This section details the approach and methodology used in the mid-term evaluation of the Youth Guarantee Plus Plan 2021‑27 for decent work for young people (YG+P). It describes the methodological foundations that underpin the results obtained in the evaluation.
Mid‑Term Evaluation of Spain’s Youth Guarantee Plus Plan 2021‑2027
This mid-term evaluation focuses on the actions carried out under the YG+P throughout Spain. The evaluation time frame is from June 2021, when the YG+P was launched, to January 2025, when the evaluation’s data collection phase ended (Section 2.5.2).
The specific objectives of the YG+P mid-term evaluation are as follows:
First and foremost, to assess the implementation and performance of the YG+P from its launch in June 2021 to January 2025. The evaluation is intended to be formative. It therefore focuses on the processes and factors that facilitate or hinder the operation of the YG+P, in order to provide feedback that can be used to improve programme implementation.
The second objective, given that YG+P implementation is ongoing, is to carry out a preliminary assessment of the likelihood that the plan’s expected outcomes will be achieved.
This mid-term evaluation uses an approach known as a “theory-based evaluation” or “theory-based approach” (Rogers and Weiss, 2007[1])
A theory-based approach involves formulating hypotheses about how and why a given programme works, testing those hypotheses and making decisions (developing recommendations) based on the observed results. The approach centres on understanding the processes and context in which the results are being produced. It does this by exploring the theory underpinning the programme. A comprehensive understanding of how the programme works makes it possible to assess its achievements, identify possible shortcomings and develop strategies to improve its implementation and facilitate the achievement of its long-term objectives.
This type of evaluation is particularly useful for multilevel interventions that seek to address complex and interconnected problems, which require comprehensive solutions. The YG+P is an intervention of this type. (Instituto para la Evaluación de Políticas Públicas, 2020[2])
Evaluations that use a theory-based approach must develop a Theory of Change (ToC) that sets out explicitly how the programme works and the assumptions on which the ToC is based. The ToC functions as an analytical framework that models the change process, i.e. it provides detailed descriptions of how and why particular interventions are expected to contribute to the desired change in a given context (Belcher, Claus and Davel, 2020[3]). A properly documented ToC explicitly describes what the programme does (measures, activities and outputs) and what the intervention is intended to achieve (results and impacts).
Evaluations based on a ToC analyse each step of the intervention logic to identify the mechanisms that generate change and to establish how and why the measures implemented under the programme work (or fail to work). This type of evaluation shows the extent to which, and the mechanisms through which, the programme’s various actions contribute to its results, understood as the changes observed in the target groups.
The YG+P has a ToC that was developed collaboratively by SEPE, representatives of the 19 PES of the autonomous communities,1 and other social actors in 2022 (Box 2.1), with support from the OECD. The ToC is a living document that should be reviewed periodically to ensure it reflects the programme’s logic, operation and context (Vogel, 2012[4]; USAID, 2019[5]). The ToC for the YG+P has therefore been updated regularly, when analysis and emerging evidence has shown it to be necessary.
At the end of 2021, SEPE asked the OECD for technical assistance to design a monitoring and evaluation framework for the YG+P. This technical assistance was provided throughout 2022. It resulted, among other things, in a ToC for the programme.
To develop this ToC, the OECD team held a series of collaborative workshops between 26 and 28 April 2022 in Madrid. The workshops were organised as six working groups, based on the six lines of action of the YG+P. Line 1: Career guidance; Line 2: Training; Line 3: Employment opportunities; Line 4: Equal opportunities in access to employment; Line 5: Entrepreneurship; Line 6: Improvement of the institutional framework. A total of 67 representatives from the autonomous communities and other social actors took part in the workshops.
Their work provided the basis for the first draft of the ToC, which was presented to SEPE’s Sub-Directorate General for Active Employment Policies and the Youth Guarantee support team in an online meeting on 4 July 2022. In this meeting, each element of the draft ToC was reviewed, modifications and improvements were proposed, and assumptions and conclusions were validated. The resultant proposal was circulated to the representatives of the autonomous communities and social actors who had participated in the collaborative workshops. They reviewed the document and made some final comments. These contributions were integrated into the final version of the ToC, which was approved in September 2022.
