INDICATOR
INTERVENTION LEVEL & RESULT
NUMBER
Impact: Increased resilience of communities to radicalisation and
recruitment of in Kwale County
3
Intermediate Outcome 5: Enhanced provision of psycho-social support
for at-risk individuals in Kwale County 7
10
Intermediate Outcome 4: Increased access to at-risk individuals in Kwale
County
11
12
Intermediate Outcome 3: Increased collaboration between P/CVE
stakeholders in Kwale County
13
14
Intermediate Outcome 2: Enhanced effectiveness of local VE prevention
initiatives
15
16
Intermediate Outcome 1: Improved plan for coordinating prevention of
VE in Kwale County
17
Immediate Outcome 8: Increased trust between CITs and secuirty actors
18
in Isiolo County
19
Immediate Outcome 7: Increased awareness of security actors on human
rights compliant policing
20
21
Immediate Outcome 6: Increased support for VE prevention agenda
among county officials
22
23
24
Immediate Outcome 5: Increased trust of local communities in the CITs,
secuirty actors and VE prevention 25
26
27
Intermediate Outcome 4: Increased ability of CITs to provide psycho-
social support for at-risk individuals
28
Immediate Outcome 3: Increased knowledge and skills in VE prevention
29
among CEF members and P/CVE stakeholders
Immediate Outcome 2: Increased access to funding for VE prevention in
30
Kwale County
Immediate Outcome 1: Increased awareness of the drivers, at-risk groups
31
and appropriate prevention measures for VE in Kwale County
Output 13: Resources provided for the EWAVE Centre reporting system 32
33
Output 12: Dialogue sessions facilitated between CIT and security actors
34
35
Output 11: Technical assistance provided for funded VE initiatives
36
37
Output 10: Advocacy roundtables facilitated with Isiolo county
government
38
39
Output 9: Inter-county knowledge exchanges facilitated for Kenyan
P/CVE stakeholders
40
41
Output 8: Ongoing technical assistance and provided to CIT members
42
43
Output 7: Training provided to CIT members on offering psycho-social
support for at-risk individuals
44
Output 6: CIT established in Kwale County 45
Output 5: Community engagement framework developed for CITs 46
47
Output 4: Training provided to CEF members and P/CVE stakeholders on
VE prevention (Modules)
48
Output 3: Local innovation grants provided to P/CVE stakeholders for VE
49
prevention
50
Output 2: CAP Assessment conducted assessing coordination, resourcing
and avenues for impact
51
52
Output 1: Research base provided for P/CVE stakeholders to support VE
prevention
53
INDICATOR
% of respondents who report youth are more vulnerable to recruitment
into violent extremist and terrorist groups
% of community members who report perceived injustices as a driver of
extremism
% of community members who report religious ideologies as a driver of
extremism
% of community members who report that radicalisation is increasing in
the county
% of supported individual who report perceived injustices as a driver of
extremism
% of supported individual who report religious ideologies as a driver of
extremism
% of supported individual who report that radicalisation is increasing in
the county
% of supported individuals who feel secure in their local environment
% of assisted individuals who are satisfied with the community
psychosocial support they receive
# of interventions conducted by CITs with at-risk individuals
% of surveyed community members willing to report suspected cases of
radicalisation to security actors
% of stakeholders who feel collaboration between state and non state
actors is good
% of stakeholders who feel effectiveness of collaboration between state
and non state actors is good
% of Isiolo CAP implemented
# and results of local VE prevention initiatives implemented in Kwale
County funded through local innovation grants
Quality of CAP for Isiolo County
# of recommendations adopted from CAP Assessment report by the CEF
Willingness (on a Likert-type scale) of CITs and security actors to work
together on VE prevention
Awareness (on a Likert-type scale) of human rights compliant policing
principles among secuirty actors
% of community members who agree that security actors have a good
understanding of human rights and have the skills needed to protect the
rights of all citizens
Support (on a Likert-type scale) for VE prevention among county officials
County officials publically reference support for this community-based
interventions model
% of community members that report having trust in the CITs and VE
prevention agenda
# of at-risk individuals who personally seek support from the CIT
% of surveyed community members who think police are effective in
aaddressing and preventing VE
% of community members who fear to report suspects due to
confidentiality issues with police
Knowledge, attitudes and practices rating (on a Likert scale) of CIT
members in providing psycho-social support to at-risk individuals
# psycho-social intervention tools provided for CIT members
Knowledge-confidence (on a Likert scale) of VE prevention among CEF
members and P/CVE stakeholders
# of funding streams identified for financing the implementation of the
CAP
Awareness (on a Likert-type scale) of the findings from the CAP
