The result of the validation process is our System of Indicators for Assessing Municipal Youth Policies (SIAPJove) in the Catalan and Spanish context. We here present some ideas regarding the system’s usefulness that are worth bearing in mind: 
  1. The final aim is the evaluation of municipal youth policies, not the evaluation of the local effects of national youth policies. The tool is, therefore, meaningful when applied voluntarily and when it leads to the improvement of public youth policies and not the evaluation of agents from outside the municipality.
  2. It is based on the idea of evaluation as not merely being a way to account for the use of public resources, but also, and especially, in order to promote reflection and the consolidation of good policies in the sector. To this end, it has to aid in strengthening youth departments and in building organizational capacity. It does not set out to be a tool that controls or certifies the completion of the task.
  3. Evaluation is understood to be a systematic assessment of the merit and worth of youth policies through plans, programmes and projects, of their legitimacy, relevance and/or equity and attention to needs.
  4. The system has to serve to develop the ability to evaluate capacities and a culture of evaluation, so that it becomes an instrument for the improval of programmes. This improvement may refer to the fact that it is based on real needs, as well as the fact that it may improve the process itself, make it accessible to different groups, improve its management, etc.
  5. An assessment tool that does not exclude other evaluation processes. Quite the opposite, in fact. This assessment system should be implemented alongside other evaluative processes developed using other methodologies.
  6. A tool for annual and periodic implementation. It can also be used on an individual basis to focus on specific interests and specific areas for assessment. We recommend its periodic application, however, in order to provide reference data on the evolution of the system.
  7. A system in which local government managers and youth officers themselves direct this assessment process, as a function that forms part of their everyday work as youth development officers. It is recommended that, wherever possible, the local government manager responsible for youth participates in this assessment process, and that the interpretation and reflection process at the end of each level of assessment be as open and participatory as possible, to both other municipal bodies and youth organizations and groups.
  8. A useful tool for opening up a debate with young people and other experts on youth and/or youth policies in order to interpret said policies, build a shared vision and draw subsequent conclusions. One application of this proposal may fit with the idea of a democratic perspective to evaluation, there being to some degree a wish to incorporate evaluation by citizens into the management and application of municipal policies (Carreras and González, 2012). This requires a certain specificity, explicit awareness and political will to take this group into account and attend to it.
  9. This proposal also aims to be a reference tool that orients in the collection of disaggregated data and information regarding youth. The instrument should also be a didactic tool that orients systemization and the drafting of reports and material for the assessment and planning of municipal youth policies. Many indicators may lack the reference data that facilitate the correct interpretation of results. Despite this, we believe that only the systematic application of the indicators can aid us in changing this situation and provide us with criteria and reference data for the design of youth policies.
  10. It is easy to fall into the trap of comparing the results of different municipalities. This tool has not been designed with this end in mind; the starting point in each case is different and, therefore, calls for specific, differentiated efforts, strategies and policies. A small degree of progress in one municipality may mean highly-successful youth policies, while similar results in another municipality may show a reversal in the policies that were being carried out.
  11. The evaluation indicators were designed to avoid discrimination between larger and smaller municipalities. There may, however, be scenarios that are advantageous for one or the other. We believe that, in theory, these cases are few and far between and that, in any case, the final interpretation and evaluation is made by the municipality itself. However, in small municipalities, actions that are the result of joint work across administrations may be seen to be municipal policies.