BUILDING THE POTENTIAL OF YOUTH BASELINE …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MXKM.pdf · · 2017-09-02survey component 1: technical training institutions..... 9 survey component 2: youth

i

Ethiopia Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Service: Building the Potential of Youth Baseline Survey Report

BUILDING THE POTENTIAL OF

YOUTH BASELINE SURVEY

ETHIOPIA PERFORMANCE

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

SERVICES (EPMES)

NOVEMBER 2016

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development/Ethiopia. It was prepared independently by Social Impact, Inc.

ii


ETHIOPIA PERFORMANCE MONITORING

AND EVALUATION SERVICES (EPMES)

Building the Potential of Youth Baseline Survey

Contracted under AID-663-C-16-00010 – EPMES

Ethiopia Performance Monitoring and Survey Service (EPMES) for USAID/Ethiopia

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency

for International Development or the United States Government.

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency

for International Development or the United States Government.

DISCLAIMER

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 7

PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................. 7

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 9

SURVEY COMPONENT 1: TECHNICAL TRAINING INSTITUTIONS ............................................................................. 9

SURVEY COMPONENT 2: YOUTH PROFILE DATA SET ............................................................................................. 11

LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 13

QUALITATIVE DATA LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 13

SECONDARY DATA LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 13

FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................... 14

YOUTH LITERACY AND NUMERACY ........................................................................................................................... 15

SKILLS TRAINING AND WORKFORCE READINESS ...................................................................................................... 17

TTIS’ CAPACITY TO DELIVER LABOR MARKET-DRIVEN TRAINING .......................................................................... 21

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME .......................................................................................................................... 23

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 28

YOUTH LITERACY AND NUMERACY .......................................................................................................................... 28

WORKFORCE READINESS............................................................................................................................................. 28

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 28

EMPLOYMENT COACHING ........................................................................................................................................... 28

JOB PLACEMENT AND LABOR MARKET LINKAGES ................................................................................................... 28

TTI TRAINING CAPACITY ............................................................................................................................................ 29

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 30

YOUTH INCOME .......................................................................................................................................................... 31

RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 33

FOCUS AREA 1: TTI CAPACITY ................................................................................................................................... 33

FOCUS AREA 2: START-UP AND PRODUCTIVE ASSETS ............................................................................................. 33

FOCUS AREA 3: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ...................................................................................................... 33

FOCUS AREA 4: GENDER ............................................................................................................................................. 34

FOCUS AREA 5: YOUTH PROFILE AND PROJECT DATA .......................................................................................... 34

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 35

ANNEX I: STATEMENT OF WORK ............................................................................................................................... 35

ANNEX II: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .............................................................................................................. 54

ANNEX III: TEAM COMPOSITION: ............................................................................................................................... 55

ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ................................................................................................................... 56

ANNEX V: SAMPLE DETAILS ......................................................................................................................................... 67

ANNEX VI: LIST OF CODES FOR QUALITY TRAINING/EDUCATION ....................................................................... 70

ANNEX VII: LIST OF CODES FOR ACCESS/AVAILABILITY .......................................................................................... 71

ANNEX VIII: LIST OF CODES FOR RELEVANCE .......................................................................................................... 72

ANNEX IX: DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF YOUTH PROFILE DATA, BY REGION ............................................ 73

ANNEX X: EMPLOYMENT AND GENDER ................................................................................................................... 74

ANNEX XI: ADDITIONAL LITERACY FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 76

ANNEX XII: PERCENT OF YOUTH OWNING PRODUCTIVE ASSETS, BY REGION ................................................... 77

ANNEX XIII: PRIMARY PROJECT BASELINE INDICATORS.......................................................................................... 78

ANNEX XIV: YOUTH PROFILE DATA COLLECTION TOOL ...................................................................................... 79

iv


ANNEX XV: YOUTH INTAKE PROFILE (BASELINE) DATA COLLECTION GUIDE .................................................. 85

TABLES & FIGURES

Table 1: Sample Regional Breakdown ......................................................................................................................... 11

Table 2: Demographics, Whole sample ...................................................................................................................... 12

Table 3: Primary Baseline Indicators ........................................................................................................................... 14

Table 4: Youth Profile Education Levels..................................................................................................................... 16

Table 5: Access to Development Assets.................................................................................................................... 17

Table 6: Frequency of Availability/Access Codes ..................................................................................................... 18

Table 7: Frequency of Gender Codes ........................................................................................................................ 19

Table 8: Frequency of Codes for Relevance ............................................................................................................. 26

Figure 1: Farmers Training Center, Jigjiga, Somali. .................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Self-Reported Literacy ................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3: Level of Education by Region....................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 4: Employment Status, by Region .................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 5: Productive Assets, by Type .......................................................................................................................... 25

v


ACRONYMS

CoC Center of Certification

EDC Education Development Center, Inc.

FCE Facilitator for Change Ethiopia

FGD Focus Group Discussions

HUNDEE HUNDEE- Oromo Grassroots Development Initiative

ICT Information and Communications Technology

KII Key Informant Interview

NGO Non-governmental organization

OS Occupational Standards

PADet Professional Alliance for Development in Ethiopia

REST Relief Society of Tigray

SCI Save the Children International

SI Social Impact, Inc.

TTI Technical Training Institution

TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USG United States Government

WBL Work-based learning

YCS Youth Cohort Study

YES hub Youth Employment Service Hub

Youth POTENTIAL USAID/Ethiopia’s Promoting Opportunities through Training, Education,

Transition Investment and Livelihoods for youth

1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Social Impact has developed this Baseline Survey Report of USAID/Ethiopia’s Promoting Opportunities

through Training, Education, Transition Investment, and Livelihoods for Youth (Youth POTENTIAL)

Activity as the second in a trio of independent surveys of this activity.

The objectives of this baseline survey are to 1) determine the current status of youth focused training in

the technical training institutions (TTIs) in terms of availability, quality, and relevance prior to project

inputs; 2) identify the major challenges of local training centers/institutes in target woredas to integrate

and deliver market driven trainings prior to project inputs; and 3) conduct a secondary analysis of the

project Youth Profile data set to establish baseline benchmarks and an overall profile of participating

youth prior to accessing project activities. Baseline data will be compared to future midline and end-line

data to detect changes in these areas correlated to project inputs.

The survey team conducted a secondary analysis of the Youth Profile data set collected by the

implementing partner, Save the Children, of youth at entry to project activities. At the time of this

baseline survey, 5,708 individual Youth Profiles had been entered into the Youth profile database. The

profiles contain basic demographic information about youth, as well as information about employment,

income, and access to productive and social assets corresponding to key indicators for the project. The

team also conducted 26 semi-structured individual and small group interviews of TTI instructors and

administrators, and 16 focus groups with youth participants at 14 different TTIs across nine woredas in

six regions (See Annex V for location and site details). Data collection tools for the latter activity

integrated quantitative and qualitative questions that addressed perceptions and recollections of existing

services at the TTIs in terms of quality, relevance, availability, and their connection to market needs and

employment and livelihood outcomes. The data collection activities for this baseline were conducted

from October 12-31, 2016. The survey is designed to be used by USAID Ethiopia, Save the Children,

and their partners as a baseline information to compare with key outcomes in employment and income

indicators over the life of the project.

Summary of Findings

TTIs offer a range of training options, from short-term ad hoc courses to long-term standardized

programs. Access to these courses differs by gender and between rural and urban youth, with females in

general, and rural youth of both sexes experiencing additional constraints. Graduate trainees’ options to

seek self-employment as a feasible income-generating alternative are negatively impacted by the lack of

soft skill training. Female students overall, and employed youth of both sexes also lack the soft skills

needed to improve their job opportunities and working conditions.

The survey team observed a general lack of materials, equipment, and facilities in almost all TTIs,

including Technical and Vocational Educational Training (TVET) colleges and Farmer Training Centers

(FTC), which is, in turn, critically affecting the quality of training in the target regions.

The majority of the survey participants reported that the quality of training is moderate to low. Most

colleges are not perceived as having competent staff members, which limits the quality and effectiveness

of the activities, missions, and visions of the TVET programs. Overall, most TTIs lack access to accurate,

updated, and systematically gathered information about job market conditions. Most do some form of

informal market data gathering, typically based on anecdotal evidence informally obtained through “word

of mouth.”

2


Self-employment requires initial capital, in addition to

training for and passing the Center of Certification

(COC) exam; most students lack access to start-up

capital, and the lack of access to hands-on training and

Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

makes passing the CoC exams more difficult. Most

TTIs are reportedly severely under-resourced at all

levels. This constraint greatly reduces their capacity

to offer up-to-date and relevant training based on

regional or local labor market conditions. Participants

identified a weak, or non-existent, link between TTIs

and private industry, with the exceptions of Afar and

Oromia, where organized industrial parks include the

TTIs in supporting and training workers.

Female youth comprise 46% of the Youth Profile sample, and in focus group discussions, expressed a

wide variety of career interests. With the exception of the girls themselves, most other survey

participants in all regions exhibited either a pervasive lack of awareness regarding the needs and

preferences of female students, or made assumptions about what girls prefer. Survey participants told

the baseline survey team that they were aware of no programs, services, or outreach interventions

initiated or organized by the TTIs that targeted females. Most respondents said the TTIs relied on local

government bodies for this purpose.

While 95% of the Youth Profile sample report being able to read and write, 44% have a primary school

education or less, and likely do not have all the skills required for non-laborer skilled work training.

Given that participants with lower literacy skills are more likely to benefit from hands-on and practical

learning modes, the lack of such opportunities put this segment of the sample at particular risk of not

benefiting from current employment development opportunities.

Broader economic trends will have a significant impact on the ability of participants to improve their

employment and income circumstances even if project activities meet their objectives. It is clear that

while most participants have access to advice and counseling on employment, they also report

extremely low access to employment services that lead to employment or improved employment or

income.

Figure 1: Farmers Training Center, Jigjiga,

Somali.

3


Baseline Indicator Figures

The table below contains the primary project indicators and will be used as baseline benchmarks:

INDICATOR BASELINE DATA / INFORMATION

I. Proportion of persons (youth) with literacy and numeracy

skills1

Literacy: 95%

Numeracy: 93%

II. Number of persons (youth) with workforce readiness skills2 See footnote.

III. Person hours of training completed in workforce

development3

222,566 (about one week—39

hours—of training per individual

profile on average)

IV. Number of youth who utilized coaching to search for

employment4

0 (See footnote)

V. Number of job placements for youth facilitated by TTIs5 0 (See footnote)

VI. Number of TTIs with capacity to deliver training6 See footnote.

VII. Proportions of youth who are employed currently

(disaggregated by self and wage employment; and by sex)

Total: 25.09%

Self-employed: 2.65%

Wage employment: 22.44%

Male: 30.16%

Female: 19.16%

VIII. Average annual income of youth employed currently7 See footnote

Even though self-reported literacy and numeracy is very high, close to half of the Youth Profile sample

will likely be in need of literacy and numeracy remediation and will present a significant challenge to

changing employment and income indicators. Given the very high self-reported literacy and numeracy

rate, this indicator is unlikely to change through the life of the project.

1 MEP has indicator of "improved literacy and numeracy skills" so that value would presumably be 0 for now. This was

supposed to be collected through a literacy assessment, but was not available at the time of this baseline. The PMDS data

quality assessment conducted in September recommends that this indicator be dropped because the project does not support

literacy and numeracy improvement directly. 2 The PIRS for this indicator specify that data are captured through a pre- and post-survey, and this is currently tracked through

the Employment Tool. The baseline team did not have access to the employment tool dataset at the time of this baseline.

Outcome level indicators on changes to employment are also being collected through the Outcome Survey in some areas. The

PMDS recommends that if the Outcome Survey is being scaled up to cover all program areas, this could replace the

Employment Tool, as collecting both is redundant and having a single source will improve consistency. 3 This number represents the total number of hours all youth in the youth profile data set report accessing workforce

development training. There were some missing month/year assignments to some training entries, and 22 of the 240 trainings

reported did not have hours recorded. 4 This value is presumed to be 0. Outcome data was available in the Tigray only, but not overall (420 youth, 97%). POTENTIAL

should be tracking this data using a program form in accordance with their PIRS. 5 This value is presumed to be 0. There is an outcome data collection form for this, but the baseline team did not have access

to this data set at the time of this baseline. 6 The current PIRS indicates that the data source for this indicator will be the OCAT, which is a general capacity building

framework for organizational development. However, this capacity building indicator is limited to the WRN and other soft skills

training of trainers provided by Youth Potential. The PMDS recommends that because the broad OCA tool will not be precise

enough to measure change in training delivery capacity, the OCA tool should be removed from the PIRS. 7 Income data in the data set is not currently reliable. See Limitations section for a detailed discussion on income data in the

Youth Profile data set.

4


There is a general lack of access to soft skills training. Some workforce development services and

training are available, and Youth Profile respondents report over 200,000 hours of training accessed.

However, their quality and/or relevance to project participants obtaining or improving employment or

self-employment were reported as very low.

The findings of the baseline survey indicated:

• Weak links between TTIs and private industry in most cases, with some exceptions in the Afar

and Oromia regions.

• Weak links between TTIs and regional and woreda government bodies, except in Jijjiga, Somali

region.

• Limited partnerships between TTIs, civil society groups and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs).

• A wide variety of short and long-term courses and training in multiple subjects offered by TTIs.

However, the quality of these courses and training is generally low due to a lack of internal

capacity, up-to-date equipment, resources, and practical or applied training opportunities.

• Severely limited capacity of TTI instructors.

• Limited ability of TTIs to offer quality and up-to-date training due to lack of access by both

instructors and students to ICT facilities.

• Difficulties to rural students in accessing TTI training.

• A general lack of awareness on the part of both instructors and administrators (as well as male

students) regarding the needs and preferences of female youth.

• Inaccurate prevalence and biased gender assumptions that serve to constrain female students’

access to both relevant training and employment opportunities.

• Ineffective measures to recruit and serve the needs of female students at the TTIs.

• Absence of targeted outreach, recruitment, and support initiatives for girls.

• Numerous external factors affect the ability of TTIs to deliver youth-focused, market-driven

training.

• Considerable number of unemployed youth (three quarters of the Youth Profile sample) and

more than 96% report a lack of access to quality and relevant employment services and training.

• Agricultural assets are the primary productive assets accessed by youth in the profile data.

Similar characteristics between female and male youth when it comes to employment and

development assets, but the barriers to access workforce development services and improve

employment and income are considerably larger for females.

• Short and long-term courses and training in multiple subjects are available at most TTIs, but

poor in quality and most training fails to impart skills that assist in finding or improving

employment or self-employment circumstances.

• Lack of access to start-up capital and hands-on experience for trained youth is lowering the

chances that they will establish successful businesses.

• Students have limited confidence in achieving the required competency to obtain occupational

qualification certificates from CoC.

• A weak link between the completion of the training and the potential for meaningful

employment.

• Limited practical/hands-on/on-the-job training opportunities.

• Limited access to quality market data by TTIs.

Recommendations

5


As this is a baseline survey, these recommendations focus on areas where attention can be paid by the

project to increase the likelihood of participants achieving the intended impacts on project participants.

These focus areas include:

• Increase the capacity of TTIs in terms of instructor capacity, up-to-date equipment, resources,

and market connections to offer quality, relevant training and support services to meet the

needs of both employed and unemployed youth of both genders.

• Make start-up and productive assets more available to youth.

• Support the increase in and strengthening of partnerships between workforce development

projects and employers.

• Address widespread gender assumptions, the particular barriers for girls, and the lack of more

targeted outreach and support for female youth at the TTIs.

• Fix problems with the collection of income and other monitoring data.

Map of Ethiopia

Photo from: http://www.ethiovisit.com/ethiopia/images/Ethiopia_regions_english2.png

http://www.ethiovisit.com/ethiopia/images/Ethiopia_regions_english2.png

6


7


INTRODUCTION

Social Impact has developed this Performance Survey Baseline Report for USAID/Ethiopia’s Promoting

Opportunities through Training, Education, Transition Investment and Livelihoods for youth (Youth

Potential) Activity as the second in a trio8 of independent surveys of this Activity. The findings of this

survey establish a baseline against which project progress and indicator attainment will be measured.

The objectives of this baseline survey are to:

1. Determine the current status of youth focused training in the technical training institutions

(TTIs) in terms of availability, quality and relevance prior to project inputs;

2. Establish the major challenges of local training centers/ institutes in target woredas to integrate

and deliver market driven trainings prior to project inputs, and

3. Conduct a secondary analysis of the project Youth Profile data set to establish baseline

benchmarks and an overall profile of participating youth prior to accessing project activities.

Baseline data will be compared to future midline and end-line data in order to detect changes in

these areas correlated to project inputs.

Project Description

Youth Potential is a five-year activity implemented by Save the Children International (SCI) in

partnership with Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), HUNDEE-Oromo Grassroots

Development Initiative (HUNDEE), and Professional Alliance for Development in Ethiopia (PADet),

Relief Society of Tigray (REST) and Facilitator for Change Ethiopia (FCE). The Activity’s information is

summarized below.

ACTIVITY NAME USAID’S BUILDING THE POTENTIAL

OF YOUTH

Cooperative Agreement AID-663-A-15-00006

Start Date – End Date Jan 1, 2015 – December 31,2019

Total Estimated Cost $17,326,954

Activity Funding DA, Higher Education

Implementing Partner Save the Children International (SCI)

Activity AOR Tahir Gero

The purpose of POTENTIAL is to provide Ethiopian youth (ages 15-29) in rural areas and towns with

access to workforce development/livelihood support and resources, tailored to their specific needs and

market demand, so they can a) achieve increased income; and b) strengthen skills, knowledge and social

capital required to achieve economic self-sufficiency over the longer-term. The results framework of the

activity is included in Annex I of this document.