Assessment and research among CEF members and P/CVE stakeholders
% of surveyed community members aware of the EWAVE center reporting
system
# of security actors attending dialogue sessions
Value (on a Likert-type scale) of the dialogue sessions as reported by
participants
# of major project meetings with grantees
Value (on a Likert-type scale) of the technical assistance provided as
reported by grantees
# of county and national government officials attending advocacy
roundtablem dissagregated by type
Value (on a Likert-type scale) of the roundtable as reported by participants
# of P/CVE stakeholders attending the exchanges disaggregated by state
vs. non-state, sex
Value (on a Likert-type scale) of the exchanges as reported by participants
# of CIT members reached
Value (on a Likert-type scale) of the technical assistance and mentoring
provided as reported by CIT members
# of CIT members trained on providing psycho-social support for at-risk
individuals
Value (on a Likert-type scale) of the psycho-social support training as
reported by participants
# of CIT members recruited disaggregated by area of expertise, sex, age
Integration of Community engagement framework into CAP
# of CEF members and P/CVE stakeholders trained on VE prevention
Value (on a Likert-type scale) of the VE prevention trainings as reported by
participants
# of local innovation grants awarded for VE prevention
# of CEF members and P/CVE stakeholders receiving CAP Assessment
report
# of community members consulted for CAP Assessment disaggregated by
sex, age, state vs. non-state, area of expertise
# of research pieces developed for P/CVE stakeholders in Isiolo
# of CEF members and P/CVE stakeholders attending research
dissemination event
INDICATOR DEFINITION
Vulnerability assessed on a 7-point Likert scale.
Asked through a check box question. This is the number of survey
respondents who perceive state injustices as a driver of extremism out of
the total number of survey respondents for the county
Asked through a check box question. This is the number of survey
respondents who perceive religious ideologies as a driver of extremism
out of the total number of survey respondents for the county
Asked through a 3-point Likert-type scale. This is the number of survey
respondents who report radicalisation is increasing out of the total
number of survey respondents for the county
Asked through a check box question. This is the number of survey
respondents who perceive state injustices as a driver of extremism out of
the total number of survey respondents for the county
Asked through a check box question. This is the number of survey
respondents who perceive religious ideologies as a driver of extremism
out of the total number of survey respondents for the county
Asked through a 3-point Likert-type scale. This is the number of survey
respondents who report radicalisation is increasing out of the total
number of survey respondents for the county
This is the % of individuals who seek support from psychosocial providers
who report feeling very secure or somewhat secure in their local
environment on a Likert scale
This is the % of individuals who seek support from psychosocial providers
who report being satisfied with the psychosocial support they receive.
This is the number of surveyed community members who state they are
willing to report suspicious behaviour to police out of total number of
survey respondents for the county
This is the % of surveyed respondents who rate collaboration between
state and non-state actors as high or very high on a Likert scale
This is the % of surveyed respondents who rate the effectiveness of
collaboration between state and non-state actors as high or very high on a
Likert scale
This is the number of action points in the Isiolo CAP either partially or fully
implemented out of all of the action points listed in the Kwale CAP
Results of local prevention projects measured by:
(1) Project reports from funded prevention initiatives
(2) External evaluation by ACT of VE prevention initiatives
Quality of Isiolo CAP measured by:
(1) Reflection of best practice
(2) Alignment with identified needs and risk factors identified in the
research
(3) Alignment with national strategy
(4) Feasibility of the Isiolo CAP
(5) Adequacy of indicators for measuring success
(6) Indication of long-term vision and planning
Anecdotal reports of pronouncements by county officials during
stakeholder meetings or public gatherings
This is the % of surveyed community members who rate trust for CITs and
VE prevention agenda as high or very high on a Likert scale
Intervention tools may include: vulnerability/risk assessment, risk
management framework, exit monitoring framework, referral and
escalation protocols, etc.
Funding streams may include devolved funds, county budgets, national
government ministries, security services, etc.
Major project meetings include the kick-off meeting, mid-report meeting
and final report meeting.
This is the count of face to face technical assistance sessions held with CIT
members
Integration follows approval and validation by CEF. The Kwale CAP
proposed initiatives mainstreamed in the CEF.
