Rethinking youth engagement in evaluation

I had the opportunity to lead the Youth Economic Empowerment Evaluation at UNDP Independent Evaluation Office a few years ago. This was the first comprehensive evaluation to collect and analyse information about the UNDP contribution to youth economic empowerment, which includes support for entrepreneurship, employability and skills acquisition, combined with the promotion of inclusive policy change.

This wasn’t just an evaluation, it was a turning point for me. For the first time, I was forced to think deeply about how we engage youth¹ in the very processes that claim to evaluate their realities, their futures, and often, their hopes.

Now working with UNICEF, I’ve had the chance to build on that experience. And I’m grateful to be in an organisation where youth engagement in evaluation is more than a checkbox, it’s a priority. After conducting a number of evaluations using youth-sensitive approaches and presenting those lessons learned in various global forums, I felt it was time to put some of my reflections on paper. Not only to share the framework I am using, but also to learn from colleagues who are more experienced in this field than I am.

Various degrees of youth participation in evaluation

One of the most useful tools I’ve come across in conceptualising youth engagement is Roger Hart’s Ladder of Participation (Hart, 1997). Since first encountering this tool, I’ve adapted and expanded it to more accurately capture the nuances of youth engagement within the field of evaluation. The resulting visual framework illustrates a spectrum that spans from forms of non-participation, like manipulation, decoration, and tokenism, to the highest levels of agency, where youth actively shape and lead the evaluation process.

This adapted ladder, which you’ll see below, makes one thing clear: Youth participation is not binary. It’s not a question of whether youth are involved, but how, when, and to what extent. And most importantly, whose agenda is being advanced?

At the lower rungs of the ladder, youth may be visible, appearing in photos, offering a few quotes, or attending workshops, but they hold no real influence over the process. At the top, youth take ownership of the evaluation, make key decisions, and are trusted as capable leaders. This is the essence of meaningful engagement.

Levels of youth participation in evaluation:

• Youth-owned: Youth initiate, lead and manage the evaluation process and its purpose.
• Youth-led: Youth design, lead, and manage evaluation processes independently.
• Guided decisions: Youth have decision making authority. Adults may be involved only as requested.
• Shared decisions: Adults initiate the evaluation, but youth are meaningfully involved in key decisions.
• Consulted: Meaningfully consulted. Their perspectives are actively sought and taken seriously.
• Informal influence: Not officially part of the evaluation but indirectly shape it through informal inputs.
• Informants: Participate solely as sources of information.
• Tokenism: Appear to be given a voice. Their input may be collected but not acted upon.
• Decoration: Involved to make it look participatory, but they have no substantive role.
• Manipulation: Their involvement is superficial and symbolic.
• Exclusion: Not involved at all in the evaluation process.

More than one role for youth in evaluation

Too often, when we think of youth engagement, we limit ourselves to two familiar models:

• Youth as data providers or respondents
• Youth as junior consultants, often assigned to help with logistics or translation

But this narrow framing misses the full potential of youth contributions. There isn’t a single role for youth in evaluation. There are many.  

Based on our work and learning, I’ve found that youth can play meaningful roles throughout all stages of the evaluation process. A few examples are provided below:

• Youth as data collectors or facilitators: Youth can help design tools, facilitate focus groups, and collect data from their peers in ways that adults cannot. Their presence can reduce response bias and increase the authenticity of the data collected.
• Youth as advisors: Youth can sit on advisory panels and offer strategic guidance to shape the evaluation design and questions. Their lived experiences bring nuance that no desk review can replicate.
• Youth as part of evaluation governance: Involving youth in evaluation reference groups or steering committees can strengthen accountability and inclusion. It can also signal that their voices matter at the highest levels of decision-making.
• Youth as reviewers: Youth reviewers can help validate findings and assess whether conclusions resonate with their realities. Their critical feedback can improve both quality and relevance.
• Youth as advocates: Once the findings are out, youth become powerful advocates for action. They can present recommendations to policymakers, co-author briefs, and mobilise communities. In some cases, they’ve led campaigns based on evaluation insights.

Each of these roles is distinct, but collectively, they form a rich tapestry of how youth can meaningfully contribute to evaluation.

