Process Evaluation of the Youth
Livelihoods Programme
Evaluators
Jeanne Miranda, Ph.D., UCLA; Badru Bukenya, Ph.D. Makerere
University; and Rogers Kasirye, M.A. UYDEL
Presentation – Process Evaluation
• Intervention – the Youth Livelihoods Program
• Context
• Policy relevance
• Youth Livelihoods Program Theory of Change
• Process evaluation questions
• Key findings
Youth Livelihoods Programme
Youth Livelihoods Programme:
• Implemented
by Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social
Development
•A
rolling Government of Uganda programme
• Targets
poor and unemployed youth
• Targets
all 112 districts in the country and Kampala
Youth Livelihoods Programme
• Three components
• Skills
Development to support youth to obtain relevant
livelihoods skills (20% of budget).
• Livelihood
Support loans to finance assets for income
generating activities initiated by youth (70% of budget).
• Institutional
Support improve technical, administrative and
managerial capacity of key implementers of the Programme
(10% of budget).
Youth Livelihoods Program
• Target population
• Unemployed
• At
youth between 18 to 30 years of age
least 30% of participants are female
• The program is demand driven
• The program should have revolving support, such that youth
pay back loans
Youth Livelihoods Program
1. To provide youth with marketable vocational skills and
tool kits for self-employment and job creation.
2. To provide financial support to enable the youth to
establish income generating activities.
3. To provide the youth with entrepreneurship and life skills
training as an integral part of their livelihoods.
4. To provide youth with relevant knowledge and information
for attitudinal change (positive mind-set change).
Context of the Youth Livelihoods Programme
• Uganda has an estimated 6.5 million youth, representing
21.3% of the total population.
• About 32% of the youth are jobless.
• About 2 million youth are underemployed.
• Poor youth often lack collateral to obtain loans to begin
businesses.
Policy Relevance – Youth Livelihoods
Programme
• Responsive to Uganda’s Vision 2040, “A Transformed
Uganda Society from a Peasant to a Modern and
Prosperous County”
• In line with the Social Development Investment Plan II of
the Ministry of Gender, Labour, and Social Development.
Policy Relevance – Youth Livelihoods
Programme
• The Programme will be financed by the Government of
Uganda for the first 5-year implementation.
• Additional financing will be sought from partners, making
an evaluation particularly relevant.
Theory of Change
• Two basic assumptions
• Appropriate
• Money
staff are available to deliver the Programme
is available to support the Programme
Theory of Change
• Activities include:
• Stakeholders
• Technical
• Youth
• Youth
are identified in districts
staff are available
Interest groups are formed
fill out applications, are chosen, are funded with interest
free loan first year; 3 years to re-pay
Theory of Change
• Youth invest in profitable ventures
• Loans will be repaid
• Youth gain income generating capacities
• Youth are not engaging in negative behaviors
• A reduction in youth unemployment will occur
Theory of Change
• Underlying assumptions:
• Funds
will be available
• Local
politicians will mobilize youth
• Local
governments can carry out programme
• Youth
can form working groups
• Uganda
remains peaceful
Theory of Change
• Assumptions
•A
market exists for goods
• Process
will empower youth
• General
facilities are available, such as roads, water, etc. to
support the enterprises
• Government
priorities remain with youth
Process Evaluation Questions
• Does the Youth Livelihoods Programme operate as defined
by the Ministry of Gender, Labour, and Social Development
and captured in our Theory of Change?
• What are the primary outcomes of the process at each level
of government and for Youth Interest Groups?
Evaluation Methodology
• 10
Districts and Kampala (balance urban/rural, Phase
I or II, time)
•
103 Key Informant Interviews
• 40
Focus Groups
Study areas
4 Koboko
4 Kayunga
5 Ntungamo
4 Ntoroko
4 Busia
2 Kampala
3 Buyende
4 Lira
2 Masaka
3 Buvuma
4 Kotido
103 Key Informant Interviews
•
•
•
•
•
MGLSD and other central gov’t officials
Kampala Capital City Authority
Chief Administrative Officers
Finance Officers
YLP Focal Persons
Inputs & outputs of YLP
Annual YLP budget
22 billion*
Youth groups mobilised
6,425 (March 2016)
Operations funds (district)
4.25%
Preparatory trainings
2 days
No. of women beneficiaries
45%
Skills devt
6%
Livelihoods support
94%
Beneficiaries
• Youth in city streets
• Youth with HIV/AIDS
0.4%
• No formal education
2.0% • Single Parent
9.0%
11.8%
• Youth with disabilities 2.9%
• Secondary School
22.6%
• Graduates of Tertiary 7.0%
• School drop-out
44.5%
Enterprises
• Animal husbandry……………12
• Growing crops…………….......7
• Buying/selling…………………6
• Milling/bricks/welding………...6
• Bakery/catering………………..4
• Hair salon……………………...4
• Technology…………………….1
Youth Interest Groups
• 40 were interviewed
• 35 had been in existence for 6 months or longer
• 18
had successful enterprises
• 16
were still in business but struggling
•1
had failed
Youth Empowerment
• 40% say their lives have improved because of the program
• 37/40 reported plans for the future
• Training
others
• Expanding
their business
Enabling factors for the implementation of YLP
• High political support for the programme
• Committed staff
• Decentralised structures provide prospects for sustainability
• Most YIGs are enthusiastic about the project
• YLP has mobilized many young people to begin businesses
Case Study 1: Bakery in Masaka
• Group had formed prior to YLP
• Group had advice from an experienced baker
• Group has active bakery
•Are buying eggs, supplies, etc.
•Are training others
Kamuzinda Bakery
Factors inhibiting the implementation of YLP
• Inadequate preparation for some novice entrepreneurs
• Inadequate technical support in some areas, such as veterinary
services
• Group cohesion is a challenge; big groups (10-15 members)
Inadequate technical support
Case Study 2: Poultry in Ntungamo
• Formed after learning of YLP
• Chose poultry farming but no skills
• Built chicken houses
• Purchased chickens but with no skills in the area chickens
all died
• Are returning the little money from selling chicken houses
• Group no longer exists
Conclusions
• YLP in most districts was rolled out as per the
guidelines.
• Its objectives are in sync with the aspirations of the
youth.
• Youth appear empowered by the program
Recommendations
• Strengthen local technical capacity
• Encourage mentoring
• Standardize procedures for managing recoveries.