Figure 2.1 shows the current version of the YG+P ToC. A detailed version of the underlying narrative is provided in Annex A.
Source: Developed by the OECD in collaboration with SEPE, the PES of the autonomous communities and other social actors (Box 2.1).his ToC was the main instrument used to select the evaluation criteria (Section 2.3) and write the evaluation questions for each criterion (Section 2.4). It was also used to identify gaps in the available evidence, to prioritise what additional information should be collected and to provide a clear structure for analysing and presenting the evaluation results.
This approach, based on a ToC and evaluation criteria and questions arising from them, is considered a suitable tool for meeting the objectives of the YG+P mid-term evaluation. It aims to enable a systemic understanding of the programme, leading to the development of instruments capable of formulating comprehensive recommendations that reflect the complexity of the YG+P.
The mid-term evaluation takes as a reference the evaluation criteria adopted by the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to evaluate development aid and it follows DAC guiding principles on how to use those criteria (Box 2.2).
Specifically, and taking into account the principles guiding their use, the selection of DAC evaluation criteria and the inclusion of additional criteria, it reflects the specific nature and objectives of the evaluation. It thus focuses on the following evaluation criteria: i) coverage; ii) relevance; iii) co‑ordination; and iv) effectiveness.
Origin and evolution of the criteria
The OECD-DAC first established evaluation criteria in the OECD-DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance in 1991. It subsequently defined the terms used in 2002 in its Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management for Sustainable Development (OECD, 2002[6]).
In 2019, the DAC Network on Development Evaluation (EvalNet) revised the criteria in order to adapt programme evaluations to the 2030 Agenda. The changes made at this time included new and improved definitions of the five original criteria, the addition of a new evaluation criterion – consistency –, and the introduction of principles to guide their use.
Six revised evaluation criteria definitions
Relevance. The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’ global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change.
Coherence. The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector or institution.
Effectiveness. The extent to which the intervention has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives and its results, including differential results across groups.
Efficiency. The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way.
Impact. The extent to which the intervention has generated, or is expected to generate, significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.
Sustainability. The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue.
Principles for use
First, the evaluation criteria should be contextualised and take into account the characteristics of the intervention being evaluated, as well as the evaluation’s specific objectives and questions.
Furthermore, the evaluation criteria should not be applied automatically. Instead, they should be used according to the needs of the relevant stakeholders and the context of the evaluation. For example, issues such as the time frame of the evaluation, data availability and methodological considerations may influence whether and how a particular criterion is used.
Source: OECD (2019[7]), Mejores criterios para una mejor evaluación. Definiciones revisadas de los criterios de evaluación y principios para su utilización, www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/Criterios-evaluacion-ES.pdf.
2.3.1. Coverage
As noted in section 2.1, the main objective of the mid-term evaluation is to assess the performance of the YG+P and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement in its implementation. This evaluation therefore focuses on the immediate outputs2 (or first-level results) generated by the six YG+P lines of action, i.e. the benefits and services directly provided by the programme. It assesses coverage by examining the extent to which the YG+P target population is receiving the services and benefits generated by the plan.
Specifically, and as detailed in the YG+P ToC (Section 2.2 and Annex A), it analyses the extent to which the YG+P has created effective, good-quality and inclusive career guidance and training systems, and generated decent and inclusive employment opportunities for participating youth.
It is important to note that coverage is not an independent evaluation criterion according to the OECD-DAC definitions (Box 2.2). In fact, coverage is often considered a sub-criterion of the effectiveness criterion, as it captures the extent to which the intervention is generating results at an earlier stage, even if these are first-level results (ALNAP, 2006[8]; Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 2001[9]). However, given the logical framework of the YG+P ToC, the OECD evaluation team decided to make coverage an independent criterion so it can be analysed separately from the achievement of second-level results.
2.3.2. Relevance
Under the criterion of relevance, the mid-term evaluation assesses the extent to which the objectives and design of the YG+P respond to the target population’s needs and priorities, i.e. it first considers how closely the YG+P aligns with needs and priorities relating to youth employment in Spain in general. It also assesses the quality of the career guidance, the training, and the employment and entrepreneurship opportunities generated by the plan.
