A GANAR ALLIANCE IMPACT EVALUATION ENDLINE REPORT HONDURAS 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 Endline Report HONDURAS 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 Endline Report - Honduras ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 longterm 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 CEUTEC Centro Universitario Tecnológico 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 ILO International Labor Organization 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. UNITEC Universidad Tecnológica Centroamericana USAID U.S. Agency for International Development vi A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms........................................................................................................................................................................................iv Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................................................................vi Figures and Tables ...............................................................................................................................................vii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Evaluation Objectives............................................................................................................................................ 1 Program background ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Evaluation Design.................................................................................................................................................. 1 Conclusion and recommendations....................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Evaluation Objectives............................................................................................................................................ 6 Youth development context................................................................................................................................. 6 Program Background ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Evaluation Design......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Measurement...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Sampling .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Analytical Approach............................................................................................................................................ 17 Qualitative Approach.......................................................................................................................................... 19 limitations............................................................................................................................................................ 20 Attrition.............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Findings........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Annex A: Balance Checks................................................................................................................................... 52 Annex B: Analysis of Attrition............................................................................................................................ 54 Annex C: Outcome and Impact Tables.............................................................................................................. 56 Annex D: Education Regression Tables.............................................................................................................. 60 Annex E: Employment Regression Tables.......................................................................................................... 63 Annex F: Entrepreneurship Regression Tables .................................................................................................. 68 Annex G: Professional Capabilities Regression Tables....................................................................................... 71 Annex H: Self Esteem Regression Tables........................................................................................................... 77 Annex I: Gender Perspectives Regression Tables.............................................................................................. 79 Annex J: Risk Behavior Regression Tables ......................................................................................................... 82 Annex K: Development Asset Profile Regression Tables .................................................................................. 91 Annex L: Interpreting Tables.............................................................................................................................. 93 Annex M: Qualitative Findings on the Role of Sports........................................................................................ 94 Annex N: Qualitative Case Studies.................................................................................................................... 96 Annex O: Developmental Assets Profile Sub-Items......................................................................................... 113 Annex P: Randomized Response ...................................................................................................................... 114 Annex Q: Translated Survey Instrument.......................................................................................................... 116 vii FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: Forest plot of A Ganar Impacts 1.5 years after program......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: A Ganar Phases................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 3: A Ganar Theory of Change ..........................................................................................................................................11 Figure 4: Honduras Evaluation Design.........................................................................................................................................13 Figure 5: Map of IO and Cohort Size ..........................................................................................................................................16 Figure 6: Timeline of Implementation and Data Collection....................................................................................................16 Figure 7: Survey response rates at endline by individual .........................................................................................................21 Figure 8: Receives Work Benefits................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 9: Employment Outcomes.................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 10: Monthly Salaries............................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 11: Education Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................................26 Figure 12: Entrepreneurship Outcomes......................................................................................................................................28 Figure 13: Individual Professional Capabilities Outcomes.......................................................................................................30 Figure 14: Equitable Gender Norms based on the GEM Scale ..............................................................................................32 Figure 15: Gender Perspectives based on GEM Scores...........................................................................................................33 Figure 16: Participation in risk behaviors....................................................................................................................................34 Figure 17: Developmental Assets Profile....................................................................................................................................37 Figure 18: DAP Sub-Measures (Asset View)..............................................................................................................................37 Figure 19: Youth who Considered or Attempted Migration..................................................................................................42 Table 1: Sample, by IO and by Cohort........................................................................................................................................17 Table 2: Regression Controls and Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3: Interview excerpts illustrating altered professional capabilities due to A Ganar participation.......................31 Table 4: Migration Counts.............................................................................................................................................................41 Table 5: Migration Patterns and Covariates...............................................................................................................................43 Table 6: Balance checking between treatment and control groups......................................................................................52 Table 7: Attrition .............................................................................................................................................................................54 Table 8: Attrition Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................54 Table 9: Employment Outcomes and Impacts........................................................................................................................... 56 Table 10: Education Outcomes and Impacts..............................................................................................................................57 Table 11: Entrepreneurship Outcomes and Impacts................................................................................................................57 Table 12: Professional Capabilities Outcomes and Impacts ...................................................................................................58 Table 13: Randomized Response - Risk Outcomes and Impacts........................................................................................... 58 Table 14: Peer Outcomes and Impacts.......................................................................................................................................58 Table 15: DAP Outcomes and Impacts.......................................................................................................................................59 Table 16: Self-Esteem Outcomes and Impacts ..........................................................................................................................59 Table 17: Gender Equitability Outcomes and Impacts ............................................................................................................59 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The A Ganar Alliance impact evaluations (IEs) are two interrelated studies designed to assess the effectiveness of the A Ganar sports-for-development program in Honduras and Guatemala, allowing USAID to compare outcomes in different contexts, increasing the external validity, or generalizability, of evaluation findings. 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. It is important to note that reduction in risk behavior was not an objective of the A Ganar program, but USAID added this metric because A Ganar was working in high violence contexts and wanted to understand programmatic effects on violent/risky behaviors. Additionally, by comparing A Ganar to similar non-sports programs, the Guatemala evaluation will explore whether or not sports provides additional benefits to workforce development programming. This report provides summative synthesis of three rounds of data collection for analysis of longitudinal changes in the 1,851 youth in the program in Honduras. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES Evaluation findings will serve to both improve future program performance and increase the evidence base around what works (and why) in youth workforce development programming. Providing rigorous, externally valid evidence of program impact, the evaluations investigate the specific role that sports plays in affecting program outcomes. In Honduras, due to the lack of a suitable comparison program, the role of sports was assessed primarily through the qualitative components of the evaluation. Additionally, the evaluation probes differential outcomes and experiences of varying participant types. PROGRAM BACKGROUND Implemented by Partners of the Americas, A Ganar combats the serious problem of youth unemployment in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by utilizing soccer and other team sports to help “at-risk” youth aged 17-24 (16 – 24 in Guatemala) to find positive ways to engage in their communities. A Ganar is a 7-9 month, four-phase integrated job training program that combines sports￾based field and classroom activities, vocational training, internships/apprenticeships, service training, mentoring, entrepreneurship workshops, and various follow-on activities to help participants primarily to find jobs, and secondarily to start or expand their business or re-enter the formal education system. EVALUATION DESIGN The A Ganar program hypotheses, namely that the integrated four-phase sports-mediated program leads to increases in employability, entrepreneurship, and re-entry into the formal education system, was tested through a rigorous five-year RCT. The target population for the intervention is at-risk youth living in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. Data was collected from three cohorts (one pilot cohort and two evaluation cohorts), each surveyed at three distinct times between 2013 – 2016: (1) a baseline completed within two weeks of the final application interview, (2) an immediate post-program follow-up, and (3) an endline occurring 18 months after program completion. Partners worked with seven Implementing Organizations (IO) to train a total of 1,851 youths. Excluding the pilot cohort, the total sample size for the study is 1,851 respondents. Randomized assignment was conducted at the individual level within each IO resulting in two groups: 974 treatment youths and 877 control youths. Randomization was stratified by sex and IO-rated motivation level, to ensure balance across these variables. For endline, an attempt was made 2 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras to survey all 1,851 youth, and teams were able to complete responses from 1,674 (90 percent) of the youth. Key Findings A Ganar led to positive trends in youth’s job quality. Program youth reported marginally higher wages, higher prevalence of benefits, and higher job satisfaction. However, the program did not have an impact on employment rates as employment rates were similar in both groups. Intermediate outcomes also showed positive results, particularly in the qualitative data. A Ganar led to significant increases in both personal strengths and a supportive social environment. A Ganar youth achieved better self-reported professional capabilities in almost all categories, with particularly in CV-writing. Figure 1 and the accompanying text below display high-level findings on the impact of the program. 3 Employment Over the time period measured, employment increased similarly for program participants and non-participants. There were no significant differences between groups in employment rate, number of jobs, or hours worked. 1 Job Quality A Ganar had a significant positive impact on job quality. Compared with non-participants over the timeframe, A Ganar youth had significantly higher wages (2 more lempiras or ~$0.1 per hour on average) and marginally higher prevalence of benefits, and job satisfaction. Education Endline results showed negative program effects on school enrollment. A Ganar youth were 21 percent less likely to be enrolled in school. One possible explanation is that the program focused on job placement, not school outcomes, and youth found that the opportunity cost of returning to school was too high so they chose to work instead. Entrepreneurship Rates of entrepreneurship were low in both groups. The program had some small non-significant impacts. Entrepreneurship training was only a small portion of the program. Risk Behavior Individual risk behavior was similar for youth in both groups. However, A Ganar youth gained significantly more friends who were engaging in risk behavior, possibly indicating that the program mixed youth of different risk profiles. indicating that the program helped to buffer individual risk behavior in light of changing social networks. Secondary Results Based on the Development Asset Profile (DAP), both internal strengths and external support networks increased significantly for participants. This is consistent with qualitative impacts, which showed much improvement in socio-emotional outcomes. Attrition The average rate of attrition was approximately 10 percent. This is well below the anticipated 25 percent rate of attrition. Attrition rates were similar in both the treatment and control groups. 1. The location of the dot indicates whether the A Ganar outcome was favorable or unfavorable relative to the control group. 2. Horizontal bars indicate the likely range of each outcome. Those highlighted in orange are statistically significant because they do not cross the vertical axis (which represents zero difference between the groups). 1 Significance refers to statistical significance with p values less than or equal to 0.1. Figure 1: Forest plot of A Ganar Impacts 1.5 years after program 4 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras CONCLUSIONS A key challenge to strengthening workforce development interventions for at-risk youth is connecting skills development with available employment opportunities in a constricted market. While training may improve participant employability, workforce development programs are challenged to increase employment rates if there is no change in the economic context in which youth live. Similarly, given that this evaluation finds similar rates of employment increases for the treatment and control group, job growth seems to be driven by factors external to the program such as employment opportunities becoming more available as youth age. This is consistent with evidence from experimental design-based impact evaluations of youth training programs in LAC which targeted at-risk youth indicating that youth training programs have non-significant impacts on employment rates (Alzúa et al. 2015; Calero et al., 2015; Acero et al., 2009; Attanasio et al., 2015; Ibarraran et al., 2015; Diaz and Rosas, 2016; Naranjo Silva, 2002). The positive impact of A Ganar and similar programs on the quality of employment is consistent and positive, which indicates that youth training programs are more successful in helping participants obtain better quality jobs rather than improving their employment rates. The A Ganar program in Honduras led to an earnings increase, and long-term evaluations of other programs indicate that this impact can be sustainable (Alzúa et al. 2015; Attanasio et al., 2015; Diaz and Rosas, 2016; Ibarraran et al., 2015). The findings related to employment, along with many others reported from this evaluation, demonstrate the importance of a counterfactual based approach in determining attribution. Had the evaluation relied on measuring outcomes solely for the A Ganar participants, as has been typical of evaluations of youth workforce development programs, the evaluation may have erroneously attributed the large increases over time in employment rates to the A Ganar program. The counterfactual design was critical in unpacking attribution and developing a more nuanced picture of program effects. In terms of the secondary program outcomes, A Ganar did not yield significant changes in education or entrepreneurship outcomes. Evidence from the assessment indicated youth valued educational attainment and entrepreneurship skills as a good alternative when jobs are not available; however, the opportunity cost to pursue these endeavors, along with immediate financial needs, persisted as a key barriers. Socio-emotional skills did increase significantly for A Ganar youth participants. A Ganar led to significant increases in both personal strength and a supportive social environment. A Ganar youth reported better professional capabilities in almost all categories. The qualitative evidence also suggests very large changes in key life skills. A Ganar youth discussed improvements in communication, open-mindedness, values, self-esteem, determination and working in groups. The qualitative interviews also captured other skills not measured by Development Assets Profile, specifically a common theme was youth who overcame shyness and learned how to better navigate social relations both in the work place and out. However, while soft-skills training positively increased socio-emotional skills, it is not clear if gains in these skills alone are sufficient to lead to increased labor market success. In terms of risk behavior, there were no significant impacts on individual risk behavior between treatment and control groups. However, the significant increase in peer risk behavior (perhaps due to mixing youth of different risk profiles) while maintaining similar individual risk profiles on average for youth A Ganar participants, indicates that the program provided resilience for the treatment group in risk behaviors including fighting, gang activity, and drug trafficking. This suggests that there may have been a decrease in violent behaviors and crime as a result of the program. Based on the qualitative analysis, the program provided an alternative safe space for youth in gang-controlled neighborhoods. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on these conclusions, the principal recommendations of this evaluation are for USAID to: 1. Frame workforce development as job quality, and not job growth, programming in contexts with constrained economic growth; 2. Conduct additional research on: a. Mixing of risk profiles in at-risk youth programming and wrap around support services for more risky youth. b. The best ways of quantitatively measuring life skills given the sometimes contradictory quantitative and qualitative evidence here, particularly on life skills. This may include more specific targeting at the design and theory of change development stage on the specific life skills expected to be developed or investing in the development of tools that can better address response bias and differentiate varying levels of life skill. c. The effects on migration of workforce development programs in areas with limited work opportunities. 3. Continue to incorporate counterfactual approaches to evaluations where attribution is important. Moreover, from an analysis of the program implementation and previous rounds of data collection, the evaluation also recommends that USAID and the program team (a) improve market assessments for a stronger alignment with labor market demands by ensuring they are rigorous/high-quality, sufficiently granular and repeated periodically; (b) improve instructions on post-program follow-up actions to ensure consistent, systematic support to youth in finding employment in the critical post-program phase; and (c) improve program monitoring to ensure implementers take a consistent approach to collecting program participation data and that such data is comprehensive and available on a real-time basis. 6 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report documents a mixed-methods randomized control trial (RCT) that studied the efficacy of a USAID-funded 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 background, purpose, methodology, and endline findings from the Honduras component of the A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES A Ganar 2 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 and expanded programming to 19 countries. The Alliance trained over 16,000 youths 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 America 3, providing training for over 6,000 youth. When the A Ganar program began, early results indicated positive outcomes. According to a MID/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. 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. YOUTH DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT The persistence of low-skilled youth presents a significant challenge to the Latin American and the Caribbean region. Skills are essential for youth to make their transition into the labor market and contribute to economic growth and development. The lack of good employment opportunities for youth often hinders access to the labor market. Not only is unemployment relatively high among youth, 2 “To win” or “to earn” in Spanish 3 USAID funded countries include Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Dominica, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Suriname, Honduras and Guatemala 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. 