A GANAR ALLIANCE IMPACT EVALUATION MIDLINE REPORT HONDURAS May 2016 (Revised June 2018) This publication was developed by Social Impact, Inc. under contract No. AID-OAA-M-11- 00019 and produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 3 A GANAR ALLIANCE IMPACT EVALUATION MIDLINE REPORT HONDURAS May 2016 (Revised June 2018) Submitted to: Karen Towers, Education Team Leader Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean USAID/Washington D.C. Prepared by: Social Impact, Inc. Contract No. AID-OAA-M-11-00019 2300 Clarendon Boulevard Suite 1000 Arlington, VA, 22201 Tel: (703) 465-1884 Fax: (703) 465-1888 info@socialimpact.com DISCLAIMER This report was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Social Impact and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. iv A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The A Ganar evaluations could not have been completed without extensive collaboration between, and support from, many organizations and individuals. First and foremost, the evaluation team would like to thank USAID, both in Washington D.C. and the Missions in Guatemala and Honduras, for committing to such a long-term and intensive evaluation, demonstrating an impressive commitment to learning and improving their workforce development programming. Specifically, we thank Karen Towers, Education Team Leader in the Office of Regional Sustainable Development in the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean in Washington, who has served as the Contracting Officer’s Representative for the A Ganar Impact Evaluation and provided excellent guidance on all matters to the team. We would also like to thank Partners of the Americas, the implementer of the A Ganar program, and its local partners in Guatemala and Honduras, including Centro Asesor para el Desarrollo de los Recursos Humanos (CADERH), CESAL, Centro Nacional de Educación para el Trabajo (CENET), Children International, Fundación Nacional para el Desarrollo de Honduras (FUNADEH), Fundación Paiz, Glasswing, Grupo Ceiba, Libre Expresión, and Organization of Ibero-American States. They all engaged in the evaluation in a spirit of learning and collaboration, despite the additional burden an impact evaluation entails. We particularly want to thank Paul Teeple, Director of the A Ganar Program, Nadia Moreno, Country Coordinator, and Ana Perdomo, Program Coordinator for A Ganar Honduras, for their extended collaboration and support, even after the program was completed. From the evaluation perspective, we would also like to thank our local data collection partners, Centro de Investigaciones Económicas Nacionales (CIEN) in Guatemala and ESA Consultores in Honduras, and particularly Jorge Enrique, Lavarreda Gargollo, Pablo Pastor, and Claudia Regina Aguilar. They and their teams put forth tremendous effort, often at personal risk, to capture the high-quality data that is the basis for this report. Finally, we thank the youth and other stakeholders who participated in data collection. We hope that this report accurately represents their views and experiences and is useful in developing and improving future programs to better support them and their communities. This document was produced by Mike Duthie, Mateusz Pucilowski, Lisette Anzoategui, Braden Agpoon, of Social Impact; and Erin Murphy-Graham of the University of California, Berkeley. v ACRONYMS CO Coordinating Organization CV Curriculum Vitae DAP Developmental Assets Profile EDC Education Development Center ESA Economía, Sociedad, Ambiente, Ingeniería Consultores GEM Gender Equitable Men GEI Gender Equitable Index Ho Hypothesis IDB Inter-American Development Bank IE Impact Evaluation INE Instituto Nacional de Estadística IO Implementing Organization IT Information Technology LAC Latin American and the Caribbean MDES Minimum Detectible Effect Size MIF Multi-Lateral Investment Fund PCA Principal Component Analysis RCT Randomized Control Trial SI Social Impact, Inc. USAID U.S. Agency for International Development vi A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms..................................................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................................................... vi Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................................................ vii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 1 Evaluation Design.................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Findings............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Evaluation Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 4 Program Background .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Evaluation Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Research Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Measurement .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Sampling ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Analytical Approach.............................................................................................................................................. 11 Qualitative Approach............................................................................................................................................ 13 Findings...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Attrition................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Outcomes.............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Annex A: Balance Checks..................................................................................................................................... 39 Annex B: Analysis of Attrition .............................................................................................................................. 40 Annex C: Education Regression Tables................................................................................................................ 41 Annex D: Employment Regression Tables ........................................................................................................... 45 Annex E: Entrepreneurship Regression Tables .................................................................................................... 50 Annex F: Professional Capabilities Regression Tables.......................................................................................... 54 Annex G: Self Esteem Regression Tables............................................................................................................. 60 Annex H: Gender Perspectives Regression Tables.............................................................................................. 61 Annex I: Risk Behavior Regression Tables ........................................................................................................... 63 Annex J: Development Asset Profile Regression Tables...................................................................................... 72 Annex K: Interpreting Tables ............................................................................................................................... 74 Annex L: Qualitative Findings on the Role of Sports ........................................................................................... 75 Annex M: Qualitative Case Studies ...................................................................................................................... 77 vii FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: A Ganar Phases................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: School enrollment and attendance by treatment status.........................................................................................19 Figure 3: Education by implementing organization ...................................................................................................................20 Figure 4: Education by group Figure 5: Education by cohort...........................................................................................21 Figure 6: Employment outcomes by treatment status...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 7: Business attempts and successes by treatment status............................................................................................23 Figure 8: Professional competency scores..................................................................................................................................24 Figure 9: Professional Capabilities................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 10: Response to statement, “I am an important member of my community” .......................................................27 Figure 11: Equitable Gender Norms based on the GEM Scale...............................................................................................28 Figure 12: Gender Perspectives based on GEM Scores...........................................................................................................29 Figure 13: Randomized response on participation in risk behaviors....................................................................................32 Figure 14: Development Assets....................................................................................................................................................34 Table 1: Sample, by IO and by Cohort........................................................................................................................................11 Table 2: Attrition .............................................................................................................................................................................15 Table 3: Education Outcomes.......................................................................................................................................................19 Table 4: Description of Future Plans.................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5: Employment Outcomes........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 6: Business Outcomes.........................................................................................................................................................22 Table 7: Professional Capability Outcomes................................................................................................................................25 Table 8: Frequency of Key Codes................................................................................................................................................26 Table 9: Self-esteem outcomes based on PCA..........................................................................................................................27 Table 10: PCA analysis of GEM scores .......................................................................................................................................29 Table 11: Interview excerpts illustrating altered gender beliefs due to A Ganar Participation ......................................30 Table 12: Risk Behavior Outcomes..............................................................................................................................................32 Table 13: Randomized response on risk behaviors..................................................................................................................32 Table 14: DAP Outcomes..............................................................................................................................................................34 Table 15: Life Skills and Social Relations Sub-codes and Counts........................................................................................... 35 Table 16: Balance checking between treatment and control groups....................................................................................39 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The A Ganar Alliance impact evaluations (IEs) are two interrelated studies designed to assess the effectiveness of the A Ganar sport-for-development program in Honduras and Guatemala, allowing USAID to compare outcomes in different contexts, increasing the external validity, or generalizability, of evaluation findings1 . Both evaluations utilize a mixed-methods, randomized control trial (RCT) approach to provide quantitative estimates of project impact as well as qualitative data regarding the lived experiences of beneficiaries. Both studies will answer the “proof-of-concept” question: to what extent does participation in and completion of the A Ganar program increase the likelihood that youth will obtain and maintain jobs, return to school, start their own business or reduce risky behavior? Additionally, by comparing A Ganar to similar non-sports programs, the Guatemala evaluation will explore whether or not sport provides additional benefits to workforce development programming. This report provides synthesis of two rounds of midline data collection for the youth in the program in Honduras. This report includes the analysis of longitudinal changes in the Honduras study. Including two cohorts2 , the total sample size is 1,851 youths. This document summarizes the evaluation background, purpose and methodology, before reporting midline findings from the Honduras A Ganar program. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES In order to strengthen the evidence base around the effect of youth workforce development programming in general, and A Ganar in particular, USAID took advantage of the expansion of the A Ganar program in the Caribbean and additional countries in Central America by building two rigorous studies into the Honduras and Guatemala programs. As the first USAID IEs of youth-focused workforce development programming in any region, these evaluations seek to address the accountability and learning imperatives outlined in USAID’s Evaluation Policy. Evaluation findings are intended to both improve program performance in the future and increase the evidence base around what works (and why) in youth workforce development programming. In addition to finding rigorous, externally valid evidence of program impact, the evaluations investigate the specific role that sport plays in affecting program outcomes. Lastly, the evaluation probes differential outcomes and experiences of varying participant types, including by sex. EVALUATION DESIGN The expansion of the A Ganar program into two new countries provided an opportunity for rigorous impact evaluation. This impact evaluation was designed together with project initiation in order to ensure rigor, while upholding program priorities. The A Ganar program hypotheses, namely that the integrated four-phase sport-mediated program leads to increases in employability, entrepreneurship, and re-entry into the formal education system, is tested through a rigorous five-year RCT. The target population for the intervention is at-risk youth (aged 17-24 and living in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula). Data are collected from three cohorts (one pilot cohort and two evaluation cohorts), each surveyed at three distinct times: (1) a baseline completed within two weeks of the final application interview, (2) an immediate post-program follow-up occurring nine months after the start of the program, and (3) an endline occurring 18 months after program completion to test benefit sustainability. Through the program, Partners worked with seven implementing organizations 1 By implementing a multi-country study, USAID is able to compare outcomes in different contexts, increasing the external validity, or generalizability, of evaluation findings. 2 The study additionally included a third pilot cohort, which is excluded from the evaluation. 2 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report (IOs) to train a total of 1,953 youth. Excluding the pilot cohort, the total sample size for the study is 1,851 respondents. Recruitment efforts were led by each IO in their catchment communities. Randomized assignment was conducted at the individual level within each IO resulting in two groups: 974 treatment youth and 877 control youth. Randomization was stratified by sex and IO-rated motivation level, to ensure balance across these variables. In 2013, a baseline survey was administered to 974 treatment and 877 control youth. In 2014, an attempt was made to follow up with all 1,851 of the youth, after the completion of all A Ganar activities. Data collection teams were able to solicit responses from 1,681 of the youth. A concerted effort was made to track down and enumerate the missing observations. Additional details are included in the section on attrition. KEY FINDINGS Attrition The average rate of attrition was approximately 9 percent. This is well below the anticipated 25 percent rate of attrition. Attrition rates were similar in both the treatment and control groups. Employment While there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups in terms of employment levels, A Ganar youth had significantly higher average job satisfaction and were significantly more likely to receive benefits. The most common benefits included paid vacation and paid overtime. Education Longitudinal trends between baseline and midline indicate increases for both A Ganar and control youth on the four key education outcomes: enrollment, attendance, highest grade completed and highest level desired. After controlling for common predictors of educational outcomes and comparing with control group trends, we found the program to have a statistically significant impact on only one of these characteristics: school attendance. Participation in A Ganar was associated with a 27 percent increase in the likelihood of attending school (p = 0.05), although this is likely due to the timing of measurement during school year. Entrepreneurship While youth beneficiaries had some improvements at midline, there was no significant impact on entrepreneurial behavior. A Ganar youth were slightly more likely to attempt to start a business and successfully own a business, but this finding was not statistically significant. There was some qualitative evidence that a few youth had started their own businesses applying the skills they had learned in the program. Females had, on average, a slightly less likely to own a business, but this finding was also not significant. Professional Capabilities Compared with the control youth, A Ganar youth experienced greater increases in their professional skills in almost all categories over the period. However, only one of these findings were statistically significant – CV writing skills. Additionally, in qualitative interviews many youths suggested that the program impacted them by improving their life skills and employability skills. Self-Esteem Based on the Rosenberg Scale and a customized scale designed for the A Ganar target population, trends in self-esteem of participants were generally positive, but not statistically significant. While 3 participation in A Ganar did not significantly impact the aggregate Rosenberg Scale scores, there were discernible patterns in the item-level analyses. Participation in A Ganar was significantly correlated with two items from the module: treatment youth tended to score better on the statement “I do not have much to be proud of” (p = 0.10) and the statement “I feel that I am an important member of my community” (p = 0.01). Females exhibited higher self-esteem than males on three out of fourteen items in the module. They exhibited lower self-esteem on only one item. Gender Based on scores from a modified 25-item Gender Equitable Men (GEM) index, perspectives on gender equity decreased for both the treatment and control groups over the time period, although the decrease was significantly lower in the A Ganar group, though the program effect is quite small. Interestingly, however, the program uniquely benefited females. Female participants of A Ganar experienced a significant increase in equitable perspectives on gender relative to male participants (p = 0.09). Risk Behavior Using an indirect measure of asking the youth whether their peers engage in risky behaviors, we found that risk behavior decreased for both the treatment and the control group from baseline to midline. The program did not have a significant impact on the overall risk index. Examining specific risk behaviors, program youth were significantly more likely to report increased engagement in unprotected sex for themselves and peers (p = 0.05 and 0.02, respectively). A Ganar youth also reported increase in drug use by peers as compared to Control (p = 0.05). Using the randomized response technique, there were no statistically significant impacts from the program. However, the treatment group demonstrated larger, though not statistically significant decreases in behaviors including fighting, gang activity, criminal activity, and incarceration. Life Skills There was no discernible change in life skills for either the treatment or control group as measured by the 58-item Developmental Assets Profile (DAP). A Ganar youth were, however, significantly more likely to respond positively to 10 out of 58 of the questions. Of these 10 questions, 5 had to do with job satisfaction, which is consistent with the employment findings. Additionally, living in a safer neighborhood, and having a lower risk index were both significantly associated with higher DAP scores overall (p = 0.02 and p < 0.01 respectively). 4 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report documents a longitudinal mixed-methods randomized control trial (RCT) that studies the efficacy of A Ganar, a USAID-funded regional workforce development program, in Honduras and Guatemala. The study was implemented by Social Impact, Inc. in cooperation with local data collection partners ESA Consultores Internaciónal (ESA) in Honduras and Centro de Investigaciones Económicas Nacionales (CIEN) in Guatemala between 2011 – 2018. This report summarizes the evaluation background, purpose, and methodology before systematically reporting on the summative midline findings from the two Honduras cohorts. The introductory sections will place the descriptive analysis in the broader context of both the impact evaluation (IE) and the A Ganar program. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES A Ganar1 is a sports-based youth workforce development program implemented by Partners of the Americas. The program began in 2004 as a Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) funded pilot in Ecuador, Uruguay, and Brazil. With additional support from the MIF ($3.6 million), the Nike Foundation ($2 million) and USAID ($8.9 million), the A Ganar Alliance was formed, expanding programming to 19 countries. The Alliance trained over 16,000 youth in Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay. USAID supported A Ganar from September 2009 – September 2015 in eight countries in the Caribbean and Central America2, providing training for over 6,000 youth. When the A Ganar program began, early results indicated positive outcomes. According to a MIF/IDB￾funded performance evaluation in 2010, 77 percent of participants graduated, and 65 percent of graduates found formal employment, started a business, or returned to school within one year of graduation. These results were encouraging, particularly given the high rates of out-of-school youth unemployment in the region. However, without the ability to compare these outcomes against a comparable group of non-recipients (counterfactual), it was impossible to attribute changes to participation in the A Ganar program. Following the publication of its Evaluation Policy in January 20113, USAID sought to strengthen the evidence base around the effect of youth workforce development programming, and the A Ganar program in particular. USAID/Washington took advantage of a $7.5 million4 expansion of the A Ganar program in the Caribbean and Central America and integrated an impact evaluation into programming in Honduras and Guatemala. The evaluation is designed to provide actionable findings, conclusions, and recommendations that will feed directly into Agency learning and program design. These empirical findings will serve both to improve program performance and to increase the evidence base for what works (and why) in youth workforce development programming. 1 “To win” or “to earn” in Spanish 2 USAID-funded countries include Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Dominica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Suriname, Honduras and Guatemala 3 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pdacq800.pdf 4 USAID funded a $1.4 million pilot in 2009 and then funded a $7.5 million expansion from 2011-2015, totaling a $8.9 million cooperative agreement. 5 PROGRAM BACKGROUND A Ganar is a 7 – 9 month training program that combats the serious problem of youth unemployment in the region by utilizing soccer and other team sports to help at-risk youth succeed in the workforce. The methodology takes participants through four integrated phases: sport-based field and classroom employability training, market-driven technical training, internships/apprenticeships, and follow-on activities. These phases are presented below in Figure 1. Figure 1: A Ganar Phases • Phase 1 is an 80 - 100 hour “From Sports Skills to Employability Skills” course which mixes sports field and classroom activities to develop competencies in Teamwork, Communication, Discipline, Respect, a Focus on Results, and Continual Self- Improvement. • Phase 2 features at least 150 hours of Market-Driven Vocational Technical Skills training in which youth apply their employability skills to a specific technical career. The 150 hours include at least 30 hours of specific entrepreneurship training. • In Phase 3 youth gain Practical Experience through at least 40 hours of internships, apprenticeships or other activities. • Youth are Mentored throughout the program by local professionals who volunteer their time to work with small groups. Mentors are recruited with support of Partners of the Americas’ extensive volunteer network in each country. • In addition, each youth will complete a Service Learning Project. These projects give youth the opportunity to volunteer in their community, learn about local issues, practice leadership and job skills and aid other youth. • In the Follow-On program, youth are given additional career counseling and have opportunities to meet with their peers to discuss challenges and new opportunities. 6 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report The primary objective of the program is to help participants find jobs. Secondary objectives include facilitating participants’ return to the formal education system and/or starting a business. While education and entrepreneurship objectives were captured in performance indicators as positive outcomes, the A Ganar curriculum included a very brief training on business ownership and did not have any explicit activities related to formal education. This is in keeping with USAID’s mandate that the program focus primarily on employment but also capture other aspects of positive youth engagement. A Ganar uses sport in two complementary ways. First, sport is leveraged as an incentivizing force, engaging and retaining participants that may not have otherwise applied or stayed with a traditional workforce development program. Second, and more importantly, by increasing the relevance of lessons, sport is used as a tool for the transmission of employability skills. Partners of the Americas believes that youth are more engaged and have a deeper comprehension when using physical play and relatable examples. As sport is one of the most popular activities and subject matters for youth in LAC, integrating sport into programming provides rich opportunities to discuss the value of teamwork and communication, the consequences of not following rules or respecting others, how persons show creativity and solve problems, how males and females interact in group activities, and other transferable skills. The training is offered to eligible youth that apply for the program. Local implementing partners advertise the A Ganar program and screen applicants on four eligibility criteria. First, youth must meet country-specific age criteria (16 – 24 in Guatemala, 17 – 24 in Honduras). Second, youth had to be assessed as being ‘at-risk’ by implementing partner staff. Partners of the Americas considers youth to be at-risk if they meet one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Come from socially or economically-disadvantaged households or communities 2. Are school dropouts, are one and/or more years behind in school, or are not employed 3. Belong to communities plagued by high levels of drug use and/or trafficking, youth violence, or youth gangs It is important to recognize that all youth recruited for the program come from areas of high crime and violence, as this context shapes their opportunities and experiences. Although the homicide rate has declined in recent years, in 2016 the rate was 42.8 per 100,000 for Honduras, still making it one of the highest in the world (Observatories de Violencia, 2018). Third, youth had to have enough time and motivation to participate in the program. In addition to these criteria, youth with a minimum competency level in reading, math, and communication skills were preferred. Lastly, Partners of the Americas strived for gender equity in selecting participants, but prioritized applicant need over ensuring gender parity. 