By Silvia Guglielmi, qualitative researcher, GAGE; Nihal Said, Senior Technical Advisor, Research and Partnerships, IPPF; Johanna Schulz, AGIP Program Manager, Plan International
The Adolescent Girls Investment Plan (AGIP) is a global, intergenerational, feminist coalition made up of civil society organizations, research institutions and philanthropic foundations. AGIP members are collaborating to drive political commitment and evidence-informed investments to shift outcomes for adolescent girls on a global scale. AGIP envisions a world where girls have the voice, choice and agency to determine their own futures, supported by holistic investments that respond to the full complexity of girls’ lives and needs. AGIP’s goal is to achieve real change in the lives of adolescent girls by closing the large and persistent gap between evidence-informed action, investments and accountability with and for girls. Plan International is a founding member and co-chair of AGIP.
This fall, we published two reports examining the crucial question: where are we on the adolescent agenda? The findings are summarized in this article and serve as a crucial contribution to highlighting evidence and data gaps, focusing on COVID-19 interventions and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The journey to map adolescent girls evidence gaps
With the COVID-19 crisis continuing to evolve, evidence on the effectiveness of short-term emergency-oriented responses and long-term mitigation strategies is expanding, but still limited. To better characterize the evidence on programmatic interventions and outcomes for adolescent girls, we conducted a structured review of evidence prior to the pandemic across low- and middle-income countries.
The review aimed to advance four goals:
— Identify high-potential interventions that could be replicated to reduce girls’ risk of contracting COVID-19.
— Identify short-term emergency interventions to mitigate the secondary effects of COVID-19 on girls.
— Identify longer-term interventions that hold promise for “building back better” with and for adolescent girls.
— Map and visualize the evidence gaps by assessing the concentration of evidence across interventions studied, outcomes prioritized, girl sub-populations and in contexts of instability.
To answer these questions, we conducted a structured review that resulted in the selection of 171 studies from 25,000+, including 32 reviews and 139 evaluations. Our systematic inquiry resulted in an Evidence Gap Map (EGM) on the amount of evidence on interventions with demonstrated outcomes for girls.
On the four areas of inquiry, we found that to reduce immediate COVID-19 effects on girls, interventions such as health or life skills education have demonstrated results on health outcomes for girls. Yet other types of interventions, such as mHealth, are rarely studied despite being implemented quite widely during COVID-19 responses. For Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), very few interventions, such as supply distribution, had evidence on WASH outcomes.
On mitigating the secondary effects of COVID-19, such as the impacts of school closures and movement restrictions, we found that interventions such as cash transfers are widely studied for their effect on education and keeping girls at school, unlike school feeding programs. In terms of “building back better” and livelihood and violence outcomes, we found that interventions such as financial literacy trainings are studied for their impact on livelihoods, as well as girl groups and safe spaces with demonstrated outcomes on violence prevention, protection and response for girls, in addition to civic participation. As for longer-term outcomes, such as gender empowerment, we found that interventions such as community mobilization are widely studied for their empowerment outcomes.
In terms of evidence gaps pertinent to COVID-19, very little evidence was found on the outcomes of interventions with particular salience to pandemic outbreaks, such as access to and use of PPE, supplies or practices related to handwashing and social distancing. We also found no evaluation evidence on the effects of common emergency measures on girls under 18, including cash transfers, food and supply distribution, hotlines, emergency services for girls experiencing domestic violence and emergency health services. No studies explored questions related to girls’ access to essential technologies, such as mobile phones, nor how to ensure girls’ access to safe transportation.
The available evidence and gaps on girl outcomes are contrasted in the EGM, and we hope this can be used as a policy tool to use evidence for decisions on interventions, as well as to advocate for more research to address the gaps.
The EGM and the accompanying report are a collaboration by The Population Council and AGIP.
Data gaps on adolescent wellbeing are a critical shortcoming of the sustainable development framework
The 2030 SDG framework, premised on the goal to leave no one behind, focuses on the world’s most disadvantaged and overlooked populations. To deliver on that promise, the SDG agenda calls for robust and disaggregated data collection that captures the inequalities faced by women, girls and young people more broadly, whose realities are often masked by more general reporting. By analysing data from 15 countries representative of their regions, research conducted by the Gender and Adolescence Global Evidence (GAGE) Program, in partnership with AGIP, examines the extent to which disaggregated data is available for key SDG indicators and the state of progress for adolescents and youth.
The recently published Adolescents and SDG report shows young people face significant risks of being left behind. SDG education and learning data collection on formal educational outcomes is robust, yet there is little information for non-formal and vocational education or information and communication technology skills. Findings vary by region, with boys performing ahead of girls in educational outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa, as opposed to the MENA region where they are significantly outperformed by their female peers. For the countries examined, girls in Asian countries are also least likely to be in education, employment or training when compared to boys or girls in other regions.
SDG indicators related to bodily integrity and freedom from violence yield useful data disaggregated by sex but fail to regularly report on age disaggregation, concealing the major risks young people face in distinct stages of childhood and adolescence.
Health data includes access to drinking water and sanitation services, which, while useful in clarifying differences between urban and rural access to health infrastructure, shed little light on disparities associated with sex and age. The complete lack of SDG data related to psychosocial wellbeing is another critical gap. We do know that the vast majority of children and adolescents experience caregiver punishment and/or psychological aggression, including widespread violence, which has negative knock-on effects into adulthood.
Finally, SDG data shows adolescent girls are disadvantaged compared to male peers in negotiating their own time and being able to maintain their voice, agency and community engagement, which is an important antecedent of women’s political empowerment (Target 5.3).
Conclusion
Overall, the report highlights that data is inconsistently reported and lacks specificity for a nuanced understanding of the threats that young people face. Where age intersects with other vulnerabilities, including sex and disability, impacts are felt across capabilities and extend far into adulthood. Closing this gap is essential to realizing the central tenet of the SDG agenda; leaving no one behind requires a deliberate approach informed by robust data that accurately reflects the needs and conditions of diverse vulnerable populations, including young people.
To learn more about AGIP and the work we do, please contact the AGIP secretariat.