7 nearly half hold informal jobs which are insecure and rarely provide benefits, particularly for youth from disadvantaged backgrounds (OECD, 2016). The region suffers from a large gap between the skills demanded by the private sector and the pool of skills on offer. The recent gains in secondary and tertiary school enrollment have not translated into a more highly skilled workforce (OECD, 2016). According to Fiszbein et al (2016), poor retention and graduation rates at the tertiary level and insufficient acquisition of relevant skills required by employers through education programs are key factors in the skills gap. A study by the OECD (2016) found that poor labor market prospects mainly results from poor quality of education, and early school dropouts in the region produce youth with poor labor market prospects due to a lack of in-demand skills. Fiszbein et al. (2016) suggest that apart from improving the relevance of educational programs, diversification of programs and a stronger alignment with labor market demands are necessary. In light of these challenges, targeted skills training programs have gained interest as a possible solution. Youth training programs in the region have expanded over the last decade (Kluve et al., 2016; OECD, 2016). They target young individuals who are considered to be at-risk, typically defined as being unemployed or having dropped out of school. Consequently, they have a low likelihood of insertion into the formal labor market. Youth training programs offer technical and vocational skills training to assist young people in gaining access to the job market and provide them with an opportunity to gain work experience through an apprenticeship or internship. Normally these programs offer some form of labor market intermediation through formal internship placements, support in finding an internship, or counseling. As these programs aim to reduce the mismatch of skills, trainings incorporate input from the private sector to ensure a demand-driven supply of skills (Kluve et al., 2016). In addition to vocational and technical training, these programs may also seek to develop soft skills, developing socio-emotional and interpersonal skills such as teamwork, communication, punctuality, perseverance, a sense of responsibility and self-esteem. These soft skills are valued by employers and considered critical for professional development (Gonzalez, Ripani and Rosas, 2012 in Díaz and Rosas, 2016). A survey of Latin American executives shows that soft-skills are among the most important skills executives seek in new employees (Ogier, 2009). These soft skills are particularly essential for the achievement of employment aspirations in Honduras where high levels of gang violence, family disintegration, and inadequate youth support are pervasive. Youth in Honduras, and particularly those from at-risk, urban communities, face challenges and obstacles that affect their educational access and attainment, safety and social spaces, as well as their employment prospects and mobility. Violence in Honduras predominantly affects male youth from poor urban areas, with the two largest cities, Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula, having the sixth and second highest murder rates in the world in 2016 at 73.51 and 111.03, respectively. (Mexico Citizens Council for Public Security, 2016) and the vast majority of homicide victims being males (94 percent)—in particular male youth between 15 and 34 years of age (63 percent) (Observatorio de la Violencia, 2012). This violence has been linked with a surge of unaccompanied, undocumented minors fleeing the region and attempting to enter the United States. The number of unaccompanied Honduran children apprehended at the U.S. border increased rapidly over the time period of the evaluation. In 2009, 968 Honduran minors were apprehended at the U.S. border, but by 2014 this number increased 1,784 percent to reach 18,244 (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 2016). Violence and migration are inextricably linked to the incidence of poverty, social exclusion, and presence of gangs who recruit from the vulnerable youth that lack the skills and opportunities to engage productively in the workforce. PROGRAM BACKGROUND A Ganar is a 7 – 9 month training program, implemented by Partners of the Americas, 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 8 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras phases: sports-based field and classroom employability training, market-driven technical training, internships/apprenticeships, and follow-on activities. These phases are presented below in Figure 3. Figure 2: A Ganar Phases 9 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 sports in two complementary ways. First, sports 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, sports 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 sports is one of the most popular activities and subject matters for youth in LAC, integrating sports 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 only 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 have to 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 as being 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 not employed • 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. 10 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 3. Belong to communities plagued by high levels of drug use and/or trafficking, youth violence, or youth gangs 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. 11 EVALUATION DESIGN In order to design an impact evaluation that could comprehensively test programmatic effectiveness, it was first necessary to elaborate on the A Ganar theory of change presented in Figure 3. Through a series of workshops with Partners of the Americas and USAID, the evaluation team developed a more comprehensive schematic that identified implicit and intermediate outcomes, as well as clarifying causal pathways. A simplified depiction of this model is presented in Figure 3. As illustrated in this theory of change, the four phases are designed to build a set of core skills, experiences, and relationships necessary to attain employment and/or one of the secondary outcomes (entrepreneurship, re-entry into formal education). Figure 3: A Ganar Theory of Change This theory of change includes a number of outcomes that are not reflected in Partners of the Americas’ documentation or the grant agreement. Due to the high levels of violence and insecurity in the region, USAID decided to measure outcomes related to risk behavior and socio-emotional health. It is important to note that reduction in risk behavior was not an objective of the program and none of the programming was designed to directly address this outcome. USAID added this metric because A Ganar was working in high violence contexts and wanted to understand programmatic effects on violent/risky behaviors. Additionally, in accordance with USAID’s strong focus on gender, the effects of the program on gender norms were also included as a final, indirect outcome. While risk behavior, socio-emotional health, and gender norms are all derived from the program theory of change, it is important to note that A Ganar was never designed to explicitly target these outcomes. For these reasons, they are referred to as indirect outcomes in this report. The extent to which A Ganar’s program hypotheses holds true was 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 enabled both a quantitative and qualitative investigation of the A Ganar mechanisms of change, both intermediate and 12 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras final outcomes, and differential impacts among participant groups. The multi-country nature of the study served 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 estimated program impact, while the Guatemala IE assessed both program impact and the role of sports in mediating outcomes of interest. The evaluation responds to two primary research questions: EVALUATION QUESTIONS The A Ganar IE was designed to empirically test this theory of change, with research structured around the following evaluation 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? Sub-Question 1.1 On what factors do those impacts depend, and what is the likely range of impacts, given uncertainty? Sub-Question 1.2 What are the pathways through which impacts were created? Question 2: Role of Sports 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? Question 1 is answered through a mixed-methods RCT that compares longitudinal changes between eligible applicants that were randomly assigned to either receive the A Ganar training or a control group (i.e. non-recipients). In order to answer Question 2, 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 of the Americas, it was determined that A Ganar could not be implemented without sports. Because it is central to the program’s structure and design, removing sports from the curriculum would fundamentally change the nature of the intervention. In cooperation with USAID/Washington and USAID/Honduras, the evaluation team tried to find comparable, non-sports workforce development programs but was unable to identify good comparison program in Honduras. It was mutually decided to focus the Honduras research on Question 1 and to address Question 2 through a qualitative exploration of pathways and causal linkages. The sports question is answered in more detail in the Guatemala study, where comparable programs were identified and integrated into research design. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The evaluation team used a mixed-methods RCT to measure changes in development outcomes attributable to participation in A Ganar. The research followed 3,070 youth (1,219 in Guatemala and 1,851 in Honduras) who applied to the program, were screened by local implementing partners on minimum qualifications, and were randomly assigned into either the A Ganar or Control group (in Guatemala, youth could also be randomly assigned to a Non-Sports program). 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 13 intervention under study and the outcome measured.” 5 Using a lottery to assign participation only among qualified applicants significantly 6 limits the selection bias that affected previous research on the program. The program and evaluation were rolled out in two phases. The first phase was considered a pilot, used to test the evaluation methodology and refine the program implementation process. This was conducted with 255 youths (153 in Guatemala and 102 in Honduras), although these youths are not included in the final evaluation results due to changes in the program based on the pilot. The second phase represents the full implementation. In Guatemala, the A Ganar organizations implemented a Non-Sports program (Acción Joven for Fundación Paiz and Hacia Empleo for Children International) which was similar to A Ganar without the sports component (more detail on similarities, differences, and implications for the evaluation are described in Annex B). To summarize the design, youth assigned to the A Ganar program (highlighted in blue in Figure 4) can be compared to youth in the control groups (highlighted in grey) to answer Question 1 and compared to youth in the Non-Sports groups (highlighted in red) to answer Question 2. Figure 4: Honduras Evaluation Design 5 USAID Evaluation Policy, Page 2. January 2011 6 All findings displayed are based on multivariate regression analysis, including controls. All trends noted in the text are statistically significant at the 10% level unless otherwise specified. 14 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras MEASUREMENT Youth in each group were surveyed at three distinct times: (1) a baseline completed within two weeks of the final application interview, (2) an immediate post-graduation follow-up occurring at the time of program completion (usually nine to ten months after the start of the program), and (3) an endline occurring 18 months after program completion. The evaluation included three data collection approaches: in-person surveys with all program participants, qualitative interviews with graduates, and in-depth qualitative interviews with respondents, A Ganar facilitators, and members of their social and family networks. Measurement of key outcomes, important covariates, and demographic variables was facilitated principally through surveys, and was supplemented through qualitative interviews. Qualitative data was collected from a subsample of the study population to: 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, and probe the “value added” of sports. The complete instruments are included in Annex Q. Surveys included the following modules and measurement approaches: • Introduction and Meta-Data: Participants were read an introduction to the objectives of the evaluation and asked to provide consent to continue. This dialog clearly noted that participation was voluntary and that respondents may quit the survey at any time without any penalty. Meta￾data was collected to track details of survey administration useful for performing data quality checks. • Identifiers and Demographics: To ensure confidentiality of responses, all identifying information was collected in an independent module that was removed upon survey completion. Identifying information was entered separately from the rest of the survey and was linked by a unique respondent ID, which was recorded on each page of the survey. Extensive contact information was 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 were also used as covariates to explain intermediate and final outcomes and improve precision of statistical tests. • Education and Training: This section collected data on respondents’ education level, school enrollment and attendance, educational aspirations, type of school attended, and reasons for not being enrolled (where applicable). Data were also collected on participation in training programs outside of school. • Employment and Entrepreneurship: Questions were asked about current and previous employment and entrepreneurship history, including items designed to assess quality (e.g. wages, contract type, hours, and benefits) and quantity. • Gender Roles: A modified version of the Gender Equitable Men (GEM) scale was 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 was comprised of 25 statements rated on a five-point Likert scale. 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. 15 • Life Skills: Given the complex and multi-faceted nature of this concept, the study used two complementary measures to capture the concept: o The principal measure was Search Institute’s Developmental Assets Profile 8 (DAP), a robust and field-tested tool capable of measuring positive outcomes across eight asset categories. Respondents were asked 58 questions from a contextualized version of the tool. Questions were 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 were 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 was 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 measured self-reported confidence in key employment-related competencies. Self-reported confidence, while possibly differing from direct skills, is an important, related intermediate outcome. • Risk Behaviors: Given the sensitivity of measuring participation in risky or taboo behaviors, the evaluation team used two techniques to protect the anonymity of responses during the survey process. First, respondents were asked about their peers’ participation in various risk behaviors (e.g. fighting, drug use, gang participation, unprotected sex). Additionally, the research used randomized response technique to measure respondent participation in these same activities. To maintain confidentiality, respondents were asked to roll a die without showing the roll to the surveyor. If they rolled a one, they were instructed to answer yes (forced yes) and if a six they were instructed to answer no (forced no), regardless of their true response. If they roll any other number, they were instructed to answer truthfully. Surveyors explained that through this ‘game’, surveyors will never know if respondents are answering truthfully about themselves or not, so they should not feel pressure to respond a certain way. While this technique does not enable tracing individual responses, the research team was able to estimate the prevalence of each behavior in the sample of respondents and measure differential prevalence rates between treatment and control groups. Annex O provides a more comprehensive discussion of randomized response, including a bibliography of published journal articles using the technique. Interviews were administered in a public place of the respondent’s choosing. Respondents were compensated for transportation costs incurred traveling to and from the interview, and were given phone credits (50 Honduran Lempiras, or approximately US$ 2.50, per survey) and a refreshment at the time of the interview. Youth who could not take the full survey due to time or mobility constraints were offered an abridged version of the survey over the phone survey. 8 http://www.search-institute.org/surveys/DAP 16 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras SAMPLING The Honduras evaluation is designed to track nearly 2,000 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 as shown in Figure 5. 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. Figure 5: Map of IO and Cohort Size Figure 6: Timeline of Implementation and Data Collection 17 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. As seen in Figure 5, youth were recruited from neighborhoods with high crime and homicide rates. 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. 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). In response to concerns from implementers that key youth may be excluded due to the probabilistic selection, each IO was allowed to select up to 3 direct-participant youths 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 surveys administered to a total of 1,953 respondents including pilot (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 Annex N, provides a summary of the youth selected for in-depth interviews. Table 1: Sample, by IO and by Cohort 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 Per the program criteria, the vast majority of youth fell between the ages of 17 and 24 at baseline. However, adherence to the protocol was not perfect, and there were some youth in the sample who fell outside the age range. In the final sample, 96 youth were under the age of 17 (most were 16 with a few as young as 14), and 13 youth were above 24 (they were ages 25 and 26). 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. 18 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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 is expected to create similar treatment and control groups prior to the intervention, there may 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 to improve the precision of our impact estimate by reducing unexplained variance in outcome measures. 9 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 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=follow-up), 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 µ i is the error term. The control variables fall into three categories, with the outcome variables presented after: Table 2: Regression Controls and Outcomes Controls Outcomes Respondent Demographics Highest grade completed Sex Currently enrolled in school (dummy) Age Educational system Single (dummy) Number of extracurricular courses Number of children Number of Jobs Household Demographics Number of businesses Wealth (PCA-derived measure) Total Income Remittances (dummy) GEM score Number of family members living in home DAP score Sex of Household head Risk score Age of Household head 9 Moreover, as the evaluation will track multiple cohorts over time, there is the possibility that cohorts will differ in their baseline characteristics. 19 Education level of Household head Any member of household employed (dummy) Implementation-Specific Measures Cohort IO IO group IO-determined motivation level 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. 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. The evaluation team 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. 20 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras LIMITATIONS Accurately measuring the intermediate outcomes of this program (self-esteem, empowerment, social inclusion, self-discipline, etc.) is a challenge. Not only are these outcomes difficult to quantify, the concepts themselves are ill defined, vary with interpretation/context, and do not exhibit a clean unidirectional relationship with the independent variable (participation in the A Ganar program). It can be reasonably argued that as participants gain a better understanding of the labor market, workplace realities, and the requirements for attaining a desirable job, their self-esteem might lower. However, this would not imply that the program had an adverse effect, simply that the participant gained a fuller understanding of the issues surrounding employment. The analysis in this report draws nuanced conclusions about the directionality of bi/multivariate relationships. In addition to the issue of directionality, because these outcomes are investigated through the use of self-reported questionnaires there exists the possibility of repeated-testing bias. In the first instance, respondents might learn what questions were asked on the survey and learn how to provide ‘correct’ answers. These answers might be the ones that show themselves or the A Ganar program in the best light, or answers that might make them eligible for follow-on activities or additional resources. To mitigate these risks, the evaluation design uses two strategies. First, all enumerators read a standardized script that outlines the purpose of the survey and makes clear that responses will not have any direct benefit or cost for subjects. This diminishes some of the incentive to misrepresent information for personal gain. Secondly, understanding the limitations of survey methodology in addressing these intermediate outcomes, the results are triangulated and supplemented with focused qualitative data collection. ATTRITION Attrition occurs when the evaluation team is unable to collect follow up data from respondents in either the treatment or control group. Evaluators identified four primary sources of such drop-out: 1) respondents refuse to continue participating in the study, 2) the evaluation team is unable to find the youth, possibly due to outdated contact information, 3) youth relocation, and 4) mortality or incarceration. 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 (eg. If youth who have jobs are less likely to respond because they are busy, then the survey data will underrepresent them. Similarly, youth who have more risky behavior may be less likely to answer questions about risk also causing bias in available data). 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 improve our ability to track respondents. Second, the team anticipated a dropout rate of 25 percent and used oversampling to ensure statistical power. To correct for attrition-induced selection bias, the team tested panel data for evidence of differential attrition and adjusting impact estimates to control for the missing observations, as necessary. Additionally, the team offered phone interviews using abridged surveys for youth who were unwilling or unable to take the survey in person. To address the issue of attrition and missing data more generally, the team employed the technique of multiple imputation using chained equations. The methodology uses the data collected to project a complete dataset; the methodology essentially “fills in” the missing data gaps multiple times based on the completed data in order to create a realistic distribution, which drastically reduces issues of response bias from the analysis. The analysis reported in this document is based on the imputed data. As a 21 robustness check, we additionally analyzed the complete case data (the data set collected) and noted any cases in which the findings vary from the imputation analysis. Of the 1,851 youths surveyed at baseline, the evaluation team completed endline interviews with 1,674, yielding an overall response rate of 90 percent. Of the 1,674 completed interviews, 199 were phone interviews (12 percent). Treatment youth were slightly more likely to respond (91 vs 90 percent), but this difference was not statistically significant. The most common source of attrition was an inability to reach the youth (53 percent). Often this was a product of incorrect contact information (i.e. youth changed numbers since baseline), though sometimes respondents did not answer their phones. In other cases, youth and their families had moved for security reasons and had not provided their contact information to neighbors. Enumerators went to great lengths to visit youths’ homes and ask neighbors in cases where they could not find youth. The second most common reason for non-response was that the youth had left the country. This accounted for 19 percent of non-response. Closely following, 17 percent of youth refused to take the survey. Unfortunately, given the high-risk environment in which the youth live, 5 youths had been incarcerated, and 13 youths were deceased at the time of the endline data collection (3 percent and 7 percent of total non-response respectively). Among the 13 youths who had passed between baseline and endline data collection, 11 were male. Based on a review of newspaper articles, at least a few of these deaths were the result of violence or suicide. These cases further underscore the need for strong programming to offer youths alternatives to and/or respite from local violence. Figure 7: Survey response rates at endline by individual 22 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras At endline, 66% of sample youth were “economically active” meaning they were either working or seeking employment. This is higher than the national average in 2016, which was closer to 56% based on census data. FINDINGS The following sections present changes from baseline to endline, and how these changes varied between A Ganar youth and control youth. Using the regression analysis detailed in the methodology section, the key outcomes attributable to program participation are presented below. Employment As a workforce development program, the primary objective of A Ganar is to help youth find jobs. As demonstrated in Figure 10, only one in ten youth was employed at baseline. While employment more than quadrupled among A Ganar youth at endline, there were no significant differences between A Ganar and control youth in terms of employment rate, number of jobs held, or number of hours worked weekly. 