7 EVALUATION DESIGN The extent to which A Ganar’s program hypotheses holds true is tested through two complementary five-year randomized control trials (RCT) in Honduras and Guatemala. By comparing randomly assigned participants (treatment) with randomly assigned non-participants (control), the evaluation will enable both a quantitative and qualitative investigation of the A Ganar mechanisms of change, both intermediate and final outcomes, and differential impacts among participant groups. The multi-country nature of the study will serve to increase the external validity (i.e. generalizability) of evaluation findings by allowing for comparison of outcomes across different contexts. The studies differ primarily in the fact that the Honduras IE is designed to estimate program impact, while the Guatemala IE is designed to assess both program impact and the role of sport in mediating outcomes of interest. The evaluation was originally designed to answer two primary research questions: Question 1: Proof of Concept To what extent does participation in and completion of the A Ganar program increase the likelihood that youth will obtain and maintain jobs, return to school, start their own business or reduce risky behavior? In addition to measuring changes in these primary outcomes, the evaluation is designed to answer the following two sub-questions: i. On what factors do those impacts depend, and what is the likely range of impacts, given uncertainty? ii. What are the pathways through which impacts were created? Question 1 will be investigated through a multi-cohort RCT, triangulated and augmented with robust qualitative data collection. Impact will be estimated through the testing of the following research hypothesis (stated as the null hypothesis): Ho: A Ganar participants will be just as likely to obtain and maintain jobs, return to school, start their own business or reduce risky behavior as their non-participating peers. Question 2: Role of Sport Does the use of sports in A Ganar increase the retention rate, job insertion rate, entrepreneurship and effectiveness of the program to teach life skills, language, math, information technology (IT) and other complimentary activities? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to estimate, as closely as possible, the counterfactual, or how the A Ganar program would function without sports. Through discussions with Partners, it was determined that A Ganar could not be implemented without sports, given how central it is to the program’s structure and design. However, in Guatemala the local implementers of A Ganar have been implementing more traditional youth workforce development programs without sports with a similar target group. Accordingly, slightly modified versions of these programs (to make them as similar as possible to A Ganar without sports) will be used as comparisons. The ability to track program participants in three distinct groups: A Ganar, A Ganar comparison without sports, and a pure control group, allows the evaluation to isolate the effect of sports on outcomes over time. Ho: A Ganar participants will be just as likely to obtain and maintain jobs, return to school, start their own business or reduce risky behavior as participants of the non-sports programs. 8 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The A Ganar IEs are mixed-method RCTs designed to leverage the strengths of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analytical techniques. The RCT will attempt to measure changes in development outcomes directly attributable to participation in the A Ganar or A Ganar comparison program by comparing changes in randomly assigned treatment and control groups. Experimental designs, where eligible units are randomly assigned into treatment and control groups, are the most rigorous impact evaluation method, in that they “provide the strongest evidence of a relationship between the intervention under study and the outcome measured.”5 To prevent selection bias, only pre￾screened applicant lists serve as a sampling frame. Youth who meet program eligibility requirements (being between 17 – 24 years of age, being “at-risk” (see page 11), and having sufficient basic skills6 ) are interviewed by the IOs to verify information and ensure youth have time and motivation to participate in the program. These eligible youth are then randomly assigned (stratified by sex and interviewer￾assessed motivation level) to either the A Ganar (treatment) or control groups. Data are then collected from all youth in each group. Qualitative are collected from a subsample of the study population, serving the following functions: • Supplement and triangulate the quantitative data • Identify unintended effects • More comprehensively capture some of the more difficult to measure concepts, including gender roles and outcomes • Explore mechanisms of—and obstacles to—change • Probe the “value added” of sports MEASUREMENT Measurement of key outcomes, important covariates and demographic variables, occur principally through surveys, supplemented through qualitative interviews. Data are collected from multiple cohorts, each surveyed at three distinct times: (1) a baseline completed within 2 weeks of the final application interview, (2) an immediate post-program follow-up occurring 10 months after the start of the program, and (3) an endline occurring 18 months after program completion. The survey includes the following modules and measurement approaches: • Introduction and Meta-Data: Participants are read an introduction to the evaluation and survey with a standard protocol for obtaining informed consent. This dialog clearly notes that participation is voluntary and that respondents may quit the survey at any time without any penalty. Meta-data are collected to track surveyor, supervisor, reviewer and data-entry operator information, as well as data on number and date/time of revisits, survey timing, tracking of survey compensation (50 Honduran Lempiras, or approximately $2.50 US, per survey) and reasons for non-completion, if applicable. • Identifiers and Demographics: To ensure confidentiality of responses, all identifying information is collected in an independent module that is removed upon survey completion. Identifying information is entered separately from the rest of the survey and is linked by a unique respondent ID, which is recorded on each page of the survey. Extensive contact information is 5 USAID Evaluation Policy, Page 2. January 2011 6 Basic reading, math, and communication skills are required to be able to successfully participate in project activities. 9 collected, including multiple telephone numbers, email addresses and contacts for friends and family, to facilitate relocation of respondents for follow-up surveys. Demographic information on age, gender, civil status, household composition and assets are also used as covariates to explain intermediate and final outcomes and improve precision of statistical tests. • Education and Training: This section collects data on respondents’ education level, school enrollment and attendance, educational aspirations, type of school attended and, when applicable, reasons for not being enrolled. Data are also collected on participation in training programs outside of school. • Employment and Entrepreneurship: A host of questions is asked about current and previous employment and entrepreneurship history, including items designed to assess quality (e.g. wages, contract type, hours, and benefits). • Gender Roles: A modified version of the Gender Equitable Men (GEM) scale is used to assess perspectives on gender roles and attitudes.7 Building on fieldwork in Honduras conducted by CARE (with funding from USAID), the GEM was further modified for this study. The final tool is comprised of 25 statements rated on a five-point Likert scale. • Life Skills: Given the complex and multi-faceted nature of this concept, the study uses two complementary measures to capture the concept: o The principal measure is Search Institute’s Developmental Assets Profile (DAP), a robust and field-tested tool capable of measuring positive outcomes across eight asset categories. Respondents are asked 58 questions from a contextualized version of the tool. Questions are designed to gauge the extent to which respondents have support systems and internal agency, which through extensive studies over more than 20 years, including those using the DAP, have been found to predict educational and life outcomes. Respondents are asked to provide an answer as to the frequency or intensity with which they feel about each question using a four-point Likert scale. o Supplementing the DAP is the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale, a field-tested measure of self￾esteem and social belonging. In addition to the original ten items, the module consisted of four custom items designed to assess relationships with friends and the community. Questions were phrased both positively (for example, “Are you satisfied with yourself?”), and negatively (for example, “Do you sometimes feel that not all is well?”), with all responses based on a five-point Likert scale. • Technical Skills: Rather than directly measuring technical skills, the study measures self-reported confidence in key employment related competencies. Self-reported confidence, while possibly differing from direct skills, is an important, related intermediate outcome. These technical skills are further probed through qualitative case studies. Interviews with participants, facilitators, mentors and employers explore the types of skills gained or improved, which skills could have been transmitted more effectively and what skills are most valued by employers. 7 This tool was derived from the Gender Equitable Index (GEI) originally developed in Brazil and replicated in India, Ethiopia, Kenya and Nicaragua: Pulerwitz, Julie and Gary Barker. 2008. "Measuring attitudes toward gender norms among young men in Brazil: Development and psychometric evaluation of the GEM Scale," Men and Masculinities 10: 322–338. 10 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report • Risk Behaviors: Given the sensitivity of measuring participation in risky or taboo behaviors, we use two techniques to protect the anonymity of responses during the survey process. First, we ask respondents about their peers’ participation in these activities (fighting, drugs, gangs, unprotected sex). Additionally, we use randomized responses to measure their own participation in these same activities. To maintain confidentiality, respondents are asked to roll a die without showing the roll to the surveyor. They are told they should answer yes (forced yes) if they roll a one and answer no (forced no) if they roll a six, regardless of their true response. If they roll any other number, they should answer truthfully. Surveyors will explain that through this ‘game’, surveyors will never know if they are answering truthfully about themselves or not, so they should not feel pressure to respond a certain way. While we will not be able to trace individual responses, we are able to estimate the prevalence in the sample of respondents or the differential prevalence between treatment and control groups. Annex B provides a more comprehensive discussion of randomized response, including a bibliography of published journal articles using the technique. SAMPLING The Honduras evaluation is designed to track nearly two thousand youths over the 5-year study period. Due to capacity constraints on the part of local implementers as well as a desire on the part of all evaluation stakeholders to phase the large number of participants, youth were organized into three cohorts spaced across one and a half years. With the phased scaling of the program, each subsequent A Ganar cohort expanded in size, geographical area and number of participating IOs. Whereas the pilot cohort rolled-out in limited numbers in four communities, the third cohort accounted for a nineteen￾fold increase in beneficiaries and programming in nine distinct municipalities. The evaluation team attempted to survey each youth at three discrete points over a 2.25-year period: baseline (T=0), immediate post-program completion (T=9 months), and long-term follow-up to gauge benefit sustainability (T=27 months). Youth Recruitment and Assignment Partners of the Americas defines programmatic eligibility through three criteria. Applicants must be at￾risk, aged 17 – 24, and living within the catchment area of one of the implementing organizations (IOs). As previously discussed, ‘risk’ is defined as a multifaceted construct encompassing socio-economic status, educational attainment, employment, and proximity to high-crime areas. Screening for these criteria was conducted by IOs through a multi-stage application review process. Each organization was expected to recruit four times as many applicants as training spots within their catchment communities, with the oversample accounting for control youth, ineligible youth, and pre-program dropouts.8 Upon receipt of screened applicant lists, the evaluation team conducted individual-level randomized assignment using Stata statistical software package (for larger IOs training multiple classes, assignment was performed separately for each class). Randomization was stratified by sex and IO-rated motivation level, to improve balance and facilitate sub-group analysis. Inclusion of motivation as a blocking variable is intended to test the implementers’ ability to predict programmatic success (i.e. can IOs determine, a priori, which youth will be most successful through the training).9 In response to concerns from 8 Taking contractual requirements as a starting point, the evaluation team accounted for control youth by doubling the number of required trainees for every given IO. This number was again doubled to account for applicants who will not meet eligibility criteria (expected value ~25%), and who either could not be contacted or withdraw from the program before training begun (expected value ~20%). 9 IOs rate applicants on how motivated they are to participate in the program using a 3-point scale. 11 implementers that key youth may be excluded due to the probabilistic selection, each IO could select up to 3 direct-participant youth who would bypass random assignment and automatically be offered a place in the program. These youths were not surveyed and are not considered part of the evaluation sample. Youth are listed by implementer and cohort in Table 1 below. Eligible youth were asked to participate in the study, with baseline surveys administered to a total of 1,953 respondents (1,025 treatment and 928 control). Additionally, 55 of these youths were selected, using a stratified purposive sampling approach, to participate in a qualitative interview. The qualitative sample overview, in Appendix M, provides a summary of the youth selected for in-depth interviews. Table 1: Sample, by IO and by Cohort ANALYTICAL APPROACH Using randomized assignment to create two balanced groups is an important first step in estimating program impact. The most basic approach to calculate a program’s effect would be a two-step process. First, calculate the average change in each outcome (baseline to the post-program follow-up) for the treatment and control groups separately. Second, compare changes between the two groups. However, while random assignment creates equivalent treatment and control groups prior to the intervention, there will be small differences on baseline characteristics. Independent of participation in A Ganar, these baseline characteristics could also be very powerful in helping to explain observed outcomes. These initial differences can be included in the analysis through the use of regression models (i.e. controlling for baseline and course fixed effects) to improve the precision of our impact estimate by reducing unexplained variance in outcome measures.10 Regression analysis is a statistical technique that enables exploration of relationships between variables. The primary benefit of regression analysis, as compared to the direct comparison approach detailed above, is that it allows for holding other important variables (i.e. those that 10 Moreover, as the evaluation will track multiple cohorts over time, there is the possibility that cohorts will differ in their baseline characteristics. Implementing Organization Pilot Cohort Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Total CENET 25 154 210 389 Libre Expresion 25 152 183 360 FUNADEH 26 106 182 314 OEI - 100 214 314 Children International - 110 145 255 CADERH 26 53 148 227 CESAL - - 94 94 Total 102 675 1,176 1,953 Implementing Organization Pilot Cohort Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Total CENET 25 154 210 389 Libre Expresion 25 152 183 360 FUNADEH 26 106 182 314 OEI - 100 214 314 Children International - 110 145 255 CADERH 26 53 148 227 CESAL - - 94 94 Total 102 675 1,176 1,953 12 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report may influence the outcome measure) constant. Including these covariates in the regression model is important for two reasons: first, it allows for the estimation of each variable’s influence on the outcome measure and, second, it controls for this influence, yielding a more precise measure of programmatic impact. Analysis was performed through the use of four regression models. One model serves as the focus of the impact estimates, while the other three serve as validity checks in testing the sensitivity of findings to a particular model specification. The basic linear regression model used in this report can be written as: (1) Yi = β0 + β1T + β2Pi + β3T*P + β4Ci + µi Where Yi represents the outcome of interest (analysis is conducted for each of the primary outcomes) for individual i at the time of the follow-up survey, β0 is the constant (y-intercept), β1 is a coefficient capturing changes in time (where T is a dummy variable for time: 0=baseline, 1=midline), β2 captures differences between the two treatment groups (where P is a dummy variable for treatment status 0=control, 1=treatment), β3 captures the effect of the interaction of treatment and time (i.e. the impact estimate), C is a vector (or list) of covariates, as detailed below, β4 represents a vector of coefficients which capture the effect of these covariates, and µi is the error term. The control variables fall into three categories, with the outcome variables presented after: A. Respondent demographics 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Single (dummy) 4. Number of children B. Household demographics 1. Wealth (PCA-derived measure) 2. Remittances (dummy) 3. Number of family members living in home 4. Sex of Household head 5. Age of Household head 6. Education level of Household head 7. Any member of household employed (dummy) C. Implementation-specific measures 1. Cohort 2. IO 3. IO group 4. IO-determined motivation level D. Outcome measures a. Highest grade completed b. Currently enrolled in school (dummy) c. Educational system d. Number of extracurricular courses e. Number of jobs f. Number of businesses g. Total income h. GEM score 13 i. DAP score j. Risk score To the extent that specific regression models differ, deviations are specified in the body of the report. QUALITATIVE APPROACH Two different types of interviews were conducted with A Ganar participants: 1) a short, semi-structured qualitative exit interview that focused on youth experiences in the program; 2) in-depth, multi￾perspective case studies with a pre-selected sample of youth interviewed at baseline. Exit interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of 55 youth selected for participation in the A Ganar program. The team collectively interviewed 2 parents, 10 staff members (facilitators), and two program mentors for all youth. All interviews were recorded using digital recorders and transcribed. We used qualitative data analysis software, Dedoose, to analyze data and apply thematic codes. Coding refers to marking meaningful segments of transcript text with a term that captures the overall idea(s) contained therein. We developed a preliminary code list developed based on emergent findings from interviews, as well as the intended outcomes of the A Ganar program. This code list was further refined as additional interviews were coded; emergent codes not on the preliminary list were added. The final list had roughly 30 codes, however ten of these focused on context and background (these were primarily used to code baseline interviews with youth). One of the most frequently applied codes was “Impact of A Ganar” – this code also had five different sub-codes including: academic benefits/school re-entry, employment, gender perceptions/attitudes, life skills/employability features, self-esteem/confidence, social relations, and values. After coding was completed, greater attention was given to the codes that were both most frequent and related to predefined program impacts. Interviews were conducted with a total of 55 program participants. Following this initial coding, a second round of analysis was conducted for the data coded with “social relations”, and “life-skills/employability”. This second round of data analysis was informed by a review of the academic literature on the relationship between character/life skills and employment. More specifically, a review article by James Heckman and Tim Kautz “Fostering and measuring skills: Interventions that improve character and cognition” (2013), identifies character skills that are valued in the labor market. These character skills became the basis for the second round of analysis. Thus, this second round of analysis was conducted with these identified character skills in mind. Because these character skills are interconnected, there was some overlap in the codes. Nevertheless, the applications of these codes allowed a more detailed identification of the salient themes from youth interviews, which are described in greater detail in the findings section below. 14 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report FINDINGS ATTRITION Attrition occurs when the evaluation team is unable to collect follow up data from respondents in either the treatment or control group. For the purposes of the A Ganar IE, there are four primary sources of such drop-out: respondents refuse to continue participating in the study, the evaluation team is unable to complete interviews due to outdated contact information, youth relocation, or mortality. Given the high degree of mobility and the precarious environment in which the study population lives, attrition has been a stated concern of the evaluation since the design phase. Any reduction in the number of observations lowers the statistical power, and hence ability to attribute changes to an intervention, of a study. Furthermore, attrition may introduce selection bias into impact estimates if the pattern of attrition is non-random (i.e. some factor or set of factors correlate with attrition). In order to limit the first of these threats, the evaluation team utilized two strategies. First, we gathered comprehensive contact data at the start of the study to maximize the probability of being able to track respondents. Second, following principles of risk management, the team anticipated a dropout rate of 25 percent and used oversampling to ensure statistical power. Correcting for attrition-induced selection bias was accomplished by testing panel data for evidence of differential attrition and adjusting impact estimates to control for the missing observations, as necessary. Of the 1,851 youths surveyed at baseline between the evaluation cohorts, the evaluation team completed post-program interviews with 1,681, yielding an overall response rate of 91 percent. The success rate improved by ten percentage points between the first and second evaluation cohorts, largely in response to the introduction of alternate enumeration approaches. Youth unwilling to spend an hour answering the survey questions, were given the option of a shortened interview script. Similarly, youth that were unwilling to meet enumerators in person were given the option of a shortened telephone interview. In both instances, care was taken to ensure that key outcomes were being captured in the abridged instruments. Of the 1,681 completed interviews in the second cohort, 95 were phone interviews and 6 were shortened interviews (9 and 1 percent, respectively). The most common source of attrition was inability to reach the youth (50 percent). Most of the time this was a product of incorrect contact information (i.e. youth changed numbers since baseline), though sometimes respondents did not answer their phones. At 22 percent of non-response, refusals were the second most common reason. This was followed by emigration (16 percent), moving within country (10 percent) and death (<1 percent). Response rates and drivers of attrition are presented for the two evaluation cohorts in Table 2, below. 11 11 Pilot cohort achieved an 85% response rate, with 87 out of 102 youth successfully interviewed. Of the 15 non-responses 9 refused, 3 moved within the country, 1 moved out of country, and 1 had incorrect contact information. 15 Table 2: Attrition Cohort 1 Cohort 2 TOTAL Interview Status n % n % n % Complete 574 85 1107 94 1681 91 Incomplete 101 15 69 6 170 9 No Contact 37 6 49 4 86 5 Refused Survey 33 5 4 0 37 2 Left Country 13 2 15 1 28 2 Left City 13 2 0 0 13 1 Deceased 5 1 1 0 6 0 TOTAL 675 1176 1851 With regard to treatment status, the attrition rates were 9.24 percent for the control group and 9.14 percent for the treatment group. The resulting differential attrition rate of 0.1 percent is very low and should not have any bearing on the validity of impact estimates. Analysis of differential (i.e. non-random) attrition, using a logistic regression model to assess interrelationships between attrition status and the full range of control variables discussed above (using attrition as a dummy variable) yielded a small number of significant differences. Holding all else equal, the following baseline characteristics were associated with increased rates of attrition: affluence, enrollment in formal education, and being in cohort 3. Conversely, having more children and participating in the CADERH group, were associated with reduced rates of attrition. The remaining 21 variables did not exhibit significant associations with attrition. To address the issue of attrition and missing data more generally, we employed the technique of multiple imputation using chained equations. Because the attrition in this study may be systematic, using the data only from the completed interviews (complete case analysis) may be biased. For example, youth who are working full time may be less likely to respond to the survey. These systematic patterns in attrition can cause bias in the data. Additionally, there may be systematic patterns in nonresponse to certain questions, even among youth who respond to the survey. For example, youth engaged in risky behaviors may decline to answer those particular questions. This missing data can also lead to bias. Multiple imputation is a statistical technique for analyzing incomplete datasets. The methodology uses the data collected to project a complete dataset for a population similar to that of the complete case, but without the missing data. This helps to reduce bias from systematic attrition and systematic patterns in missing data. The analysis reported in this document is based on the imputed data. As a robustness check, we additionally analyzed the complete case data and note any cases in which the findings vary from the imputation analysis. 