The instrument assesses the effectiveness of training and activities towards improving the self-efficacy of youth in specific areas that CFYR identified to be in alignment with reducing crime and violence among youth. These included General Self-Efficacy, Social Self-Efficacy and Academic and Vocational Self-Efficacy.

To finalize the instrument, CFYR adapted self-efficacy questions from a tool developed by researchers working in the field of self-efficacy, Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger; conducted focus group discussions with youth from CFYR’s three focus countries to customize the questions for the Caribbean setting; pretested the draft instrument; and conducted advanced statistical analysis of participants’ responses to ensure the instrument was valid and reliable. The final instrument consists thirteen items reflecting the noted functional areas.

To maintain appropriate research standards, CFYR provided training for relevant partners and developed guidelines to accompany the instrument. These detailed, among other things, the definition of self-efficacy and the conditions that need to exist for the instrument to be used, which include an intervention, whether virtual and/or in person, of at least five full days (40 hours) that had learning objectives and focused on enhancing social/life or leadership skills. Focus areas for the intervention had to include, but were not limited to: youth development, conflict resolution, negotiation skills, mediation skills, communication skills, business skills, advocacy and networking, management, leadership and/or civic engagement, among others. Participants were also expected to complete both the pre- and post-test assessments, and it assumed that participants would complete at least 80% of the intervention.

CFYR applied the instrument for two years. Overall, self-efficacy levels among participants across various activities improved on average by 58%, and ranged from 48%, to as much as 83%91 for some activities. CFYR presented the Self-efficacy Youth Scale at the Virtual Regional Learning Exchange in 2020.

Caribbean Learning for Youth Networking and Change Sessions Network (LYNCS)

91 Two activities had 83% of participants demonstrate increases in self-efficacy. These included youth who participated in the Dennery YATTA activity and participants in Cohort 7 from the Springboard workforce development training.

57 On January 16, 2019, members of the LYNCS Network closed the Caribbean Youth Summit in Georgetown, Guyana with a call on attending Government Ministers to commit to supporting actions to reduce youth violence across the region and committed to work in their communities to create a culture of peace.

CFYR applied a positive youth development approach toward ensuring that youth voices would lead the discussion to determine the priority issues to be addressed to reduce youth crime and violence in the ESC region. To achieve this, CFYR established the LYNCS Steering Committee, which included youth representatives from a cross-section of regional youth networks within the Caribbean Community. Aligned with CARICOM’s Social Development and Crime Prevention (SDCP) Action Plan, the LYNCS Steering Committee worked with CFYR to develop and implement a regional webinar series with youth leaders and practitioners from youth-serving agencies from across the region, to bring their ideas to reflect on regional innovations and good practices that contribute to preventing or reducing youth violence involving youth. The webinars delivered ten presentations on relevant topics from regional scholars, policymakers and youth practitioners on important violence prevention topics to elicit agenda setting commentary and The Caribbean Action and Advocacy Agenda on Youth Violence Prevention (AAA). feedback.

By the conclusion of the webinar series, the draft Caribbean Action & Advocacy Agenda on Youth Violence Prevention (AAA) was prepared. CFYR conducted a series of youth dialogues where 185 youth from CFYR communities

shared their input. The AAA represents what young people across the Caribbean region believe is required to effectively tackle issues of crime in violence in the region. The draft AAA was presented at the Regional Youth Summit in 2019.

Regional Youth Summit 2019

CFYR convened the two-day Caribbean Summit on Youth Violence Prevention in Georgetown, Guyana on January 15 and 16, 2019 in collaboration with the United Nations Children’s Fund, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Caribbean Development Bank, the CARICOM Secretariat, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and the LYNCS Steering Committee. There were 267 registered participants (146, or 59%, youth) from twenty-four countries, from Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as from Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. Participants included senior policymakers from Anguilla, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago and Turks & Caicos. Representatives from academic institutions, law enforcement and regional youth and development agencies also attended, together with a variety of grassroots and other youth groups and youth platforms.

Images from the Caribbean Summit on Youth Violence Prevention held on January 15 and 16, 2019 in Georgetown, Guyana.

59 A critical take-away from the Youth Summit was the endorsement of the AAA. Presented by the LYNCS Steering Committee, the AAA was endorsed by government ministers attending the Summit as a guiding model for youth-centered violence prevention. They committed to support actions related to its implementation by young people, youth development partners and their respective Directors of Youth. Youth leaders also re-committed, individually and collectively, to work in their communities and countries on youth violence prevention in an evidenced way. They committed to using their influence more strategically to reach a wider and more diverse range of young people to encourage collective action on youth violence prevention, in line with the principles and approaches outlined in the AAA.

A main take-away from the Summit was the critical recognition of the multi-disciplinary, youth asset-based, integrated approach that is required to manage youth violence prevention initiatives, requiring the need to integrate a variety of sectoral interests to bring their competitive talents, strategies and resources to address youth violence prevention. From interventions and approaches presented, the Summit also recommended that young people be given the space and resources, including requisite funding, to innovate methodologies and approaches that can attract, retain, monitor and mentor young people from fringe, underserved and marginalized populations who most require transformational interventions.

Arising from the endorsement of the AAA, CFYR worked with youth leaders to develop the AAA Advocacy Toolkit to increase the agency and voice of youth leaders and those in youth serving agencies to take actionable steps to implement priorities from the AAA.

AAA Advocacy Toolkit and Training

CFYR worked with members of the LYNCS Steering Committee to develop the AAA Advocacy Toolkit. The Toolkit became the main learning guide for the Online Advocacy Course that CFYR designed. This course was specifically tailored to amplify the practice of advocacy by youth-led and youth-serving organizations using evidence-based approaches to promote peace and prevent youth violence with interventions that are in line with the AAA. The course provided practical instruction on use of the Advocacy Toolkit to create and implement advocacy plans and projects related to youth violence prevention. Regional youth and youth-serving agencies, including those in CFYR countries and in the countries served by USAID/Eastern and Southern Caribbean, were invited to participate in the Online Advocacy Course.92

The Webinars were presented in modules:

• Module 1 - Introduction to The Caribbean Advocacy And Action Agenda (AAA) • Module 2 - Steps to Developing an Advocacy Strategy

92CFYR invited candidates who satisfied the following requirements to apply: 1. Must be a citizen of CARICOM between the ages of 15-40 attached to a youth club, council, or youth-led or youth-serving organization engaged in ongoing or planned work on youth peacebuilding and youth violence prevention outcomes; 2. Must submit a 300-word written pitch or a ninety second video indicating why you wish to be considered. The pitch or the video should contain any justification details including your previous work/experience or emerging work in youth-led and youth-centered advocacy and how this training will support the work you are doing. Necessary website and social media links should be included; 3. Must sign a commitment to complete course requirements, assignments, and evaluations. In publicizing the webinar series, CFYR advertised on its Facebook page and other social media sites. CFYR also emailed directly all LYNCS team members; youth delegates who attended the Youth Summit in January 2019 Summit; all known youth Peace Advocates using contact lists from the Youth Summit; members of the CECs and youth partners in CFYR target communities; the heads of National Youth Councils; and Directors of Youth in the public sector to share with their youth networks. Applicants from ESC countries who satisfied all criteria were selected.

• Module 3 - Strategic Partnerships for Inclusive Advocacy • Module 4 - Communicating for Social Change • Module 5 – Advocacy Presentations Part I Outline for Peer and Technical Review • Module 6 – Assessment of Advocacy Campaign

A bonus webinar on Theory of Change (TOC) and Logic Model (LM) Development was offered to participants in collaboration with the USAID-funded Center on Crime and Community Resilience based at the Northeastern University. It provided participants with the foundation needed to develop a TOC and LM for their programs and advocacy campaigns. Over the long term, the information will also support communication, and fundraising strategies for their organizations.

With substantial interest in the course from youth leaders and those in youth-serving agencies, CFYR hosted additional sessions of the Online Advocacy Course between July through September, 2020.

One participant shared the following:

“This course has been nothing short of transformative and informative. I have been able to gain an entirely different perception on the real issues facing our youth and their communities. The sessions, activities and discussions have helped to exercise my mind on how we can identify and actually deal with these real life issues by equipping us with the necessary tools. I have recently been approached by an organisation to assist in a community research project regarding alternative punishments for youth who are facing jail time for minor crimes and I am looking forward to using my knowledge gained from this course and applying it there. Thank you to all of our mentors who would have carried us through these sessions and for taking the time to engage with us on how we can make a change.”

CFYR also developed a shorter version of the Advocacy Course and delivered this to community workers to enhance their practice in supporting youth-led advocacy on youth violence prevention in line with the AAA.

CFYR delivered the AAA Online Advocacy Toolkit Training to 202 youth leaders, community members and representatives from youth-serving agencies, from nine ESC countries.

Both the LYNCS and the AAA Online Advocacy Course built strong partnerships with Caribbean youth leaders in CFYR and Eastern and Southern Caribbean countries who committed publicly to the agenda as advocates for the AAA.

Virtual Regional Learning Exchange 2020

In 2020 in consultation with USAID, CFYR took the decision to cancel the in-person Regional Learning Exchange (RLE) scheduled for May, 2020 in St. Kitts, given the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, CFYR shifted to an entirely virtual event and hosted the Virtual Regional Learning Exchange (RLEv). The RLEv provided a final opportunity for CFYR to host a platform that shared models and approaches to address youth violence prevention in the ESC region and provided an opportunity for discussion among regional participants. The sessions included:

61 • Webinar I on June 25, 2020 - Integrating the Public Health Approach to Youth Violence Prevention (YVP) into Regional Programs. • Webinar 2 on July 2, 2020 - Youth-Led Peace Action and Violence Prevention. • Webinar 3 on July 9, 2020 - Building Resilience and Positive Alternatives to Crime and Violence: A Multi-Partner Agenda. • Webinar 4 on July 16, 2020 - Influencing an Evidence-Based Learning Agenda for Youth Violence Prevention (YVP).

The final Webinar provided an opportunity to consolidate learning and exchange around what had been presented over the entire series. During this session, participants were asked to indicate which tool, program or approach was most interesting and/or relevant to their work, with the following responses provided:

• 29% cited CFYR Family Matters • 28% cited Positive Youth Development • 15% cited Anger Replacement Therapy • 13% cited Juvenile Justice Reform • 11% cited Public Health Approach • 2% cited USAID Youth Leads • 2% cited AAA Advocacy Toolkit/Online Course CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS FROM COMMUNITY END-LINE SURVEYS93 The main purpose of these surveys was to assist CFYR and its stakeholders to have concrete data around three key performance indicators and to measure changes in them over time. The information from the baseline survey also provided community members with information to guide community engagement and community activities to reduce youth crime and violence in their communities. CFYR conducted baseline, midline and end-line surveys in Guyana and Saint Lucia,94 and a baseline and end-line survey in St. Kitts and Nevis.95 It is important to note that the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant government-imposed restrictions likely impacted the end-line measures at the time of the Guyana and Saint Lucia end-line surveys in such a way that they may not be fully reflective of the achievements of CFYR.

Key information obtained from the surveys included:

93 The results are not intended for comparisons across the three countries, but rather to compare each country’s results on their own. CFYR concluded Primary Prevention programming in St. Kitts and Nevis at the end of Year 2 (September 30, 2018) due to reductions in program funding from USAID. As a result, CFYR undertook the end-line community survey in St. Kitts in Nevis in November 2018 and concluded it in early 2019. CFYR completed the Saint Lucia and Guyana community end-line surveys closer to the conclusion of Primary Prevention programming in those locations in Year 4. 94 The end-line surveys in Guyana and Saint Lucia included qualitative data derived from focus group discussions in order help provide context to the quantitative findings. 95 CFYR concluded all Primary Prevention programming in St. Kitts and Nevis by September 30, 2018 so CFYR did not conduct a midline community survey in St. Kitts and Nevis. CFYR concluded the end-line community survey in St. Kitts and Nevis in January 2019.

• Victimization rates among residents in target communities; types of victimization and most reported types of discrimination, with findings disaggregated by community, sex and age group (10-29 and 30 years and older); • Feelings of safety - reported feelings of safety when walking in the community after dark and perceptions of change in community crime levels, with findings disaggregated by community, sex and age group (10-29 and 30 years and older); and • Reported participation in community problem-solving activities, with findings disaggregated by community, sex and age group (10-29 and 30 years and older).

ST. KITTS AND NEVIS FINDINGS96 VICTIMIZATION

From baseline to end-line, personal crime victimization declined in CFYR communities from 5.9% to 5.5%.

FEELINGS OF SAFETY

From baseline to end-line, there was an increase in the proportion of residents who felt safe or very safe while walking alone in their communities during the night. In CFYR communities this increased from 53.8% to 69.9% from baseline to end-line.

COMMUNITY PROBLEM-SOLVING

Within CFYR communities at baseline, 17.4% of respondents indicated that they participated in community problem-solving activities within their community. This declined to 13.3% at end-line.

DISCRIMINATION

At baseline, 12.2% of respondents in CFYR communities reported that they were discriminated against. This increased to 13.7% at end-line. Within control communities there was an increase from 11.8% to 17.9% in the proportion of respondents who experienced discrimination.

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

Within CFYR communities there was also a decline in the proportion of respondents who felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner. This declined from 8.7% at baseline to 5.1% at end- line. In contrast, there was an increase from 4.6% to 5% in control communities during the same time period.

ANALYSIS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The data provided good evidence that the CFYR intervention was accompanied by a reduction in crime and delinquency. This was supported by declines in the proportion of residents who were victimized, by declines in the mean number of times residents were victimized and in declines in delinquency levels. While CFYR communities improved with respect to these measures, control communities showed

96 CFYR concluded Primary Prevention programming in St. Kitts and Nevis at the end of Year 2 (September 30, 2018) due to reductions in program funding from USAID. As a result, CFYR undertook the end-line community survey in St. Kitts and Nevis in November 2018 and concluded it in early 2019. No qualitative data collection was undertaken at end-line.

63 increases in crime and delinquency. Accordingly, an intervention similar to CFYR should be continued and extended to other communities in St. Kitts and Nevis. A comparison of baseline and end-line results using a ‘difference in differences’97 analysis showed a statistically significant correlation associated with CFYR’s presence in target communities and positive trends over time. The results show that individuals living in CFYR communities are more likely to have higher levels of community trust, feelings of safety and feelings of safety at night, and are more likely to engage in community problem-solving, when compared to individuals in the control sample.

SAINT LUCIA FINDINGS VICTIMIZATION

From baseline to end-line, personal crime victimization decreased from 8.1% to 7% in CFYR communities. In the control community of Gros Islet, personal crime victimization declined from 10.9% to 7%. Focus group respondents from the CFYR community Youth Group (10-29), the CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above), the All Male and All Female groups,98 were largely of the view that crime and violence in their communities fluctuated or have remained the same, with some identifying as primary or secondary victims of crime. Respondents from the control community of Gros Islet, however, have generally indicated that crime has increased, except in the areas of Beausejour and Massade. Some respondents in this focus group also identified as primary and secondary victims of crime.