10 Over the study period, employment increased similarly for program participants and non-participants. Therefore, the seemingly impressive growth in employment appears to be driven by factors external to the program. This phenomenon highlights the importance of the impact evaluation design. Previous evaluations of A Ganar and similar workforce development programs have also identified large increases in employment rates after the program, yet this evaluation shows that, at least in this case, that growth cannot be attributed to A Ganar participation. The increases in employment rates for both groups may be driven by the economic imperative to find employment as youth age or because youth volunteering for a 9-month training program may have been less likely to be employed or in-school at the start of the program. 10 Significant throughout this report refers to statistical significance. It is the likelihood that a relationship between two or more variables is caused by something other than random chance. Statistical hypothesis testing is used to determine whether the result of a data set is statistically significant. This test provides a p-value, representing the probability that random chance could explain the result; In this report, a p-value of 10% or lower is considered to be statistically significant. In other words, when the report notes a finding is statistically significant, it means that we are at least 90% confident that the result is valid, representing a true difference between the two groups rather than differences due to chance or sampling. In the body of this report, we only present p values for highlighted findings where the confidence level is less than 90% (p>0.1). P values for all findings can be found in annex. Control Treatment 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate (Odds Ratio): 1.21 (p=0.14) Figure 9: Employment Outcomes Figure 8: Receives Work Benefits Control Treatment 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate (Odds Ratio): 1.09 (p=0.46) 23 Although there was no evidence that the program affected rates of employment, A Ganar had a significant positive impact on job quality. Most youth work in the informal sector, where jobs generally are characterized by low pay, job insecurity, lack of formal benefits, and few legal protections. A Ganar enabled youth to secure higher quality jobs than they would have, more often in the formal labor market. Compared with non￾participants, the average A Ganar youth was paid $13 (300 lempiras) more per month, which corresponds to about 4.5 percent more per month relative to the control group. 11 Additionally, participants were more satisfied in their jobs and reported having more employment benefits. Other characteristics associated with employment outcomes included sex, motivation, age, education, and household characteristics. Females were 52 percent less likely to be employed at endline than their male counterparts. They also had held significantly fewer jobs in the past year. Among working youth, females were 41 percent less likely to receive benefits and earned about $60 (1,433 lempiras) less per month as compared to their male counterparts. More educated youth were significantly more likely to be employed, receive benefits, and have a work contract. Not only did they earn a significantly higher monthly income, they also worked significantly fewer hours per week. Interestingly, marital status and whether the youth had children did not significantly impact employment. Youth whom the IOs had rated as having higher motivation before the study began, generally attained better employment outcomes. On average, they earned about $14 (327 lempiras) more per month than other youth. Among youth who were unemployed, approximately 39 percent were looking for work. There was no significant difference in job seeking between the unemployed program and non-program youth. Analysis - Employment Across the two study cohorts, the employment rate among A Ganar beneficiaries more than quadrupled. This trend, however, was mirrored in the control group, suggesting job growth was driven by factors external to the program, demonstrating the importance of the control group in assessing attribution. The most likely explanation for the rapid growth in employment among the study population is the fact that, given the intensive and sustained nature of the A Ganar program, applicants had to have a surplus of free time at baseline. Moreover, as youth transition into adulthood, family and social forces exert pressure to attain employment. The parallel employment trends across the two groups suggests that these contextual factors were more significant in determining employment rates than the program intervention. While A Ganar did not have an impact on the employment rate, participants were more satisfied in their jobs, 11 While the impact on monthly income was marginally significant (p=0.15), the effect on different specifications of wages is generally significant or marginally significant. For example, hourly wages are significantly higher for A Ganar (2 Lempuras per hour, p=0.10). Control , Treatment International Poverty Line Legal Minimum Wage 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Baseline Midline Endline Lempiras Figure 10: Monthly Salaries 24 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras earned higher wages, and reported having more employment benefitsThe qualitative sample included several youth that described working in jobs in which they applied skills they had learned in the program. The consistently positive impacts on job quality factors suggest that A Ganar youth attain better jobs as a result of the program. This finding is consistent with other studies on workforce development programming in the region. In a study of a similar vocational training program in the Dominican Republic, Ibarran et. al. (2016) concluded that although program participants were no more likely to be employed after the intervention, they had higher quality jobs and were more likely to work in the formal sector. These benefits endured many years after the program. Similarly, a systematic review of training programs conducted by the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 2016 found that, on average, training programs led to significant, but small increases in beneficiary income. 12 Outcomes were greater when measured at least one year after program completion. The convergence of these findings suggests a common trend and may be indicative that vocational training programs are bettered positioned to improve job quality than employment rates. One possible explanation for the results is that while the training may improve participant employability, there is no change in the economic context in which youth live and therefore no increase in employment opportunities. In economic terms, the program improves labor supply, but there is no change in labor demand. As a result, youth are still competing for the same set of opportunities. A Ganar youth may be better equipped to attain better opportunities among those available, but they are still limited by what is available. Indeed, based on qualitative interviews, many youths expressed frustration by the lack of employment opportunities in spite of feeling more confident in their skills and abilities. Potential Pathways: Implementer Perspectives Interviews conducted with A Ganar IOs revealed that almost every implementer cited three significant socio-economic barriers to youth employment that are beyond the scope of a workforce development program. 1. Work opportunities in Honduras for youth remain very limited. 2. Youth from gang-controlled neighborhoods have limited employment opportunities in their communities and also often have limited mobility due to poor transportation infrastructure, gang imposed curfews and fear of violence from crossing gang lines. For example, one implementer mentioned a specific case in which a young lady had to turn down a good job offer to work as a waitress at TGI Fridays because the shift would end at 10:30pm, and it was unsafe for her to walk back to her neighborhood at that time. 3. Additionally, many companies discriminate against youth living in these neighborhoods; they refuse to hire them, assuming that they must have links to the gangs. 12 Pooled effect size = 0.04 (Kluve 2016) 25 Education While the program focused on employment outcomes, and most programming activities were focused on employability, the potential for youth to re-enter formal education was seen as a desirable possible alternative outcome. A Ganar was associated with small changes in education outcomes, including a negative impact on enrollment among beneficiaries. As shown in Figure 12, enrollment and attendance trends across both groups showed a slight increase at midline and then a decrease by endline. Some of these fluctuations were likely due to seasonality associated with timing of data collection. Youth were Qualitative Findings: Employment At the time of the endline interviews, only 11 out of the 55 interviewees reported having worked. In addition to those that were running their own businesses, A Ganar participants obtained employment in a restaurant (waitress); a company (quality controller); kindergarten classroom (assistant); a car factory (worker); a pharmaceutical distribution center; a government owned gym; a textile company; a domestic worker; and a mobile phone company. Only one youth mentioned having obtained a job as a result of the A Ganar internship, although it did not last. For many, these were short-term positions and the reasons given for leaving them included low pay, being laid off, and a dangerous work schedule in terms of returning to their neighborhoods. Six of the participants did not mention ever having worked. Of these, two have children and spend their time taking care of their children while looking for work. One participant is currently in the military. Finally, one participant reports not having his work papers. Six of the participants have families. Of these, only 1 is male and only 1 was working, as a waitress. Even though many of the participants did not achieve their primary goal of finding long-term employment through their participation in A Ganar, there is still some evidence that were able to use what they learned in other ways to improve their work situations. For example, Winston wants to open his own music school. He claims that through his participation in A Ganar he learned how to “sell himself” by promoting music lessons, “Before the program I only had one or two students. Now I know how to sell myself and I have more students to offer my services to.” Many of the participants acknowledged the lack of employment opportunities in Honduras as being an impediment to finding employment, although their participation in the program gave them renewed hope in the possibility of finding employment. Due to “the situation in this country,” in addition to the violence in his neighborhood, Kristofer had considered immigrating to the United States. However, after his participation in the program, he felt differently, “They [program facilitators] told me that one has to be prepared in this country, they motivated me that by preparing oneself one could get ahead and thinking about it they were right, they are right.” This lesson altered his life plan, as he explained, “Well it is said that due to the situation here in this country there is no work, but I say that if one doesn’t look one doesn’t find it.” Nancy also cited the national context as an impediment to finding work, although she also realized that part of the possibility of finding work is seeking out opportunities. She stated, “There are no opportunities, the ones that there are one has to give oneself, look for by oneself, …there are people that say I don’t have any jobs, but jobs there are, to become somebody in a company one has to start from zero, and there are people who give with just one opportunity… I have learned that everything is one step at a time.” Kyle is employed, although he has not achieved his employment goals of working in a trade. He attributes this to the problems in Honduras: “I believe that the situation is a bit complicated in this country and in the factory where I work I am not working in a trade instead I am only working there because I couldn’t find any other work related to what I know.” 26 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras most likely to be enrolled at the beginning of the school semester. The overall decrease in enrollment from baseline to endline is likely due to youth leaving school to pursue other activities as they grow older such as working and taking care of children and family. Indeed, school enrollment decreased significantly as age increased. A Ganar participants also had marginally fewer years of education and slightly lower desire to return to school at endline though neither of these impacts were significant (p=0.11 for both). With regard to enrollment in extracurricular courses, A Ganar youth on average received an additional 2.92 months of training and attended 0.88 additional courses, as compared to control youth. Additionally, treatment youth were 60 percent less likely to report having paid for a course. This serves as a validity check, as we would expect A Ganar youth to report having participated in additional training since they participated in A Ganar. Analysis - Education A Ganar is associated with small changes in education outcomes, including a small negative impact on enrollment relative to the control group. One possible explanation for the decrease in school enrollment is that after gaining employability skills from the program, youth found that the opportunity cost of returning to school was too high so they chose to work instead. This would also explain the marginally lower rates of completed education and desire to return to school. Of note, the A Ganar program was never intended to be an education program. As detailed in the background section, the program structure had no concrete activities to encourage a return to school. Within the lessons on values, youth were encouraged to be ambitious and pursue their goals. Both donor and implementer suggested it would be interesting to collect metrics on school outcomes to capture any impacts, but given that education was not a goal of the program, these may not be the most relevant indicators of program success. Another possible explanation of these results is that some youth may have considered A Ganar to be a substitute for formal education, and therefore they might have felt less obliged to attend school in addition to the program. Recent literature suggests that the formal education systems in the LAC region do not necessarily set youth up to attain better jobs. In “The Skill Development Challenge in Latin America”, a collaborative study conducted by the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and Mathematica Policy Research (2016), authors discuss a disconnect between formal education and the Control Treatment 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Baseline Midline Endline (b) Attending school Impact Estimate (Odds Ratio): 0.85 (p=0.23) Control Treatment 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Baseline Midline Endline (a) Enrolled in school Impact Estimate (Odds Ratio): 0.9 (p=0.08) Figure 11: Education Outcomes 27 skills demanded by the job market, which prevents youth from attaining jobs, even when they are more educated. They state, “In spite of an increase in the years of schooling attained by adults in Latin American countries, evidence highlights gaps in skills development that represent a bottleneck to productivity growth and to the ability of Latin American workers to obtain gainful employment.” Given that the sample population applied to a workforce development program, these youth were likely particularly interested in jobs. Having attained employability skills from the program, they might not have seen as much benefit in returning to school. Program implementers in Honduras had similar perspectives. 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. Potential Pathways: Implementer Perspectives: Although regression analysis shows that education was associated with an increase in job outcomes, implementers suggested that this was only true for youth who pass a certain education threshold; youth who completed nine years of schooling generally have more work options. • Some implementers were surprised by this finding, while others were not. Upon further discussion, many implementers suggested that the cause for the decrease in school enrollment was that more youth were getting jobs and therefore did not want to return to school. • Professional Training Programs vs. Formal Schooling: the evaluation team additionally investigated how formal education compares with professional training programs in the context. Based on discussions with implementers, youth who complete at least 9 years of education have more work options. However, many at-risk youth are unable to reach this level due to lack of economic resources and pressure to work sooner. In that regard, implementers suggest that training programs may be more effective in terms of training youth to get a job immediately. They suggest there is a disconnect between employment skills and school curriculum, which is focused on academia. This helps to explain the fact that A Ganar youth had on average higher quality jobs, in spite of lower education outcomes. Qualitative Findings: Education About half of the participants interviewed did not pursue schooling, with common reasons including job loss, general financial restrictions, not being interested, and becoming pregnant. Interview respondents that continued their education after completing the A Ganar program can be divided into those that undertook formal studies, i.e. attending educational institutions such as the university; and informal studies, primarily in English language classes. Some youth expressed a desire to learn English to improve their possibilities of finding and/or maintaining jobs. The participants that continued their formal studies for a period of time and then dropped out reported that it was due to illness, pregnancy, job loss, and general financial reasons. Those that continued their formal studies included studying second year business administration, vocational secondary education, or law. With regards to their informal studies, in addition to English participants took courses in computers and cell phone repair, technology, graphic design and painting. Courses were taken through Universidad Tecnológica Centroamericana (UNITEC), Centro Universitario Tecnológico (CEUTEC), and USAID. 28 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Entrepreneurship Another possible positive co-benefit envisioned by the program relates to entrepreneurship, since, particularly in this context, formal employment options are limited. It should be noted that entrepreneurship training only accounted for only a brief portion of the A Ganar training. Rates of entrepreneurship were low for both A Ganar and control youth. While beneficiaries had some significant improvements at midline, by endline control youth caught up and there was no programmatic impact on entrepreneurial behavior. While 34 percent of the control group members and 35 percent of the treatment group had tried to establish a business and this figure represents an increase from baseline for both groups, only 14 percent of the control group and 17 percent of the treatment group owned a business at endline. As shown in Figure 13, while members of the A Ganar group were significantly more likely to attempt to establish a business than members of the control group at midline, we find no difference at endline. We also find no significant impacts on successfully owning a business, the total number of businesses owned, and income from these businesses. Furthermore, there were no significant correlations between any of the three outcomes and the range of control variables, likely related to the small number of successful businesses. As seen in the baseline, females were slightly more likely than males to attempt to establish and also earn approximately $94 (2,098 Lempiras) less. Analysis - Entrepreneurship The A Ganar program did not impact the likelihood that youth would attempt to start a business. A Ganar youth were also no more likely to successfully own a business. In entrepreneurial outcomes, there were significant difference between males and females, in that females were more likely to attempt to establish a business, but for those who owned businesses, they earned less income as compared to males. Although there was some qualitative evidence that a few youth had started their own businesses, Figure 12: Entrepreneurship Outcomes Control Treatment Baseline Midline Endline Successfully started a business Impact Estimate (Odds Ratio): 1.19 (p=0.28) Control Treatment 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Baseline Midline Endline Attempted to start a business 29 applying the skills they had learned in the program this was often complementary to job seeking efforts. 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 Through training and mentorship, A Ganar strives to increase professional and technical capabilities, thereby improving employability and job performance for participants. The evaluation measured this through a proxy, asking for self-reported confidence across eight professional capabilities. Compared with the control youth, A Ganar youth reported significant improvement in their CV-writing skills. None of the other seven skills had significant differences between the two groups. We find marginal decreases in confidence relative to the control group on interacting with superiors and starting a business, though these are not statistically significant (p=0.15 and p=0.22, respectively). Qualitative Findings: Entrepreneurship Five youth started a business using the skills they had learned from the program: • Natalia created a clown act with a friend. • Nicole created a microenterprise, although she doesn’t provide much additional information. It appeared that it might have been part of her studies in business administration. • Leonel created his own computer and cellphone repair business. This was his only job. • Cahlil sold perfume and clothes imported from his cousin in the U.S. He also worked in a government owned gym. • Winston provided private music lessons. This was his only job. In other cases, youth engaged in running small-scale business operations alone or with family members while job hunting. 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. In addition, six participants mentioned wanting to have their own business in the future, which included a car repair shop, restaurant, graphic design business, and a music school. 30 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Figure 13: Individual Professional Capabilities Outcomes There were no differences based on the IO or group. Females, on average, had significantly lower scores for hard and soft skills including computer skills, CV-writing, peer interaction, and interviewing. Examining a composite index summing all professional capability skills, females’ scores were lower overall. This finding is confirmed by the principal component analysis (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. Analysis – Professional Capabilities Because these skills are self-reported, they may be more indicative of confidence or self-perception than of actual skills. Based on the qualitative data, youth referred most often to knowledge learned regarding how to prepare job applications and how to successfully complete an interview. Computer skills CV Interviewing Job search Dressing professionally Peer interaction Superior interaction Business Startup A Ganar Control Note: Where the red line extends further outwards, such as CV, A Ganar participants reported higher scores. The opposite is true when the red line is closer to the center of the graph. 