The Activity plans to directly reach 34,537 Ethiopian youth in six regions, helping them escape the cycle

of poverty. The Activity is implemented with the following principles:

• By using targeted assessments, the Youth Potential team will ensure training and service

providers consider market relevance and target curricula and programs to emerging skills needs.

8 The trio includes a Performance Monitoring and Data Quality assessment submitted in mid-October, this baseline

performance assessment, and an upcoming longitudinal Youth Cohort study.

8


• By focusing on skill building, Youth Potential will offer tailored world-class technical and life skills

trainings to create more viable livelihood prospects. By focusing on skill building, Youth Potential

will offer tailored world-class technical and life skills trainings to create more viable livelihood

prospects.

• By expanding approaches and offerings in work-based learning (WBL), including employer visits,

organized job-shadowing, short-term employment, and internships, both learners and employers

will benefit from training and supervisory support, leading to workforce-ready and employable

youth with practical experience.

• By implementing through “hubs,”9 Youth Potential will build Youth Service Provider Networks

and provide a cost-effective approach to enhance support services access for remote

communities and disadvantaged groups.

Youth Potential project performance indicators are presented in Annex IX. These indicators are

currently under revision, based on recommendations from an earlier data quality assessment conducted

by Social Impact as part of the trio of baseline survey activities. The primary baseline indicators and

values are presented in Annex XIII.

9 Yes Hubs are intended to be an informal meeting and organizing space for youth, where short courses in business

and entrepreneurship and finding employment are offered, as well as other workforce development resources.

9


METHODOLOGY

The survey design is divided into two components: a qualitative study of a purposeful and stratified

sample of 14 Technical Training Institutes across six regions of Ethiopia, and a quantitative secondary

analysis of the Youth Profile data set provided by the lead implementing partner Save the Children. The

survey is designed to be used by USAID Ethiopia, Save the Children, and their partners as a baseline to

compare with key outcomes in employment and income indicators over the life of the project.

Survey Component 1: Technical Training Institutions

Baseline Survey Questions

Data collected from TTIs was driven by the following two research questions. The answers to these

questions are used to inform the status of the primary baseline indicators:

1. What is the status of youth focused training in the technical training institutions (TTIs) in terms

of availability, quality and relevance for the needs of young men and women?

2. What are the major challenges of local training centers/ institutes in target woredas to integrate

and deliver market driven trainings?

Sample

A purposeful and stratified sampling approach was undertaken to construct the sample for this

component. A total of 14 TTIs currently receiving or targeted to receive project inputs by the start of

the survey were included in the sample, representing at least one TTI from each of the six regions;

however, evaluators were not able to reach the staff and students from one TTI. Of the 14 TTIs that

were reached, five are located in pastoral woredas. At each TTI, one administrator, usually the Dean or

Vice Dean, and two to three instructors were interviewed. The instructors were chosen with assistance

from Save the Children and local partner staff to include instructors representing different trades as well

as those teaching short-and long-term training. Female instructors were interviewed where available,

which resulted in 8 of 27 instructors being female. In addition, one male and one female focus group

discussion, each comprised of about 5-10 discussants, was convened at each TTI visited. The groups

were arranged by the TTI instructors from their classes.

Data Collection

The data collection activities for this baseline were conducted from October 12-31, 2016. During this

time, two teams collected data from 15 TTIs that are currently receiving or slated to receive services

from Youth Potential (see Survey Team description in Annex III). Twenty-six semi-structured

interviews of TTI instructors and administrators and 16 focus groups of youth were conducted at 14

different TTIs across nine woredas in six regions integrating quantitative and qualitative types of

questions (See Annex IV for the data collection instruments and Annex V for sample and itinerary

details). Of the 14 TTIs sampled, four were contacted by phone rather than visited in person due to

security issues. These questions addressed perceptions and recollections of existing services at the TTIs

in terms of quality, relevance, and availability, and their connection to market needs, employment and

livelihood outcomes.

The following data collection methods were utilized.

10


Document and archival review: This entailed an examination of project-related documents collected

from SCI. Data sources included the following (a list of documents reviewed is provided in Annex II):

• Project, partner, and TTI MIS and other related monitoring data, where available

• Existing internal and external surveys

• Quarterly and annual reports and work plans.

Semi-structured interviews (SSIs): A total of 26 individual and small group interviews were

conducted at 1410 TTIs designated for Youth Potential services across nine woredas in all six regions.

Twenty-seven instructors and nine administrators participated, and were asked questions that addressed

perceptions and recollections of existing services at the TTIs in terms of quality, relevance, and

availability, and their connection to market needs, employment and livelihood outcomes. Phone

interviews were conducted for four of the 14 TTIs in SNNP, Oromia, and Afar due to logistical and

security issues. Phone interviews were conducted with instructors, administrators, and youth in SNNP,

Oromia, and Afar due to logistical and security considerations. The number key informants interviewed

are as follows (see Annex V for a table of the sample details):

1. TTI Instructors (27)

2. TTI Administrators (9)

Focus Group Discussions: Evaluators attempted to convene one female and one male focus group at

each TTI visited, but in some cases, students, often girls, were not available. This was done in order to

acquire different gender perspectives on access to training and employment. A total of 16 focus group

discussions (FGDs) comprised of 48 male and 38 female youths were facilitated by evaluators across 13

TTIs (one TTI contacted via telephone was not able to organize a focus group). Facilitators led

discussions in separate groups of males and females. Focus groups were structured to facilitate

discussion among group members on the availability, quality, and relevance of existing training and

employment opportunities facilitated at the TTIs. Focus groups over the phone were conducted more in

the style of a group interview; however, discussions between participants did occur in all instances.

Analysis

Qualitative Data from the semi-structured interviews and focus groups was recorded daily onto

summary sheets organized by research question. A sub-sample of these summary sheets were first open

coded—a method of marking blocks of text with thematic identifiers. From this list of codes, a list of

focused codes was generated by combining similar codes and revising others in order to relate them

directly to the research questions. All summary sheets were coded using the focused codes and

recorded on a tally sheet. The tally sheets enabled evaluators to determine the frequency of certain

responses and themes that arose in focus groups (expressed in the findings below as the number of

focus groups out of the total where the theme was expressed) and semi-structured interviews

(expressed in the findings below as a proportion of interviewees that expressed the theme). Annex XI

contains summary information from the tally sheets.

10 The original intention was to visit 18 TTIs as stated in the Scope of Work; however, three of the institutions

originally included in the project's activities were ultimately not included, and new sites have yet to be selected.

Research participants at one of the sites in SNNP that was scheduled for a phone interview were not available.

11


Survey Component 2: Youth Profile Data Set

Data Collection

Youth Profile Data Set: SCI provided its internal Youth Profile data for secondary analysis in order

for this baseline to present a national and regional baseline profile of the youth who, at the time of this

writing, have signed up to participate in any Youth Potential-supported activities. SCI collects this profile

in hard copy for all participating youth at the first training a youth attends. SCI then enters the data into

an electronic database using tablets for entry. The profile collects basic demographic information about

youth, as well as information about employment, income and access to productive and social assets,

which correspond to key indicators for the project. SCI trains youth facilitators in this data collection

tool, and provides a written explanation guide to the questions.

Analysis

Quantitative Data: The values of selected indicators and demographic characteristics were analyzed

from the Youth Profile data set using STATA. Following cleaning and validity testing, simple descriptive

and frequency statistics were generated to present national and regional demographic, employment, and

educational baseline values. The Youth Profile data collection instrument used by Save the Children is

presented in Annexes XIV and XV.

According to the project PMDS, data trackers will be used by SCI to document changes in employment,

income, and access to productive and social assets of participants over time. Because we expect SCI to

continue to add new participants to the data set, as well as update individual profiles through the data

trackers, baseline values will be re-analyzed at midline and endline to accurately reflect changes to

participant demographics and project indicators over time.

Sample Description

At the time of this baseline, nearly one-third of youth participants are from the Amhara region, while

the smallest proportion (five percent) is from Oromia. The proportions in Table 1 below do not reflect

project targets, but rather proportions at the time of this baseline.

Table 1: Sample Regional Breakdown

REGION NUMBER OF YOUTH PERCENT OF SAMPLE

Afar 411 7%

Amhara 1818 32%

Oromia 311 5%

SNNP 980 17%

Somali 1074 19%

Tigray 1114 20%

TOTAL 5708 100%

The participating youth are 54% male. Across the regions, between 10% and 40% report being married

(See Annex IX). Of those who reported being married, nearly 70% report having children. This suggests

that more than one in five participants, primarily concentrated in Afar, Somali, and SNNP, feel pressure

to support a family.

12


Table 2: Demographics, Whole sample

DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE

SEX

Male 53.9%

Female 46.1%

MARITAL STATUS

Single 75.4%

Married 21.8%

Divorced 2.8%

AVERAGE AGE

20.8 years

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE

5.3 people

13


LIMITATIONS

Qualitative Data Limitations

The findings and conclusions of the TTI study are largely based on the perceptions and recollections of

administrators, teachers, and students. In some locations, the project had already initiated activities; thus,

participants were asked to recall conditions prior to the implementation of the Youth Potential inputs to

gather baseline data. In both cases, this increases the possibility of recall error or perception bias. This

was partially addressed by triangulating from multiple sources at each TTI, including administrators,

instructors, and students. Additionally, students and instructors who had yet to be exposed to project

inputs were included in the sample. Multiple interviewers were used, all of whom were thoroughly

trained and observed using the data instruments prior to field work to maximize the reliability of the

data.

Data from three of the six regions sampled in this survey were collected over the phone due to security

conditions or logistical issues. In these cases, data collectors were not able to directly observe

conditions at these locations.

Secondary Data Limitations

This baseline includes analysis of internal project data collected by Save the Children from its Youth

Profile form, collected upon youths’ registration in the project. The Data Systems Review SI conducted

earlier in 2016 did not review the Youth Profile data management systems in depth, as the whole data

set was not yet made available. SI has analyzed the data, though a formal quality assessment of this data

has not been completed. SI checked data for internal logical consistencies for indicators analyzed (e.g.,

that age of marriage was reported only for youth who were married, and that age fell within the project

range) and excluded anything that appeared to be a data entry error (e.g., 110 people living in one

household). Generally, this resulted in less than one percent of data being excluded.

One limitation is that the data are collected on a rolling basis, meaning that indicators such as

employment, which vary seasonally, are not going to be reported consistently between survey

participants. Because the data was collected directly by the implementing partner, the survey team

cannot guarantee the quality of these data. The extent to which this data set is subject to such bias is

currently unknown; as such, this report triangulates these data with qualitative data where possible. For

example, questions from the Youth Profile data set regarding the ownership of productive assets and

access to employment services were compared to the way youth discussed these topics in focus groups.

The Youth Profile includes a series of questions on income, for which it is generally difficult to acquire

reliable data. As a result, the income data in the Youth Profile data set is inconsistent. The Profile asks

survey participants on what basis they can easily report their income (daily, weekly, monthly or annually)

and the estimated earning per that unit. At least 16% of project enrollees appear to be reporting income

far above or below the expected range based on nationally available data, or else are obvious errors (for

example, reported working days per month higher than 31). This requires the engagement of those

facilitators who were collecting the data to fully clean the data set, which was not completed as of the

time of this survey. There are likely a combination of recall problems, differing interpretations between

survey participants and enumerators of the questions’ meaning, and data entry errors. Simply dropping

the questionable data is premature at this point and might result in inaccurately biasing income reporting

downwards through disproportionately dropping accurate but high income data. At this juncture,

income data are not included in this report due to its unreliability, and instead will be collected in the

course of the Youth Cohort Study.

14


FINDINGS

The following quantitative and qualitative findings are drawn from 1) Youth Profiles conducted by Save

the Children and their partners, and 2) the results of focus group discussions with students, and

interviews with administrators and instructors at 14 Technical Training Institutes across Ethiopia. These

findings reflect characteristics of youth enrolled in project activities prior to accessing them, as well as

the conditions at TTIs prior to project inputs. The baseline data below is organized by the following high

level program indicators:

Table 3: Primary Baseline Indicators



skills11

Literacy: 95%

Numeracy: 93%



development13



profile on average)


employment14

0 (See footnote)





Total: 25.09%



Male: 30.16%

Female: 19.16%


11 MEP has indicator of "improved literacy and numeracy skills" so that value would presumably be 0 for now. This was

supposed to be collected through a literacy assessment, but was not available at the time of this baseline. The PMDS data

quality assessment conducted in September recommends that this indicator be dropped because the project does not support

literacy and numeracy improvement directly. 12 The PIRS for this indicator specify that data are captured through a pre- and post-survey, and this is currently tracked

through the Employment Tool. The baseline team did not have access to the employment tool dataset at the time of this

baseline. Outcome level indicators on changes to employment are also being collected through the Outcome Survey in some

areas. The PMDS recommends that if the Outcome Survey is being scaled up to cover all program areas, this could replace the

Employment Tool, as collecting both is redundant and having a single source will improve consistency. 13 This number represents the total number of hours all youth in the youth profile data set report accessing workforce

development training. There were some missing month/year assignments to some training entries, and 22 of the 240 trainings

reported did not have hours recorded. 14 This value is presumed to be 0. Outcome data was available in the Tigray only, but not overall (420 youth, 97%). POTENTIAL

should be tracking this data using a program form in accordance with their PIRS. 15 This value is presumed to be 0. There is an outcome data collection form for this, but the baseline team did not have access

to this data set at the time of this baseline. 16 The current PIRS indicates that the data source for this indicator will be the OCAT, which is a general capacity building

framework for organizational development. However, this capacity building indicator is limited to the WRN and other soft skills training of trainers provided by Youth Potential. The PMDS recommends that because the broad OCA tool will not be precise

enough to measure change in training delivery capacity, the OCA tool should be removed from the PIRS. 17 Income data in the data set is not currently reliable. See Limitations section for a detailed discussion on income data in the

Youth Profile data set.

15


The indicator, “Number of youth beneficiaries with increased income” is not available here, as the

income data in the Youth profile data set is currently not clean or reliable enough to analyze properly.

See the Limitations section above for more details.

Youth literacy and numeracy

Figure 2: Self-Reported Literacy

Literacy and numeracy are reported as widespread across the cohort, shown in Figure 2 above, ranging

from around 80% among women in Afar and Somali, and 100% for both sexes in Oromia (see a

numeracy table in Annex XI). Averaging at 94.8% across the profile, it would appear that the sample may

be well educated.

However, 45% of the cohort have not attended secondary school. This means that nearly half of the

sample – likely higher due to the wide variability in the quality of Ethiopian schooling – are likely in need

some form of remediation in literacy and numeracy in order to be successful at post-secondary levels,

such as TTIs. This, in turn, will have a significant impact on the success of short-and long-term training at

the TTIs and YES Hubs, and may be especially pronounced in the SNNP and Somali regions. Only three

16


percent of participants report completing either 11th or 12th grades, while one in five report attending

college or TVET. See Table 4 below (for a regional breakdown, see Annex IX).

Table 4: Youth Profile Education Levels

YOUTH EDUCATION

PROFILE

PERCENT OF

YOUTH

No Schooling 3.8%

Informal Education 0.8%

Lower Primary School18 11.2%

Upper Primary School19 28.3%

Secondary School20 32.0%

Preparatory21 3.15%

College or University 3.8%

TVET 17.0%

Youth participants from SNNP and Somali report the least participation in TVET training, while TVET

training is highest by far in Tigray. Youth from Oromia report the highest overall education indicators,

with the largest proportion having completed a grade in secondary school or college/university. See

Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Level of Education by Region

Self-reported literacy and numeracy is high among most survey participants, but actual proficiency levels

are likely variable because 40% of the sample did not finish primary school. Actual literacy proficiency is

not currently known, as literacy assessment data was not available. Significant differences in the self-

18 According to instructions to data collectors, lower primary school indicates the number of participants who report

completing any of the grades between 1 and 4. 19 According to instructions to data collectors, upper primary school indicates the number of participants who

report completing any of the grades between 5 and 8. 20 According to instructions to data collectors, secondary school indicates the number of participants who report

completing either of the lower secondary grades, 9 or 10. 21 According to instructions to data collectors, preparatory indicates the number of participants who report

completing either of the upper secondary or “preparatory” grades, 11 or 12.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Afar Amhara Oromia SNNPR Somali Tigray Total

Variation in highest level of education by region

No Schooling Informal Education Primary First Level Primary School

Secondary School College or University TVET

17


reported literacy of male and female youth appear most pronounced in Afar and Somali. While raising

the literacy and numeracy abilities of participants is not a goal of the Youth Potential activities, it will

have an impact on the ability of participants to benefit from training and access to employment, or

improve one’s employment circumstances.

Skills training and workforce readiness

According to the Youth Profile data, 222,566 hours of training in workforce development was

completed by respondents.22 According to the PIRS of the Youth POTENTIAL activity, a pre/post

workforce readiness assessment was planned to be administered at trainings, but this data was not

available at the time of the survey.

In the meantime, we can assess the general availability/access to workforce development assets and

workforce skills training, defined as the degree to which youth are aware of, able to enroll in

employment and workforce development services including training, skills upgrade, work readiness, and

job placement services. This also includes the ability of youth to access skills and resources to support

self-employment and/or create small businesses.

Workforce Development Assets

Workforce Development Assets are defined here as access to counseling and advice, employment

services, and new or upgraded skills acquisition. While close to 80% of youth report having access to

counseling and advice, less than 4% report receiving any employment services, and just over a quarter

report attempting to learn new skills. See Table 5 below (see also Annex XII).