During the COVID-19 period,99 1.2% of respondents in CFYR communities were victimized, while 0.4% in the control community were victimized. Prorating the COVID-19 figures to be equivalent to a period of one year allows for comparison with the baseline and end-line figures. This adjustment suggests that 3.6% of respondents in CFYR communities and 1.2% in the control community would have been victimized had the COVID-19 conditions persisted for a period of one year. These results suggest that victimization rates were lower during the COVID-19 period, than during the baseline and end-line periods. This also suggests that some of the declines which were observed in CFYR communities as well as in the control community during the end-line period (which overlaps with the COVID-19 period) would have been due to government-imposed restrictions to curb the spread of the virus.

FEELINGS OF SAFETY

In CFYR communities at baseline, 71.3% of respondents felt safe or very safe when walking alone in their communities after dark. This declined to 66.5% at end-line. In the control community this increased from 69.6% to 78.1%. In CFYR communities, the proportion of youth who felt safe at night declined from 67.9% to 63.3%. Similarly, in the control community of Gros Islet there was a decline from 74.7% to 74.3%, despite being accompanied by an increase, from 67.1% to 79.5%, in the proportion of adults who felt safe at night in the control community. Focus group respondents expressed mixed responses to feelings of safety.

97 The ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique calculates the effect of a treatment on an outcome through comparison with a control group. 98 Participants in all three groups were drawn from Anse la Raye, Dennery, Soufriere and Vieux Fort. There were difficulties finding participants from Castries and the control community of Gros Islet. 99 This period is defined as March 01, 2020 to the time of interview. A COVID-19 module was added to the end-line instrument in order to measure perceptions specific to this post-March 2020 period.

Focus group respondents from the CFYR Community Youth Group (10-29) reported mixed feelings of safety. While some respondents felt safe in their community, some expressed fear walking in the night. For example, while one respondent indicated generally feeling safe in one area of Vieux Fort, another expressed feeling unsafe in another area of Vieux Fort. Also, some female respondents related prior experiences during the day, which made them feel unsafe at night. Respondents from the CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above) also gave mixed responses. Participants noted feeling safe in Anse La Raye and Vieux Fort North, but not safe in the Bois Patat and Morne Du Don areas of Castries, and Soufriere, with the threats of kidnapping and robberies. Despite this, respondents from both the All Male and All Female groups 100 generally noted that they felt safe in their communities.

The results also show that 69.9% felt safe at night during the COVID-19 period in CFYR communities and 83.3% felt safe at night in the control community.

COMMUNITY PROBLEM-SOLVING

Within CFYR communities at baseline, 28.8% of respondents indicated that they participated in community problem-solving activities within their community. This decreased to 14.8% at end-line. This also declined for youth and adults in the control community.

Focus group respondents from the CFYR Community Youth Group (10-29) offered some insights into the noted decline. Some felt that there were no actual problems to be solved, while others felt that they have not been sufficiently engaged in community problem-solving. Respondents from the CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above) indicated that there was more individualism today as more people are on the internet and on their phones. Another noted that there is resentment when children are corrected by other adults and not their parents, which contributes to individualism. It was mentioned that, “…the promotion of a child rights which is taught in school is a problem as it promotes individuality, so persons see no need to share and cooperate…” Notwithstanding, some respondents noted that in Soufriere and Vieux Fort, community problem-solving was still taking place.

In the Control Youth Group (10-29), it was agreed that community problem-solving declined and individualism was cited as the central reason, but also cited were instances of communities taking initiative to help others during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was echoed in the Control Adult Group (30 and above) where it was also mentioned that, “...we are aware of the problems that exist in our community, but we always believe that it's up to, either the police, or the government or these kind of large bodies…”

Within CFYR communities, 5.8% of respondents participated in community problem-solving during the COVID-19 period. This compares to 6.3% in the control community.

DISCRIMINATION

100 Participants were drawn from Anse La Raye, Dennery, Soufriere and Vieux Fort communities for both focus groups.

65 Within CFYR communities, 2.9% of respondents experienced discrimination during the COVID-19 period. This compares to 15.9% at baseline and 9.4% at end-line. In the control community, 12.3% were discriminated against at baseline, compared to 7.8% at end-line, and 1.2% during the COVID-19 period.

Respondents in the All Male group noted that discrimination is almost non-existent in the communities, but may exist where former inmates may face discrimination reintegrating. Respondents in the All Female group also noted that it does not exist much, but there may be political discrimination in some areas. Respondents in the CFYR Community Youth Group (10-29) noted that there may be discrimination in job opportunities based on where a person comes from, and also noted discrimination in the distribution of food supplies during COVID-19. Respondents in the CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above) also pointed out some level of political discrimination. Respondents in the Control Youth Group (10-29) were mixed. Some noted some level of political discrimination, class discrimination and age discrimination against youth. Others, however, noted that discrimination does not really exist. Respondents in the Control Adult Group (30 and above), while acknowledging that it may not be widespread, also discussed episodes of discrimination on the basis of class, age and in the justice system.

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

The results show that there was a decline in the acceptability of gender-based violence within CFYR communities. This was indicated by a decline in the proportion of residents who agreed to all three measures in the survey instrument. For example, when asked whether it was acceptable for a male partner to force a female partner to have sex, the proportion who agreed declined from 3.7% to 2.7%. When asked whether it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner, the proportion who agreed declined from 6.2% to 5.8%. In the control community, in contrast, the results show an increase in two measures and a decline in one measure. For example, while 1.8% at baseline agreed that it was acceptable for a male partner to force a female partner to have sex, this increased to 3.9% at end-line. Similarly, while 3.1% in the control community at baseline agreed that it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner, this increased to 6.3% at end-line. These results suggest that there was a decline in the acceptability of gender-based violence in CFYR communities, while there was an increase in the control community.

Contrary to the previous findings within CFYR communities, there was an increase in the proportion who thought that hitting was acceptable for all five situations which were presented. For example, while 2.2% of CFYR respondents at baseline felt that it was acceptable to hit a partner who goes out without telling them, this increased to 5.9% at end-line. Similarly, at baseline, 4.8% felt that it was acceptable to hit a partner who neglects the children. This increased to 7.1% at end-line. In contrast, within the control community, the results show an increase in only one measure and a decline in the other four measures. The results from this measure suggest that there was an increase in the acceptability of gender-based violence in CFYR communities and a decline in the control community.

The focus group discussion helped to provide context to these different findings. In the All Male focus group, personal experiences were shared where gender-based violence was witnessed in the home as a child, with noted acceptability among men and women. Despite the general view that GBV is wrong, it was noted that men are forced to accept being a victim of GBV while women have more legal recourse. Respondents in the All Female group also discussed the acceptability of GBV between both sexes, and

noted that, “…some women have accepted the fact that if a man does not beat them, he does not love them…” It was also noted that programs for males and females on anger management and conflict resolution were needed. These views were echoed in the CFYR Community and Control Community groups, generally agreeing that while GBV is wrong, there is some level of acceptability among both males and females.

ANALYSIS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that where future efforts, including law enforcement efforts, are to be put in place to reduce crime victimization within CFYR communities, emphasis should be placed on armed robbery, burglaries which occurred while victims were at home, burglaries which occurred while victims were not at home and robbery without the use of arms and in which assaults and threats did not occur. Respondents noted that these are still substantial issues in CFYR communities. When personal crime victimization was considered, these crimes stood out as the most prevalent in CFYR communities. Future programming should continue to involve minors to a greater extent in community decision-making processes. The results show that very few minors believe that they have a say about what goes on in their community. This suggests that minors feel excluded from processes which involve decision-making in their community. Finally, it is recommended that efforts be continued to increase levels of interpersonal trust within CFYR communities. While interpersonal trust for community residents was reasonably high at both periods, the data show a decline in trust.

GUYANA FINDINGS VICTIMIZATION

From baseline to end-line, personal crime victimization declined from 9.7% to 9% in CFYR communities. In contrast, personal crime victimization increased from 6.9% to 7.3% in the control community. Focus group participants gave mixed results on the crime and violence situation in their communities and being victims of crime.

Focus group respondents from the CFYR Community Youth Group (10-29) offered mixed views. While respondents in Corriverton and Lodge noted that there was next to no crime in their communities, participants from East La Penitence and Sophia noted that crime was high.101 Focus group respondents from the CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above) mostly noted that crime decreased. While respondents from Corriverton, East La Penitence, East Ruimveldt, Lodge, and Sophia noted this, one participant noted that it has increased in the West Bridge area of East La Penitence.102 Respondents from both the Control Youth Group (10-29) and the Control Adult Group (30 and above) were generally of the view that crime and violence was low in Kitty, and no respondent reported being a victim of crime. A

101 The respondent from East La Penitence related the story of a friend being accidentally shot and needing to be hospitalized, and the respondent from Sophia noted that they had their bike stolen, and a man was stabbed on the street. This implies that being a primary or secondary victim of crime may influence how someone views the state of crime and violence in the community. 102 A respondent from Sophia related the story of being a victim of hijacking and noted that crime in Sophia had increased. This implies that being a primary or secondary victim of crime may influence how someone views the state of crime and violence in the community. Discrimination was also reported in Corriverton.

67 respondent even noted that youth in Kitty are not prone to crime and violence, and any occurrence is likely from outside influence.

Focus group respondents from the All Male Group103 were generally of the view that the crime and violence situation in their communities was low and trending downwards, despite two respondents identifying as being victims of crime in the last twelve months. However, respondents from the All Female104 Group presented mixed views. While some noted that it was low and trending downwards, female respondents from Lodge and Sophia noted that there was an increase. Respondents from Sophia who noted this increase also identified as being victims of crime in the last twelve months.

During the COVID-19 period105, 1.2% of respondents from CFYR communities indicated they had been a victim of a crime during the COVID-19 period. Within the control community, 1.5% responded similarly. Prorating the COVID-19 figures to make them equivalent to the period of one year similar to the baseline and end-line figures showed that, for CFYR communities, this would provide an estimate of 3.6% of respondents being victimized and 4.5% of respondents in control communities being victimized. This suggests that crime victimization was lower during the COVID-19 period than during the baseline and end-line periods. Generally, focus group respondents felt that youth were more involved in committing crimes than adults, and that COVID-19 had created more opportunities for crime. In contrast, respondents felt that the general elections and political situation did not have an impact on crime victimization. They felt that crime was a feature which remained unchanged despite the general elections. Focus group respondents also offered suggestions which they thought would help to lower crime rates and improve safety. Suggestions included the use of harsher punishments and refusing bail for persons who commit offences, greater use of surveillance equipment such as security cameras, greater use of police patrols, improved street lighting, employment creation and paying special attention to school dropouts.

FEELINGS OF SAFETY

From baseline to end-line there was an increase in CFYR communities in the proportion of residents who felt safe or very safe while walking alone in their communities during the night. In CFYR communities this figure stood at 44.3% at baseline, but increased to 50.3% at end-line. In contrast, in the control community of Kitty, there was a decline from 55.8% to 46.3% in the proportion who felt safe at night in their community. Focus group participants gave mixed results on the crime and violence situation in their communities and being victims of crime.

Focus group respondents expressed mixed views on feelings of safety. Within CFYR communities as well as the control community, there were persons who felt safe, as well as persons who felt unsafe. One factor which stood out as a reason for feeling unsafe was prior victimization experiences. Another related to perceptions of safety in some areas of communities which were perceived as dangerous locations. Of note, while females in the All Female group expressed mixed views, the majority of males were not fearful.

103 Participants were drawn from Corriverton, East Ruimveldt, Lodge and Sophia. There were difficulties finding participants from East La Penitence and the control community of Kitty. 104 Participants were drawn from Corriverton, East La Penitence, East Ruimveldt, Lodge and Sophia. There were difficulties finding participants from the control community of Kitty. 105 This period is defined as March 01, 2020 to the time of interview. A COVID-19 module was added to the end-line instrument in order to measure perceptions specific to this post-March 2020 period.

The only concern was the need for more street lighting. For those females who felt safe, it was suggested that this is because they engaged in safer practices - including returning home before dark, unlike men who tend to stay out later at night – or because they go out in groups or with their boyfriends. On the other hand, prior victimization, and a fear for their female children also played a role in females not feeling safe.

During the COVID-19 period, 45.4% felt very safe or very safe at night in CFYR communities, compared to 65.6% who felt similarly during the COVID-19 period in the control community. Focus group respondents expressed the view that the COVID-19 pandemic had made Guyana less safe. They argued that unemployment had risen, creating economic hardships which led to increased crime. In addition, perpetrators now wore masks which made identification more difficult. This information is critical as it implies that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted this key performance indicator. Despite this, the results show that there was an improvement in perceptions of safety in CFYR communities and a simultaneous decline in perceptions of safety in the control community.106

COMMUNITY PROBLEM-SOLVING

Within CFYR communities at baseline, 16.3% of respondents indicated that they participated in community problem-solving activities within their community. This declined to 15.1% at end-line. An examination of the control community of Kitty revealed that there was an increase in community problem-solving for all respondents, from 8.9% at baseline to 14.6% at end-line. This increase applied to youth (from 6.8% to 11%) and adults (from 9.6% to 16.6%).

Focus group discussions provided mixed perspectives. Some respondents indicated that residents in their community readily engaged in community problem-solving activities, while some felt that community residents rarely engaged in such activity. Focus group respondents who engaged in or felt that members in their community were engaged in community problem-solving, were those from the CFYR Community Youth Group (10-29), CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above), and All Male focus groups. This contrasts with some focus group respondents from the Control Youth Group (10-29) who indicated that they saw little evidence of community problem-solving in this control community. Some respondents from the CFYR Community Youth Group (10-29), CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above), the All Males and All Female groups also shared this view.

Within CFYR communities, 6.2% of respondents participated in community problem-solving during the COVID-19 period. This compares to 16.3% at baseline and 15.1% at end-line. In the control community of Kitty, community problem-solving stood at 3.1% during the COVID-19 period. This compares to 8.9% at baseline and 14.6% at end-line. The decline in community problem-solving during the COVID-19 period suggests that the level of community problem-solving within CFYR communities as well as the control community may have been different had COVID-19 not occurred. Focus group discussants also indicated that political divisions, as well as government-imposed restrictions and health risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, served to reduce engagement in community activities. As such, these factors may have negatively affected this key performance indicator.

106 This suggests two things. Firstly, it may allude to the positive impact of CFYR in the target communities, despite the negative impact of COVID-19 on perceptions of safety. Secondly, the improvements in safety in CFYR communities would have been even more pronounced had COVID-19 not occurred.