16 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report OUTCOMES The following eight thematic sections present longitudinal changes for the treatment and control groups, as well as whether there were statistically significant differences between the two groups.12 Employment The proportion of A Ganar youth employed at the time of the survey increased almost three-fold, going from 10 percent at baseline to 28 percent at midline. Similarly, the number of A Ganar youth doing any work for pay in the last week increased by 14 percentage points. While these trends represent substantial increases in labor market participation overall, participation in the program did not have a statistically significant impact on employment status. Participation in the program was associated with eight percent higher likelihood of getting a job, but this result was not statistically significant, suggesting that results were similar for both groups (p = 0.54). Findings were similar in both the imputed data and the complete case analysis. While it is an important measure of productive engagement with society, employment status does not differentiate the quality of jobs. The team utilized three discrete approaches to assess this important dimension: self-reported job satisfaction, total wages, and a PCA-derived measure encompassing a range of benefits. Both job satisfaction and benefits improved more for A Ganar participants than for members of the control group. Benefits primarily consisted of paid vacation and paid overtime. On a four-point job satisfaction scale, A Ganar youth listed scores that were on average almost half a point higher at midline than the control group (p < 0.01). This is in spite of the fact that the control group had higher job satisfaction scores at baseline. Participation in the program was not associated with any differences in total wages. Employment outcomes are shown in Table 5 below. Table 3: Employment Outcomes Baseline Midline Impact Estimate n Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient Odds Ratio p-value Employment Has job 10% 10% 26% 28% 1.08 0.54 1851 Worked for pay last week 21% 22% 35% 36% 0.95 0.66 1851 Number of jobs 0.65 0.73 0.72 0.79 0.04 0.26 1851 Looking for work 47% 45% 44% 45% 1.01 0.9 1851 Job Quality Satisfaction 1.41 1.22 1.52 1.72 1.49 0.02 459 Benefits 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.22 1.55 0.02 564 Contract 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.22 1.26 0.35 564 Hours 41.2 35.69 47.79 47.36 0.76 0.67 459 Pay 17480 19174 22213 21342 137.71 0.73 459 12 All analyses use 95% confidence level 17 In analysis of job–seeking behavior, the control group and the treatment group were equally likely to be searching for jobs. Figure 2: Employment outcomes by treatment status Interestingly, neither internal and social assets, as indicated by the DAP index, nor the risky behavior appeared to have any significant impact on employment outcomes. The youth in cohort 3 were more likely to be currently employed than the youth in cohort 2. Aside from this, there were no notable differences between members of the different cohorts, groups, or IOs. Females in both groups had, on average, significantly less favorable outcomes in a number of employment outcomes than their male counterparts. Females were 49 percent less likely to currently be employed (p < 0.01), 42 percent less likely to have worked in the week prior (p < 0.01), and had significantly lower job satisfaction scores (p < 0.01). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Employed Work last week Looking for work Control Baseline Control Endline Treat Baseline Treat Endline Qualitative Findings: Employment Qualitative interviews took place roughly one month after A Ganar participants finished the program. At the time of the exit interview only five of the 55 interviewees were formally employed (approximately 9% of the total qualitative sample). For some youth, such as Gilberto, their internships turned into job offers. Gilberto was placed at the Clarion Hotel. During his internship he and six other A Ganar participants were placed as electricians and bakery assistants. He explained that each week he did a different job, working in carpentry, painting, and in the boiler room, “and thank God, I was able to continue working there.” Gilberto was the only A Ganar youth from his group to receive a job offer from Clarion Hotel. Another youth, Jorge, completed his internship at the European Union. He was hired short-term after the internship ended. He explained to the interviewer that getting a job was the most beneficial part of his A Ganar experience, and that he was able to apply the five job-related skills he learned in A Ganar on the job. Two participants, Yaron and Diego, completed their internships at Chili’s and received job offers. Diego explained, “I never thought that after I finished the program I was going to get a job!” While he is no longer working at Chili’s, he has recently started a business with a friend who has a small billiards hall. They made a small kitchen, and Diego hopes to apply the cooking skills he learned through his work to sell food to customers. 18 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Education Longitudinal trends between baseline and midline indicate increases for A Ganar youth on the four key education outcomes: enrollment, attendance, highest grade completed and highest level desired. However, after controlling for common predictors of educational outcomes and comparing with control group trends, we found the program to have a statistically significant impact on only one of these characteristics: school attendance. Participation in A Ganar was associated with a 27 percent increase in the likelihood of attending classes at a formal education institution (p = 0.05). This finding was not significant in the complete case analysis (p = 0.13), though there was still an increase in school attendance after controlling for other factors. Program impacts on school enrollment and attendance are displayed in Figure 2. Qualitative Findings: Employment (continued) Another youth, Carlos, took a job working the night shift for Cervecería Hondureña, a Honduran brewery. While he does not like the work, it is a short-term, 3-month contract and, therefore, he will be looking for work again when his contract ends. Prior to the program, Carlos had been working for his older brother’s tire shop at a much lower salary. Similar to the findings of the quantitative analysis, there was not a great deal of evidence in the qualitative data that youth that participated in A Ganar had gotten jobs as an immediate result of their participation in the program (e.g. from their internships). As one participant, Oswaldo explained, even with his participation in A Ganar, he lacked critical skills that employers were looking for, such as the ability to speak English and a higher educational level. Oswaldo explained with respect to his employers: “They prefer a young man that speaks English”. Oswaldo explains that his lack of English skills make it difficult for him to compete in the job market. Several youth suggested that they had been encouraged by the program and were hopeful of their prospects as they continued to seek employment. Melisa, for example, said that she had an appointment at Burger King for a job interview. She hoped that her marketing experience would help her to sell things there. She hoped to one day enroll in a university, and become an industrial engineer. She said that the A Ganar program guided her: “[the program] guided me such that I wouldn’t be stuck in one place. I feel I can get ahead in life and establish myself.” A few of youth also discussed desires to move away, either to the US or elsewhere in Latin America due to the dangers in Honduras and the lack of employment opportunities. 19 Figure 3: School enrollment and attendance by treatment status While we found significant increases over time in enrollment for both treatment and control youth, we found no statistically significant differences in the rate of change for treatment versus control. With regard to participation in extracurricular courses, A Ganar youth reported having, on average, received an additional 1.98 months of training (p < 0.01) and attended 0.90 additional courses (p < 0.01), as compared to control youth. Additionally, treatment youth were 13 percent less likely to report having paid for a course (p < 0.01). This serves as a validity check, as we would expect A Ganar youth to report having participated in additional training, as the treatment youth participated in A Ganar. Education outcomes are summarized in Table 3 below. A detailed explanation of the interpretation of these tables is included in Annex K. Table 4: Education Outcomes* Baseline Midline Impact Estimate Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient Odds Ratio p-value n Formal Education Enrolled 35% 33% 66% 67% 1.05 0.72 1851 Attending 30% 29% 33% 37% 1.27 0.05 1851 Highest level desired 12.61 12.6 13.11 13.14 0.92 0.54 1851 Highest grade completed 3.93 3.94 3.97 3.97 0.07 0.26 1851 Extracurricular Courses Number of courses 0.75 0.80 1.04 1.96 0.89 0.00 1851 Duration of all courses 4.00 4.44 4.98 7.91 1.98 0.00 1851 Paid for any course 16% 16% 18% 14% 0.42 0.00 1681 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Enrolled Attending Control Baseline Control Endline Treat Baseline Treat Endline 20 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report * See Annex K for details on the interpretation of tables. Interestingly, older or wealthier youth had significantly lower educational outcomes. On average, being a year older was associated with a 7 percent lower likelihood of being enrolled (p < 0.01) and 16 percent lower likelihood of attending school (p < 0.01). Additionally, single youth were 62 percent more likely to attend school (p = 0.10) and attained 0.18 additional years of schooling (p = 0.06). On average youth who had more children responded with lower numbers for their highest grade desired (p = 0.07). These findings were more pronounced in the imputed data, but trends were similar in the complete case analysis. While females had, on average, half a year more of education, males were on average five percentage points more likely to be enrolled in school. Interestingly, in the complete case analysis, females were found to have benefited more from the A Ganar program than their male counterparts. After controlling for the fact that female school enrollment was lower overall, females who participated in the program experienced a larger increase in their likelihood of enrolling in school than male program participants. The implementing organization leading the training was found to be a very significant predictor of education performance, though any influence of the IO is confounded with geographical factors. Youth from CENET Germania had, on average, the highest enrollment rates, while youth under Cenet Comayagua had the highest attendance rates. Conversely youth from OEI Santa Ria had the lowest enrollment and attendance rates and had the least desire for education. Additionally, the youth of Cohort 2 had significantly higher education outcomes than the youth from Cohort 1. Education outcomes broken down by IO, group, and cohort are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below. Measures are shown in odds ratio. As displayed, outcomes varied widely by cohort, group, and IO. Figure 4: Education by implementing organization 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Enrolled Attending 21 Figure 5: Education by group Figure 6: Education by cohort 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Enrolled Attending 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Enrolled Attending Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Qualitative Findings: Education Note: For the protection of privacy, all youths’ names have been altered in the qualitative data sections. One youth reported returning to school after participating in the program, and 28 discussed aspirations to return. When discussing their future plans, many participants discussed the desire to pursue secondary level (grades 10 – 12th) or university level education. As shown in Table 4 below, most of the youth that aspired to attain better employment also mentioned that they would like to pursue higher education, though only two youth mentioned educational aspirations without discussing employment. Table 5: Description of Future Plans Description of Future Plans Count Look for work (entry level, maquila) 3 Look for work, study technical trade 3 Look for work, return or continue primary/secondary schooling 7 Look for work, return or continue primary/secondary schooling, go on to university 6 Look for work, return or continue primary/secondary schooling, go on to university, start business 2 Complete university, begin professional career 2 Start small business, continue studies 5 Unspecific plans work and study 6 Potential migration to USA 1 Note: This question was inadvertently omitted in some of the exit interviews. Per the table above, the majority of youth interviewed aspire to accomplish some combination of the three key goals of A Ganar: 1) to continue their schooling; 2) to find work (and better quality work); and/or 3) to start their own businesses. For some, all three of these goals are interconnected and interdependent– they need to continue their studies so that they can find work, their income from the work will allow them to continue their studies (sometimes at the university level), and their studies will allow them to start their own businesses. For example, a youth named Luis explained: Interviewer: Now that you have finished the program, what is your immediate life plan? Luis: [My plan is] to continue to attend university if possible and to establish myself in my chosen career, which is computers. [I’d like] to develop more in this area and, if possible, to start my own business, or work for a company. 22 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Entrepreneurship While youth beneficiaries had some improvements at midline, there was no significant impact on entrepreneurial behavior. Approximately 27 percent of the control group members and 30 percent of the treatment group had tried to establish a business, only 9 percent of the control group and 12 percent of the treatment group had been successful. Members of the A Ganar group were no more likely to attempt to establish a business than members of the control group. As shown in Table 6, outcomes including attempting to establish a business, successfully owning a business, the total number of businesses owned, and income from these businesses appeared to favor the A Ganar group. However, none were found to be statistically significant (p= 0.47, 0.64, 0.93, and 0.92, respectively). Furthermore, there were no significant correlations between any of the three outcomes and the range of control variables. These outcomes are broken down in Table 6 below. Table 6: Business Outcomes Baseline Midline Impact Estimate n Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient Odds Ratio p-value Tried to Establish 27% 29% 30% 33% 1.10 0.47 1851 Owned Business 9% 12% 12% 14% 1.08 0.64 1851 Number of Businesses 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.20 1851 Has Active Business 4% 5% 5% 5% -0.02 0.84 221 Business Income 146.6 238.8 312.6 456.7 -2.84 0.95 221 While the IO seemed to have some impact on outcomes, group and cohort did not. As seen in the baseline, females were slightly more likely than males to attempt to establish and/or successfully own their own businesses; however, these results were not statistically significant. Furthermore, participation in the program did not have differential impacts on males and females in terms of the entrepreneurship outcomes. Qualitative Findings: Education Most youth reported dropping out of school in the past due to lack of financial resources. Kevin, for example, stopped studying when he completed grades 7 – 9th (Tercero de ciclo común); his favorite subjects were English and Math. He considered himself to be a good student, in fact his classmates wanted to cheat off of him on exams. The decision to stop studying was for financial reasons and afterwards he felt “stuck, because I wanted to keep studying.” Another youth, Giselda said that she left because she became pregnant. Giselda said that after she got together with her husband, he paid for a month of her tuition before she dropped out, because at the time she didn’t want to continue. She expressed that she later regretted this, explaining “my husband offered me the opportunity to continue studying… and I didn’t take it.” 23 Figure 7: Business attempts and successes by treatment status 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Ever Tried Ever Succeded Control Baseline Control Endline Treat Baseline Treat Endline Qualitative Findings: Entrepreneurship Seven youth mentioned aspirations to start a business. A few had already started businesses, based on the skills they had learned from the program. For example, Katia, who studied events planning in A Ganar had started a small business in which she sold invitations and decorations. Another youth, Giselda, was making and selling jewelry out of her home. She said that she learned in the program that she could make things at home, while she is taking care of her baby. Being her own boss allowed her to set her own hours. In addition to the self-confidence she gained, Giselda enjoyed the jewelry making course she took as part of her technical training. According to the instructor, she learned a great deal and was a good student. Giselda made necklaces, earrings, and bracelets. She continued to make these items and sell them to neighbors and friends. She explained that she enjoyed being her own boss. Her mother remarked that she seemed “more dynamic and more outgoing” due to her participation in the program. Although Giselda remains very close with her family, she also made new friends in the program. In other cases, youth engaged in running small-scale business operations alone or with family members while job hunting. Martiza mentioned that because she couldn’t find work as an aesthetician, she decided to work from home helping her mother sell a number of different products such as corn on the cob, atol, little pies, and avocados. While not a common finding, these cases indicate that there was some evidence that youth gained the necessary skills to start their own small businesses. The data collection occurred just after the youth finished the program. As these initiatives require time the next round of interviews may capture more activities of this nature. 24 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Professional Capabilities Figure 8: Professional competency scores Overall, both youth participating in A Ganar and the control group experienced an increase in their confidence in professional competencies. Participation in the program had a positive, though not statistically significant, impact on seven of the eight self-reported professional competencies. There was an increase in the proportion of treatment youth responding that they were “very sure” of their skills in writing professional CVs (17 percentage points), computer usage (10 percentage points), interviewing (5 percentage points), interacting with superiors (5 percentage points), job￾seeking (3 percentage points), dressing professionally (2 percentage points), and interacting with peers (2 percentage points). Conversely, A Ganar youth registered a drop in reported confidence for starting a business. In addition to changes in ratings, the proportion of youth responding ‘not sure’ to the eight competency areas reduced for the treatment group over the time period for all measures except for starting a business. Figure 9: Professional Capabilities After controlling for common predictors of professional outcomes and comparing with control group trends, we found the program to have a statistically significant impact on none of the skills measured. Trends were similar in both the imputed data and the complete case analysis. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Scale 0-3 Control Baseline Control Midline Control Baseline Control Midline 25 For the most part, there were no differences based on the IO or group. Cohort 3 had higher overall scores than cohort 2. This is primarily accounted for by their higher scores for interacting with superiors. Females, on average, had lower scores for interviewing. However, males seem to have benefited from the program more so than females in terms of reporting improved interviewing. Examining a composite index summing all professional capability skills, females’ scores were lower overall. This finding is confirmed by the PCA scores. Because these scores are based on self-assessments the gender differentials may also be the result of systematic differences in perception or manner of presenting oneself as opposed to differences in actual skill. Table 7: Professional Capability Outcomes Baseline Midline Impact Estimate p-value n Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient Odds Ratio Capabilities (PCA) 11.51 17.35 17.87 18.11 0.16 0.02 1851 Computer 65% 63% 72% 73% 1.01 0.92 1851 CV 63% 58% 72% 75% 1.24 0.02 1851 Interview 84% 84% 87% 89% 1.12 0.23 1851 Job Search 83% 85% 86% 88% 1.06 0.59 1851 Dress 93% 93% 95% 95% 0.93 0.50 1851 Interact - Peers 88% 89% 90% 91% 1.20 0.08 1851 Interact - Superiors 82% 83% 84% 88% 1.14 0.18 1851 Start Business 64% 66% 63% 63% 0.85 0.13 1851 26 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Qualitative Findings: Professional Capabilities Table 8 below summarizes the frequency with which the key codes related to program impacts appeared across the 55 interviews with program participants. Although few youths were employed immediately following the program, youth frequently mentioned “life skills and employability features” as an impact of the program, indicating that they were more confident in their professional capabilities. Table 8: Frequency of Key Codes Code Number of code applications* in 55 exit interviews Early, unsolicited mention of sports 12 Impact of A Ganar (parent code relating to any mention of program impact) 308 • Academic benefits, school re-entry 1 • Employment 21 • Gender perceptions/attitudes 6 • Life skills/employability features 156 • Self-esteem/confidence 49 • Social relations 149 • Values 74 *Note: Each interview segment that mentioned a theme was coded, meaning that the same code could appear multiple times in each interview and that some segments of text could be tagged by more than one code (e.g. social relations and life skills/employability were applied to the same segment of text 36 times). Participants described learning concrete skills including the ability to create a resume, to be interviewed by prospective employers, as well as to complete numerous job-related tasks (e.g. customer service). This more specific skill set seems to bolster their confidence and motivate them to be persistent and believe in their ability to get ahead in life. Several youth mentioned feeling stuck prior to their participation in the program. Very consistently, youth described feeling motivated and determined to apply their new skills toward improving their circumstances. 27 Self-Esteem Figure 10: Response to statement, “I am an important member of my community” Two methods were utilized for testing respondent self-esteem: the 10-item Rosenberg Scale and an expanded 14-item scale custom designed for the A Ganar target population. Regardless of measurement approach, however, participation in the program did not have a significant effect on self-esteem. Trends were generally positive, but not statistically significant. While participation in A Ganar did not significantly impact the aggregate Rosenberg Scale scores, it did result in more positive scores for two of the questions under the item-level analyses. Participants in A Ganar exhibited a statistically significant correlation with two items from the module: treatment youth tended to score better on the statement “I do not have much to be proud of” (p = 0.096) and the statement “I feel that I am an important member of my community” (p = 0.01). In the case of the second statement, youth were less likely to agree at midline than at baseline, but the decrease was much smaller for the treatment group as shown in Figure 10. Females tended to exhibit higher self-esteem on a number of measures. Females were more likely to disagree with the statements “I feel I don’t have much to be proud of” (p = .01) and “I wish I could have more respect for myself” (p = 0.01). They were more likely to agree with the statement “my peers respect me” (p < 0.01). Findings were similar for both the imputed data and the complete case analysis. Self-esteem scores based on the Rosenberg index were higher for some IOs than others, and were on average higher in cohort 3 than in cohort 2. Having a higher GEM score, and thus more equitable views on gender was also associated with lower self-esteem (p < 0.01). Lastly, more educated youth had higher self-esteem on average (p = 0.01). The validity of the scales held up, with an increased Cronbach’s alpha score from baseline to post￾program midline. Regression analysis did not yield any significant associations between either self-esteem measure and any independent variables. Table 9: Self-esteem outcomes based on PCA Baseline Midline Impact Estimate p-value n Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient Rosenberg (PCA) 40.57 40.60 39.58 39.80 0.15 0.18 1851 1 1 2 1 5 4 3 3 17 17 14 16 31 40 35 36 46 37 47 44 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Control Baseline Control Midline Treatment Baseline Treatment Midline Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither/Nor Agree Strongly Agree 28 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Gender Figure 11: Equitable Gender Norms based on the GEM Scale Based on the Gender Equitable Men (GEM) index adapted for this study, gender equity decreased from baseline to midline for A Ganar and control. Controlling for other predictors of gender equity, the A Ganar program showed a significantly smaller decrease in equitable gender perspectives as compared to control youth, although the difference is small. Based on the PCA analysis, females and more educated youth had higher average GEM scores (p < 0.01). Individuals with a higher risk index had scores that were slightly lower (p = < 0.01). Results were similar in both the imputed data and the complete case analysis. Based on the PCA measure, females had on average more equitable perspectives on gender than their male counterparts overall. Examining responses to each of the questions under the GEM index, gender had a statistically significant correlation with many of them. In 12 cases, average responses from females were more equitable, and in 6 cases they were less equitable. Generally, the items for which females had less equitable views had to do with pregnancy and parenting. For example, females were more likely to agree with statements including “Changing diapers and feeding babies is women’s work” and “It is a woman’s responsibility to avoid becoming pregnant.” Items for which females had more equitable views included questions related to responsibilities, interests, and emotions. For example, females were more likely to agree with statements including, “it is okay for boys to play with dolls” and “it is okay for girls to play sports”. Females were more likely to disagree