2.3.3. Co‑ordination
Under this criterion, the mid-term evaluation assesses the degree of co‑ordination among all the institutions involved in implementing the YG+P. Although this is not an OECD-DAC criterion, it is important in this evaluation because of how the YG+P is designed. Line of action 6 (Improvement of the institutional framework) includes actions for improving management, collaboration, co‑ordination and communication within the national employment system, and for supporting its modernisation. These actions, if successful, could lead to better programme implementation, making a cross-cutting contribution to the programme’s coverage, relevance and eventual effectiveness.
2.3.4. Effectiveness
The second objective of the mid-term evaluation is to assess whether the YG+P is achieving, or is likely to achieve, the expected outcomes (Section 2.1). It therefore includes the criterion of effectiveness. The effectiveness analysis looks exclusively at second-level results, while the coverage, relevance and co‑ordination analyses examine first-level results (or “outputs”, as they are referred to in the YG+P ToC).
It is critical to emphasise that since YG+P implementation is ongoing, the effectiveness analysis focuses on the changes emerging at the YG+P participant level. Logically, the measurement of the final results and impact of the YG+P should be carried out once the implementation and execution phases are complete (from 2027).
The YG+P mid-term evaluation seeks to answer six core evaluation questions, which are listed in Table 2.1. These were chosen based on the programme’s ToC and the selected evaluation criteria.
To facilitate evaluation-process monitoring, detailed evaluation questions have been written for the six YG+P lines of action. Annex B contains the evaluation matrix, which presents the evaluation criteria and their corresponding questions and sub-questions. The evaluation matrix also presents the indicators used to answer the evaluation questions and the data sources used to construct the indicators.
The YG+P mid-term evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach, in which various types of data from a range of sources are collected, analysed and triangulated in order to provide robust, reliable answers to the evaluation questions (3ie, 2022[10]; USAID, 2013[11]). To implement the mixed-methods approach rigorously and provide comprehensive answers to the evaluation questions, the OECD evaluation team triangulated the information obtained using both quantitative and qualitative techniques.
First, the OECD team ensured that each data set was as complete as possible. Then they cross-checked the various results obtained to see if there was a reasonable level of convergence between them. This enabled them to draw substantiated conclusions.
In line with the theory-based approach (see section 2.1), the empirically collected evidence was analysed in the light of the different levels of the plan’s ToC. This tested the intervention logic of the YG+P and allowed the OECD team to determine the extent to which the programme has helped achieve the preliminary results observed. This approach helps determine the relevant causal explanations through a better understanding of how the programme works, why the results have (or have not) been achieved, and what effect the underlying internal or external factors have had. This type of methodology is known as “contribution analysis” (Box 2.3).
Contribution analysis is a methodology used to identify the contribution a particular intervention or programme has made to a change or set of changes. The aim is to produce a credible, evidence‑based narrative of the contribution, rather than to produce conclusive proof. Contribution analysis is based on the premise that in many cases it is difficult to demonstrate that certain results are generated by a specific measure or programme. This methodology is designed to be used in conjunction with a ToC that explicitly states how change is supposed to have occurred at different levels. It compares the observed reality with the theorised results. This methodology must be used with a clearly defined ToC. It should not be used to develop alternative ToCs.
Source: Mayne (2001[12]), “Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly”, https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.016.001
The evaluation used several complementary information sources and types of analysis. It triangulated data and sought the views of people implementing and participating in the YG+P. Specifically, it used the following tools:
Workshops and work meetings. Following the DAC recommendations for high-quality evaluations (OECD, 2010[13]), the OECD evaluation team involved representatives of SEPE, the PES of the autonomous communities, and the Youth Guarantee technical support team in every step of designing and implementing the mid-term evaluation. The various parties were therefore in regular contact while the programme’s ToC and evaluation framework were being designed, indicators were being defined, and data collection tools were being created.