69 DISCRIMINATION

Within CFYR communities, 5.2% of respondents experienced discrimination during the COVID-19 period. This compares to 13.4% at baseline and 16.4% at end-line. When the control community of Kitty was considered, the results show that 10.5% were discriminated against at baseline, compared to 17.2% at end-line and 6.6% during the COVID-19 period.

Focus group respondents felt that race, political affiliation, socioeconomic differences and place of residence were the primary reasons for discrimination in Guyana.107 Respondents from the CFYR Community Adult Group (30 and above) noted ongoing discrimination in communities, such as Corriverton, East La Penitence and Lodge. Some respondents from Lodge and Sophia were mixed on its existence. The results from the focus group discussions also suggest that some communities have higher levels of discrimination than others. These findings suggest that dealing with discrimination in Guyana requires not just a knowledge of the reasons for discrimination, but also knowledge of the locations which experience higher rates of discrimination.

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

The results show that there was an increase from baseline to end-line in the acceptability of gender-based violence in CFYR communities. For example, at baseline, 2.4% of respondents felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to force a female partner to have sex. This increased to 2.9% at end-line. Similarly, there was an increase from 3.5% to 6.5% in the proportion of respondents who felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner if she does something which he disapproves of. When asked whether it was acceptable for a female partner to throw out the belongings of a male partner if he does something which she disapproves of, there was an increase from 16.7% to 20.5% in the proportion of CFYR respondents who felt that this was acceptable. In the control community, in contrast, there was a decline for all three indicators. For example, the proportion who felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to force a female partner to have sex declined from 1.2% to 0.4%, while the proportion who felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner declined from 2.9% to 0%.

Within CFYR communities, when females alone were considered, the proportion who agreed that forcing a female partner to have sex was acceptable increased from 1.6% to 2.8%. Similarly, while 3.8% of females at baseline felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner, this increased to 6.5% at end-line. When asked whether it was acceptable for a female partner to throw out the belongings of a male partner, the findings show an increase from 19.7% to 22.8%.

Within CFYR communities, when males alone were considered, the results show that there was a decrease in the proportion who felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to force a female partner to have sex (this declined from 3.7% to 3.1%). In contrast, the proportion of males who thought that it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner increased from 3.8% to 6.4%, while the proportion who felt that it was acceptable for a female partner to throw out the belongings of a male partner increased from 15.3% to 17.3%.

107 The General Election was held in Guyana on March 2, 2020, and final results not declared until August. This resulted in a prolonged period of tension throughout the period and this may have had an impact on responses to this question.

Within CFYR communities, when young adults were considered, the results show that there was an increase in the acceptance of gender-based violence. For example, while 1.9% of young adults at baseline felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to force a female partner to have sex, this increased to 3.1% at end-line. Similarly, while 7.2% of young adults at baseline felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to hit a female partner, this increased to 8% at end-line. Acceptability of a female partner throwing out the belongings of a male partner increased from 18.8% to 20.1% for young adults.

Within CFYR communities, when adults were considered, the results show that there was stability in one measure and an increase in two measures. The proportion who felt that it was acceptable for a male partner to force a female partner to have sex remained at 2.8% at baseline and end-line. In contrast, there was an increase from 2.9% to 5.6%, in the proportion of adults who felt that a male partner hitting a female partner was acceptable. Similarly, there was an increase from 18.6% to 20.7%, in the proportion of adults who felt that it was acceptable for a female partner to throw out the belongings of a male partner.

Focus group respondents were predominantly of the view that gender-based violence was not acceptable under any circumstance. Despite this, there was a minority of respondents who felt that it could be justified under some circumstances.

Focus group respondents offered several reasons for explaining why gender-based violence occurs in Guyana. These included financial dependence, ineffective police responses, males’ unwillingness to report when they are victimized and a lack of severe punishments. Respondents also felt that the hardships associated with COVID-19 restrictions resulted in an increase in domestic violence in Guyana.

Several solutions were offered as means of reducing gender-based violence. These included educating the public, improved parenting and socialization, and the use of counseling for perpetrators and victims.

ANALYSIS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the communities of Sophia and East La Penitence be given special attention to build levels of trust among community residents, as these communities had the lowest levels of trust among residents at end-line. Emphasis should be placed on females and persons in the 10 to 17 age range, as they had the lowest levels of expressed trust. It is also recommended that efforts should be made to locate persons who are engaged in community problem-solving but who may not be aware of community groups which are trying to improve security. Simultaneously, continued emphasis must be placed on CFYR communities to improve perceptions of safety. This may take the form of crime and violence reduction initiatives which involve community-based organizations and key partners. While the results show that all CFYR communities experienced increases in perceptions of safety, continued efforts are recommended so that the gains made by CFYR will not be lost.

71 Finally, it is recommended that more attention should be devoted to changing attitudes toward gender- based violence as the findings indicate that the acceptability of gender-based violence increased in CFYR communities. The results suggest that all persons, regardless of gender or age, should be targeted.

LESSONS LEARNED AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

• During program design, consider population size and geography in regard to program participants and implementation costs. CFYR was required to work in 15 communities across the three focus countries. It became clear during the community identification and selection process that including very small communities which might be at higher levels of crime and violence (some were less than 300 people) would severely limit the number of participants that the Program could reach or engage. Consequently, in order to reach a sufficient number of Program participants, CFYR used ‘district’108 boundaries in St Lucia and Nevis to define ‘community’ in four of the five locations.

While useful and effective for some programming, this made it difficult for some of the CECs to incorporate community members from the sometimes disparate smaller communities within the district. This was due to a number of factors, some of which were geographic distances and transportation costs to main town centers from more remote locations; political differences; and different economic and social circumstances. In other cases, expected support from host government authorities tasked with engaging with community groups did not materialize and having this support may have mitigated some of the non-cost factors.

Implementing programs in larger geographic locations also had implications for project staffing and it is important that these implications not be underestimated. For future programming, USAID should be cognizant of community size and important differences among communities, as these have implications for staffing levels (and costs) needed for implementers to reach more/larger geographical areas and sufficient numbers of beneficiaries.

• Transforming mindsets to achieve sustained buy-in for safe communities takes time. A starting point for CFYR community engagement were assumptions that community members would be interested to identify issues pertaining to youth crime and violence, and that they would be available beyond the demands of everyday life to be involved in the CECs. CFYR sought to incorporate a representative range of community members in the CECs. However, in several instances, some CEC members expected financial benefits for their volunteerism, and when these were not forthcoming, they withdrew or reduced their level of engagement. This is a reflection, in some cases, of the challenging economic circumstances facing some volunteers and emphasizes that there is a personal economic cost to volunteering with which some members had difficulty. Establishing trusting relationships to achieve collective efficacy and sustained buy-in for safe communities, the premise of CECs, requires time. There will, not surprisingly, be some people who remain engaged, others who

108 A district is similar to a county in the United States. In Saint Lucia, CFYR worked in the districts of Anse La Raye, Soufriere, Vieux Fort and Dennery. In Castries, CFYR worked in several Castries Central neighborhoods (Bois Patat, Morne du Don, Grass Street, Leslie Land and Marchand) as a ‘combined community.’ There were a number of other neighborhoods in Castries that CFYR did not work in. In St. Kitts, CFYR worked in several ‘combined’ smaller communities in Basseterre (The Village, Newtown and McKnight) and at the district level in Nevis (St. George Gingerland and St. John Figtree) for reasons of population size.

transition out or in, and some who unexpectedly rise to leadership roles to ensure that community efforts will continue beyond the USAID program. Consideration should be given to five-year implementation timeframes to support this engagement.

• Consider engaging with existing community groups versus establishing new ones. Program timeframes to establish CECs, given the diversity of communities noted above, did not always result in identifying people most suited to support CEC community objectives. Over time, a number of the CECs did thrive as new community members got involved and CEC leadership changed. In a few cases, CECs ceased functioning.109 There may be existing community organizations whose vision and purpose already sufficiently align with a program’s objectives, making it appropriate to consider these organizations before proceeding to establish new ones. Aligning USAID program objectives with those of national youth and community development priorities could help identify local organizations whose purpose and objectives may align with those of a USAID program. While CFYR worked with many local organizations on discrete activities, it may nonetheless be challenging to identify a local organization that is able and/or interested in aligning its own scope, purpose and engagement with those of a USAID activity.

FAMILY MATTERS

• Smaller communities may have heightened privacy concerns. In both St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia, CFYR learned of community members’ privacy concerns, worried that neighbors seeing people (YSET enumerators, Family Counselors) coming to their home could lead to gossiping about and stigmatizing their children and families. At least one local partner also noted the strong sense of pride that exists in small communities, and which, with reduced anonymity, sometimes prevents persons from acknowledging problems and accepting help from others. As the engagement with youth and families continued, there were some who were very willing to speak publicly to the benefits of Family Matters, and word-of-mouth endorsements to community members did result in some caregivers inquiring about whether their family could participate. Future programs that ‘target’ specific populations should be aware of these sensitivities as it may have an impact on initial willingness of people to participate.

• Implementation of Family Matters through tele-counseling was effective. As COVID-19 began to interrupt in-person engagement, CFYR developed and disseminated tele-counseling guidelines in March 2020, and trained Family Counselors on these. This enabled CFYR to continue the Family Matters intervention uninterrupted though its completion, despite the major lock-down

109 This information pertains to Saint Lucia and Guyana, as CFYR’s work with CEC’s concluded in September 2018, following the 20% reduction in USAID funding. In Saint Lucia, CFYR worked with community members in Anse La Raye and Soufriere to revive and restructure the CECs so they could function effectively. The Anse La Raye CEC was affected by the difficulty of some people located outside the town center to become involved (please see ‘Community Engagement’ in Lessons Learned). A number of the active CEC members had suggested that the group merge with an existing local organization, of which they were also a part, and this caused further disengagement. In Soufriere, there was a change in CEC leadership to revitalize the CEC; however these new persons were overwhelmed by their new responsibilities and so participation waned. Nonetheless, CFYR did engage the Soufriere Regional Development Foundation to undertake an anti-bullying program, and with the Fond St. Jacques Development Committee, also in Soufriere, to identify youth to participate in a Social and Leadership Skills training, a psycho-social support activity and to identify youth who participated in the August 2020 Basic Life & Employability Skills (BLES) training cohort.

73 disruptions due to COVID-19. YSET-R results showed that the tele-counseling strategy was effective at reducing risk factors among participants.

The inability of Family Counselors to conduct in-person, home meetings with participating youth and families due to COVID-19 seemed to have had a less negative effect on the youth than CFYR anticipated. In final review sessions with Family Counselors, many reported that as families were forced to be at home due to curfews and closures, there was greater family supervision and interaction with youth. In a number of cases, Family Counselors reported that they were able to contact a youth/family more frequently by telephone on the first attempt, as families were more likely to be at home. Counselors who were able to refer families who needed additional social support also reported a marked improvement in the receptiveness of those families to the Counselor, and in the family’s commitment to continued participation.

Blending virtual and in-person meetings at an approved ratio for model fidelity, should be built in as a set feature of the model. YSET results showed that the tele-counseling strategy was effective at reducing risk factors among participants. In their weekly supervision sessions, some Family Counselors would complain that scheduled meetings could not take place as the index youth or guardian was not available, resulting in slow or no transition across phases, or in a family exiting the system. More innovative methodologies for virtual learning and managing goals would need to be introduced as part of the iterative training.

• Sustainability discussions should begin early in implementation, but they are no guarantee that the activity will be adopted. USAID and CFYR commenced sustainability discussions on Family Matters first in Saint Lucia, even before Family Matters had started full implementation. This was followed more than a year later with discussions in St. Kitts and Nevis, and finally in Guyana. While discussions in St. Kitts and Guyana were initiated much later than in Saint Lucia, local champions in each of the implementing partner agencies were closely engaged in implementation, understood the technical approach and the benefits for youth and families and were able to make the case for budget resources to continue Family Matters beyond CFYR’s implementation. As a result of a change in senior level personnel in Saint Lucia and reduced budget resources in Nevis due to the economic fallout from COVID-19, neither of these locations adopted Family Matters. Also important is that both Guyana and Saint Kitts developed and adopted inter-agency protocols that should enable referrals of youth and families to Family Matters and a broader range of existing government services.

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM

• Limited engagement, if strategic, can be effective. CFYR’s work on JJR commenced in Guyana in early 2018, and concluded during February 2020, due to restrictions on a later funding obligation.110 Though the Act had not been enacted in early 2018, CFYR organized coordination meetings with local partners and those identified in the Act who would be responsible to implement reforms and provide

110 The restrictions with the March 2020 funding obligation were due to other approvals needed by AID/W and were not specific to CFYR. The restrictions also did not allow funds to be used for program staff working entirely or almost entirely on juvenile justice reform, where this support would focus on training and support to staff working at institutions such as NOC, the Sophia Training Centre or training for police who work with incarcerated youth.

oversight for implementation. Once the Act was in place, CFYR provided substantial technical support to redesign existing tools and develop new ones to be used by those responsible for youth in state care. The redesigned and new tools incorporate more rehabilitative approaches that will better prepare youth to successfully reintegrate into their families and communities.

The Act, with a more rehabilitative approach, also enabled CFYR to provide significant structure to the alternative sentencing and diversion aspects of the JJR process in Guyana. CFYR’s engagement with a broad range of stakeholders to outline new processes for diversion and alternative sentencing, and associated training on these, forced considerations of how the reform would be implemented. This was particularly important in setting out a pathway and decision points for alternative sentencing and diversion, where none had previously existed.

The introduction of the Act had the effect of highlighting the need for new methods of working with children at risk. This further supported CFYR’s engagement with the Ministry of Social Protection on Family Matters. Recognizing and taking early advantage of this alignment cemented the partnership between the Ministry and CFYR, with the Ministry fully engaging in implementing, and eventually fully adopting, Family Matters.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

• Every training cohort is a unique population and may require unique approaches. Effectively engaging with, and providing the training to participants, may require tailoring strategies to maintain/increase attendance among participants. This includes using trainers who have experience in the subject matter, as well as experience in working with at-risk youth. Finding trainers experienced in both is not always easy. CFYR grantees that provided technical and vocational training opted to hire technically qualified trainers, but in some instances, grantees may not have appreciated the additional skills or experience needed when working with some at-risk youth. These circumstances may require devising additional strategies to foster learning and positive behavior change among training participants. This contributed to some participants dropping out from the program or being unsuccessful in job interviews on completion of training. Grantees noted that participants demonstrated good skills development, enthusiasm and motivation in programs that required workplace dress codes and that used practical instruction and projects that the student would typically encounter in a real job setting.

• Local circumstances may make it necessary to provide stipends to expand program participation. The question as to whether or not a program should provide stipends to participants in a WFD activity is a difficult one. CFYR grants did not include a stipend for participants to cover costs such as transportation111 to and from training; meals; or childcare. During the Youth Opportunities Strategy work that CFYR conducted, one organization noted that it would provide a meal to training participants during the day. The organizations all noted that the training they were providing was of sufficient value that participants would be motivated to find their own resources to travel to/from the training. CFYR learned from some grantees that some participants had to choose

111 BLES training was generally conducted in town centers and locations that were regularly frequented. WFD training provided by grantees would generally require more travel for participants to attend.