with statements including “only women should do housework” and “it is the responsibility of the father to provide money to support the family”. Interestingly, when examining the interaction variable of treatment and gender together, we found that participating in the program had the effect of increasing GEM scores for females only. Although the GEM scores of participating females also declined, the decline was significantly smaller than that among males in either group and among females in the control group. Therefore, the program appears to have benefited females’ perspectives on gender equity overall. This is shown in Figure 12 below. Details on the regression are included in Annex H. 29 Figure 12: Gender Perspectives based on GEM Scores Educational outcomes also correlated with GEM scores. Based on the principal component analysis, youth with more education and youth who had taken more courses had significantly more equitable perspectives on gender also (p < 0.01 and p = 0.01 respectively). Youth under IOs including OEI Santa Rita and CESAL Providencia tended to score the highest on the GEM scale while those under CI Humanos and FUNADEH scored the lowest. Group and cohort did not correlate with gender equity perspectives. The scale continued to perform well (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79 at baseline and 0.76 at midline). Table 10: PCA analysis of GEM scores Baseline Midline Impact Estimate p-value n Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient GEM (PCA) 41.54 41.1 40.28 39.46 0.16 0.09 1851 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 Control Treatment Scale 25-125 Male Baseline Male Midline Female Baseline Female Midline 30 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Qualitative Findings: Gender Roles and Perceptions Given the sports-based focus of A Ganar, we attempted to uncover the ways in which the program might challenge traditional gender norms. In the exit interviews we asked a series of questions related to gender, in order to uncover participants’ gendered beliefs. In a few cases (5), participants spoke explicitly about how the program had influenced their ideas related to gender roles/practices. Table 11 below illustrates interview excerpts that demonstrate altered gender beliefs due to participation in A Ganar: Table 11: Interview excerpts illustrating altered gender beliefs due to A Ganar Participation Cindi Interviewer: Do you think that the program helps men as much as women? Cindi: Yes Interviewer: Why? Cindi: Because I think women and men alike seek the ability to work and to study. My husband sometimes asks me, “why should I study?” I tell him that he has to study because he didn’t finish his courses. I tell him that I had male classmates that studied… However, some men don’t want to study because they are machista. Magdalena Magdalena: I knew almost nothing in my adolescence and [A Ganar] helped me to open more doors to the world and to know the good from the bad. Interviewer: Can you explain a bit when you refer to in “my adolescence”? Magdalena: [I learned] that there are girls that don’t have to walk around – how do you call – it doing dumb things with men. [I learned that] if you are going to have sexual relations you can use protection. I learned that there are methods of planning. This helped me a lot. Ria Interviewer: What activities did you do as part of your training or technical learning? Ria: [Prior to the program,] if we played ball it was only the men who played. I learned that not only men play ball. We women can do so as well. Ileana Ileana: I enjoyed the comraderie amongst everyone in the program and playing football. Sometimes the boys think that only they play football. In our interviews with youth we found that the majority expressed gender attitudes that challenge “machismo.” Only 5 of the youth that we conducted exit interviews with held what might be considered “traditional” of inequitable beliefs about gender. Cindi, for example said “there are things that only women do. Men can’t do them.” Alec similarly suggests that certain types of work are for men, while jobs in the kitchen are for women. These youth were the minority. In our analysis of the data we had over 50 instances of interview excerpts where youth described challenging machismo in their beliefs and behaviors. For example, Alejandro said, “Gender doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if you are a woman or a man. I think that what [A Ganar] taught us is that men and women can perform the same jobs.” Similarly, Luisa suggested that the program was equally helpful for men and women, “I believe in gender equality to be frank… We are all equal and by the same token if one in the group gets ahead everyone should get ahead Several youths mentioned that the program modeled gender equality by treating participants equally. Likewise, several youths mentioned that both girls and boys played sports. One youth, Karmen, mentioned that men and women in the program were treated the same. Yolanda said that “the tutors didn’t make decisions about people… They saw who came in, and they taught… They taught the same way to both men and women.” Many youths discussed the role of sports in the program as relates to various aspects of the program. Additional analysis of the role of sports in the program is included in Annex L. 31 Risk Behavior Participation in risk behavior was captured in two ways: peer group behavior was used as a proxy (indirect measurement method) and randomized response technique was used to solicit truthful responses about stigmatized subject matters through anonymization of individual responses. 13 Regression results for both methods are shown in Table 12 below. The left side of the table, entitled “Self” displays regression coefficients for treatment based on the randomized response technique. The right side, entitled “Friends”, shows regression coefficients based on youth’s reports of their peers’ participation in risky behaviors. Both results are shown in odds ratio.14 Statistically significant results are highlighted in color. Using the indirect measurement method, reported frequencies of risk behavior decreased significantly from the baseline to the midline in both the treatment and control groups. Controlling for the standard set of variables, participation in A Ganar was not associated with changes in the overall Risk Index or its PCA scores. A Ganar participants reported a significant increase in friends engaged in drug use (p = 0.05) and unprotected sex (p = 0.02) as compared to the control group. One possible reason for this is that at baseline, the proportion of A Ganar youth reporting these two behaviors was much lower than in the control group. For this reason, part of the increase may be attributable to trends that would have taken place regardless. Another possibility is that the changing network due to program participation may have resulted in an increase in risky behavior among A Ganar youth. Using the randomized response technique, estimated participation rates for six out of eight of the reported risk behaviors reduced for the treatment group from baseline to midline. As shown in Table 13, this was only true of three items for the control group (drugs, crime, and trafficking). Although the differences were not statistically significant, comparing changes in estimated participation rates between the two groups, A Ganar youth on average recorded a larger decrease as compared to the treatment youth for three items, including fighting, gang activity, and drug consumption. Similar to the findings using the indirect response method, rates of unprotected sex increased significantly for A Ganar youth as compared with the control group (p = 0.04). Trends for participation in crime, incarceration, trafficking, and alcohol intoxication were similar for the two groups over the period. 13 Randomized response ensures respondent anonymity by forcing a randomly-selected number of respondents to provide a predetermined response. In the A Ganar study, the randomizing element is a six-sided dice and responses are forced for rolls of 1 (“yes”) and 6 (“no”). Estimation of truthful responses (2-5) requires dropping the forced responses. This is done through a probabilistic assumption that one third (1/6 will answer yes, 1/6 will answer no) of responses were forced. As a result of this transformation, one third of the sample is excluded from impact estimates. 14 Odds ratio may be interpreted as the ratio of the change in the treatment group to the change in the control group after accounting for other controls included in the model. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that there was no difference between the treatment and control group, while an odds ratio above or below 1 indicates that there was an increase or decrease respectively in the outcome as a result of treatment. For example, an odds ratio of 1.22, as shown in Table 12 indicates that there was a 22% increase in unprotected sex associated with the program. 32 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Figure 13: Randomized response on participation in risk behaviors Table 12: Risk Behavior Outcomes SELF FRIENDS Odds Ratio p-value Odds Ratio p-value Fight 0.93 0.55 1.12 0.36 Gang 0.80 0.13 0.90 0.44 Drug use 1.09 0.59 1.24 0.05 Sex 1.30 0.04 1.25 0.02 Crime 0.91 0.55 0.66 0.16 Jail 0.93 0.60 1.18 0.26 Drug sale 1.08 0.55 1.17 0.43 Alcohol 1.20 0.11 1.10 0.33 Table 13: Randomized response on risk behaviors Control Treatment Impact Baseline Estimate Post￾Program Difference Baseline Post￾Program Difference Fighting 28.50 41.35 13.03 11.96 9.01 -2.95 -15.98 Gang 16.80 32.74 15.94 4.94 10.98 6.04 -9.90 Drugs 5.89 2.42 -3.47 18.52 3.32 -15.20 -11.73 Sex 24.03 25.60 1.58 10.88 30.13 19.25 17.68 Crime 3.83 1.85 -1.98 13.31 13.31 -.01 1.98 Incarcerated 4.00 4.84 0.84 0.49 1.85 1.36 0.53 Trafficking 4.86 1.32 -3.55 3.70 2.60 -1.11 2.44 Alcohol Intoxication 13.66 14.11 0.45 15.12 19.09 3.96 3.51 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Alcohol Sex Crime Gang Fighting Drugs Traffic Jail Treatment Baseline Treatment Endline Control Baseline Control Endline 33 Qualitative Findings: Risk With the recent crisis of children and adolescents migrating from Central America to the United States, the findings of this qualitative component of the A Ganar Impact Evaluation are timely. Youth described a number of positive social outcomes that they attribute to their participation. In a context marked by extreme violence, A Ganar provides a “light”, as one of the program facilitators explained, to help youth feel that they are not estancada or stuck. Youth developed improved communication skills and new friendships. Per Table 8, social social relations were mentioned 149 times as an impact of the program. Youth learned how to work as a team. Overall, the findings suggest greater social cohesion amongst A Ganar participants (further detailed in the Development Asset Profile outcomes section), which is an important deterrent of criminal and/or gang activity (ECLAC 2008). For many of the youth interviewed, participation in A Ganar was a transformative experience they believed changed their lives for the better. In both the baseline and the midline interviews, many youths described living in risky environments. They describe the challenges of living under these circumstances and the precautions they took to avoid engagement in dangerous or criminal activity. Melisa described the danger in her neighborhood, and gang involvement that touched her own family. Her brother fled Honduras roughly ten years ago because the Mara 18 had given him a death threat. She admitted that her uncle was also a gang member. Melisa’s friends have also been involved in gangs. She explained that one of her male friends, whom she had known since the second grade was murdered: Melisa: A classmate of mine since second grade, joined a gang, Mara 18, and they killed him right near his house. Other friends have joined too, and they can’t get out, even when they want to. Interviewer: How come they can’t? Melisa: Because they are threatened that if they leave they’ll be killed. Carlos said that he doesn’t like that within the previous five years the maras have taken control and his neighborhood, and it has become very dangerous. He himself is not involved with the maras, although he says that he has “to always walk defensively, stay calm, and carefully avoid danger” so that the maras leave him alone. He also avoids those youth that he knows are involved. Carlos has not considered moving to a different neighborhood, but he has contemplated going to the United States. Kevin similarly reported that he felt that this neighborhood is not secure, and he has thought about going to the U.S., primarily because he feels that it is very difficult to find permanent work. According to the facilitator, one particular participant, Dion, was on the verge of joining a gang prior to entering the program because the family had no other economic options, and he was desperate. He was the younger brother of another participant, Dulce. Despite the fact that he did not meet the age eligibility requirements (he was only 13), the organization accepted both Dulce and her brother. One of the most important program outcomes with regards to lowering risk is that many program participants stated in their interviews that they had gained social skills, become better communicators, learned to develop social networks, and felt like part of a larger community. Several youth mentioned that one of the things that they most enjoyed about the program was making new friends. There are at least three reasons why making new friends is an important outcome of the program. First, many of these youths are socially isolated, particularly those that are no longer attending school. They lack a social group, and often they do not have contact with their former classmates. Secondly, they live in an environment characterized by violence and fear, and so making a new friend, particularly one that is not from their neighborhood, could have important implications in terms of improving social capital in these communities. Finally, for some youth, making new friends allows them to leave behind friends they know are on the wrong path. The importance of forming new friendships is therefore an important outcome of A Ganar, as research suggests that youth are more likely to become involved in gang activity if they feel socially isolated. A program facilitator, Hernando, captured this eloquently in our interview: Hernando: Emotionally, the youth come from a negative environment, filled with violence and with few opportunities. When they join the program they see a light of hope. They see that they have options. 34 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Life Skills There was no discernible change in the 58-item Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) for either the treatment or control group. In addition to aggregating all responses into a Total DAP Score, the tool allows for a multiplicity of analytical approaches, including, grouping items into Asset and Context views, which are themselves comprised of several sub-measures.15 Using multiple regression, the treatment group experienced significant increases in a number of particular DAP views. A Ganar youth were significantly more likely to respond positively to 10 out of 58 of the questions, including: Figure 14: Development Assets 1. “Do you like your place of work?” 2. “Do you learn new things at work?” 3. “Do you feel safe in your place of work?” 4. “Do you have a work environment that respects and encourages young people?” 5. “Do you defend your principles?” 6. “Do you take responsibility for your actions?” 7. “Are you involved in a religious group or activity?” 8. “Are you practicing healthy habits?” 9. “Are you motivated to help others?” 10. “Do you have good neighbors who care about you?” Interestingly, 5 out of 10 of these questions deal with job satisfaction. This is consistent with the findings that A Ganar youth noted higher levels of job satisfaction in general. Results were similar in both the imputed data and the complete case analysis. In this analysis, a number of significant relationships emerged. Youth in cohort 2 had significantly higher DAP scores than those in cohort 1 (p < 0.01). Females in the sample had significantly lower scores for external assets compared with their male counterparts. Based on PCA, their overall scores were significantly lower as well. Additionally, living in a safer neighborhood, and having a lower risk index were significantly associated with higher DAP scores overall (p = 0.02 and p < 0.01 respectively). Table 14: DAP Outcomes Baseline Midline Impact Estimate p-value n Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient DAP (PCA) 41.93 42.45 41.28 42.09 0.11 0.51 1851 Internal 20.74 20.98 20.43 20.77 0.16 0.34 1851 External 21.19 21.47 20.95 21.32 0.22 0.20 1851 15 For the Asset View, sub-measures include Support, Empowerment, Boundaries and Expectations, Constructive Use of Time, Commitment to Learning, Positive Values, Social Competencies, and Positive Identity. These, in turn, can be aggregated into Internal, External and Total Asset Scores. Context View is comprised of the following sub-measures: Personal, Social, Family, School, and Community. 35 Qualitative Findings: Development Asset Profile Table 15 below summarizes the coding from a deeper analysis of data coded with “social relations” and “life￾skills/employability”. Table 15: Life Skills and Social Relations Sub-codes and Counts Initial code Second round sub-codes and count Life skills/employability features • Conscientiousness (48) • Agreeableness (14) • Emotional stability (3) • Extraversion (15) • Mixed (where themes co-occurred) (19) • Concrete (mention of a specific skill such as interview/cv preparation) (27) Social relations • Extraversion (16) • Importance of play (10) • Group as a team (49) • Emotional stability • Agreeableness (23) • New friends (14) • Mixed (where themes co-occurred) (23) This analysis was informed by a review of the academic literature on the relationship between character/life skills and employment. More specifically, a review article by James Heckman and Tim Kautz “Fostering and measuring skills: Interventions that improve character and cognition” (2013), identifies character skills that are valued in the labor market. Because these character skills are interconnected, there was some overlap in the codes. Nevertheless, the applications of these codes allowed a more detailed identification of the salient themes from youth interviews. While the qualitative interviews did not reveal that participants were more likely to be employed, when youth described their experiences in the program they frequently and consistently mentioned life skills, which, in turn, may influence their likelihood to get and keep jobs, return to school, or start their own businesses. Specific life skills that the A Ganar curriculum focused on included: communication, teamwork, focus on results, continual self-improvement, and discipline. These themes were quite frequently mentioned in the open-ended interviews. Our analysis of the interviews suggests that: • A Ganar youth learn life skills through play. In particular, they learn communication skills and trust in one another. This is reflected in the 49 mentions of “group as a team”. • They develop bonds of friendship with their peers. This involves developing a deeper sense of self￾respect and respect for others. This is reflected in the 48 mentions of conscientiousness. • A subset of youth described becoming more agreeable, more extraverted, and more social. • The combination of these skills (communication, trust, friendship, extraversion) allows them to learn to work together as a team. Through this experience they learn the importance of teamwork and they can apply this in other contexts, particularly the locations where they conducted their internships. • Youth develop greater conscientiousness: including a deeper sense of commitment; achievement￾striving; improved work ethic; discipline; persistence; and respect for others. 36 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report CONCLUSIONS Education Longitudinal trends between baseline and midline indicate increases for both A Ganar and control youth on the four key education outcomes: enrollment, attendance, highest grade completed and highest level desired. After controlling for common predictors of educational outcomes and comparing with control group trends, we found the program to have a statistically significant impact on only one of these characteristics: school attendance. Participation in A Ganar was associated with a 27 percent increase in the likelihood of attending school (p = 0.05). Based on the qualitative evidence, the vast majority of youth had goals to pursue some combination of school, work, and entrepreneurship. Few youth mentioned the desire for education without also mentioning goals related to career. Youth desired more schooling in order to improve their careers, but many needed to work in order to fund their education. Employment While there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups in terms of employment levels, A Ganar youth had significantly higher job satisfaction and were more likely to have benefits. Common benefits included paid vacation and paid overtime. Although trends in employment and total wages were similar for the two groups, the higher scores for job satisfaction and benefits in the treatment group indicate that A Ganar youth were more likely to attain jobs of a higher caliber in terms of personal fulfilment and security. Based on the qualitative analysis, several youths described working in jobs in which they applied skills they had learned in the program. Since the midline survey was administered only one month after the program, it is difficult to say whether the program resulted in long-term changes in employment. Entrepreneurship At midline, A Ganar youth were slightly more likely to attempt to start a business and successfully own a business, but this finding was not statistically significant. Females had, on average, a slightly lower likelihood of owning a business, but this finding was also not significant. There was some qualitative evidence that a few youth had started their own businesses, applying the skills they had learned in the program. Based on the qualitative analysis, several youths described running small businesses alone or with family while seeking stable employment. One female participant stated that running her own business gave her more flexibility to spend time at home with her child. Based on these few cases, it may be possible that entrepreneurship offers youth a good alternative when jobs are not available. Professional Capabilities While participating youth experienced increases in their professional capabilities in almost all categories over the time period, only one of these findings were significant. A Ganar youth experienced a significant increase in their CV writing skills. Because these skills are self-reported, they may be more indicative of confidence or self-perception than of actual skills. Participants were also less confident in their abilities to start a business. This may be the result of learning more about what is involved in starting a business and realizing that they know less than they thought they did. Based on the qualitative data, youth referred to the employability features and life skills that they had learned through the program a total of 156 times. This indicates that on a personal level, these aspects of the program were important for them. 37 Self Esteem Based on the Rosenberg Scale and a customized scale designed for the A Ganar target population, there were only a few differences between program participants and the control group. Differences in the overall indices were not statistically significant. However, examining the item-level analyses, we found that participation in A Ganar resulted in significantly better scores for two items from the module: treatment youth tended to score better on the statement “I do not have much to be proud of” (p = 0.096) and the statement “I feel that I am an important member of my community” (p = 0.01). Females exhibited higher self-esteem than males on three out of fourteen items in the module. They exhibited lower self-esteem on only one item. Gender Based on scores from the 25-item Gender Equitable Men (GEM) index, perspectives on gender equity decreased for both the treatment and control groups over the time period, although the decrease for A Ganar youth was significantly smaller, indicating a small, positive effect. Interestingly, however, the program uniquely benefited females. Female participants of A Ganar experienced a significant increase in equitable perspectives on gender relative to male participants. Additionally, females had more equitable views overall (p = 0.01). Based on the individual questions under the index, females had more equitable responses to 12 of the questions and less equitable responses to 6 of them. Examining these specific questions, it appeared that females had less equitable views on the statements addressing pregnancy and parenting. Their scores indicated that females thought that they should take more responsibility for matters related to pregnancy and providing care for children. On most other topics, including matters related to work, interests, and self-expression, females were more equitable. Based on the qualitative data, several female youth suggested that the sports component of the program and the fact that men and women played sports together helped them to better understand and embrace more equitable views. Risk Behavior Using an indirect measure of asking the youth whether their peers engage in risk behaviors, we found that risk behavior decreased for both the treatment and the control group from baseline to midline. The program did not have a significant impact on the overall risk index. Examining specific risk behaviors, we found that the program was significantly associated with only two; participants in A Ganar were significantly more likely to report friends engaging in unprotected sex and drug use (p = 0.02 and 0.05, respectively). Program participants were also significantly more likely to report increased engagement in unprotected sex themselves (p = 0.04). One possible reason for this is that at baseline, the proportion of A Ganar youth reporting these behaviors was much lower than in the control group. For this reason, part of the increase may be attributable to trends that would have taken place regardless. Another possibility is that the introduction to so many youths resulted in an increase in sexual relationships among A Ganar youth. Although the program did not have any explicit training on reproductive health, some of the IOs and facilitators had protocols for advising on these matters as needed. Based on the qualitative analysis, at least one youth suggested that she had learned more about contraception as a result of the program. This suggests that while there may have been an overall increase in unprotected sex, some youth benefited by learning more about reproductive health. Formalizing such training and integrating it into the program might further benefit youth and prevent risky behavior. There were no other statistically significant impacts on risk behavior. However, examining the changes in rates of behavior at baseline and midline, we found that the treatment group had a larger reduction than the control group in behaviors including fighting, gang activity, criminal activity, and incarceration. This suggests that there may have been a decrease in illicit behaviors as a result of the program. Based on the qualitative analysis, in at least one case, the program was a very direct alternative for a youth considering entering a gang. We will further investigate impacts on risk behaviors in the endline data. 38 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Development Asset Profile There was no discernible change in the 58-item Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) for either the treatment or control groups. A Ganar youth were, however, significantly more likely to respond positively to 10 out of 58 of the questions. Of these 10 questions, 5 had to do with job satisfaction, which is consistent with the employment findings. Additionally, living in a safer neighborhood, and having a lower risk index were all associated with higher DAP scores overall. The higher rates of job satisfaction in both the DAP score and the employment findings appear to be unique benefits of the program. They indicate that although A Ganar youth had similar salaries and employment rates at midline, those working may be in more fulfilling or stable careers. As the midline evaluation was conducted just a month after youths’ completion of the program, the endline will shed light on whether the greater job satisfaction was ultimately indicative of stronger career paths. 