The objectives of this participatory approach were to: i) ensure coherence between the mid-term evaluation, stakeholder interests and YG+P projects; ii) improve understanding of the objectives of the evaluation, its processes and the usefulness of its findings; iii) improve the accuracy and usefulness of the mid-term evaluation report; and iv) confirm the accuracy of the findings and shape the recommendations so as to increase ownership of the results in SEPE and the PES of the autonomous communities.
Documentary review and content analysis. The OECD team carried out an in-depth review of the key documentary material provided by SEPE and the Youth Guarantee technical support team to better understand how the programme had been executed during the evaluation period. This analysis also revealed information gaps and provided a first look at the lessons learned so far in the implementation phase.
Quantitative analysis of the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry. This administrative database was the main source of quantitative data for the YG+P mid-term evaluation. Two types of analysis were carried out using information obtained from this registry:
First, a cross-sectional analysis to answer the questions posed under the coverage criterion. This type of analysis provides a snapshot of the YG+P at a specific moment in time. It has been used for coverage analysis because it provides valuable information to determine the current scope of the programme at the output level. It answers the question: What services and benefits have reached the target population so far?
Second, a longitudinal analysis examining “services pathways”. This analysis tried to give preliminary answers to the questions asked under the effectiveness criterion. This type of analysis collects data from the target population over time to detect any changes in the variables studied, providing information about the programme’s influence on the observed results.
Section 2.5.1 provides additional information on the analyses performed using this database.
Surveys of various stakeholders and analysis of the results. Surveys were another key source of information for the mid-term evaluation. The qualitative analysis of survey data, added to the quantitative analysis of data from the registry, provides a more nuanced understanding of how the programme is working. The surveys were used to analyse coverage, relevance and co‑ordination, as they provide information on access to the programme, the quality of the actions implemented, and users’ perception of, and satisfaction with, those actions, among other issues. Section 2.5.2 provides additional information on the design and implementation of the surveys.
2.5.1. Analysis of the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry
Given the time frame of the mid-term evaluation (see Section 2.1), the OECD evaluation team decided to narrow down the study population for which information would be extracted from the Youth Registry. This population was restricted to young people enrolled in the YG+P from June 2021 to May 2024, during part of the evaluation period. The Youth Guarantee technical support team extracted the information needed to carry out the two types of analysis (cross-sectional and by service pathway).
Cross-sectional analysis
For the cross-sectional analysis, aggregate data were extracted from the registry relating to sociodemographic characteristics and services received under the programme for 816 096 young people registered in the YG+P during the evaluation period.
Data extracted relating to sociodemographic characteristics covered i) gender; ii) age group at the time of Youth Guarantee registration (16‑19 years, 20‑24 years, or 25‑29 years); iii) autonomous community of residence; and iv) vulnerability status (Box 2.4).
The definition of “vulnerable” young person was established jointly by representatives of SEPE, the Youth Guarantee technical support team, and the OECD. They took into account both the literature on the determinants of social exclusion and the availability of data to construct a relevant disaggregation variable.
Thus, for the analysis of data extracted from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry, young people are considered vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria:
1. They self-identified as a vulnerable young person at risk of social exclusion at the time of registration in the Youth Guarantee programme.
2. They have a disability accredited by official certification at the time of registration.
3. At the time of registration, their highest level of educational attainment was ISCED 2 (lower secondary education).
4. They have been assisted by the Youth Guarantee through one of the IBs that work exclusively with vulnerable groups, i.e. the Red Cross, INSERTA (Fundación ONCE), Fundación Secretariado Gitano, or YMCA.
Source: Working groups with SEPE and the Youth Guarantee technical support team, 2024
Table 2.2 presents the distribution of the young people registered in the YG+P included in the cross-sectional analysis of the registry, disaggregated by the main sociodemographic variables.
By sociodemographic variables and autonomous community, June 2021‑May 2024
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD calculations based on the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry.
The registry also provided aggregate data on the type of services that participants received and when they received them. The services provided by the Youth Guarantee fall into three main categories: i) career guidance; ii) training (i.e. vocational education and training, workshop schools and trade schools, and work-experience placements); and iii) employment and entrepreneurship opportunities (e.g. employer subsidies of social security contributions, self-employment assistance, flat rate for the self-employed).3
Longitudinal analysis
For this analysis, the OECD evaluation team used a longitudinal database organised “by service pathways”, which was extracted from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry (Box 2.5).