Table 5: Access to Development Assets

REGION

ACCESS TO

COUNSELING

AND ADVICE

GOVERNMENT OR

COMMUNITY

EMPLOYMENT

SERVICES

TAKEN TIME

TO LEARN

NEW SKILLS

Afar 91.5% 5.8% 46.7%

Amhara 63.3% 7.3% 20.1%

Oromia 64.3% 0.0% 33.1%

SNNPR 87.6% 0.8% 14.3%

Somali 92.6% 0.8% 29.1%

Tigray 83.1% 1.7% 47.4%

Overall 78.9% 3.4% 28.7%

Availability and Access to Workforce Training

22 Some missing month/year assignment to trainings, 22 of 240 trainings have no hours recorded.

18


Table 6 below summarizes the qualitative findings from both focus group discussions and semi-

structured interviews around availability and access23 to workforce development training, organized by

code—which are all the subjects or themes survey participants raised in discussions or answering

questions—and frequency. High frequencies are highlighted in red, while medium-high frequencies are

highlighted in green. Frequencies expressed below represent only a proportion of survey participants,

and are not generalizable to all students, instructors, or administrators.

Table 6: Frequency of Availability/Access Codes

CODE LISTS FOR ACCESS/AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING

(LIST OF FACTORS/EXPLANATORY VARIABLES)

FGD

(N=15)

KII %

(N=27)

Less Access, lack of evening classes, 3 19%

Less Access, demand higher than available space 11 62%

OJT(On-the-Job-Training), available for employed 5 62%

OJT, not available for employed 8 23%

Less access, distance/transportation barriers 14 77%

Less access, reserved spaces for returnee youth 0 4%

Less access, non-meritocratic admissions 13 58%

Less access, Center of Certification (CoC) non-aligned 9 23%

More access, CoC aligned 1 27%

Focus on Youth, yes 9 77%

Focus on youth, no 5 19%

Start-up capital, accessible 0 0%

Start-up capital, not accessible 15 96%

Soft skills, accessible 3 19%

Soft skills, not accessible 11 65%

Job availability, low 15 81%

Job availability, high 0 12%

Job availability, only for CoC holders 8 46%

Training available, student driven 2 23%

Training available, market driven 5 46%

Training available, government driven 9 69%

Only 20% of instructors and three (of 15 total) focus groups reported that workforce readiness, or

“soft skills” training was available. TTIs in the target regions offer a variety of training options, ranging

from short-term (one to three months) certificate courses, to long-term (several years) level IV diploma

courses. Overall, 77% of interviewees and nine focus groups described these courses as youth-focused,

while 69% of interviewees and nine focus groups believed the course selection and content to be

government-driven as opposed to demand or market driven.

Regional differences regarding the link between availability and access were also evident. Survey

participants from Gode, in particular, emphasized that while a range of courses is available at the two

target TTIs, students’ access to them is limited largely because of a lack of interest in the training offered.

23 For the purposes of this survey, the term “availability” refers to the presence or existence of training

opportunities while the term “access” refers to the ability of students to attend training, as influenced by things like

desirability, transportation, affordability, convenience, or available space.

19


Ad-hoc training responding to students’ requests tended to be more popular. Gender asymmetries also

affect female students’ access to training, as discussed below in more detail in the section on gender.

Limited space to accommodate incoming trainees (i.e. enrollment demand exceeding available

classrooms and other teaching spaces) was also noted by 62% of interviewees and 11 focus groups.

Survey findings strongly suggest significant inequalities in access to training between students from rural

and urban areas, as evidenced by more than 77% of interviewees and 14 focus groups reporting that

distance to TTIs and associated higher housing and transportation expenses limited access to training for

students who did not live near the TTIs.

An additional finding pertaining more specifically to FTCs is their general lack of focus on youth. The

services provided by the FTCs instead target farmers of all ages without specific youth-focused initiatives.

The majority of students who participated in FGD discussions reported no knowledge of the exact

services offered by the FTCs in their respective regions.

Gender

Gender is also a major factor in availability and access issues. The Youth Profiles are 46% female. Table 7

below presents the frequencies of codes related to gender. High frequencies are highlighted in red, while

medium-high frequencies are highlighted in green. Frequencies expressed below represent only a

proportion of survey participants, and are not generalizable to all students, instructors, or

administrators.

Table 7: Frequency of Gender Codes

CODE LISTS FOR GENDER


FGD

(N=15)

KII %

(N=27)

Impeded employment access, married girls 5 35%

Unimpeded employment access, married girls 2 8%

Affirmative action for girls, admissions 12 69%

No affirmative action for girls, CoC 9 50%

Less access, domestic work 13 62%

Less access, lack of/low quality basic schooling 10 42%

Recruitment/Outreach/Support, strong 0 12%

Recruitment/Outreach/Support, weak 14 81%

Awareness of girls’ needs, strong 0 8%

Awareness of girls’ needs, weak 13 81%

Stereotyped assumptions of girls interests/abilities 9 65%

Gendered spatial assumptions24 7 46%

Link b/w education and girls' decision making power 5 8%

Lack of female teachers/role models 11 65%

Facilities for girls (dorms/latrines), present 0 4%

Facilities for girls (dorms/latrines), not present 12 58%

24 This refers to local practices and attitudes that allow for boys to travel away from the home, while girls are not

permitted to do so.

20


Most survey participants in interviews and focus groups report a weak presence of targeted support,

outreach, or recruitment initiatives for female students, as reported by the large majority of interview

and focus group participants. Similarly, in both interviews and focus groups, administrators, instructors,

and male students all exhibited a very limited awareness of girls’ specific requirements, compounded by

largely stereotyped and inaccurate assumptions of girls’ employment interests and abilities, and spatial

(e.g. home-based work) limitations. Additional challenges to girls’ access to workforce development

training include the lack of facilities (e.g. dorms, latrines) for girls, the lack of female instructors,

administrators and other role models, and girls’ more limited previous access to adequate basic

schooling, all of which interfere with their performance as TTI students.

Lower entrance requirements for females than for males were reportedly practiced at TTIs by a large

majority of survey participants. This is considered a form of “affirmative action” intended to account for

girls’ much heavier workload at home, which may limit the time they are able to devote to doing their

homework and studying. The CoC exam is, however, the same for both female and male students, even

though the burden placed on females at home is reportedly much heavier during their years as TTI

students. The phrase “girls’ labor is always exploited” was a common utterance in FGDs and KIIs

conducted in most regions.

The expectation that most girls will fail the CoC leads some instructors to discourage female students

from pursuing studies considered more challenging. Instead, girls are encouraged to focus on

stereotypically female activities (e.g. tailoring, hospitality, beauty salons, food preparation), regardless of

girls’ preferences or employment opportunities in those fields.

A challenge most prevalent in Gode, and the Somali region more generally, is the practice of early

marriage and the cultural proscription of further schooling for married girls. In both Somali and Amhara,

male youth’s outmigration (international for the Somali region, and internal rural-to-urban for Amhara),

indirectly affects female youth’s marriage prospects and sources of financial support, making their

education and employment all the more crucial.

The link between training and improved conditions in other areas was also mentioned by female

students, suggesting that education is valued for reasons that go beyond its link to financial independence.

In three of the focus groups conducted with female students (in three TVETs in Tigray and Amhara),

girls, while acknowledging the additional challenges they expect to face in their efforts to find

employment, also emphasized the important role of receiving an education as a source of leverage in

negotiating their social roles and marriage conditions. Significantly, the terms “confidence”,

“empowerment”, and “soft skills” were often uttered in English during discussions with female students

in these TVETs who otherwise spoke in local languages. Girls’ familiarly with these concepts further

evidences their appreciation of education for its own sake, not just because of the instrumental or

financial advantages it may confer.

Other Cross-Cutting Issues

In addition to gender, a number of additional cross-cutting issues impact availability and access to the

target TTIs and their programs. These include:

• Low literacy that disqualifies or put some at a severe disadvantage many youth and enrollment in

TTIs.

• Poverty that constrains those who cannot afford the costs of education.

• Increasing drug and alcohol use that affect youth’s desirability to enroll in and finish training.

21


• Rural-to-urban migration and international migration which are often perceived as more

attractive solutions than training.

• Rapid population growth that creates an imbalance between the growing number of job seekers

and the available training and employment opportunities.

• Non-meritocratic hiring practices.

TTIS’ CAPACITY TO DELIVER LABOR MARKET-DRIVEN

TRAINING

The baselines for indicators on utilization of job coaching, job placement services, and TTI training

capacity are currently not known because the data was either incomplete or not available. These

indicators are grouped together here because they refer to whether participants have access to a level

of quality training and employment assistance that allow them to be competitive job seekers (capacity to

deliver training) and to services that assist in linking them with the job market.

Quality and Capacity to Deliver Training

Table 8 below identifies the factors (listed as codes) that the survey participants in both focus group

discussions and semi-structured interviews recognized as affecting the quality of training by target TTIs.

High frequencies are highlighted in red, while medium-high frequencies are highlighted in green.

Frequencies expressed below represent only a proportion of survey participants, and are not

generalizable to all students, instructors, or administrators.

Table 8: Frequency of Training Quality Codes

CODE LISTS FOR QUALITY OF AVAILABLE TRAINING


FGD

(N=15)

KII %

(N=27)

Overcrowded classes 8 35%

Quality, poor 8 15%

Quality, moderate 5 58%

Quality, strong 1 23%

Practical/hands-on training, limited 11 69%

Practical/hands-on training, adequate 2 23%

Training equipment & materials, limited 12 85%

Training equipment & materials, adequate 2 15%

Facilities/Land, limited 14 85%

Facilities/Land, adequate 0 12%

Instructor competence, limited 7 27%

Instructor competence, adequate 3 38%

Instructor commitment, limited 5 19%

Instructor commitment, adequate 3 46%

Instructor logistical support, limited 2 38%

Instructor logistical support, adequate 3 12%

General ICT, limited 12 81%

General ICT, adequate 0 4%

Quality assurance process, limited 8 62%

Quality assurance process, adequate 0 4%

22


Overall, the quality of the training did not meet the expectations of a high percentage of the

respondents. This lack of confidence in the quality of the training provided is seen as a critical challenge

affecting the value of the TVET in all the regions observed. The predominant factors that limit the quality

of training at the TTIs are: 1) lack of infrastructure, facilities and land; 2) lack of equipment and

necessary training materials; 3) limited availability of information and communication technology; and 4)

limited availability of practical hands-on training.

A lack of learning materials and equipment needed for practical subjects (woodwork, construction,

Information and Communication Technology (ICT), tailoring, carpentry, etc.) was frequently reported.

Specifically, more than 85% of interviewees and 12 (of 15 total) focus groups highlighted the limited

availability of necessary equipment, and facilities. These same survey participants also specifically stated

that this hampered students’ ability to pass the Center of Certification (CoC) exam. In particular, ICT

facilities (Internet and Computers and lab space), were perceived as severely lacking by nearly the same

proportion of survey participants.

Students also stressed that the low quality or non-existence of applied/practical hands-on training, as

well as overcrowding, as major factors negatively influencing quality. Nearly 70% of interviewees and 11

focus groups reported a limited availability of practical training. Another critical challenge for TVETs is

their limited training materials and equipment needed to impart theoretical knowledge and practical

skills.

Regarding the capacity of TTI trainers, 31% of the survey participants indicated that colleges had

adequate and competent instructors; 33% of the survey participants indicated a lack of capable staff.

Thirty-six percent of survey participants reported a belief that instructors are committed to the

program; while twenty-four percent of the survey participants indicated that the instructors’

commitment was low. Survey participants believed that the teachers’ low level of commitment was

attributable to low remuneration and inadequate benefit packages.

Only 12% of the interviewees indicated that instructors’ logistical support was adequate enough to allow

them to take students outside the classroom to job sites. A large majority of the interviewees and focus

groups reported that general ICT at their institutions was not sufficiently available for use by instructors

and students. An insufficient number of instructional computers, and inadequate lab equipment at the

TVET were reported among the main challenges. Generally, TVETs were poorly equipped, relied on

antiquated equipment, and had poor computer support service. These observations were among the

most critical of challenges affecting the quality of TVET training in the selected institutions.

Market Linkages (Public-Private/Public-Public)

Large numbers of interviewees and focus groups identified weak links between TTIs and governmental

stakeholders (85% of interviewees and 13 focus groups); between TTIs and the private industry (85% of

interviewees and 14 focus groups); and between TTIs and NGOs and other civil society entities (77% of

interviewees and 11 focus groups). Irrespective of the regional variations reported above, a generalized

consequence of this pattern is the prevalence of under-employment for those few youth who do find

jobs (e.g. those who completed level three or four can only find level one or two jobs, even when they

have successfully passed the COC examination).

Baseline findings consistently indicate a very limited presence of partnership between public-private and

public-public entities. Inter- and intra-regional variations are nevertheless noteworthy. For instance, the

link between TTIs and private industry is reportedly higher in Oromia than in the other Ethiopian

23


regions included in the study. This is because the TTIs are located in close proximity to organized

industrial parks. This does not reflect the conditions in the rest of the country.

Survey participants in Jigjiga (Somali region), but not in Gode (also Somali region), report a stronger link

between TTIs and regional and woreda-level government bodies – in terms of sharing information about

job openings and job seekers – than was the case for TTIs in other regions. In both Gode and Jijiga,

however, youth reported a heavy reliance on NGO-driven employment. This is owed to the very

limited presence of industries in the region, and what are perceived as insurmountable challenges

accessing employment in government bodies. Overall, survey participants in most regions report weak

links to private industry (except in Afar and Oromia), weak links to regional and woreda government

bodies (except in Jijjiga, Somali region), and weak links to civil society/NGOs (except in Gode, Somali

region, and Oromia).

Most of these interviewees and focus group participants did, nevertheless, acknowledge that such

partnerships would likely be beneficial in various ways. These include the possibility of offering job

opportunities in the future, and as venues for internships, apprenticeships and other forms of practical

hands-on experience, which are largely lacking in the training provided at the large majority of TVETs

targeted in this study. More than 75% of instructors and administrators expressed an interest in

increasing their capacity to establish enduring, mutually beneficial partnerships with local enterprises,

national and international NGOs, civil society, and related stakeholders. Instructors consistently

mentioned lacking the recourse to fund the logistical costs of bringing students to a workplace, including

transportation and food, and using an employer’s resources, like electricity and fuel, to give students

“hands-on” experience.

Youth employment and income25

Employment figures are presented below; however, income figures are not currently available due to the

lack of reliable data (see Limitations section). Three-quarters of the participating youth report being

unemployed, while just under one-quarter report being self-employed. Most of those reporting being

self-employed are engaged in agriculture. Less than three percent report being employed. See Figure 4

below. Females are considerably more likely to be unemployed primarily because they are less likely

than males to be self-employed. This is because females are typically kept closer to home and engage in

domestic chores, both of which reduce prospects for self-employment. The rates for formal

employment are similar between males and females. Males are more likely to have access to land and

livestock (see Annex X for a gender breakdown).

25 Income data in the Youth Profile data set is not currently reliable.

24


Figure 4: Employment Status, by Region

Almost all youths reported their main challenge to becoming self-employed was their lack of access to

start-up capital (96% of interviewees and all 15 focus groups). The requirement to contribute at least

20% of seed capital in order to access the remaining 80% in credit contributes to this lack of access. The

same proportion of interviewees and focus groups reported that few are able to save this amount by the

time they have completed their training. Seeking to obtain this seed capital, some trainees are engaging

in cobblestone work and other unskilled daily labor usually unrelated to their field of training.

Youth employability was a major concern in almost all the visited areas, with 85% of survey participants

acknowledging the very limited employment opportunities available in their respective locales (81% of

interviewees and all 15 focus groups). Half of the participants also mentioned that the few available

employment opportunities are subject to CoC certification, while the CoC exam is often not

administered in the target TTIs. Furthermore, two-thirds of study participants reported a general lack of

“soft skills” training, which includes job finding and self-employment skills. In the SNNP region in

particular, the importance of soft skills training was highlighted as an especially important requirement

for female students needing to improve their awareness of job market considerations.

Another barrier to self-employment is access to productive assets. While 70% of the Youth Profile

respondents report having access to some type of productive asset, the overwhelming majority of those

report these assets to be primarily agricultural, such as livestock and land. Somali and Afar have the

largest proportion of youth report access to assets; these are highly agricultural and pastoralist regions

(for a regional breakdown, see Annex X). This means that a high percentage of youth with access to

productive assets live and work in rural settings, which presents challenges both in terms of market and

project activity access.

25


Figure 5: Productive Assets, by Type

Table 9 below summarizes the qualitative findings from both focus group discussions and semi-

structured interviews around the relevance of TTI training, organized by code—which lists all the

subjects or ways survey participants answered questions about this topic—and its frequency. High

frequencies are highlighted in red, while medium-high frequencies are highlighted in green. Frequencies

expressed below represent only a proportion of survey participants, and are not generalizable to all

students, instructors, or administrators.

44.3%

33.4%

19.0%

18.3%

6.0%

1.8%

Land for agriculture

Land for livestock

Place for business

Natural Resources

Tools or equipment

Other

70.9% of youth say that they have access to some

kind of productive asset.

26


Table 8: Frequency Training Relevance Codes

CODE LISTS FOR RELEVANCE OF TRAINING


FGD

(N=15)

KII %

(N=27)

Link between short-term training & self-employment, weak 8 54%

Link between short-term training & self- employment, strong 5 46%

Link between long-term training & CoC, weak 12 73%

Link between long-term training & CoC, strong 1 0%

Link between long-term training & employment, strong 2 15%

Link between long-term training & employment, weak 11 77%

Overqualified for available jobs/Underemployment 8 42%

Most students in focus groups agreed that in their current state, youth employment and workforce

development services did not generally lead to improved employment and income circumstances, such

as finding a job, upgraded skills, promotion, making self-employment more profitable, obtaining more

regular and/or reliable income, or increasing existing income.