31 Self-Esteem The sports-based employability program is posited to lead to improvements in socio-emotional outcomes of participants, including in self-esteem. The SI team utilized two methods for testing respondent self-esteem: the 10-item Rosenberg Scale and an expanded 14-item scale that was 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. Qualitative Findings: Professional Capabilities Participants reported that they had applied what they learned from A Ganar to their work or that they could imagine doing so when they obtain jobs in the future. Overall, their perceptions suggest that what they learned has made them better employees or potential employees. In terms of the knowledge learned, participants frequently mentioned knowing how to prepare job applications and how to successfully complete an interview. This was true of participants that had found work and those that were still looking. This knowledge seemed to contribute to their sense of confidence in seeking employment and completing the interview process. In connection with the knowledge gained, some participants also applied specific skills to their work experiences, particularly in how to relate to other people (both clients and teamwork), how to resolve problems in the workplace, and how to ask for clarification or help. In a few cases, participants spoke explicitly about how the program had influenced their professional capabilities. Table 3: Interview excerpts illustrating altered professional capabilities due to A Ganar participation Madina Interviewer: Did the internship help build skills? Madina: Yes, because for example when I was at the Despensa Familiar, a supermarket, I had to help people and ask them what they needed. At Tigo I do the same thing, I relate to people by asking them what type of benefits they needed and that I was going to help them so yes, I related to people, I knew how to get along with those that asked me questions and it didn’t matter the person’s personality Kristofer Interviewer: What did you lessons did you learn from participation in the program? Kristofer: In the program they taught us to communicate with people, to have 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 and to do a good job; we introduced communication and teamwork. Nancy Nancy: We learned that working as a team requires a lot of patience. I learned that we should treat clients like I mean we should treat them as best we can, help them to find what they want, accompany them to the cash register, and to say thank you for the visit, thank you for your purchase, and that we hope you return. It is one of the expectations of us, to greet the clients, the five expectations that Diunsa (super market) has is to greet clients courteously, help the client find what he/she wants, and satisfy them. Interviewer: What did you lessons did you learn from participation in the program that was beneficial to your job? Nancy: Team spirit, skills, to learn every day from others it was a unique experience the respect that was maintained between the groups… respect, the respect that was shown in the program, that was shown in the group, now it is helping me to show respect in my home because it is important. And, more than anything, discipline, respect, and confidence are the basics that should always be present. 32 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Based on the principal component analysis regression, having a lower risk index at baseline was significantly associated with higher self-esteem scores, and having more equitable views on gender was associated with higher self-esteem. Lastly, more educated youth had higher self-esteem on average. Analysis – Self-esteem Based on the adjusted Rosenberg Scale customized for the A Ganar target population, on average self￾esteem decreased slightly for the entire study population, a finding that does not seem to match the qualitative evidence from endline which shows much higher levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy for program youth over time. This may reflect limitations of the quantitative approach, in terms of attempting to measure a complex construct (self-esteem) with a relatively simple quantitative tool. The Rosenberg index is a very simple 10-item index, whereas the DAP, described below, is far more robust, and although it does not focus on self-esteem, it measures related constructs, including outcomes related to motivation, stability, friends, family, and community. Accordingly, the DAP may be a more appropriate tool for measurement of intermediate outcomes related to life skill development and self￾efficacy, even if it does not directly measure self-esteem, than the Rosenberg Index. Gender Particularly through the sports component where youth of both sexes play sports and learn together, A Ganar is hypothesized to have important effects in gender attitudes, norms, and roles. Both the treatment and control groups experienced increases in the 25-item Gender Equitable Men (GEM) scale meaning youth had more equitable views over time, although we find a slightly, but significantly, larger increase in the A Ganar group, indicating that A Ganar helped to improve gender norms. Based on the principal component analysis (PCA), youth with more education, and higher socio-emotional skills (as measured by DAP) scores had significantly higher average GEM scores. Interestingly, when looking at the effect of the program for boys versus girls, we found that participating in the program had a significant positive effect on 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 improved females’ perspectives on gender equity overall. This is important as a higher GEM Scale score that shows greater support for inequitable gender norms has been associated with increased frequency of sexually transmitted infection symptoms and incidents of physical and sexual violence against a partner than respondents with lower GEM Scale scores (Pulerwitz and Barker, 2008). This is shown in Figure 15 below. Details on the regression are included in Annex I. Impact Estimate (Coefficient): 1.42 (p=0.37) Figure 14: Equitable Gender Norms based on the GEM Control Treatment 80 85 90 95 Baseline Midline Endline Scale 25-125 33 Figure 15: Gender Perspectives based on GEM Scores Analysis - Gender Based on scores from the 25-item Gender Equitable Men (GEM) scale, perspectives on gender equity increased for both the treatment and control groups over the time period, with a small but significant positive impact from A Ganar 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. Based on the qualitative data, several youths 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 Given that the program targets at-risk youth and a critical piece of the theory of change relates to improving their socio-emotional outcomes, a possible co-benefit at the intermediary level was theorized around reduction of risk behavior, although as noted above, A Ganar was not designed as a program to reduce risk behavior or violence. Qualitative Findings: Gender Roles and Perceptions Some participants described altered ideas about gender, particularly A Ganar participants emphasize that both men and women can play sports. For example, Alec states that what he liked the most about the A Ganar program was playing sports particularly because they played with women, something he had never done before. According to him, women do not know how to play and he was afraid to hurt them, “I had never played like as I said with women and we also played and we learned, well, I learned to work as a team. Also with women I 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 negatively nor that of the men because it is good and I learned something.” 80 85 90 95 Baseline Midline Endline Control - Male A Ganar - Male Control - Female A Ganar - Female Impact Estimate for Males (Coefficient): -2.91 (p=0.23) Impact Estimate for FeMales (Coefficient): 8.28 (p=0.01) 34 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras A Ganar youth reported having more friends who engaged in each of the risk behaviors, including a significant difference in number of peers who were incarcerated, indicating that their social networks were changing. This may reflect that the A Ganar program mixed youth of different risk profiles. Individual risk behavior, however, appears to have been slightly less for youth in the A Ganar group as compared to the control, indicating that the program helped to buffer individual risk behavior in light of changing social networks. 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 Figure 16 displays the estimated program effects on each risk indicator in percent change, for peer risk (figure a on the left) and self-reported risk (figure b on the right). In both figures, bars extending to the right indicate an increase in risk behavior for A Ganar participants relative to the control, and bars to the left indicate reductions in risk behavior relative to the control group. Statistically significant results are highlighted in color. The graphs show that although program effect is only significant for one risk behavior, reported risk behavior for peers is positive for each risk, whereas the individual self-reported risks are much more variable, generally smaller, and with no significant changes. Figure 16: Participation in risk behaviors 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”). For more information see Annex Q. -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Incarceration Drug Trafficking Gang Activity Fighting Crime Drug Consumption Unprotected Sex Excessive Drinking Percent Change Associated with A Ganar (b) Self-Reported Risk Behaviors -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Incarceration Drug Trafficking Gang Activity Fighting Crime Drug Consumption Unprotected Sex Excessive Drinking Percent Change Associated with A Ganar (a) Peer Risk Behavior 35 Analysis - Risk The clear pattern of increases in reported peer participation in risk behavior indicates that peer networks are changing as a result of the program. Alongside this, the much more variable, and much smaller, changes in individual reported risk behavior show that despite the changes in peer networks, individual risk behavior is not changing appreciably. Examining specific risky behaviors, the program was significantly associated with only one; participants in A Ganar were significantly more likely to report friends who are incarcerated. One possible reason for this is that at baseline, the proportion of A Ganar youth reporting this behavior 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 possible explanation is that there was a small increase in peer risk along all behaviors, as suggested by the positive but not significant impact estimates on all other behaviors, and that the magnitude of this change is close to the level of the minimum detectable effect of the evaluation. If this is the case, the impact of the program on the reported number of peers who had been incarcerated might be quite similar to the impact on other peer risk behaviors (small and positive) but may appear as the only significant impact due to random variations from sampling. There were no other statistically significant impacts on individual risk behavior between treatment and control groups. However, the significant increase in peer risk behavior while maintaining similar individual risk profiles on average for youth A Ganar participants indicates that the program provided resilience for the treatment group in risk behaviors including fighting, gang activity, and drug trafficking. This suggests that there may have been a decrease in violent behaviors and crime as a result of the program. Based on the qualitative analysis, the program provided an alternative safe space for youth in gang-controlled neighborhoods. 36 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Qualitative Findings: Risk In the baseline, midline, and endline interviews, many youth described the reality of living in insecure environments and the precautions they took to avoid engagement in risky behavior or criminal activity. During one rich case study interview, Kristofer explained that he did not like that within the previous five years the gangs had taken control and his neighborhood has become one of their primary territories such that it is dangerous to enter other neighborhoods (please rev ise this sentence – do you mean dangerous to cross into another gang controlled territory – if so make clearer): it can result in being attacked or even killed. He himself was not involved with the gangs, although he had “…to always walk defensively, not look for any problems at all, and always be calm” so that the gangs leave him alone. He also avoided those youth that he knew were gang connected. In his worst moments, he has contemplated going to the United States. His facilitator in Phase 2, Silvia, states that Kristofer missed a lot of early A Ganar sessions and that he had problems with discipline, such as arriving late, but that he did turn things around. “Kristofer 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” With regards to his greatest satisfaction in life, he felt that he has been able to maintain himself and not fall into illegal activities: “I have maintained myself, I am not like some other young people who when they don’t find work look to the gangs; they don’t have respect for themselves. And with this I feel very satisfied with myself.” Another example of this was Kyle. Kyle commented that he doesn’t like that his neighborhood is insecure; there are people from elsewhere that come and cause problems. There are also some youth that are involved in drugs and that spend time watching who comes and goes, he doesn’t know them personally though. Milton, one of the facilitators, recounts his first impression of Kyle: “I don’t know it’s that his appearance well it is, he is like someone who is involved with, perhaps not in bad things, but certainly in that type of environment. When I saw him well he really is 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 gangs, I thought.” He quickly became aware that Kyle 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.” Like Kyle, Alec was another youth that, before participating in the program spent a lot of time in the streets. After participating in A Ganar he feels like a different person: “well, it helped me to become a different person because like now, as I said, I almost don’t go out now I spend time well more at home and I think about other things that I want to do to help my family.” His mother, Amalia, reports a mental change in him as a result of his participation in the program: “Yes, yes my son before was very rebellious and now that he took those courses they helped him a lot and yes 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 in what moment my son got out of my hands. I am a Christian, my husband too, 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 that he was completing his internship she reported that he was calm, that, he was up early every morning to arrive to work on time and he returned home right after work. She also mentioned that he was more obedient and spends more time at home helping with chores, such as carrying water and hanging out the clothes to dry. 37 Life Skills A Ganar uses team sports to help youth develop life skills and prepare them for success in the workplace, based on the demands of the labor market. Improved life skills are both an outcome, as well as an explanatory variable for the primary outcomes. Socio-emotional skills significantly improved for A Ganar participant youth as measured in the 58-item Developmental Assets Profile (DAP). Prior to the program, youth in both groups fell in the vulnerable category. A Ganar effectively boosted participants’ scores from the vulnerable range to the adequate range, while control youths’ scores remained in the vulnerable range 14. 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 eight sub-measures as seen in Figure 18. 15 A Ganar youths’ average score fell in the “adequate” range, defined as having 15-20 assets, while the control group youths’ average score was in the “vulnerable” range, defined as having 21-25 assets. Using multiple regression, the treatment group experienced significant increases in seven sub￾measures: positive identity, social competencies, positive values, commitment to learning, boundaries and expectations, empowerment and support. A Ganar youth were significantly more likely to respond positively to 19 out of 58 of the questions, listed in Annex O. Figure 18: DAP Sub-Measures (Asset View) 14 The ‘vulnerable’ range as defined by DAP means youth lack sufficient development assets for resilience and avoidance of high￾risk behaviors. 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. Control Vulnerable/Adequate Cutoff Treatment 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Baseline Midline Endline Scale 0-60 Impact Estimate (Coefficient): 0.07 (p=0.05) Figure 17: Developmental Assets Profile 38 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Interestingly, 5 out of 19 of these questions deal with job satisfaction and personal aspirations. This is consistent with the findings that A Ganar youth noted higher levels of job satisfaction and motivation in general. In this analysis, a number of significant relationships emerged. Females in the sample had significantly lower scores for external assets compared with their male counterparts. Based on principle component analysis, female’s overall DAP scores were significantly lower as well. This may be a reflection of significantly low scores on various internal and external assets of the young female participants than their male counterparts leading to a lower scores on composite assets scores. Additionally, number of children, having a female household head, and having a lower risk index were significantly associated with higher DAP scores overall. Analysis – Life Skills Socio-emotional skills significantly improved for A Ganar participant youth as measured in the 58-item Developmental Assets Profile (DAP). A Ganar youth were, however, significantly more likely to respond positively to 19 out of 58 of the questions. Of these 19 questions, 5 had to do with job satisfaction, which is consistent with the employment findings. The higher rates of job satisfaction in both the DAP score and the employment findings appear to be unique benefits of the program. They may indicate that although A Ganar youth had similar employment rates at the conclusion of the program those working may be in more fulfilling or stable careers by having higher levels of job satisfaction and motivation. The results showed a significant gender gap in the reported levels of developmental assets. Despite the fact that overall scores were higher shows that young females, even when in a population that is improving life skills relative to the control, are at a disadvantage. The qualitative evidence also suggests very large changes in key life skills. A Ganar youth discussed improvements in communication, open-mindedness, values, self-esteem, determination and working in groups. The qualitative interviews also captured other skills not measured by DAP, specifically a common theme was youth who overcame shyness and learned how to better navigate social relations both in the work place and out. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal data using several databases of 6th –12th grade students in the United States show that an aggregate score of at least 40 out of 58 developmental assets are associated with lower levels of aggression and violence (Benson, 2009). Research has shown that DAP assets are powerful influencers on adolescent behavior and attitudes regardless of gender, ethnicity, economic situation or geographic location, including acceptable stability reliabilities in international samples. The data suggest that developmental assets appear to operate to reduce aggression and violence by providing young people with the relationships, opportunities, and skills needed for social integration (Scales, 2011). 39 Qualitative Findings: Life Skills Among the most consistent findings from interviews were the ways in which A Ganar shaped participants’ life skills. These complement the quantitative measure of DAP in important ways, expanding how the study has captured program impact. A Ganar participants frequently mentioned becoming less shy and more social, controlling aspects of their personality that were not beneficial in a workplace or social relationship, and strengthening their relationships with family and friends. For example, Susie had worked at a factory for a month in quality control. Her participation in A Ganar helped her to know how to work in a group and to communicate effectively. In fact, she didn’t feel shame in asking questions if she didn’t understand something, but instead had the confidence to do so. Susie: The program helped me learn how to work in a group, how to communicate with people, to not be so, that I am good as I am, how can I say it? It is difficult for me to talk to people. Interviewer: And it isn’t difficult now? Susie: No, now it isn’t. And it [A Ganar] taught me to have friends as well because I didn’t relate very well to people. Interviewer: Can you tell me if you have used or applied some of the lessons you learned from the A Ganar program in your daily life? Have you applied them? Can you give me examples of when you have applied them and with whom? Susie: Right now where I am working I have applied group work, expressing myself, and, well, yes, the program has helped me. Interviewer: And how do you express yourself, can you give me an example? Susie: Well for example before I was ashamed to ask someone something and now I don’t, now anything I can ask, I do ask. I don’t just stay quiet with my questions. Furthermore, she realized that working in quality control can be challenging in terms of potential conflicts that can rise. In her first such meeting, she was able to remain calm and patient, despite the aggressiveness of the others. Interviewer: You told me that you worked in quality control, right? And, I imagine that sometimes you have to meet with the operators? Susie: Yes Interviewer: What was that like the first time? Susie: Well the first time it was really bad because there are some operators who became very mean. Interviewer: What did you do? Susie: Well, I controlled myself. There was a supervisor and an operator that almost hit me because I found a big problem and I told them, and they wanted to grab all of the papers I had. And I had to be patient with them, and that is what I learned, to be patient and to not get agitated in response to everything they say to me. While many of the participants can link the knowledge and skills gained to their internship experience and technical training, a small number also recognized the role of A Ganar in learning social skills through the first phase of the program. One participant, Winston, explained: It impacted me because I had never thought about how, through sports, one can learn social abilities for life, for work, one can learn from a simple game. And I had never put this into practice. 40 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Migration In response to a highly-publicized uptick in unaccompanied minor migration from Central America into the US in 2013, the joint USAID-SI team added migration questions to the A Ganar study in 2014. A single question asking respondents whether they ever considered migrating out of Honduras was administered. If youth responded in the affirmative, they were further asked whether they attempted to migrate out of Honduras and, if yes, whether they attempted to migrate to the United States. 16 These changes were introduced in time for the Honduras endline (See Annex R). 16 A more robust set of questions was added to the Guatemala survey. Qualitative Findings: Life Skills (continued) Participants placed special emphasis on social relations and self-esteem: the application of understandings of teamwork and respect, particularly with regards to the family, and of not being so timid socially. Some reported using the knowledge gained, but more in terms of having learned how to cook (if they took the culinary course) and now applying what they learned at home. Some have shared these skills and their newfound perspectives with others in their lives, friends and siblings (see rich case studies below for more examples). For example, Alec, who has not worked nor has he applied to jobs, applied what he learned to support his friends: I have told my friends, I tell them that life goes on and one has to talk to other people and not just keep everything inside but instead talk to the people because keeping it inside isn’t good, we have to express ourselves. If we have something we want to say we have to talk to other people. 41 Table 4: Migration Counts Sample youth who… Control Treatment Total Are in the sample 877 974 1851 Answered endline survey 786 888 1674 Left the country 18 15 33 Excluding those who left country Responded to migration questions* 785 887 1672 Considered migrating (count) 449 500 949 Considered migrating (%) 57% 56% 57% Attempted to migrate (count) 85 125 210 Attempted to migrate (%) 19% 25% 22% Including those who left country Responded to migration questions OR left country 803 902 1705 Considered migrating (count) 467 515 982 Considered migrating (%) 57% 56% 57% Attempted to migrate (count) 103 140 243 Attempted to migrate (%) 21% 27% 24% Across the 1,851 sampled youth, 57 percent of youth considered migration at some point in their lives. As presented in Figure 19 below, the rates were nearly identical across treatment and control groups. However, among those youth who considered migrating, a significantly higher percentage of A Ganar youth reported attempting to migrate (27 percent vs. 21 percent of those who had considered migration for the treatment and control groups, respectively). Using multivariate regression, A Ganar participants were 35 percent more likely to attempt to migrate than control youth. This finding is statistically significant. Among youth in the study sample who attempted to migrate, 78 percent from both groups reported their intended destination as the US. Most youth who attempted migration, only tried once. Unlike other findings reported in this paper, migration results are constrained by some important data limitations, including: 1. Timing of data – Because migration questions were added to the survey instrument 2 years into the study, only endline data is available on migration. However, given that the A Ganar impact evaluation is a randomized control trial with balanced groups, it is unlikely that there were major differences between the groups at baseline. While this limitation is unlikely to debase findings, it cannot be ruled out with the existing data. 2. Date of Attempted Migration Unknown – Because migration was never the focus of the study and because the instrument was already quite extensive, only a limited number of questions on migration were added to the survey. These questions did not include a question about when the youth attempted to migrate. Given this, we do not know whether respondents that attempted to migrate did so before, during, or after the A Ganar program was implemented. 