Why does it matter? The case for meaningful youth engagement

Let’s be honest: Engaging youth meaningfully in evaluation takes time, resources, and institutional commitment. So, why do it?

What youth bring to evaluation?

When youth are meaningfully involved, the credibility of evaluation evidence improves significantly. Their participation ensures that findings are grounded in lived experience rather than assumptions. For example, in an evaluation of a youth employment program, it was the youth evaluators who pointed out that the job placements being touted as successful were, in fact, unpaid internships with little long-term potential, an insight that changed the final recommendations.

Youth can also enhance the utility of findings. They often highlight practical, overlooked issues like the stigma surrounding certain services or informal networks that shape access to opportunities. These insights help evaluators generate more nuanced and actionable recommendations that truly respond to the needs of young people.

In terms of quality and rigour, youth engagement can add new dimensions to the evaluation process. When involved as peer reviewers or advisory group members, young people challenge assumptions, identify gaps, and propose alternatives. In one instance, youth reviewers flagged that a theory of change ignored digital exclusion among rural youth, prompting the team to revise the analytical framework.

Lastly, youth bring innovation and creativity. Their comfort with digital tools and fresh perspectives often leads to novel data collection methods, like using Instagram polls for youth feedback or creative dissemination approaches, such as producing a TikTok series to share findings. These methods increase reach and relevance, particularly among younger audiences.

What youth gain from evaluation?

Engaging in evaluation can give youth tangible skills that extend well beyond the project. From designing surveys to moderating focus groups and synthesising data, young participants learn to think analytically and communicate findings clearly. These are foundational skills with applications in research, advocacy, and beyond.

Youth also gain valuable work experience. Participating in evaluations can lead to paid roles, internship opportunities, or future employment, especially for those interested in development, social research, or public policy. A young woman who worked on one UNICEF evaluation later joined a research institute, using the skills she’d developed to pursue a career in social impact assessment.

Perhaps most importantly, evaluation offers a platform for empowerment. Young people come to see that their perspectives matter and that their insights can shape decisions that affect their lives. This shift, from passive beneficiaries to active contributors, can be transformative, especially in contexts where youth are often excluded from decision-making spaces.

What society gains?

When youth are involved in evaluations, it can increase accountability. Program staff are more likely to respond to real needs, and there’s greater pressure to follow through on commitments.

Inclusion of youth also ensures better representation. Their participation is not just good practice, it’s a matter of justice. Young people are stakeholders in almost every development program, yet their perspectives are frequently sidelined. Embedding their voices in evaluations helps rectify this imbalance and supports more equitable decision-making.

Finally, youth engagement fosters intergenerational partnership. It creates space for mutual learning between young people and adults, strengthening social cohesion and shared ownership of development outcomes. When a multigenerational team co-presented findings from a health evaluation to local government, it not only increased buy-in but also sparked dialogue on shared responsibilities for change.

Closing thoughts

Engaging youth in evaluation is about sharing power. It’s about creating space for new ideas, new energy, and a more equitable process. It’s about shifting from youth as subjects of evaluation to youth as agents of change through evaluation.

There’s no one-size-fits-all formula. But there is one guiding principle: Nothing about youth without youth.

If you’ve made it this far in the blog, you’re already interested in doing the right thing, and that’s a great start. To move from intention to action, here are a few simple steps you can take:

• Reach out to EvalYouth or a local youth network in your country. Many of them are actively looking to collaborate and can offer insights into how youth can be meaningfully involved in your evaluation.
• Exchange with other evaluators who have experience in participatory or youth-led approaches. Their stories, successes, and even their mistakes can offer invaluable guidance.
• Explore practical resources, such as the UNICEF Adolescent Participation in Research Toolkit, UNFPA’s Youth Participatory Evaluation Guidelines, or case studies from BetterEvaluation.

Start small if you need to, but start somewhere. I can assure you, you won’t regret it.

Let’s keep learning, testing, failing, and trying again – together.

¹ For statistical purposes, the United Nations, without prejudice to any other definitions by Member States, defines 'youth' as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years. Member States may have their own definitions, often broader (e.g., extending up to even 35 years), depending on national context and policies.