Long and short-term courses offered by TTIs are designed according to the Center of Certification

(CoC) occupational standards. Effective delivery of these courses is, however, reported as challenging.

TTIs aim at delivering practical and theoretical training to participants in a 70 to 30 percentage

proportion. However, most target TTIs were reported as being unable to meet the requirements for

certification due to limited resources, training equipment, facilities, and support materials. These

constraints hindered the relevance of the training offered. The existence of weak linkages between long-

term training and CoC occupational standards was also reported by three-quarters of the of baseline

participants (73% of interviewees and 12 (of 15 total) focus groups).

Short-term training programs that focus on “soft skills” such as motivation, organization, financial

management, entrepreneurship, and developing self-employment opportunities for participants were

reported by more than half of interviewees and focus groups as both scarce and, where provided,

insufficient. However, as described earlier in this report, lack of access to start-up capital for trainees

inhibited opportunities for self-employment whether individuals completed short-term training or not.

This constraint was reported by 50% of interviewees and 8 focus groups, who indicted that a weak

linkage between short-term training and self-employment opportunities restricted their ability to

enhance their livelihood.

In some of the TTIs in the Somali and Tigray regions, on the other hand, meaningful links between

short-term training and self-employment opportunities were reported. This linkage was reportedly due

to increased access to multi-disciplinary training opportunities and availability of start-up capital and

necessary equipment, often financed by NGOs or other relevant government offices.

According to the Occupational Assessment and Certification Directive by the Ministry of Education

(December 2010), there are four levels of Occupational Standards (OS); these constitute a benchmark

for approved training, assessment and certification. As directed by the assessment system, each

candidate will start at Level I and advance through consecutive phases to Level IV, the final level of the

assessment. Of all the survey participants, 12 focus groups report TTIs not able to offer proper skills

training in order to move through this certification system.

Most interviewees and focus group participants say TTIs lack the requisite facilities and equipment to

administer the CoC assessment at their centers. As a result, youth trainees are not advancing through

27


the assessment levels as per the recommended standard. The advancement process is seen as directly

hindering the trainees from acquiring any certification, limiting their access to employment and

preventing them from enhancing their livelihoods.

Some TTIs, particularly the Bishoftu Polytechnic in Oromiya, have reported conducting pre- and post-

training assessments to identify training needs and review the competencies of their graduated trainees

relative to the candidate’s job environment. Uncorroborated by any verifiable data, some TTIs also

indicated their involvement in regional tracer studies.

Overall, most survey participants saw no demonstrable link between long-term training currently leading

to meaningful employment for students. Findings also indicate 42% of interviewees and eight focus

groups report high under-employment among qualified students. Many are engaging in whatever

employment is available, often unrelated to their training.

Access to market data

One of the primary challenges facing local training centers and institutes in target woredas is the lack of

updated, reliable information on market trends in order to align the menu of training and services with

local labor market needs. Market data was typically obtained through informal interactions between staff

and employers, according to 69% of interviewees and eight focus groups) – twice a year in some cases –

but seldom was market data systematically obtained.

Only 15% of interviewees reported being aware of their institute having conducted a gap analysis for

employed youth in the recent past. Gap analysis is an assessment of an employer’s workforce to identify

skill “gaps” in relation to changing market demands and new technologies. The administrators of four of

the TVET’s claimed to have conducted market analyses with some regularity, ranging from twice a year

to once every two or three years. Data were, however, reportedly collected in an ad-hoc manner and

either not disseminated among instructors and students or done so only informally. Consequently, the

link between market data and training availability was considered weak by the large majority of

interviewed students, instructors and administrators (81% of interviewees and 13 focus groups).

An additional challenge presented by the lack of access to timely market data is that trainings – short

courses in particular – are often offered in fields requested by large numbers of students because of past

employment opportunities, which may no longer reflect current job availability or future trends. Both

colleges targeted in Gode, Somali region (Gode Polytechnic College and Gode Agriculture College)

provide an illustrative example of this pattern. Study participants in both colleges mentioned that,

following the news that an international aid organization operating in the area had recently hired several

drivers, dozens of students requested driving classes. By the time classes were offered and students had

received their driving license, no additional opportunities for drivers were available.

28


CONCLUSIONS

Youth Literacy and Numeracy

Even though self-reported literacy and numeracy is very high, close to half of the Youth

Profile sample will likely be in need of literacy and numeracy remediation, and will present

a significant challenge to changing employment and income indicators. While 95% of

respondents who report being able to read and write, 44% have a primary school education or less, and

likely do not have all the skills required for non-laborer skilled work training. Given that participants

with lower literacy skills are more likely to benefit from hands-on and practical learning modes, the lack

of these opportunities put this segment of the sample at particular risk of not benefiting from current

employment development opportunities.

Given the very high self-reported literacy and numeracy rate, this indicator is unlikely to

change through the life of the project. While use of a literacy assessment would more accurately

measure this indicator, it remains unclear to what extent the project will directly impact literacy and

numeracy skills among participants, as there is no planned literacy or numeracy remediation as part of

the project activities.

Workforce Readiness

There is a general lack of access to soft skill training. Graduate trainees’ options to seek self-

employment as a feasible income-generating alternative are negatively impacted by the lack of soft skill

training. Employed youth also lack the soft skills needed to improve their existing employment

circumstances and working conditions, such as promotions.

Workforce Development Training

Some workforce development services and training are available, and Youth Profile

respondents report over 200,000 hours of training accessed, about one week—39 hours—of

training per individual profile on average. But, their quality and relevance to project participants

obtaining or improving employment or self-employment are very low.

Employment Coaching

The baseline data for this indicator—if any participants had utilized coaching prior to the

implementation of Youth Potential—was not available in the Youth Profile data set or

from the TTIs visited by evaluators. Data was available in the Tigray outcome data, but not overall.

The project should track this data using a program form in accordance with their PIRS.

Job Placement and Labor Market Linkages

The baseline data for this indicator—if any participants had been placed in a job with

assistance from the TTIs prior to the implementation of Youth Potential—was not

available in the Youth Profile data set or from the TTIs visited by evaluators. A data

collection form for this indicator exists, but no data set was available at the time of this writing.

Links between TTIs and private industry are weak in most cases, with some exceptions in

the Afar and Oromia regions. The weak, or non-existent, links between TTIs and private industry

29


reported by survey participants in all regions except Afar and Oromia often reflects a lack of systematic

approach to establish such links, and is sometimes related to the limited presence of industries in the

area.

Links between TTIs and regional and woreda government bodies charged with linking the

private sector with the local labor force are weak in most cases, except in Jijjiga, Somali

region. The generally weak links between TTIs and woreda government bodies is similarly the result of

the lack of systematic approach to establish such links. Improving information sharing about job openings

and market data between woreda government bodies and the TTIs would benefit job seekers.

Partnerships between TTIs, civil society groups and non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) are generally limited. With some exceptions in Gode, Somali region, and in the Oromia

region, the partnerships between TTIs, civil society groups and NGOs are quite limited. These regions

have longer and more complex relationships with international aid and development organizations, and

thus the links are historically stronger in these areas than other regions. Overall, there is a very limited

presence of partnership between public-private and public-public entities. The possibility of stronger

partnerships is, nonetheless, regarded as potentially beneficial by most stakeholders.

TTI Training Capacity

Although TTIs offer a wide variety of short and long-term training in multiple subjects, the

quality of the training is generally low. This is due to a lack of internal capacity, up-to-date

equipment, resources, and practical or applied training opportunities. TTIs offered a range of training

options, from short-term ad hoc courses to long-term standardized programs. Access to these courses

differs by gender and between rural and urban youth, with females and rural youth experiencing

additional constrains around transportation and gender norms.

Training and capacity of instructors is severely limited. The majority of the survey participants

argued that the quality of training is moderate. Most colleges are not perceived as having competent

staff members, which limits the quality and effectiveness of the activities, missions, and visions of the

TVET programs. Additionally, the level of funding for TVET in the areas of research and capacity-building

is very low.

Lack of access by both instructors and students to ICT facilities is affecting the ability of

TTIs to offer quality and up-to-date training. Lack of computers, computer labs, and access to the

internet are frequently reported as serious challenges for all stakeholders, not just ICT students. This

limitation is also preventing many students from taking the CoC exam, hindering their path to gainful

employment.

Rural students face difficulty in accessing TTI training. Access to TTIs, most of which are

located in regional urban centers, is more limited for rural students. Most institutes lack boarding

facilities. This presents an often insurmountable challenge for many rural students, especially girls, who

are not always able to find safe and affordable accommodation and transportation.

There is a general lack of awareness on the part of both instructors and administrators (as

well as male students) regarding the needs and preferences of female youth. With the

exception of the girls themselves, most other survey participants in all regions exhibit a pervasive lack of

awareness regarding the needs and preferences of female students. As a justification for this attitude,

some instructors noted the fact that there were either few or no girls enrolled in their classes. This

30


inattention encompassed a lack of knowledge regarding the existence of programs, services or outreach

interventions targeting females.

There is a prevalence of inaccurate and biased gender assumptions that serve to constrain

female students’ access to both relevant training and employment opportunities. In virtually

all target regions, girls are routinely encouraged to focus on stereotypically female activities (e.g.

tailoring, hospitality, beauty salons, food preparation), regardless of girls’ preferences or employment

opportunities in those fields. Unverified assumptions about females’ preference for jobs they can

undertake in their own homes and/or community are also common. Access to both desirable training

and employment opportunities are more challenging for females as a result.

Ineffective affirmative action measures. The affirmative action initiatives (e.g. lower entrance

requirements for girls) intended to increase female enrollment are, on their own, unlikely to improve

their access to quality, market-oriented training and subsequent employment.

Absence of targeted outreach, recruitment, and support initiatives for girls. With the

exception of the lower entrance requirements noted above, no targeted outreach, recruitment or

support initiatives for girls are available in most TTIs. This includes the absence of dorms and latrines, as

well as the lack of efforts to better understand girls’ needs and preferences in training and potential

employment.

Numerous external factors affect the ability of TTIs to deliver youth-focused, market-

driven training. A number of cross-cutting and largely inter-related issues exist that impact TTIs’

performance. Most of these challenges fall outside of TTIs’ purview, especially poverty,

literacy/numeracy, and non-meritocratic hiring practices. Without targeted attention to these issues,

TTIs’ ability to deliver youth-focused, market-driven training is likely to remain limited.

Youth Employment

Prior to accessing any services supported by Youth Potential, three quarters of the Youth

Profile sample were neither employed nor self-employed and more than 96% report a lack

of access to quality and relevant employment services and training. While improving

employment and income circumstances for youth is one of the goals of Youth Potential, broader

economic trends outside the influence of the project will have a significant impact on the ability of

participants to improve their employment and income circumstances even if project activities meet their

objectives. However, it is clear that while most participants have access to advice and counseling on

employment, they also report extremely low access to employment services that lead to employment or

improved employment or income.

While 70% of the profile report having access to some type of productive asset, the

overwhelming majority of those report these assets to be primarily agricultural. This

presents some unique challenges for the project. The first is the difficulty in increasing youth access to

non-agricultural assets, and the second is increasing the productivity of agricultural assets, particularly

when improving market links and demand are outside of the project’s sphere of influence.

Female and male youth report similar characteristics when it comes to employment and

development assets, but the barriers to access to current workforce development services

and improve employment and income are considerably larger for females. In this sample,

females are more likely to be caring for children and performing other domestic chores in addition to

other livelihood activities such as agriculture and livestock. They have less time to study and show

31


slightly lower literacy and educational attainment rates, and are thus more likely to have poorer basic

skills than boys.

Although access to long-term training in multiple subjects is available at most TTIs,

because of their low quality, most training fails to impart skills that assist in finding

employment or improving one's employment circumstances. Short-term or “soft skills”

training is both lacking in availability as well as quality, effecting participants’ readiness for self-

employment.

Lack of access to start-up capital and hands-on experience for trained youths is lowering

the chances that they will establish successful businesses. Self-employment requires initial capital

in addition to training and passing the COC exam. Most students lack this start-up capital, and find it

difficult to contribute the required 20% of the total loan application.

Students have limited confidence in achieving the required competency to obtain

occupational qualification certificates from CoC. Most students believe that TTIs are not

appropriately equipped nor do they have the capability to support their stipulated balanced training

program relative to their goals (20% theoretical and 80% applied).

There is a weak link between the completion of the training and the potential for

meaningful employment. The weak linkages between training and employment is related to both the

limited quality of available training, and lack of market and private-sector links.

Limited practical/hands-on/ on-the-job training opportunities. The lack of materials and

resources to support applied or practical skills development, and low instructor capacity is the primary

reason. Students cite these conditions as the primary reason why the quality and relevance of training at

the TTIs is very low.

Access to quality market data is very limited and/or is poorly disseminated. Overall, most

study participants (students, instructors, and administrators) reported a general lack of access to

accurate, updated, systematically gathered information about available jobs and local labor needs. Most

are only familiar with informal market data, typically based on anecdotal evidence informally obtained

through “word of mouth”. Most TVETs suffer from a general inability to effectively use what little

market data are available. Consequently, their capacity to respond to labor needs is typically slow.

Training content and variety are thus largely reactive rather than proactive. This often results in too

many students basing their training requests on unrealistic expectations to obtain a job in already

oversaturated fields.

Youth Income

The baseline data for the youth income indicator contained in the Youth Profile sample

was not reliable enough to report accurately. The Youth Profile includes a series of questions on

income, for which is generally difficult to get reliable data. As a result, the income data in the Youth

Profile data set is inconsistent. The profile asks survey participants on what basis they can easily report

their income (daily, weekly, monthly or annually) and the estimated earning per that unit. At least 16%

of project enrollees appear to be reporting income far above or below the expected range based on

nationally available data, or else are obvious errors (for example, reported working days per month

higher than 31). This requires the engagement of those facilitators who were collecting the data to fully

clean the data set, which was not completed as of the time of this survey. There are likely a

combination of recall problems, differing interpretations between survey participants and enumerators

32


of the questions’ meaning, and data entry errors. Simply dropping the questionable data is premature at

this point and might result in inaccurately biasing income reporting downwards through

disproportionately dropping accurate but high income data. At this juncture, income data are not

included in this report due to its unreliability and instead will be collected in the course of the Youth

Cohort Study.

33


RECOMMENDATIONS

Focus Area 1: TTI capacity

One clear conclusion of this study is that TTIs have severe capacity issues with regards to instructors,

facilities, equipment, teacher and student materials, and ICT. Furthermore, a result of this capacity

deficit is that classes do not have the equipment, materials, or private sector connections to offer hands-

on or practical training, which a large percentage of students reported as essential for confidence to be

competitive in a very tight job market for skilled labor, much less jobs for youth.

In light of this conclusion, we recommend that Youth POTENTIAL increase the capacity of TTIs in

terms of instructor capacity, up-to-date equipment, hands-on training opportunities, and market

connections by increasing the proportion of funding to TTI Block Grants and focus the scope of these

grants to address severe training capacity issues.

Focus Area 2: Start-up and productive assets

Access to start-up capital and productive assets is very low. Self-employment and starting a business

carries high risk, but without the resources to fund the kind of self-starting, entrepreneurial attitude that

is advocated by Youth Potential-supported “soft” training, participants will feel disillusioned, and project

outcomes will remain largely at the mercy of broader economic trends.

In light of this conclusion, we recommend that Youth POTENTIAL and its partners find ways to make

investment capital more available to qualified youth, especially to those with agricultural assets, which

constitute the largest share of assets held by youth, and to those who have demonstrated a higher level

of literacy and numeracy skills. The profitability of agricultural assets can be increased not only through

increasing yields, but also by assisting in forging sustainable market links and transportation. Investment

capital should consider individuals, but also have mechanisms to encourage the support of cooperatives

and groups of youth.

Focus Area 3: Public-private partnerships

The existence of public-private partnerships is either very low or very weak. There are model public-

private partnerships in Ormoia; these however, are primarily industrial parks, where there is a heavy

concentration of skilled labor needs in a designated and secure area. These conditions do not exist in

most other parts of Ethiopia, and so public-private partnerships are forged on a much smaller scale, but

are just as necessary. These partnerships have a triple purpose: to provide clear pathways to

employment, to provide expertise to upgrade the skills of labor force, and to support hands-on and

practical learning experiences for trainees. Most administrators in this study claimed to have made

multiple partnerships with these intended benefits, but students across the board complained about all

three areas.

In light of this conclusion, we recommend that Youth POTENTIAL support the establishment or

strengthening of public-private partnerships by funding the transportation, food, and other logistics of

students and staff to travel to partner companies and reimburse them for use of consumable materials,

fuel, and other costs for hosting trainees and their teachers. Improving information sharing about job

openings and market data between woreda government bodies and the TTIs would also benefit job

seekers.

34


Focus Area 4: Gender

In the area of gender, very few initiatives exist that specifically encourage female youth to participate in

employment development activities. Informally, females who access training are assumed to prefer

trades stereotypically associated as feminine, such as textiles, beauty salon, and food and hospitality.

Girls are considerably less mobile than boys due the family expectations, and it is more difficult for non-

urban girls to find places to stay near TTIs.

In light of this conclusion, we recommend that Youth POTENTIAL address widespread gender

assumptions, the particular barriers for girls, and the lack of more targeted outreach and support for

female youth through supporting community education and outreach by contracting local women and

men to advocate for girls in their community and at TTIs, find ways to safely transport, room, and board

female youth from non-urban areas while enrolled in TVET training, to obtain training in skilled trades,

gain access to investment capital, and run their own businesses.