42 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Figure 19: Youth who Considered or Attempted Migration The evaluation team found several characteristics that were strongly associated with migration behavior. Table 5 summarizes these relationships. Of particular note for A Ganar, was the fact that having a better job was associated with less migration. Additionally, while internal strengths/assets (e.g. higher self￾esteem) were associated with more migration, stronger social networks (e.g. family/community) were associated with less migration. Lastly, youth with many friends in gangs were more likely to migrate, while those who were personally involved in gangs were less likely. 22% (n=467) 58% (n=803) 27% (n=515) 57% (n=902) Attempted (as a % of youth who considered) Considered (as a % of all youth) Control A Ganar 43 All findings displayed are based on multivariate regression analysis, including controls. All trends noted in the table are statistically significant at the 10 percent level. Table 5: Migration Patterns and Covariates Characteristics Association with Migration Description Factors associated with lower migration Sex (Female) Females were less likely to consider or attempt migration Jobs & Job Quality Youth who had jobs, were more satisfied with their work, or had higher salaries, were less likely to consider migrating. External Support Networks Having strong external support networks (such as friends, family, and community) was associated with less migration. Factors associated with higher migration Self-Esteem & internal Strength Confidence and motivation were associated with more migration. Youth who had higher self-esteem were more likely to consider migrating. They were, however, no more likely to attempt. Age Older youth were more likely to both consider and attempt migration. Friends & Family Abroad Youth with family members or friends who have attempted to migrate are more likely to consider migration themselves. Other Risk Behaviors Risk behaviors had mixed results, but generally youth who engaged in more risk such as incarceration and unprotected sex were more likely to attempt to migrate. Inconclusive relationship Gang Involvement Mixed Youth who reported being involved in gangs were less likely to attempt migration, whereas those who had a lot of friends involved in gangs were more likely to consider. Implementing Organization Mixed Migration results varied widely by implementer. They also correlated strongly with three implementers. Analysis - Migration While youth in A Ganar were equally likely to consider migration as control youth, they were significantly more likely to attempt to migrate out of Honduras. However, as noted above there are significant data constraints associated with the migration finding including that the survey did not ask when the youth attempted to migrate – before, during or after the program. It is also important to note the A Ganar impact evaluation in Guatemala asked similar questions on migration, and this pattern of increased migration did not occur for A Ganar program youth in Guatemala. In order to understand the migration finding in Honduras, the research team conducted a series of semi￾structured interviews with program implementers in Honduras to interpret and explain migration patterns. Through a synthesis of the two data sources, a number of hypotheses emerged about why participation in A Ganar may increase migration behavior. 1. Better Opportunities: Many implementers suggested that with new skills and abilities, A Ganar youth felt more confident. At the same time, opportunities in Honduras continue to be limited. If youth felt unfulfilled in their employment prospects, the training may have instilled confidence that they would get better opportunities for their skills abroad. This is consistent with implementers’ observations that one of the largest barriers to workforce entry in Honduras remains the lack of good opportunities. 2. Friends/Social Networks: A second causal possibility for this phenomenon is through a broadening peer network among A Ganar participants that either attempted to migrate together 44 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras or influenced/encouraged each other to migrate. While most migrants travel with family, it is not uncommon for youth to migrate with friends. There was at least one known case of a group of program participants under one implementer attempting to migrate to the US together after the program. Many A Ganar youth kept lasting friendships with their classmates, so it is possible that they continue to influence each other in this regard. 45 CONCLUSIONS Overall, the evaluation team found that at endline, A Ganar had a number of significant positive impacts on job quality and secondary outcomes. A key challenge to strengthening workforce development interventions for at-risk youth is connecting skills development with available employment opportunities in a constricted market. While training may improve participant employability, if there is no change in the economic context in which youth live, workforce development programs will struggle to increase employment rates. Similarly, given that this evaluation finds similar rates of employment increases for the treatment and control group, job growth seems to be driven by factors external to the program such as employment increasing as youth age. This is consistent with evidence from experimental impact evaluations of at-risk youth training programs in LAC, which indicate that youth training programs tend not to have significant impacts on employment rates (Alzúa et al. 2015; Calero et al., 2015; Acero et al., 2009; Attanasio et al., 2015; Ibarraran et al., 2015; Diaz and Rosas, 2016; Naranjo Silva, 2002). The positive impact of A Ganar and similar programs on the quality of employment is consistent and positive, which indicates that youth training programs are more successful in helping participants obtain better quality jobs rather than in improving their employment rates. The A Ganar program in Guatemala led to an earnings increase 1.5 years after the completion of the training. Long-term evaluations of other programs further indicate that this impact can be sustainable (Alzúa et al. 2015; Attanasio et al., 2015; Diaz and Rosas, 2016; Ibarraran et al., 2015). Neither program led to improvements in primary education outcomes, as enrollment and educational attainment decreased for A Ganar youth with no impact on attendance, or desire to return to school at endline. A Ganar had no significant impact on entrepreneurship in terms of business ownership, or business size, while participant youth who owned a business experienced negative impacts on revenue of enterprises. A Ganar also had a significant impact on several secondary outcomes. The program supported the improvement of gender norms, particularly for females, and the development of life skills such as social competencies, commitment to learning, positive identity, and values. There are also indications that the program supported youth in being resilient to risk behavior despite a context of increased peer risk. In addition, A Ganar had a significantly positive impact on some socio-emotional outcomes such as youth sense of positive identity, social competencies, commitment to learning, constructive use of time, and empowerment. Overall, participants that were part of the qualitative sample described high levels of satisfaction with the A Ganar program. They mentioned a number of ways in which the program benefitted their lives including learning to work as a team and other social skills that were applicable in the contexts of work and family life. While participants were pleased with the program and that it was a worthwhile use of their time, some expressed frustration that they did not find jobs as a result of their participation in A Ganar. Many described the challenges of the context, including a lack of employment opportunities and the lack of security, which made traveling on public busses and late at night untenable. While they may not currently have a job, they continued to express optimism that their A Ganar experience would continue to benefit them in some way in their lives. Experimental Design Results The findings from this evaluation demonstrate the importance of a counterfactual based approach in determining attribution. Had the evaluation relied on measuring outcomes solely for the A Ganar participants, as has been typical of evaluations of youth workforce development programs, the 46 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras evaluation may have erroneously attributed the large increases over time in employment rates to the A Ganar program. Although employment rates more than quadrupled for program participants, this was mirrored for the control group indicating the employment rate increase was not attributable to the program. The counterfactual design was critical in unpacking attribution and developing a more nuanced picture of program effects. Similarly, perspectives on gender equitable attitudes decreased for both program youth and control meaning the program did not contribute a significant overall impact on gender perspectives that can be attributed to the program. It is also important to note that we found somewhat contradictory evidence in the quantitative and qualitative data on some of the intermediate outcomes, perhaps pointing to limitations in measuring intermediate outcomes, like life skill development, through quantitative tools. Looking across the main tools used to measure intermediate outcomes related to life skills (Rosenberg Index for self-esteem, GEM for gender norms, and DAP for life skills), we find a consistent pattern when comparing the quantitative and qualitative data. Specifically, we find small changes over time (and the most positive changes in GEM and DAP for the A Ganar group), although the qualitative evidence demonstrates much more significant changes for respondents. This seems to suggest limitations in the quantitative measurements of these intermediate outcomes related to their ability to measure change. The relatively small levels of change in the quantitative measurements, for all three groups, may reflect issues in the tools’ abilities to differentiate among varying levels on the outcome (e.g. even individuals with differing levels of self-esteem may reply similarly if the questions do not get at factors that reflect the differences in respondents’ self-esteem). This explanation seems to fit the data best as we find relatively small levels of variation in responses, and they tend to cluster in the middle. Better tools would display higher levels of variation (across individuals, as we would still expect high degrees of correlation in responses for each individual over time). This is quite difficult to do in practice and reflects a significant challenge, if not limitation, in using quantitative data to measure life skills and related constructs. The small levels of change might also reflect that the quantitative tools may be measuring different aspects of the targeted constructs than are measured in the qualitative data. However, we find this line of reasoning less convincing as even in the DAP tool, which is quite extensive, we do not find noteworthy patterns in significant responses on groups of items. If the issue were around the tool being less focused on the specific areas of change in life skills, we would still expect to find patterns in responses on sub-items. We also do not think the issues are related to response bias (i.e. respondents answering what they think interviewers want to hear) because scores are generally relatively low, nor do we believe that the issue is related to ceiling or flooring effects (i.e. respondents all agreeing or disagreeing with select questions). At minimum, this highlights the importance of complementary quantitative and qualitative approaches, as well as of quantitative tools that are specifically tailored towards measuring the specific life skills hypothesized as being affected by the program. 47 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the evaluation, including results found from the midline study, Social Impact recommends the following actions: 1. USAID should frame workforce development as job quality programming in contexts with restricted economic growth: New employment may be an unrealistic goal for workforce development programming in countries or communities where there is little new job creation. Based on this evaluation as well as other recent evaluations on the topic, 17 improvements in job quality may be more realistic outcomes. 2. Workforce development program implementers should integrate targeted market assessments: Conducting market assessments at the national or even regional level may be insufficient in areas where many youths are limited to working in their local neighborhoods due to limited transportation. Additionally, sometimes the organizations conducting these assessments are susceptible to bias, for example local implementers and institutions that offer vocational trainings. To improve programming, market assessments should be (1) rigorous/high-quality, (2) sufficiently granular and (3) repeated periodically. To address these needs, SI recommends that USAID: a. Develop or sanction a set of assessment methodologies and standardize it for this type of programming. Given potential for conflict of interest, we further recommend a separation between the organization conducting the assessment and the organization performing youth workforce development training (unless there is explicit intent to develop/tailor programming in response to assessment outcomes). b. Particularly when working in countries with wide geographic variability in economic opportunities and/or limited economic mobility of targeted beneficiaries, SI recommends conducting market assessments at sub-national levels. c. Economies are in a constant process of change, and market assessments can become outdated quickly. SI recommends USAID pre-identify and budget for multiple assessments for multi-year programming. The frequency will be necessarily dependent on context. 3. Workforce development program implementers should incorporate robust post-program follow-up actions: Based on feedback from implementers, the team recommends that donors include detailed instruction about the follow-up activities to youth workforce development programs. Implementers largely agreed that the follow-up was the weakest phase of the program, and in some cases, implementers found that they did not have sufficient funding to pursue more robust follow-up. Since many youths seek jobs after completing the A Ganar program, this is a critical time. Based on this, SI recommends that USAID include specific requirements about the activities to take place during program follow-up phase and take monitoring measures to ensure their application. 4. Workforce development program implementers should incorporate consistent, systematic program monitoring: Good monitoring tools are crucial to gathering good data and gaining better understanding of program pathways. For programs to be evaluated, SI recommends that 17 Ibarran et al. (2016). “Experimental evidence on the long-term impacts of a youth training program.” 48 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras USAID solicit and apply the recommendations of the evaluator to improve monitoring tools and tracking. Leveraging the evaluation team’s expertise would also improve data quality assurance and adherence to protocols. In the absence of an evaluation team, SI recommends that USAID maintain strict requirements on monitoring and conduct periodic audits to ensure that implementers are adequately adhering to protocols. 5. When attribution is important, USAID should consider counterfactual-based evaluation designs: This evaluation identified significant changes over time in participant outcomes, both positive (employment rates) and negative (gender norms), that, on the basis of similar trends in the control group were concluded to have been independent of A Ganar. A more traditional before-after evaluation may have measure these changes and wrongly attributed them to A Ganar. 6. USAID should conduct additional research on: a. Migration of youth beneficiaries: A key assumption in Central American USAID job training programs is that youth beneficiaries are provided skills they need for greater employment and economic opportunities as a deterrent to migration. As noted, a lack of better opportunities combined with shifting social networks may cause unintended drivers for migration. Further research is needed to understand programming and links to migration. b. Mixing of risk profiles in at-risk youth programming and consider wrap around support services for more risky youth: While the program had no detectable impact on individual’s risk behaviors, program youth were more likely than control youth to have friends engaging in risks. Implementers suggest that while most youth live in high-risk communities, they enter the program with varying degrees of experience with said risks. Introducing youth who are involved in gangs to those who are not could potentially have negative consequences (though as mentioned there is no evidence of increase in individual risk behaviors). A literature review of youth workforce development programs in the LAC region revealed that a program in Brazil resulted in increase in risks such as smoking and being the witness or victim of a crime. 18 In more recent workforce development programming in the region, USAID has already begun segmenting youth based on risk profile, but there may be benefits to mixing youth with varying risk profiles, particularly if the program can help buffer against increased individual risk behavior, as it seems A Ganar may do. Accordingly, perhaps mixing youth is appropriate, particularly if more extended services are offered to youth with riskier backgrounds, but more research is required. a. The best ways of quantitatively measuring life skills given the sometimes contradictory quantitative and qualitative evidence here, particularly on life skills. This may include more specific targeting at the design and theory of change development stage on the specific life skills expected to be developed or investing in the development of tools that can better address response bias and differentiate varying levels of life skill. 7. Youth workforce development program implementers should provide reproductive health training: Based on midline findings, A Ganar youth were more likely to engage in unprotected sex than control youth. While this trend was no longer significant, we did still find evidence of 18 Calero et al. (2014). “Can Arts-Based Interventions Enhance Labor-Based Outcomes?” 49 increases in this behavior at endline for both A Ganar and the non-sports groups. Considering that the program encourages social interaction between many youths who may have varying degrees of sexual education, SI recommends that youth programs include reproductive health training for everyone and possibly additional counseling for those who seek it. This recommendation is informed by both quantitative evaluation findings and implementers’ suggestions. Although the evaluation team cannot speak to the efficacy of such a training, the program appears to have led to an unintended consequence that should be addressed. 50 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Bibliography Acero, C. et al. 2009. “Evaluación de Impacto del Programa Jóvenes al Bicentenario para la cohorte de participantes en el año 2008.” PNUD, Chile. Alzúa, M.L., G. Cruces and C.L. Erazo. 2015. “Youth training program beyond employment. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial.” CEDLAS Working Paper Series, No. 177, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata. Attanasio, O., A. Kugler and C. Meghir. 2015. “Long term impacts of vouchers for vocational training: Experimental evidence for Colombia.” Borradores de Economiá, No. 896, Economic Studies Department, Central Bank of Colombia, Bogota Attanasio, O., A. Kugler and C. Meghir. 2011. “Subsidizing vocational training for disadvantaged youth in Colombia: Evidence from a randomized trial.” American Economic Journal, Applied Economics 3, pp. 188-220 Attanasio, O., A. Kugler and C. Meghir. 2008. “Training disadvantaged youth in Latin America: Evidence from a randomized trial.” NBER Working Paper, No. 13931, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, US. Bayer, P., R. Pintoff, D. Pozen. 2004. “Building criminal capital behind bars: Peer effects in juvenile corrections.” Paper N◦. 864. New Haven: Yale University, Economic Growth Center Discussion Benson, P. L., & Scales, P. C. (2009). Positive youth development and the prevention of youth aggression and violence. International Journal of Developmental Science, 3(3), 218-234. Calero, C., V. Gonzalez, Y. Soares. 2015. “Can arts-based interventions enhance labor market earnings among youth? Evidence from a randomized trial in Rio de Janeiro.” Working paper. Cunningham, W., P. Acosta, N. Muller. 2016. “Minds and Behaviors at Work: Boosting Socioemotional Skills for Latin America’s Workforce.” Directions in Development. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648- 0884-5. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO Díaz, J.J. and D. Rosas. 2016. “Impact evaluation of the Job Youth Training Programme Projoven.” Working Paper Series, No. IDB-WP-693, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. Fiszbein, A., C. Cosentino, and B. Cumsille. 2016. “The Skills Development Challenge in Latin America: Diagnosing the Problems and Identifying Public Policy Solutions.” Washington, DC: Inter-American Dialogue and Mathematica Policy Research. Guatemala National Civilian Police. 2017. “Tasa de Homicidios.” Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas de Guatemala. www.ine.gob.gt Hennigan, K. M., Maxson, C. L., Sloane, D. C., Kolnick, K. A., & Vindel, F. 2014. Identifying high-risk youth for secondary gang prevention. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(1), 104-128. Ibarrarán, P. et al. (2015), “Experimental evidence on the long-term impacts of a youth training programme.” Working Paper Series, No. IDB-WP-657, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC. Ibarrarán, P., L. Ripani, B. Taboada, J.M. Villa, B. García. 2012. “Life skills, employability and training for disadvantaged youth: evidence from a randomized evaluation design.” Technical report, Inter-American Development Bank. 51 Instituto Nacional de Estadística. 2016. “Encuesta Nacional de Empleo e Ingresos: Módulo de Juventud.” Series No. ENEI 3-2016. Programa de Empleo Juvenil de la Unión Europea y el Ministerio de Economía. https://www.ine.gob.gt/sistema/uploads/2017/03/29/NvGE8QaDqrUN7CbitcK2fqc8Rt5wIvMj.pdf Jackson, R. H., R. Malené Dixon, Ann McCoy, Carol Pistorino, Paul Zador, Cynthia Thomas, John Lopdell, Juanita Lucas-McLean, Frank Bennici, Andy Sum, Neeta Fogg, Ron D’Amico, Andrew Weigand, & Lee Bruno. 2007. “Youth Opportunity Grant initiative: Impact and synthesis report.” US Department of Labor, Decision Information Resources. Kluve, J, S. Puerto, D. Robalino, J.M. Romero, F. Rother, J. Stöterau, F. Weidenkaff, M. Witte. (2016). “Interventions to improve the labour market outcomes of youth: a systematic review of training, entrepreneurship promotion, employment services, and subsidized employment interventions.” OECD/ECLAC/CAF (2016), Latin American Economic Outlook 2017: Youth, Skills and Entrepreneurship, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/leo-2017-en Ogier, T. 2009. “Skills to Compete: Post Secondary Education and Business Sustainability in Latin America.” Economist Intelligence Unit, London. Naranjo Silva, A. 2002. “Capacitación y formación profesional para Jóvenes en Uruguay: Los programmeas Opción Joven y ProJoven a través de sus experiencias de evaluación [Vocational Training for Youth in Uruguay: Assessment Experience from the Opción Joven and ProJoven Programmes].” International Labour Organization, Geneva. Novella, R, L. Ripani. 2014. “Are you (not) expecting?: The unforeseen benefits of job training on teenage pregnancy.” Technical report, Mimeo. Levtov, R. G., Barker, G., Contreras-Urbina, M., Heilman, B., & Verma, R. 2014. Pathways to gender-equitable men: Findings from the international men and gender equality survey in eight countries. Men and Masculinities, 17(5), 467-501. Pulerwitz, J., Hughes, L., Mehta, M., Kidanu, A., Verani, F., & Tewolde, S. 2015. Changing gender norms and reducing intimate partner violence: results from a quasi-experimental intervention study with young men in Ethiopia. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 132-137. Pulerwitz, J., & Barker, G. 2008. Measuring attitudes toward gender norms among young men in Brazil: Development and psychometric evaluation of the GEM Scale. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 322-338. Rhule, D. M. 2005. “Take Care to Do No Harm: Harmful Interventions for Youth Problem Behavior.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 36(6): 618-25 Rodriguez-Planas, N. 2014. “Do youth mentoring programs change the perspectives and improve the life opportunities of at-risk youth?” IZA World of Labor, 2014: 62 doi: 10.15185/izawol.62 Wigglesworth, A., Niner, S., Arunachalam, D., dos Santos, A. B., & Tilman, M. 2015. Attitudes and perceptions of young men towards gender equality and violence in Timor-Leste. Journal of International Women's Studies, 16(2), 312. Scales, P. C. (2011). Youth developmental assets in global perspective: Results from international adaptations of the Developmental Assets Profile. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 619-645. Wigglesworth, A., Niner, S., Arunachalam, D., dos Santos, A. B., & Tilman, M. 2015. Attitudes and perceptions of young men towards gender equality and violence in Timor-Leste. Journal of International Women's Studies, 16(2), 312. 52 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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 find only one significant difference between the groups 19, yielding evidence that our control group represents a valid estimate of the counterfactual. Table 6: 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 Sports 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 0.52 Number of Businesses 0.65 0.7 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 81.5 0.154 Risk Score 8.23 8.06 0.454 Internal Asset Score 20.18 20.59 0.21 External Asset Score 20.4 20.78 0.287 Total Asset Score 40.58 41.38 0.221 Nominal ** Sex (Female) 58.9 60 0.773 Worked Before (Yes) 57.58 62.66 0.232 Working Now (Yes) 11.3 13.12 0.55 Looking for Work (Yes) 44.67 40.93 0.348 Business Before (Yes) 6.3 11.94 0.01 * Two independent samples t-test (2 tailed) ** Chi-square test (for variables with expected cell frequencies < 5, Fisher's exact test was used) 19 We expect that when adding the second full cohort, this will disappear, but it can also be controlled for using baseline data. 53 54 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX B: ANALYSIS OF ATTRITION Table 7: Attrition Cohort 1 Cohort 2 TOTAL Interview Status n % n % n % Complete (In-Person) 510 76% 965 82% 1475 80% Complete (Telephone) 98 15% 101 9% 199 11% Incomplete 67 10% 108 9% 177 10% No Contact 37 5% 57 5% 94 5% Refused Survey 9 1% 23 2% 32 2% Left Country 14 2% 19 2% 33 2% Imprisoned 0 0% 5 0% 5 0% Deceased 7 1% 6 1% 13 1% TOTAL 675 100% 1176 100% 1851 100% Table 8: Attrition Analysis Variable P value Differential Attrition (maximum variation) Condition Attrition (proportion and number) Assignment Status 0.114 1.5% Treatment 8.8% (86) Control 10.4% (91) Sex 0.406 2.5% Male 11.0% (86) Female 8.5% (91) City 0.9% Tegucigalpa 9.1% (71) San Pedro Sula 8.2% (21) Implementing Organization 0.05 2.1% Libre Expresion 11.0% (37) CENET 6.9% (25) CADERH 9.0% (18) FUNADEH 14.9% (43) Motivation 0.17 4.7% High 5.3% (10) Mid 9.9% (46) Low 10.1% (116) Age 0.09 17.3% 17 25.0% (4) 18 11.7% (7) 19 13.8% (36) 20 8.6% (32) 22 11.1% (36) 23 7.7% (19) Education 0.62 11.2% 9 11.2% (20) 55 (highest grade completed) 12 6.0% (9) 14 6.8% (8) 15 7.1% (6) 18 0.0% (0) Income 0.67 NA NA NA 56 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX C: OUTCOME AND IMPACT TABLES20 Table 9: Employment Outcomes and Impacts Baseline Midline Endline Control Treat Control Treat Control Treat Employment 10% 10% 26% 28% 42% 44% Has job 10% 10% 26% 28% 42% 44% Worked last week 21% 22% 35% 36% 46% 48% Number of jobs 0.65 0.73 0.72 0.79 0.81 0.83 Looking for work 47% 45% 44% 45% 39% 40% Job Quality Satisfaction 1.41 1.22 1.52 1.72 1.48 1.61 Benefits 23.8% 25.1% 27.2% 37.5% 38.5% 43.8% Contract 21.0% 22.3% 29.4% 36.7% 44.8% 44.0% Hours 37.6 33.1 45.9 45.3 45.4 45.5 Avg. Hourly Rate 39.0% 47.9% 40.1% 42.1% 48.2% 46.7% Monthly Pay at Current Job 4608 4238 5827 6641 6844 7572 Impact Estimate Coefficient Odds Ratio p￾value n Employment Has job 1.03 0.51 1851 Worked last week 1.06 0.62 1851 Number of jobs 0.01 0.85 1851 Looking for work 1.08 0.67 1851 Job Quality Satisfaction 1.21 0.17 719 Benefits 1.21 0.14 1398 Contract 0.90 0.49 1398 Hours 0.17 0.89 719 Avg. Hourly Rate -3.37 0.52 719 Monthly Pay at Current Job 665.80 0.16 719 20 Note: 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 1.14 such as that for peers’ sex behavior indicates that there was a 14% increase in unprotected sex associated with the program. 57 Table 10: Education Outcomes and Impacts Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate Control Treat Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient Odds Ratio p￾value n Enrolled 35% 33% 66% 67% 32% 28% 0.79 0.07 1851 Attending 30% 29% 33% 37% 23% 21% 0.87 0.31 1851 Highest grade completed 12.61 12.6 13.11 13.14 16.32 16.03 -0.15 0.11 1851 Highest level desired 3.93 3.94 3.97 3.97 4.01 4.01 0.96 0.72 1851 Desire to return to school 93% 93% 90% 90% 94% 92% 0.65 0.10 1143 Table 11: Entrepreneurship Outcomes and Impacts Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate Control Treat Control Treat Control Treat Coef. O.R. p-val n Tried to Establish 9.0% 12.0% 11.9% 14.2% 14.1% 16.9% 0.98 0.86 1851 Owned Business 27.3% 29.3% 29.6% 32.8% 34.3% 34.7% 1.18 0.28 1851 Number of Businesses 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.64 1851 Has Active Business 0.49 0.55 0.51 0.47 0.61 0.66 0.03 0.69 261 Business Income 2074 2736 3456 4083 3666 3527 - 1235.31 0.02 261 Months Trying to Establish Business 13.23 14.85 19.36 12.45 19.17 18.33 -1.27 0.66 261 58 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Table 12: Professional Capabilities Outcomes and Impacts Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate Control Treat Control Treat Control Treat Coefficient p-value n Capabilities 25.51 25.35 25.87 26.11 26.23 26.22 -0.04 0.80 1851 Computer 65% 63% 72% 73% 71% 71% -0.06 0.53 1851 CV 63% 58% 72% 75% 73% 77% 0.17 0.10 1851 Interview 84% 84% 87% 89% 90% 90% -0.05 0.60 1851 Job Search 83% 85% 86% 88% 89% 90% 0.00 0.99 1851 Dress 93% 93% 95% 95% 96% 96% 0.04 0.74 1851 Interact Peers 88% 89% 90% 91% 92% 92% -0.08 0.47 1851 Interact Superiors 82% 83% 84% 88% 87% 86% -0.14 0.15 1851 Start Business 64% 66% 63% 63% 63% 61% -0.12 0.22 1851 Table 13: Randomized Response - Risk Outcomes and Impacts Treat Control Impact Estimate Baseline Midline Endline Baseline Midline Endline Odds Ratio p-value n Fighting 12% 9% 6% 15% 11% 6% 1.01 0.93 1851 Gang 5% 0% 0% 4% 2% 2% 0.84 0.19 1851 Drugs 7% 3% 2% 6% 2% 4% 0.89 0.37 1851 Sex 11% 16% 11% 11% 10% 8% 1.10 0.46 1851 Crime 1% 0% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0.96 0.80 1851 Jail 0% 2% 2% 4% 4% 0% 1.17 0.30 1851 Traffic 4% 3% 0% 5% 1% 2% 0.84 0.23 1851 Alcohol 15% 19% 11% 14% 14% 9% 1.08 0.60 1851 Table 14: Peer Outcomes and Impacts Treat Control Impact Estimate Baseline Midline Endline Baseline Midline Endline Odds Ratio p-value n Fighting 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.30 1.24 1.22 1.16 -0.29 1851 Gang 1.30 1.23 1.18 1.30 1.26 1.17 1.22 -0.25 1851 Drugs 1.47 1.48 1.43 1.52 1.46 1.41 1.12 -0.31 1851 Sex 1.71 1.79 1.79 1.70 1.71 1.71 1.13 -0.20 1851 Crime 1.05 1.03 1.05 1.10 1.07 1.05 1.28 -0.35 1851 Jail 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.21 1.16 1.11 1.61** -0.01 1851 59 Traffic 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.14 1.10 1.08 1.24 -0.30 1851 Alcohol 2.07 2.24 2.19 2.05 2.20 2.13 1.07 -0.46 1851 Table 15: DAP Outcomes and Impacts Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Coefficient p￾value n DAP 41.15 41.69 40.65 41.36 40.84 42.06 0.99 0.00 1851 Internal 20.67 20.91 20.48 20.71 20.49 21.04 0.46 0.01 1851 External 21.07 21.33 20.76 21.15 21.02 21.64 0.53 0.00 1851 Table 16: Self-Esteem Outcomes and Impacts Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Coefficient p￾value n Self-Esteem Index 27.33 27.22 26.59 26.61 26.23 26.20 0.05 0.75 1851 Self-Esteem (PCA) 0.21 0.14 0.04 -0.07 -0.04 -0.18 -0.11 0.09 1851 Table 17: Gender Equitability Outcomes and Impacts Baseline Midline Endline Impact Estimate Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Coefficient p-value n GEM Index 90.48 90.53 84.79 86.36 92.76 93.69 0.42 0.21 1851 GEM (PCA) -0.29 -0.31 -0.03 0.12 0.24 0.41 0.14 0.08 1851 60 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX D: EDUCATION REGRESSION TABLES Primary Education Outcomes Enrollment P Values Attendanc e P Values Highest Grade Achieved P Values Highest Grade Desired P Values A Ganar 0.79 -0.07 0.87 -0.3 -0.15 -0.11 0.96 -0.72 Sex 1.14 -0.34 1 -1 0.22* -0.05 1.21 -0.13 Motivation 1.13 -0.28 1.09 -0.42 -0.1 -0.21 1.06 -0.52 CADERH G Business 0.6 -0.16 0.56 -0.14 0.4 -0.19 2.60** -0.01 CENET Comayagua 0.92 -0.85 1.07 -0.87 0.5 -0.16 1.36 -0.44 CENET Germania 1.09 -0.84 2.1 -0.11 0.45 -0.19 1.29 -0.51 CENET Los Pinos 0.61 -0.15 0.89 -0.76 -0.09 -0.72 1.55 -0.17 CENET Travesia 1.23 -0.66 0.91 -0.84 0.14 -0.71 2.21 -0.05 CENET Villanueva 0.96 -0.9 0.97 -0.95 0.36 -0.25 1.14 -0.68 CESAL Providencia 0.94 -0.88 1.02 -0.97 0.14 -0.67 1.36 -0.45 CESAL San Miguel 0.39 -0.07 0.62 -0.37 -0.19 -0.58 0.76 -0.53 CI Humanos 0.9 -0.73 0.89 -0.77 -0.02 -0.94 0.81 -0.47 CI Vida Nueva 0.08** 0 0.16* -0.02 -0.84** -0.01 0.47* -0.04 FUNADEH Alcance 0.51 -0.2 0.63 -0.34 -0.64 -0.05 1.7 -0.21 FUNADEH Choloma 0.46 -0.16 0.43 -0.12 0.28 -0.49 2.12 -0.07 FUNADEH Didactica 0.68 -0.29 0.64 -0.28 0.14 -0.62 1.51 -0.2 FUNADEH Lima 0.97 -0.96 0.84 -0.77 -0.2 -0.65 0.41 -0.07 LE 2.05* -0.01 2.46** -0.01 1.03*** 0 3.68*** 0 OEI Ceiba 0.88 -0.73 0.94 -0.86 -0.14 -0.61 1.33 -0.41 OEI Santa Rita 1.2 -0.64 1.65 -0.28 0.1 -0.72 0.69 -0.28 OEI Tela 0.62 -0.2 0.42* -0.05 -0.12 -0.67 1.89 -0.05 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 2.41*** 0 2.49*** 0 0.85*** 0 2.59*** 0 Cohort 3 0.93 -0.66 1.79** 0 4.58*** 0 1.43 -0.05 Group 2 1.03 -0.87 0.94 -0.8 -0.01 -0.95 1.14 -0.45 Group 3 0.98 -0.93 1.08 -0.81 0.16 -0.47 1.03 -0.92 Group 4 0.83 -0.65 0.44* -0.05 0.09 -0.77 1.19 -0.68 Age 0.80*** 0 0.84*** 0 -0.06* -0.01 0.98 -0.45 Single 1.3 -0.29 1.66 -0.14 0.38* -0.02 1.26 -0.22 Number of Children 0.74 -0.09 0.7 -0.13 -0.12 -0.37 0.86 -0.25 Household Size 1.03 -0.31 1.02 -0.47 -0.01 -0.69 1 -0.86 Sex (Household Head) 1.16 -0.26 1.16 -0.3 0.06 -0.59 0.95 -0.63 Age (Household Head) 1 -0.89 1 -0.89 0 -0.62 1.01 -0.24 Education (Household Head) 1.06* -0.04 1.05 -0.18 0.04 -0.11 1.09** 0 Employment (Household Head) 0.98 -0.91 1.09 -0.71 -0.1 -0.58 1.18 -0.39 Remittances 0.8 -0.25 0.81 -0.27 -0.19 -0.17 1.09 -0.57 61 PCA Asset 0.94 -0.18 0.92 -0.08 -0.10** 0 0.94 -0.1 Education (Baseline) 1.01 -0.7 1.07 -0.06 Enrollment Public School System 0.93 -0.64 1.06 -0.72 -0.07 -0.54 1.02 -0.9 Number of Courses 1.22*** 0 1.21** 0 0.08 -0.1 1.16* -0.01 Number of Jobs 0.98 -0.82 1.05 -0.59 -0.14 -0.06 0.84* -0.01 Number of Businesses Owned 1.43 -0.11 1.25 -0.32 0.02 -0.88 0.78 -0.18 Monthly Income 1 -0.76 1 -0.62 0 -0.93 1.00* -0.04 GEM (Baseline) 1.02** 0 1.02** 0 0.02*** 0 1.04*** 0 DAP Score 1.02* -0.03 1.02* -0.04 0 -0.41 1.01 -0.23 Risk Index (Baseline) 0.99 -0.74 0.98 -0.31 -0.01 -0.65 0.98 -0.19 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.96 -0.5 1.01 -0.92 0.05 -0.31 1.01 -0.87 Constant 0.5 -0.51 0.03** 0 0.86 -0.26 69.92*** 0 Constant 174.40*** 0 Constant 1064.45*** 0 Constant 66792.43** * 0 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 Secondary Education Outcomes Number of Courses P Values Taken Paid Course P Values Time Spent in Courses P Values Desire to Return to School P Values A Ganar 0.88 0.00 0.40*** 0 2.94*** 0 0.65 -0.1 Sex 0.17 0.02 1.38 -0.1 0.18 -0.79 1.02 -0.95 Motivation -0.02 0.67 0.89 -0.38 -0.2 -0.68 0.98 -0.94 CADERH G Business -0.02 0.90 0.49 -0.21 0 (.) 1.97 -0.43 CENET Comayagua 0.18 0.45 0.3 -0.09 -8.63*** 0 0.76 -0.71 CENET Germania 0.12 0.60 0.51 -0.31 -10.76*** 0 0.61 -0.51 CENET Los Pinos 0.32 0.07 0.35* -0.04 -13.26*** 0 0.93 -0.91 CENET Travesia 0.00 0.99 0.81 -0.72 -9.78*** 0 1.22 -0.82 CENET Villanueva 0.25 0.16 0.38 -0.06 -14.18*** 0 0.83 -0.76 CESAL Providencia 0.29 0.21 0.92 -0.89 -10.80*** 0 1 (.) CESAL San Miguel 0.53 0.03 0.35 -0.18 -9.70*** 0 2.76 -0.37 CI Humanos -0.15 0.39 0.48 -0.13 -11.56*** 0 0.96 -0.93 CI Vida Nueva -0.19 0.37 0.66 -0.49 -8.36*** 0 0.98 -0.98 FUNADEH Alcance -0.28 0.21 0.68 -0.52 -9.12*** 0 1.14 -0.86 FUNADEH Choloma 0.26 0.29 0.13* -0.02 -10.21*** 0 2.28 -0.47 FUNADEH Didactica -0.29 0.10 0.6 -0.31 -9.63*** 0 2.07 -0.28 62 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras FUNADEH Lima 0.13 0.63 0.48 -0.33 -7.66*** 0 0.5 -0.37 LE 0.14 0.39 0.41 -0.05 -11.30*** 0 2.02 -0.28 OEI Ceiba 0.33 0.08 0.56 -0.27 -7.82*** 0 2.08 -0.32 OEI Santa Rita -0.08 0.70 1.52 -0.43 -11.77*** 0 1.4 -0.59 OEI Tela -0.07 0.70 0.54 -0.24 -3.67 -0.08 0.68 -0.53 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.36 0.00 7.14*** 0 -11.28*** 0 Cohort 3 -0.03 0.73 0.57* -0.03 0.66 -0.47 Group 2 -0.04 0.70 0.87 -0.62 0.21 -0.84 Group 3 0.38 0.01 0.96 -0.92 2.07 -0.15 Group 4 0.00 0.99 1.77 -0.29 2.42 -0.23 Age 0.02 0.25 0.96 -0.31 0.06 -0.72 0.99 -0.83 Single -0.10 0.37 0.76 -0.41 -1.06 -0.35 0.84 -0.67 Number of Children -0.21 0.00 1.04 -0.84 -1.35 -0.07 0.89 -0.63 Household Size 0.02 0.13 0.95 -0.23 -0.24 -0.08 1.06 -0.33 Sex (Household Head) 0.08 0.20 1.2 -0.31 1.1 -0.08 Age (Household Head) 0.00 0.46 1 -0.89 0.01 -0.74 0.99 -0.43 Education (Household Head) 0.01 0.59 0.97 -0.53 0 -0.98 1.05 -0.53 Employment (Household Head) -0.08 0.46 0.93 -0.8 -0.52 -0.63 Remittances -0.28 0.00 0.94 -0.78 0.87 -0.32 0.78 -0.42 PCA Asset 0.02 0.46 0.80*** 0 -0.17 -0.44 1.18 -0.06 Education (Baseline) 0.06 0.00 1.13** -0.01 0.01 -0.93 1.20** 0 Enrollment -0.01 0.88 1.03 -0.88 -0.6 -0.4 Public School System -0.06 0.44 1.13 -0.57 -0.31 -0.68 0.88 -0.7 Number of Courses 0.00 0.83* -0.03 2.05*** 0 1.08 -0.61 Number of Jobs 0.09 0.03 1.03 -0.78 0.87* -0.04 1 -0.98 Number of Businesses Owned -0.11 0.29 0 Monthly Income 0.00 0.09 1 -0.43 0 -0.3 1 -0.92 GEM (Baseline) 0.01 0.02 0.99 -0.62 -0.03 -0.48 1.01 -0.56 DAP Score 0.01 0.19 1 -0.79 0.04 -0.37 1.04** -0.01 Risk Index (Baseline) 0.00 0.70 0.96 -0.17 -0.06 -0.56 1.02 -0.63 Neighborhood Safety Proxy -0.01 0.64 0.97 -0.74 -0.57 -0.07 1.08 -0.53 Constant -1.22 0.02 1.89 -0.67 17.65*** 0 0.18 -0.41 N 1851 1095 1095 1143 63 ANNEX E: EMPLOYMENT REGRESSION TABLES Primary Employment Outcomes Worked in Last Week P Values Looking for Work P Values Working Now P Values Job Satisfaction P Values A Ganar 1.06 -0.62 1.08 -0.67 1.08 -0.51 1.21 -0.17 Sex 0.39*** 0 0.53*** 0 0.48*** 0 0.91 -0.54 Motivation 0.89 -0.23 1.05 -0.58 0.91 -0.23 1.14 -0.22 CADERH G Business 1.26 -0.47 0.76 -0.54 0.9 -0.76 0.38* -0.05 CENET Comayagua 1.32 -0.47 1.36 -0.69 1.5 -0.29 0.99 -0.98 CENET Germania 1.22 -0.59 0.46 -0.18 1.01 -0.99 0.86 -0.77 CENET Los Pinos 0.92 -0.76 0.42* -0.04 0.88 -0.67 0.79 -0.59 CENET Travesia 1.56 -0.28 0.68 -0.36 1.79 -0.18 1 -0.99 CENET Villanueva 1.06 -0.84 0.69 -0.5 1.29 -0.42 0.5 -0.1 CESAL Providencia 0.62 -0.22 1.92 -0.24 0.66 -0.32 0.48 -0.18 CESAL San Miguel 0.58 -0.2 0.61 -0.41 0.55 -0.18 1.31 -0.67 CI Humanos 1.4 -0.25 0.75 -0.29 1.38 -0.27 0.85 -0.69 CI Vida Nueva 1.37 -0.39 0.65 -0.43 1.22 -0.58 0.79 -0.63 FUNADEH Alcance 1.29 -0.52 0.78 -0.64 1.24 -0.56 0.84 -0.73 FUNADEH Choloma 1.34 -0.48 1.39 -0.57 1.67 -0.21 0.57 -0.3 FUNADEH Didactica 3.19*** 0 0.8 -0.52 2.68*** 0 0.65 -0.28 FUNADEH Lima 2.5 -0.07 0.24 -0.05 3.35* -0.02 1.17 -0.77 LE 1.26 -0.38 0.58 -0.13 1.22 -0.48 0.86 -0.72 OEI Ceiba 1.21 -0.55 1.18 -0.63 1.28 -0.42 0.69 -0.39 OEI Santa Rita 1.2 -0.61 0.49 -0.11 1.17 -0.64 0.72 -0.5 OEI Tela 1.02 -0.96 0.73 -0.39 1.23 -0.51 0.38* -0.03 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.35* -0.04 1.42** 0 1.4 -0.08 Cohort 3 0.9 -0.46 0.65* -0.04 1.19 -0.28 1.05 -0.83 Group 2 0.77 -0.16 1 -0.98 0.75 -0.09 1.12 -0.64 Group 3 0.91 -0.7 1.04 -0.88 0.96 -0.87 1.06 -0.86 Group 4 1.29 -0.48 0.97 -0.96 1.15 -0.7 0.86 -0.75 Age 1.04 -0.17 1.01 -0.73 1 -0.94 1 -0.94 Single 0.81 -0.27 1.26 -0.29 0.89 -0.55 1.13 -0.65 Number of Children 0.88 -0.28 1.17 -0.46 0.91 -0.49 0.88 -0.45 Household Size 1 -0.92 1.01 -0.59 1.01 -0.81 1 -0.93 Sex (Household Head) 0.91 -0.42 1.03 -0.85 0.96 -0.72 0.75* -0.05 64 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Age (Household Head) 1 -0.6 1 -0.36 0.99 -0.19 1 -0.52 Education (Household Head) 0.97 -0.28 0.99 -0.7 0.96 -0.23 0.99 -0.83 Employment (Household Head) 1.39 -0.08 0.98 -0.93 1.58* -0.02 1.07 -0.81 Remittances 1.06 -0.71 0.94 -0.72 1.08 -0.65 0.8 -0.25 PCA Asset 1.02 -0.59 1.02 -0.73 1.02 -0.54 0.87** -0.01 Education (Baseline) 1.07* -0.02 1.08* -0.04 1.08* -0.02 0.99 -0.8 Enrollment 0.88 -0.31 1.06 -0.67 0.86 -0.21 0.82 -0.25 Public School System 1.2 -0.18 0.95 -0.71 1.21 -0.17 0.96 -0.8 Number of Courses 1.05 -0.41 1 -0.98 1.08 -0.15 1.17* -0.02 Number of Jobs 1.1 -0.21 1.16 -0.19 1.13 -0.13 1.03 -0.76 Number of Businesses Owned 0.98 -0.93 1.05 -0.86 1.08 -0.66 1.08 -0.72 Monthly Income 1 -0.34 1 -0.7 1 -0.08 1 -0.85 GEM (Baseline) 1 -0.82 1 -0.74 1 -0.99 1.01 -0.48 DAP Score 1 -0.61 1 -0.71 1 -0.94 1.01 -0.46 Risk Index (Baseline) 1.01 -0.51 1.01 -0.43 1 -0.86 0.99 -0.49 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 1.08 -0.15 0.96 -0.52 1.09 -0.09 1.06 -0.39 Constant 0.28 -0.19 0.19 -0.16 0.32 -0.19 0.28 -0.32 Constant 1.59 -0.72 Constant 7.21 -0.12 N 1851 1851 1851 719 Secondary Employment Outcomes Benefits P Values Contract P Values Weekly Hours P Values A Ganar 1.21 -0.14 0.9 -0.49 0.17 -0.89 Sex 0.71* -0.01 0.84 -0.42 -2.51 -0.09 Motivation 1.03 -0.74 1.08 -0.48 -0.73 -0.46 CADERH G Business 1.69 -0.26 1.09 -0.84 -0.89 -0.84 CENET Comayagua 2.55 -0.08 1.18 -0.77 - 10.93* -0.02 CENET Germania 1.16 -0.85 1.06 -0.92 -4.02 -0.41 CENET Los Pinos 1.78 -0.24 1.83 -0.17 -4.65 -0.24 CENET Travesia 1.66 -0.44 1.11 -0.86 -7.32 -0.11 CENET Villanueva 2.87* -0.02 3.14** 0 -8.37* -0.03 65 CESAL Providencia 1.55 -0.47 1.48 -0.49 -6.35 -0.21 CESAL San Miguel 2.35 -0.27 2.35 -0.25 -4.82 -0.42 CI Humanos 3.54* -0.01 2.31 -0.1 -3.17 -0.4 CI Vida Nueva 4.40* -0.01 2.05 -0.12 -5.52 -0.23 FUNADEH Alcance 3.97* -0.01 4.88** -0.01 0.44 -0.92 FUNADEH Choloma 2.75 -0.12 1.27 -0.62 -8.49 -0.08 FUNADEH Didactica 4.89*** 0 3.06* -0.01 -4.79 -0.18 FUNADEH Lima 11.21** 0 7.36** 0 -4.59 -0.35 LE 3.40** -0.01 2.48* -0.03 -6.72 -0.07 OEI Ceiba 1.58 -0.31 1.7 -0.21 -8.35* -0.03 OEI Santa Rita 2.59 -0.07 1.69 -0.29 -7.52 -0.08 OEI Tela 1.35 -0.6 1.23 -0.67 -4.07 -0.31 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value Cohort 3 1.12 -0.56 1.26 -0.31 2.49 -0.2 Group 2 1.08 -0.75 0.96 -0.88 1.95 -0.36 Group 3 1.02 -0.95 1.01 -0.99 -4.72 -0.14 Group 4 0.98 -0.97 1.22 -0.64 -3.3 -0.44 Age 1.05 -0.29 1.05 -0.19 -0.53 -0.13 Single 0.64 -0.12 0.78 -0.47 -1.74 -0.48 Number of Children 0.8 -0.32 1.11 -0.55 2.35 -0.15 Household Size 0.99 -0.67 0.97 -0.38 -0.75* -0.02 Sex (Household Head) 1.2 -0.2 0.9 -0.49 0.38 -0.78 Age (Household Head) 0.99 -0.32 1 -0.64 0.09 -0.12 Education (Household Head) 0.98 -0.61 1 -0.94 -0.33 -0.35 Employment (Household Head) 1.5 -0.06 1.11 -0.65 3.35 -0.19 Remittances 1.22 -0.33 1.51 -0.05 -0.11 -0.95 PCA Asset 0.90* -0.02 0.98 -0.65 -0.25 -0.59 Education (Baseline) 1.13** 0 1.21*** 0 -0.79* -0.01 Enrollment 0.89 -0.41 0.98 -0.87 -1.4 -0.36 Public School System 1.13 -0.54 1.35 -0.07 0.85 -0.61 Number of Courses 1.02 -0.69 1.01 -0.88 -0.75 -0.21 Number of Jobs 1.01 -0.96 0.95 -0.63 0.12 -0.89 Number of Businesses Owned 1.11 -0.62 1.08 -0.74 4.29 -0.05 Monthly Income 1 -0.37 1 -0.4 0 -0.38 GEM (Baseline) 1 -0.71 1 -0.84 -0.08 -0.27 DAP Score 1 -0.8 1.01 -0.59 -0.08 -0.33 Risk Index (Baseline) 0.99 -0.51 0.97 -0.23 -0.01 -0.97 66 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Neighborhood Safety Proxy 1.08 -0.3 1.07 -0.35 -0.08 -0.9 Constant 0.02*** 0 0.01** 0 83.29* ** 0 Constant Constant N 1398 1398 719 Total Wages (All Jobs) P Values # of Jobs P Values A Ganar 5909.77 -0.49 0.01 -0.85 Sex -39410.56*** 0 -0.36*** 0 Motivation 8961.54 -0.16 -0.01 -0.68 CADERH G Business -6544.38 -0.81 0.08 -0.47 CENET Comayagua -43663.7 -0.14 -0.09 -0.49 CENET Germania 24202.87 -0.52 0.13 -0.33 CENET Los Pinos 8842.41 -0.73 0.18 -0.12 CENET Travesia -15893.5 -0.58 0.02 -0.91 CENET Villanueva 3398.28 -0.89 -0.04 -0.71 CESAL Providencia 29783.23 -0.36 -0.1 -0.45 CESAL San Miguel 72294.51 -0.06 -0.04 -0.77 CI Humanos 20907.03 -0.37 0.03 -0.8 CI Vida Nueva -731.12 -0.98 0.07 -0.58 FUNADEH Alcance -2817.94 -0.92 0.14 -0.3 FUNADEH Choloma 15949.06 -0.61 0.2 -0.1 FUNADEH Didactica 20309.59 -0.37 0.06 -0.64 FUNADEH Lima 13023.56 -0.68 0.28 -0.12 LE 14743.35 -0.49 -0.01 -0.91 OEI Ceiba 6603.32 -0.79 0.05 -0.65 OEI Santa Rita -6184.99 -0.82 0.03 -0.84 OEI Tela -44992.7 -0.08 0.17 -0.09 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.14*** 0 Cohort 3 31869.62** -0.01 -0.05 -0.42 Group 2 -0.02 -0.77 Group 3 0.02 -0.78 Group 4 0 -0.97 Age 7816.98*** 0 -0.01 -0.43 Single -16787.3 -0.29 0.02 -0.74 Number of Children -5259.71 -0.62 0.01 -0.79 67 Household Size 4681.46* -0.02 0 -1 Sex (Household Head) -6529.2 -0.46 -0.01 -0.84 Age (Household Head) -247.11 -0.51 0 -0.86 Education (Household Head) 1753.4 -0.47 -0.01 -0.49 Employment (Household Head) -1729.28 -0.92 0.11 -0.05 Remittances -10761.4 -0.35 -0.02 -0.69 PCA Asset -1992.48 -0.5 0.02 -0.14 Education (Baseline) 1784.08 -0.39 0.03*** 0 Enrollment -13551.2 -0.16 -0.05 -0.26 Public School System 0 0.05 -0.22 Number of Courses 3366.45 -0.39 0.04* -0.02 Number of Jobs 12617.84* -0.02 Number of Businesses Owned 3778.99 -0.79 0.03 -0.54 Monthly Income 0 0 -0.75 GEM (Baseline) 567.24 -0.24 0 -0.09 DAP Score 723.58 -0.18 0 -0.8 Risk Index (Baseline) -728.8 -0.56 0 -0.62 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 2397.32 -0.59 0.01 -0.57 Constant -2.06e+05** 0 0.24 -0.38 Constant Constant N 719 1851 68 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX F: ENTREPRENEURSHIP REGRESSION TABLES Entrepreneurship Outcomes Business Attempted P Values Business Succeeded P Values # of Businesses Attempted P Values A Ganar 0.98 -0.86 1.18 -0.28 0.01 0.64 Sex 1.19 -0.18 1.04 -0.83 0.01 0.60 Motivation 1.06 -0.53 1.06 -0.66 0.01 0.59 CADERH G Business 0.45* -0.02 2.82 -0.08 0.00 0.92 CENET Comayagua 2.77** -0.01 2.18 -0.27 -0.04 0.47 CENET Germania 0.34** -0.01 2.09 -0.28 -0.04 0.53 CENET Los Pinos 0.54* -0.04 2.32 -0.13 0.01 0.83 CENET Travesia 0.76 -0.47 2.86 -0.1 0.01 0.80 CENET Villanueva 0.37** 0 1.37 -0.65 -0.10 0.04 CESAL Providencia 0.58 -0.19 6.61** 0 0.03 0.68 CESAL San Miguel 0.45 -0.05 2.57 -0.14 -0.03 0.61 CI Humanos 0.51* -0.04 4.54** -0.01 0.04 0.40 CI Vida Nueva 0.48* -0.05 3.75* -0.03 -0.04 0.47 FUNADEH Alcance 0.52 -0.08 0.84 -0.82 -0.08 0.16 FUNADEH Choloma 0.36* -0.02 4.41* -0.02 -0.02 0.70 FUNADEH Didactica 0.43** -0.01 0.96 -0.95 -0.08 0.08 FUNADEH Lima 0.42 -0.1 9.71*** 0 0.10 0.15 LE 0.36*** 0 2.72 -0.07 -0.05 0.27 OEI Ceiba 0.84 -0.59 1.93 -0.25 -0.05 0.33 OEI Santa Rita 0.55 -0.11 2.58 -0.11 -0.03 0.52 OEI Tela 0.72 -0.3 2.56 -0.1 0.00 0.94 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 2.40*** 0 11.00*** 0 0.37 0.00 Cohort 3 0.89 -0.5 0.82 -0.37 -0.03 0.18 Group 2 1.08 -0.7 0.94 -0.79 0.01 0.69 Group 3 1.09 -0.76 1.13 -0.73 0.03 0.46 Group 4 0.75 -0.53 1.75 -0.27 0.03 0.56 Age 1.02 -0.43 1.15*** 0 0.02 0.00 Single 0.68* -0.04 0.66 -0.12 -0.05 0.07 Number of Children 1.04 -0.77 0.85 -0.31 -0.02 0.33 Household Size 0.98 -0.5 0.99 -0.88 0.00 0.75 Sex (Household Head) 1.06 -0.61 0.96 -0.79 0.00 0.90 Age (Household Head) 1 -0.97 1 -0.52 0.00 0.41 Education (Household Head) 1 -0.9 1.05 -0.21 0.01 0.05 Employment (Household Head) 1.08 -0.7 1.11 -0.71 0.01 0.61 Remittances 0.85 -0.31 0.65 -0.07 -0.03 0.15 PCA Asset 1.01 -0.84 1.02 -0.68 0.00 0.54 69 Education (Baseline) 1.01 -0.65 1 -0.91 0.00 0.85 Enrollment 1.18 -0.19 1.04 -0.81 0.00 0.80 Public School System 0.98 -0.88 0.92 -0.67 0.01 0.72 Number of Courses 1 -0.94 1.12 -0.1 0.02 0.02 Number of Jobs 1.18* -0.04 1 -0.96 -0.01 0.54 Number of Businesses Owned Monthly Income 1 -0.37 1 -0.31 0.00 0.41 GEM (Baseline) 0.99 -0.21 1.01 -0.6 0.00 0.28 DAP Score 1.02** 0 1.01 -0.52 0.00 0.64 Risk Index (Baseline) 1.01 -0.45 1 -0.84 0.00 0.63 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.89 -0.05 1.07 -0.4 0.01 0.49 Constant1 0.34 -0.26 0.00*** 0 -0.35 0.01 N 1851 1851 1851 Outcomes for Successful Small Businesses Number of Active Businesses P Values Income from Businesses (Monthly) P Values Business Operation (Months) P Values A Ganar 0.05 -0.57 -468.44 -0.55 -2.65 -0.54 Sex -0.19 -0.12 -1706.01* -0.02 -5.33 -0.19 Motivation 0.04 -0.59 -205.52 -0.66 -1.84 -0.44 CADERH G Business -0.44 -0.23 -1844.23 -0.41 -26.33* -0.03 CENET Comayagua -0.27 -0.5 -3464.79 -0.22 3.56 -0.81 CENET Germania -0.13 -0.71 1422.57 -0.54 -20.21 -0.16 CENET Los Pinos 0.27 -0.36 -1725.75 -0.44 -15.82 -0.16 CENET Travesia -0.28 -0.44 -257.36 -0.91 -7.62 -0.53 CENET Villanueva -0.45 -0.2 -1680.33 -0.43 -19.75 -0.13 CESAL Providencia -0.41 -0.18 -822.86 -0.67 -26.05* -0.03 CESAL San Miguel 0 -0.99 -1352.01 -0.58 -16.08 -0.27 CI Humanos -0.22 -0.48 -1971.32 -0.33 -13.51 -0.23 CI Vida Nueva -0.27 -0.42 -3064.41 -0.22 -21.2 -0.14 FUNADEH Alcance -0.09 -0.85 7182.05** -0.01 -9.79 -0.55 FUNADEH Choloma -0.07 -0.82 -2954.52 -0.21 -3.06 -0.82 FUNADEH Didactica -0.12 -0.72 -417.47 -0.85 -9.89 -0.51 FUNADEH Lima -0.03 -0.94 402.51 -0.86 -24.51 -0.08 LE -0.11 -0.71 -1262.46 -0.5 -9.29 -0.43 OEI Ceiba 0.06 -0.85 954.86 -0.64 -20.52 -0.11 OEI Santa Rita 0.15 -0.7 -1476.28 -0.5 -4.38 -0.81 OEI Tela 0.02 -0.96 86.68 -0.97 -1.63 -0.89 70 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Outcome Variable's Baseline Value Cohort 3 0.1 -0.42 932.54 -0.3 7.53 -0.31 Group 2 0.05 -0.69 361.97 -0.69 -2.29 -0.74 Group 3 -0.06 -0.77 -208.72 -0.86 -4.16 -0.59 Group 4 0.05 -0.85 -424.72 -0.83 -11.72 -0.25 Age 0.02 -0.26 39.18 -0.77 0.93 -0.25 Single 0.03 -0.79 -155.17 -0.87 6.92 -0.17 Number of Children -0.03 -0.74 76.17 -0.9 2.75 -0.39 Household Size 0 -0.87 -72.33 -0.59 -0.54 -0.42 Sex (Household Head) -0.1 -0.29 -34.93 -0.95 -2.81 -0.37 Age (Household Head) 0 -0.67 -18.54 -0.48 0.15 -0.26 Education (Household Head) -0.02 -0.28 -9.71 -0.94 0.19 -0.82 Employment (Household Head) 0.09 -0.53 332.59 -0.74 5.43 -0.36 Remittances 0.06 -0.67 1151.01 -0.12 -2.79 -0.58 PCA Asset -0.01 -0.87 -103.39 -0.61 0.24 -0.82 Education (Baseline) 0 -0.91 -171.66 -0.29 0.43 -0.62 Enrollment 0.05 -0.61 -639.42 -0.3 -0.66 -0.91 Public School System -0.02 -0.83 -38.27 -0.96 -2.5 -0.53 Number of Courses 0.05 -0.12 -84.79 -0.7 1.54 -0.28 Number of Jobs -0.07 -0.29 370.23 -0.29 -3.97 -0.17 Number of Businesses Owned Monthly Income 0 -0.66 0 -0.78 0 -0.36 GEM (Baseline) 0 -0.51 10.63 -0.71 -0.01 -0.96 DAP Score 0 -0.68 58.27 -0.16 -0.01 -0.95 Risk Index (Baseline) 0 -0.92 69.74 -0.42 0.14 -0.8 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0 -0.96 -208.98 -0.48 0.22 -0.92 Constant1 0.04 -0.96 3914.78 -0.38 -0.1 -1 N 261 261 261 71 ANNEX G: PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES REGRESSION TABLES Professional Capabilities: Summative Outcomes Capabilities Index P Values PCA of Capabilities Index P Values A Ganar -0.03 0.86 -0.04 0.59 Sex -0.50 0.00 -0.23 0.00 Motivation 0.02 0.86 -0.01 0.88 CADERH G Business -1.32 0.01 -0.40 0.07 CENET Comayagua -0.35 0.55 -0.03 0.92 CENET Germania -1.04 0.06 -0.37 0.16 CENET Los Pinos -1.22 0.01 -0.28 0.16 CENET Travesia -1.33 0.02 -0.43 0.09 CENET Villanueva -1.60 0.00 -0.56 0.01 CESAL Providencia -0.96 0.09 -0.11 0.69 CESAL San Miguel -2.20 0.00 -1.03 0.00 CI Humanos -1.54 0.00 -0.59 0.00 CI Vida Nueva -1.97 0.00 -0.56 0.02 FUNADEH Alcance -0.81 0.13 -0.20 0.42 FUNADEH Choloma -1.03 0.08 -0.03 0.93 FUNADEH Didactica -1.04 0.01 -0.28 0.15 FUNADEH Lima -1.34 0.04 -0.58 0.06 Libre Expresion -1.46 0.00 -0.48 0.01 OEI Ceiba -1.40 0.00 -0.52 0.02 OEI Santa Rita -0.62 0.20 0.00 0.99 OEI Tela -1.36 0.00 -0.40 0.07 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.33 0.00 0.31 0.00 Cohort 3 -0.01 0.96 0.02 0.84 Group 2 0.29 0.24 0.00 1.00 Group 3 -0.07 0.85 0.03 0.88 Group 4 0.35 0.53 0.20 0.44 Age -0.04 0.30 -0.03 0.09 Single -0.69 0.01 -0.14 0.26 Number of Children -0.23 0.19 0.04 0.59 Household Size -0.02 0.60 -0.01 0.53 Sex (Household Head) 0.19 0.23 0.13 0.07 Age (Household Head) 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.07 72 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Education (Household Head) 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.29 Employment (Household Head) -0.12 0.65 -0.07 0.55 Remittances -0.35 0.10 -0.11 0.27 PCA Asset -0.08 0.15 -0.02 0.38 Education 0.18 0.00 0.08 0.00 Enrollment 0.50 0.01 0.09 0.30 Public School System 0.08 0.68 0.02 0.81 Number of Courses 0.21 0.00 0.12 0.00 Number of Jobs 0.25 0.02 0.13 0.01 Number of Businesses Owned 0.46 0.07 0.10 0.40 Monthly Income 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.99 DAP Score 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 GEM (Baseline) -0.01 0.50 0.00 0.56 Risk Index (Baseline) 0.01 0.82 0.01 0.23 Neighborhood Safety Proxy -0.08 0.30 -0.06 0.10 Constant1 15.26 0.00 -1.17 0.06 N 1851 1851 Professional Capabilities: Hard Skills Computer Skills P Values CV Writing P Values Interview Skills P Values Job Search Skills P Values A Ganar 0.94 -0.53 1.18 -0.10 0.95 -0.60 1.00 -1.00 Sex 0.72** -0.01 0.82 -0.06 0.66*** 0.00 0.95 -0.63 Motivation 1.03 -0.73 1.01 -0.93 0.95 -0.53 0.97 -0.66 CADERH G Business 0.91 -0.76 0.77 -0.40 0.83 -0.55 0.44* -0.01 CENET Comayagua 0.74 -0.41 0.75 -0.43 1.38 -0.41 0.72 -0.36 CENET Germania 0.47* -0.03 1.14 -0.72 0.74 -0.40 1.21 -0.60 CENET Los Pinos 0.47** 0.00 0.48** -0.01 0.96 -0.88 0.76 -0.31 CENET Travesia 0.51* -0.04 0.67 -0.27 0.79 -0.50 0.72 -0.38 CENET Villanueva 0.36*** 0.00 0.58 -0.06 0.72 -0.28 0.85 -0.56 CESAL Providencia 0.68 -0.28 0.56 -0.11 0.94 -0.87 0.86 -0.70 CESAL San Miguel 0.30** 0.00 0.53 -0.10 0.60 -0.17 0.69 -0.31 CI Humanos 0.58* -0.03 0.59* -0.03 0.76 -0.31 0.55* -0.03 73 CI Vida Nueva 0.53* -0.04 0.43* -0.01 0.66 -0.23 0.67 -0.23 FUNADEH Alcance 0.51 -0.07 0.50* -0.05 1.43 -0.35 1.07 -0.85 FUNADEH Choloma 0.68 -0.31 0.79 -0.52 0.93 -0.86 1.90 -0.20 FUNADEH Didactica 0.66 -0.13 0.91 -0.75 0.67 -0.17 0.85 -0.54 FUNADEH Lima 0.64 -0.33 0.65 -0.31 0.66 -0.33 0.64 -0.33 Libre Expresion 0.57* -0.03 0.84 -0.52 0.72 -0.20 0.72 -0.20 OEI Ceiba 0.44** 0.00 0.52* -0.02 0.82 -0.50 0.68 -0.18 OEI Santa Rita 0.52* -0.03 0.60 -0.09 1.21 -0.54 1.48 -0.21 OEI Tela 0.53* -0.03 0.48* -0.01 0.64 -0.19 0.64 -0.16 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.93*** 0.00 1.73*** 0.00 1.50*** 0.00 1.43*** 0.00 Cohort 3 0.94 -0.62 1.16 -0.30 1.03 -0.83 1.03 -0.83 Group 2 1.16 -0.31 1.05 -0.75 1.00 -0.99 1.04 -0.79 Group 3 0.90 -0.66 0.80 -0.33 1.38 -0.20 1.07 -0.76 Group 4 1.67 -0.21 0.95 -0.91 1.00 -1.00 1.33 -0.44 Age 0.95 -0.06 0.99 -0.81 0.98 -0.35 0.99 -0.63 Single 0.75 -0.12 0.80 -0.24 0.99 -0.95 1.03 -0.85 Number of Children 0.87 -0.23 0.92 -0.51 1.19 -0.14 1.16 -0.22 Household Size 0.99 -0.74 1.00 -0.95 1.01 -0.77 1.00 -0.97 Sex (Household Head) 0.99 -0.90 0.96 -0.71 1.22 -0.08 1.04 -0.69 Age (Household Head) 1.01 -0.10 1.00 -0.55 1.00 -0.78 1.00 -0.40 Education (Household Head) 1.02 -0.36 1.00 -0.88 1.03 -0.25 1.04 -0.14 Employment (Household Head) 0.84 -0.37 0.97 -0.87 1.02 -0.93 1.21 -0.24 Remittances 0.77* -0.04 0.91 -0.44 0.86 -0.27 0.90 -0.44 PCA Asset 0.88*** 0.00 0.95 -0.15 1.00 -0.98 0.98 -0.51 Enrollment 1.16*** 0.00 1.14*** 0.00 1.07** -0.01 1.05 -0.05 Education 1.30 -0.06 1.41** 0.00 1.10 -0.42 1.05 -0.68 Public School System 1.08 -0.54 0.91 -0.43 1.06 -0.66 1.07 -0.57 Number of Courses 1.15** 0.00 1.18** 0.00 1.20*** 0.00 1.00 -0.98 Number of Jobs 1.07 -0.33 1.22** 0.00 1.08 -0.30 1.22** -0.01 Number of Businesses Owned 1.21 -0.29 1.07 -0.71 0.96 -0.79 0.95 -0.76 Monthly Income 1.00 -0.86 1.00 -0.51 1.00 -0.44 1.00 -0.28 DAP Score 1.02** 0.00 1.01* -0.02 1.03*** 0.00 1.03*** 0.00 GEM Index 1.01 -0.18 1.01 -0.20 1.00 -0.65 0.99 -0.32 Risk Index 1.00 -0.86 1.00 -0.81 1.03* -0.05 1.03* -0.03 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.99 -0.87 1.00 -0.96 0.94 -0.22 0.96 -0.42 Constant 1.92 -0.41 3.48 -0.13 0.34 -0.27 0.21 -0.08 Constant 13.73*** 0.00 17.54*** 0.00 3.44 -0.21 1.93 -0.43 Constant 72.44*** 0.00 98.59*** 0.00 33.68*** 0.00 15.97** 0.00 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 74 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Professional Capabilities: Soft Skills Dressing for a Job P Values Interaction with Colleagues P Values Interaction with Supervisors P Values Business Startup P￾Values A Ganar 1.04 -0.74 0.93 -0.47 0.87 -0.15 0.89 -0.22 Sex 1.09 -0.48 0.81 -0.06 0.84 -0.14 0.83 -0.07 Motivation 1.06 -0.49 1.03 -0.72 0.99 -0.91 1.03 -0.67 CADERH G Business 0.50* -0.04 1.04 -0.90 0.44** -0.01 0.46* -0.01 CENET Comayagua 0.71 -0.40 1.64 -0.20 0.88 -0.72 1.23 -0.56 CENET Germania 0.58 -0.18 1.10 -0.79 0.68 -0.28 0.89 -0.73 CENET Los Pinos 1.07 -0.84 1.43 -0.24 0.74 -0.29 0.47** 0.00 CENET Travesia 0.50 -0.10 1.36 -0.44 0.57 -0.11 0.89 -0.76 CENET Villanueva 0.62 -0.12 0.82 -0.53 0.75 -0.32 0.62 -0.07 CESAL Providencia 1.02 -0.97 1.05 -0.90 0.72 -0.34 0.71 -0.37 CESAL San Miguel 0.43* -0.04 0.58 -0.13 0.40* -0.01 0.57 -0.11 CI Humanos 0.72 -0.29 1.33 -0.29 0.51** -0.01 0.45** 0.00 CI Vida Nueva 0.71 -0.35 0.83 -0.58 0.51* -0.03 0.47* -0.02 FUNADEH Alcance 1.09 -0.85 1.44 -0.30 0.78 -0.46 0.86 -0.67 FUNADEH Choloma 0.76 -0.55 1.09 -0.83 0.46* -0.04 0.49 -0.05 FUNADEH Didactica 1.24 -0.56 1.18 -0.57 0.69 -0.17 0.61 -0.05 FUNADEH Lima 0.90 -0.84 1.11 -0.83 0.39* -0.03 0.58 -0.17 Libre Expresion 0.66 -0.18 0.99 -0.98 0.56* -0.03 0.49** 0.00 OEI Ceiba 0.78 -0.47 1.05 -0.86 0.64 -0.12 0.65 -0.13 OEI Santa Rita 0.99 -0.98 1.10 -0.77 0.82 -0.52 1.24 -0.49 OEI Tela 0.95 -0.89 0.93 -0.80 0.65 -0.15 0.83 -0.50 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.61*** 0.00 1.58*** 0.00 1.77*** 0.00 1.67*** 0.00 Cohort 3 1.03 -0.87 0.97 -0.82 1.04 -0.82 1.15 -0.30 Group 2 1.07 -0.68 1.02 -0.92 1.09 -0.56 1.01 -0.93 Group 3 0.96 -0.87 0.87 -0.60 1.05 -0.83 1.03 -0.88 Group 4 1.55 -0.30 1.47 -0.32 0.97 -0.94 1.28 -0.48 Age 0.96 -0.19 0.98 -0.52 0.99 -0.70 1.05 -0.08 Single 0.99 -0.96 0.97 -0.88 0.78 -0.17 0.70* -0.03 Number of Children 1.02 -0.86 1.02 -0.84 0.82 -0.07 0.84 -0.10 Household Size 0.96 -0.14 1.00 -0.89 0.99 -0.72 1.00 -0.93 Sex (Household Head) 1.13 -0.29 0.94 -0.56 1.06 -0.58 1.10 -0.37 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.90 1.00 -0.69 1.01 -0.16 1.00 -0.61 Education (Household Head) 1.01 -0.86 1.03 -0.32 1.01 -0.69 0.99 -0.69 Employment (Household Head) 0.96 -0.82 0.82 -0.26 0.99 -0.97 1.19 -0.29 75 Remittances 0.93 -0.62 0.98 -0.91 1.01 -0.95 0.98 -0.85 PCA Asset 1.02 -0.61 1.00 -0.95 0.97 -0.34 1.01 -0.87 Enrollment 1.10** 0.00 1.04 -0.10 1.02 -0.40 0.95* -0.04 Education 1.01 -0.96 1.13 -0.31 0.99 -0.95 1.20 -0.11 Public School System 0.97 -0.84 1.17 -0.22 1.08 -0.54 0.86 -0.22 Number of Courses 1.10 -0.11 1.04 -0.43 1.10 -0.05 1.00 -0.98 Number of Jobs 1.16 -0.06 1.13 -0.07 1.01 -0.92 1.01 -0.94 Number of Businesses Owned 1.01 -0.95 1.16 -0.42 1.13 -0.43 1.85*** 0.00 Monthly Income 1.00 -0.47 1.00 -0.37 1.00 -0.05 1.00 -0.69 DAP Score 1.02** 0.00 1.04*** 0.00 1.04*** 0.00 1.03*** 0.00 GEM Index 1.01 -0.24 1.00 -0.43 0.99 -0.32 0.98*** 0.00 Risk Index 0.99 -0.37 1.01 -0.39 1.00 -1.00 1.00 -0.94 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.93 -0.20 0.96 -0.41 0.91 -0.06 0.94 -0.21 Constant 0.16 -0.07 0.44 -0.38 0.08** 0.00 0.10** -0.01 Constant 1.25 -0.81 5.65* -0.05 1.69 -0.52 0.87 -0.87 Constant 16.19** 0.00 59.84*** 0.00 15.01*** 0.00 3.78 -0.12 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 Professional Capabilities Outcomes with Interaction Variables for Treatment and Sex Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] Treatment 0.258 0.155 1.66 0.1 -0.050 0.566 Treatment*Sex -0.156 0.191 -0.82 0.412 -0.531 0.218 Interview Skills at Baseline 0.550 0.056 9.78 0 0.438 0.662 Cohort 2 0.147 0.141 1.04 0.301 -0.132 0.425 Group 2 0.052 0.161 0.32 0.748 -0.267 0.371 Group 3 -0.223 0.230 -0.97 0.333 -0.674 0.228 Group 4 -0.048 0.441 -0.11 0.915 -0.945 0.850 Age -0.006 0.027 -0.23 0.822 -0.059 0.047 Single -0.213 0.184 -1.16 0.248 -0.577 0.150 # of Children -0.080 0.123 -0.64 0.521 -0.326 0.167 # of Family Members 0.001 0.021 0.04 0.972 -0.041 0.042 Characteristics of Head of Household Sex -0.038 0.102 -0.37 0.71 -0.238 0.163 Age 0.003 0.004 0.58 0.561 -0.006 0.011 Education 0.004 0.024 0.17 0.864 -0.044 0.052 Employed -0.031 0.172 -0.18 0.859 -0.371 0.310 Remittances -0.097 0.128 -0.76 0.449 -0.349 0.154 76 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras PCA Asset Index -0.048 0.034 -1.42 0.157 -0.114 0.018 Education 0.135 0.024 5.58 0 0.088 0.182 Enrolled 0.345 0.116 2.98 0.003 0.117 0.574 School System -0.095 0.119 -0.79 0.427 -0.329 0.140 # of Courses 0.169 0.051 3.34 0.001 0.069 0.270 Jobs_Num0 0.203 0.069 2.95 0.003 0.068 0.339 # of Jobs 0.067 0.175 0.38 0.703 -0.277 0.410 Total Salary 0.000 0.000 -0.64 0.519 0.000 0.000 DAP Index 0.015 0.006 2.3 0.023 0.002 0.028 GEM Index 0.001 0.001 1.18 0.239 -0.001 0.004 Risk Index -0.001 0.003 -0.31 0.756 -0.008 0.006 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.001 0.046 0.02 0.987 -0.090 0.092 Sex -0.115 0.146 -0.79 0.431 -0.402 0.171 Motivation 0.007 0.079 0.08 0.934 -0.149 0.162 N = 1851 Note: The regression additionally included controls for cohort, but these have been omitted from the table. 77 ANNEX H: SELF ESTEEM REGRESSION TABLES Self Esteem Outcomes Rosenberg Index P Values PCA Rosenberg P Values A Ganar 0.06 -0.79 0.06 -0.44 Sex -0.01 -0.98 -0.05 -0.57 Motivation 0.06 -0.74 -0.01 -0.88 CADERH G Business 0.2 -0.77 0.08 -0.74 CENET Comayagua 1.17 -0.15 0.45 -0.14 CENET Germania 0.01 -0.99 0.07 -0.82 CENET Los Pinos 1.59* -0.01 0.28 -0.24 CENET Travesia -0.06 -0.94 0.12 -0.73 CENET Villanueva 0.71 -0.26 0.01 -0.98 CESAL Providencia 0.41 -0.62 -0.11 -0.73 CESAL San Miguel -0.72 -0.38 0.26 -0.4 CI Humanos 0.24 -0.68 -0.06 -0.77 CI Vida Nueva -0.6 -0.41 -0.09 -0.76 FUNADEH Alcance 0.41 -0.62 0.06 -0.84 FUNADEH Choloma -0.68 -0.44 -0.31 -0.34 FUNADEH Didactica -0.31 -0.62 -0.16 -0.45 FUNADEH Lima 1.73 -0.08 0.45 -0.29 Libre Expresion -0.1 -0.86 0.29 -0.22 OEI Ceiba 0.34 -0.6 0.19 -0.42 OEI Santa Rita 1.02 -0.14 0.36 -0.16 OEI Tela 0.31 -0.65 0.12 -0.67 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.23*** 0 0.31*** 0 Cohort 3 -0.18 -0.57 0.06 -0.64 Group 2 0.11 -0.74 -0.03 -0.82 Group 3 -0.23 -0.67 -0.22 -0.26 Group 4 0.32 -0.7 -0.15 -0.6 Age 0.08 -0.19 -0.01 -0.52 Single -0.35 -0.42 -0.05 -0.75 Number of Children 0.19 -0.47 0.16 -0.09 Household Size 0.02 -0.67 0 -0.89 Sex (Household Head) 0.36 -0.11 -0.12 -0.2 Age (Household Head) 0 -0.82 0 -0.52 78 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Education (Household Head) -0.02 -0.68 0.01 -0.8 Employment (Household Head) -0.37 -0.37 0.18 -0.19 Remittances 0.25 -0.44 0.06 -0.61 PCA Asset -0.13 -0.11 -0.01 -0.66 Education -0.04 -0.5 0.06** -0.01 Enrollment 0.24 -0.35 0.23* -0.02 Public School System -0.37 -0.19 0.01 -0.92 Number of Courses 0.03 -0.8 0.07 -0.1 Number of Jobs 0.15 -0.33 0.07 -0.26 Number of Businesses Owned 0.05 -0.9 0.03 -0.82 Monthly Income 0 -0.19 0 -0.44 DAP Score GEM (Baseline) -0.05*** 0 0.02*** 0 Risk Index (Baseline) 0 -0.94 -0.03* -0.02 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.04 -0.75 0.02 -0.58 Constant1 33.05*** 0 -2.40** -0.01 N 1851 1851 79 ANNEX I: GENDER PERSPECTIVES REGRESSION TABLES GEM Outcomes GEM P Values PCA of GEM P Values A Ganar 0.38 -0.28 0.11 -0.23 Sex 0.55 -0.18 0.18 -0.07 Motivation 0.18 -0.57 0.04 -0.66 CADERH G Business 1.67 -0.18 0.26 -0.43 CENET Comayagua 1.91 -0.16 0.31 -0.34 CENET Germania 2.90* -0.04 0.55 -0.2 CENET Los Pinos 2.02 -0.07 0.15 -0.65 CENET Travesia 4.75** -0.01 0.81* -0.03 CENET Villanueva 1.25 -0.24 0.07 -0.8 CESAL Providencia 0.73 -0.59 0.13 -0.71 CESAL San Miguel 2.2 -0.13 0.32 -0.32 CI Humanos 0.19 -0.85 -0.07 -0.78 CI Vida Nueva 0.83 -0.52 -0.06 -0.87 FUNADEH Alcance 1.16 -0.41 0.15 -0.69 FUNADEH Choloma 2 -0.18 0.09 -0.83 FUNADEH Didactica 0.86 -0.43 0.02 -0.92 FUNADEH Lima 1.68 -0.28 0.25 -0.57 Libre Expresion 4.30*** 0 0.80* -0.02 OEI Ceiba 1.88 -0.11 0.39 -0.24 OEI Santa Rita 2.04 -0.08 0.29 -0.41 OEI Tela 3.31** 0 0.61* -0.04 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.49*** 0 0.47*** 0 Cohort 3 0.94 -0.06 0.17 -0.17 Group 2 0.09 -0.87 0 -0.98 Group 3 0.96 -0.27 0.17 -0.51 Group 4 0.96 -0.46 0.2 -0.54 Age -0.08 -0.43 -0.01 -0.68 Single -0.07 -0.92 0.04 -0.85 Number of Children 0.34 -0.43 0.14 -0.32 Household Size 0.04 -0.6 -0.01 -0.53 Sex (Household Head) 0.18 -0.65 0.03 -0.72 Age (Household Head) -0.01 -0.46 0 -0.6 80 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Education (Household Head) 0.08 -0.4 0.01 -0.69 Employment (Household Head) -0.93 -0.12 -0.14 -0.36 Remittances 0.63 -0.26 0.1 -0.45 PCA Asset -0.04 -0.74 0 -0.97 Education 0.45*** 0 0.11*** 0 Enrollment 0.76 -0.07 0.12 -0.23 Public School System -0.26 -0.56 -0.07 -0.52 Number of Courses 0.24 -0.16 0.07 -0.09 Number of Jobs -0.34 -0.16 -0.06 -0.47 Number of Businesses Owned 0.83 -0.16 0.14 -0.33 Monthly Income 0 -0.41 0 -0.64 DAP Score 0.08*** 0 0.01 -0.08 GEM (Baseline) Risk Index (Baseline) -0.12* -0.02 -0.03 -0.07 Neighborhood Safety Proxy -0.12 -0.5 -0.02 -0.7 Constant1 39.48*** 0 -1.47* -0.03 N 1851 1851 GEM Outcomes with Gender Interaction Variable Coef. Std. Err. t P>t [95% Conf. Interval] Treatment -2.907 2.422 -1.2 0.23 -7.658 1.843 Treatment*Sex 8.298 3.220 2.58 0.01 1.981 14.615 GEM Score at Baseline 0.485 0.020 24.76 0 0.447 0.524 Cohort 2 5.131 2.299 2.23 0.026 0.621 9.640 Group 2 0.323 2.557 0.13 0.9 -4.692 5.338 Group 3 4.093 3.917 1.04 0.296 -3.590 11.775 Group 4 4.157 5.792 0.72 0.473 -7.202 15.516 Age -0.414 0.422 -0.98 0.327 -1.242 0.414 Single 0.069 2.908 0.02 0.981 -5.634 5.771 # of Children 1.535 1.845 0.83 0.406 -2.083 5.152 # of Family Members 0.224 0.365 0.61 0.54 -0.492 0.939 Characteristics of Head of Household Sex 1.056 1.668 0.63 0.527 -2.217 4.328 Age -0.041 0.068 -0.6 0.551 -0.175 0.093 Education 0.408 0.425 0.96 0.338 -0.426 1.242 Employed -4.339 2.740 -1.58 0.114 -9.714 1.036 81 Remittances 2.928 2.227 1.31 0.189 -1.441 7.296 PCA Asset Index -0.229 0.564 -0.41 0.685 -1.335 0.878 Education 2.118 0.397 5.34 0 1.340 2.897 Enrolled 3.571 1.879 1.9 0.058 -0.115 7.257 School System -1.555 2.020 -0.77 0.442 -5.516 2.406 # of Courses 1.104 0.764 1.45 0.148 -0.394 2.602 # of Jobs -1.895 1.113 -1.7 0.089 -4.077 0.288 # of Businesses 4.186 2.736 1.53 0.126 -1.181 9.554 Total Salary 0.000 0.000 0.94 0.345 0.000 0.000 DAP Index 0.398 0.103 3.87 0 0.196 0.600 Risk Index -0.134 0.055 -2.44 0.015 -0.242 -0.026 Neighborhood Safety Proxy -0.766 0.815 -0.94 0.348 -2.364 0.833 Sex -1.639 2.477 -0.66 0.508 -6.497 3.219 Motivation 0.778 1.305 0.6 0.551 -1.785 3.342 N = 1851 82 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX J: RISK BEHAVIOR REGRESSION TABLES Risk Behavior: Summative Outcomes based on Friends’ Behaviors Risk Index P Values PCA Risk P Values A Ganar 0.30* -0.03 0.1 -0.3 Sex -0.76*** 0 -0.38*** 0 Motivation -0.07 -0.52 -0.03 -0.64 CADERH Dion -0.47 -0.3 -0.18 -0.5 CADERH G Business -0.27 -0.61 -0.15 -0.62 CENET Comayagua -0.36 -0.49 -0.12 -0.71 CENET Germania 0.05 -0.9 -0.01 -0.96 CENET Los Pinos 0.64 -0.23 0.39 -0.17 CENET Travesia 0.35 -0.4 0.14 -0.56 CENET Villanueva 0.29 -0.59 0.01 -0.96 CESAL Providencia -0.33 -0.55 -0.05 -0.86 CESAL San Miguel 0.4 -0.3 0.3 -0.2 CI Humanos -0.16 -0.74 -0.08 -0.77 CI Vida Nueva -0.21 -0.68 -0.28 -0.34 FUNADEH Alcance 0.57 -0.3 0.27 -0.4 FUNADEH Choloma -0.37 -0.37 -0.15 -0.55 FUNADEH Didactica 0.42 -0.51 0.01 -0.97 FUNADEH Lima -0.12 -0.75 0.09 -0.66 Libre Expresion 0.16 -0.7 -0.07 -0.79 OEI Ceiba -0.33 -0.47 -0.06 -0.81 OEI Santa Rita 0.09 -0.84 -0.02 -0.94 OEI Tela 0.32*** 0 0.25*** 0 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.03 -0.88 0.08 -0.49 Cohort 2 0.07 -0.75 -0.04 -0.79 Cohort 3 -0.23 -0.51 -0.21 -0.27 Group 1 0.08 -0.88 -0.05 -0.86 Group 2 -0.08* -0.05 -0.03 -0.09 Group 3 0.27 -0.29 0.24 -0.2 Group 4 0.15 -0.36 0.13 -0.15 Age -0.03 -0.39 -0.02 -0.35 Single 0.18 -0.23 0.04 -0.59 Number of Children 0 -0.84 0 -0.36 Household Size 0.03 -0.46 0 -0.87 Sex (Household Head) 0.22 -0.35 0.08 -0.62 83 Age (Household Head) 0.01 -0.96 -0.06 -0.63 Education (Household Head) -0.03 -0.51 0 -0.94 Employment (Household Head) -0.14 -0.39 -0.05 -0.57 Remittances -0.10** -0.01 -0.06** -0.01 PCA Asset 0.15 -0.41 0.01 -0.9 Enrollment 0.19** -0.01 0.09* -0.03 Education 0.19 -0.06 0.15* -0.03 Public School System 0.01 -0.95 0 -0.99 Number of Courses 0 -0.25 0 -0.27 Number of Jobs 0.01 -0.51 0 -0.71 Number of Businesses Owned -0.02* -0.01 -0.01* -0.01 Monthly Income 0.03 -0.68 0 -0.91 GEM (Baseline) 10.14*** 0 1.69* -0.01 DAP Score 1851 1851 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.30* -0.03 0.1 -0.3 Constant1 -0.76*** 0 -0.38*** 0 N -0.07 -0.52 -0.03 -0.64 Risk Behavior: Outcomes based on Friends’ Behaviors Fighting P Values Gang Activity P Values Drug Use P Values Unprotected Sex P Values A Ganar 1.16 -0.29 1.22 -0.25 1.12 -0.31 1.13 -0.20 Sex 0.63** 0.00 0.69* -0.04 0.49*** 0.00 0.70** -0.01 Motivation 0.98 -0.81 1.08 -0.55 0.99 -0.92 0.88 -0.11 CADERH G Business 0.89 -0.77 0.30 -0.05 0.55 -0.15 1.23 -0.56 CENET Comayagua 0.54 -0.26 0.99 -0.98 0.73 -0.49 1.13 -0.75 CENET Germania 1.09 -0.85 0.63 -0.41 0.44 -0.06 1.32 -0.43 CENET Los Pinos 1.11 -0.78 0.83 -0.67 1.03 -0.94 0.97 -0.92 CENET Travesia 0.85 -0.74 1.10 -0.84 0.97 -0.94 2.24* -0.03 CENET Villanueva 1.43 -0.34 0.63 -0.37 0.99 -0.98 1.36 -0.30 CESAL Providencia 1.52 -0.34 0.11* -0.04 1.53 -0.26 1.51 -0.31 CESAL San Miguel 1.29 -0.59 1.36 -0.56 0.77 -0.55 0.81 -0.63 CI Humanos 1.36 -0.40 1.55 -0.25 1.09 -0.79 1.56 -0.10 CI Vida Nueva 0.68 -0.38 0.95 -0.92 0.78 -0.54 0.85 -0.64 FUNADEH Alcance 0.55 -0.27 0.68 -0.50 0.44 -0.10 1.44 -0.28 84 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras FUNADEH Choloma 1.07 -0.89 0.33 -0.18 1.17 -0.77 2.28* -0.02 FUNADEH Didactica 0.95 -0.89 1.02 -0.97 0.56 -0.08 1.02 -0.95 FUNADEH Lima 0.76 -0.61 0.94 -0.92 0.71 -0.47 3.33** 0.00 Libre Expresion 0.87 -0.68 0.66 -0.32 1.16 -0.60 1.03 -0.93 OEI Ceiba 0.60 -0.21 1.26 -0.62 1.11 -0.77 2.05* -0.04 OEI Santa Rita 0.56 -0.18 0.36 -0.07 0.61 -0.21 1.07 -0.84 OEI Tela 0.36* -0.04 0.55 -0.28 0.77 -0.48 2.11* -0.02 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.48*** 0.00 1.88*** 0.00 1.86*** 0.00 1.55*** 0.00 Cohort 3 0.89 -0.54 0.98 -0.93 1.10 -0.58 0.86 -0.35 Group 2 1.11 -0.62 0.98 -0.94 0.88 -0.50 0.91 -0.58 Group 3 0.70 -0.30 0.80 -0.60 0.74 -0.30 0.94 -0.83 Group 4 0.92 -0.87 0.71 -0.68 0.83 -0.65 1.18 -0.66 Age 0.93 -0.05 0.91* -0.03 0.94 -0.06 0.96 -0.17 Single 0.98 -0.94 0.79 -0.41 1.46 -0.14 1.09 -0.68 Number of Children 0.81 -0.23 1.14 -0.48 1.25 -0.11 0.89 -0.31 Household Size 1.03 -0.43 0.98 -0.52 1.00 -0.86 1.00 -0.86 Sex (Household Head) 1.12 -0.41 1.11 -0.51 1.32* -0.01 1.02 -0.83 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.79 1.01 -0.28 1.00 -0.56 1.00 -0.57 Education (Household Head) 0.98 -0.63 1.00 -0.94 1.02 -0.49 1.01 -0.62 Employment (Household Head) 1.19 -0.48 0.93 -0.79 1.27 -0.22 1.20 -0.27 Remittances 0.97 -0.89 1.03 -0.90 1.01 -0.95 1.10 -0.48 PCA Asset 0.95 -0.26 1.06 -0.32 1.02 -0.67 0.99 -0.73 Enrollment 0.98 -0.92 1.13 -0.50 0.80 -0.09 1.00 -0.98 Education 0.95 -0.14 0.97 -0.47 0.94* -0.02 0.97 -0.26 Public School System 1.05 -0.77 1.00 -0.99 1.28 -0.14 1.09 -0.52 Number of Courses 1.11 -0.12 1.09 -0.31 1.08 -0.15 1.10 -0.06 Number of Jobs 1.13 -0.19 1.08 -0.45 1.13 -0.12 1.01 -0.88 Number of Businesses Owned 1.14 -0.56 0.97 -0.92 0.91 -0.63 1.23 -0.21 Monthly Income 1.00 -0.48 1.00 -0.93 1.00 -0.65 1.00 -0.51 GEM (Baseline) 1.00 -0.76 0.98* -0.02 1.00 -0.77 1.00 -0.75 DAP Score 0.98 -0.05 0.97** 0.00 0.98* -0.03 0.99 -0.09 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 1.04 -0.51 1.05 -0.49 1.01 -0.89 1.00 -0.94 Constant1 0.48 -0.49 0.11 -0.11 0.65 -0.73 0.45 -0.28 Constant2 3.87 -0.20 0.52 -0.64 4.82 -0.22 3.74 -0.08 Constant3 8.11 -0.05 1.00 -1.00 9.94 -0.08 8.25** -0.01 85 Constant4 37.91** 0.00 6.02 -0.20 33.40* -0.01 28.43*** 0.00 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 Criminal Activity P Values Incarcerated P Values Drug Trafficking P Values Alcohol Abuse P Values A Ganar 1.28 -0.35 1.61** -0.01 1.24 -0.30 1.07 -0.46 Sex 0.56 -0.08 0.50** 0.00 0.66 -0.06 0.70*** 0.00 Motivation 0.80 -0.26 0.90 -0.43 0.87 -0.42 0.99 -0.85 CADERH G Business 0.42 -0.41 1.15 -0.80 0.81 -0.74 0.73 -0.31 CENET Comayagua 0.73 -0.73 0.66 -0.56 0.48 -0.38 0.58 -0.12 CENET Germania 1.39 -0.67 1.03 -0.96 0.40 -0.28 0.83 -0.60 CENET Los Pinos 0.65 -0.55 1.56 -0.29 0.50 -0.23 1.40 -0.21 CENET Travesia 0.88 -0.89 1.76 -0.35 0.94 -0.93 1.60 -0.18 CENET Villanueva 1.25 -0.71 1.71 -0.18 1.17 -0.78 1.31 -0.31 CESAL Providencia 0.00 -0.99 2.96* -0.03 0.39 -0.28 1.34 -0.39 CESAL San Miguel 0.49 -0.54 1.52 -0.50 0.31 -0.29 0.91 -0.80 CI Humanos 1.27 -0.71 1.67 -0.21 1.23 -0.72 0.83 -0.46 CI Vida Nueva 0.46 -0.38 0.73 -0.57 0.54 -0.41 0.95 -0.88 FUNADEH Alcance 0.59 -0.67 0.18 -0.12 0.54 -0.50 1.16 -0.66 FUNADEH Choloma 1.40 -0.72 0.83 -0.82 1.02 -0.98 0.84 -0.65 FUNADEH Didactica 0.37 -0.25 0.85 -0.72 0.77 -0.63 0.73 -0.25 FUNADEH Lima 0.69 -0.76 0.66 -0.57 0.75 -0.74 1.77 -0.20 Libre Expresion 0.89 -0.86 0.76 -0.55 0.89 -0.82 0.89 -0.64 OEI Ceiba 0.53 -0.49 1.00 -1.00 0.47 -0.30 1.05 -0.86 OEI Santa Rita 0.68 -0.65 0.66 -0.44 0.75 -0.67 0.82 -0.51 OEI Tela 0.22 -0.22 1.02 -0.98 0.66 -0.55 1.27 -0.40 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.80** -0.01 1.86*** 0.00 1.99*** 0.00 1.66*** 0.00 Cohort 3 1.05 -0.91 0.94 -0.80 1.42 -0.26 1.05 -0.74 Group 2 0.99 -0.98 1.42 -0.19 1.05 -0.88 1.04 -0.82 Group 3 0.59 -0.54 1.23 -0.64 0.92 -0.86 1.01 -0.97 Group 4 0.61 -0.68 2.28 -0.18 0.86 -0.85 1.20 -0.58 Age 1.04 -0.54 0.94 -0.13 1.03 -0.58 0.95 -0.09 Single 0.68 -0.46 1.39 -0.30 1.24 -0.61 1.27 -0.22 Number of Children 0.48 -0.06 1.14 -0.50 1.18 -0.48 1.19 -0.10 Household Size 0.99 -0.88 0.97 -0.53 1.01 -0.91 0.98 -0.45 Sex (Household Head) 1.01 -0.96 0.96 -0.82 1.33 -0.22 1.15 -0.20 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.98 1.02* -0.01 1.00 -0.83 1.00 -0.88 86 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Education (Household Head) 1.04 -0.63 1.07 -0.12 1.03 -0.55 1.04 -0.13 Employment (Household Head) 1.47 -0.51 0.94 -0.84 1.23 -0.60 1.13 -0.47 Remittances 0.54 -0.29 0.93 -0.77 0.58 -0.08 1.24 -0.11 PCA Asset 1.02 -0.81 1.06 -0.40 0.96 -0.56 0.94 -0.06 Enrollment 0.78 -0.45 1.20 -0.33 0.93 -0.75 0.87 -0.20 Education 0.92 -0.18 0.87*** 0.00 0.91 -0.06 0.96 -0.09 Public School System 0.76 -0.40 0.90 -0.63 0.92 -0.75 1.19 -0.13 Number of Courses 1.03 -0.81 1.03 -0.71 1.18 -0.07 1.15** 0.00 Number of Jobs 1.63** 0.00 1.15 -0.19 1.31 -0.06 1.07 -0.31 Number of Businesses Owned 0.86 -0.77 0.92 -0.79 0.80 -0.56 0.99 -0.95 Monthly Income 1.00 -0.25 1.00 -0.36 1.00 -0.64 1.00 -0.88 GEM (Baseline) 0.97 -0.07 1.00 -0.96 1.00 -0.95 1.01 -0.34 DAP Score 0.98 -0.35 0.98* -0.03 0.98 -0.13 0.98** 0.00 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.89 -0.37 0.89 -0.15 0.80* -0.05 0.98 -0.76 Constant1 0.46 -0.74 0.90 -0.94 9.65 -0.19 0.43 -0.33 Constant2 2.16 -0.75 8.81 -0.15 46.77* -0.03 3.35 -0.16 Constant3 3.36 -0.62 15.42 -0.07 100.76** -0.01 5.87* -0.05 Constant4 10.25 -0.38 1435.59*** 0.00 13.58** 0.00 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 87 Risk Behavior: Outcomes based on Randomized Self Reports Fighting P Values Gang Involvement P Values Drug Use P Values Unprotected Sex P