This is the number of CEF members and VE prevention stakeholder who
attend VE prevention training which consists of four modules delivered
separately. Only consider those who attend all the 4 modules
Number of $50,000 grants agreements signed or awarded as local
innovation grants in Isiolo.
Research pieces include, but are not limited to:
(1) = Mapping psycho-social services
(2) = Mapping at-risk groups
(3) = Drivers and risk factors for VE
DATA SOURCE FREQUENCY OF COLLECTION
Mini-survey disseminated at FGD and
Baseline, midline, endline
KII
Repeated cross-sectional survey Baseline, midline, endline
Repeated cross-sectional survey Baseline, midline, endline
Repeated cross-sectional survey Baseline, midline, endline
Pre and post survey Continuous
Pre and post survey Continuous
Pre and post survey Continuous
Pre and post survey Continuous
Pre and post survey Continuous
Project monitoring reports Continuous
Repeated cross-sectional survey Baseline, baseline and endline
Repeated cross-sectional mini-survey Baseline, midline and endline
Repeated cross-sectional mini-survey Baseline, midline and endline
CAP Assessment report, project Baseline, midline and endline CAP
monitoring reports assessments
Project concept notes, project After delivery of each prevention
reports, surveys, FGD, KII project, endline
Isiolo CAP, CAP Assessment report,
Baseline and endline
FGD, KII
Project monitoring reports; CEF
By month 6
minutes
Post survey After dialogue sessions
Post survey After dialogue sessions
Repeated cross-sectional survey Baseline, midline, endline
Post survey Annual to check progression
Media monitoring, event reports,
Annual
outcome mapping
Repeated cross-sectional survey Midline and endline
Project monitoring reports, CIT
Continuous
registers
Repeated cross-sectional survey Baseline, midline, endline
Repeated cross-sectional survey Baseline, midline, endline
Pre and post survey, KII Before and after training sessions
Project monitoring reports Before end of year 1
Pre and post survey, KII Before and after training sessions
CAP Assessment report By Month 6
Post survey By Month 4
Mid term and end term survey Midline and endline survey
Attendance sheets During training sessions
Post survey Before and after training sessions
Project monitoring reports By Month 8 then annually
Post survey By month 8 then annually
Attendance sheets By month 8 then annually
Post survey By month 8 then annually
Attendance sheets Year 2 and 3
Post survey Year 2 and 3
Project monitoring reports By month 8
Survey By month 8
Attendance sheets By month 8
Post survey By month 8
Project monitoring reports By Month 6
Project monitoring reports By month 6
Attendance sheets By month 8
Post survey By month 8
Grant award agreements By month 8
Project monitoring reports By month 6
FGD, KII By month 4
Reports and briefings By month 6
Attendance sheets By month 6
2020
REPORTING BASELINE Q4 Q4
July-Sep Oct - Dec
Baseline, midline and final reports 75.60%
Baseline, midline and final reports 16.30%
Baseline, midline and final reports 31%
Baseline, midline and final reports 58.90%
Quarterly reports TBD
Quarterly reports TBD
Quarterly reports TBD
Quarterly reports TBD
Quarterly reports NA
Quarterly report following delivery,
0
final report, evaluation report
Baseline report, mid term evaluation
76.90%
report, end evaluation report
Baseline report, mid term evaluation
35%
report, end evaluation report
Baseline report, mid term evaluation
64.90%
report, end evaluation report
Baseline report, mid term report,
TBD
end CAP assessment report
Quarterly reports following delivery,
final report, consultant's evaluation TBD
report
Final report, evaluation report TBD
Annual reports, final report 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Baseline, midline and endline reports 29.70%
Annual reports, final report NA
Annual reports, final report No
Mid line and end evaluation reports TBD
Quarterly report following delivery,
0
final report, evaluation report
Baseline, midline and endline reports 41.60%
Baseline, midline and endline reports 19%
Quarterly report following delivery,
TBD
final report, evaluation report
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery,
TBD
final report, evaluation report
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
0
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery No
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery NA
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery 0
Quarterly report following delivery 0
2021 2022
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar
2022 2023
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Apr - Jun Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Apr - Jun
2023
Q3 ENDLINE TARGET
Jul - Sep
50%
10%
15%
70%
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
85%
45%
75%
TBD
TBD
TBD
4.00
4.00
40%
4.00
Yes
TBD
TBD
60%
10%
TBD
TBD
4
4.00
30%
20
4.00
4.00
30
4.00
30
4.00
30
4.00
30
4.00
30
Yes
50
4.00
50
50
3
50
NOTES