Focus Area 5: Youth Profile and Project Data

Because collecting income data from youth is very complex and difficult, the data currently in the youth

profile database is not reliable as a large portion of respondents did not answer the income questions,

or questions were asked or answered in different ways. It is recommended that income data of

participants be collected instead through the Youth Cohort Study. It is also recommended that

improvements be made to the collection of data around Indicators #2 through #5, as well as follow-

through on recommendations from the Data Quality Assessment.

35


ANNEXES

Annex I: Statement of Work

STATEMENT OF WORK

PERFORMANCE SURVEY OF USAID/Ethiopia’s

BUILDING THE POTENTIAL OF YOUTH

1. INTRODUCTION USAID/Ethiopia developed this Statement of Work for an independent performance survey of the

USAID/Ethiopia’s Building the Potential of Youth. The findings of this survey will inform activity mid-

term course corrections and future youth workforce development projects in Ethiopia. USAID’s

Building the Potential of Youth is a five-year activity implemented by Save the Children International in

partnership with Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), HUNDEE-Oromo Grassroots

Development Initiative (HUNDEE), and Professional Alliance for Development in Ethiopia (PADet),

Relief Society of Tigray (REST) and Facilitator for Change Ethiopia (FCE). The Activity’s information is

summarized below.

Activity Name USAID’s Building the Potential of Youth

Cooperative Agreement AID-663-A-15-00006 Start Date – End Date Jan 1, 2015 – December 31,2019 Total Estimated Cost $ 17,326,954 Activity Funding DA, Higher Education Implementing Partner Save the Children International (SCI) Activity AOR

Tahir Gero

ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH

The purpose of the USAID’s Building the Potential of Youth activity is to provide Ethiopian youth (ages

15-29) in rural areas and towns with access to workforce development/livelihood support and resources,

tailored to their specific needs and market demand, so that they can a) achieve increased income and b)

strengthen skills, knowledge and social capital required to achieve economic self-sufficiency over the

longer-term. The Results Framework of the activity is included in the Annex section of this document. USAID’s Building the Potential of Youth proposed strategies and approaches respond to capacity needs

of unemployed and underemployed youth, leverage existing youth development activities, and contribute

to improving the quality and accountability of local training and business service providers by ensuring

existing entities work in concert.

36


• By using targeted assessments, the USAID’s Building the Potential of Youth team will ensure

training and service providers consider market relevance and target curricula and programs to

emerging skills needs of youth participants.

• By focusing on skills building, will offer tailored technical and life skills trainings to youth to

create more viable livelihood prospects.

• By expanding approaches and offerings in Work-Based Learning, including employer visits,

organized job-shadowing, short-term employment, and internships, both learners and employers

benefit from training and supervisory support, leading to workforce-ready and employable youth

with practical experience.

• By implementing “Hubs,” USAID’s Building the Potential of Youth will build Youth Service

Provider Networks and provide a cost-effective approach to enhance support service access for

remote communities and disadvantaged groups.

SCOPE OF WORK

Purpose & Overview The purpose of this task is to conduct independent M&E activities for USAID’s Building the Potential of

Youth activity. The activities performed under IR1 (“Rigorous evidence base developed to inform

USAID and its development partners, including youth, GOE, and NGOs, on appropriate, effective, and

sustainable market driven youth workforce development interventions”) are not subject to survey under

this Task Order. The services to be provided under this activity include:

• Activity A: A Performance Survey including baseline (limited), midline and endline data

collection, analysis and reporting.

• Activity B: A Performance Monitoring and Data Systems Review that will include an

analysis of Save the Children (SCI) and its partners’ data collection, storage, analysis and

reporting systems.

• Activity C: A Youth Cohort Study focused on a subset of youth participants and geographic

implementation areas.

Activity A: PERFORMANCE SURVEY

Survey Questions

Table 1below outlines the survey questions to be addressed by the Performance Survey. The table

indicates whether the question is applicable to the baseline survey, midline or endline survey, likely

sources of data and potential data collection methods. Wherever applicable/possible, the analysis for all

the questions listed above should be presented by sex, age category [15-19, 20-24, and 25-29], socio-

economic status, location, educational attainment, mother tongue and ethnicity. The information

provided below is intended to assist evaluators in the development of a work/staffing plan and budgets.

Table: 1 PERFORMANCE SURVEY QUESTIONS MATRIX

Questions

(in order of priority)

Baseline/Midline/

Endline

Suggested Data

Sources

Notes

Geographic focus and

illustrative

sample/selection

37


INDIVIDUAL-FOCUSED QUESTIONS

1 To what extent do youth participating in the

Building the Potential of Youth have

improved employment (including self-

employment) status? How do these

outcomes vary by participant characteristics

and partner?

Midline, Endline Secondary analysis of

SCI and partners’ data

from intake and exit

participant surveys

[SCI Youth Profile

Data Collection Tool]

Midline: Aggregate and analyze

data on all participants, or a

sub-sample of participants.

Endline: Aggregate and analyze



2 To what extent do youth participating in the

Building the Potential of Youth have

increased income? How do these outcomes

vary by participant characteristics and

partner?


SCI and partners’ data

from intake and exit

participant surveys

[SCI Youth Profile

Data Collection Tool]

Midline: Aggregate and analyze



Endline: Aggregate and analyze



3 What are the outcomes, [measured in

income, productive assets, and debt level and

employment quality] for youth receiving

microfinance loans facilitated by the Building

the Potential of Youth project, How do these

outcomes vary by participant characteristics

and partner?

Midline

Endline

Primary data

collection with

microfinance

recipients. Secondary

analysis of SCI and

partners’ data (to the

extent available).

Midline: data collection from

initial 46 recipients of

microfinance in Tigray. AND

assume a sample of 80

recipients across 6 Regions

and 18 Woredas for primary

data collection and analysis.

Endline: assume a sample of

80 recipients across 6 Regions



4 What percentage of Work Ready Now

(WRN)! completers engage in quality work-

based learning opportunities facilitated by SC

and its partners? How do these outcomes


partner?


SCI and partners’

administrative data to

determine overall %.

Plus sample-based

primary data

collection from youth

participants to

determine quality of

opportunities.

Midline: assume a sample of








5 What percentage of

internships/apprenticeships transition into

paid employment? How do these outcomes


partner?

Midline,

Endline

Secondary analysis of

SCI and partners’

administrative data to

determine overall %.

Plus sample-based

primary data

collection from youth

participants to validate

and supplement data.









6 To what degree has the Building the Potential

of Youth project improved the functional

literacy and numeracy of youth participants?

Endline Secondary analysis of

SCI and partners’

administrative data.

7 How effectively has the Building the Potential

of Youth project produced gender-equitable

outcomes for youth participants?

Endline Analysis of secondary

and primary data.

SYSTEM-FOCUSED QUESTIONS

8 To what extent have the “YES Hubs”

implemented by the Building the Potential of

Youth project increased access to quality

employment-related services (e.g., job

facilitation, business development,

Midline

Endline

Sample-based primary

data collection from

YES Hub stakeholders,

including youth

facilitators, youth


16 “YES Hubs” (stratified by

type of Hub), across 4 Regions



38


entrepreneurial training, connection to

resources) for participating youth?

participants, partner

staff.

Endline assume a sample of 36

Yes Hubs (stratified by type of

Hub) across 6 Regions and 18

Woredas for primary data

collection and analysis. 9 For Baseline:

9b1.What is the status of youth focused training in

the TTIs in terms of availability, quality and

relevance for the needs of young men and

women?

9b2.What are the major challenges of local

training centers/ institutes in target woredas to

integrate and deliver market driven trainings?

For Midline and Endline:

9e1.To what extent have funds provided to

Training Institutes increased the availability, quality

and relevance (in terms of employment/income) of

training for youth?

Baseline/Midline,Endline

Primary data collection

(including baseline) from

Training Institute staff

and employment

partners, and youth

participants. Secondary analysis of SCI and

Training Institute

administrative records,

as available.

Baseline: assume a stratified

sample of 18 Training Institutions

across Amhara, Tigray, Oromia,

Somali, Afar and SNNPR regions

(Afar and SNNPR baselines may

need to take place at midline due to TI selection process timing).

Midline: assume a stratified


across Amhara, Tigray, Oromia

and Somali regions.

Endline: assume a stratified


across Amhara, Tigray, Oromia,

Somali, Afar and SNNPR regions.

10 To what extent and in what manner are

public-private partnerships providing quality

training and/or employment opportunities for

participants in the Building the Potential of

Youth project?

Endline Primary data collection with a

sample of employment partners.

Secondary analysis of SC and

partners’ partnership records.

Endline: assume a purposeful

stratified sample of 36

partnerships across 6 Regions



11 What is the operational and service delivery

capacity of the Central YES Hub? How

sustainable (operationally and financially) is

the Central YES Hub likely to be post-USAID

support?

Endline Primary data collection focused on

Central YES Hub, utilizing

organizational capacity and

sustainability assessment

frameworks.

12 Is the Building the Potential of Youth training

model (Master Trainers training youth

trainers who then train participants)

achieving the stated learning objectives of the

WRN! curriculum?

Midline Primary data collection including

knowledge assessments, classroom

observations during WRN! training.

Plus secondary analysis of SC and

partners’ data.


20 youth trainers and 80

youth participants across (4)

partners (Amhara, Tigray,

Oromia and Somali regions).

Survey design should support

analysis of implementation

fidelity and efficacy for each

cascade.

13 What have been the most significant

successes and challenges for the design,

implementation and M&E (treated separately)

for the Building the Potential of Youth

project?

Endline Summary analysis of secondary and

primary data collected.

39


MIDLINE PERFORMANCE SURVEY

In addition to addressing the questions outlined in the Survey Question matrix above (those indicated as

part of the midline), the Contractor must analyze performance monitoring data as well as quarterly and

annual reports to identify priority areas of interest for the midline data collection/analysis. Priority areas

of interest may include: • Geographic areas where activity monitoring data indicates under or over performance vis-a-vis

targets.

• Local implementing/training partners reporting participant outcomes of interest such as low/high

retention rates, low/high performance on skills assessments, low/high job placement rates, low/high

improvements in employment/income status.

Final selection of midline priority areas of interest and midline design will be conducted in collaboration

with USAID and SCI. As part of the Midline Survey, the Contractor will conduct an in-country workshop with USAID, SCI

and its three local partners, government officials and other stakeholders (at the direction of USAID) to

review the draft report and key findings. The workshop outcomes will include:

• A summary of key success factors to date with action plan to expand successes.

• A prioritized list of program/implementation corrective actions with associated action plan and

timeline.

• A prioritized list of monitoring/data collection corrective actions with associated action plan and

timeline.

ENDLINE PERFORMANCE SURVEY

The Contractor will conduct an in-country workshop with USAID, SCI and its partners, government

officials and other stakeholders (at the direction of USAID) within 4 months of endline data collection to

review the draft report and key findings. The workshop outcomes will include:

1. A summary of key lessons learned regarding design and implementation of USAID’s Building the

Potential of Youth.

2. A prioritized list of research/survey questions for future youth workforce development activities

in Ethiopia.

3. A prioritized list of policy recommendations to improve employment and economic outcomes

for sub population of youth as needed.

ACTIVITY B: PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND DATA SYSTEMS

REVIEW

The Contractor for the Ethiopia Performance Monitoring and Survey Service (EPMES) contract, who will

be managing this activity, hereinafter “Contractor,” is required to conduct a Performance Monitoring

and Data Systems Review to initiate the activities under this activity. The objectives of the Performance

Monitoring and Data Systems Review include: • Determine the extent to which SCI and its partners’ performance monitoring and data

systems are capturing reliable data aligned with the Building the Potential of Youth PMEP.

40


• Provide recommendations for improving the quality, utilization, reliability and scope of the

data being collected by SCI and its partners, in support of the requirements of the PMEP.

• Implement a follow-up review to determine the extent to which the recommendations have

been implemented.

It is anticipated that this activity will include detailed reviews of measurement strategies, instruments,

data collection, aggregation, and analysis process, data storage and reporting processes. The Contractor should include a report detailing the recommendations. Additionally, the Contractor

must plan and facilitate an in-country workshop with SCI, its three local partners and USAID to review

the recommendations and identify priorities and process for integrating recommendations into the

Building the Potential of Youth monitoring and data systems. The information obtained during the Performance Monitoring and Data Systems Review (in terms of

availability and quality of implementing partner data) should be utilized to finalize the Performance

Survey and Youth Cohort Study designs.

ACTIVITY C: YOUTH COHORT STUDY USAID desires a Youth Cohort Study to deepen its understanding of participant outcomes. The

overarching purpose of the Youth Cohort Study is to determine the extent to which the Building the

Potential of Youth project has improved the employment status and/or income level of a subset of youth

participating in the project. Specifically, the Youth Cohort Study will address the following questions:

1. To what extent has the income and employment status of study participants changed between

enrollment in the Building the Potential of Youth project and twelve months following

enrollment? Does increased income led to improved health outcomes among study participants?

2. To what extent has participation in the Building the Potential of Youth project improved the

work readiness skills of study participants?

3. To what extent has participation in the Building the Potential of Youth project improved

knowledge of and access to employment/entrepreneurial resources for study participants?

4. To what extent has participation in the Building the Potential of Youth project improved,

functional literacy and numeracy skills of study participants?

5. How do the outcomes addressed in the questions above vary by participant characteristics (e.g.,

sex, age, ethnic/linguistic group, socio-economic status, marital status, and parenting status) and

service delivery partner?

The Contractor is expected to collect three or four rounds of data (depending on budget) on a sample

of youth (panel design) across four Regions (Oromia, Amhara, Tigray and Somali). Data collection will

take place in 10-15 Woredas across the four Regions. The Woreda selection will be led by the

Contractor in consultation with SCI and USAID/Ethiopia and should be stratified across productive and

pastoral woredas. The Contractor should able to propose innovative methods for collecting reliable

data on income and employment over time (such as financial diaries) for a panel of youth with

potentially high mobility. For budgeting and planning purposes, the Contractor should assume a sample of 90-100 youth

participants in each region, for a total approximate sample of 360-400 youth participants. The

Contractor will develop a sample design that balances precision, efficiency and cost, in consultation with

SCI and USAID/Ethiopia. Strengths and limitations of the sampling approach shall be described in the

Design Report.

41


The Contractor should propose a design for the Youth Cohort Study, utilizing the illustrative timeline

below as a guide:

Key Survey Principles

USAID’s Survey Policy encourages independent external survey to increase accountability for

results, refine ongoing activities, and improve future designs.

Transparency:

Extensive documentation of survey design, sample and selection approach, data collection

methods, instruments and other processes will be required so that USAID and other audiences

can determine the internal and external validity of the survey. This understanding is critical for

appropriate use of survey findings.

Leveraging Best Practice:

The Contractor is expected to utilize best practices when developing the survey design. The

Survey Design must reflect proven methods for sampling, selection, data collection and analysis.

All instruments utilized in the performance survey and youth cohort study should be based on

tested measurements for youth programming.

Consultative Design Process:

The Contractor should plan for a highly consultative process with USAID, SCI and the

government representatives to develop study designs and instruments under this activity.

SURVEY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The methodology proposed must comply with USAID’s Survey Policy (http://www.usaid.gov/survey). A

mixed method approach utilizing quantitative and qualitative methods shall be included to answer the

survey questions. To extent possible, data should be disaggregated by sex, age, geographic location,

socioeconomic status, ethnic/linguistic group, etc. Data collection methods proposed by the contractor should be linked to the specific

baseline/survey question(s). The suggested methodology should include, but is not limited to:

• Survey of beneficiaries.

• Pre and post assessments of literacy/numeracy and work readiness skills of youth study

participants.

http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation

42


• Key Informant Interviews/Surveys with employers, technical vocational education and training

(TVET) instructors, technical training institute (TTI) leaders, etc.

• Focus Group Discussions with youth participants.

• Observation of participant training, youth engagement groups, skills-building classes/workshops,

work-based learning activities, etc.

• Key Informant Interviews/Surveys with private sector partners.

• Existing Data Review of SC and implementing partners’ baseline data, assessments, and tracking

records of program participants.

EXISTING INFORMATION SOURCES Existing data and project information will be made available to the contractor by USAID, SCIs and its

partners. A list of potential documents for the contractor to review is presented below.

1. Activity original and amended description (if any)

2. Activity Work Plan

3. Activity reports

4. Activity M&E Plan

5. Survey of youth pre & post (after six months) participating in the Building the Potential of Youth,

collected by SC and its partners.

6. Employer surveys

7. Out-of-school literacy (OSL) and numeracy assessments, implemented by SC and its partners.

8. Pre & post- workforce readiness assessments, implemented by SC and its partners.

9. Technical Training Institute (TTI) records

10. Agreement documents between Building the Potential of Youth partners and employers

11. Tracking records of program participants including internships, class/workshop attendance, etc.

Analysis of previously collected data and data collected by the contractor must be disaggregated and

compared across groups as specified in the baseline/survey question(s). The contractor will determine

the acceptable level of margin of error depending on the statistical measure used. In the report(s), the

contractor must mention inherent limitations in the data collected and analyzed.

GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION The following section outlines the geographic scope of the anticipated primary data collection to be

executed under this activity. Secondary data analysis performed under this Task Order will cover the

entire geographic scope of the Building Potential of Youth project. Baseline Data Collection The primary baseline data collection focused on Question 9 of the Survey Matrix (targeting the Training

Institutions) will take place in intervention regions. The sample should be stratified, at a minimum,

across type of Training Institution, productive/pastoral Woreda designation. See Survey Question Matrix

for additional details. Midline Data Collection The Midline Survey will include primary data collection in intervention regions. In each of the regions,

data collection will take place in sample Woredas. The Woreda selection will be led by the Contractor

in consultation with SCI and USAID/Ethiopia and should be stratified across productive and pastoral

woredas.

