To increase employment and reduce poverty, government and NGOs commonly train youth as carpenters, tailors, mechanics, welders, cooks and other vocations. Evidence is thin, however, on the worth and efectiveness of such spending.
We are working with Uganda’s Office of the Prime Minister and The World Bank to evaluate Uganda’s largest youth vocational training program. The evaluation will answer several key questions, including:
- How does the program impact the lives of beneficiaries?
- How many start up and sustain a business?
- What is the impact on income, employment, assets, and savings?
- What are the determinants of success (and failure) in vocations and entrepreneurship?
- How do any economic gains spill over into other areas of life:
- physical and psychological health;
- risky behaviors;
- social and political participation;
- investments in children’s health and education; and
- the transfer knowledge to neighbors and friends?
- How can govermments better manage decentralized, community driven development programs better?
- What is the contribution of extensi0n services and oversight?
- How to incentize delivery of extension services?
Principal Researchers
The evaluation is further supported by Suleiman Namara and Sebastian Martinez of the World Bank, and financed by the World Bank’s Spanish Impact Evaluation Fund.
Background and Program
The Northern Uganda Social Action Fund (NUSAF) represents the largest post-war reconstruction program to date in war-torn northern Uganda. A central component , the Youth Opportunities Program (YOP) is a decentralized, community- and district-driven system of youth vocational training.
It targets groups of poor, underemployed youth aged 15 to 35. Groups range in size from 20 to 40 youth, and receive cash grants of approximately $10,000 per group for skills training, tools, and cooperative start-up funds. Nearly 10,000 young men and women received YOP support in 2007.
Evaluation Strategy
While vocationally training is a common development intervention, evidence on its effectiveness is thin, particularly in Africa. Much of this evidence, moreover, uses quasi-experimental methods and small sample sizes, limiting its usefulness and crediblity.
Since the number of eligible applicants to YOP far exceeded the program’s capacity, half of the 522 eligible youth groups were assigned to the program or a comparison group via a government lottery.
In 2008 we completed a baseline survey with five youth in each of the 522 groups. The survey included detailed household socio-economic, health, and psychological information, and included behavioral measurements of risk and time preferences, group productivity, trust, and group dynamics.
Beneficiaries completed their training in mid-2009 and presently are starting up small enterprises. We expect a midterm report in October/November 2009 and a final report in mid-2010.
Managing and incentivizing decentralized development programs
From our observation of previous YOP beneficiaries, too many youth groups managed their funds unwisely for want of experience and guidance. All decentralized, community-driven development programs suffer from this same challenge. But how to improve the governance of decentralized development?
In the YOP evaluation, we assess the effectiveness of two forms of extension services, as well as incentives for their delivery.
One third of the youth groups received the program as usual—a cash transfer with only minimal oversight. One third of groups, however, received extra funds to hire a mentor to provide financial and other management advice. In the final third, funds for providing extension services were provided to the local givernment NUSAF office.
As we follow these groups over time we will be able to assess how mentoring affects spending and investment decisions, and how this in turns affects the success of the businesses. Moreover, we will alternative management and incentive schemes for providing these extension services–one driven by the community, the other by the govrnment bureaucracy.
Recent Comments