75 between attending training, or staying home to care for children, while others were not able to attend because they lacked finances to commute to training and internships.

• Remain current on employer’s requirements and update private sector contacts regularly to support job placement. In response to CFYR’s WFD solicitations, grant applicants were required to present evidence of demand for the proposed training by presenting labor market information to support their application. They were also required to demonstrate relationships with private sector firms operating in the sectors in which they proposed to train. It would be useful to have grantees update this information periodically during the grant period (certainly for grants longer than one year) to reflect changes in demand by employers for skills, changes in the local economy and seasonality factors affecting job placement. Internships, especially for seasonal jobs, should be scheduled during recruitment drives for participants to align the conclusion of training with job opportunities. With the final BLES cohort in Saint Lucia, CFYR revised its approach and identified jobs outside of the hospitality sector in advance of the training112, and worked with CECs to identify youth who would be suitable candidates for the jobs to be included in the BLES cohort.

• Strategic support for entrepreneurship can supplement training for employment. CFYR’s WFD programs focused almost entirely on preparing beneficiaries for existing job opportunities113, and those that also provided technical training focused on specific industry training. The range of job opportunities in the CFYR focus countries is limited114, especially for new workforce entrants. Several participants started their own businesses to generate income when employment was not forthcoming and some started their own businesses after being laid off from their job due to COVID-19. CFYR provided targeted support to three of these youth in Saint Lucia toward the end of the program to further expand their business. Appreciating the difficulty for any entrepreneur to access financing through traditional sources, there may be opportunities to further support entrepreneurship in the ESC by engaging with non-traditional financing networks, such as angel investors and client investors, that are increasingly engaged in the ESC.

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS

• After School Programs (ASPs) are an effective primary prevention strategy and the programs had a positive impact and were valued by participants. Six hundred and nine (609) youth were targeted for participation in after-school programs across CFYR’s three focus countries. Grantees surpassed this target, reaching 988 participants. Among those who participated, 619 youth (63%) participated in 80% or more of the sessions, which indicates that parents and the participants

112 The last BLES cohort in Saint Lucia was delivered remotely due to COVID-19. With hotels being closed and workers being furloughed and laid off from their jobs, CFYR sought employment opportunities outside of the hospitality sector, including some in environmental management and security services. At the time of the final BLES cohort, the CECs were in a much stronger position organizationally to work with CFYR and identify training participants and supporting workshops. 113 The BLES curriculum does include the module ‘Entrepreneurship – My Idea’ and another module on managing finances called ‘Fit Financially.’ 114 CFYR did conduct a Youth Opportunities Strategy for St. Kitts and Nevis and also reviewed and adapted the BLES training. Due to the reduction in USAID program funding, CFYR had to cancel plans to fully implement WFD activities in St. Kitts and Nevis. While Guyana is experiencing growth in the oil industry and ancillary services, it is still difficult for youth who have no work experience to find employment. As the economies of St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia rely so heavily on tourism and hospitality services, these locations were especially hard hit by COVID-19 and restrictions on international travel.

valued the experience. ASP activities have helped improve life skills, including interpersonal skills, self- discipline and tolerance of others, and increased students’ self-efficacy and feelings of self-worth. Though not meant as a remedial class for academics, ASPs included homework assistance and this helped students to improve attentiveness in school and their academic grades, as well as performance in various standardized tests. The extracurricular activities, including sports, art, dance, music and graphic arts helped to build teamwork skills and contribute to increased self-efficacy. Another notable outcome includes improvements in attitude and behavior, praised by parents and teachers even in cases where there had not been improvements in grades. For youth who must overcome environments characterized by aggression, abuse, neglect and demeaning comments, ASPs provide students a stable and secure environment, a feeling of belonging, and alternative pathways for positive growth.

• Children below 10 years of age would benefit from participating in ASPs. While USAID’s definition for youth was ages 10 through 17, addressing academic and behavioral issues as early as possible is important. For example, by 10 years of age, children would be expected to know how to read, though many do not. Consequently, it would be beneficial to include youth in lower age ranges as part of a comprehensive primary prevention strategy, rather than having these issues result in school failure or being ill-prepared for the workforce later. Some of the age 10 to 17 target group are caretakers of younger siblings, and not addressing the need for childcare or support for their younger siblings may reduce participation of the target age group.

• Recognize the importance of engaging parents, caregivers and community members; and keep things ‘local’ to the extent possible. ASPs have a positive impact on participating youth, and extending professional support to the family could improve outcomes. Offering parenting skills, coping skills, self-awareness and personal development can enable parents to be of greater support to their children in the home and to become more involved in their child’s school life. Programs that engaged facilitators who were from the community had a strong connection with other team members and families. This caused a greater sense of trust and respect among community members and a better understanding of the needs of the local community, as compared to programs led by external groups. Having ASPs located near schools increased participation rates. It is also important to acknowledge the special needs of youth who are developmentally and behaviorally challenged and include services these youth may require. The more successful programs implemented activities designed to engage participants and serve a variety of learning styles through visual, auditory and kinesthetic materials.

• When possible, multiple year grants for ASPs is better than short term grants. Part of CFYR’s engagement with ASPs was to encourage their efforts to seek funding to continue the ASPs following the conclusion of CFYR. Following the initial range of ASP grants, CFYR increased the duration of these to between fifteen and eighteen months, which provided more time to deliver expected results, engage in capacity-building around M&E and financial sustainability, and which provided opportunities for grantees to adopt and adapt to CFYR program requirements and establish stronger relationships with beneficiaries. It takes time to build the capacity of ASPs to prepare themselves organizationally to solicit funds from other sources. Having more certainty of funding over a program period provides more stability for an ASP to implement activities with intended beneficiaries, build trust among community members and provide more time to establish a track record of successful implementation and organizational capacity to seek funding from other sources.

77 REGIONAL KNOWLEDGE SHARING

• Virtual meeting platforms can enhance the participation of youth in regional learning. While in-person engagement is the preferred means to implement programs, simultaneously engaging youth from multiple geographic locations may require virtual approaches. CFYR successfully utilized remote approaches well before the onset of COVID-19 to implement CFYR’s regional learning agenda, which incorporated youth from across the ESC region. CFYR’s Learning for Youth Networking for Change Sessions (LYNCS), convened in 2018 to develop the AAA, prior to the normalization of virtual meetings and training ushered in by the pandemic, showed that regional stakeholders were willing to take part in well-developed and executed knowledge transfer opportunities. The rapid increase in the use of virtual meeting platforms occasioned by the COVID- 19 pandemic opened opportunities for CFYR to expand engagement with additional young people and persons in youth-serving agencies. This is demonstrated by the training that CFYR delivered during the pandemic on the AAA Advocacy Toolkit Training with three cohorts of regional youth leaders and people in youth-serving agencies across the ESC region.

CHANGES IN BUDGET, TIMING OF OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON FUNDING

• Uncertainties surrounding levels and timing of obligations may have a negative impact on implementation, relationships and outcomes. The nearly four-month USAID-directed hold on new program activities in February 2018, followed by a twenty percent reduction in overall funding, required CFYR to scale down and/or eliminate a number of activities and staff positions. Some of these included all primary prevention activities, including workforce development, in St. Kitts and Nevis (Outputs 2.1 and 2.3) and some of the workforce development activities (Output 2.3) in Saint Lucia.

Creative Associates was able to realign resources and satisfy its contractual requirements with USAID, while also successfully ramping up implementation in Year 3. In December 2019, however, a smaller than anticipated funding obligation resulted in the delay / scaling back of activities, such as the Regional Learning Exchange (RLE), a broad range of trainings, CEC community engagement activities and BLES Life Coach contracts to support placement of BLES graduates in employment, among others. The new funding had restrictions, which required CFYR to conclude its engagement in juvenile justice reform activities in Guyana.115 As CFYR was moving into the final months of implementation, this delay and the restrictions noted limited CFYR’s ability to meet all of its targets. Robust communication between USAID and Creative Associates enabled CFYR to plan around these unexpected situations and deliver results to satisfy client expectations. More certainty around funding would have resulted in more consistent programming and reaching more beneficiaries.

It is understood that many of these funding issues were not within USAID/ESC’s control, but this is often not fully appreciated by local partners. Some local partners whom CFYR had been working with

115 As these funds were ‘early release’, the restrictions were due to other approvals needed by AID/W which were not yet in place and were not specific to CFYR. The restrictions do not allow funds to be used for program staff working entirely or almost entirely on juvenile justice reform, where this support would focus on training and support to staff working at institutions such as NOC, the Sophia Training Centre or training for police who work with incarcerated youth.

were very disappointed to learn that CFYR had to conclude activities with them and, in some cases, it undermined trust. An important area for USAID’s continual engagement is to communicate with host country partners on timing and levels of funding so that partners appreciate changes that programs are required to make when funding situations change.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

• Measure the contributions of non-youth participants toward achieving program success. While CFYR’s target age range was youth ages 10 to 17, an effective approach toward reducing youth crime and violence is an ‘all of community’ effort. A significant element of building resilience in the targeted cohort includes strengthening protective factors in the family, school and community, which requires the engagement of persons outside the targeted youth age range. Participation in CFYR activities, of persons both above and below the age range, were an important aspect of CFYR’s primary prevention programming but their participation was not fully counted because they were outside the designated age range. While CFYR did capture some of this participation in indicators that measured whether stakeholders used new tools and approaches, there were many community engagement activities and training of community members and people in youth-serving organizations that have not been fully reflected in CFYR’s achievements because these persons were outside the targeted youth age range.

• Building an M&E culture in partners takes time and requires continuous reinforcement. CFYR’s M&E reporting to USAID included reporting on a wide range of indicators across multiple geographic locations and age ranges. These were initially quite cumbersome for many of CFYR’s local partners and CFYR worked closely to ensure that its partners understood why M&E is important – and useful – to effective program implementation. As CFYR engaged with its diverse range of local partners, CFYR provided group and organization-specific training and templates to make it easier for partners to provide the information that CFYR required for onward reporting to USAID. This training also promoted, where needed, program design/adjustment by partners to achieve expected outcomes. In addition to group training, CFYR worked closely with individual partners to review the processes they had in place to collect the data and information to support their reporting. Through CFYR’s continuous review of the information and regular site visits to reinforce M&E, a number of partners better appreciate how they can use this information to tailor their activities to achieve expected results.

While some organizations have limited online access, electronic data collection is more efficient and minimizes transcription errors. Keeping the M&E processes simple will support greater compliance by partners to provide the information needed. Providing clear definitions; specific and realistic projections; and a focus on measurement of results (indicators) for the particular program/activity are important.

• Invest in post-implementation tracer studies of job training and placement programs. Tracer studies post-implementation can help drive future programming by providing an understanding of what models should be scaled and/or replicated for workforce development. While the CFYR BLES and WFD grant activities placed a strong focus on job placement, timing of implementation did not

79 provide an opportunity to track trainees one to two years post-placement.116 While persons became employed and target numbers were achieved for many of the activities, the longer term status of trainees remains uncertain.

IMPACT EVALUATION

• Adhere to model fidelity when evaluating program impact - Impact evaluations can provide valuable information on how and whether program approaches achieve certain results. To ensure that evaluations inform good decisions, it is critical that program implementation is not overly influenced by expectations of evaluations. Making changes to program implementation for purposes of an IE can undermine the usefulness of the evaluation, if the program would have been implemented differently without the IE. It is equally critical that the evaluation team include a subject matter expert on technical areas being evaluated. In the case of CFYR, using a process that randomly identified potential participants and having independent enumerators conduct baseline, midline and end-line YSET assessments, was fundamentally different to the approach used on all other programs that have implemented Family Matters. Though anecdotal, families complained of “over-kill” and research fatigue. There was also a delay of between 10 and 24 months between when a youth was first assessed with a YSET, and when treatment commenced.117 This delay also makes it difficult to know whether any outcomes from Family Matters may have been different if CFYR had applied the more standard approach, i.e., working with referral networks to identify eligible participants and having Family Counselors conduct all YSETs.

As a result of the delays to commence Cohort 2, a number of families in St. Kitts and Nevis did not agree to participate in Cohort 2, either because they had taken the initiative to seek support services elsewhere or because they thought Family Matters was a one-time intervention that had since concluded. The substantial delay also curtailed the length of Cohort 2, only completing Cycle One, since CFYR was closing.

• Impact evaluations should include reciprocal data-sharing between evaluators and the program being evaluated – While not part of the IE team’s required data analysis, they requested access to the more than 5,000 surveys that CFYR conducted with community members as part of CFYR’s community survey work that measured changes over time in perceptions regarding youth and youth violence among community members. The IE team wished to review the CFYR community survey data to conduct their own analysis to supplement their work on the Family Matters impact evaluation. CFYR invested the unanticipated cost in staff time to remove all respondents’ identifying information and provided the data to the IE team, in support of the evaluation and in line with research best practice.

116 The unprecedented circumstances presented by the economic fallout from COVID-19 is the exception. Many persons in the hospitality and tourism sector in Saint Lucia have lost their jobs, with many hotels furloughing employees and many hotels closing either permanently or for the foreseeable future. 117 Baseline YSETs started in August 2017. Due to extended timeframes to complete these to meet IE requirements and the Care Giver Surveys, Family Matters treatment did not commence at the earliest until June 2018. For eligible youth in the Control Group, their treatment may not have commenced until January 2020.

The IE team designed and conducted its own Caregiver Survey among parents and caregivers of treatment and control youth who were assessed with the YSET.118 CFYR requested access to this de- identified data in order to conduct analysis on the data. After several technical and cost constraints, that SI needed to overcome, including additional funding from USAID to de-identify the data, CFYR did finally receive this data; but this was made available just six weeks prior to the contract end date.

Best practice in research provides for sharing cleaned datasets, codes and any assumptions that researchers used to conduct analyses and reach conclusions. Sharing data allows other researchers to conduct their own analyses and to replicate the approach, enabling others to determine if they reach similar findings and/or to use the data to conduct different analyses. In line with this best practice, all USAID impact evaluations should include reciprocity of data-sharing between evaluators and the programs being evaluated.

COVID-19 AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES

• Virtual engagement can expand program reach. While in-person program delivery has been the preferred mode whenever possible, CFYR’s regional programming necessitated that program staff work remotely with each other over across the three country program offices throughout the entire program period. Because CFYR had been working across three countries for over three years by the time COVID-19 evolved into a worldwide pandemic, the team had already developed strong remote management and coordination mechanisms that easily translated to program approaches. CFYR had also conducted virtual training in 2018 for the regional LYNCS network and had almost completed the first AAA Advocacy Toolkit Training for twenty-six youth leaders from six ESC countries in March 2020, just before COVID-19 resulted in region-wide lockdowns and curfews.

