I write this reflection fresh from the closing sessions of the just-concluded Evidence to Impact (E2I) Symposium, still turning over a question that ran beneath nearly every conversation in the room: what is the role of young people in gathering, presenting, and implementing evidence for impact, particularly in sexual reproductive health and rights?
That question found its clearest expression in the symposium’s recurring call to co-create with adolescents and young people. The opening keynote set a tone of partnership, rallying young people to position themselves as equal partners in knowledge production rather than subjects of it. The opening plenary picked up where the keynote left off, but pointed the challenge outward, urging development partners to resource the young people who are already leading in this space. Read together, the two sessions framed the symposium’s central tension: matching opportunity with resources. It was the breakout sessions that pushed the conversation further, asking not just what needs to be done, but how it can be done right.
I felt that shift most directly in the first breakout session of Day One, where young researchers presented their own work: co-creation made visible. Two presentations, in particular, spoke to areas where Restless Development has invested meaningfully in engaging adolescents and young people.
The first examined how Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) is delivered in schools, and the gaps that persist despite the curriculum’s intent. The research shared in the session found that eight in ten countries across the Eastern and Southern Africa region deliver only the biological component of sexuality education, leaving the preventive dimension largely untaught, a gap that continues to feed teenage pregnancy among both in-school and out-of-school adolescents, and with it, declining student retention. As the presenter put it, “strengthening delivery is just as important as strengthening the curriculum.” That line stayed with me. In our own research, 34% of respondents reported receiving comprehensive sexual education, yet 33% said they relied on personal research when making decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. If a well-designed curriculum isn’t translating into informed decision-making, the question worth asking is how we make that curriculum count: how we move it from a delivered subject to a trusted source.
The second presentation picked up the thread of what makes delivery possible in the first place: financing. Drawing on a cost-benefit analysis of youth-friendly services in Uganda, the presenter made a case I found difficult to argue with: that infrastructure alone is not the investment. What matters just as much is stocking facilities with the right commodities and training personnel to deliver services without imposing a religious or moral filter on young people who walk through the door. Done well, the presenter argued, this kind of investment pays for itself: young people who can access services without judgment are young people able to contribute to the economy. Done poorly, which remains the reality across much of East and Southern Africa, restrictive norms continue to limit access. When I asked how these services are funded, the presenter’s answer was telling: it is difficult to separate government and external contributions, because no audit framework exists to track donor financing through to government delivery. Without that visibility, accountability suffers, and the moment a donor steps back, so does sustainability. It is precisely this kind of gap, invisible until someone looks for it, that makes the case for youth researchers as subject-matter experts of the problems we live with first-hand.
That same logic carried into Day Two, where the conversation turned to what is working: adolescent peer navigation in health service delivery. A wellness center in Eldoret offered a compelling model, pairing adolescents with peers in a way that does more than ease the awkwardness that often comes with an age gap; it positions young people as leaders and practitioners in their own right. The session echoed a panel I had served on earlier, organized by APHRC and focused on strengthening programming for parenting adolescents, which similarly traced the links between school health policy and genuine co-creation with young people. One thread connected both rooms: confidentiality, or the lack of it. As one panelist put it, adolescents in tightly knit communities often hesitate to access an SRH service or commodity precisely because they doubt it will be handled with the discretion it deserves. Our own findings echoed this almost exactly: among 20- to 24-year-olds, a notable share said they were not comfortable at all discussing their reproductive health with family or friends, a discomfort that eased among the 25-to-29 age group. [Note: the original draft lists 13% for both age groups here, which can’t be a meaningful contrast; please confirm the correct figure for the 25–29 group before publishing.] That the 20–24 bracket sits at the transition point between adolescence and young adulthood feels significant: low confidentiality and low comfort seem to move together, and both shape how fully young people can engage, contribute, and build the lives they’re working toward.
The symposium’s closing plenary brought the week full circle, returning to the question of meaningful engagement for young people and adolescents: how to co-create with and for them, in practice rather than principle. I had the privilege of responding to a question that sits at the center of my own work: how do we ensure that the lived experience and realities of young people are valued alongside academic and technical expertise in policy design and advocacy, so that the resulting policies are more responsive in practice? Grounded in two years of research experience with Restless Development, my answer was this:
“Share power equally. In research, that might look like including participants in your dissemination activities and presentations, and making visible the frustrations we too often leave out of the room. In civil society, it looks like resourcing youth-led implementation and building linkages around needs and priorities that extend beyond your scope of service delivery or research. Do not ignore evidence of a bigger challenge simply because it falls outside your project’s boundaries.”
I left the symposium eager to translate everything I had heard into something I could act on: evidence narratives turned into intervention, opportunity matched with the resources to make the most of it. Restless Development’s six-step youth-led research methodology offers exactly that pathway: a model that lets young people own the full arc of the work, from knowledge production through to accountability and dissemination. If this resonates and you’d like to learn more about meaningful youth and adolescent engagement, I’d encourage you to explore our findings or reach out to your nearest Restless Development country office.