Lessons from the African Youth Panel midterm review and sense-making workshop in Kigali
- The programme: AYP is implemented by TrustAfrica with the Mastercard Foundation and reaches young people on the margins in 10 African countries.
- Beyond validation: the workshop built on earlier online validation sessions. Participants moved from "Is this correct?" to what the evidence means and what explains it.
- From interpretation to action: on Day 2, participants jointly developed recommendations for the programme's next phase.
- Context changed the picture: lived experience and national coordinators' insights explained patterns the data alone couldn't.
- Challenge was welcome: some findings were contested, and that made the analysis stronger.
- Youth as co-evaluators: young people helped design tools, collect and analyse data, and facilitate country-level validation.
Evidence becomes more meaningful when the people whose experiences it reflects have an opportunity to interpret and respond to it.
Last month in Kigali, Rwanda, we put that principle into practice during the Midterm Review and Sense-Making Workshop of the African Youth Panel (AYP), facilitated by the International Centre for Evaluation and Development (ICED). AYP is an initiative being implemented by TrustAfrica in partnership with the Mastercard Foundation and supports young people on the margins across ten African countries to lead participatory action research in their communities and explore pathways to dignified and fulfilling work.
The review gave us the data. But who better to make sense of what it really means than the young people at the heart of the programme?
The workshop, built on earlier online validation sessions, was conducted as part of the ICED led midterm review, where programme participants from different countries reviewed preliminary findings for accuracy and provided important context. In Kigali, the conversation went a step further. Instead of focusing on just one question — Is this finding correct? participants considered the following: What does the evidence tell us? What does it mean? What might explain it? What should we take forward? And what needs qualification?
On the second day, the discussion moved from interpretation to action, with participants jointly developing recommendations for the programme’s next phase.
One of the most striking things was how much the room added to the numbers. A pattern that looked puzzling on a PowerPoint slide became much clearer when a participant described what it meant to balance programme activities with work and family responsibilities. Differences in performance between countries also made more sense when national coordinators explained how implementation varied across contexts.
Not every interpretation was accepted. Some findings were challenged, and alternative explanations were offered. Those moments did not weaken the review. They made the analysis stronger by showing where findings needed more context, qualification or further exploration.
Young people were also involved beyond the workshop itself. Youth evaluators contributed to the design of survey and interview tools, supported data collection and analysis, and facilitated country-level validation discussions. Their role therefore went beyond providing youth perspectives on an externally led evaluation. They were part of producing, questioning and interpreting the evidence.
Lessons for participatory sense-making
- Context strengthens interpretation. In multi-country programmes, participants and local teams can help explain differences that aggregated cross-country data may not fully capture.
- Sense-making can improve recommendations. When evaluation findings are intended to inform programme adaptation, recommendations are often more relevant and practical when those most affected by them contribute to shaping them.
- Divergent views can strengthen analysis. Participatory sense-making does not require consensus on every finding. Different interpretations can reveal where evidence requires qualification, further investigation or more careful analysis.
- Trust and ownership support evidence use. When participants can see how their experiences have been interpreted and have an opportunity to challenge or refine those interpretations, confidence in both the findings and the evaluation process can grow.
For ICED, this experience reinforced an important principle in evaluation practice: evidence use begins before a report is finalized. When participants are involved in interpreting findings, questioning assumptions and shaping recommendations, evaluation becomes more than a reporting exercise; it becomes part of the programme’s learning and decision-making process.
For more information about ICED’s evaluation approach and projects:
https://www.iced-eval.org/strategic-priorities/evaluating-impact
Find out more about the African Youth Panel (AYP):
https://trustafrica.org/african-youth-panel/