USAID’s flexibility enabled CFYR to provide data packages to participants as required and this enabled CFYR to continue implementation. In some instances, using remote engagement enabled CFYR to include participants, such as single parents, absentee parents and other influential family members living outside of the country, in activities to improve parenting skills. Under usual circumstances, CFYR would have delivered the training in-person and many of these participants would not have been able to attend due to childcare constraints or being in other locations.

Family Counselors’ remote engagement with youth and families on Family Matters and continued engagement with and by CEC members were all carried out using remote platforms. CFYR was able to make the transition rapidly, with minimal disruptions to the implementation of the Year 4 Work Plan.

While in-person delivery would continue to be the preferred mode for program implementation, regional program implementation and unexpected crises have demonstrated that remote engagement can deliver successful programming. To be successful, participants must be provided access to the

118 This survey was used to (1) collect caregiver-level outcome data to answer the second evaluation question, (2) collect additional family-level data that will inform the youth analysis and help contextualize the family environment in which youth live, and (3) validate youth responses to the YSET on questions about negative behaviors (e.g., theft, fighting) that youth might be dishonest about in their YSET responses. SI’s Baseline Report (page 13) noted that item 3 was not achieved, as caregivers generally underestimated youth participation in these behaviors.

81 necessary technology and connectivity, which are costs that future programs should consider in their budgeting. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS CFYR’s communication activities focused on raising awareness of USAID’s work across all of CFYR’s activities and ensuring that USAID branding was strong, visible and accurate on all products, publications and events. Through story highlights, reports, testimonials and on social media platforms, Program activities were highlighted for USAID, stakeholders, partners and Program participants.

CFYR produced several video products that highlighted particular CFYR programming and also supported the production of videos by implementing partners. CFYR ensured that products were properly vetted by USAID and included correct branding and disclaimer statements.

Most notably, USAID support was highlighted at the Regional Youth Summit held in Georgetown, Guyana in January 2019, with extensive media coverage for the two-day event. This event had a number of co- sponsors, but USAID was fully recognized as title sponsor on all materials, products and in all media coverage on all platforms.

HUMAN RESOURCES CFYR’s success is largely attributable to the dedicated and committed personnel based in all three of the Program’s focus countries, with very strong support from an equally dedicated and engaged home office Project Unit. The field office staff applied their thorough understanding of local realities to identify opportunities to engage and overcome challenges, adapting quickly, such as during COVID-19, to ensure that beneficiaries would benefit from CFYR support. While adhering to reporting deadlines and USAID and Creative compliance regulations, CFYR’s technical teams, operations, finance and grants personnel truly worked across borders with each other to enable the successful implementation of this regional program to achieve strong results.

Identifying talent for certain positions in the CFYR focus countries who have prior USAID experience, particularly in Saint Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis, was challenging. These included the positions of Primary and Secondary Specialists; Grants Management; Operations; Workforce Development; and Monitoring and Evaluation. CFYR also reached out to professionals in the wider ESC and Caribbean region to supplement the staff complement in each of the program office locations. CFYR provided training at the start of the Program to new staff on USAID project life cycles; CFYR’s technical implementation approach; reporting requirements; and administrative processes and compliance requirements and continued to reinforce these throughout the life of program.

Toward the second part of Year 1, CFYR added the position of DCOP – Operations, which was filled by a Creative headquarters staff member with substantial prior USAID implementation experience. This provided much needed support to, and oversight of, field operations and strengthened the integration of technical teams, operations, grants and finance teams to enable strong implementation. This further enabled the COP and the Country Managers to concentrate more fully on technical design and implementation with the program technical teams and M&E.

CFYR’s Regional Human Resource Manager successfully provided direction and guidance to enable the hiring and support for staff and consultants in CFYR’s three focus countries and to consultants from the wider region who supported CFYR’s technical implementation. This included ensuring that all employment and consultant agreements adhered to local labor law and that benefits plans were properly administered. Situations that affected residents in some or all of the three countries, such as the annual hurricane season, heightened tensions due to national elections and most recently the global pandemic, required additional attention to communications on matters relating to staff safety and security.

The reduction in USAID funding in 2018 resulted in some program restructuring and the elimination of some positions across all three offices. In some instances, this required remaining staff to assume additional tasks, share workloads or take on more responsibility if promoted.

Following local market surveys of salaries in 2019 for all three locations, Creative updated the Local Compensation Plan for Guyana which resulted in an increase in CFYR salary levels for Guyana-based employees.

In preparation for program closure, CFYR notified all relevant authorities in each focus country regarding position redundancies and timing. CFYR notified all employees of their end dates well in advance of the statutory requirements.

83 CFYR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

OPERATIONS AND PROCUREMENT CFYR Operations played a critical, crosscutting role within each of the CFYR country offices and across geographic and program areas that enabled CFYR to successfully implement the wide range of technical activities to achieve program results. This included, as a starting point, the full establishment of the three country offices in Guyana, St. Kitt and Saint Lucia. The Operations Team ensured that all logistics for field events; in-person training; regional activities, such as the CBSI Technical Working Group Meetings and the Regional Learning Event in Guyana; and data and technical support for all remote engagement, before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic, were in place and executed effectively.

The Operations Team’s work required that they successfully engaged with local and regional service providers to ensure that all of CFYR’s implementation would be accomplished on time, within budget and as planned. Part of CFYR’s approach included the establishment of vendor databases in all of CFYR’s focus countries to support the procurement of services over the life of the program.

Operations often worked with travel partners to issue airline tickets for participants from throughout the ESC region to travel to locations that were sometimes located outside of the region. Ops further supported logistics for lodging at negotiated rates at hotels and transportation to and from airports, and ensured that high level participants, such as ministers of government, were afforded proper diplomatic courtesies. Despite the complexity of what was required, the Ops Team, working with the Finance Team, ensured that per diem funds provided to all travelers were properly accounted for and were managed within USAID regulations.

Operations supported a number of technical procurements that were key to CFYR’s program implementation. Some of these included the Baseline, Midline and End-line Community Surveys in all three focus countries; Community Safety Plans in Saint Lucia and Guyana; SCP Training; and capacity building training for CECs. Operations also supported all procurements within the scope of many in-kind grants that CFYR implemented to achieve program objectives. These procurements included laptops and robotics kit for the highly successful Coding and Robotics Pilot that CFYR implemented with the Ministry of Education in Saint Lucia, as well as transportation and meals for many of the ASPs.

CFYR Operations ensured that CFYR and Creative were compliant with all local laws and requirements to operate in each of the focus countries, including annual company registration requirements and licensing and insurance for motor vehicles were in place.

By the end of March 2020, all CFYR staff were working remotely due to the COVID – 19 Pandemic and all in-person engagement and implementation was halted. CFYR Operations met the challenge and supported all of the program teams to continue with implementation of all of CFYR’s activities through remote engagement, making technology and data packages available to stakeholders and participants where needed. With Operations’ support, CFYR continued seamless implementation of ASPs in Guyana; continued Family Matters in all CFYR locations; CEC meetings and community engagement activities in Guyana and Saint Lucia; SCP training and SLS training in Guyana and Saint Lucia; OCAT training and assessments in Saint Lucia; BLES training in Guyana and Saint Lucia; two cohorts of the AAA Advocacy Toolkit (long course) Training and two cohorts of the AAA Advocacy Toolkit (short course) Training; and the RLEv.

85 CFYR completed its close-out of all field office activities during the pandemic. Although approvals from USAID for disposition of inventory, particularly IT equipment, were received later than expected, CFYR completed all required processes and disposed of inventory in line with approvals and successfully closed the field offices.

FINANCE CFYR expects to fully expend all funds available by the Program’s end date, November 30, 2020.

Table 3: CFYR Expenditures by Fiscal Year

Information reflects expenditures billed through November 30, 2020119.

Expenditures by Fiscal Year

Approved Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TOTAL 2016- Line Items 2021 DIR. LABOR 51,772.23 936,848.15 1,716,066.07 1,612,657.22 1,618,065.29 26,225.52 5,961,634.48 FRINGE 19,673.45 364,896.19 658,375.99 469,511.46 582,949.94 10,490.20 2,105,897.23 OVERHEAD 22,262.06 402,844.69 737,908.41 686,962.91 728,129.37 11,801.48 2,589,908.92 CONSULTANTS 500.00 638,265.88 225,914.94 393,592.73 724,756.21 52,588.74 2,035,618.50 ALLOWANCES 12,153.78 97,613.43 108,995.89 88,151.12 79,783.59 19,422.00 406,119.81 TRAVEL/PER DIEM 18,111.63 638,050.05 270,079.36 292,212.40 63,756.43 623.55 1,282,833.42 SUBCONTRACTS 536,790.00 1,095,315.18 1,278,110.70 1,026,218.95 67,665.16 4,004,099.99 GRANTS UNDER 149,329.89 1,095,410.17 1,297,482.35 443,278.00 - 2,985,500.41 CONTRACT O.D.C. 46,954.14 901,818.31 857,377.01 750,433.59 550,787.29 7,773.10 3,115,143.44 SUBTOTAL 171,427.2 4,666,456.59 6,765,443.02 6,869,114.48 5,817,725.07 196,589.75 24,486,756.20 G & A 32,571.19 858,254.08 1,077,306.21 1,175,775.90 1,182,378.34 43,249.74 4,369,535.46 FEE 11,831.91 315,505.33 418,730.92 423,786.73 391,377.82 13,910.69 1,575,143.40 TOTAL AMOUNT 215,830.4 5,840,216.00 8,261,480.14 8,468,677.11 7,391,481.23 253,750.18 30,431,435.06

119 A final voucher for the November 2020 period will be submitted to reflect final expenditures.

ANNEXES

ANNEX A: CFYR LIFE OF PROGRAM INDICATOR TABLE

LOP LOP Performa TOTAL TOTAL LOP nce Baseline Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 (Aggregate) (Unique Achieved Target Indicators Target 121 FY 16-17120 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 Beneficiaries at End of Met from CFYR Program Y/N Communities) (%)123 122 SO 1.0 Percent GY 9.7% -20% N/A N/A -5.5% N/A -9%125 N change in SK 5.9% GY:7.7% GY: 6.8% -9.6% -8.9% victimization SK: 5.5% SL 8% SK:5.3% GY: 9% GY: 9% rates among SL:6.4% SL: 10% youth in target SL: 7% SK: 5.5% communities124 SL: 7%

120 As agreed with USAID, ‘N/A’ is reflected in Year 1 and Year 2 columns for all outcome indicators as implementation needed to begin before results would be demonstrated. Some indicators track changes in attitudes, behaviors and practices over time. As such, survey work was conducted in Years 3 and 4 to measure changes. 121 This is a total of figures from Years 1 through 4. As such, it reflects the total observable counts over the LOP, either for CFYR youth beneficiaries or totals of products/activities/etc., noted. It includes CFYR youth who may have participated/benefited more than once during the LOP for the specified activities. 122 This reflects the unique count of youth across the LOP, either for CFYR youth beneficiaries or totals of products/activities/etc., noted. 123 The percentage in this column is based on the ‘LOP Total Unique Count’ for indicators reporting on youth and LOP Total (Aggregate) for all other indicators. 124 Baseline figures and targets were revised for Indicators SO 1.0, SO 1.2 and 2.1.0 based on findings from data analysis from the baseline community surveys for the three countries. 125 Nine percent represents achieving 45% of LOP total. The percentage change from baseline to end-line was calculated using the following formula: ‘Endline value minus Baseline value divided by Baseline value, multiplied by 100.’ This measure was established at the start of the program and hence has been used for reporting. It should be noted that this measure is highly conservative and not necessarily the best calculation approach as it reflects combined responses from the three CFYR countries, rather than utilizing a weighted average approach based on the number of survey respondents in each country. CFYR would recommend that future programming should utilize the weighted average approach, which would take into account the relative value of each country’s results and contribution toward the target.

SO 1.1 Percent 0 60%127 N/A N/A 45%128 46%129 61130% 61% - Y131 of youth who GUY: 57% GUY: 58% GUY: 70% GUY: 70% reduced their SKN: 49% SKN: 47% SKN: 65% SKN: 65% risk factors SLU: 34% SLU: 35% SLU: 50% SLU: 50% below secondary Age Groups Age Groups Age Groups Age Groups prevention 10-14 yrs. 10-14 yrs. 62% 10-14 yrs. 10-14 yrs. 62% eligibility levels 62% 15-17 yrs.: 62% 15-17 yrs.: 38% after one 15-17 yrs.: 38% Sex

38% Sex

127 CFYR updated the LOP target to 60% in the indicator table in the updated Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan in 2018, but the PIRS was not updated and still reflects 65%. 128 During Year 3, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia recorded a combined total of 128 youth, or 45%, from the 282 youth from Cohort 1, Cycle 1 for whom YSET results were reported, who reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In Guyana, 54 youth (57%) from the 95 youth for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In St. Kitts and Nevis, 32 youth (49%) from the 65 for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In Saint Lucia, 42 youth (34%) from the 122 for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. Country-specific dis-aggregations by age group, sex and community can be found in the PIT report. 129 During Year 4, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia recorded a combined total of 150 youth, or 46%, from the 328 youth from Cohort 1, Cycle 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 for whom YSET results were reported, who reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In Guyana, 72 youth (58%) from the 125 youth for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In St. Kitts and Nevis, 30 youth (47%) from the 64 for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In Saint Lucia, 48 youth (35%) from the 139 for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. Country-specific dis-aggregations by age group, sex and community can be found in the PIT report. 130 During the LOP, Guyana, St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia recorded a combined total of 278 youth, or 61%, from the 456 youth from Cohort 1, Cycle 1 & 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 for whom YSET results were reported, who reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In Guyana, 126 youth (70%) from the 179 youth for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 1& 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In St. Kitts and Nevis, 62 youth (65%) from the 96 for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 1& 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. In Saint Lucia, 90 youth (50%) from the 181 for whom Cohort 1, Cycle 1& 2 and Cohort 2, Cycle 1 YSET results are reported, reduced their risk factors below secondary level of risk. Country-specific dis-aggregations by age group, sex and community can be found in the PIT report. 131 Due to delays in the start of Cohort 1 of Family Matters, CFYR only had time to complete Cycle 1 with Cohort 2. There may have been further improvements if Cohort 2 participants had completed the Cycle 2 of Family Matters.

