Percent of young people trained as peer educators who are active during a reference period
This indicator measures retention of active peer educators after training within a given reference period. An active peer educator refers to a peer educator (aged 10-24) who has completed a training course in adolescent and youth sexual and reproductive health (AYSRH) and continues to conduct peer education activities on topics related to AYSRH including life skills. The definitions of ‘active peer educator’ and the ‘reference period’ must be operationally defined in terms specific to the project design and the monitoring system (e.g., a peer educator who attends at least 85% of supervision meetings and reports at least a set target number of peer contacts during a specific time interval). The reference period selected (e.g., quarterly, biannually, annually) will significantly impact the measurement and results of this indicator and should be carefully considered when defining the indicator.
This indicator is calculated as:
(# of active peer educators / total # of peer educators trained) x 100
The definition of active peer educator, a reference time period, and a system for recording peer educators’ activities must be determined prior to project initiation. Projects should record the total number of peer educators trained in order to determine the denominator of the indicator.
Evaluators may want to disaggregate by the following age ranges: 10-14, 15-19, and 20-24.
Peer educator activity reporting forms or program activity attendance records for the given reference period.
This indicator measures peer educator retention (defined as a peer educator who is still actively conducting activities for which he/she was trained) over a specified amount of time post-training. Peer educator retention is a critical element of successful program implementation and contributes to program quality and sustainability. This indicator allows programs to actively monitor retention and develop and modify strategies to retain peer educators based on program needs.
There are several key issues to be aware of. The indicator depends on a clear and consistent definition of ‘active peer educator’ that is applied throughout the life of the project. While the indicator should be consistent within a project, it will not necessarily be consistent across projects and is not designed to be used for comparison between projects unless the definition and reference period are the same. Given that the indicator depends on definitions created by programs, one should be careful about inferring that a high retention rate means a program is successful or sustainable. In addition, the indicator does not measure the quality or content of peer educator counseling or other activities. It is also not designed to quantify the number of peer educator contacts or other monitoring information.
Peer educator retention can vary substantially by age and sex and evaluators should disaggregate data accordingly. Strategies to increase retention of a particular age bracket or sex may be necessary based on the results of this indicator.