Youth Cohort Study

43


The Youth Cohort Study will include primary data collection in intervention regions. In each of the

regions, data collection will take place in sample Woredas. The Woreda selection will be led by the

Contractor in consultation with SCI and USAID/Ethiopia and should be stratified across productive and

pastoral woredas.

Endline Data Collection The Endline Survey will include primary data collection in intervention regions. In each of the regions,

data collection will take place in sample Woredas. The Woreda selection will be led by the Contractor

in consultation with SCI and USAID/Ethiopia and should be stratified across productive and pastoral

woredas.

ANTICIPATED TIMELINE The table below outlines the anticipated timing for each of the major activities under this Task Order.

The final timeline proposed by the Contractor should maximize data collection/field time efficiencies to

the extent possible.

Activity Anticipated Timing (in-country work)

M&E Review July/August/Sept 2016

Baseline for Question #9 July/August/Sept 2016

Midline Feb/Mar/Apr 2017

Youth Cohort Study Feb/Mar/Apr 2017

Endline May/Jun/Jul 2019

44


DELIVERABLES

The contractor is responsible for preparing and submitting the following deliverables:

Activity A: Performance Survey Deliverables: 1. Performance Survey Design Report (EDR) (draft and final): The EDR should articulate how the

design will address all questions in the Survey Question Matrix and should include a detailed

methodology, sample design, data collection, management and analysis plan, data collection tools and

timeline. The Performance Survey EDR should cover the baseline, midline and endline. The draft

survey report will be submitted by the contractor to the USAID’s Program Office. USAID will

provide comments within 10 business days.

2. Performance Survey Work Plan: Prior to each round of data collection, the Contractor shall

schedule an in-briefing with USAID Thirty days in advance of this meeting, the Contractor

shall provide a detailed work plan (draft and final) that includes a list of in-country consultations, a

schedule for the field work, and a list of the team members with contact details while in-country.

3. Baseline Study Report focused on Question #9 in the Survey Question Matrix (changes in Training

Institute capacity and function). The Contractor will collect primary data to answer baseline

questions in the performance survey questions matrix (see # 9b1 and 9b2 in Table 1). In addition,

the Contractor will review the baseline/background information collected for each youth enrolled

by the implementing partner and analyze the data collected both from primary and secondary

sources and finally produce a baseline survey report. USAID will review and approve the Baseline

Study Report., not exceed 20 pages of main text.

4. Midline Performance Survey Report (draft and final): The contractor shall prepare a descriptive and

analytical report presenting the main findings and suggesting appropriate options and

recommendations. Not to exceed 20 pages excluding Annexes.

5. Midline Performance Survey Executive Summary and Slide Deck (draft and final): The contractor

shall prepare a 2-3 page Executive Summary and 10-15 slide presentation of key midline survey

findings.

6. Facilitated in-country workshop with SCI, its partners, USAID and other stakeholders to review the

findings of the Midline Survey.

7. Summary notes from in-country workshop.

8. Endline Performance Survey Report (draft and final). The contractor shall prepare descriptive and

analytical report presenting the main findings and suggesting appropriate options and

recommendations. Not to exceed 20 pages excluding Annexes.

9. Endline Performance Survey Executive Summary and Slide Deck (draft and final): The contractor

shall prepare a 2-3 page Executive Summary and 10-15 slide presentation of key endline survey

findings.

Activity B: Performance Monitoring and Data Review Deliverables: 1. Performance Monitoring and Data Review Design Report (draft and final). The Design Report

should articulate how the Contractor will approach the review and should include a detailed

methodology, data collection, management and analysis plan, any data collection tools, and timeline.

Additionally, the Design Report should include requests for information/data/staff time from SCI and

USAID.

45


2. Performance Monitoring and Data Review Work Plan: Prior to in-country field work, the

Contractor must schedule an in-briefing with USAID. Thirty days in advance of this meeting,

the Contractor shall provide a detailed work plan (draft and final) that includes a list of in-country

consultations, a schedule for the field work, and a list of the team members with contact details

while in-country.

3. Performance Monitoring and Data Review Study Report (draft and final) that includes prioritized

recommendations for USAID and SC. Not to exceed 15 pages excluding Annexes.

4. Facilitated in-country dissemination workshop with SCI, its partners, USAID, GoE representatives

(Ministry of Youth and Sports, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Agriculture and Natural

Resources) and other stakeholders to review the findings of the Performance Monitoring and Data

Review Study.


6. Documented Follow-up Review Report: 4-6 months after the workshop to assess the degree to

which priority recommendations have been implemented, based on interviews and consultations

with stakeholders.

Youth Cohort Study Deliverables: 1. Youth Cohort Study Design Report (draft and final): The Study Design Report should articulate how

the design will address all 5 study questions and should include a detailed methodology, sample

design, data collection, management and analysis plan, data collections tools and timeline. USAID will

review and approve the Youth Cohort Study Design Report.

2. Youth Cohort Study Work Plan: Prior to each round of data collection, the Contractor shall

schedule an in-briefing with USAID. 30 days in advance of this meeting, the Contractor shall provide

a detailed work plan (draft and final) that includes a list of in-country consultations, a schedule for

the field work, and a list of the team members with contact details while in-country.

3. Summary Report (5-7 pages) for each of the four data collection cycles (draft and final), including

analysis of key data and findings.

4. Draft Youth Cohort Study Report following final data collection.

5. Facilitated in-country workshop with SCI, its partners, USAID and other stakeholders to review the

findings of the Youth Cohort Study.


7. Final Youth Cohort Study Report (not to exceed 30 pages excluding Annexes) following in-country

workshop.

8. Youth Cohort Study Report Executive Summary and Slide Deck (draft and final): The contractor

shall prepare a 3-5 page Executive Summary and 10-15 slide presentation of key Youth Cohort

Study Report findings.

TEAM COMPOSITION The contractor is expected to have the appropriate competencies in the team to fully execute scope of

this Task Order. The team should have expertise and significant experience in the following areas (not in

order of priority):

1. Complex team and project management, including management of local sub-contractors.

2. Survey design: including sample design, mixed method designs, data analysis and instrument

development.

3. Assessment and use of existing data sources to be utilized for secondary analysis.

4. Measurement strategies associated with youth workforce development projects.

5. Data collection planning and implementation in complex and geographically diverse settings.

46


6. Presentation of survey findings to a broad range of stakeholders, including government officials,

to optimize uptake of recommendations.

7. Effective collaboration and coordination with implementing partners and other local

stakeholders during survey design and implementation.

8. Knowledge of USAID requirements with respect to data sharing, treatment of PII, ethical

considerations/IRB.

9. Excellent written and oral communication in English and Amharic.

10. In-depth knowledge of the Ethiopian context and development programming in Ethiopia.

11. At least one Key Personnel must have demonstrable experience in integrating and using gender

sensitive approaches in M&E work.

12. Experience in gender sensitive monitoring and survey methods

13. Knowledge of local languages Oromo, Tigrinya, Somali, Afar and/or other local languages among

team members would be preferred.

The Contractor must propose a staffing plan that includes team leader and other experts and fully

supports the requirements of this activity. The proposed staffing plan must explicitly address how the

plan complies with the expertise and experience requirements cited above and how the team members

will work together. Additionally, the staffing plan must describe what each team member's’ primary

responsibility will be and their anticipated LOE for the duration of each task stipulated in this SOW.. The Contractor must also make use of services of a local subcontractor to support the work under this

activity (e.g., instrument translation/validation, data collection, logistics for field work). No survey team members shall have been directly involved in the implementation of the Building the

Potential of Youth project. A statement of potential bias or conflict of interest (or lack thereof) is

required of each team member.

USAID MANAGEMENT The Contractor will identify and hire the survey team, pending the Contracting Officer’s Representatives

(COR’s) and relevant technical office’s concurrence, assist in facilitating the work plan, and arrange

meetings with key stakeholders identified prior to the initiation of the fieldwork. The survey team will

organize other meetings as identified during the course of the survey, in consultation with EPMES’s

Contractor and USAID/Ethiopia. The Contractor is responsible for all logistical support required for

the survey team, including arranging accommodation, security, office space, computers, Internet access,

printing, communication, and transportation.

The survey team will officially report to the Contractor, Social Impact. The Contractor is responsible

for all direct coordination with the USAID/Ethiopia Program Office through the EPMES COR. From a

technical management perspective, the survey team will work closely with Tahir Gero, USAID’s Building

the Potential of Youth AOR in the Basic Education Services Office. In order to maintain objectivity, all

final decisions about the survey will be made by the Program Office.

Additionally, the survey contractor will consult and coordinate with SCI and its partners during the

design and implementation of this activity.

LOGISTICS

The Contractor will be responsible for all travel and logistics associated with conducting the survey.

47


Sub-Annexes

Sub-Annex-A. Results Framework

48


Sub-Annex B: Geographic Coverage of the USAID’s Building the Potential of Youth

Intervention

The following table outlines the 30 Woredas that will be targeted by USAID’s Building the

Potential of Youth Table 1: Target Regions and Woredas

PRODUCTIVE

Amhara Tigray Oromiya

SNNP Somali Afar

Woreda Woreda Woreda Woreda

Woreda Woreda

Danegela Ofla Limu-Bibilo Endegene

Jawi Raya

Alamata Kofele Merab

Azernet

Semin-Achefer Endamehoni Ada’a Yem Special

Woreda

Debube-

Achefer

Welmera

Bahir-Dar

Ketma Zuria

Sinana

Dera

Agarfa

Liban

Chiquala

PASTORAL

Yabello Esera Jijiga Chifra

Dire Hammer Babile Dubti

Gode Asayita

Kelafo

Sub-Annex C: Targets by region and Phase

Target by Phase Year

1 Year

2 Year

3 Year

4 Year

5 Total

Phase 1 Woredas – 8 initial Amhara

600 600 600 600 600 3,000

Tigray 600 600 600 600 515 2,915

Somali 600

600 600 500 222 2,522

Oromia 600 600 600 600 600 3,000

49


Total 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,300 1,937 11,437

Phase 2 Woredas – additional

12

Amhara

600 600 600 600 2,400

SNNPR

900 900 900 900 3,600

Afar

600 600 600 600 2,400

Somali

300 300 300 300 1,200

Oromia

900 900 900 900 3,600

Total --- 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 13,200

Phase 3 Woredas – additional

10

Amhara

600 600 600 1,800

Tigray

300 300 300 900

SNNPR

600 600 600 1,800

Afar

300 300 300 900

Somali

300 300 300 900

Oromia

1200 1200 1200 3,600

Total --- --- 3,300 3,300 3,300 9,900

50


Sub-Annex D: Final List of Target Woreda and Intake

51


Sub-Annex E: M&E and data collection activities under the Building the Potential of Youth

cooperative agreement

SC and its partners will be performing formative assessments at the Woreda level for a portion

of the target Woredas. The assessments will include:

• Rapid youth assessment focused on knowledge, attitudes, practices and assets, with an

emphasis on well-being

• Literacy and numeracy assessments of youth with the targeted profile

• Employment market assessment to identify employment opportunities, skills gaps and

projected economic growth/employment opportunities

• Existence of youth service providers, their services, scale of reach, target youth

population(s), and organizational capacity

• Existence of other youth-oriented programs (e.g., government, donor)

The findings of these assessments will inform final activity design and implementation approach

and identify required customizations at the Woreda and Kebele levels. These assessments will

be performed on a rolling basis as the activity expands to additional geographic areas and are

deliverables under IR1 of the Results Framework. SC sampling strategy for the assessments listed above is… ANNEX: Mapping of Intervention Areas ANNEX: Performance Monitoring Plan ANNEX: Implementation Timeline ANNEX: Targets (if applicable) ANNEX: Year 1 Annual Report ANNEX: Year 2, Q1 Report ANNEX: USAID Youth Workforce Development Research Agenda ANNEX: OTHER POTENTIAL reports??? Woreda Assessment Reports; Youth Profile Data;

WRN Curricula Outline, YIA Curricula Outline, ANNEX: SC Youth Profile Data Collection Tool

Sub-Annex F: Report

FINAL REPORT CONTENTS 1. Title Page

2. Table of Contents (including Table of Figures and Table of Charts, if needed)

3. List of Acronyms

4. Acknowledgements or Preface (optional)

5. Executive Summary (3-5 pages)

The executive summary should succinctly capture the survey purpose and survey

questions; project background; survey design, methods; and limitations; and the findings,

conclusions, and recommendations.

6. Introductory Chapter

a. A description of the project evaluated, including goals and objectives.

b. Brief statement on purpose of the survey, including a list of the main survey

questions.

52


c. Brief statement on the methods used in the survey such as desk/document review,

interviews, site visits, surveys, etc.

d. Explanation of any limitations of the survey—especially with respect to the

methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between

comparator groups, etc.)—and how these limitations affect the findings.

7. Findings: This section should include findings relative to the survey questions. The

information shall be organized so that each survey question is a sub-heading.

8. Conclusions: This section must answer the survey questions based upon the evidence

provided through the Findings section. The information shall be organized so that each

survey question is a sub-heading.

9. Recommendations: Based on the conclusions, this section must include actionable

statements that can be implemented into the existing program or included into future

program design. Recommendations are only valid when they specify who does what,

and relate to activities over which the USAID program has control. For example,

recommendations describing government action is not valid, as USAID has no direct

control over government actions. Alternatively, the recommendation may state how

USAID resources may be leveraged to initiate change in government behavior and

activities. It should also include recommended future objectives and types of specific

activities based on lessons learned. The information shall be organized so that each survey

question is a sub-heading.

10. Annex: The annexes to the final survey report should be submitted as separate

documents—with appropriate labels in the document file name (e.g., Annex 1 – Survey

SOW), and headers within the document itself—and may be aggregated in a single

zipped folder.

a. Survey Statement of Work

b. Places visited; list of organizations and people interviewed, including contact details.

c. Survey design and methodology.

d. Copies of all tools such as survey instruments, questionnaires, discussions guides,

checklists.

e. Bibliography of critical background documents.

f. Meeting notes of all key meetings with stakeholders.

g. “Statement of Differences”

h. Survey Team CV’s

REPORTING GUIDELINES

• The format of the report shall be consistent with the USAID branding guidelines.

• The survey report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well- organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project over the

given time period, what did not, and why.

• Survey reports shall address all survey questions included in the statement of

work.

• The survey report should include the statement of work as an annex. All

modifications to the statement of work, whether in technical requirements,

survey questions, survey team composition, methodology, or timeline need to be

agreed upon in writing by the Program Office.

• Survey methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting

the survey such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be

included in an annex in the final report.

53


• Survey findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females, and data

will be disaggregated by gender, age group, and geographic area wherever

feasible.

• Limitations to the survey shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the survey methodology (selection

bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).

• Survey findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not

based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings

should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative and/or

qualitative evidence.

• Sources of information, including any peer-reviewed or grey literature, will be properly identified and listed in an annex.

Recommendations will be supported by a specific set of findings. They will also be action-

oriented, practical, and specific, with defined responsible parties for each action.

54


Annex II: List of documents reviewed

TITLE SOURCE DATE

PMP Indicator Progress-USAID Standard

Indicators and Project Custom Indicators

AID-663-A-15-00006 Year II

Quarter I Report- USAID

January-March 2016

Indicator Performances by Quarter and

Sex Disaggregation

AID-663-A-15-00006 Year II


January-March 2016

Youth Profile &Rapid Assessment

Summary

AID-663-A-15-00006 Year II


January-March 2016

Labor Market Assessment and Value

Chain Identification Tools

FFARM PLC December 2015

Youth Profile Data Collection tool using

Tablets/Mobile Application

USAID POTENTIAL Program N/A

Youth Registration Tool USAID POTENTIAL Program N/A

Attendance Data Collection Tool USAID POTENTIAL Program N/A

Promoting Opportunities through

Training, Education, Transition

Investment and Livelihoods

(POTENTIAL) Program Performance

Monitoring and Survey Plan

USAID POTENTIAL Program July 2015

Statement of Work- Performance Survey

of USAID/Ethiopia’s Building the Potential

of Youth

USAID Ethiopia June 2016

55


Annex III: Team Composition:

Social Impact Baseline Performance Survey Team:

Andrew Epstein,

Team Leader

(Leader of Team #1)

Argaw Korssa Sapane, Local Expert

Abiy Seyoum, Logistician

Marisa Ensor, Monitoring and Survey

Expert

(Leader of Team #2)

Ermias Eshetu, Local Expert

Mohammed Reshid Diko, Logistician

56


Annex IV: Data Collection Tools

EPMES Baseline Survey

TTI-Instructor Interview Protocol

This interview is part of the baseline survey of the USAID/Youth Potential project, a

project to improve youth employment opportunities in Ethiopia. This survey will not

determine if the project will continue, nor is it to evaluate your performance. It is only to

learn about what went well, if the resources are useful, and what the challenges are.

We are very grateful for your time; this interview should take about an hour. We hope you

will give us as much information as possible. The information you provide to us here is

confidential. Please know that we will not share your name with anyone outside the

research team, or quote you in our report without your permission, so we also hope that

you will provide honest and accurate answers. Do you consent to participating?

Name of Interviewer Date

Region

Woreda

Town/Village

Position Title of Interviewee

Gender: M / F

Interviewee Type

Instructor (a)

Administrator (b)

Other: (c)

Name of Center/Institution

Center/Institution Type:

TTI (a)

TVET (b)

57


Farmer Training Center (c)

Other: (d)

58


1. How long have you been in this position? ________(years)

1a. Tell me a little about your job duties or courses you teach:

2. Have you or your institution received any training or other resources from the

Youth Potential Project yet?