89 intervention Sex Males: 55% 15-17 yrs.: Males: 57% 126 cycle Males: 60% Females: 45% 38% Females: 43% Females: 40% Sex Males: 57% Females: 43%

SO 1.2 Percent GY 44.3% +20% N/A N/A +7% 0.4% 10% N/A 10%133 N change in SK 53.8% GY:46.6 GY: 44.7% GY: 50.3% GY: 50.3% feelings of SK: 69.9% SL 72% % SL: 66.5% SK:69.9% safety among SL: 68% SK:59.2% SL:66.5% residents of SL:86.4% target communities132 2.1.0 Percent GY: 16.3% +20% N/A N/A -29.5% -34% N/A -31%135 N change in SK GY 19.5 GY 16.9% GY: 15.1% -31% residents of SK 13.3% 17.4%SL SK 19.1 SL: 14.8% GY: 15.1% target 29% SL 14% communities SL 34.8 SK: 13.3% participating in SL: 14.8% community problem- solving134

126 With better understanding of how YSET results should be reflected, CFYR is not reporting information disaggregated by ‘risk factor.’ 132 Baseline figures and targets were revised for Indicators SO 1.0, SO 1.2 and 2.1.0 based on findings from data analysis from the baseline surveys for the three countries. Reporting for indicators SO 1.0, SO1.2 and 2.1.0 are based on findings from the community end-line surveys. 133 Ten percent represents achieving 50% of the LOP target. The percentage change from baseline to end-line was calculated using the following formula: ‘Endline value minus Baseline value divided by Baseline value, multiplied by 100.’ This measure was established at the start of the program and hence has been used for reporting. It should be noted that this measure is highly conservative and not necessarily the best calculation approach as it reflects combined responses from the three CFYR countries, rather than utilizing a weighted average approach based on the number of survey respondents in each country. CFYR would recommend that future programming should utilize the weighted average approach, which would take into account the relative value of each country’s results and contribution toward the target. 134 Baseline figures and targets were revised for Indicators SO 1.0, SO 1.2 and 2.1.0 based on findings from data analysis from the baseline surveys for the three countries. Reporting for indicators SO 1.0, SO1.2 and 2.1.0 are based on findings from the community end-line surveys. 135 Negative 31% represents not meeting the target by 155%. The percentage change from baseline to end-line was calculated using the following formula: ‘Endline value minus Baseline value divided by Baseline value, multiplied by 100.’ This measure was established at the start of the program and hence has been used for reporting. It should be noted that this measure is highly conservative and not necessarily the best calculation approach as it reflects combined responses from the three CFYR countries, rather than utilizing a weighted average approach based on the number of survey respondents in each country. CFYR would recommend that future programming should utilize the weighted average approach, which would take into account the relative value of each country’s results and contribution toward the target.

2.1.1.0 Percent 0% 60% N/A 100136 63%137 80138 78%139 N/A 130% Y of community projects implemented achieving agreed objectives 2.2.1.0 Number 0 8 N/A N/A 8 1 9 N/A 113% Y of Juvenile Justice Reform committee meetings held

2.2.1.1 Number 0 14 N/A N/A 21140 0 21 N/A 150% Y of administrative and diagnostic tools developed and/or upgraded to support rehabilitation and reintegration of

136 In Year 2, four community projects were implemented in Saint Lucia and all achieved agreed objectives: Anti-bullying advocacy activity implemented in selected schools; Job Readiness, Financial Literacy Training and a Sexual Abuse and Harassment workshop. 137 In Year 3, eight community projects were implemented and five achieved agreed objectives. They include: East Ruimveldt Movie and Meet, Chess Club Training in Vieux Fort, Youth Agro-Entrepreneurial Social & Leadership Training in Anse La Raye, East La Penitence “Reducing Fear of Crime -Community Cleanup Program” and “Score the Goal without the Penalty” Football. These results were revised results following the Data Quality Assessment (DQA) at the end of Year 3. 138 In Year 4, fifteen community projects were implemented and twelve achieved agreed objectives. They include: The Men’s Forum - ‘Every Man Matters’ (Lodge), Community Sports Day, Mini Expo activities (East Ruimveldt), Mr. & Miss Peace Ambassador (Corriverton), East La Penitence Clean up, Light Up project, Soufriere Anti-Bullying activity, Youth Advocacy Through the Arts Projects (Dennery), Care Packages Distribution (Castries), Face Mask Challenge (Castries), Corriverton CEC Goodwill Initiative, East La Penitence CEC Creativity, Craft & Face Mask, Lodge CEC Community Care Project and Sophia CEC Single Parents Outreach. 139 Over the LOP, twenty-seven community projects were implemented, with twenty-one achieving their agreed objectives. 140 CFYR developed or upgraded twenty-one (21) tools (6 Diagnostic tools and 15 administrative tools). These are: Employee Policy and Procedure Manuals, Risk Assessment Forms, Reporting & Referral Templates and Care Plan Templates. The upgraded tool was a Pre-Probationary Report Template documenting the Court Report and Child Risk/Needs Assessment, Court Report and Child Risk/Needs Assessment; Minimum Standards Youth Services and Behavior Management System Standards; Life, Health and Safety Standards; Personnel Standards; Reporting Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect; Policy and Procedure for Sophia Centre Behavior Management (Behavior Management and Youth Services System for Sophia Remand Centre); Policy and Procedure for Sophia Centre Life, Health and Safety; Sophia Centre Report to Magistrate Form; Sophia Centre Resident Personnel Property Inventory Form; Mental Health Referral Form for Sophia Centre and the Sophia Centre Serious Incident Report.

91 youth in conflict with the law 2.2.1.2 Number 0 227 N/A 0 34 187 221 187 97%141 N142 of Personnel with requisite training and skills in JJR acquired through USG assistance 2.2.2.0 Number 0 12 N/A 0 1143 2144 3 N/A 25% N145 of interagency protocols approved to support at risk youth

2.3.0 Percent of 0% 2.5% 2.3% 91% N youth (2373 59 youth 840 Youth 1161 Youth 504 Youth 2564 Youth 2153 Youth participating in 146 Youth) GUY-28 GUY: 127 GUY: 260 GUY: 1059 GUY:782 one or more of GUY: 644 SKN-2 SKN: 202 SLU: 244 SKN: 204 SKN: 314 the following: SLU: 517 Advocacy, SLU-29 SLU: 511 Age Groups SLU: 1301 SLU: 1057 Leadership, Age Groups 10-14 yrs.: 100

141 With restrictions on CFYR’s new funding obligation in March 2020, CFYR was unable to continue with training that was planned in Year 4. As a result, CFYR was not able to achieve this target. 142 With restrictions on CFYR’s new funding obligation in March 2020, CFYR was unable to continue with training that was planned in Year 4. As a result, CFYR was not able to achieve this target. 143 The inter-agency referral protocol took effect in St. Kitts and Nevis following discussions from Year2. Protocol is being utilized by Ministry of Education for referral of at-risk youth to Family Matters. 144 Two protocols were approved. In Guyana, a MOU was signed between the Ministry of Social Protection (Child Care & Protection and Probation Services) and the Ministry of Public Security (Department of Juvenile Justice, Ministry of Education (Schools Welfare Department), Family Awareness Consciousness & Togetherness (FACT) and the Sophia Community Development Association. The purpose is to provide a framework for referral of at-risk youth. In Saint Lucia, an Inter-agency Protocol was signed between the Ministry of Youth Development & Sports and the Saint Lucia National Youth Council. The purpose of that agreement is to guide strategic collaboration to deliver training in the following specified areas - BLES, Social Crime Prevention, Social and Leadership Skills, Organizational Capacity Assessments and Self-Efficacy Pre-/ Post-Assessments. 145 While a total of three inter-agency protocols were concluded, the protocols in St. Kitts and Nevis and Guyana include multiple agencies. In St. Kitts and Nevis, the IAP includes ten agencies and in Guyana, four agencies/organizations. Concluding three inter-agency protocols efficiently established the mechanisms for the relevant agencies to work together. 146 Results for St. Kitts and Nevis are not reflected for Years 3 and 4 because CFYR concluded all Primary Prevention activities by the end of Year 2 due to reductions in funding from USAID.

Mentorship, 10-14 years: 3 Age Age Groups 15-19 yrs.: 186 Age Groups Age Groups Volunteering, 15-19 years: 6 Groups 10 - 14 yrs.: 20 -24 yrs.: 132 10-14 yrs.: 10-14 yrs.: 806 Youth-focused 20-24 years: 18 10-14 yrs.: 259 25-29 yrs.: 86 809 15-19 yrs.: 785 Clubs, CEC 447 15-19 yrs.: 25-29 years: 32 Sex 15-19 yrs.: 20-24 yrs.: 371 membership 532 15-19 yrs.: Males: 191 964 25 - 29 yrs.: 191 By Sex 20-24 yrs.: 240 Females:313 20-24 yrs.: Sex Male: 31 20 - 24 yrs.: 242 502 Males: 1070 Female: 28 110 25-29 yrs.: 25-29 yrs.: Females: 1083 25-29 yrs.: 128 289 Sex 43 Sex Males: 534 Sex Males: 1215 Females: 627 Males: 459 Females: Females: 1349 381 2.3.0.2 335 1774 N/A 313 474 Youth 215 Youth 689 Youth 689 Youth 39%149 N 148 YOUTH-3 Youth GUY: 337 GUY: 180 GUY: 517 GUY: 517 Number of SLU: 137 Type of SLU: 35 SLU: 172 SLU: 172 youth who Age Groups Interventi Age Groups Age Groups Age Groups report on: 10-14 yrs.: increased self- 119 10-14 yrs.: 148 10-14 yrs.: 10-14 yrs.: 267 ASP: 208 efficacy at the 15-19 yrs.: 15-19 yrs.: 40 267 15-19 yrs.: 236 conclusion of Coding & 196 20-24 yrs.: 17 15-19 yrs.: 20-24 yrs.: 124 USG-assisted Robotics: 20-24 yrs.: 25-29 yrs.: 10 236 25 - 29 yrs.: 62 105 training/progra 107 Sex 20-24 yrs.: Sex 147 124 mming 25-29 yrs.: 52 Males: 96 Males: 275 Sex Females: 119 25-29 yrs.: 62 Females: 414 Males: 179 Sex Females: 295 Type of Type of Intervention: Males: 275 Intervent ion: ASP: 54 Females: 414 ASP: 179

147 Results for SKN is not reflected for this indicator, because primary prevention activities had ceased at the end of year 2 due to budgetary restrictions 148 The Year 2 results are those from the initial Self-efficacy Tool that CFYR had developed. Following further testing of the tool at the beginning of Year 3, CFYR refined and customized the Self-efficacy Youth Scale Tool to reflect the context in the ESC region. The updated tool withstood reliability and validity tests. As such, the LOP figures are reflective of Years 3 and 4 only. 149 While CFYR provided the opportunity for over 2000 youth to complete the self-efficacy pre/post-test, many of the youth completed either the pre-test or the post-test, but not both. These results report only on youth who completed both the pre- and post-tests, which provide an opportunity to compare changes and report on results. The LOP results do not include results from Year 2, as CFYR updated the Self-Efficacy Tool, which was more robust, in Years 3 and 4 to measure changes in self-efficacy. The USAID- requested implementation slow down in January and February 2020 due to a delay in program funding and the subsequent impact of COVID-19 affected CFYR’s ability to implement some activities that would have contributed to this indicator.

93 Type of WFD: 52 Type of WFD: 375 Interventio In-School Interventio In-School n Project: 109 n: Project: 109 ASP: 125 ASP: 179 Summer Camps: WFD BLES: WFD: 375 26 171 In-School WFD Project: 109 Grantees:152 Summer Summer Camps: 26 Camps: 26 152 2.3.1.0 Number 0 981 N/A N/A 671 Youth 107 Youth151 778 Youth 771 Youth 79% N of targeted GUY: 442 GUY: 30 GUY: 472 GUY: 470 youth SLU: 229 SLU: 77 SLU: 306 SLU: 301 completing Age Groups workforce 16-19 yrs.: Age Groups Age Groups Age Groups 16-19 yrs.: 42 16 - 19 yrs.: 16-19 yrs.: 384 readiness skills 344 training with 20-24 yrs.: 20-24 yrs.: 42 386 20 - 24 yrs.: 269 150 USG support 230 25-29 yrs.: 23 20-24 yrs.: 25-29 yrs.: 118 25-29 yrs.: 97 Sex 272 Sex Sex Males: 26 25 - 29 yrs.: Males: 221 Males: 197 Females: 81 120 Females: 550 Females: 474 Type of Sex Type of Type of Course: Males: 223 Course : Course: Females: 555 BLES: 396 BLES: 75 BLES: 467 Hospitality Vocational Type of Hospitality Skills: : Skills: 119 (Tiling and Course 128 Driving/ cake BLES: 471 Vocational/ Food and decorating): 20 Hospitality Technical: 176 Nutrition: 27 Hospitality Skills: 131 Skills:12 Vocational/ Technical: 176

150 Results for St. Kitts and Nevis are not reflected in this indicator because CFYR concluded all Primary Prevention activities by the end of Year 2 due to reductions in funding from USAID. 151 CFYR trained one hundred and fifteen youth in workforce development during Year 4. Among those, 107 (93%) reside in CFYR communities. 152 CFYR trained a number of local partners in Year 4 in Guyana and Saint Lucia to deliver BLES training as part of CFYR’s sustainability activities. Several cohorts were to be trained with support from CFYR. Aside from FACT in Guyana, other local partners were not able to deliver a BLES training due to in-person meeting restrictions arising from COVID-19 and they were not in a position to deliver the training remotely. This had an impact on CFYR achieving this target.

Fishing/ Construction: 92 Technical: 37 (Motor Vehicle repairs, Data Operations & Electrical Installation)

2.3.1.1 (EG.6-4) 0 491 N/A N/A 283 Youth 108 Youth 391 Youth 391 Youth 80% N154 Number of GUY: 159 GUY: 62 GUY: 221 GUY: 221 individuals with SLU: 124 SLU: 46 SLU: 170 SLU: 170 new Age Groups Age Groups Age Groups Age Groups employment 16-19 yrs.: following 129 16-19 yrs.: 54 16 - 19 yrs.: 16-19 yrs.: 183 20-24 yrs.: 34 183 20 - 24 yrs.: 144 completion of 20-24 yrs.: 20-24 yrs.: USG-assisted 110 25-29 yrs.: 20 25-29 yrs.: 64 workforce 144 25-29 yrs.: 44 Sex Sex development 25-29 yrs.: 64 153 Sex Males: 32 Males: 113 programs Sex Males: 81 Females: 76 Females: 278 Males: 113 Females: 202 Females: 278

2.3.1.2 (EG.6-5) 0 491 N/A N/A 279 Youth 107 Youth 386 Youth 386 Youth 79% N156 Number of GUY: 157 GUY: 61 GUY: 218 GUY: 218 individuals with SLU: 122 SLU: 46 SLU: 168 SLU: 168 increased Age Groups earnings Age Groups Age Groups Age Groups

153 Results for St. Kitts and Nevis are not reflected in this indicator because CFYR concluded all Primary Prevention activities by the end of Year 2 due to reductions in funding from USAID. CFYR commenced workforce development activities at the end of Year 2. 154 With the USAID requested implementation slow down in January and February 2020, CFYR did not renew BLES Life Coach contracts in Saint Lucia in January 2020 nor BLES Life Coach contracts in Guyana in mid-February. Not having the Life Coaches available, and the situation further compounded by the severe economic impacts of COVID-19, affected CFYR’s ability to achieve this target. 156 With the USAID requested implementation slow down in January and February 2020, CFYR did not renew BLES Life Coach contracts in Saint Lucia in January 2020 nor BLES Life Coach contracts in Guyana in mid-February. Not having the Life Coaches available, and the situation further compounded by the severe economic impacts of COVID-19, affected CFYR’s ability to achieve this target.

