| General Information |
Project/Program |
Project |
| Project Name |
Adolescent and Youth Participation in UNICEF Cambodia |
| Duration |
2006-2010 |
| Donor |
United Nation Children's Fund (UNICEF) |
| Implementiong Organization |
UNICEF Cambodia |
| Sector and/or Subsector Classification |
Others |
| Region |
Khampong Thom Province, Battambong Province, Siem Reap Province, Phnom Penh Province, Khompong Thom Province, |
| Financing |
256,692 USD |
| Analytical Information |
Stakeholders |
UNICEF Cambodia Office, Government of Cambodia, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS), Ministry of Interior (MOI), Ministry of Health, Ministry of Social Affairs, National Aids Authority |
| Cross-cutting Issue |
Environment |
"Environment" has not mentioned as a cross-cutting issue. |
| Gender |
The objectives of the project takes gender issue into consideration. |
| Impact Analysis |
(1) "We Can Do It" project: Since this project use the media of radio, it is appropriate communication vehicle for delivering relevant messages to the youth. According to the KAP study on Youth Civic Participation in Cambodia, more than half of the sampled youth respondents are radio listners.
(2) "Making Child Rights A Reality" Project: The project is highlt relevant within the context of UNICEF's Midterm Strategy Plan(MTSP) andCountry Programme Action Plan (CPAP) 2006-2010 because it provided a platform for children and youth to organize themselves and collectively plan, implement and monitor worthwhile activities for younger children in the villages.
(3) "Youth TV Bureau" Project: The project is relevant to the participation of youth because it provide children and youth with opportunities to engage in activities that allow them to exercise their participation right.
(4) "Commune Youth Group" Project: This project is directly relevant to UNICEF's MTSP and to the objectives of the Advocacy and Social Mobilization Programme of CPAP 2006-2010. |
| Effectiveness |
Ownership/Partnership |
Evaluation |
The evaluation report mentioned that more ownership is needed for sustainability, saying that "it is important to continue the engagement of the Prime Minister who has demonstrated its strong support to the Policy. Again this is a way of establishing ownership of the process and a way to ensure institutionalization and sustainability." |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Policy Coherence/Harmonization |
Evaluation |
Policy Coherence and Harmonization not mentioned in evaluation report. |
| Rating |
N.A. |
| Evaluation Framework |
Evaluation |
The evaluation employed a mix of research strategies to gather information from participants and stakeholders: focus group discussions, key informant interviews, focused observation, and review of dosumentation. The study involved a total 107 respondents from seven communes spread out in four provinces including Phnom Penh. The children and youth sector made up the majority of the respondents (57 percent). It also covered a total of 15 parents, seven commune leaders and 24 agency staff members. The evaluation also engaged, in a one on one interview, the involvement of eight individuals representing the International NGOs, the UN, goverment and the UNICEF Cambodia Office. Details in evaluation methodology are provided in the evaluation report. |
| Rating |
4/5 |
| Alignment/Composition of Finance |
Evaluation |
The sustainability aspect of the projects is a big issue. Three projects discontinued upon withdrawal of UNICEF assistance. One of them managed to persist because of an external support. All of the projects appeared to be donor-dependent. The projects are limited to participation in media and particiaption in the communes as opposed to many other types and settings of participation such as school, family, caring institutions, etc. |
| Rating |
2/5 |
| Other Remarks |
The project consists of four components: (1) "We Can Do It" Project; (2) "Making Child Rights A Reality" Project; (3) "Youth TV Bureau" Project; (4) "Commune Youth Groups" Project. In the evaluation report, each project was evaluated along five DAC criteria, respectively, not overall.
As a limistation of the evaluation, the report mentioned following. (1) the absence of baseline and lack of measurable indicatros; (2) evaluation conducted during the planing season, making difficulties in focus group discussion; (3) its heavy rely on honesty of the young respondents in terms of the impact of the particiaption. |
