The biggest impact is likely with the core youth in Armenia whose work was featured by the grantee in the different exhibitions, and uploaded to the website and/or You Tube. This gave them a feeling of accomplishment and empowerment.

The grantee had good Google analytical reports on the use of project website. These show that it received more than 18,000 visitors to date and has uploaded more than 1,400 pages. Average time on site is about two minutes. Almost all of the visits originate in Armenia (91 percent) although it is difficult to determine how many visits came from the regions versus the city as most of the internet access from the regions is reportedly made through mobile devices that are registered in Yerevan. The majority of these visits originated through social media channels. The site is also used by the grantee to post the work of its Yerevan students and they access it frequently in trainings to show examples of products.

The grantee paid for the transport costs for children from outlying villages and towns to come to the central locations for the workshops. This allowed for the project to reach youth beyond those in the regional centers. This was an efficient way to reach youth in other areas of Armenia for a Yerevan-based organization. There was positive change in places by the youth asking questions about issues and taking photos and films of it. Many rural villages are small and these types of activities are not usual and would have been noticed.

The project lost relevance in implementation to achieving its development objectives as it focused on media skills and products and did not directly address the issues of youth participation, rights or democratization issues in Armenia. Although some youth showed full ownership and were substantially integrated into the project activities, others were not due to the intermittent nature of the contact. The grantee should increase focus on developing the links between skills training and producing media products and the democratic development outcomes sought.

The grantee did not decentralize its manner of implementation or develop synergies with potential local partners and youth efforts which could have increased project efficiencies and added value to the project. The grantee implemented all of the trainings itself, using its existing staff and volunteers, some of whom they were able to hire then under the project as almost full-time tutors. There were no programmatic partnerships evident with local organizations or media outlets in the different regions which could have facilitated the grantee’s work and provided for continuity of effort with the youth when the grantee was not present or which could have helped to develop the links between the youth and their media products and the higher level democratic outcomes sought.