39 ANNEX A: BALANCE CHECKS Although random assignment is expected to balance all baseline characteristics between the treatment and control groups (thus eliminating selection bias), it is possible, particularly with small samples, that random assignment can, by chance, yield unbalanced groups. Accordingly, we compare the treatment and control groups along key baseline characteristics to check for balance. Across more than 20 variables tested, we found only one significant difference between the groups 18, yielding evidence that our control group represents a valid estimate of the counterfactual. Table 16: Balance checking between treatment and control groups Level of Measurement Variable Control Treatment p Continuous * Age 19.08 19.08 0.997 Grade 15.39 15.55 0.563 Days Playing Sport 2.81 2.96 0.494 Household Size 4.53 4.45 0.644 Educational Courses 1.65 1.61 0.729 Age Began Working 15.65 15.64 0.979 Number of Jobs 1.02 1.06 0.520 Number of Businesses 0.65 0.70 0.733 Asset Index 0.02 -0.02 0.722 Capability Score 14.63 14.77 0.608 Self-Esteem Score 47.21 47.41 0.526 Gender Score 82.14 81.50 0.154 Risk Score 8.23 8.06 0.454 Internal Asset Score 20.18 20.59 0.210 External Asset Score 20.40 20.78 0.287 Total Asset Score 40.58 41.38 0.221 Nominal ** Sex (Female) 58.90 60.00 0.773 Worked Before (Yes) 57.58 62.66 0.232 Working Now (Yes) 11.30 13.12 0.550 Looking for Work (Yes) 44.67 40.93 0.348 Business Before (Yes) 6.30 11.94 0.010 * Two independent samples t-test (2 tailed) ** Chi-square test (for variables with expected cell frequencies < 5, Fisher's exact test was used) 18 We expect that when adding the second full cohort, this will disappear, but it can also be controlled for using baseline data. 40 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report ANNEX B: ANALYSIS OF ATTRITION Variable P value Differential Attrition (maximum variation) Condition Attrition (proportion and number) Assignment Status 0.856 0.02 Treatment Control 13.7% (7) 13.5% (7) Sex 1 0.02 Male Female 12.7% (8) 15.0% (6) City 0.04 Tegucigalpa San Pedro Sula 15.7% (8) 11.5% (6) Implementing Organization 0.380 0.08 Libre Expresion CENET CADERH FUNADEH 16.0% (4) 15.4% (4) 15.4% (4) 7.7% (2) Motivation 0.842 0.02 High Mid Low 14.5% (8) 12.5% (4) 12.5% (2) Age 0.704 0.44 17 18 19 20 22 23 6.1% (2) 17.4% (4) 22.2% (2) 25% (3) 25% (2) 50% (1) Education (highest grade completed) 0.068 0.89 9 12 14 15 18 50% (2) 11.8% (4) 10.5% (2) 18.5% (5) 100% (1) Wealth (PCA measure) 0.068 NA NA NA 41 ANNEX C: EDUCATION REGRESSION TABLES Primary Education Outcomes Enrollment p￾values Attendance p￾values A Ganar 1.05 -0.72 1.27* -0.05 Sex 0.83 -0.15 1.03 -0.82 Motivation 0.97 -0.77 1.00 -0.96 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 3.09*** 0.00 6.58*** 0.00 Age 0.95 -0.15 0.85*** 0.00 Single 1.20 -0.43 1.37 -0.21 Number of Children 0.73* -0.03 0.81 -0.21 Household Size 0.99 -0.72 1.02 -0.46 Sex (Household Head) 0.93 -0.52 1.13 -0.33 Age (Household Head) 1.01 -0.07 1.00 -0.95 Education (Household Head) 1.08* -0.03 1.03 -0.39 Employment (Household Head) 0.88 -0.52 0.66* -0.04 Remittances 1.36 -0.06 0.92 -0.64 PCA Asset 0.94 -0.20 0.94 -0.16 Education 1.04 -0.14 1.02 -0.58 Enrollment Public School System 1.12 -0.47 1.05 -0.75 Number of Courses 1.04 -0.43 1.07 -0.25 Number of Jobs 0.96 -0.56 1.04 -0.65 Number of Businesses 1.45 -0.06 1.32 -0.16 GEM Index 1.01* -0.03 1.02** 0.00 DAP Index 1.00 -0.60 1.00 -0.62 Risk Index 0.99 -0.50 0.97 -0.13 Structured Work Environment 1.05 -0.45 0.99 -0.84 LE 1.50 -0.06 1.34 -0.14 FUNADEH 0.82 -0.29 0.56** -0.01 OEI 0.50*** 0.00 0.51** 0.00 CI 0.82 -0.29 0.77 -0.25 CADERH 1.62 -0.06 1.56* -0.05 CESAL 0.82 -0.59 0.96 -0.90 Constant 0.28 -0.25 0.56 -0.57 N 1851 1851 42 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Education p￾values Desired Education Level p￾values A Ganar 0.07 0.26 -0.05 0.64 Sex 0.06 0.34 0.47 0.00 Motivation -0.07 0.13 0.09 0.29 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.02 0.39 1.17 0.00 Age -0.01 0.71 -0.01 0.73 Single 0.18 0.10 0.16 0.43 Number of Children -0.14 0.05 -0.28 0.03 Household Size 0.00 0.76 -0.01 0.79 Sex (Household Head) 0.03 0.58 -0.03 0.78 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.06 Education (Household Head) 0.02 0.22 0.10 0.00 Employment (Household Head) -0.04 0.67 0.07 0.70 Remittances -0.03 0.05 0.10 PCA Asset -0.07 0.00 -0.09 0.01 Education 0.79 0.00 Enrollment Public School System -0.15 0.05 -0.07 0.59 Number of Courses 0.09 0.07 Number of Jobs -0.15 0.00 0.01 0.85 Number of Businesses 0.04 0.73 0.18 0.32 GEM Index 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 DAP Index 0.00 0.79 0.01 0.38 Risk Index 0.00 0.99 -0.04 0.01 Structured Work Environment 0.01 0.80 0.00 0.94 LE 0.48 0.00 0.94 0.00 FUNADEH 0.09 0.40 -0.06 0.74 OEI -0.09 0.37 -0.20 0.30 CI -0.32 0.00 -0.16 0.42 CADERH 0.55 0.00 0.07 0.75 CESAL -0.04 0.81 0.17 0.55 Constant 1.47 0.00 4.28 0.00 Constant 5.70 0.00 Constant 7.99 0.00 Constant 12.54 0.00 N 1851 1851 43 Secondary Education Outcomes Number of Courses p-values Paid Course p-values A Ganar 0.89*** 0 0.42*** 0.00 Sex 0.04 -0.57 1.25 -0.22 Motivation 0 -0.96 0.96 -0.75 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.51*** 0 9.86*** 0.00 Age 0.02 -0.23 1.00 -0.94 Single 0.12 -0.31 1.49 -0.20 Number of Children -0.1 -0.21 1.41 -0.07 Household Size 0 -0.9 0.97 -0.47 Sex (Household Head) 0.09 -0.21 1.17 -0.35 Age (Household Head) 0 -0.1 0.99 -0.18 Education (Household Head) 0.02 -0.26 0.99 -0.82 Employment (Household Head) 0.03 -0.76 1.53 -0.14 Remittances -0.07 -0.51 0.63* -0.05 PCA Asset 0 -0.92 0.90 -0.09 Education 0.04* -0.01 1.05 -0.23 Enrollment -0.03 -0.69 0.87 -0.47 Public School System -0.11 -0.21 0.69 -0.06 Number of Courses 0.86 -0.06 Number of Jobs -0.03 -0.53 0.86 -0.17 Number of Businesses 0.16 -0.17 GEM Index 0.01 -0.06 1.01 -0.40 DAP Index 0 -0.99 1.01 -0.20 Risk Index -0.01 -0.59 1.01 -0.71 Structured Work Environment -0.01 -0.72 0.93 -0.41 LE 0.34** -0.01 0.91 -0.72 FUNADEH -0.27* -0.03 0.93 -0.82 OEI -0.06 -0.63 1.64 -0.08 CI -0.2 -0.1 1.00 -0.99 CADERH -0.23 -0.14 1.44 -0.24 CESAL 0.40* -0.02 1.35 -0.46 Constant -0.77 -0.16 0.04* -0.03 N 1851 1100 44 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Time Spent in Courses p-values Desire to Return p-values A Ganar 1.98 0.00 0.95 -0.85 Sex 0.15 0.82 1.73 -0.11 Motivation 0.17 0.70 1.16 -0.51 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 2.67 0.00 Age 0.11 0.46 1.09 -0.25 Single 0.98 0.37 0.60 -0.31 Number of Children -0.63 0.37 0.62 -0.07 Household Size -0.06 0.64 1.08 -0.28 Sex (Household Head) 1.16 0.05 Age (Household Head) 0.01 0.58 1.01 -0.62 Education (Household Head) -0.07 0.64 1.06 -0.52 Employment (Household Head) -0.39 0.68 Remittances -1.04 0.20 3.36 -0.07 PCA Asset -0.01 0.94 1.36** 0.00 Education -0.36 0.02 1.18* -0.02 Enrollment -0.44 0.51 1.02 -0.96 Public School System -0.55 0.44 Number of Courses 1.12 -0.52 Number of Jobs -0.39 0.31 1.13 -0.55 Number of Businesses GEM Index -0.04 0.23 1.04* -0.02 DAP Index 0.07 0.08 1.01 -0.77 Risk Index -0.04 0.69 1.02 -0.59 Structured Work Environment -0.62 0.03 0.83 -0.21 LE 6.62 0.00 2.28 -0.21 FUNADEH 3.84 0.00 1.96 -0.19 OEI 4.64 0.00 1.87 -0.18 CI 2.18 0.04 1.48 -0.41 CADERH 5.60 0.00 0.84 -0.79 CESAL 3.16 0.03 1.19 -0.81 Constant 6.73 0.18 0.00** 0.00 N 1100 496 45 ANNEX D: EMPLOYMENT REGRESSION TABLES Primary Employment Outcomes Worked in Last Week p￾values Looking for Work p￾values A Ganar 0.95 -0.66 1.01 -0.90 Sex 0.42*** 0.00 0.81 -0.20 Motivation 1.11 -0.25 0.93 -0.34 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 2.14*** 0.00 1.81*** 0.00 Age 1.02 -0.52 1.04 -0.25 Single 1.01 -0.96 1.22 -0.39 Number of Children 1.27 -0.09 1.12 -0.49 Household Size 1.04 -0.18 1.01 -0.59 Sex (Household Head) 0.94 -0.62 1.19 -0.19 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.85 1.00 -0.30 Education (Household Head) 0.99 -0.71 1.04 -0.17 Employment (Household Head) 1.03 -0.89 1.12 -0.59 Remittances 0.63** 0.00 0.89 -0.42 PCA Asset 1.01 -0.75 1.03 -0.41 Education 1.03 -0.25 1.05 -0.16 Enrollment 0.82 -0.13 0.88 -0.28 Public School System 1.01 -0.94 1.11 -0.49 Number of Courses 1.06 -0.24 0.91 -0.28 Number of Jobs 1.40*** 0.00 1.23 -0.07 Number of Businesses 1.12 -0.53 1.32 -0.11 GEM Index 1.00 -0.94 1.00 -0.89 DAP Index 1.01 -0.27 1.00 -0.93 Risk Index 1.00 -0.93 1.01 -0.47 Structured Work Environment 0.99 -0.82 0.96 -0.53 LE 1.33 -0.12 0.76 -0.13 FUNADEH 1.57* -0.02 0.98 -0.89 OEI 0.80 -0.23 0.90 -0.61 CI 1.05 -0.79 0.74 -0.30 CADERH 0.91 -0.68 0.72 -0.19 CESAL 0.81 -0.44 0.53* -0.03 Constant 0.14* -0.04 0.10* -0.04 N 1851 1851 46 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Currently Employed p￾values Job Satisfaction p￾values A Ganar 1.08 -0.54 1.49* -0.02 Sex 0.49*** 0.00 0.63* -0.02 Motivation 1.08 -0.39 0.81 -0.13 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 4.19*** 0.00 Age 1.04 -0.28 1 -0.95 Single 0.85 -0.50 2.51** 0 Number of Children 1.26 -0.11 1.42 -0.09 Household Size 1.05 -0.07 1.03 -0.49 Sex (Household Head) 0.85 -0.20 0.83 -0.33 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.61 1.01 -0.42 Education (Household Head) 0.95 -0.15 1.13* -0.01 Employment (Household Head) 1.17 -0.43 0.72 -0.33 Remittances 0.77 -0.14 0.94 -0.83 PCA Asset 1.00 -0.91 0.95 -0.39 Education 1.06 -0.06 1.06 -0.21 Enrollment 0.84 -0.21 0.66 -0.05 Public School System 0.99 -0.93 0.81 -0.36 Number of Courses 1.11 -0.07 1.06 -0.43 Number of Jobs 1.30*** 0.00 0.84 -0.12 Number of Businesses 1.20 -0.33 1.11 -0.71 GEM Index 1.01 -0.26 1.01 -0.39 DAP Index 1.00 -0.73 1.01 -0.56 Risk Index 1.01 -0.61 1.02 -0.43 Structured Work Environment 1.02 -0.69 0.99 -0.95 LE 1.14 -0.53 1.28 -0.43 FUNADEH 1.55* -0.04 1.58 -0.11 OEI 0.72 -0.14 1.47 -0.21 CI 1.05 -0.82 1.06 -0.86 CADERH 0.73 -0.18 1.33 -0.46 CESAL 0.74 -0.31 0.9 -0.84 Constant 0.03** 0.00 2.69 -0.54 Constant 15.97 -0.09 Constant 79.14** -0.01 N 1851 459 Secondary Employment Outcomes Employment p- Work p- 47 Benefits values Contract values A Ganar 1.55* -0.02 1.28 -0.09 Sex 0.8 -0.34 0.79 -0.17 Motivation 0.83 -0.23 0.95 -0.72 Age 0.93 -0.21 1.05 -0.27 Single 0.78 -0.45 0.78 -0.41 Number of Children 1.21 -0.38 1.68* -0.01 Household Size 1.04 -0.48 0.98 -0.58 Sex (Household Head) 1.01 -0.96 1.01 -0.92 Age (Household Head) 0.99 -0.22 1 -0.52 Education (Household Head) 1.04 -0.5 0.97 -0.34 Employment (Household Head) 1.35 -0.48 1.19 -0.51 Remittances 0.83 -0.55 0.87 -0.48 PCA Asset 0.95 -0.49 0.97 -0.48 Education 1.16** 0 1.20*** 0 Enrollment 0.77 -0.27 0.97 -0.87 Public School System 0.88 -0.65 0.93 -0.77 Number of Courses 0.92 -0.34 1.06 -0.36 Number of Jobs 1 -1 0.89 -0.26 Number of Businesses 1 -0.99 0.98 -0.93 GEM Index 1.03 -0.05 1.01 -0.28 DAP Index 1.01 -0.78 1 -0.73 Risk Index 0.97 -0.38 0.97 -0.16 Structured Work Environment 1.04 -0.74 1.05 -0.47 LE 1.25 -0.49 0.7 -0.14 FUNADEH 1.87 -0.07 0.96 -0.86 OEI 1.36 -0.41 0.39*** 0 CI 1.01 -0.98 0.82 -0.39 CADERH 0.67 -0.39 0.29*** 0 CESAL 0.77 -0.65 0.64 -0.19 Constant 0.06 -0.16 0.02* -0.01 N 564 1468 Usual Hours p￾values Total Wages (All Jobs) P Values A Ganar 1.55* -0.02 133.9 0.1 Sex 0.8 -0.34 -371.6 0.4 48 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Motivation 0.83 -0.23 245.0 0.4 Age 0.93 -0.21 266.9 0.0 Single 0.78 -0.45 -686.9 0.3 Number of Children 1.21 -0.38 -405.0 0.4 Household Size 1.04 -0.48 25.0 0.8 Sex (Household Head) 1.01 -0.96 -228.9 0.6 Age (Household Head) 0.99 -0.22 11.4 0.5 Education (Household Head) 1.04 -0.5 100.7 0.4 Employment (Household Head) 1.35 -0.48 279.0 0.7 Remittances 0.83 -0.55 -817.5 0.2 PCA Asset 0.95 -0.49 -163.8 0.2 Education 1.16** 0 -117.2 0.2 Enrollment 0.77 -0.27 -751.7 0.1 Public School System 0.88 -0.65 Number of Courses 0.92 -0.34 -304.8 0.1 Number of Jobs 1 -1 239.0 0.4 Number of Businesses 1 -0.99 -240.5 0.7 GEM Index 1.03 -0.05 3.9 0.9 DAP Index 1.01 -0.78 43.5 0.1 Risk Index 0.97 -0.38 111.1 0.1 Structured Work Environment 1.04 -0.74 458.8 0.0 LE 1.25 -0.49 1034.7 0.1 FUNADEH 1.87 -0.07 665.0 0.3 OEI 1.36 -0.41 513.6 0.5 CI 1.01 -0.98 75.9 0.9 CADERH 0.67 -0.39 -484.1 0.6 CESAL 0.77 -0.65 1812.6 0.1 Constant 0.06 -0.16 -6701.6 0.1 N 564 459 49 Number of Jobs p-values A Ganar 0.04 0.26 Sex -0.36 0.00 Motivation 0.02 0.54 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value Age 0.00 0.87 Single -0.04 0.57 Number of Children -0.01 0.86 Household Size 0.01 0.22 Sex (Household Head) 0.03 0.45 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.29 Education (Household Head) -0.01 0.18 Employment (Household Head) 0.07 0.22 Remittances -0.05 0.30 PCA Asset 0.00 0.96 Education 0.00 0.59 Enrollment -0.11 0.01 Public School System -0.01 0.78 Number of Courses 0.01 0.56 Number of Jobs 0.31 0.00 Number of Businesses 0.13 0.03 GEM Index 0.00 0.05 DAP Index 0.00 0.95 Risk Index 0.01 0.28 Structured Work Environment -0.02 0.31 LE -0.02 0.75 FUNADEH 0.02 0.80 OEI -0.03 0.56 CI -0.07 0.26 CADERH -0.14 0.04 CESAL 0.03 0.70 Constant 0.46 0.11 N 1851 50 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report ANNEX E: ENTREPRENEURSHIP REGRESSION TABLES Entrepreneurship Outcomes Attempted to Start a Business p￾values Owned a Business p￾values A Ganar 1.10 -0.47 1.08 -0.64 Sex 1.11 -0.41 0.97 -0.89 Motivation 1.17 -0.10 1.02 -0.89 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 3.74*** 0.00 17.71*** 0.00 Age 1.05 -0.10 1.12** -0.01 Single 0.97 -0.89 0.67 -0.17 Number of Children 1.16 -0.25 1.14 -0.47 Household Size 0.99 -0.73 0.99 -0.79 Sex (Household Head) 1.23 -0.09 1.20 -0.35 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.94 1.00 -0.59 Education (Household Head) 1.00 -0.91 1.00 -0.94 Employment (Household Head) 1.23 -0.29 0.97 -0.91 Remittances 0.90 -0.52 0.62 -0.08 PCA Asset 1.02 -0.66 0.97 -0.58 Education 0.98 -0.39 0.97 -0.54 Enrollment 1.04 -0.77 1.13 -0.56 Public School System 0.88 -0.38 0.98 -0.94 Number of Courses 1.06 -0.29 1.04 -0.63 Number of Jobs 1.06 -0.42 1.02 -0.85 GEM Index 0.99 -0.26 1.00 -1.00 DAP Index 1.01 -0.24 1.03* -0.01 Risk Index 0.98 -0.32 1.02 -0.53 Structured Work Environment 0.92 -0.13 0.94 -0.49 LE 1.09 -0.65 1.74 -0.09 FUNADEH 1.15 -0.48 1.89* -0.05 OEI 1.26 -0.23 2.04* -0.03 CI 1.18 -0.43 2.44** -0.01 CADERH 1.09 -0.69 0.83 -0.67 CESAL 1.20 -0.51 2.88** -0.01 Constant 0.12* -0.04 0.00*** 0.00 N 1851 1851 51 Number of Businesses p-values A Ganar -0.01 0.93 Sex -0.07 0.41 Motivation 0.00 0.99 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value Age 0.01 0.48 Single -0.03 0.77 Number of Children -0.06 0.38 Household Size -0.03 0.08 Sex (Household Head) -0.20 0.01 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.38 Education (Household Head) 0.02 0.27 Employment (Household Head) -0.18 0.16 Remittances -0.07 0.52 PCA Asset -0.03 0.38 Education 0.01 0.67 Enrollment 0.04 0.65 Public School System -0.02 0.78 Number of Courses 0.01 0.66 Number of Jobs -0.05 0.31 GEM Index -0.01 0.21 DAP Index 0.00 0.62 Risk Index -0.01 0.62 Structured Work Environment -0.03 0.44 LE 0.24 0.09 FUNADEH 0.03 0.85 OEI 0.24 0.09 CI 0.08 0.55 CADERH 0.45 0.02 CESAL 0.23 0.19 Constant 0.92 0.19 N 221 52 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Outcomes for Successful Small Businesses Number of Active Businesses p￾values Business Operation Time (Months) p￾values A Ganar 0.02 0.10 -8.15 0.00 Sex -0.01 0.60 -2.02 0.51 Motivation -0.01 0.64 -0.98 0.67 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.41 0.00 Age 0.01 0.01 -0.21 0.75 Single 0.00 0.85 1.17 0.76 Number of Children 0.05 0.01 1.74 0.49 Household Size 0.00 0.80 -1.00 0.11 Sex (Household Head) -0.01 0.46 -0.79 0.78 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.39 0.03 0.78 Education (Household Head) 0.00 0.39 0.11 0.88 Employment (Household Head) -0.04 0.08 -2.33 0.61 Remittances -0.01 0.49 2.64 0.52 PCA Asset -0.01 0.30 -0.32 0.76 Education -0.01 0.13 -0.12 0.87 Enrollment 0.00 0.77 5.85 0.08 Public School System 0.00 0.86 1.80 0.58 Number of Courses 0.01 0.06 -0.52 0.66 Number of Jobs 0.00 0.85 -0.62 0.72 GEM Index 0.00 0.80 -0.20 0.20 DAP Index 0.00 0.11 0.04 0.82 Risk Index 0.00 0.72 0.42 0.32 Structured Work Environment -0.01 0.30 -2.83 0.07 LE 0.01 0.78 4.83 0.33 FUNADEH 0.01 0.60 3.37 0.51 OEI 0.04 0.14 9.75 0.06 CI 0.08 0.00 0.61 0.90 CADERH 0.02 0.56 -2.70 0.70 CESAL 0.04 0.28 10.22 0.10 Constant -0.10 0.41 42.19 0.09 N 1851 221 53 Business Income (Monthly) p-values A Ganar -4.26 0.92 Sex -41.58 0.35 Motivation 39.54 0.24 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value Age -5.61 0.57 Single 39.75 0.48 Number of Children 39.01 0.29 Household Size 0.12 0.99 Sex (Household Head) -5.80 0.89 Age (Household Head) -0.53 0.75 Education (Household Head) 0.68 0.95 Employment (Household Head) 38.34 0.56 Remittances 76.71 0.20 PCA Asset -12.11 0.44 Education -6.89 0.52 Enrollment 5.22 0.91 Public School System -82.19 0.09 Number of Courses -11.73 0.49 Number of Jobs 54.80 0.03 GEM Index 0.04 0.99 DAP Index -0.16 0.95 Risk Index 9.62 0.12 Structured Work Environment -23.17 0.30 LE -39.79 0.58 FUNADEH 122.03 0.11 OEI 29.96 0.69 CI -102.36 0.16 CADERH -105.29 0.31 CESAL -83.76 0.36 Constant 225.12 0.54 N 221 54 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report ANNEX F: PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES REGRESSION TABLES Professional Capabilities: Summative Outcomes Capabilities Index p￾values PCA Capabilities Index p￾values A Ganar 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.02 Sex -0.50 0.00 -0.25 0.00 Motivation 0.22 0.05 0.10 0.05 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.39 0.00 0.36 0.00 Age -0.05 0.23 -0.01 1.00 Single -0.37 0.16 0.05 0.70 Number of Children 0.01 0.94 0.16 0.04 Household Size 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.04 Sex (Household Head) -0.05 0.75 -0.04 0.58 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.91 Education (Household Head) 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.37 Employment (Household Head) -0.23 0.36 -0.04 0.75 Remittances -0.27 0.18 -0.07 0.47 PCA Asset -0.03 0.53 -0.01 0.54 Education 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.03 Enrollment 0.05 0.77 -0.06 0.48 Public School System -0.33 0.07 -0.13 0.12 Number of Courses 0.19 0.01 0.08 0.01 Number of Jobs 0.09 0.36 0.05 0.25 Number of Businesses 0.29 0.24 0.06 0.61 DAP Index 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 GEM Index 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.49 Risk Index -0.02 0.36 -0.01 0.27 Structured Work Environment -0.09 0.19 -0.02 0.48 LE 0.18 0.46 0.13 0.27 FUNADEH 0.13 0.59 -0.01 0.91 OEI 0.04 0.86 -0.07 0.53 CI -0.15 0.56 -0.12 0.32 CADERH 0.32 0.25 0.04 0.74 CESAL -0.69 0.06 -0.42 0.02 Constant 13.24 0.00 -1.74 0.00 N 1851 1851 55 Professional Capabilities: Hard Skills Computer Skills p-values CV Writing p-values A Ganar -0.01 0.92 0.24 0.01 Sex -0.47 0.00 -0.24 0.02 Motivation 0.01 0.89 0.03 0.66 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.81 0.00 0.59 0.00 Age -0.05 0.04 0.04 0.09 Single -0.13 0.44 -0.35 0.03 Number of Children 0.01 0.93 -0.04 0.72 Household Size 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.10 Sex (Household Head) 0.04 0.66 0.06 0.55 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.66 0.01 0.15 Education (Household Head) -0.02 0.49 0.01 0.58 Employment (Household Head) -0.02 0.90 -0.03 0.84 Remittances -0.05 0.71 -0.07 0.59 PCA Asset -0.05 0.11 0.01 0.78 Education 0.16 0.00 0.11 0.00 Enrollment 0.10 0.35 0.06 0.56 Public School System -0.13 0.24 -0.20 0.08 Number of Courses 0.10 0.02 0.09 0.05 Number of Jobs 0.00 0.95 -0.03 0.59 Number of Businesses 0.09 0.57 0.07 0.65 DAP Index 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 GEM Index 0.00 0.71 0.01 0.05 Risk Index -0.02 0.11 0.01 0.31 Structured Work Environment -0.09 0.04 0.01 0.74 LE 0.38 0.02 0.32 0.04 FUNADEH 0.09 0.58 0.08 0.61 OEI -0.05 0.74 -0.11 0.49 CI -0.11 0.51 -0.02 0.90 CADERH 0.09 0.59 0.10 0.56 CESAL 0.00 1.00 -0.05 0.82 Constant 0.53 0.50 3.09 0.00 Constant 2.46 0.00 4.77 0.00 Constant 4.22 0.00 6.50 0.00 N 1851 1851 56 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Interview Skills p-values Job Search Skills p-values A Ganar 0.09 0.33 1.06 -0.59 Sex -0.36 0.00 0.83 -0.09 Motivation -0.04 0.63 1.02 -0.84 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.60 0.00 1.60*** 0 Age -0.03 0.18 0.97 -0.22 Single 0.03 0.87 0.88 -0.49 Number of Children 0.39 0.00 1.32* -0.02 Household Size 0.01 0.81 1.03 -0.2 Sex (Household Head) 0.14 0.14 1.06 -0.55 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.84 1 -0.4 Education (Household Head) 0.01 0.64 1.02 -0.49 Employment (Household Head) 0.13 0.41 0.94 -0.71 Remittances -0.10 0.45 0.79 -0.13 PCA Asset 0.00 0.97 0.97 -0.38 Education 0.02 0.28 1.04 -0.13 Enrollment 0.04 0.74 0.86 -0.16 Public School System -0.10 0.37 1 -0.99 Number of Courses 0.13 0.00 1.02 -0.6 Number of Jobs -0.02 0.73 1.15* -0.03 Number of Businesses 0.01 0.95 0.96 -0.8 DAP Index 0.02 0.00 1.03*** 0 GEM Index 0.01 0.11 1 -0.92 Risk Index -0.03 0.05 1 -0.93 Structured Work Environment -0.03 0.47 0.94 -0.28 LE 0.04 0.81 0.99 -0.94 FUNADEH 0.10 0.55 1.26 -0.17 OEI -0.04 0.82 1.13 -0.48 CI 0.00 0.99 0.85 -0.33 CADERH 0.13 0.48 0.86 -0.41 CESAL -0.38 0.11 0.81 -0.37 Constant -1.37 0.09 0.22 -0.07 Constant 0.79 0.32 1.43 -0.66 Constant 2.93 0.00 10.84** 0 N 1851 1851 57 Professional Capabilities: Soft Skills Dressing for a Job p￾values Interaction with Colleagues p￾values A Ganar -0.09 0.37 0.13 0.16 Sex -0.06 0.63 -0.08 0.43 Motivation 0.08 0.29 0.06 0.38 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.65 0.00 0.51 0.00 Age 0.02 0.59 -0.03 0.28 Single -0.15 0.45 0.34 0.04 Number of Children -0.05 0.65 0.02 0.83 Household Size -0.01 0.69 0.01 0.49 Sex (Household Head) -0.20 0.06 -0.17 0.09 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.27 Education (Household Head) 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.39 Employment (Household Head) -0.13 0.48 -0.04 0.82 Remittances 0.02 0.91 0.00 0.98 PCA Asset -0.01 0.70 -0.04 0.24 Education 0.01 0.83 0.01 0.55 Enrollment 0.20 0.10 -0.12 0.26 Public School System -0.17 0.21 0.03 0.81 Number of Courses 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.35 Number of Jobs -0.01 0.85 0.16 0.01 Number of Businesses -0.02 0.90 0.05 0.76 DAP Index 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 GEM Index 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.05 Risk Index 0.01 0.65 -0.03 0.04 Structured Work Environment -0.09 0.07 -0.02 0.62 LE -0.31 0.08 0.02 0.88 FUNADEH -0.23 0.22 0.13 0.42 OEI 0.05 0.77 -0.04 0.79 CI -0.33 0.08 -0.11 0.52 CADERH -0.18 0.37 0.06 0.74 CESAL -0.60 0.02 -0.29 0.23 Constant -1.36 0.16 -1.10 0.19 Constant 0.97 0.29 1.46 0.07 Constant 3.24 0.00 3.84 0.00 N 1851 1851 58 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Interaction with Superiors p￾values Start a Business p￾values A Ganar 0.13 0.15 -0.09 0.29 Sex -0.14 0.17 -0.03 0.72 Motivation 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.01 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.70 0.00 0.00 Age -0.01 0.56 -0.01 0.56 Single -0.02 0.90 -0.27 0.09 Number of Children 0.00 0.97 -0.14 0.16 Household Size 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.42 Sex (Household Head) -0.13 0.18 -0.09 0.33 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.36 Education (Household Head) 0.01 0.83 0.03 0.13 Employment (Household Head) -0.01 0.94 -0.33 0.03 Remittances 0.05 0.68 -0.26 0.03 PCA Asset 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 Education -0.05 0.03 -0.04 0.09 Enrollment -0.20 0.06 0.11 0.27 Public School System -0.08 0.47 -0.22 0.05 Number of Courses 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.93 Number of Jobs 0.03 0.67 0.02 0.76 Number of Businesses -0.06 0.68 0.50 0.00 DAP Index 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 GEM Index 0.00 0.66 -0.02 0.00 Risk Index -0.01 0.69 0.02 0.16 Structured Work Environment -0.02 0.64 -0.01 0.87 LE -0.03 0.84 0.05 0.76 FUNADEH 0.01 0.95 -0.01 0.92 OEI -0.01 0.96 0.28 0.07 CI -0.30 0.07 0.36 0.02 CADERH 0.27 0.13 0.18 0.28 CESAL -0.58 0.01 -0.13 0.56 Constant -1.74 0.03 -1.21 0.11 Constant 1.13 0.15 0.81 0.29 Constant 3.35 0.00 2.33 0.00 N 1851 1851 59 Professional Capabilities Outcomes with Interaction Variables for Treatment and Sex Interview Skills Coefficient Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] Treatment 0.42 0.15 2.86 0.00 0.13 0.71 Treatment*Sex -0.53 0.19 -2.77 0.01 -0.90 -0.15 Interview Skills at Baseline 0.58 0.06 9.04 0.00 0.46 0.71 Age -0.04 0.03 -1.54 0.12 -0.09 0.01 Single 0.01 0.19 0.05 0.96 -0.37 0.39 # of Children 0.37 0.13 2.75 0.01 0.10 0.64 # of Family Members 0.01 0.02 0.53 0.60 -0.03 0.06 Characteristics of Head of Household Sex 0.12 0.10 1.13 0.26 -0.09 0.32 Age 0.00 0.00 -0.27 0.79 -0.01 0.01 Education 0.02 0.03 0.94 0.35 -0.03 0.08 Employed 0.06 0.17 0.37 0.71 -0.28 0.40 Remittances -0.10 0.13 -0.73 0.46 -0.36 0.16 PCA Asset 0.01 0.03 0.36 0.72 -0.05 0.08 Education 0.02 0.02 1.00 0.32 -0.02 0.07 Enrolled 0.04 0.12 0.29 0.77 -0.21 0.28 School System -0.12 0.12 -0.95 0.35 -0.36 0.13 # of Courses 0.13 0.05 2.90 0.00 0.04 0.22 # of Jobs -0.02 0.06 -0.26 0.80 -0.14 0.11 # of Businesses 0.03 0.17 0.18 0.86 -0.30 0.36 DAP Score 0.01 0.01 2.21 0.03 0.00 0.03 GEM Score 0.01 0.01 1.68 0.09 0.00 0.02 Risk Index -0.03 0.01 -2.31 0.02 -0.06 0.00 Neighborhood Safety Proxy -0.03 0.05 -0.56 0.58 -0.12 0.07 Sex -0.07 0.14 -0.48 0.64 -0.35 0.21 Motivation -0.07 0.08 -0.87 0.39 -0.24 0.10 Constant 1 -1.52 0.88 -3.25 0.20 Constant 2 0.64 0.87 -1.08 2.36 Constant 3 2.79 0.88 1.06 4.51 N = 1851 Note: The regression additionally included controls for cohort, but these have been omitted from the table. 60 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report ANNEX G: SELF ESTEEM REGRESSION TABLES Self Esteem Outcomes Self Esteem Index p￾values PCA Self Esteem p￾values A Ganar 0.17 0.41 0.13 0.06 Sex -0.11 0.63 0.09 0.27 Motivation 0.03 0.87 0.01 0.85 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.30 0.00 0.36 0.00 Age 0.03 0.84 0.02 0.88 Single -0.23 0.54 -0.07 0.60 Number of Children -0.05 0.83 0.11 0.19 Household Size 0.01 0.89 0.02 0.36 Sex (Household Head) -0.07 0.75 -0.23 0.00 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.72 0.01 0.04 Education (Household Head) -0.03 0.61 0.00 0.83 Employment (Household Head) -0.32 0.36 -0.19 0.12 Remittances -0.05 0.86 0.09 0.37 PCA Asset 0.00 0.98 -0.01 0.79 Education -0.11 0.03 0.04 0.01 Enrollment -0.06 0.82 0.12 0.14 Public School System -0.07 0.78 0.02 0.84 Number of Courses 0.07 0.49 0.03 0.31 Number of Jobs 0.03 0.82 0.07 0.15 Number of Businesses 0.24 0.50 0.00 0.99 DAP Index GEM Index -0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 Risk Index -0.06 0.05 -0.04 0.00 Structured Work Environment 0.21 0.04 0.09 0.01 LE -0.61 0.09 0.12 0.35 FUNADEH -0.16 0.65 0.07 0.59 OEI -0.26 0.47 0.11 0.39 CI 0.08 0.83 -0.07 0.57 CADERH -0.03 0.93 0.04 0.77 CESAL -0.87 0.10 -0.06 0.76 Constant 33.06 0.00 -2.60 0.00 N 1851 1851 61 ANNEX H: GENDER PERSPECTIVES REGRESSION TABLES GEM Outcomes GEM p-values PCA GEM p-values A Ganar 0.58 0.09 0.14 0.07 Sex 0.94 0.01 0.33 0.00 Motivation 0.24 0.36 0.01 0.92 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.53 0.00 Age -0.09 0.95 0.00 0.36 Single -0.52 0.40 0.00 0.99 Number of Children -0.11 0.78 0.08 0.41 Household Size 0.04 0.63 0.02 0.36 Sex (Household Head) 0.26 0.46 0.06 0.49 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.94 Education (Household Head) 0.10 0.24 0.00 0.89 Employment (Household Head) -0.26 0.66 0.02 0.88 Remittances 0.62 0.19 0.12 0.27 PCA Asset -0.11 0.37 -0.03 0.29 Education 0.49 0.00 0.12 0.00 Enrollment 0.62 0.12 0.15 0.10 Public School System -0.17 0.69 0.02 0.86 Number of Courses 0.37 0.02 0.10 0.01 Number of Jobs -0.11 0.63 0.03 0.56 Number of Businesses 0.90 0.12 0.05 0.70 DAP Index 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.99 GEM Index 0.58 0.00 Risk Index -0.16 0.00 -0.03 0.00 Structured Work Environment -0.25 0.14 -0.04 0.28 LE 0.94 0.11 0.27 0.05 FUNADEH -1.47 0.01 -0.04 0.79 OEI 0.05 0.94 0.09 0.51 CI -1.80 0.00 -0.51 0.00 CADERH -1.01 0.12 -0.19 0.23 CESAL -0.39 0.65 -0.01 0.96 Constant 34.28 0.00 -1.50 0.02 N 1851 1851 62 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report GEM Outcomes with Gender Interaction Variable GEM Score at Midline Coeff. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] Treatment -0.58 0.58 -1.00 0.32 -1.72 0.57 Treatment*Sex 1.81 0.72 2.49 0.01 0.38 3.23 GEM Score at Baseline 0.58 0.02 29.42 0.00 0.54 0.62 Age -0.13 0.10 -1.31 0.19 -0.32 0.07 Single -0.61 0.65 -0.94 0.35 -1.88 0.66 # of Children -0.09 0.40 -0.22 0.83 -0.87 0.69 # of Family Members 0.03 0.08 0.41 0.68 -0.12 0.19 Characteristics of Head of Household Sex 0.36 0.36 0.98 0.33 -0.36 1.07 Age 0.00 0.02 -0.03 0.98 -0.03 0.03 Education 0.07 0.10 0.70 0.49 -0.13 0.27 Employed 0.15 0.66 0.23 0.82 -1.15 1.46 Remittances 0.49 0.50 0.97 0.33 -0.50 1.48 PCA Asset -0.12 0.12 -1.02 0.31 -0.36 0.11 Education 0.51 0.08 6.01 0.00 0.34 0.67 Enrolled 0.48 0.42 1.14 0.26 -0.35 1.30 School System -0.26 0.44 -0.60 0.55 -1.12 0.60 # of Courses 0.42 0.17 2.43 0.02 0.08 0.75 # of Jobs -0.21 0.24 -0.90 0.37 -0.68 0.25 # of Businesses 0.94 0.60 1.57 0.12 -0.24 2.12 DAP Score 0.02 0.02 1.09 0.27 -0.02 0.07 Risk Index -0.13 0.06 -2.22 0.03 -0.24 -0.01 Neighborhood Safety Proxy -0.27 0.18 -1.48 0.14 -0.64 0.09 Sex -0.12 0.56 -0.21 0.84 -1.21 0.98 Motivation 0.29 0.28 1.04 0.30 -0.26 0.84 Constant 35.05 3.19 10.99 0.00 28.74 41.36 N = 1851 63 ANNEX I: RISK BEHAVIOR REGRESSION TABLES Risk Behavior: Summative Outcomes based on Friends’ Behaviors Risk Index P Values PCA Risk p￾values A Ganar 0.21 -0.13 0.04 0.57 Sex - 0.66*** 0.00 -0.43 0.00 Motivation 0.00 -0.97 -0.04 0.44 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.42*** 0.00 0.31 0.00 Age -0.02 -0.61 -0.02 0.21 Single 0.49* -0.05 0.43 0.00 Number of Children 0.41** -0.01 0.34 0.00 Household Size 0.02 -0.53 -0.01 0.55 Sex (Household Head) 0.19 -0.18 0.10 0.18 Age (Household Head) 0.00 -0.45 0.00 0.13 Education (Household Head) 0.05 -0.18 0.03 0.56 Employment (Household Head) 0.03 -0.91 0.09 0.50 Remittances 0.01 -0.98 -0.06 0.56 PCA Asset -0.04 -0.38 -0.02 0.50 Education -0.27 -0.11 -0.13 0.13 Enrollment -0.11** 0.00 -0.07 0.00 Public School System 0.07 -0.70 -0.10 0.31 Number of Courses 0.04 -0.58 0.03 0.42 Number of Jobs 0.10 -0.37 0.06 0.24 Number of Businesses -0.06 -0.78 0.13 0.32 GEM Index -0.01 -0.23 -0.01 0.06 DAP Index -0.01 -0.11 -0.01 0.00 Structured Work Environment -0.11 -0.10 -0.07 0.08 LE -0.02 -0.94 -0.14 0.27 FUNADEH 0.12 -0.64 0.04 0.75 OEI -0.15 -0.53 -0.17 0.19 CI -0.39 -0.12 -0.39 0.00 CADERH -0.17 -0.52 -0.01 0.95 CESAL 0.34 -0.33 0.10 0.60 Constant 9.06*** 0.00 2.45 0.00 N 1851 1851 64 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Risk Behavior: Outcomes based on Friends’ Behaviors Fighting (Friends) P Values Gang Activity (Friends) P Values A Ganar 1.12 -0.36 0.90 -0.44 Sex 0.53*** 0.00 0.94 -0.67 Motivation 0.98 -0.86 1.18 -0.16 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.80*** 0.00 1.97*** 0.00 Age 0.92* -0.04 0.98 -0.59 Single 1.10 -0.74 1.07 -0.77 Number of Children 1.05 -0.75 0.82 -0.27 Household Size 1.02 -0.45 0.99 -0.69 Sex (Household Head) 0.89 -0.37 1.17 -0.29 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.46 1.01 -0.23 Education (Household Head) 0.98 -0.57 1.05 -0.15 Employment (Household Head) 0.90 -0.62 0.84 -0.45 Remittances 0.83 -0.33 0.92 -0.68 PCA Asset 0.99 -0.78 1.02 -0.63 Education 0.94* -0.04 0.90** 0.00 Enrollment 0.81 -0.17 1.39* -0.04 Public School System 0.89 -0.50 0.94 -0.69 Number of Courses 1.07 -0.24 1.07 -0.32 Number of Jobs 1.00 -0.99 1.16 -0.11 Number of Businesses 1.17 -0.47 0.78 -0.34 GEM Index 0.99 -0.36 0.99 -0.08 DAP Index 1.00 -0.66 0.99 -0.09 Structured Work Environment 0.90 -0.09 0.90 -0.10 LE 0.62* -0.03 0.53* -0.01 FUNADEH 0.66* -0.05 0.97 -0.88 OEI 0.48** 0.00 0.81 -0.39 CI 0.50** 0.00 1.17 -0.47 CADERH 0.52* -0.01 1.28 -0.30 CESAL 0.40* -0.01 0.85 -0.62 Constant 0.17 -0.09 0.84 -0.87 Constant 1.34 -0.78 5.56 -0.12 Constant 2.99 -0.30 10.79* -0.03 Constant 9.93* -0.03 42.46*** 0.00 N 1851 1851 65 Drug Use (Friends) P Values Unprotected Sex (Friends) P Values A Ganar 1.24* -0.05 1.25* -0.02 Sex 0.62*** 0.00 0.63*** 0.00 Motivation 1.02 -0.85 0.85* -0.02 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 2.22*** 0.00 1.65*** 0.00 Age 0.96 -0.12 1.00 -0.96 Single 1.51 -0.07 1.25 -0.26 Number of Children 1.16 -0.26 1.21 -0.13 Household Size 1.00 -0.98 1.05* -0.03 Sex (Household Head) 0.96 -0.74 1.38** 0.00 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.66 0.99 -0.08 Education (Household Head) 1.05 -0.13 1.01 -0.65 Employment (Household Head) 1.14 -0.49 1.03 -0.89 Remittances 1.16 -0.32 1.07 -0.61 PCA Asset 1.01 -0.79 0.97 -0.39 Education 0.95 -0.08 1.00 -0.87 Enrollment 0.87 -0.32 1.02 -0.88 Public School System 1.07 -0.64 0.94 -0.65 Number of Courses 1.06 -0.30 0.98 -0.68 Number of Jobs 1.17* -0.03 0.99 -0.94 Number of Businesses 0.78 -0.23 1.14 -0.43 GEM Index 0.99 -0.22 1.00 -0.94 DAP Index 0.99 -0.14 0.98* -0.01 Structured Work Environment 0.89* -0.03 0.91 -0.07 LE 1.11 -0.59 1.00 -0.99 FUNADEH 1.02 -0.92 1.24 -0.22 OEI 0.92 -0.68 1.23 -0.25 CI 1.04 -0.84 1.24 -0.22 CADERH 1.21 -0.33 0.94 -0.74 CESAL 1.95** -0.01 1.58 -0.06 Constant 1.21 -0.84 0.98 -0.98 Constant 9.27* -0.02 8.38* -0.02 Constant 18.05** 0.00 15.49** 0.00 Constant 76.21*** 0.00 74.64*** 0.00 N 1851 1851 66 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Crime (Friends) P Values Incarcerated (Friends) P Values A Ganar 0.66 -0.16 1.18 -0.26 Sex 0.47* -0.03 0.55*** 0.00 Motivation 0.84 -0.38 0.79* -0.05 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 2.57*** 0.00 2.29*** 0.00 Age 1.03 -0.67 0.93 -0.08 Single 2.08 -0.28 2.19* -0.02 Number of Children 1.55 -0.14 1.50 -0.05 Household Size 0.98 -0.71 0.94 -0.06 Sex (Household Head) 1.65 -0.07 1.19 -0.25 Age (Household Head) 1.02 -0.09 1.01 -0.15 Education (Household Head) 1.05 -0.45 0.96 -0.29 Employment (Household Head) 1.99 -0.22 1.98* -0.03 Remittances 0.56 -0.21 1.16 -0.47 PCA Asset 0.99 -0.91 1.03 -0.54 Education 0.82*** 0.00 0.91* -0.02 Enrollment 1.24 -0.50 0.69* -0.04 Public School System 0.91 -0.79 0.86 -0.40 Number of Courses 0.95 -0.80 1.04 -0.62 Number of Jobs 1.24 -0.20 1.10 -0.34 Number of Businesses 0.65 -0.43 0.88 -0.65 GEM Index 1.00 -0.99 0.99 -0.14 DAP Index 0.97* -0.02 0.99 -0.11 Structured Work Environment 0.80 -0.09 0.92 -0.27 LE 0.69 -0.50 1.45 -0.15 FUNADEH 1.04 -0.92 1.35 -0.30 OEI 0.42 -0.12 1.10 -0.72 CI 0.78 -0.55 1.03 -0.91 CADERH 0.80 -0.64 1.19 -0.58 CESAL 0.23 -0.17 2.49* -0.01 Constant 9.84 -0.32 0.43 -0.49 Constant 51.01 -0.09 4.60 -0.21 Constant 108.74 -0.05 10.24 -0.06 Constant 355.57* -0.02 27.86* -0.01 N 1851 1851 67 Drug Trafficking (Friends) P Values Alcohol Abuse (Friends) P Values A Ganar 1.17 -0.43 1.10 -0.33 Sex 0.88 -0.57 0.63*** 0.00 Motivation 1.06 -0.70 1.00 -1.00 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 2.30*** 0.00 2.06*** 0.00 Age 1.02 -0.68 1.00 -0.86 Single 1.66 -0.21 0.98 -0.91 Number of Children 1.08 -0.71 1.19 -0.09 Household Size 0.92 -0.06 1.00 -0.83 Sex (Household Head) 1.30 -0.19 1.09 -0.40 Age (Household Head) 1.01 -0.24 1.00 -0.32 Education (Household Head) 1.05 -0.27 1.03 -0.19 Employment (Household Head) 2.28 -0.09 0.89 -0.47 Remittances 0.99 -0.98 1.09 -0.51 PCA Asset 1.05 -0.49 0.93* -0.02 Education 0.92 -0.74 0.97 -0.20 Enrollment 0.84*** 0.00 0.84 -0.11 Public School System 1.01 -0.97 1.19 -0.13 Number of Courses 1.21* -0.04 1.05 -0.25 Number of Jobs 1.30* -0.05 1.05 -0.44 Number of Businesses 0.44 -0.06 1.13 -0.45 GEM Index 0.98 -0.06 1.00 -0.65 DAP Index 0.98* -0.04 0.98*** 0.00 Structured Work Environment 0.81* -0.03 0.95 -0.34 LE 0.85 -0.65 1.07 -0.68 FUNADEH 0.77 -0.51 0.90 -0.52 OEI 1.07 -0.82 0.85 -0.31 CI 0.49 -0.06 0.64* -0.01 CADERH 1.16 -0.66 0.73 -0.08 CESAL 1.59 -0.30 1.25 -0.33 Constant 2.09 -0.64 0.32 -0.14 Constant 13.84 -0.10 2.85 -0.18 Constant 38.95* -0.02 4.96* -0.04 Constant 316.78** 0.00 14.87*** 0.00 N 1851 1851 68 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Risk Behavior: Outcomes based on Randomized Self Reports Fighting - Self P Values Gang Involvement (Self) P Values A Ganar 0.93 -0.55 0.80 -0.13 Sex 0.71* -0.02 0.58** 0.00 Motivation 0.98 -0.86 0.91 -0.43 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.16 -0.26 1.20 -0.32 Age 1.01 -0.86 1.00 -0.99 Single 1.22 -0.37 1.18 -0.54 Number of Children 1.07 -0.62 1.11 -0.54 Household Size 0.97 -0.27 0.94 -0.11 Sex (Household Head) 0.88 -0.32 1.08 -0.58 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.68 1.00 -0.82 Education (Household Head) 0.97 -0.40 0.97 -0.38 Employment (Household Head) 1.30 -0.27 1.41 -0.21 Remittances 1.09 -0.61 1.55* -0.02 PCA Asset 1.01 -0.80 1.01 -0.89 Education 0.99 -0.93 0.87 -0.37 Enrollment 0.96 -0.17 0.96 -0.25 Public School System 0.97 -0.83 0.87 -0.38 Number of Courses 0.98 -0.79 1.04 -0.58 Number of Jobs 1.03 -0.73 0.98 -0.84 Number of Businesses 0.97 -0.90 0.82 -0.43 GEM Index 0.98* -0.02 0.98 -0.06 DAP Index 1.00 -0.63 0.99 -0.32 Structured Work Environment 1.01 -0.85 0.87* -0.05 LE 0.90 -0.61 1.27 -0.34 FUNADEH 0.90 -0.63 0.92 -0.72 OEI 0.88 -0.54 1.15 -0.56 CI 0.93 -0.72 0.79 -0.40 CADERH 0.67 -0.10 0.98 -0.92 CESAL 0.84 -0.58 1.65 -0.14 Constant 2.82 -0.36 4.92 -0.14 N 1851 1851 69 Drug Use (Self) P Values Unprotected Sex (Self) P Values A Ganar 1.09 -0.59 1.30* -0.04 Sex 0.65** 0.00 0.64** 0.00 Motivation 1.06 -0.58 1.06 -0.56 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.62*** 0.00 1.65*** 0.00 Age 0.97 -0.44 1.02 -0.55 Single 0.89 -0.69 1.33 -0.25 Number of Children 0.73 -0.07 1.18 -0.22 Household Size 0.96 -0.18 0.97 -0.29 Sex (Household Head) 0.92 -0.53 0.91 -0.41 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.87 1.00 -0.62 Education (Household Head) 0.96 -0.19 1.07 -0.05 Employment (Household Head) 1.19 -0.47 1.60* -0.03 Remittances 1.15 -0.46 0.80 -0.18 PCA Asset 1.01 -0.78 0.98 -0.65 Education 0.77 -0.12 0.91 -0.52 Enrollment 0.97 -0.45 1.01 -0.66 Public School System 0.99 -0.94 0.94 -0.72 Number of Courses 0.97 -0.61 0.98 -0.74 Number of Jobs 1.12 -0.24 1.05 -0.58 Number of Businesses 0.89 -0.63 0.78 -0.32 GEM Index 1.00 -0.80 0.98** 0.00 DAP Index 1.00 -0.86 0.99 -0.21 Structured Work Environment 1.03 -0.63 0.98 -0.69 LE 0.89 -0.61 1.12 -0.58 FUNADEH 0.86 -0.52 1.09 -0.69 OEI 0.77 -0.25 1.09 -0.71 CI 0.97 -0.89 1.07 -0.80 CADERH 0.75 -0.34 0.79 -0.44 CESAL 1.63 -0.10 1.30 -0.36 Constant 1.15 -0.89 0.84 -0.85 N 1851 1851 Criminal P Incarceration (Self) P 70 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Activity (Self) Values Values A Ganar 0.91 -0.55 0.93 -0.60 Sex 0.69* -0.03 0.89 -0.41 Motivation 1.09 -0.42 0.96 -0.66 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.28 -0.14 1.21 -0.23 Age 1.03 -0.40 1.02 -0.52 Single 0.77 -0.37 0.67 -0.14 Number of Children 0.71 -0.12 0.67* -0.03 Household Size 0.98 -0.47 0.95 -0.16 Sex (Household Head) 0.86 -0.26 0.90 -0.42 Age (Household Head) 1.01 -0.42 1.01 -0.30 Education (Household Head) 1.01 -0.67 0.97 -0.28 Employment (Household Head) 0.82 -0.38 0.82 -0.39 Remittances 1.13 -0.52 1.29 -0.19 PCA Asset 1.05 -0.28 1.07 -0.15 Education 0.98 -0.90 1.09 -0.61 Enrollment 0.98 -0.57 1.02 -0.63 Public School System 1.16 -0.41 0.86 -0.36 Number of Courses 0.97 -0.64 0.98 -0.72 Number of Jobs 0.98 -0.87 1.12 -0.17 Number of Businesses 1.17 -0.45 1.26 -0.26 GEM Index 1.00 -0.96 0.99 -0.21 DAP Index 1.00 -0.65 0.99 -0.10 Structured Work Environment 1.03 -0.68 1.03 -0.58 LE 1.28 -0.28 0.78 -0.31 FUNADEH 1.03 -0.91 1.19 -0.40 OEI 1.43 -0.12 1.13 -0.56 CI 1.06 -0.83 0.72 -0.17 CADERH 1.19 -0.56 1.27 -0.38 CESAL 1.69 -0.13 1.39 -0.27 Constant 0.18 -0.12 1.20 -0.85 N 1851 1851 71 Drug Trafficking (Self) P Values Alcohol Abuse (Self) P Values A Ganar 1.08 -0.55 1.20 -0.11 Sex 0.83 -0.23 1.63*** 0.00 Motivation 1.02 -0.84 1.01 -0.82 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.09 -0.58 0.94 -0.77 Age 1.02 -0.52 1.07 -0.62 Single 0.88 -0.57 1.01 -0.85 Number of Children 0.81 -0.19 1.22 -0.09 Household Size 0.98 -0.56 1.00 -0.47 Sex (Household Head) 0.92 -0.61 1.03 -0.28 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.65 1.10 -0.62 Education (Household Head) 1.04 -0.25 1.22 -0.19 Employment (Household Head) 0.96 -0.85 0.96 -0.36 Remittances 1.03 -0.88 0.53*** 0.00 PCA Asset 1.00 -0.95 0.93* -0.01 Education 0.94 -0.68 1.07 -0.65 Enrollment 0.95 -0.16 1.08 -0.21 Public School System 0.89 -0.46 1.09 -0.21 Number of Courses 0.93 -0.27 0.88 -0.50 Number of Jobs 1.00 -0.98 1.00 -1.00 Number of Businesses 1.05 -0.83 0.99 -0.48 GEM Index 0.99 -0.27 1.04 -0.49 DAP Index 1.00 -0.79 0.59*** 0.00 Structured Work Environment 1.00 -0.95 1.01 -0.92 LE 1.14 -0.56 1.15 -0.47 FUNADEH 1.04 -0.86 1.03 -0.88 OEI 1.19 -0.44 0.53** 0.00 CI 1.04 -0.88 0.78 -0.22 CADERH 0.94 -0.82 0.90 -0.64 CESAL 1.18 -0.63 0.98 -0.94 Constant 0.67 -0.68 0.67 -0.66 N 1851 1851 72 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report ANNEX J: DEVELOPMENT ASSET PROFILE REGRESSION TABLES DAP Outcomes DAP p-values PCA DAP p-values A Ganar 0.34 -0.29 0.11 0.51 Sex -0.747** -0.04 -0.22 0.25 Motivation 0.20 -0.42 0.26 0.05 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.466*** 0.00 0.25 0.00 Age -0.01 -0.87 -0.04 0.49 Single -0.37 -0.53 -0.01 0.97 Number of Children -0.55 -0.14 -0.37 0.06 Household Size -0.08 -0.30 -0.04 0.28 Sex (Household Head) -0.35 -0.31 -0.19 0.29 Age (Household Head) 0.02 -0.22 0.00 0.75 Education (Household Head) 0.13 -0.14 0.01 0.90 Employment (Household Head) -0.13 -0.81 -0.40 0.17 Remittances -0.20 -0.65 -0.33 0.16 PCA Asset -0.04 -0.72 -0.04 0.49 Education 0.276*** 0.00 0.17 0.00 Enrollment 0.838** -0.03 0.64 0.00 Public School System 0.16 -0.68 0.10 0.66 Number of Courses -0.06 -0.68 0.01 0.90 Number of Jobs -0.19 -0.37 -0.02 0.86 Number of Businesses 0.48 -0.37 0.50 0.09 DAP Index GEM Index 0.03 -0.10 0.03 0.01 Risk Index -0.112** -0.02 -0.07 0.01 Structured Work Environment 0.24 -0.13 0.17 0.04 LE -0.40 -0.47 -0.12 0.68 FUNADEH -0.11 -0.85 -0.13 0.68 OEI -0.51 -0.36 -0.17 0.58 CI 0.09 -0.88 0.43 0.17 CADERH 1.221** -0.05 0.77 0.02 CESAL -1.619** -0.05 -1.11 0.01 Constant 16.104*** 0.00 -3.63 0.01 N 1851 1851 73 Internal Assets p-values External Assets p-values A Ganar 0.16 0.34 0.22 0.20 Sex -0.41 0.03 -0.45 0.02 Motivation -0.03 0.84 0.18 0.18 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.47 0.00 0.43 0.00 Age 0.00 0.34 0.00 Single -0.08 0.80 -0.32 0.31 Number of Children -0.45 0.02 -0.15 0.47 Household Size -0.05 0.23 -0.04 0.35 Sex (Household Head) -0.22 0.20 -0.12 0.50 Age (Household Head) 0.01 0.27 0.01 0.30 Education (Household Head) 0.04 0.31 0.06 0.18 Employment (Household Head) 0.06 0.84 -0.12 0.68 Remittances -0.07 0.76 -0.16 0.52 PCA Asset -0.02 0.67 -0.01 0.84 Education 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.00 Enrollment 0.43 0.03 0.48 0.02 Public School System 0.10 0.62 0.06 0.79 Number of Courses -0.03 0.69 -0.01 0.86 Number of Jobs -0.05 0.64 -0.10 0.36 Number of Businesses 0.23 0.42 0.30 0.31 DAP Index GEM Index 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.04 Risk Index -0.07 0.01 -0.06 0.02 Structured Work Environment 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.10 LE -0.24 0.40 -0.19 0.52 FUNADEH -0.05 0.86 -0.19 0.53 OEI -0.29 0.31 -0.32 0.29 CI 0.11 0.73 0.00 1.00 CADERH 0.65 0.04 0.47 0.16 CESAL -0.64 0.13 -1.09 0.02 Constant 8.62 0.00 8.09 0.00 N 1851 1851 74 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report ANNEX K: INTERPRETING TABLES Tables Outcome tables in this report illustrate findings in two different formats. The left half of the table displays averages or percentages for each of the outcomes for the control and treatment groups before and after the program. These figures display the raw changes in the outcomes from baseline to midline. The figures on the right side of the table display regression coefficients and odds ratios. Using the regression model detailed in the methodology section, each of the outcome variables was regressed on treatment status and other variables. For continuous variables we used regressions, and for the dummy variables we use odds ratio. These figures may be interpreted as follows: 1. Regression coefficients represent the average change in the outcome as a result of participation in A Ganar. 2. Odds ratio, which is used in the case of dummy variables, may be interpreted as the ratio of the change in the treatment group to the change in the control group after accounting for other controls included in the model. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that there was no difference between the treatment and control group, while an odds ratio above or below 1 indicates that there was an increase or decrease respectively in the outcome as a result of treatment. For example, an odds ratio of 1.26, as shown in Table 3 on education indicates that there was a 26% increase in school attendance associated with the program. Statistically significant figures are colored in green where the change in the outcome is one that would be considered desirable, and red where the change in the outcome may be considered detrimental. 75 ANNEX L: QUALITATIVE FINDINGS ON THE ROLE OF SPORTS Qualitative Findings: Role of Sports The Role of Sports: Communication and Trust through Play In the qualitative interviews, participants were not intentionally asked about the sports component of A Ganar, in order to see if they mentioned it without prompting. In 12 cases, respondents discussed the sports component of A Ganar in response to the first question, which asked them to describe their experiences in the program and what they liked about it. A few examples of these descriptions are included below. Note that these examples are from the interviews where participants immediately mentioned the role of sports (in response to the first interview question). In other interviews, the theme of sports often emerged when students were asked what they learned in the program and how they learned it. Below are some quotes depicting youths’ perspectives on the sports component of the program. José: What I liked best about the program was uniting as a team. I also liked the games that we played, pairing up with classmates, and the working in groups… I hope that [A Ganar] continues to provide opportunities to youth because it is valuable for and appreciated by youth. Cindi: What I liked most was the sports. I played despite the fact that I was pregnant… [I liked] that all of the youth could go out, play sports, and have fun. More than anything, we learned about our values this way. Jinny: What I liked most were the games that we played in which we practiced our skills because the majority of the youth had low self-esteem. I was one of these youth; my self-esteem was the worst of all. I didn't like to spend time with anybody. I simply didn't talk to anyone and I didn’t show any personal initiative. When I attended the meetings I practiced my skills more and more, and I talked with others. I got along with them, my ease with speaking improved, and everything was good. Thanks to A Ganar I changed a little, but I wouldn’t say that I changed everything. While it seems that some participants were inclined to mention sports because they simply love sports, others mention their enjoyment of sports because it allowed them to learn values, or to enjoy themselves with other youth. In the case of Jinny she described her own experiences (and the experience she believes she shares with a majority of the participants that entered the program) with very low self-esteem. She described herself as anti-social, but through the A Ganar games she was able to develop her skills and change “a little.” One potential adverse effect of the sports-based curriculum is that it could deter participation by youth who do not like sports. Of the youth we interviewed, 3 had negative comments regarding the sports component of the program. One young woman, Yara, was asked if there was anything that she didn’t like about the program and she responded: Yara: When we played sports they had us run or play with the boys. Interviewer: And why didn’t you like that? Yara: Because the boys are very crude…And they were not careful with the women. Another participant, Rachel, said that overall she liked the program but if she had to name something that she did not enjoy all that much it would be the sports, explaining: “The truth is that for me I liked everything but the sports. Sports didn’t offer me much.” Finally, another girl described not liking an activity in which a group had to pass the soccer ball from between the knees of one person to the knees of the next, because it made her feel a little uncomfortable. With the exception of these comments, we did not find that the sports component of A Ganar was a deterrent. To the contrary, it was consistently mentioned as an essential component of the program that helped youth to develop “habilidades” or skills. Learning to Work as a Team through A Ganar One of the most consistent phrases uttered by participants in the in-depth interviews was “team work.” Working as a team was one of the skills that youth described learning through sports activities, and this skill was linked closely with developing communication skills and learning to trust their peers. 76 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report For example, Elias discussed how he enjoyed playing basketball because it helped him to develop trust with his friends. Likewise, he said he learned respect and communication: Elias: I like the basketball a lot. Interviewer: Why? Elias: Because I played a lot and I really bonded with my friends… From the sports I learned about respect, playing, and communication… Interviewer: And in what aspects of your life do you think that the program most helped you? Elias: You have to keep moving forward. Thanks to God [the program] has helped me a lot… because I have developed a lot. I have learned about the respect that one has to have towards others… Another participant, Ileanna, links communication with play, saying that at first when the group played games they did not have good communication. She mentioned that communication is a type of value that was introduced through the games: Ileanna: The team worked because we played together. At first, we didn’t communicate well, but values and communication became important, so while playing we made an agreement on how to play; we improved our communication through soccer. It may be important to note that when the A Ganar group starts, most of the youth do not already know each other. The games/activities are intended to “break the ice” and to allow the youth to socialize and to communicate. As Yolanda explained, during the first Phase, they “taught us to work in a team.” She elaborated “thanks to sports and the instructors we were able to really connect with each other.” Yolanda: As I said in Phase 1, we had a lot of activities that required working in groups. They taught us how to work in a team. When we first arrived we didn’t know each other very much, and there were tensions, but thanks to the sports and to the instructors we were able to connect with each other. We learned respect; we learned how to get along through the activities that we did. They put us together to play ball, and we did some activities. It taught us how to work as a team because we had to listen to just one person and the others had to pay attention. Likewise, a participant named Rachel explained that in the first phase she learned how to communicate with her peers and to work as a team. An interesting note is that she listed communication as the first outcome of the first phase of the program: “The first phase was soccer, there we learned how to communicate with our classmates, how to work as a team, and how to relate to other people.” Several participants, including Yaron, explained that prior to participating in the program, they were shy and not very social. The program, through teaching communication skills, helped Yaron and others overcome their shyness. Here, Yaron links her ability to no longer feel shy or ashamed with the new friends that she has made in the program: Yaron: The experience that I have is that before, I never spoke in public; I have achieved that ability now. Before, I didn’t get along with very many people because I felt ashamed to speak in public. Now, I have a lot of friends, and they taught me what respect is and why it is important. She also linked communication with respect for others. Several participants mentioned learning self-respect and respect for others as the foundation for being able to socialize with others and make new friends. For Yaron, being able to work in a group was facilitated by working on self-development and self-respect, learning to respect others, communicating with others, and working on her skills. She explains that she learned what self￾development is and developed abilities she did not previously think she could have achieved. Another student, Mateo, explained that many of the skills emphasized in the program are interconnected in that they are all ultimately linked to their future work or business ownership. 77 ANNEX M: QUALITATIVE CASE STUDIES HONDURAS CASE STUDIES: COHORTS 2 AND 3 COHORT 2 MARITZA Household Composition At baseline, Maritza was 17 and living with her parents, her two brothers, a sister, a sister-in law, a nephew, and her eight-month old baby. At the time of our first interview, she was not living with the baby’s father, though were still together. However, they broke up shortly after and no longer have much contact. Neighborhood Melisa described the danger in her neighborhood and how gang involvement had touched her own family. Her brother fled Honduras roughly ten years ago because of a death threat made by the Mara 18. She admitted that her uncle was also a gang member. When asked what she believed were the challenges in her neighborhood, she said that they all live with a feeling of fear and insecurity: Interviewer: What are some of the challenges in your neighborhood? Melisa: The violence. Interviewer: Violence? Why is this a challenge? Melisa: Because nobody feels secure, because even among themselves they mess around, they kill each other. Nobody in the neighborhood likes it. We are all unsafe (todos viven inseguros). Melisa has friends that have been involved in gangs. She explained that one of her male friends, who she had known since the second grade, was murdered. Melisa: A classmate of mine, we had been classmates since second grade, he got in a gang, Mara 18, and they killed him right near his house. Others are in it too, and they can’t get out. Even though they want to they can’t, they can’t. Interviewer: Why can’t they get out? Melisa: Because they are threatened. If they leave they’ll be killed. Previous Schooling / Work She dropped out of school after finishing her first year of ciclo (7th grade). She was supposed to repeat the year but decided to leave instead for “economic” reasons. She did not get good grades in her last year of school and says that she was unfocused and had a bad attitude. When she tried hard she did “okay” in school. 