Yes No

IF NO, SKIP TO Q5

2a. If yes, (Check all that apply):

Work Ready Now (a)

Aflateen (b)

Be Your Own Boss (c)

Youth in Action (d)

Block Grant (e)

Labor Market Research (f)

Public/Private Partnerships (incl. internships, job shadows, job fairs, etc) (g)

Other: (i)

3. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, how would you rate the quality of the

training and/or resources you received from the project so far?

1 2 3 4 5

3a. Explain your answer (i.e, Why did you rate it a 4, and not a 5 or 3?):

4. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, how relevant was the training and/or

resources to the needs of the staff and students?

1 2 3 4 5

4a. Explain your answer:

59


5. Did you or your institution receive any training and/or resources focused on

youth employment prior to the project?

Yes No

5a. If yes, describe them (IF NO, SKIP TO Q8)

6. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, how would you rate the quality of the

previous training and/or resources you received?

1 2 3 4 5

6a. Explain your answer (i.e, Why did you rate it a 4, and not a 5 or 3?):

7. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, how relevant was the previous training

and/or resources to the needs of the staff and students?

1 2 3 4 5


8. Prior to the project, did your institution reach out to unemployed youth to

access your programs and services?

Yes No

8a. If yes, explain how (IF NO, SKIP TO Q9):

60


8b. What are the barriers and challenges to reaching this population?

Did you receive any external assistance in reaching this population prior to the project?

Yes No

8c. If yes, describe the assistance, from whom, if it was successful, and why or why not?

9. Prior to the project, did your institution reach out to employed youth to access

your programs and services?

Yes No



9c. Did you receive any external assistance in reaching this population prior to the

project?

Yes No

9d. If yes, describe the assistance, from whom, if it was successful, and why or why not?

10. Prior to the project, did your institution specifically reach out to female youth

to access your programs and services?

Yes No




project?

61


Yes No

10d. If yes, describe the assistance, from whom, if it was successful, and why or why not?

11. Prior to the project, did your institution help connect unemployed youth to

employment and/or income generating opportunities?

Yes No




project?

Yes No

11d. If yes, describe the assistance, from whom, if it was successful, and why or why

not?

12. Prior to the project, did your institution help connect employed youth to

improved employment and/or income generating opportunities?

Yes No




project?

Yes No

62



not?

13. Prior to the project, did your institution specifically help connect female youth

to improved employment and/or income generating opportunities?

Yes No




project?

Yes No


not?

14. Describe what short-term training or courses your center/institute offered to

youth prior to the project that are designed to increase employment and

income:

14a. Are these courses or training successful?

Yes No

14b. Why or why not?

14c. Did any of the training or courses target female youth?

Yes No

63


15. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, how relevant were the training or courses

for youth provided by your center/institute to the needs of the current job

market prior to the project?

1 2 3 4 5


16. Did you or your institution have access to job market data prior to the project

and over the last two to three years?

Yes No

16a. If yes, describe where the data comes from and how it is used:

17. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, how likely were unemployed youth that

completed the training/course(s) to become employed prior to the project?

1 2 3 4 5


18. On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, how likely were employed youth that

completed the course(s) to improve their employment circumstances (for

example through promotion, increase in pay, or find a better job) prior to the

project?

1 2 3 4 5


64


19. What are the most important factors that influence whether a graduate obtains

improved employment or increased income (quality, relevance, access, other)?

20. What are the biggest challenges for youth employment in this region?

21. What in your opinion are the best ways to reduce these challenges?

22. In addition to the things you’ve already described, what other ways has your

center/institute attempted to reduce these challenges?

65


EPMES Baseline Survey

Participant Focus Group Discussion Protocol

Date: Interviewer Name:

Organization:

Location (town, county, region):

Number of boys: Number of girls:

Introduction: This interview is part of the baseline survey of the USAID/Youth Potential project, a

project to improve youth employment opportunities in Ethiopia. This survey will not

determine if the project will continue, nor is it to evaluate your performance. It is only to

learn about what went well, if the resources are useful, and what the challenges are.

We are very grateful for your time and appreciate your help. We hope you will give us as

much information as possible. The information you provide to us here is confidential.

Please know that we will not share your name with anyone outside the research team, or

put your name in our report without your permission. This survey will take about 1 hour

to complete. Do you consent to participating?

1. Before we begin, I’d like to introduce my self…

2. Now, one at a time, everyone please say your first name and how old you are.

3. Raise your hand if you have searched for a job? What can you tell me about it? Were you

successful? Why or why not?

4. What are some of the biggest challenges to finding employment, especially for young people

like you?

5. What are some ways to reduce these challenges?

6. Raise your hand if you have taken a course or training in employment skills at the local TTI,

TVET, or other employment training project? Was it helpful? Why or why not? (probe

about quality, relevance, access)

7. Are there employment opportunities for young people in this region? If yes, what are they?

If no, what can be done to increase opportunities?

8. Are there particular groups of young people who have the hardest time finding employment

around here? Who are they? Why is hard for them in particular? What can be done to

increase their access to assistance and to employment opportunities?

9. Is there anything else you think we should know about youth and employment in this

region?

66


67


ANNEX V: Sample Details

DATE TTI NAME LOCATION METHOD/# OF

PARTICIPANTS

INST ADM STU TOT

Thr, 20th Jigjiga polytechnic college Jijiga, Somali KII, instructors/3(m), 1(f)

KII, administrator/1(m) 4 1 0 5

Thr, 20th Gode Polytechnic college Gode, Somali KII, coordinator/1(m)

KII, instructor/1(m)

FGD, students/6(m)

1 1 6 8

Fri, 21st Harorays FTC (morning) Jijiga, Somali

FGD, students/5(m), 1(f)


KII, coordinator/1(m)

1 1 6 8

Fri, 21st Gode Agriculture college Gode, Somali



KII, administrator/1(m)

FGD, students/4(m)

2 1 4 7

Mon, 24th Maichew Agri. TVET College Endmahoni, Tigray

FGD, students/5(f)

FGD, students/6(m)


KII, instructors/1(f), 7(m)

6 1 11 18

Mon, 24th Tilahun Yigzaw TVET College Endmahoni, Tigray

FGD, students/5(f)

FGD, students/4(m)

KII instructor/1(m)

KII instructor/1(m)

2 0 9 11

Mon, 24th Maichew Polytechnic Endmahoni, Tigray

FGD, students/5(f)

KII, instructor/1(m) 1 0 5 6

Tue, 25th Alamata Technical College Alamata, Tigray



FGD, students/10(f)

FGD, students/10(m)

2 0 20 22

Wed, 26th Kechachumeta FTC (phone) Azernet Berbere, SNNP




1 1 5 7

68


Wed, 26th Ani FTC (Phone) Endagegne, SNNP


KII, instructor/1(m) 1 0 4 5

Wed, 26th Durbete TVET College

Bahir Dar, Amhara FGD, students/2(f), 4(m)




2 1 6 9

Thr, 27th Adadle Polytechnic College

(Phone)

Asayita, Afar KII, administrator/1(m)

0 1 0 1

Thr, 27th Bahir Dar Polytechnic College Bahir Dar, Amhara FGD, students/5(m)

FGD, students/5(f)




2 1 10 13

Fri, 28th Bisheftu Polytechnich college

(Phone)

Ade’a, Oromia KII, instructors/2(m)

2 0 0 2

14 9

TOTAL 27

(8F)

9

(0F)

86

(36F)

122

(44F)

❖ Phone Interviews for Oromia and SNNP: These sites have been determined to pose security problems as they require driving more than 40K outside of

Addis.

❖ Phone interviews for Afar: Save the Children has currently identified only one TVET in Afar. In order to complete data collection in time to present

preliminary findings on December 31st, we will arrange to collect data from the TVET by phone as doing this is more efficient than sending a team to Afar

for only one site.

*PHONE INTERVIEWS:

Oromia:

1. Holeta Agriculture TVET college (Wolmera)

2. Bisheftu Polytechnich college (Ade’a)

Afar:

1. Adadle Polytechnic College (Asayita)

69


SNNP:

1. Kechachumeta FTC (Merab Azernet)

2. Ani FTC (Endegegne)

70


ANNEX VI: List of Codes for quality training/education

CODE LISTS


FREQUENCY

(TOTAL N=42)

PERCENT

Overcrowded classes 17 40%

Quality, poor 12 29%

Quality, moderate 20 48%

Quality, strong 7 17%

Practical/hands-on training, limited 29 69%

Practical/hands-on training, adequate 8 19%

Training equipment & materials, limited 34 81%

Training equipment & materials, adequate 6 14%

Facilities/Land, limited 36 86%

Facilities/Land, adequate 3 7%

Instructor competence, limited 14 33%

Instructor competence, adequate 13 31%

Instructor commitment, limited 10 24%

Instructor commitment, adequate 15 36%

Instructor logistical support, limited 12 29%

Instructor logistical support, adequate 6 14%

General ICT, limited 33 79%

General ICT, adequate 1 2%

Quality assurance process, limited 24 57%

Quality assurance process, adequate 1 2%

71


ANNEX VII: List of Codes for access/availability

CODE LISTS


FREQUENCY

(TOTAL N=42)

PERCENT

Evening Classes, Less Access 8

19%

Evening Classes, Employed Students 5

12%

Less Access, demand higher than available space 27

64%

OJT(On-the-Job-Training), available for employed 21

50%

OJT, not available for employed 14

33%

Less access, distance/transportation 34

81%

Less access, reserved spaces for returnee youth 1

2%

Less access, non-meritocratic issues 28

67%

CoC, less access 15 36%

CoC, access 8 19%

Focus on Youth, yes 29

69%

Focus on youth, no 10

24%

Start-up capital, accessible 0

0%

Start-up capital, not accessible 40

95%

Soft skills, accessible 8

19%

Soft skills, not accessible 28

67%

Job availability, low 36

86%

Job availability, high 3

7%

Job availability, only for CoC holders 20 48%

Training available, student driven 8

19%

Training available, market driven 17

40%

Training available, government driven 27

64%

72


ANNEX VIII: List of Codes for relevance

CODE LISTS FOR RELEVANCE OF TRAINING


FREQUENCY

(TOTAL N=42)

PERCENT

Link b/w short-term training & self-employment, weak 22

52%

Link b/w short-term training & self- employment, strong 17

40%

Link b/w long-term training & CoC, weak 31 74%

Link b/w long-term training & CoC, strong 1 2%

Link b/w long-term training & employment, strong 6

14%

Link b/w long-term training & employment, weak 31

74%

Under-employment/Overqualified 19

45%

73


ANNEX IX: Demographic breakdown of Youth Profile data, by

region

AFAR AMHARA OROMIA SNNPR SOMALI TIGRAY

Sex

Male 58.2% 51.9% 71.7% 45.2% 60.0% 52.5%

Female 41.8% 48.1% 28.3% 54.8% 40.0% 47.5%

Average Age

21.1

20.7

21.7

21.8

19.3

21.0

Marital Status

Single 63.7% 87.1% 89.7% 58.3% 68.6% 78.1%

Married 34.1% 10.7% 10.0% 39.9% 29.1% 15.9%

Divorced 2.2% 2.1% 0.3% 1.7% 2.3% 5.8%

Have children

59.9% 10.1% 21.6% 66.7% 54.2% 32.7%

Average Household Size

5.5 4.9 5.3 4.4 6.7 5.1

Education

No Schooling 7.5% 4.8% 0.0% 0.3% 8.8% 0.0%

Informal Education 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.5% 2.1% 0.0%

Primary First Level 5.6% 8.1% 0.0% 12.8% 31.6% 0.5%

Primary School 24.3% 20.8% 5.1% 48.4% 43.4% 16.1%

Secondary School 34.8% 39.4% 65.0% 24.6% 12.3% 34.9%

College or University 3.2% 2.6% 10.0% 9.2% 0.3% 3.1%

TVET 14.6% 19.7% 14.8% 1.8% 0.5% 43.4%

74


Annex X: Employment and Gender

Employed, 2.2%

Employed, 3.0%

Self-employed, 16.9%

Self-employed, 27.2%

Unemployed, 80.8%

Unemployed, 69.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Female

Male

Women are more likely to be unemployed than men, largely

because men are more often self-employed.

FemaleMale

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Land for agriculture

Land for livestock

Place for business

Natural Resources

Tools or equipment

Other

Males were more likely to have access to land and natural

resources.

75


Type of employment by Region

TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT AFAR AMHARA OROMIA SNNPR SOMALI TIGRAY OVERALL

Other 60% 43% 78% 67% 82% 50% 56%

Daily laborer 27% 39% 0% 22% 9% 17% 27%

Agriculture 13% 10% 11% 0% 0% 17% 10%

Mechanics 0% 6% 0% 0% 9% 0% 3%

Hairdressing 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Making clothes 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

Daily Laborer

Agriculture

Mechanics

Hairdessing

Making clothes

Occupation by type of employment

Self Employed Employed

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Other Daily

Laborer

Agriculture Mechanics Hairdressing Making

clothes

Self-employment by region

Afar

Amhara

Oromia

SNNPR

Somali

Tigray

76


Annex XI: Additional Literacy Figures

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No Schooling

Informal Education

Primary First Level

Primary

Secondary

Preparatory

College or University

TVET

Self-reported literacy is nearly universal among those with at

least some formal education.

77


ANNEX XII: Percent of youth owning productive assets, by region

78


ANNEX XIII: Primary project Baseline Indicators



skills26

Literacy: 95%

Numeracy: 93%



development28



profile on average)


employment29

0 (See footnote)





Total: 25.09%



Male: 30.16%

Female: 19.16%


26 MEP has indicator of "improved literacy and numeracy skills" so that value would presumably be 0 for now. This

was supposed to be collected through a literacy assessment, but was not available at the time of this baseline. The

PMDS data quality assessment conducted in September recommends that this indicator be dropped because the

project does not support literacy and numeracy improvement directly. 27 The PIRS for this indicator specify that data are captured through a pre- and post-survey, and this is currently

tracked through the Employment Tool. The baseline team did not have access to the employment tool dataset at the

time of this baseline. Outcome level indicators on changes to employment are also being collected through the

Outcome Survey in some areas. The PMDS recommends that if the Outcome Survey is being scaled up to cover all

program areas, this could replace the Employment Tool, as collecting both is redundant and having a single source will

improve consistency. 28 This number represents the total number of hours all youth in the youth profile data set report accessing

workforce development training. There were some missing month/year assignments to some training entries, and 22

of the 240 trainings reported did not have hours recorded. 29 This value is presumed to be 0. Outcome data was available in the Tigray only, but not overall (420 youth, 97%).

POTENTIAL should be tracking this data using a program form in accordance with their PIRS. 30 This value is presumed to be 0. There is an outcome data collection form for this, but the baseline team did not

have access to this data set at the time of this baseline. 31 The current PIRS indicates that the data source for this indicator will be the OCAT, which is a general capacity

building framework for organizational development. However, this capacity building indicator is limited to the WRN

and other soft skills training of trainers provided by Youth Potential. The PMDS recommends that because the broad OCA tool will not be precise enough to measure change in training delivery capacity, the OCA tool should be

removed from the PIRS. 32 Income data in the data set is not currently reliable. See Limitations section for a detailed discussion on income

data in the Youth Profile data set.

79


ANNEX XIV: Youth profile data collection tool

Youth Intake Profile (Baseline) Data Collection Tool Note: Mobile Tool on data collection includes numbers

Standard

Zone code

Standard

Woreda

code

Internal

Kebele code

Individual Youth Serial

No. (3 digits)

Youth ID:

Full Name, with Father &

Grand Father’s name

Sex : ☐ Female

☐ Male

Age (15 – 29): ___________

Personal Mobile Telephone

Number (“None” if no

telephone):

________________________________________

Landline (Residence) Telephone

Number (“None” if no

telephone):

________________________________________

E-mail (if not have, indicate

None):

________________________________________

Facebook (if not have, indicate

None):

________________________________________

Additional contact Person’s

Name: (relative/neighbor/friends)

________________________________________

Contact Person’s Telephone

Number:

________________________________________

Region: ___________________

__

Woreda: ________________

__

Kebele (where

you live in):

______________

Date of enrollment in

Program:

(DD/MM/YYYY)

Marital Status: ☐ Single ☐ Married ☐ Divorced/Separated ☐ Widow

At what age were you married? ______________

Do you have Children? ☐ Yes ☐ No How many children do you have? _____________

80


With whom do you currently live in?

☐ with my two parents ☐ with my one parent

☐ with my spouse and children ☐ with my relatives ☐ Alone

How many persons live in the household that you are currently living? ____________

How many persons do you economically support by your own income/production? _____________

What is your level of education?

☐ No schooling (not engaged in any formal education), but attended literacy program

☐ No schooling (not engaged in any formal education) and never attended literacy program

☐ Primary school (1 – 4 grade)

☐ Primary school (5 – 8 grade)

☐ Secondary school (9 – 10 grade)

☐ Preparatory (11 – 12 grade)

☐ TVET

☐ College/University

Are you attending school now? ☐ Yes ☐ No

What is the main reason for not attending school now? ☐ Completed ☐ Dropped out ☐ Neve attended

Explain all the reasons for never attended formal school or dropped out of school?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What is your literacy level?: ☐ can read & write ☐ cannot read and write

Numeracy status: (Can you do basic calculations? ☐ Yes ☐ No

What skills do you have acquired from parents, family, family businesses, other experiences, etc.?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Have you been enrolled in any formal and/or non-formal skill training? ☐ Yes ☐ No

What training have you attended (only the type/title of training)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

How useful was the skill training you attended? ☐ Not useful ☐ Little/somewhat useful ☐ very useful

Which of the following best describes your current income earning status?