95 following 16-19 yrs.: 16-19 yrs.: 54 16 - 19 yrs.: 16-19 yrs.: 182 completion of 128 20-24 yrs.: 33 182 20 - 24 yrs.: 140 USG- assisted 20-24 yrs.: 25-29 yrs.: 20 20-24 yrs.: 25-29 yrs.: 64 workforce 107 140 Sex Sex development 25-29 yrs.: 44 Males: 32 25 -29 yrs.: 64 Males: 113 programs Sex Females: 75 Sex Females: 273 155 Males: 81 Males: 113

Females: 198 Females: 273

157 2.3.2.0 0 2830 390 youth 897 Youth 919 Youth 158 401 Youth 2607 Youth 2028 Youth 72% N159 YOUTH-2 GUY: 245 GUY: 322 GUY: 566 GUY: 222 GUY: 1355 GUY: 981 Number of at- SKN: 1 SLU: 353 SKN: 103 SLU: 179 SKN: 104 SKN: 111 risk youth SLU: 144 Age Groups trained in social Age Groups SLU: 472 10-14 yrs.: Age Groups SLU: 1148 SLU: 936 and leadership 10-14 years: 290 Age 331 10-14 yrs.: 98 Age Groups Age Groups skills through 15-19 years: 99 Groups 15-19 yrs.: 15-19 yrs.: 150 10-14 yrs.: 10-14 yrs.: 954 USG-assisted 20-24 years: 0 10-14 yrs.: 415 20-24 yrs.: 95 1174 15-19 yrs.: 696 programs 25-29 years: 1 455 20-24 yrs.: 25-29 yrs.: 58 15-19 yrs.: 20-24 yrs.: 255 Sex 129 15-19 yrs.: Sex 937 25-29 yrs.: 123 Male: 208 273 25-29 yrs.: 44 Males: 121 20-24 yrs.: Sex Female: 182 20-24 yrs.: Sex 341 Males: 386 Females: 280 Males: 856 117 25-29 yrs.: Females: 1172 25-29 yrs.: Females: 533 155 52 Sex Sex Males: 1100 Males: 385 Females: Females: 1507 512

155 Results for St. Kitts and Nevis are not reflected in this indicator because CFYR concluded all Primary Prevention activities by the end of Year 2 due to reductions in funding from USAID. CFYR commenced workforce development activities at the end of Year 2. 157 CFYR trained a total of 535 persons in social and leadership skills, with 390 (73%) representing CFYR target age groups and communities. Other persons (145) were from neighboring communities and were below or above the 10-29-year-old age group. The key activities included summer camps (Saint Lucia and Guyana) and Basic Life & Employability Skills (BLES) Training (St. Kitts). 158 Results for St. Kitts and Nevis are not reflected in this indicator because CFYR concluded all Primary Prevention activities by the end of Year 2 due to reductions in funding from USAID. 159 The USAID-requested slow down in implementation in January and February 2020 due to a delay in funding obligation and the need to revised/cancel some programs as a result of in-person restrictions due to COVID-19 had an impact on CFYR achieving this target.

2.4.0 Number 0 38 3160 20161 34162 15163 72 N/A 189% Y of knowledge products shared 2.4.1.0 Number 0 8 N/A N/A N/A 8 Agencies165 8 Agencies N/A 100% Y of agencies GUY: 4 adopting SKN: 1 community crime and SLU: 3 violence Type of prevention Model models with SCP: 1 164 USG support Family Matters: 2 BLES: 2 In-School Model- Coding & Robotics: 1 Juvenile Justice Reform: 2

160 During Year 1 the following knowledge products were shared: The baseline survey proposal/questionnaire shared with UNDP to guide future UNDP survey/research activities; Assessment of data management systems from CFYR focus groups shared with UNDP to assist in CARISECURE’s plans for capacity building among key agencies; and Baseline survey training- Field Interview Manuals shared with SSYDR in Guyana, the Central Statistics Office in Saint Lucia and the Department of Statistics in St. Kitts and Nevis. 161 During Year 2 the following knowledge products were shared: The BLES curriculum was provided to the St. Kitts and Nevis Chamber of Commerce and Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture in St. Kitts and Nevis; Dissemination of community asset maps for each target community (15) and the Social Crime Prevention Training Manual developed and shared with each focus country (3). 162 During Year 3 the following knowledge products were shared: Participants of the LYNCS webinars received access to nine research studies on violence prevention interventions and related materials in preparation for the Regional Youth Summit; the Advocacy and Action Agenda; Report on Proceedings of the Regional Youth Summit; the Self-Efficacy Pre- /Post-Questionnaire and the Guidelines for Administering the Self-Efficacy Pre-Post-Questionnaire; and, twenty-one tools were shared with juvenile justice reform stakeholders (Ministry of Social Protection, Ministry of Public Security, etc.). 163 During Year 4 the following were shared: BLES manual and instruments used to assess key skills during BLES training: (Pitch, Interview and Development of Curriculum Vitae); the AAA Advocacy Toolkit; the YSET Scoring Methodology was shared with partners in Guyana and St. Kitts and Nevis; SCP manual, SCP workbooks, updated BLES manual, BLES Assessment templates, Video about the self-efficacy tool, the updated Self-efficacy Tool, updated Self-efficacy User Guide, OCAT, Social & Leadership Skills Training Manual. 164 Reported on annually. 165 The agencies adopting crime and violence prevention models include: GUY- Guyana Women's Leadership Institute of the Ministry of Human Services and Social Security; Ministry of Human and Social Services and Social Security; New Opportunity Corps (NOC) and Sophia Training Centre; SKN - Ministry of Community Development; SLU - Ministry of Youth Development; Saint Lucia National Youth Council; and Ministry of Education.

97 2.4.2.0 Number 0 12 N/A N/A N/A 29 Users167 29 Users N/A 580% Y of intended GUY: 22 GUY: 22 users applying SKN: 2 SKN: 2 knowledge/inno vation to make SLU: 5 SLU: 5 decisions Type of Type of regarding crime Agency: Agency: and violence Govt.: 11 Govt.: 11 prevention Private Sector: Private 166 programs 2 Sector: 2 University/Trai University/Tr ning: 2 aining: 2 NGO: 12 NGO: 12 Other: 2 Other: 2

166 Reported on annually. 167 Key areas the tools/ resources are being used for include: program implementation, training, increasing engagement with community members, advocacy and service delivery. The 2020 survey also obtained information on the utilization of CFYR tools/ resources by intended users during 2018-2019. Twenty-nine users indicated they utilized CFYR resources in 2018-2019 in the following top three areas: training, operational improvement and program implementation.

ANNEX B: CFYR FOUR-YEAR SUMMARY GRANTS TABLE

Award Amount Purpose of Period of Amount Expended Country Organization Request Execution Status in USD in USD Specialists in Sustained Youth 2017 Community Development and Baseline Survey for 6/12/17- Guyana Research Inc Guyana 8/11/17 Completed 39,133 37,951 Ministry of Education- Department of Recreational 7/24/17- Guyana Youth Summer Camps 8/31/17 Completed 62,934 59,740 Ministry of Youth Educator Education, School Gender Based Health, Nutrition Violence, HIV and 9/18/17- Guyana and HIV Aids Unit Life Skills Training 8/31/18 Completed 13,916 12,034 Pilot the Delivery of Ministry of Social a Family Systems Protection of Prevention and 12/1/17- Guyana Guyana Intervention Model 6/30/20 Completed 290,372 168 285,273 Family Awareness, Consciousness Afterschool 12/1/17- Guyana and Togetherness Program 8/31/18 Completed 64,830 62,724 Afterschool Program in Sophia (Fields C, D and E) and East La 12/6/17- Guyana School of Nations Penitence 8/31/18 Completed 57,321 55,615

Charlotte Street Afterschool 12/6/17- Guyana Wesleyan Church Program 8/31/18 Completed 45,498 43,979 Ruimveldt Life Improvement Afterschool 12/15/17- Guyana Centre Program 8/31/18 Completed 49,721 48,230 Workforce Critchlow Labour Development 9/7/18- Terminated Guyana College Program 10/26/19 169 65,771 56, 061

168 Amount represents the modified grant value. Amendment includes additional costs (USD24,500) and an extension to the period of performance (7 months) to June 30, 2020. This modification was approved by USAID on November 22, 2019. 169 Critchlow Labour College was notified of grant termination on September 26, 2019, due to lack of compliance. The grant termination came into effect on October 26, 2019.

99 Award Amount Purpose of Period of Amount Expended Country Organization Request Execution Status in USD in USD Workforce Volunteer Youth Development 9/1/18- Guyana Corp Program 12/31/19 Completed 76,947 77,148170

Family Awareness, Workforce Consciousness Development 9/5/18- Guyana and Togetherness Program 11/30/19 Completed 30,588 30,654171

Family Awareness, Consciousness Afterschool 1/14/19- Guyana and Togetherness Program 8/31/20 Completed 75,383172 75,802173

Charlotte Street Afterschool 2/1/19- Guyana Wesleyan Church Program 7/31/20 Completed 129,557 130,295174 Ruimveldt Life Improvement Afterschool 2/1/19- Guyana Centre Program 7/31/20 Completed 125,495 125,971175

Subtotal Guy 1,127,466 1,101,477

170 The exchange rate used in preparation of the Grant Awards during the period May 2017 to December 2017 was issued at an exchange rate of GYD 205.98 to USD 1.00 (the Bank of Guyana exchange rate), whereas the Creative’s internal exchange rate used to calculate the disbursement to grantees has varied between GYD 211.5 and GYD 212 to USD 1.00. This has led to a differential between the Payment Request Form and budgeted amount on the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreements issued in the said period. 171 The exchange rate used in preparation of the Grant Awards during the period May 2017 to December 2017 was issued at an exchange rate of GYD 205.98 to USD 1.00 (the Bank of Guyana exchange rate), whereas the Creative’s internal exchange rate used to calculate the disbursement to grantees has varied between GYD 211.5 and GYD 212 to USD 1.00. This has led to a differential between the Payment Request Form and budgeted amount on the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreements issued in the said period. 172 The amount represents the modified grant value (USD11,889) and an extension to the period of performance by an additional month to August 31, 2020. USAID approved this second amendment on June 30, 2020. 173 The exchange rate used in preparation of the grant awards during the period August 2018 to December 2018 was issued at an exchange rate of GYD 205.98 to USD 1.00 (the Bank of Guyana exchange rate), whereas the Creative’s internal exchange rate used to calculate the disbursement to grantees fluctuated between GYD 211.5 and GYD 212 to USD 1.00 from August 2018 until October 2020. This led to a difference in the final amount paid and the budgeted amount in the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreement. 174 The exchange rate used in preparation of the grant awards during the period August 2018 to December 2018 was issued at an exchange rate of GYD 205.98 to USD 1.00 (the Bank of Guyana exchange rate), whereas Creative’s internal exchange rate used to calculate the disbursement to grantees fluctuated between GYD 211.5 and GYD 212 to USD 1.00 from August 2018 until October 2020. This led to a difference in the final amount paid and the budgeted amount in the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreement. 175 The exchange rate used in preparation of the grant awards during the period August 2018 to December 2018 was issued at an exchange rate of GYD 205.98 to USD 1.00 (the Bank of Guyana exchange rate), whereas the Creative’s internal exchange rate used to calculate the disbursement to grantees fluctuated between GYD 211.5 and GYD 212 to USD 1.00 from August 2018 until October 2020. This led to a difference in the final amount paid and the budgeted amount in the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreement.

100

Award Amount Purpose of Period of Amount Expended Country Organization Request Execution Status in USD in USD

Central Statistics Community Baseline 3/23/17- Saint Lucia Office Survey 9/23/17 Completed 31,730 29,519 Ministry of Home Affairs and National Security- Department of Probation and Probation Summer 7/9/17- Saint Lucia Parole Services Camp 8/9/17 Completed 16,173 9,579 Ministry of Equity, Social Justice, Empowerment, Youth Development, Sports, Culture and Local Youth Summer 7/24/17- Saint Lucia Government Camp 9/8/17 Completed 46,500 28,897 Ministry of Education, Innovation, Gender Relations and Sustainable Coding & Robotics 9/29/17- Saint Lucia Development Pilot Project 10/18/18 Completed 125,156 119,108 Ministry of Equity, Social Justice, Empowerment ,Youth Development , Sports, Culture Family Systems and Local Prevention and 11/24/17- Saint Lucia Government Intervention Model 9/30/19 Completed 460,339 460,339

Sacred Sports Afterschool 12/11/17- Saint Lucia Foundation Inc. Program 8/31/18 Completed 76,356 77,609 176 Belair Development Afterschool 12/20/17- Saint Lucia Committee Program 8/31/18 Completed 62,846 57,319

176 The exchange rate used in preparation of the Grants Awards during the period October 2016 to December 2017 was issued at an exchange rate of XCD2.7169 to USD1.00 (the Local bank rate), whereas the disbursement to the grantees through the Program is being calculated at XCD2.6882 to USD1.00 which is Creative’s internal exchange rate. This has led to a differential between the Payment Request Form and Budgeted amount on the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreements issued in the said period.

101 Award Amount Purpose of Period of Amount Expended Country Organization Request Execution Status in USD in USD

Folk Research Afterschool 12/20/17- Saint Lucia Center Ltd Program 7/29/18 Terminated 84,550 59,816

Youth on Fire Afterschool 12/20/17- Saint Lucia Movement Program 8/31/18 Completed 77,633 72,943 Stepping Stones Afterschool Care Afterschool 12/21/17- Saint Lucia and Support Inc. Program 8/15-18 Completed 51,158 43,121

Afterschool 1/5/18- Saint Lucia Ti Mamai Program 8/31/18 Completed 67,319 47,332 Springboard Workforce Training and Development 9/3/18- Saint Lucia Consultancy Program 6/30/20 Completed 107,242177 107,244 MAMPA Workforce Employment Development 10/24/18- Terminated Saint Lucia Agency Program 8/26/19 178 60,734 42,514

Sacred Sports Afterschool 12/11/18- Saint Lucia Foundation Inc. Program 7/31/20 Completed 73,227 72,227179

Youth on Fire Afterschool 12/11/18- Saint Lucia Movement Program 8/30/19 Completed 59,914 53,525 Ministry of Home Affairs and National Security- Department of Probation and Youth Summer 8/15/18- Saint Lucia Parole Services Camp 8/30/19 Completed 16,100 15,135

Subtotal SLU 1,416,976 1,297,228

177 Amount represents the modified grant value. Amendment includes additional costs (USD45,896) and an extension to the period of performance (5 months) to June 30,2020 approved by USAID on July 8, 2019. 178 CFYR terminated this grant on August 26, 2019, due to lack of compliance. The grantee was unable to deliver Milestone 3 (Certification of Youth) due on March 29, 2019. The grantee was unresponsive to CFYR communication on the matter. 179 Amount represents the modified grant value. Amendment includes reduction in original grant value (79,154) by USD5,927 to USD 73,227 as the grantee was unable to continue with implementation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CFYR approved this amendment on June 19, 2020.