78 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report After leaving school she took a course in beauty (belleza). Because she could not find work afterwards, she decided to work from home helping her mother sell a number of different products such as corn on the cob, atol, little pies, and avocados. The year prior to her participation in A Ganar, while Melisa was pregnant, she spent her time with her family, with her friends, and by watching television. From time to time she would do laundry for others. Her pregnancy was difficult. She explained that “my body was too swollen” and as a result she could not do much. She even stopped selling. She worked the previous year as a muchacha, or housekeeper, taking care of the children and cleaning the house of another family, but she stopped as a result of her pregnancy. Melisa knew that finding work would be difficult because she has not finished her ciclo. She also knew that she would need work experience. She said that a lot of people are looking for work, due to poverty, and that while she looked for work at fast food chains like Little Cesars, Burger King, Chili’s, and Pizza Hut, she didn’t have any luck. The A Ganar Experience Pregnant, out of school, and facing the challenges posed by her insecure neighborhood, Melisa found it difficult to envision a better future for herself. However, she was hopeful that A Ganar could improve her life circumstances. Melisa explained that she became interested in A Ganar because “they were going to teach us. They were going to give us a diploma, and what they were going to teach us would help us get a job.” When asked about her experience in A Ganar, Melisa’s response was positive, and she explained that she learned communication and teamwork through the program, particularly from her facilitator, Hector: “Hector was a good teacher. He taught us many activities, communication, teamwork. I really liked this because it has helped me a lot with my skills…I feel like I have changed, because they taught me a lot of things that I didn’t know…it was a beautiful experience and I would do it all over again.” Melisa enjoyed the first phase of the program, and said that she learned to work with others in her group. Hector said that when Melisa first started, she had a somewhat negative attitude and was also skeptical of her ability to undertake some of the technical aspects of the training. His first impression of her was “I thought that she was a youth I was going to have to work with a lot…she is a kid that doesn’t like to do anything.” However, according to Hector she became more positive over time. Initially, there was some conflict and “críticas” or criticism between group members, but these decreased over time. By the end she explained that, “there was such beautiful communication, I even cried on the last day (the despedida).” Melisa elaborated on the ways in which sports allowed her to learn the life￾skills taught during the first phase of the program. She mentioned specific activities, for example the game where students have to play soccer while holding hands, where they would have to guess which skill the game stressed. “We would say, ‘communication’, others would say ‘respect.’ And all of this came from sports. Through sports they taught us all of this.” Reflecting back on her experience and what she learned, Melisa said, “it taught me to respect people, and to be able to understand things.” Melisa’s mother was also impressed by the program and the changes she had seen in Melisa. She said that A Ganar had given Melisa another chance. Explaining why Melisa had only studied through the first year of her ciclo, she said, “She fell in love! She got together with her husband but then they split up and I told her I would help her so that she can study again.” She thought that A Ganar would be even better than regular school, so she encouraged Melisa to participate. She thought that participating in the program had “woken up” her mind. Like Hector, Melisa’s mother also hinted at her lack of enthusiasm, mentioning that she did not seem motivated to change her situation. She says that she hears Melisa 79 saying that she is going to seguir adelante or move forward in life, and that she is going to help her so that she does. She said that she’s no longer “asleep.” “Now she’s wide awake and everything helped her.” Melisa studied marketing in her technical training. She explained that through the second phase of the program she learned “how to promote a product.” She carried out her internship at ICC, an industrial company that sells various products19. Hector, her facilitator, explained that when it was time for her technical training she was initially skeptical. “She [Melisa] said, ‘well, I’m not good but I am going to try it,’ and it turns out that she started enjoying it! She was a real success where she did her training!” Melisa explained that the technical training helped her because “for the first time in my life I worked in a company.” She believed that this experience would help her get a good job one day. Future Plans and Goals Melisa intended to re-enroll in school, because she heard on the radio that if she didn’t complete her ciclo that “6th grade didn’t count.” She also hoped to work, and on the day that we spoke with her she had an upcoming job interview with Burger King. She hoped that her marketing experience would help her sell things there. She hoped to one day enroll in a university and become an industrial engineer. She said that the A Ganar program guided her. “It guided me a lot, so that I wouldn’t be stuck in one place, so that I could get ahead in life, develop myself and show others that I am not the person that they imagined.” DULCE Household Composition At the time Dulce was selected to participate in A Ganar, she was 16 years old and was living with her grandmother and a brother and, until recently, with her grandmother’s husband (who was not Dulce’s biological grandfather) before he was sent to a home due to mental health issues. Both her mother and father left when Dulce and her brother were less than a year old. They were raised by her grandmother who she calls “Mama.” Dulce had faced many challenges in her family – including her mother’s abandonment of her and her brother. And while she did see her mother from time to time, Dulce explained that she is “just like anyone else” in the community. She used the word, “transtornada” or disturbed to characterize her mother, particularly the decision to abandon her and her brother. Dulce expressed frustration that her mother often asks her for food and money when she is the one that should be the provider. She said that her mother supposedly lives with a husband, but that she “doesn’t believe anything” that her mother says. She also mentioned episodes of abuse by her father and uncle, and avoids her father’s home because, “there is an old guy there that tells me that I’m pretty, tells me vulgar things, so it is better not to go there.” Previous Schooling/Work Her grandmother washed clothes for a living and Dulce and her brother sometimes earned food by doing jobs for their neighbors such as washing dishes or cleaning their land. She lived in a shack (no running water or electricity) and used her aunt’s house when she needed a bathroom. The family lived in 19 The details of where Melisa did her internship are not clear in her interview. This will be something to follow-up on in the third interview. 80 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report extreme poverty and often lacked food and other basic necessities. Dulce studied until the 6th grade but couldn’t continue due to financial difficulties. She shared that what she liked most about school was “doing homework… and reading,” and that she didn’t like math. At the moment of the interview she didn’t have plans for going back to school because, as she explained, “I don’t live with my father and he doesn’t help us. My grandmother doesn’t make enough money and can’t buy us school supplies.” Dulce had never had a formal job, “only cooking and washing dishes” for the neighbors. Neighborhood In addition to the family challenges Dulce experienced, she also described living in a very dangerous neighborhood. When asked if there was something that she didn’t like about her neighborhood Dulce explained that people smoked marijuana and that gangs drag people through her neighborhood in order to kill them by the river. “I think that you can hear the shots, that’s why I don’t like it.” She also said that when she is with her friends they are sometimes bothered by the mareros: Dulce: When we are sitting there they bother us, and we have to go inside. You can no longer be in the street. Interviewer: What do they tell you? Dulce: They court us. Interviewer: Really? Dulce: Yes, they court us and I get scared. Interviewer: And have you had any friends that have gone with them? Dulce: One. She was my friend but not anymore. According to the facilitator at Dion, the local implementer of A Ganar, Dulce’s brother was on the verge of joining a gang because the family had no other economic options and was desperate. Despite him not meeting the age eligibility requirements (he was only 13), the organization accepted both Dulce and her brother. The family had some contact with Dion the year before A Ganar began, but Dulce had dropped out. The A Ganar Experience A Ganar provided a new opportunity for Dulce and her brother to join a program that would provide them with important job skills. Dulce hoped that she would like to learn computer skills and English in A Ganar, to eventually graduate from university, and work in a company. She learned about A Ganar through a friend and said she was feeling happy “because I can be in something.” Shortly after joining the program, the facilitator (Cindy) was able to connect Dulce and her family with much needed resources. When Cindy saw their precarious living conditions, she immediately reached out to the local churches. One church provided food each week (canasta básica). Another provided funding for school supplies (notebooks and uniforms). She also helped connect the family with a volunteer brigade based in the United States that builds houses. During this group’s visit, a team of volunteers built a simple, wooden structure with two bedrooms, a kitchen, and a bathroom (although at the time of our interview the bathroom was still not complete). Candi explained that having a decent home to live in really improved Dulce’s self-esteem, “For me the change has been really big, this has really helped them in terms of their self-esteem.” Their connection with Dion had been a life-changing experience. “Yes, their lives have really, really changed.” 81 It is difficult to separate the impact of A Ganar from that of the other resources to which Dulce’s family gained access through Dion. In just 8 months, Dulce went from living in a shack to a simple but brand new home, and local churches provided the basic food that her family needed monthly. Dulce explained in her interview that she felt ashamed when she started A Ganar and thought that people would look at her and make fun of her. But now, she said that she has learned, “to not be ashamed because we are all equal!” Again, in this case it is difficult to determine if her new confidence is due to improved living conditions or her participation in the program. Regardless, her case demonstrates the challenges that many of the A Ganar youth face, and how connecting them with local institutions like Dion can be a transformative experience. In the program, Dulce took a technical sewing course. After completing the training, she worked briefly in a factory sewing collars and other components of school uniform shirts. Because she is still legally underage, she cannot yet work in a factory. However, she had started studying again (at Dion) and she hoped that the financial support she was receiving from the church would continue so that she could complete her studies. She said that when we see her next year she will have completed her ciclo. Future plans Dulce does not have plans beyond staying in school and studying. She does not have a boyfriend and says she won’t have a boyfriend until she is “older” and “mature,” at “around eighteen or nineteen years old.” Given the circumstances in which she has grown up, she will certainly face many challenges ahead. The facilitator Cindy explained that, “In terms of how she is…we have to mold her character a little more...She is really immature. She is immature but I think that we’ll keep with her and continue giving her advice, and she’ll get it eventually. It isn’t easy given the life she has had. I think that all of this stems from that.” GISELDA Household Composition Prior to being selected for A Ganar, Giselda was 18 years old and had been living in her neighborhood for ten years. Giselda, her mother, and her siblings moved there when her parents separated. Giselda expressed that her mother was “everything” to her that she was like a “mother and father because she struggled a lot.” Three years ago her father was killed and even though Giselda was very hurt because he had abandoned them, she expressed that his death was also painful. Her mother was in a new relationship and had two children (a baby girl that tragically died, and a boy that was five years old). Giselda no longer lived with her mother, but they were neighbors and spent a lot of time together. Giselda and her husband (they are not legally married but in a union libre) had a year-old baby girl that she described as “beautiful.” She explained that her mother opposed their relationship because Giselda was too young and still in school. She didn’t want her to move in with her boyfriend. Giselda now agreed with her, and commented, “she was right.” A year after they began living together she became pregnant. Her husband worked in construction with his father and earns around 4,000 or 5,000 lempiras every two weeks. Previous Schooling/Work Due to her pregnancy, Giselda dropped out of school in the middle of the 11th grade. She went to a private school and she said she liked having fun with her friends in school and particularly enjoyed her 82 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report psychology class. Giselda said that after she got together with her husband, he paid for a month of her tuition before she dropped out, but she didn’t want to continue. She later expressed regret for not doing that, explaining “my husband offered me the opportunity to continue studying… and I didn’t take it.” The only formal work experience that Giselda had was a two-week temporary job as a clerk in a shoe store during Christmas season. She described that time as “a wonderful experience… I enjoyed the two weeks I worked. I really enjoyed them.” The A Ganar Experience She learned about A Ganar from a friend and enrolled so that she could be “busy doing something.” She expressed that she would like to learn something like jewelry making, and if possible to put it into practice. Giselda was thoroughly satisfied with her A Ganar experience. She explained that her participation “taught me to value myself and to respect others…to learn to work in a group. You have to work in a group to get a lot accomplished.” She spoke positively of the sports component of the program, saying that at first she thought, “Oh, God, what are we doing?” and that she “looks like a little girl but it doesn’t matter.” She said that they had fun, “we had so much fun!” She said that the members of her group got along quite well and enjoyed their time together. At the beginning, this was not the case. “We didn’t get along very well. We fought,” but over time they learned to work as a group and get along. She said that her facilitators were caring and patient, and that they even helped by holding her baby when she brought her to class. Giselda believed that the most important impact of the program was that she gained self-confidence. She explained, “I wasn’t happy with myself, believe me. My self-esteem was so low. It pained me. It physically hurt.” The interviewer asked, “and now?” and she replied: “Now I am content with myself. If I’m pretty I’m pretty, and if I’m ugly I’m ugly… Now I am what I am and that’s all.” In addition to the self-confidence she gained, Giselda enjoyed the jewelry making course she took as part of her technical training. According to the instructor, she learned a great deal and was a good student. She recalled that one day she gave the class an assignment and that, “[Giselda] was the only one that completed it on time.” Giselda made necklaces, earrings, and bracelets. She continued to make these items and sell them to neighbors and friends. She explained that she enjoyed being her own boss.” Her mother remarked that she seemed “more dynamic, more outgoing” due to her participation in the program. Although Giselda remains very close with her family, she also made new friends in the program. Future Plans and Goals Giselda was focusing on selling the jewelry she had already made, and said that she learned in the program that she can make things at home, while she is taking care of her baby, and that will allow her to be her own boss. She was offered a job at a daycare her aunt was starting, but was not sure she would take it because it would require her to commute. The advantage of this job is that she could bring her daughter with her. She explained that she didn’t want to work formally “until my daughter is a little bit older.” 83 COHORT 3 CARLOS EDUARDO ROSALES TUCIOS Household Composition Carlos joined A Ganar when he was 21. He lived with his mother, father, two brothers, three sisters, and an aunt. His mother and father generally worked in the San Isidro market where they had a fruit stand. They left early in the morning and returned late at night so he only saw them on Saturday afternoons and Sundays. Although his oldest brother, Jimmy, had a degree in accounting (perito mercantil), he worked at a tire shop. Two sisters studied accounting, one worked in a beauty shop and the other was enrolled at the university studying public finance. He had two younger siblings that were still in school. Neighborhood Carlos had always lived in the same neighborhood, where he also had the same four best friends for most of his life. They all worked, but he saw them daily, they spent their time sharing problems. This was what he liked most about his neighborhood; his family and friends. He didn’t like that within the previous five years the maras had taken control and the neighborhood had become one of their primary territories such that it was dangerous to enter other neighborhoods without risking being attacked or even killed. He was not involved with the maras, although he says that he had “to always walk defensively, not look for any problems at all and always be calm” so that the maras leave him alone. He also avoided those youths that he knew were involved. Carlos had not considered moving to a different neighborhood, but in the worst moments he contemplated going to the United States. Previous Schooling/Work The year prior to the baseline interview Carlos graduated in Hibueras with a bachelor’s degree; he studied to be a computer technician. It took him three years to complete this degree and he had hoped to then enroll at the university. He was unable to do so due to his family’s financial difficulties. Carlos considered himself to be an average student. Sometimes he missed class in order to play soccer. He wasn’t always punctual, but he did complete his assignments and prepared for exams. His favorite subject was chemistry. Prior to entering the A Ganar program Carlos had been working in his older brother’s tire shop. He had started while he was still studying, working irregularly for three years, helping out when he could. After graduation from school he started working there more regularly, three or four days a week. He liked the work, although he was not happy with the salary. He received 150 lémpiras daily with no other benefits. Carlos stopped working when he entered A Ganar. After the completion of the A Ganar program, he had been working the night shift for Cervecería hondureña, a Honduran brewery, earning between 11,900 and 12,000 lempiras a month. While he did not like the work, he explained that it was a short-term, 3- month contract and that he will be looking for new work once his contract ends. Gender Roles and Perceptions Regarding the situation with Francisco and Diana (e.g. Diana is annoyed that Francisco doesn’t help at home), in the baseline interview he first agreed with Francisco. While recognizing that “as human beings we have a heavy load so one gets stressed and tired out,”, he began to explain that women should do 84 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report certain things before trailing off and not finishing his thought. When the interviewer pushed him, he conceded, “well, then I would agree with Diana because she has a point. Both of them have the same work schedule so they spend the same amount of energy.” When asked about the same situation in the follow-up interview he immediately sided with Diana, stating “well, I would agree with Diana because I think that they are both obligated. If they both live under the same roof then the responsibility should not fall on one person alone but instead they should work together as a team so that the load is not all on one person, the load is much lighter.” His response to the saying about men being from the street was also interesting. He explained, “we can say that this saying is machista because it is only the man, the man lives on the street. I imagine that the man in those moments should be in the house as well.” In the follow-up interview, he reiterated that both should be in the house because if they both help to complete the chores then they can both go out, although he recognizes that a woman also has the right to go out alone. In their free time, he thought that women watch television, clean, and get together with other women to gossip. In his free time, he plays soccer. The A Ganar Experience Carlos decided to apply to A Ganar because of what it offered, especially English and computer classes, and because it offered the possibility of obtaining work when he finished. In general, he liked most that the program gave him the opportunity to meet new people, make friends, and to learn new things. He didn’t like that it was only three days a week instead of five. He also mentioned that there were many participants at the start of the program, but people kept not showing up, so the seven that remained were a little discouraged. Overall, the most important lessons he learned is about responsibility: “that when one commits to something one has to finish it by any means necessary. This is a great lesson.” More specifically, he learned the value of unity from the activities that he completed in the first part of the program, explaining that “everyone had to stay together and if we didn’t we would fail.” The most important overall lesson was the value of teamwork and communication, which he felt were relevant because they “will help us a lot when we go work somewhere.” He specifically stated that this is the major difference between the A Ganar program and his experiences at school. In the case of the latter, communication was more “scattered.” Another important value that he learned from the facilitators was tolerance. “[I learned] to be tolerant towards other people because there were some [students] that tried to push [the facilitators] to the limits, but they always remained on point.” Carlos described the technical training as excellent. Although he liked this second part of the program better, he recognized that the first served as a base. In the technical training, Carlos learned how to use Excel and Powerpoint, but what he most liked was developing a marketing plan. For his internship, Carlos initially submitted his papers to INTUR, but they only called two people. Meanwhile a job opportunity arose, which he took, and they accepted this job as his internship. He worked for one month in a car shop, stripping and painting cars. The aspect that he most liked about this job was being able to work on fancy cars. He would frequently take a picture of them when they finished because “when we all worked as a team the car turned out normal. This motivated me.” When asked if the skills he gained in the program were beneficial in this job, he explained: “In the program they taught us to communicate with people, to work as a team, and to be organized. So the moment a car arrived and I knew I couldn’t do everything by myself then by necessity we had to communicate. To do a good job, we introduced communication and teamwork” The question of communication was important. As Carlos recounted, prior to his participation, particularly in school, it was difficult for him to communicate with people because he was so timid. Now, he explained, “they helped me become a bit more of a chatterbox.” His sister, Jessica, confirmed that 85 before participating in A Ganar, Carlos was very timid and that he was now able to “get along better,” which she feels will be especially important during job interviews. Carlos felt that the program was equally beneficial to men and women, and he imagined that the knowledge would be useful to both. In terms of the relationship between the three men and the remaining women he stated that it was “normal”. “Well around the world they say that a woman can’t be a man’s friend but I say that this is a little machista, because in reality it is possible.” The facilitator of phase two, Silvia, stated that while Carlos missed a lot at the beginning and had problems with discipline, such as arriving late, he did turn things around. She attributed these problems to his living circumstances, stating: “Carlos is a person that comes from somewhere where they are in a vulnerable place because of their rights but you have to acknowledge his attitude, his capacity. He is a very smart young man, serious. The truth is the first time I saw him my impression was ‘what a serious young man’ but it is the image that he projects due to the state of vulnerability that he lives in. When it was his turn to show his level of responsibility he demonstrated it, he was a very responsible young man with a very positive attitude.” Future Plans and Goals Although Carlos was not currently studying, his future plans were to complete a degree in civil engineering at the university. In order to do so, he intended to work during the day so that he could study at night. He felt prepared to do a variety of different jobs, mentioning working as a secretary as a possibility. His sister stated that the reason that he had not found a permanent job was not due to a lack of ability or effort, but rather was a consequence of the economic situation in Honduras. A Ganar had most influenced Carlos’ future plans by teaching him that when you start something you need to finish it. He also stated that prior to his participation he had contemplated immigrating “because of the situation in this country.” Now, however, he felt differently. “They told me that by preparing myself, it was possible to get ahead. Thinking about it, they were right, they are right.” He intended to start looking for work, adding that A Ganar has given him both a goal and a plan to achieve it, adding: “Well they say that the situation here in this country is that there is no work, but I say that if one doesn’t look one doesn’t find it. Now that everything is modernized one can even look at the employment section through the internet. Even Facebook has an exclusive page so that graduates can take advantage of all of the employment opportunities, but more than anything it involves trusting God and looking.” In 10 years he imagined that he will have built his own house, that he will be married, and that he will have two children. However, he believed that now is the time to work, to study, and to strengthen himself for the future. NORY ZELAYA Household Composition When she enrolled in A Ganar, Nory was 20 years old and had lived for the previous six years with her sister, who worked as a secretary for a plastics company. Nory also lived with her two nieces: one was studying communications and the other was attending the Colegio Técnico Internacional. Nory’s mother died in 2012 and her father lives in a different zone. 86 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Neighborhood Nory liked having close friends in her neighborhood, one of whom was her next door neighbor. She did not like the insecurity, although she recognizes that this was not isolated to her neighborhood alone. She was not entirely sure if youth in her neighborhood were involved in bad things, but she did think that some may take drugs and drink. While Nory had not considered leaving to go to the U.S., she would love to go to Brazil or Spain. Previous Schooling/Work Nory completed the tercero de comercio. She enjoyed studying, particularly because of the friends that she made, although she complained that sometimes when completing group projects some of her friends were not as responsible as they should have been. Nory considered herself to be a good student, responsible and sociable, and said that her favorite classes were business and statistics. Nory finished her studies in 2010, however there was an administrative problem. A grade was missing, and she did not receive her degree until the following November. Therefore, she had spent the past year fighting and trying to resolve the problem by redoing her social work in literacy and paying the graduation fees again. During this time, she did not work nor did she receive any salary, she spent her time at home doing household chores. Nory did not continue studying as she was not able to take her university exams because they told her that she needed to resolve the administrative problem first. Expressing frustration at her inability to pursue her studies, Nory explained, “of course you feel bad about the time that you spend in the house, because your time is passing without being spent doing anything productive.” At the time of the baseline interview Nory was not looking for work because of a recurring health situation and because her sister wanted her to be at home to care for her younger niece, who is 15. Nory was anorexic and after spending a year eating very little she experienced a health scare: “The truth is, like all women, I have lots of thoughts like, ‘Oh I’m fat…Oh I’m skinny.’ Food for me was just too much. I always tried to eat as little as possible. Because of that I ended up fainting and passing out for 35 minutes.” When she went to the hospital they told her that she had most likely fainted due to low blood sugar and that she should needed to eat more. She remained in the hospital for 3 weeks. The past year she faced more struggles with anorexia. “My problem was that I ate and then went right to the mirror and said I am fat.” The doctors told her that she shouldn’t do any work that required being in the sun or doing physical labor. She noted that it was a male friend that originally told her that she was fat. When she confronted him, telling him that it was his fault that she had almost died, he claimed to have just been joking. In the follow-up interview she did not discuss her anorexia, although she did mention having had problems participating in the sports because of the sun, which made her nose bleed. Nory had previous work experience, which her sister facilitated. The first was an internship that she completed in accounting. She worked in a supermarket recording how much was sold. The second was for the company Reprisa Honduras, where she took inventory, assessed taxes, and handled her boss’s mail. Both jobs lasted 3 months. With regards to her work at Reprisa, she recounted: “I’ve always been punctual. Always. So when I started working at the factory they asked me to open both of the offices and I said, ‘Wow, what a job.’ I kept track of the bills, calculated the taxes, called the bookstore saying, ‘These are the earnings, these are the losses,’ and it was a beautiful experience.” At the time of the follow-up interview, Nory was working. She had obtained a temporary position as a result of her internship at Diunsa, a job that she enjoyed. Lilian, her sister, noted that she Nory 87 contributing her money to the household now that Lilian was out of work. Nory was hoping that she would be able to obtain a permanent position. Gender Roles and Perceptions Nory believed that men should contribute equally to the housework and her response to the scenario with Francisco and Diana was comparable in both interviews. At the time of the baseline interview she reported feeling proud of herself because at 21 she did not have a boyfriend and had not committed the error of failing to think about her future and becoming pregnant, which she described as irresponsible. She recounted: “I had achieved it. I was in ciclo in primero de carrera when someone asked me ‘Are you married?’ No. ‘Do you have children?’ No. ‘Do you have a boyfriend’ No. I told her, ‘why would I want a boyfriend? Even if he is responsible how does it help me if he talks sweetly to me and asks me to be his girlfriend? How are you going to support me? I ask him. No. I would rather be as I am now. I think that she ended up leaving school and getting pregnant. It is very complicated to have a baby and to return to ones’ studies.” Nora also believed in gender equality; she spoke out against gender norms in which women are expected to stay at home while men are outside in the street. “I believe that it is completely illogical. Women just as much as men should respect how it is. I want to go out with my friends just like men do. We have the same rights and we don’t always have to be shut in the house while they are out on the street.” The A Ganar Experience Overall, Nory found the program to be marvelous and her expectations were fulfilled. She most liked the opportunity to work as a team and to learn compañerismo. She most disliked that there were some rivalries within the group. She believed that some group members thought that they were better than others, resulting in distance between Nory and her classmates from the same neighborhood. In phase one of the program Nory recounted that she reluctantly participated in soccer but genuinely enjoyed playing basketball. From this phase she reported learning “to work as a team… With camaraderie, discipline, order, and the desire to win making us completely different people, to always have an open mind and to say let’s move forward, we can do it, and to not give up but to keep trying.” In fact, one of the most important overall lessons she learned from the program was to stay focused and to never say no, “to me the word no, it doesn’t exist”. She spoke highly of the facilitator of phase one, Jonathan, explaining, “I am someone who is totally punctual and I think that our facilitator showed us that we should be punctual, focused, give everything that we have towards the task, and above all else maintain discipline.” On many occasions Nory emphasized how important punctuality was to her, even when she was a student. Jonathan reported having a very positive impression of Nory from the very beginning, noting that she was always ambitious, friendly, open, and willing to participate. Her strongest personality trait, he explained, was her solidarity. She always tried to help the others. On this note, he mentioned that she fulfilled an important leadership role, stating: “Yes she had a lot of interest in learning because she always asked, she always participated, she always expressed her opinions. When there were group debates, when there were group activities she always participated. Many saw her as a leader because of this attitude in her.” 88 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report The other facilitator interviewed, Enna, also highlighted Nory’s humility, willingness to learn, ambition, and desire to overcome. Nory’s sister, Lilian, reported that she thought that the program had been beneficial for Nory because, while she had always been social, she now had more skills, and she became more involved with other people. In technical training, Nory benefited most from the customer service portion, which greatly influenced her work during the internship. With regards to how to develop relationships with clients she reported learning “as we say our problems stay at the door of the store. When you enter you always have a smile, you always greet the client so that the client leaves satisfied and has the desire to return because they were treated well.” Her internship in Diunsa involved helping clients in several departments such as games, school supplies, and sports. She reported that she liked most of the people with whom she worked. She developed a close friendship with one coworker and a good relationship with her supervisor. The lessons that she learned about camaraderie as part of the program were reinforced in her job: “We learned that working as a team requires a lot of patience. I learned that we should treat clients as best as we can, help them to find what they want, accompany them to the cash register, say thank you for coming, thank you for your purchase, we hope you return. Katherine, Nory’s supervisor at Diunsa, considered Nory to be an excellent employee. She had a favorable impression of her from the beginning and said that Nory did not have any difficulties completing her job. Katherine elaborated, “she is an example: she is punctual, disciplined, someone who always walks around to see what there is to do. She doesn’t like to not have anything to do. She is very active, respectful, focused on what she should be and, well, excellent.” Nory believed that A Ganar benefited both men and women, saying that “at times a woman is a little girllike or is pregnant and thinks that there aren’t any opportunities. In A Ganar it doesn’t matter if you are older or if you have kids or not. It always tries to help both sexes, not just one.” Future Plans and Goals The biggest difference in Nory’s life between the previous year and this year was that she now had a job. In the immediate future, Nory would like to continue to give everything she can by applying what she learned to her job at Diunsa. She mentioned wanting an administrative position. Ultimately, she would like to continue studying and to earn a degree in physical therapy. In 10 years she saw herself with a husband, with only one child, who she can help and support. At the time of the follow-up interview she stated that in order to achieve her future plans she planned to “not wait to see if my boyfriend behaves well, but to have the knowledge to pick other good people. I think that our future depends on us and only on us. We know who we are with, and God knows and he will give me good options for the future.” KEVIN OMAR CASTELLANOS Household Composition Kevin was 21 years old when he joined A Ganar. He lived with his father and a younger sister. His father worked as an accountant for the school where his younger sister studied. He mentioned that his aunt also used to live with them but no longer does because of her work. He did see his mother on occasion, although he did not live with her. 89 Neighborhood Kevin reported liking many aspects of his neighborhood. It is close to the center of the city, has a lot of stores, he had a lot of friends there, and it was more or less calm. He clarified that if one was looking to get involved in something there were opportunities, but otherwise it was calm. He disliked the lack of security created by people from elsewhere causing problems. There were some youth involved in drugs who spent time watching who came and went. He didn't know them personally. Although Kevin had not thought about moving to a different neighborhood he had thought about going to the U.S., primarily because he felt that it was very difficult to find permanent work. Previous Schooling/Work Kevin stopped studying when he completed the tercero de ciclo común. His favorite subjects were English and Math. He considered himself to be a good student, in fact his classmates wanted to cheat off of him on exams. The decision to stop studying was made for financial reasons and afterwards he felt “stuck, because I wanted to keep studying.” Kevin had held several different jobs. He had two temporary, two-month positions in different factories packing shirts. He also mentioned having experience working in construction, in a woodworking shop, and in a bodywork and paint shop. He obtained these jobs on his own, by going out and finding them. The year prior to the baseline interview Kevin worked for the Fauber factory embroidering t-shirts with sports logos. This was a permanent position, but since there wasn’t much work and he had only been there for 13 months he was laid off. The normal salary was 1,200 lempira per week, but he worked overtime and earned 2,200. After that, he worked for two months for a laundry company dying clothing. He received 1,200 lempira for a 44 hour work week. When he entered the A Ganar program Kevin did not have a job. He would have liked to find work in electricity or in embroidery because of his previous work experience, but unfortunately an accident left him unable to do so. He was changing a spindle and he disconnected the drill, but a work companion thought he was going to use it so he plugged it back in and it cut his hand. For more than a year after he could not use the hand because it would cause pain and since then he had been unable to find work. He did not receive any workman’s compensation for the accident as it was not a company but a private contractor who didn’t acknowledge the accident. Kevin even paid his own medical expenses. In his follow-up interview, Kevin did not mention this accident again. At the time of the follow-up interview, Kevin was not working. He mentioned having gone as far as Copán hoping to work in the coffee harvest, but because of the rains it was delayed. He had not attempted to find work with local companies because he was unable to afford the renewal of his paperwork (vignette). His mother also mentioned that he lacked the money to look for a job. Gender Roles and Perceptions With respect to sharing domestic chores, Kevin expressed agreement with Diana in both interviews, because “it is necessary to share responsibilities, for example if she is going to wash clothes he could make food or if she is going to wash the dishes he could help with whatever else like sweep.” His response to the second scenario was that the husband should support Carmen in her studies. Overall, he believed that men and women are equal in the eyes of god and that if women want to be in the street they should be and if there are things to do at home, then men should be there too, though he does explain, “women normally don’t like to go out, they prefer to spend their time shut in either because 90 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report she wants to or because the man won’t let her leave.” In their free time, women gossip and men play ball or Playstation. He plays soccer and rides around on his bicycle. The A Ganar Experience Overall Kevin gained most from A Ganar’s basic training of technical skills with respect to electricity. In this regard the program fulfilled his expectations, although he was disappointed that he was unable to gain employment. In addition to electrical skills, he also felt better prepared to get a job, specifically in terms of preparing for an interview. He felt more sure of himself, knowing what he should say and how he should behave during an interview. He learned important computer skills using Word and Excel. With respect to the first phase, he particularly enjoyed playing sports and said that he learned to “be more respectful with his classmates, to be better disciplined, to work as a team, and to also be more organized.” Milton, the facilitator of this phase, mentioned that Kevin had not played sports very much and that this part might have been difficult for him, but that he tried and he participated in everything. Kevin considers Milton both a teacher and a friend because “he made us feel like we were among friends.” From the other facilitator, Kevin mentioned learning how to behave appropriately in a place of employment. In the second phase, Kevin learned how to do several electrical installations in homes as well as electrical circuits used in motors, although he mentioned that he would have preferred to have more time to go beyond the basics. He completed his internship in CULTEL, an internet telephone company, where he worked with cables. On the positive side, he appreciated how well he was treated, even though he was new. On the negative side he stated again that he would have preferred to have more time to continue learning. The most applicable lessons that Kevin applied from the A Ganar program were “what it means to work as a team, to respect the bosses, to follow the orders that they give without muttering or anything, to always maintain a positive attitude.” His mother, Irma, mentioned in her interview that Kevin had applied what he learned at home, installing some lights, for example. His supervisor at CULTEL, Bryan, mentioned that Kevin got along well with everyone, was optimistic, wanted to learn, adapted well, and fulfilled all of his expectations. Overall Kevin thought that A Ganar benefited both men and women because “the program benefits us men more than anything in the technical workshops and it benefits the women in other workshops like jewelry and beauty. There were some female classmates that graduated as assistant chefs which is great.” Milton, one of the facilitators, recounted his first impression of Kevin: “I don’t know it’s that his appearance, well it is like someone who perhaps is not involved in bad things but is certainly exposed to that type of environment. When I saw him well he really was someone, a young person, who is exposed to dangers in his community and, as this was the case when I saw him, I thought he might be a member of the maras.” He quickly became aware that Kevin came from very difficult financial circumstances. As he got to know him he also observed his evolution. “His evolution was more about his same desire to excel, it came from him and from constantly attending he never said ‘but’ to any activity so he had the will to develop himself.” Overall he described his personality as calm, respectful, and focused. He felt that A Ganar really helped him, specifically: “Well perhaps in the first phase the work orientation helped him a lot to show his personality more, to express himself more easily because, as I said earlier, he was a bit timid. Perhaps he didn't know how to present himself in a job interview or in a work environment…and the internship, well, I think that it helped him a lot because he then knew what a real work environment is like.” 91 Future Plans and Goals Although in his baseline interview Kevin mentioned that he would like to graduate from university, in the follow-up interview he stated that his immediate goals were to find work as an electrical technician, which would allow him to expand the knowledge he has already gained through A Ganar and give him the capital to buy the necessary tools. Eventually, in 10 years, this will enable him to own his own electrical company and have many people working for him so that he only gives orders. ALLAN MAURICIO QUINTANILLA PEREZ Allan was 17 when he joined the program and for the past ten years he had been living in Catrachitos, La Sosa. He lived with his parents, two brothers, and two sisters. His mother was a cook in a children’s dining hall and his father was a baker. Both of his brothers graduated. One now worked in the same bakery as the father and the other worked as a bricklayer’s assistant. One of his sisters was studying at the university and the other was still in school. Neighborhood The positive aspects of his neighborhood included the people and the pretty trees while the primary negative aspect was the fact that the dirt roads turned to mud when it rained. In terms of risky behavior, some of the youth in his neighborhood smoked cigarettes, but nothing more. They tended to organize themselves into groups and his own group included 15 friends. He thought that there were maras around but he didn’t know how many nor did he seem to know who they were. While he hadn’t thought about leaving his neighborhood, he had considered going to the U.S. in order to work and to help his family. Previous Schooling/Work Allan completed the tercer curso at Juan Ramón Molina. In his baseline interview he reported that the teachers and advisors bugged him when he didn’t go to class, although he claims that he was not taking the classes they told him to attend. “They only knew that they wanted everyone inside,” he explained. Due to his own laziness and his preference for playing sports, Allan did not consider himself to be a good student and did not receive very good grades. Allan stopped his studies because he simply didn’t want to continue. When the interviewer reminded him that his participation in the A Ganar program required him to study he responded, “but it is only going to be a little.” Although Allan stated that he was fine with his decision to stop studying he did express a desire to attend a university in the future. Allan did not work while he was studying. He did previously work for 4 days helping a bricklayer, though it was unclear when this occurred. He obtained the job through a neighbor and received 200 lempira per day. Once the A Ganar program ended he wanted to find work, however, he had not done so yet. He explained that this was “because I haven’t wanted to right now.” He was contemplating beginning to fill out applications in the weeks following the interview. 92 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report Gender Roles and Perceptions Allan suggested that both men and women ought to help clean the house and that women should have the opportunity to study. In response to the second situation, he said that Carmen should have the opportunity to study, perhaps in a distance program because, “that way she would spend weekdays at home, making food, cleaning the house, and taking care of the baby. And on the weekend he takes care of the child while she studies.” With regards to the statement about men being in the street and women in the home, he responded, “well, the man has to spend a little time in the street, but the woman has to go out as well and not just be locked in.” He also believed that as long as both were living in the same house and were a family it was the responsibility of both to take care of things. Allan did not know what women do in their free time although sometimes he sees them together talking. He believed that men do mostly spend their time in the street. He spent his own free time cleaning, hanging out, and playing soccer. The A Ganar Experience In his baseline interview, Allan stated that he wanted to participate in the A Ganar program because of the courses that it offered and because he was not studying. His hopes for the program were to “learn to be someone in life.” Specifically, his main goal was to find a job, which did not happen. When asked why he thought this had not happened in the follow-up interview he responded, “I don’t know because I gave everything I had… I am happy with what I gave, but if it were possible I would give more in order to work.” Allan stated that his favorite part of the A Ganar program was playing sports because they played with women, which he had never done before. He explained that this was because they don’t know how to play and he was afraid to hurt them. He explained: “I had never played with women. We played and learned. I learned to work as a team. I also learned not to consider women inferior at all. I also learned that I know that it is better to play like this, to not take the presence of women or anyone negatively, because it is good and I learned something.” Specifically, what he took from these activities, as well as the other activities, were certain values. “To work as a team, to speak. Even when there are a lot of people to speak because before I got scared talking to people. It embarrassed me to speak in front of a group and now it doesn’t because I was in the program. A Ganar was good because it took away this embarrassment that I had.” He credited the facilitators with helping him overcome his fear of public speaking. Allan described phase two of the program as boring because they no longer played sports. Allan completed his internship at Expresso Americano, delivering supplies to stores, unloading plates and cups, and cleaning. He most liked going to different places that he did not previously know, and he learned about the different ingredients involved in making coffee. He did feel that the program helped prepare him for his internship, specifically with respect to communication and working as a team. A Ganar did change Allan’s vision of his life. “I had never worked. Well, I worked for one month but I wasn’t earning any money. I still said to myself, ‘working is good because I can help my family and be able to have things.’” Before participating in the program Allan spent a lot of time in the streets. Now he feels like a different person. “It helped me to become a different person because now, like I was saying, I almost don’t go out. I spend time, you know, at home and I think about other things that I want to do to help my family.” Allan believed that A Ganar benefited both men and women because both are equal, though he did admit that women would have had a difficult time with his internship because it required physical strength. His mother, Amalia, reported a mental change in him as a result of his participation in the program: 93 “Yes. Before, my son was very rebellious and now that he has taken those courses they helped him a lot. Of course I want him to continue to take advantage of those courses if it is possible and I ask you for help because these youth… I don’t know when but my son got out of my hands. I am a Christian, and so is my husband, but unfortunately my son smoked. He smoked and he still does and I want to ask you for help because as a mother I am worried about my son.” During the month in which he was completing his internship she described him as calm, explaining that he was up early every morning to get to work on time and returned home right after work. She also mentioned that he was more obedient now and spent more time at home helping with chores such as carrying water and hanging out the clothes to dry. Gladys, the facilitator of phase one, reported that her first impression of Allan was that he was going to be a bit difficult because he was so quiet and serious. However, she noted considerable change over the course of the program. She said: “He was a very timid young man. Quiet. he didn’t like to interact with anyone and it was difficult to get him to say anything. And his situation, well, he wasn’t studying or working or anything I don’t think. He preferred to go out and be with his friends. Even in the beginning I called him at home and I was almost never able to reach him, but as the program began he started to change a lot. He got along better with everyone, he shared his experiences with his classmates, and even now after the program has ended he spends more time at home helping his family. He got involved in his work as well, helping his family. I think that we are making progress and it helped his family, something that in the beginning he didn’t do. So to me it seems that there has been a big change in a really positive way.” She highlighted his punctuality as a strength, and believed that he now had a clearer sense of his goals. His main weakness, something that she tried bringing to his attention, was the way that he dressed himself. The other facilitator, Gabriela, had a similar impression of Allan, describing him as, “timid… though it seemed that he wanted to learn. He was one of the few around 18 years old that continued and advanced to the intermediate level.” Finally, his supervisor at Expresso Americano, Alexander, also mentioned Allan’s timid nature, although he also noted that over time he did open up. In addition, he explained that Allan did everything that was asked of him and did so immediately. Future Plans and Goals Allan expressed a desire to attend the university, to study comercio, though it wasn’t important where he studied nor had he thought about potential locations. He said that he would work during the week and study on the weekends. The reason that he gave for not currently working was that he had not filled out any applications and had not thought specifically about what type of job he wanted. When asked how he imagined his next year he replied, “I don’t imagine anything.” With regards to how he imagined his life would be in ten years he first said, “well, I don’t know,” but continued to explain that he hoped to be living well, to have a family, and to be working. 94 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Midline Report U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523