☐ Do nothing to earn income (unemployed)

☐ Paid employed in government, private, NGO, Community, etc.

☐ Self-employed/own or group (business, petty trading, daily labor, farming, etc.)

What type of self-employment are you engaged in? ☐ Own Work/business ☐ Group Work/business

How many are in your group of self-employment business? _________________

Do you think you are under-employed in the paid work/self-employment? ☐ Yes ☐ N

Why do you say you are under-employed?

☐ Few/irregular working/hours per day ☐ Not use my full capacity/skill and knowledge

☐ Low payment ☐ Other, Specify ___________________________________

What type of paid work/self-employment business are you engaged in?

___ Agriculture (growing or producing crops/vegetables/fruits, etc.)

___ Livestock related (cattle, shoats, etc. rearing, dairy, fattening, poultry, beekeeping)

___ Buying or selling (retailing) products that other people grow

___ Transporting products or goods

___ Handicrafts, carpentry, carving, or woodworking

___ Brick lying, building, or construction.

___ Making clothes or textiles

___ Hairdressing

___ Mechanics or welding

81


___ Daily laborer

___ Other (specify) ________________________

What type of unpaid work/business do you do? ______________________________________

What is true about the main type of work or livelihood you are involved? (Mark all that apply).

___ It is fair & decent work

___ It’s physically dangerous

___ It exposes me to pesticides

___ It exposes me to carry heavy loads

___ I often have to work very long hours

___ I often work in areas where there is armed conflict, rebels, or militia

___ It exposes me to landmines

___ I sometimes feel threatened (insecure)

___ Other (specify) _______________________________

How many hours per day do you normally work in your paid/self-employment income generating job? ____ hours

How many days on average have you worked per month for earning income? ___________ days

Can you tell what your average expenditure per week in birr? _____________

What is the easiest way for you to tell about your earning? ☐ Daily ☐ Weekly ☐ Monthly ☐ Annually

Using the rate that you can tell your income, please tell me your average earning? ______________ Birr

Have you ever had paid work/self-employment work before? ☐ Yes ☐ No

How many years have passed since your last paid work/self-employment work? (If less than a year, mention in

x/12) _____________________

82


Which of the following productive assets do you have (i.e., any physical resource that can be used to generate

livelihood and income) to make a living & generate income. Mark all that apply.

___ I have access to land for growing crops

___ I have access to land for raising animals

___ I have access to places/house, etc. where I can do business

___ I have access to natural resources (water, trees, sand, stone, etc.) that I can use

___ I have access to the tools or equipment I need

___ I have access to the supplies or materials I need

___ Other (specify): ________________________________________________________________

Do you have family members, neighbors, or friends who provide you regular counseling and advice regarding your

livelihood and earning income?

☐ None at all ☐ Yes, a few (1 or 2 people) ☐ Yes, many (3 or more people)

Have you previously or currently received any livelihood and income earning related services from government or

community organizations in your area? ☐ Yes ☐ No

What was the benefit from the services? __________________________________________

Do you often take the time to learn one or more new skills related to your livelihood and earning income?

☐ Yes ☐ No

How do you do your learning of skills related to employment and income learning?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What are your future goals of the next 3 – 5 years in relation to work/employment?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What are your future goals of the next 3 – 5 years in relation to social activities?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

What are your future goals of the next 3 – 5 years in relation to family?

____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

83


Out of School Literacy Assessment

(OLA Test Responses for each Youth, please use separate Test Sheet prepared in respective

languages)

Language: ______________________

A. Real Life Reading

1.1 Money ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.2 Bag of Grain ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.3 Three buildings ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.4 a) Mobile Phone Message – what time? ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.4 b) Mobile Phone Message – Place of Meeting ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.5 a) Banking Hours – Operating Hours ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.5 b) Banking Hours – Closing Hours ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.6 a) Medicine Taking – Child ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

1.6 b) Medicine Taking - Adult ☐ Correct ☐ Incorrect

B. Reading Test

Level 1. ______ # of correct readings______ # of incorrect readings out of 15 Words



84


Data Management Name of data collector:

Date of data collection

(DD/MM/YYYY):

Signature:

Finalized: ☐ _____________________(DD/MM/YYYY)

Encoded in the tablet application

form: ☐ _____________________(DD/MM/YYYY)

Sent to the Server: ☐ _____________________(DD/MM/YYYY)

Verified by:

Date of Verification

(DD/MM/YYYY):

Signature:

Verification Findings:

85


Annex XV: Youth Intake Profile (Baseline) Data Collection Guide

Introduction

This tool will be used to collect basic data on all youth who have are targeted by the USAID’s

building the potential of youth and mainly generates baseline data relevant to performance

indicators of the project. The main indicators from which baseline information will be

generated from this tool include:

• Number of persons receiving new employment or better employment (including

self-employment) as a result of participation in USG funded workforce development

programs

• Percept of internships/ apprenticeships transitioning into employment

• Number of youth beneficiaries with increased income

• Number of youth beneficiaries with increased productive assets

• Percent of youth with improved development assets as per social capital dimensions in

the youth livelihood framework

Use of the tool: The tool is designed in electronic and hard version, both to be used as a

duplicate source of information. The hard copy version will be collected immediately

when the youth is engaged in the first program activity. Then, the data from the hard copy will

be verified by responsible staff and will be entered into an electronic version using

tablet application of the form.

Then, the data entered in electronic tablet application will be centrally stored in a server and a

compiled data will be downloaded in excel format from the central server. From the central

server data will be shared with Region and Woreda office on defined time schedule for

documentation and further analysis.

For common understanding this guideline explains the different data variables of the Youth

Profile.

Definitions/Clarification of Variables

86


Youth ID: Youth identification is built using a combination of standard Zone and Woreda

codes (attachment A), and internally developed unique code of intervention Kebeles and serial

number of individual youth. After assigning a unique ID (code) of youth during profile data

collection, the ID will serve as an identifier together with the full name of the beneficiary for all

other related data collection.

Example: The region code is omitted purposefully to minimize the length of the ID

and Region is already captured below.

Zone Woreda Kebele Youth

Serial #

Youth ID

07 01 04 001 070104001

07 -Zone code for West Gojam

01- Woreda code for Semen Achefer

04-Keble coded 04 is taking the 4th

intervention Kebeles as coded by internal

system

87


001-Individual number 1 in Kebele 04.

Full Name: This is the name of the individual youth captured with First name, Father’s

name and Grandfathers name. Example: Almaz Birihanu Feyissa

First Name - Almaz; -Father’s name – Birihanu; a-Grand father’s name - Feyissa

Picture of the Youth: The photo of the individual beneficiary youth can be uploaded

after getting permission from the beneficiary youth. This is optional, may include or can

skip it.

Sex: Select Female or Male.

Age: This is the to record how old the youth is write the specific age in year and the

youth has to be within the age category of 15 – 29 years. Age is approximated into

whole number of for example 15 years and 8 months to 16 years, etc.

Contact Address: Address is very critical as we need to keep close contact/ tracking

with them during intervention. So, include their personal (mobile, residence, e-mail, face

book) if available and also additional close contact person’s name and telephone number.

In each blank space fill the required address but if not have, indicate “none”

- Contact address: the youth has to record he/she has personal number of

mobile phone, landline phone, email, face book address.

- Another contact person’s name: Here the youth has to give the names of his/her

relative or neighbor or friend who can be contacted on behalf of him/her and

type the full name. This is additional to be captured even if the youth has

personal address.

Region and Woreda: Type the name of the region and the Woreda name in the blank

space in the hard copy. In the tablet application, a list of the region and woreda is

displayed to choose from.

Kebele: Type the name of the kebele where the youth is living

Location of Interview: Please take the GPS coordinate of the location. Before trying to

take the GPS coordinate, please make sure that you are outside a room or in an open

air (sky) free from shade so that the tablet can access adequate number of satellites on

the sky. This is applicable only if we were directly collecting Youth Profile at the

individual site of the youth, otherwise, it will definitely be skipped.

88


Date of enrollment in the program: Write the date at which the youth is enrolled

into the program for the first time using the format dd/mm/yyyy. To be consistent, the

date has to be in GC, not Ethiopia calendar.

Marital Status: Select one from the listed marital statuses. Single to explain not

married, Married those who are still with their spouse, Divorced/Separated who was

married but divorced/separated (note this does not mean one of the spouses is away for

sometimes), widow whose spouse has died.

At what age were you married?: Type the age at which the youth was married (this

can be restated as “how old were you when you get married”, for those who are

married, divorced, widowed.

Do you have children?: Indicate “Yes” or “No” and Enter the number of children the

youth currently has for the next question of How many children do you have?.

With whom do you currently live: Select one of the listed appropriate answers if

youth lives with parents, one parent, married with spouse and/or children, relatives or

by themselves (alone)

How many persons live in the household that you currently living: Type the

number of persons living in the household including himself/herself. It should include all

the persons living in the household permanently regardless of the type of relation

(children, spouse, relative, etc.) with the person.

How many persons do you economically support by your own income/production:

This is the number of persons which their basic life needs is dependent on the youth’s

full support regardless of their relationship (can be children, spouse, relative, etc.).

Note that this is does not include support that the youth may give sometime in given

period, such as paying once per year school fee.

What is your level of education? This question is asked to know whether or not the

individual has attended formal education (schooling) or literacy. If he/she attended

schooling or not, ask him/her up to what grade/ level and mark as appropriate within

the interval and for completed the level indicated accordingly.

Also, if he/she never attended any formal education (i.e., No schooling), ask him/her

whether he/she attended any literacy program. If he attended a literacy program select

the first answer. If he/she never attended a literacy program, mark the second answer.

89


Are you attending school now?: Select “yes” if he/she is currently attending school

otherwise select “No”. Note that the project mainly targets out of school or complete

and unemployed or under-employed, knowing their current attendance of school is

important, and it could include extension or other.

What is the main reason for not attending school now?: Select complete only if

the person graduated from TVET, college or university. Select “Dropped out” if the

person discontinued attending school before the next higher level. Select “Never

attended” if the person had never attended school before, corresponding to the

response of “No schooling” in the previous question.

Example: If the person finished 10th grade or 12the grade and has not continued further,

we select “dropped out”.

Explain all the reasons for never attended formal school or dropping out of

school: For youth who is dropped out or never attended schooling, except completed,

write explanation of the different reasons

Example: A youth may have dropped out due to lack of financial support, illness, failing

to get the passing point to continue to next higher level, etc.

What is your literacy level: This question is to assess the individual youth’s ability to

read and write. If the says can read and write, select the first option“can read and write”

otherwise select the option “cannot read and write”

Numeracy status (can you do basic calculation): Similarly, to know the numeracy

ability of the individual youth is asking if they can do simple basic mathematical

calculations, that is, addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication(X) and division (÷).

What skills do you have acquired from parents, family, family businesses,

other experiences, etc.: any skill learnt informally in the process of day to day

interaction with people and exposure to the skill. (For example, learning baking bread

from your mother or grandmother, learning slaughtering sheep, or watching a friend

maintains a mobile phone, engaging in a garage, etc.).

Have you been enrolled in any formal and/or non-formal skill training?: This

could be either formal or non-formal skill training.

• Formal skill training: means the youth attended in a school, college or an

organization providing skills training using formal and standardized

90


curriculum. It is a long term training accompanied by received a certificate at

the end.

• Non -formal skill training: means the youth attended in a school, college or

an organization providing skills training which is short term and tailor-made.

The maximum duration for this training is six months based on contextualized

module and could be in a center based, mobile or satellite modality.

What training have you attended (only the type/title of training)?:

If the youth said have attended skill training, i.e., answered “yes” for the above question,

the type(s)/title(s) of the different trainings will be written here numbered or in bullet

point including the duration of the training.

Example: Mobile maintenance training for one month, Hotel and Tourism training for

three months, etc.

How useful was the skill training you attended?: This question is asked to

measure the level of the benefit of the training based on the perception of the youth

about the usefulness of the training.

Which of the following best describes your current income earning status?

This question is used to assess the current income earning (employment) status of the

youth. The responses are categorized into three. (1). To capture if he/she is not

currently engaged himself/herself in any of income earning activities or not employed at

all, the first answer will be selected. (2). If he/she is employed and being paid by any

organization (governmental, private, NGO, etc.,) the second answer will be selected and

(3). If he/she is running his/her any type of own livelihood activity/business as individual

or as a group, the third answer will be selected.

What type of self-employment are you engaged in? This question is asked if the

answer to the above question is the third one (Self-employed/own or group).If the

youth has livelihood activity/ business that is run by him/her only, the first answer

“Own work/business” is selected, but if it is livelihood/ business run by group the

second one “Group work/business” is selected.

91


How many are in your group of self-employment business? If the youth

indicates that have group activity/business, the number of people who are

working in the group has to be indicated.

Do you think you are under-employed in the paid work/self-employment?

This question is asked to assess the perception/feeling of the youth on the work which

he/she currently doing as paid or self-employed. Underemployment refers to

an employment situation that is insufficient in some important ways, relative to a

standard/capacity.

Examples: holding a part-time job despite desiring full-time work, over qualification (the

employee has education, experience, or skills beyond the requirements of the job).

Why do you say you are under-employed?: This question is asked if the above answer

is “yes” and it is meant to find out the reasons why the youth feels that he/she is

under-employed choosing from the categories of responses including also other possible

reasons by selecting “other” and specifying the reason in the space provided.

What type of paid work/self-employment business are you engaged in?

Different type of paid work/self-employment business the youth is currently engaged in

are listed and all possible answers can be selected from the lists. If there is other

engagement which is not listed, “other” will be selected and it must be specified in the

space provided.

What type of unpaid work/business do you do? Youth mostly have different

livelihood activities/ businesses that they may not be generating income for themselves.

So, response to this question will show their engagement even if not paid/generate own

income the type of the work is specified. Otherwise, write “None” in the space provide .

What is true about the main type of work or livelihood you are involved?

(Mark all that apply)

This question is meant to assess the safety and security situation of the

livelihood/business activities that youth are engaged in according to their

perception/judgement. Different possible areas of responses listed to choose from and

if there are other reasons that the youth mentioned mark the option “other” and write

the specific reason that the youth provides.

92


How many hours per day do you normally work, in your paid/self-

employment income generating job?

This will ask the youth to indicate the “average” (in case where the working hour varies)

numbers of hours he/she works per day is written here. Example: 8 hours, 10 hours,

etc…

How many days on average do you work per month for earning income?

The number of days he/she works per month for earning income is asked and written

here. This can be recorded in average because the number may vary from month to

month depending on the work situation. Example: 15 days per month.

➢ What is the easiest way for you to tell about your earnings? This is to

record the time that the youth easily remember his earning (payment) timing

for in a paid or own work as daily, weekly, monthly, annually basis.

Using the rate that you said you can tell your income, please tell me your

average earning in Birr?

Based on the timing in previous question, the youth will tell the average (considering

possible variation in different periods) income (earning) that he/she gets on average.

Example: 20 birr/day or 400 birr/month can be answers.

➢ Can you tell what your average expenditure per week in Birr? Asking

the youth to recall and estimate the amount of money he/she spent for his/her

basic necessities/living per week, taking an acceptable length that recall could be

easy and avoid daily variations.

Example: 200 birr per week or 25 birr per week

Have you ever had work/self-employment work before?

This is to ask the youth who says not employed if he/she were engaged in any type work

before.The answer is “Yes” or “No”

How many years have passed since your last work?

If the youth had some type of employment (paid or self), the question that follows is to

know how long since they discontinue the work and become unemployed.

93


Which of the following productive assets do you have (i.e., any physical

resource that can be used to generate livelihood and income) to make a

living & generate income. Mark all that apply.

From the list of different productive assets provided, mark those responses of youth as

appropriate. This will indicate if the youth has the capacity to get resources either from

their family, rent from others, get from the administration for short period of time,

their own, without where and how long the access is)

If there are assets which are not listed, mark “other” and should be specify the type of

asset in the space provided.

Do you have family members, neighbors, or friends who provide you regular

counseling and advice regarding your life and employment?

The youth will be ask if there is/are people who provide him/her with regular advices

and counseling regarding his/her life, employment, income, future goal, etc. Write the

response, whether there are or not indicating the number of people (if any) who

provide the advice and counseling

Have you previously or currently received any employment & income

earning related services from government or community organizations in

your area? This question is asked to know whether or not the youth is currently

receiving or received in the past any employment and income earning related services

from the government or community organization.

What was the benefit from the Services? If the answer to the previous question is

“yes” the youth can mention what benefit(s) she/he obtained from the service.

Do you often take the time to learn one or more new skills related to your

employment and income earning?

This is asked to assess whether or not the youth takes the initiative (motive) to learn

one or more new skills related to her/his employment and income earning.

94


How do you do your learning of skills related to employment and income

earning? If the answer to the above question is “yes”, this is asked to know how the

individual learns the skills related to his/her employment and income earning.

What are your main future goals of the next 3 - 5 years in relation to

work/employment?

In this section, the individual youth has to explain and list work/employment related

future goal(s) in the next 3-5 years .

What are your main future goals of the next 3 - 5 years in relation to social

activities?

Separately, the individual youth has to explain and list social activity related future

goal(s) in the next 3-5 years such as participation and contribution in community

activities, voluntarily work in youth groups, etc.

What are your main future goals of the next 3 - 5 years in relation to family?

Similarly, the individual youth has to briefly list future goal(s) in the next 3-5 years in

relation to his/her families, getting married and children, support siblings to finish their

school, etc.

Out of school literacy assessment – refer to the separate guide on this.

95


United States Agency for International Development

Entoto Street

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Documents

BUILDING THE POTENTIAL OF YOUTH BASELINE …pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MXKM.pdf · · 2017-09-02survey component 1: technical training institutions..... 9 survey component 2: youth