102

Award Amount Purpose of Period of Amount Expended Country Organization Request Execution Status in USD in USD Department of Statistics-Ministry St. Kitts of Sustainable Community Baseline 7/12/17- and Nevis Development Survey 12/20/17 Completed 35,283 18,514 Ministry of Pilot Project to Community Introduce the Development, Delivery of a FSPIM St. Kitts Gender Affairs through Family 12/12/17- and Nevis and Social Services Counseling 8/31/20180 Completed 390,071181 385,901

St. Kitts Antioch Baptist Afterschool 12/11/17- and Nevis Church Program 8/31-18 Completed 51,696 52,248 182

St. Kitts Afterschool 12/18/17- and Nevis Potters Clay Inc Program 8/31/18 Completed 55,181 55,770 183

St. Kitts Wesleyan Afterschool 12/18/17- and Nevis Holiness Church Program 8/31/18 Completed 66,598 40,078

Subtotal SKN 598,829 552,513

Total 3,143,271 2,951,218

180 A modification to extend the period of performance was approved by USAID on December 6, 2018. A second modification to extend the period of performance by an additional nine months until June 30, 2020 and a cost extension of an additional USD143,175 was approved by USAID on October 3, 2019. On June 23, 2020 USAID approved a third modification to increase the period of performance by additional month from June 30, 2020 to July 31, 2020. 181 Amount includes cost extension of an additional USD143,175 approved by USAID on October 3, 2019. 182 The exchange rate used in preparation of the Grants Awards during the period October 2016 to December 2017 was issued at an exchange rate of XCD2.7169 to USD1.00 (the Local bank rate), whereas the disbursement to the grantees through the Program is being calculated at XCD2.6882 to USD1.00 which is Creative’s internal exchange rate. This has led to a differential between the Payment Request Form and Budgeted amount on the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreements issued in the said period. 183 The exchange rate used in preparation of the Grants Awards during the period October 2016 to December 2017 was issued at an exchange rate of XCD2.7169 to USD1.00 (the Local bank rate), whereas the disbursement to the grantees through the Program is being calculated at XCD2.6882 to USD1.00 which is Creative’s internal exchange rate. This has led to a differential between the Payment Request Form and Budgeted amount on the Milestone Budget in the Grant Agreements issued in the said period.

103 ANNEX C: CFYR FOUR-YEAR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TABLE

CFYR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT JULY 2016 - NOVEMBER 2020 Country Number of Total Attendees184 Youth aged 10-29 from Community CFYR Communities Engagement Activities

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4

Saint Lucia 9 26 61 37 359 922 1548 905 139 438 1063 535

Saint Lucia 133 3734 2175185 Total

Guyana 11 30 85 47 376 780 2508 1248 205 392 1806 665

Guyana Total 173 4912 3068186

St. Kitts and 10 27 2 - 174 722 69 - 90 256 42 - Nevis

St. Kitts and 39 965 388187 Nevis Total

Combined 30 83 148 84 909 2424 4125 2153 434 1086 2911 1200

COMBINED 345 9611 5631188 TOTAL

184 The Total Attendees figures may include: (i) youth age 10 to 29 from CFYR communities; (ii) youth age 10 to 29 from other communities; (iii) youth younger than ten or older 29; and (iv) adult residents. 185 Among the 2175 youth who participated in Saint Lucia activities, 868 were males and 1307 were females. 186 Among the 3068 youth who participated in Guyana activities, 1163 were males and 1905 were females. 187 Among the 388 youth who participated in St. Kitts and Nevis activities, 241 were males and 147 were females. 188 Among the 5631 youth who participated in activities in the three countries, 2272 were males and 3359 were females.

104

ANNEX D: CFYR PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT TABLE

CFYR PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT OCTOBER 2018 - NOVEMBER 2020189 Private Sector CFYR-Facilitated Private Sector Sponsorship/Contribution Private Sector Employment Country (USD) Employment Y3 Y4 Y3 Y4 Y3 Y4

Saint Lucia 14,012 870 113 41 84 38

SAINT LUCIA 14,882 154 122 TOTAL Guyana 450 5,104 125 43 115 36 GUYANA 5,554 168 151 TOTAL

COMBINED 20,436 322 273 TOTALS

189 USAID requested that CFYR begin tracking private sector engagement during Year 3 of implementation, which is why the starting period notes October 2018.

105 ANNEX E: INDEX OF REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL PRODUCTS PRODUCED

• Asset Mapping Curriculum • Basic Life and Employability Skills (BLES) Job Coaching and Mentoring Guide • Basic Life and Employability Skills (BLES) Training Manual • Basic Life and Employability Skills (BLES) Workbook • Building Active Coexistence Workbook • Caribbean Advocacy and Action Agenda (AAA) on Youth Violence Prevention - Advocacy Campaign Toolkit Website: http://cfyr.wpengine.com/the-toolkit/

• Caribbean Summit on Youth Violence Prevention- Guyana- January 15-16, 2019 – Report on Proceedings • CFYR Basic Life & Employability Skills (BLES) Program Video • CFYR Program – Building Youth Advocates Video • CFYR Family Matters Briefer • CFYR: From Theory To Practice 2016-2020 Video – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBR0KNat7iY&t=6s • CFYR Primary Prevention Video • CFYR Secondary Prevention Video : Family Matters • CFYR Self-Efficacy Tool One Pager – Self-Efficacy Questionnaire • CFYR Self-Efficacy Tool Instructional Video • Community Enhancement Committee (CEC) Capacity Building Handbook • Community Safety Plans for Saint Lucia:

o Anse La Raye Community Safety Plan o Castries Community Safety Plan o Dennery Community Safety Plan o Soufriere Community Safety Plan o Vieux Fort Community Safety Plan • Community Safety Plans for Guyana:

o Corriverton Community Safety Plan o East La Penitence Community Safety Plan o East Ruimveldt Community Safety Plan

106

o Lodge Community Safety Plan o Sophia Community Safety Plan • Country Specific Action Plan for Youth Opportunities Strategy – Guyana • Country Specific Action Plan for Youth Opportunities Strategy – Saint Lucia • Country Specific Action Plan for Youth Opportunities Strategy – St. Kitts and Nevis • Creating a Culture of Peace: The Caribbean Advocacy and Action Agenda (AAA) on Youth Violence Prevention • Data Analysis for Community Selection – Guyana • Data Analysis for Community Selection – Saint Kitts and Nevis • Data Analysis for Community Selection – Saint Lucia • Family Matters Family Counselor Training Curriculum – Facilitator’s Guide • Family Matters Family Counselor Training Curriculum Videos

o The Introduction o Counselor Self-care- The Burnout o The Better Approach o Family Engagement o Closing Remarks • Family Matters Family Counselor Training Manual - Implementing the Prevention and Intervention Family Systems Model (PIFSM) • Family Matters Family Counselor Training Curriculum - A Facilitator’s Guide • Family Matters Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST_9juiRVgM&t=34s

• Final Report: Juvenile Justice Reform Diversion and Alternative Sentencing in Guyana • Guyana Community Baseline and Midline Survey Comparative Report • Guyana Rapid Gender Assessment - 2017 • Guyana Management, Administrative, and Diagnostic Tools in support of Juvenile Justice Reform in Guyana, including:

o Behavior Modification Plan o Behavior Modification Planning Tool o Care and Reintegration Plan for use with juveniles incarcerated in Guyana o Court Report and Assessment Form for Probation Department o Detention Risk Instrument for Probation Department or Police o Intake form and code of conduct for staff and juveniles

107 o Life, Health and Safety Policy o Minimum Standards for the Operation of a Juvenile Commitment Facility in Guyana o New Opportunity Cops (NOC) Employee Policy and Procedure Manual o Reintegration Plan Template (RPT) for JJR in Guyana o The Care and Reintegration Plan o The Mental Health Referral Form o The Serious Incident Report Form o The Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Procedure and Reporting Form • Guyana Juvenile Justice Reform resources including:

o List of Recommended Alternative Sentencing Programs and Diversion Programs in Guyana

o Operational Guidelines and Administrative instruments for Diversion and Alternative Sentencing in Guyana

o Policy and Operational Framework for JJR and Diversion in Guyana o Situational Analysis on Diversion and Alternative Sentencing in Guyana • Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) • Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT) Guidebook • Practical Guidelines, Protocols and Processes for Existing Alternative Sentencing Programs and Recommendations for the Implementation of Additional Programs – Commonwealth of Guyana • Practical Guidelines, Protocols and Processes for the Implementation of Approved Diversion Programs in Compliance with the Act – Commonwealth of Guyana

• Preliminary Report to the Community, Family and Youth Resilience Program (CFYR) - Supporting Juvenile Justice Reform in Guyana; • Public Health Approach to Youth Violence Prevention Video • Regional Learning Exchange Virtual (RLEv) Webinar Series • Saint Lucia CFYR Social Crime Prevention Course:

o Curriculum in Social Crime Prevention – Instructor Manual o Curriculum in Social Crime Prevention – Participant Handbook • Saint Lucia Community Baseline and End-line Survey Comparative Report • Saint Lucia Community Baseline and Midline Survey Comparative Report • Self-Efficacy Tool: Youth Scale • Self-efficacy and Youth in the Caribbean Presentation

108

• Situational Analysis of Juvenile Diversion and Alternative Sentencing – Commonwealth of Guyana • Social and Leadership Training Course Manual • St. Kitts and Nevis Community Baseline and End-line Survey Comparative Report • The AAA… Creating a Culture of Peace (Super Cool) Advocacy Campaign Toolkit • USAID’s CFYR Program: Building Youth Advocates - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy7xYyo9PU8&t=96s • Youth Opportunities Strategy – Guyana • Youth Opportunities Strategy – Saint Lucia • Youth Opportunities Strategy – St. Kitts and Nevis • Youth Services Eligibility Tool (YSET)

109 Annex F: Creative and ASU Impact Evaluation Additional Findings

USAID funded an independent impact evaluation, which was conducted by Social Impact (SI), to measure the impact that Family Matters had on reducing risky behavior among youth beneficiaries ages 10 – 17. SI used a randomized control trial (RCT) to conduct the evaluation. Creative and its subcontractor, Arizona State University (ASU), conducted additional analyses using 1) the same data sets used by SI and 2) data from Proponte Mas, a USAID-funded program in Honduras through which Creative applied the same family systems model190. Key findings from Creative's and ASU's additional analyses include:

• When CFYR's RCT results are combined with the RCT results from Honduras, there is strong evidence that the Family Matters model applied in the CFYR focus countries reduces risk factors among at-risk youth. • When data were combined from all three CFYR focus counties, youth who received more treatment dosage experienced significant improvements in risk factor scores. These findings suggest that program retention is important, and that increasing treatment dosage might yield more favorable results. • Creative and ASU used the longitudinal YSET results that were collected from the impact evaluation cohort over the course of approximately one year to reassess the YSET instrument, using multiple stages to assess the validity, reliability and predictive validity of each scale. After the elimination of the YSET scales that were not reliable, a re-analysis of the data showed that Family Matters had a strong and robust impact on risk factor reduction when results across all three countries are combined (as compared with the control group). • Additional research is needed to understand why disaggregated data only shows that the program was effective in two locations (i.e., Guyana and Honduras), but not in St. Kitts and Nevis and Saint Lucia. Possible explanations might include issues related to implementation, evaluation measures and sample size.

As with the SI evaluation, Creative-ASU's single country analyses showed strong effects in Guyana, but not in St. Kitts and Nevis or Saint Lucia. There are various reasons that may explain the apparent lack of results in Saint Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis. While the simplest explanation is that the intervention did not have the intended effects, SI's overwhelmingly positive qualitative findings appear to contradict this assumption. One plausible explanation is the reduction in sample size from baseline to end-line, resulting from youth dropping out of the program. A third potential explanation is the presence of “social desirability bias” whereby respondents tend to answer surveys in a way that satisfies the enumerator, as opposed to responding honestly to the question. Lastly, it is possible that the presence of 'noise' attributable to the validity of the risk factor scales could influence the strength of the findings.

Creative-ASU's analysis provided some important additional insights across all three countries. For example, after fine tuning the YSET assessment tool to remove "noise" related to the reliability of some risk factor scales within the Caribbean context, the Creative-ASU analysis found that Family Matters had an impact as large as three-quarters of a standard deviation, which is considered to be a large effect191. In

190 SI developed a separate Caregiver Survey that it administered to consenting caregivers of youth in the treatment and control groups as part of its evaluation work. Creative requested access to this from April 2020 to allow for separate analysis. Unfortunately SI did not provide the data until late October 2020, and there was no longer sufficient time for Creative to perform any independent analysis. 191 Based on current impact evaluation academic literature.

110

contrast, Social Impact's analysis, which did not remove any unreliable YSET scales before conducting the evaluation, found an impact that equals one fifth of a standard deviation, which is considered a small effect.

Creative-ASU's work in streamlining the YSET scales sheds light on effects that SI's analysis192 may not be capturing and indicates that further investigation is warranted. Additional analysis, beyond the scope of CFYR's scope of work, would be needed to further explore these possibilities, as well as the lack of finding in Saint Lucia and Saint Kitts and Nevis. It is critical that any entity performing this research is familiar with the technical aspects of the family-systems model, the tools and the context.

192 SI evaluated changes in the intervention from baseline to end-line using three different group types for the analysis: an Intention to Treat (ITT) sample (comprising treatment and control youth); Treatment-on-the-treated (TOT) sample (comprising beneficiary youth only); and a matched TOT sample (comprising beneficiary youth matched to non-beneficiaries based on similarity a characteristics). Using a difference in differences approach, the results indicate substantial reductions in the number of risk factors between baseline and end-line for both treatment and control groups; and, in the case of the control group, this reduction was rather large (from an average of 5.1 risk factors at baseline to an average 3.8 risk factors at end-line). Consequently, the evaluators could only find small effects on the impact of the intervention on the treatment group. Positive and statistically significant impacts of the family counseling intervention were primarily driven by Guyana, and there were no statistically significant effects for St. Kitts and Nevis or St. Lucia.

111