If we work with the most marginalised young men and women in VE-affected areas, supporting their engagement in dialogue with local authorities and developing their skills in advocacy, then young people will actively engage in decision-making processes and feel that they have more voice in how decisions are made, then their sense of frustration due to their lack of political voice will be reduced.

Assumptions and preconditions: Marginalisation corresponds to vulnerability to VE, i.e. the most marginalised youth are the most vulnerable. That authorities are willing to listen to and engage young people. That lack of political voice is the most salient factor in youth frustration. That the most vulnerable to VE would be willing to engage in decision-making processes.

Risks: Increased expectations; low youth participation; youth feeling stigmatised by engagement in PVE project; young men and women are window dressing (a tick box to show youth participation but in practice they are not informing decision-making); diverse needs, vulnerabilities and concerns of young men and women are not taken into account (youth seen as homogeneous group).

Indicators: Number of young people (disaggregated by age, gender, etc.) regularly participating in committee meetings; number of youth-led decisions made; quality of youth participation; young people (men and women) that feel listened to and/or empowered; percentage of decision-makers who demonstrate improved attitudes towards youth; percentage decrease in reported frustration of young people (men and women); number of young people in public service (broken down by level); number of young people elected in parliaments; number of young people in political parties.

• Is the assumption supported by available evidence? Does it need testing? Is there evidence that at-risk youth will become more resilient to VE by accessing economic opportunities and improving their views of the fairness of the job market? Is this assumption correct, for example, has this causal relationship already been proven in this context in a previous project evaluation? If not, do we need to seek further evidence to test the assumption, such as with targeted research, further consultations or an evaluation?
• What needs to be in place for the programme to succeed? In other words, what are the preconditions for change? This could be a sufficient level of assurance of physical safety and security for programme staff and participants, or that a level of trust is built between stakeholders in order for the programme to progress.
• Is there something we need to closely monitor during implementation? For example, we may wish to track whether increased awareness of employment law and rights leads to increased fairness in employment practice, if we assume this is necessary for achieving change.
• Do we need to change or add any initiative? For example, we can try to build partnerships with other organisations implementing self-employment and micro-credit schemes to ensure that vulnerable youth get access to the resources they need to use the employment services provided by our project.