In 2021, SEPE carried out a pilot advanced-analytics project using data from the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry. The objective was to create a longitudinal database that could be used for more complex analyses, in addition to traditional descriptive analyses. This would enable researchers to study the trajectory of Youth Guarantee participants throughout their time in the programme.
The project was a collaboration between the Data Warehouse unit, which works with the Youth Guarantee, and the Youth Guarantee support team, part of SEPE’s Sub-Directorate General for Active Employment Policies.
The database was updated in January 2025 to incorporate information on all the young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee during the evaluation period (2021‑24) and was made available to the OECD evaluation team for analysis.
Source: Interviews with SEPE and the Youth Guarantee technical support team, 2025
The longitudinal database provided to the OECD evaluation team contains information on 541 533 young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee during the evaluation period.
It is organised around “service pathways”, a unit of analysis specifically designed to assess how actions under the YG+P (career guidance, training, and employment services) contribute to outcomes for participants in terms of finding work. Each service pathway comprises information on the Youth Guarantee services that a young person has used and any work opportunities arising immediately after these interventions.
The pathways are designed to reflect the sequence of events. They begin when a young person starts using one or more programme services and end when they enter the labour market thanks to that support. When the services do not lead to a job, the pathway is considered closed when the last service used comes to an end. If the young person returns to the programme later on, a new pathway is generated, to reflect the cyclical, changing nature of participant’s experience over time.
The major analytical advantage of this design is that researchers can study the correlations between the types and characteristics of the services used and subsequent employment outcomes. However, the design also limits the possibilities for temporal analysis. As the pathways do not adhere to a fixed time frame but depend on events specific to each participant, researchers cannot make direct comparisons between participants at standard intervals, such as 6 or 12 months after using a given service. This lack of synchronisation between the pathways of individuals makes it difficult to apply analytical approaches based on uniform time periods. It also complicates attempts to compare outcomes using the time elapsed since an intervention as a variable.
The analysis of this longitudinal database aims to answer the evaluation questions posed under the criterion of effectiveness. It attempts to quantify, on a preliminary basis, whether the benefits and services implemented by the YG+P (career guidance, training, and generation of employment and entrepreneurship opportunities) have generated the expected outcomes.
This estimation of the programme’s effectiveness is based on an econometric analysis of a longitudinal database containing data on the young people enrolled in the Youth Guarantee during the evaluation period. As part of this econometric approach, a panel estimation strategy is used. This makes it possible to isolate the effect of the YG+P services on the variables of interest, controlling for the effect of both time‑varying observable variables and time‑invariant latent variables. It is important to emphasise that this analysis attempts to describe the relationship between the services provided by the YG+P and the programme’s expected outcomes, without establishing causal relationships between the variables. However, the regression analysis minimises the influence of other variables by controlling for factors such as the young person’s gender, age, vulnerability status and autonomous community of residence, as well as other latent variables that are constant over time.
2.5.2. Survey design and implementation
The OECD evaluation team built on the quantitative analysis of the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry through two types of survey: one for the PES of the autonomous communities and IBs, and another for Youth Guarantee participants. The questionnaires were designed and implemented using a differentiated strategy and various computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) software tools.
Survey of the Public Employment Services of the autonomous communities and intermediary bodies
The survey of the PES of the autonomous communities and intermediary bodies (IBs) was implemented between October 2024 and January 2025. Its main objective was to gather information about the quality and inclusiveness of the services provided to participants in the Youth Guarantee programme, as well as the programme’s dissemination mechanisms and internal and external co‑ordination.
A questionnaire on the implementation of the Youth Guarantee was distributed to all 19 of the regional PES and 15 IBs. The survey had six sections. It was administered using a CAPI software that allowed for continuous monitoring of the survey’s progress and the quality of the data provided. Overall, 18 regional PES and 10 out of the 15 IBs completed the survey satisfactorily.
