Youth Technology & Entrepreneurship Program

An illustrative, fictional program — not based on any specific organization's program or data. This is the input a client brings to EvalSmart, not an EvalSmart output.

What makes a program description "evaluation-ready." You don't need standards, metrics, or a methodology — that's EvalSmart's job. You need to describe your program clearly. A strong description, like the one below, covers:

What the program is and where it runs (its setting)
Who it serves
What it actually does — the activities or services
What it's trying to achieve — the intended outcomes
How it's currently assessed — the data and instruments you already have
Why you're evaluating it, who the audience is, and the specific questions or concerns driving this cycle

Overview

The program is a season-based technology-and-entrepreneurship program for youth, roughly ages 10 to 18, delivered globally across many countries and languages and mostly outside of school. Over an approximately twelve-week season, small teams of young people work with adult volunteer mentors to identify a problem in their community, design and build a working mobile app to address it (using a visual/block-based programming platform, with an optional AI/machine-learning component), develop a business and launch plan, and deliver a final pitch in a tiered competition. Sessions are offered both in person and online. The program is run by a small central nonprofit team plus regional volunteers and youth peer leaders, and is funded by grants and donors. Because participants are minors, registration collects parental consent and youth assent, though data-protection rules vary by country.

Who it's for

The core participants are youth aged 10 to 18, recruited worldwide, who join individually or in teams. Participants vary widely in prior coding exposure, home computer and internet access, and whether coding is taught at their school. Adult volunteer mentors — of varying backgrounds and experience — guide each team.

What participants do

Teams are formed and matched with a mentor. Over the season, participants work through a curriculum covering coding, an optional AI/ML component, and entrepreneurship and business planning. They choose a community problem, build a mobile app, develop a business plan, and produce a pitch or demo video. Submissions enter a tiered competition with regional and global judging, ending in showcase events. Mentors deliver the curriculum, but the amount of training and support mentors receive, and how closely teams follow the curriculum, varies from one mentor and region to the next.

What the program is trying to achieve

The program's stated goals are for participants to build skills and confidence in coding, AI/ML, and entrepreneurship; to strengthen problem-solving, teamwork, communication and public speaking; to develop persistence and self-efficacy; and to grow their interest in STEM education and careers. A further aim is that participants apply these skills to make an impact in their own communities.

How participants are assessed

A few sources of information are currently collected:

A retrospective pre/post participant survey each season, in which participants rate their confidence and skills "now" versus "before this season" across coding, AI, business, teamwork, communication, problem-solving, persistence, and data literacy.
Competition judging data (scores and rubrics) on the apps and pitches.
Enrollment and completion counts from the program's tracking system, plus background and access items (home computer/internet, coding taught at school, country, age).
An occasional alumni survey, and participant satisfaction and open-ended comments.

The team notes that survey response has been low and probably not random; that outcomes rest almost entirely on self-reported confidence rather than demonstrated skill; that the surveys have not been checked for comparability across countries and languages; and that there is no comparison group.

Why we want to evaluate the program

The organization reports to grant funders and a board, and wants to demonstrate the value and impact of the program — not just how many participants it reaches. The executive director and the program-evaluation lead are the primary audiences, and they will use the evaluation to decide where to invest a small central team's limited time and budget, whether to change the program's length or delivery model, and what to report to funders and improve for next season.

Leadership's specific concerns this cycle:

Do participants actually gain skills over a season — demonstrated, not just self-reported confidence — and how would we show that credibly?
Survey response is low and probably not random; are we only hearing from the most engaged participants and the competition winners?
Do our measures mean the same thing across countries, languages, and age groups, so that cross-country comparisons are valid?
Are we reaching and serving participants equitably — across home computer/internet access, whether coding is taught at school, country/region, and age?
Is mentoring and curriculum delivery consistent across teams and regions, and does that variation matter for outcomes?
How can we show funders credible impact when we have no comparison group?

We are bringing this to an evaluator to help us turn these concerns into a sound, defensible evaluation plan for the program.

See what EvalSmart produces from this description: the case study · a short sample of the plan

Want help writing one like this? Start with the Program Brief Builder — a free prompt for any AI assistant.

Already have a brief? Run the free readiness check →