Survey of young people participating in the Youth Guarantee
The main objective of this survey was to gather information about the quality and inclusiveness of the services provided by the Youth Guarantee from the perspective of the beneficiaries, as well as about the participants’ knowledge of the programme and their experience when registering and using the services. The questionnaire had several sections. Each participant had to respond to specific sections, depending on the type of services they had used at the time of the survey. This ensured that the questionnaire was always relevant to the participants’ experiences, which enhanced the quality of the information collected.
The questionnaire was distributed to a sample of Youth Guarantee participants between October and December 2024. This group was chosen using a one‑stage stratified probability sampling strategy, applied to all the young people registered in the Youth Guarantee Administrative Registry during the evaluation period. This strategy is detailed in Annex C of this document.
The questionnaire was administered using a CAPI software that allowed for continuous monitoring of the progress of the survey and the quality of the data provided. A total of 6 153 young people completed the survey (Table 2.3).
Note: A young person is considered to be vulnerable if they meet any of the following criteria: i) they define themselves as a young person at risk of social exclusion; ii) they have a disability certified by an official certificate; iii) their highest level of educational attainment is ISCED 2; or iv) they have been assisted under the Youth Guarantee programme through one of the intermediary bodies that work exclusively with vulnerable groups. The definition of vulnerability used in the evaluation can be found in Box 2.4.
Source: OECD Youth Guarantee Participant Survey (2024).
References
[10] 3ie (2022), Using mixed methods to strengthen process and impact evaluation, https://www.3ieimpact.org/blogs/using-mixed-methods-strengthen-process-and-impact-evaluation (accessed on 15 November 2023).
[8] ALNAP (2006), Evaluating humanitarian action using the OECD-DAC criteria, https://evaluation.msf.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/Evaluating%20humanitarian%20action%20using%20the%20OECD%20DAC%20criteria.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
[3] Belcher, B., R. Claus and R. Davel (2020), “A refined method for theory-based evaluation of the societal impacts of research”, MethodsX 100788, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100788.
[2] Instituto para la Evaluación de Políticas Públicas (2020), Guía de evaluación de diseño de políticas públicas, https://funcionpublica.hacienda.gob.es/dam/es/portalsefp/evaluacion-politicas-publicas/Documentos/Metodologias/Guia_de_Evaluacion_de_Diseno.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2023).
[12] Mayne, J. (2001), “Addressing Attribution through Contribution Analysis: Using Performance Measures Sensibly”, Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Vol. 16/1, pp. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.016.001.
[9] Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores (2001), Metodología de Evaluación de la Cooperación Española II, https://www.oecd.org/derec/spain/35639035.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
[7] OECD (2019), Mejores criterios para una mejor evaluación. Definiciones revisadas de los criterios de evaluación y principios para su utilización, https://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/Criterios-evaluacion-ES.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
[13] OECD (2010), Development co-operation evaluation and effectiveness, https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/46297655.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
[6] OECD (2002), OECD Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results based Management Terminology, https://unsdg.un.org/sites/default/files/OECD-Glossary-of-Key-Terms-in-Evaluation-and-Results-based-Management-Terminology.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2024).
[1] Rogers, P. and C. Weiss (2007), “Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on: Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future”, New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 2007/114, pp. 63-81, https://doi.org/10.1002/EV.225.
[5] USAID (2019), Theory of Change Review as an Adaptive Management Tool, https://usaidlearninglab.org/community/blog/theory-change-review-adaptive-management-tool (accessed on 21 June 2024).
[11] USAID (2013), Conducting Mixed-Method Evaluations, https://2017-2020.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Mixed_Methods_Evaluations_Technical_Note.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2023).
[4] Vogel, I. (2012), Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development, UK Department of International Development, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a5b40f0b652dd0006bc/Theory_of_Change_Review_Report_Summary.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2024).
← 1. 17 autonomous communities and two autonomous cities (Ceuta and Melilla).
← 2. The OECD (2002[6]) defines outputs (or first-level outcomes) as the products, capital goods and services that result from an intervention. They differ from outcomes in that they are within the control of the implementing team and attributable to it.
← 3. For ease of reading, any reference to a young person having received at least one service indicates their participation in at least one activity within any of the three categories.