Values A Ganar 1.01 -0.93 0.84 -0.18 0.89 -0.37 1.10 -0.46 Sex 0.81 -0.19 1.10 -0.51 0.63** 0.00 0.74 -0.06 Motivation 0.91 -0.34 0.86 -0.14 1.12 -0.34 0.90 -0.26 CADERH G Business 0.72 -0.43 1.70 -0.27 1.60 -0.43 1.22 -0.70 CENET Comayagua 0.74 -0.51 0.77 -0.69 0.97 -0.95 0.94 -0.90 CENET Germania 0.20* -0.01 0.56 -0.34 2.26 -0.06 0.44 -0.11 CENET Los Pinos 0.70 -0.30 1.35 -0.49 1.09 -0.83 1.46 -0.25 CENET Travesia 0.24* -0.01 0.80 -0.78 0.79 -0.68 0.26* -0.05 CENET Villanueva 0.59 -0.16 1.26 -0.58 1.06 -0.89 1.67 -0.15 CESAL Providencia 0.87 -0.75 1.12 -0.84 1.50 -0.47 1.11 -0.83 CESAL San Miguel 0.82 -0.67 1.36 -0.58 0.76 -0.67 1.65 -0.30 CI Humanos 0.91 -0.76 1.27 -0.56 1.66 -0.20 0.84 -0.61 CI Vida Nueva 0.47 -0.07 1.33 -0.60 0.91 -0.85 1.43 -0.39 FUNADEH Alcance 0.34* -0.04 0.73 -0.58 1.26 -0.68 1.05 -0.92 FUNADEH Choloma 0.92 -0.86 2.03 -0.19 1.25 -0.72 1.07 -0.90 FUNADEH Didactica 0.55 -0.15 0.85 -0.74 0.80 -0.62 0.62 -0.29 FUNADEH Lima 0.41 -0.17 1.19 -0.84 1.20 -0.75 1.35 -0.54 Libre Expresion 0.94 -0.84 1.45 -0.42 1.25 -0.64 1.07 -0.83 OEI Ceiba 0.67 -0.25 1.11 -0.86 0.77 -0.64 1.30 -0.49 OEI Santa Rita 0.87 -0.73 1.20 -0.68 0.60 -0.34 0.89 -0.77 OEI Tela 0.77 -0.51 1.33 -0.56 1.82 -0.18 1.21 -0.62 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.36* -0.03 1.09 -0.69 1.29 -0.11 1.22 -0.17 Cohort 3 1.11 -0.57 0.65 -0.07 0.73 -0.11 0.67 -0.12 Group 2 0.93 -0.73 0.96 -0.85 1.22 -0.37 0.87 -0.57 Group 3 0.59 -0.13 1.22 -0.51 0.85 -0.61 1.03 -0.91 Group 4 0.57 -0.28 0.85 -0.75 1.10 -0.85 1.22 -0.66 Age 1.03 -0.39 1.08* -0.03 1.02 -0.61 0.97 -0.34 Single 0.93 -0.77 1.06 -0.85 1.08 -0.77 1.22 -0.41 Number of Children 0.97 -0.87 0.74 -0.10 0.89 -0.45 0.80 -0.16 Household Size 1.00 -0.95 1.01 -0.66 1.00 -0.94 1.00 -0.97 Sex (Household Head) 1.18 -0.22 1.03 -0.86 0.89 -0.46 1.04 -0.80 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.62 0.99 -0.33 1.00 -0.75 1.00 -0.67 88 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Education (Household Head) 0.99 -0.77 1.00 -0.96 1.02 -0.70 1.04 -0.30 Employment (Household Head) 1.03 -0.89 1.15 -0.68 1.20 -0.45 1.33 -0.18 Remittances 0.89 -0.53 1.12 -0.62 1.33 -0.16 0.95 -0.74 PCA Asset 1.05 -0.32 1.02 -0.65 1.03 -0.57 0.97 -0.59 Enrollment 0.81 -0.25 1.10 -0.55 1.01 -0.94 0.93 -0.65 Education 1.01 -0.86 0.98 -0.55 0.97 -0.42 1.00 -0.96 Public School System 1.11 -0.54 1.22 -0.33 1.01 -0.96 0.80 -0.17 Number of Courses 0.96 -0.55 0.95 -0.45 0.96 -0.54 0.91 -0.18 Number of Jobs 1.12 -0.20 0.98 -0.86 1.01 -0.93 1.22* -0.02 Number of Businesses Owned 1.31 -0.19 1.01 -0.98 1.02 -0.92 1.01 -0.97 Monthly Income 1.00 -0.92 1.00 -0.90 1.00 -0.67 1.00 -0.94 GEM (Baseline) 0.99 -0.22 0.99 -0.34 1.00 -0.77 0.99 -0.26 DAP Score 0.99 -0.27 0.99 -0.46 1.00 -0.65 1.00 -0.67 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 1.03 -0.69 1.07 -0.35 1.02 -0.81 1.02 -0.71 Constant1 0.78 -0.81 0.23 -0.18 0.27 -0.25 1.65 -0.66 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 89 Criminal Activity (Self) P Values Incarceration (Self) P Values Drug Trafficking (Self) P Values Alcohol Abuse (Self) P Values A Ganar 0.96 -0.80 1.17 -0.30 0.84 -0.23 1.08 -0.59 Sex 0.78 -0.19 0.94 -0.77 0.75 -0.08 0.53*** 0.00 Motivation 0.97 -0.80 1.01 -0.95 1.02 -0.86 1.03 -0.76 CADERH G Business 0.78 -0.61 1.14 -0.75 1.22 -0.68 1.17 -0.72 CENET Comayagua 0.91 -0.85 1.09 -0.85 0.92 -0.89 0.68 -0.43 CENET Germania 0.77 -0.62 0.57 -0.36 1.04 -0.94 0.79 -0.63 CENET Los Pinos 0.94 -0.87 1.62 -0.20 1.40 -0.38 1.65 -0.19 CENET Travesia 0.98 -0.97 0.40 -0.17 1.49 -0.47 0.99 -0.99 CENET Villanueva 0.69 -0.35 1.20 -0.63 1.33 -0.49 0.82 -0.61 CESAL Providencia 1.06 -0.91 1.40 -0.50 0.69 -0.55 1.09 -0.86 CESAL San Miguel 0.64 -0.44 0.44 -0.24 0.72 -0.61 0.64 -0.37 CI Humanos 0.89 -0.76 0.75 -0.42 0.99 -0.98 0.99 -0.97 CI Vida Nueva 0.73 -0.52 1.10 -0.84 0.88 -0.79 0.97 -0.95 FUNADEH Alcance 0.36 -0.10 0.56 -0.34 0.52 -0.24 0.79 -0.59 FUNADEH Choloma 0.74 -0.62 1.20 -0.73 1.17 -0.81 0.66 -0.47 FUNADEH Didactica 0.36* -0.04 1.42 -0.34 0.70 -0.38 1.08 -0.82 FUNADEH Lima 1.05 -0.94 0.97 -0.95 0.99 -0.99 1.17 -0.80 Libre Expresion 0.84 -0.66 1.05 -0.90 0.95 -0.88 0.94 -0.86 OEI Ceiba 0.39 -0.12 0.68 -0.39 0.58 -0.29 0.87 -0.75 OEI Santa Rita 0.95 -0.91 0.99 -0.99 1.67 -0.19 0.65 -0.29 OEI Tela 0.90 -0.79 1.21 -0.64 1.86 -0.13 1.00 -0.99 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 1.45* -0.05 1.49* -0.02 1.27 -0.13 1.29 -0.05 Cohort 3 0.90 -0.62 0.86 -0.47 0.72 -0.13 1.07 -0.69 Group 2 1.19 -0.48 1.14 -0.55 1.27 -0.32 1.08 -0.67 Group 3 1.06 -0.88 0.99 -0.98 1.42 -0.35 1.16 -0.69 Group 4 1.50 -0.38 0.55 -0.33 2.22 -0.09 1.34 -0.54 Age 1.04 -0.25 0.96 -0.37 0.99 -0.74 1.05 -0.23 Single 1.06 -0.84 1.40 -0.23 1.27 -0.41 1.06 -0.80 Number of Children 0.69* -0.05 0.88 -0.44 0.85 -0.38 0.99 -0.95 Household Size 0.97 -0.39 1.04 -0.21 0.96 -0.24 0.94 -0.08 Sex (Household Head) 1.08 -0.57 1.07 -0.64 1.08 -0.60 1.12 -0.38 Age (Household Head) 1.00 -0.90 1.00 -0.93 1.01 -0.21 1.00 -0.57 90 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Education (Household Head) 1.02 -0.68 1.01 -0.84 0.99 -0.82 0.97 -0.31 Employment (Household Head) 1.44 -0.14 0.99 -0.98 1.02 -0.95 1.14 -0.58 Remittances 1.00 -0.99 0.78 -0.25 1.27 -0.18 1.30 -0.16 PCA Asset 0.94 -0.23 1.03 -0.57 1.02 -0.65 0.90* -0.01 Enrollment 0.83 -0.27 0.70* -0.04 0.81 -0.24 1.04 -0.82 Education 1.01 -0.81 0.95 -0.21 0.92* -0.02 0.99 -0.65 Public School System 1.13 -0.51 1.01 -0.95 0.88 -0.49 0.82 -0.20 Number of Courses 0.94 -0.35 0.92 -0.24 0.87 -0.05 0.97 -0.62 Number of Jobs 1.01 -0.89 0.91 -0.39 1.10 -0.31 0.89 -0.18 Number of Businesses Owned 1.52 -0.05 0.98 -0.93 0.83 -0.51 0.79 -0.36 Monthly Income 1.00 -0.22 1.00 -0.84 1.00 -0.55 1.00 -0.57 GEM (Baseline) 0.99 -0.48 1.00 -0.76 1.00 -0.79 0.98* -0.03 DAP Score 1.01 -0.42 1.00 -0.64 1.01 -0.47 0.98* -0.02 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.95 -0.47 0.94 -0.49 0.92 -0.26 1.01 -0.86 Constant1 0.15 -0.11 0.42 -0.57 0.82 -0.85 2.71 -0.39 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 Risk Behavior Odds Ratio Summary Self Peers Odds Ratio p-value Odds Ratio p-value Fight 1.01 0.94 1.14 0.33 Gang 0.82 0.19 1.25 0.15 Drug use 0.89 0.4 1.15 0.24 Sex 1.08 0.54 1.14 0.24 Crime 0.99 0.93 1.26 0.4 Jail 1.15 0.36 1.67 0.01 Drug sale 0.89 0.46 1.28 0.26 Alcohol 1.12 0.37 1.05 0.61 91 ANNEX K: DEVELOPMENT ASSET PROFILE REGRESSION TABLES DAP Outcomes DAP P Values PCA DAP P Values Internal Assets P Values External Assets P Values A Ganar 0.99** 0 0.32 -0.07 0.46** -0.01 0.53** 0 Sex -1.38*** 0 -0.33 -0.15 -0.71*** 0 -0.68** 0 Motivation -0.11 -0.68 -0.04 -0.8 -0.09 -0.54 -0.02 -0.88 CADERH G Business -2.45* -0.03 -1 -0.22 -0.88 -0.13 -1.53* -0.01 CENET Comayagua -0.68 -0.59 -0.36 -0.68 0.1 -0.88 -0.77 -0.25 CENET Germania -1.41 -0.25 -0.49 -0.64 -0.46 -0.48 -0.98 -0.14 CENET Los Pinos -0.9 -0.34 -0.41 -0.55 -0.22 -0.67 -0.65 -0.22 CENET Travesia -2.62* -0.03 -1.68 -0.07 -0.93 -0.14 -1.69* -0.01 CENET Villanueva -1.92* -0.05 -0.02 -0.98 -0.57 -0.27 -1.30* -0.01 CESAL Providencia -3.90** 0 -2.07* -0.03 -1.57* -0.02 -2.38*** 0 CESAL San Miguel -3.91** 0 -1.41 -0.12 -1.60* -0.02 -2.31*** 0 CI Humanos -2.64** 0 -0.86 -0.15 -1.08* -0.03 -1.50** 0 CI Vida Nueva -3.26** 0 -0.87 -0.33 -1.39* -0.02 -1.81** 0 FUNADEH Alcance -1.54 -0.2 -0.44 -0.58 -0.5 -0.43 -1 -0.12 FUNADEH Choloma -3.76** 0 -1.72 -0.07 -1.52* -0.04 -2.23** 0 FUNADEH Didactica -1.83 -0.05 -0.44 -0.38 -0.47 -0.34 -1.33* -0.02 FUNADEH Lima -2.46 -0.1 -0.81 -0.41 -0.6 -0.44 -1.85* -0.03 Libre Expresion -1.79* -0.05 -0.75 -0.24 -0.36 -0.45 -1.42** 0 OEI Ceiba -3.21** 0 -1.06 -0.19 -1.28* -0.02 -1.89*** 0 OEI Santa Rita -0.22 -0.84 -0.02 -0.98 0.08 -0.88 -0.28 -0.64 OEI Tela -2.18* -0.04 -1.32 -0.2 -0.92 -0.1 -1.26* -0.03 Outcome Variable's Baseline Value 0.42*** 0 0.26*** 0 0.42*** 0 0.38*** 0 Cohort 3 1.36** 0 0.63* -0.04 0.69** -0.01 0.67** -0.01 Group 2 0.45 -0.39 -0.06 -0.82 0.28 -0.31 0.16 -0.58 Group 3 -0.37 -0.65 0.11 -0.81 -0.25 -0.56 -0.1 -0.82 Group 4 -0.01 -1 -0.24 -0.72 -0.28 -0.67 0.29 -0.66 Age 0.12 -0.16 0.07 -0.21 0.05 -0.32 0.08 -0.1 Single -0.93 -0.12 -0.21 -0.56 -0.49 -0.13 -0.44 -0.18 Number of Children -0.66 -0.09 -0.39 -0.09 -0.46* -0.03 -0.19 -0.36 Household Size -0.05 -0.52 -0.05 -0.33 -0.02 -0.57 -0.03 -0.52 Sex (Household Head) -0.62 -0.07 -0.32 -0.07 -0.33 -0.07 -0.3 -0.11 Age (Household Head) 0 -0.83 -0.01 -0.49 0 -0.96 0 -0.61 92 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Education (Household Head) 0.05 -0.59 -0.01 -0.81 0.03 -0.53 0.02 -0.7 Employment (Household Head) 0.75 -0.18 0.29 -0.37 0.42 -0.17 0.33 -0.28 Remittances -0.34 -0.46 -0.12 -0.64 -0.22 -0.39 -0.12 -0.62 PCA Asset 0 -0.98 0 -0.96 -0.02 -0.73 0.03 -0.64 Education 0.19* -0.02 0.08 -0.27 0.10* -0.03 0.09* -0.04 Enrollment 0.66 -0.09 0.46* -0.03 0.24 -0.25 0.43* -0.04 Public School System 0.04 -0.93 0.17 -0.47 0.12 -0.59 -0.09 -0.71 Number of Courses 0.04 -0.81 0.06 -0.55 -0.01 -0.88 0.06 -0.45 Number of Jobs -0.31 -0.19 -0.09 -0.67 -0.12 -0.31 -0.18 -0.18 Number of Businesses Owned 0.17 -0.76 0.13 -0.69 0.05 -0.85 0.14 -0.65 Monthly Income 0 -0.44 0 -0.53 0 -0.58 0 -0.38 DAP Score GEM (Baseline) 0.01 -0.51 0.03* -0.02 0 -0.94 0.02 -0.12 Risk Index (Baseline) -0.08 -0.13 -0.07* -0.04 -0.04 -0.19 -0.05 -0.07 Neighborhood Safety Proxy 0.16 -0.34 0.23 -0.07 0.09 -0.33 0.1 -0.26 Constant1 21.33*** 0 -3.25 -0.1 10.88*** 0 10.80*** 0 N 1851 1851 1851 1851 93 ANNEX L: 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 1.14, as shown in the Risk Behavior Odds Ratio summary for peers’ sex behavior indicates that there was a 14% increase in unprotected sex 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. 94 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX M: 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. 95 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. 96 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX N: 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. 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. 97 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 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 98 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras company that sells various products 21. 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 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. 21 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. 99 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.” 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 100 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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 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.” 101 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.” 102 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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 103 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 104 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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. 105 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. 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 106 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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 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 107 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.” 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.” 108 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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. 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. 109 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 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 110 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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.” 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. 111 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. 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 112 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 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: “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. 113 ANNEX O: DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS PROFILE SUB-ITEMS SHOWI SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 1. Like my school 2. Do my work (homework, housework) 3. Avoid alcohol, tobacco and other drugs 4. Feel good about my future 5. Look to my parents for advice 6. Think it is important to help others 7. Feel safe at home 8. Tell the truth even when it is difficult 9. Accept those who are different than me 10. Actively looking to learn new things 11. Practicing good health habits 12. Excited about helping others 13. Being given useful tasks. 14. Sensitive to the needs and feelings of others 15. Taking advantage of my time at home with my parent(s) 16. A school that provides clear ground rules for the students 17. Adults that are good role models 18. Teachers that push me to have goals and achievements 19. Support from adults other than my parents 20. Parents that I can talk to about things 114 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX P: RANDOMIZED RESPONSE Randomized response, a research method first described in 1965, is a technique used to correct the documented typical underreporting of taboo behavior using traditional direct-measurement approaches. Instead of querying items directly which may be prone to ‘social desirability bias (telling researchers the socially acceptable response to a taboo question), researchers utilize probability to mask individual respondents’ answers. While this technique cannot isolate any individual response (anomymization), population parameters can be inferred in the aggregate through statistical transformation of pooled data. In the A Ganar study, respondents were asked to roll a six sided die, before answering a series of yes/no questions. The game has three rules, depending on the result of the roll: Roll Response 1 the respondent must answer Yes, regardless of the true answer 2-5 the respondent must answer the question truthfully 6 the respondent must answer No, regardless of the true answer Total responses were tallied and a simple transformation was made to back out the one-third of forced responses (rolls of 1 and 6), resulting in estimates presented in the body of the report. There is a large and growing body of work substantiating the methodology’s validity through comparative analyses and successful usage across varied disciplines. Some recent, peer-reviewed papers include: • Abul-Ela, A. L. A., Greenberg, G. G., & Horvitz, D. G. (1967). A multi-proportions randomized response model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(319), 990-1008. • Böckenholt, U., Barlas, S., & Van Der Heijden, P. G. (2009). Do randomized‐response designs eliminate response biases? An empirical study of non‐compliance behavior. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(3), 377-392. • Chaudhuri, A., & Christofides, T. C. (2013). A Plea for Indirect Questioning: Stigmatizing Issues of Social Relevance. In Indirect Questioning in Sample Surveys (pp. 1-7). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. • Du, W., & Zhan, Z. (2003, August). Using randomized response techniques for privacy￾preserving data mining. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 505-510). ACM. • Eichhorn, B. H., & Hayre, L. S. (1983). Scrambled randomized response methods for obtaining sensitive quantitative data. Journal of Statistical planning and Inference, 7(4), 307-316. • Fidler, D. S., & Kleinknecht, R. E. (1977). Randomized response versus direct questioning: Two data-collection methods for sensitive information. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 1045. • Freya A. V. St John, Aidan M. Keane, Gareth Edwards-Jones, Lauren Jones, Richard W. Yarnell and Julia P. G. Jones (2012), Identifying indicators of illegal behaviour: carnivore killing in human-managed landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 279(1729), 804-812. • Greenberg, B. G., Abul-Ela, A. L. A., Simmons, W. R., & Horvitz, D. G. (1969). The unrelated question randomized response model: Theoretical framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 64(326), 520-539. 115 • Greenberg, B. G., Kuebler Jr, R. R., Abernathy, J. R., & Horvitz, D. G. (1971). Application of the randomized response technique in obtaining quantitative data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(334), 243-250. • Karlan, D. S., & Zinman, J. (2012). List randomization for sensitive behavior: An application for measuring use of loan proceeds. Journal of Development Economics, 98(1), 71-75. • Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J., Hox, J. J., Van der Heijden, P. G., & Maas, C. J. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(3), 319-348. • Mangat, N. S., & Singh, R. (1990). An alternative randomized response procedure. Biometrika, 77(2), 439-442. • Moors, J. J. A. (1971). Optimization of the unrelated question randomized response model. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(335), 627-629. • Tracy, P. E., & Fox, J. A. (1981). The validity of randomized response for sensitive measurements. American Sociological Review, 187-200. • Van Der Heijden, P. G., BOUTS, J., & HOX, J. J. (2000). A Comparison of Randomized Response, Computer-Assisted Self-Interview, and Face-to-Face Direct Questioning Eliciting Sensitive Information in the Context of Welfare and Unemployment Benefit. Sociological Methods & Research, 28(4), 505-537. • Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60(309), 63-69. 116 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX Q: TRANSLATED SURVEY INSTRUMENT VISITS TO THE HOUSEHOLD (To be filled by the enumerator and supervisor) FIRST VISIT CODING OF RESULTS DATE: __ __ / __ __ / __ __ (DD / MM / YY) Interview Complete ……………………………. . 1 Respondent was not at home…………………...2 Household not found ………………………........3 Refused……………………………………………4 RESULT: 1 2 3 4 ENUMERATOR FIRST NAME ENUMERATOR LAST NAMES SIGNATURE OF ENUMERATOR SUPERVISOR FIRST NAME SUPERVISOR LAST NAMES SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR SECOND VISIT CODING OF RESULTS DATE: __ __ / __ __ / __ __ (DD / MM / YY) Interview Complete ……………………………. . 1 Respondent was not at home…………………...2 Household not found ………………………........3 Refused……………………………………………4 RESULT: 1 2 3 4 ENUMERATOR FIRST NAME ENUMERATOR LAST NAMES SIGNATURE OF ENUMERATOR SUPERVISOR FIRST NAME SUPERVISOR LAST NAMES 117 SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR THIRD VISIT CODING OF RESULTS DATE: __ __ / __ __ / __ __ (DD / MM / YY) Interview Complete ……………………………. . 1 Respondent was not at home…………………...2 Household not found ………………………........3 Refused……………………………………………4 RESULT: 1 2 3 4 ENUMERATOR FIRST NAME ENUMERATOR LAST NAMES SIGNATURE OF ENUMERATOR SUPERVISOR FIRST NAME SUPERVISOR LAST NAMES SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR REPLACED RESPONSENT ID SURVEY RECORDS (To be filled by the supervisor) SURVEY RECORDS # Attempts 1.1. 1st ATTEMPT 1.1. Date Month Day 1.1. OUTCOME Responses options Response Code Interview completed 1 Interview in-complete 2 Agree to continue interview? Yes No Refused during the interview 3 Clarify reason for refusal below Reason for in-complete interview or refusal: 1.2. 2nd ATTEMPT 1.2. Date Month Day 1.2. OUTCOME Responses options Response Code Interview completed 1 118 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Interview in-complete 2 Agree to continue interview? Yes No Refused during the interview 3 Clarify reason for refusal below Reason for in-complete interview or refusal: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION RESPONDENT NUMBER HOUSEHOLD COORDINATES LATITUDE (N/S) LONGITUDE (E/W) FIRST LAST NAME SECOND LAST NAME FIRST NAME SEX MALE FEMALE AGE GEOGRPAHIC LOCATION STATE COUNTY TOWNSHIP NEIGHBORBOOD HOME ADDRESS HOW LONG HAS YOUR HOUSEHOLD LIVED HERE? YEARS MONTHS CONTACT INFORMATION LANDLINE PHONE NUMBER CELLULAR NUMBER CELL NUMBER OF A RELATIVE RELATIVES FULL NAME CELL NUMBER OF A CLOSE FRIEND FRIEND’S FULL NAME EMAIL ADDRESS DO YOU HAVE FACEBOOK? YES NO CAN WE CONTACT YOU ON FACEBOOK? YES NO WHAT IS YOUR NAME ON FACEBOOK? START TIME Hour Minute END TIME Hour Minute 119 RESPONSENT ID SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION 1.1: DEMOGRAPHIC/HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION # QUESTION RESPONSE CODE SKIP 1.1 What is your marital status? Single………………………. Married………………………. Divorced…………………... Widowed………………………... Separated…………………….. Civil Union…………………… Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 88 99 1 ⇒ 1.3 1.2 At what age did you marry? Age…………………………… Unknown No response __ __ 88 99 1.3 How many children have you had? None……………………………. 1………………………………… 2………………………………… 3+………………………………. Unknown No response……………………. 1 2 3 4 88 99 1 ⇒ 1.5 1.4 How old were you when you had your first child? Age…………………………… Unknown No response __ __ 88 99 1.5 Are you currently expecting a child? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ 1.7 1.7 What is your housing situation? Private Home…………………. Outdoor Housing………... Temporary Housing………………. Apartment…………………… Single room in an apartment or house Bunkhouse ……………………….. Space not built for housing but used as such………… Other (_______________________) Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 88 99 1.8 What is the primary material used for walls? Brick, Stone, blocks………. 1 120 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Adobe………………………….. Prefabricated Material………….. Wood…………………………. Stick and Daub, straw, cane………… Disposable material……………………….. Other (_______________________) Unknown No response 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 99 1.9 What is the primary material used for flooring? Ceramic Concrete bricks Stone (granite) bricks Mud bricks Concrete slab Wood Earth Other (_______________________) Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 88 99 1.10 What is the primary material used for roofing? Clay/ Cement Slabs Asbestos Zinc sheeting Concrete Wood Straw, Palm fronds or similar material Aluminum/ Zinc sheeting Shingle Disposable material……………………….. Other (_______________________) Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 88 99 1.11 Do you have access to the following services in your house? Running water Electricity Internet Unknown No response Y / N Y / N Y / N 88 99 1.12 Does anyone in your household own or use any of the following goods or services? Refrigerator 4 Burner Stove Television Cable/ Satellite Television Radio Sound System Landline Cellular Phone Car Motorcycle Bicycle Computer Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N Y / N 121 Air Conditioning Unknown No response Y / N 88 99 1.13 Did you have internet access in the past month? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ 1.13 1.14 How often did you use the internet in the past month? At least once a day …….... At least once a week, but not every day…………... At least once a month, but not every week……… Less than once a month…….. Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 88 99 1.15 How much was the total household income in the last month? Include all forms of income, regardless of source. (For example: salaried job, sale of produce or agricultural products, sale of other products, remittances, donations.) include the income of all members of the household. No Income Between 1 and 500 Lempiras Between 501 and 1000 Lempiras Between 1001 and 2000 Lempiras Between 2001 and 3000 Lempiras Between 3001 and 6000 Lempiras Between 6001 and 9000 Lempiras Between 9001 and 12000 Lempiras Between 12001 and 15000 Lempiras Between 15001 and 18000 Lempiras More than 18000 Lempiras Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 88 99 1.16 In the past month, did you receive remittances from a family member? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ 1.18 1.17 In the last month how much was your income from remittances? No Income Between 1 and 500 Lempiras Between 501 and 1000 Lempiras Between 1001 and 2000 Lempiras Between 2001 and 3000 Lempiras Between 3001 and 6000 Lempiras Between 6001 and 9000 Lempiras Between 9001 and 12000 Lempiras Between 12001 and 15000 Lempiras Between 15001 and 18000 Lempiras More than 18000 Lempiras Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 88 99 1.18 Are you the head of the household? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown 1 2 88 122 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras No response 99 7.1 Do you currently play a sports? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ SECCION 1.2 7.2 How many days did you play sports in the last week? Days Unknown No response __ 88 99 7.3 If you play sports, do you play on a mixed￾gender team? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 123 SECTION 1.2: HOUSEHOLD MEMBER INFORMATION This section should be filled out for all people who typically live and/or sleep in your house. For any individuals 5 years or younger, skip the last three sections (Education Occupation, and Head of Household). Each household member will be listed on a separate row and will have information about each of the seven fields. ORDER NUMBER NAME RELATIONSHIP TO SURVEY TAKER SEX AGE EDUCATION OCCUPATION HEAD OF HOUSEH OLD NOTE THE NAMES OF REGULAR MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Don't include yourself) USE THE CORRECT CODE FOR EACH PERSON 1. Your wife or partner 2. Your children from oldest to youngest 3. Your step-children from oldest to youngest 4. Your mother or father 5. Your brother or sister 6. Your son or daughter in law 7. Other family member (niece, nephew, grandparent, cousin, uncle, aunt, grandchild, etc.) 8. Non- blood related family (daughter in law, son in law, guests, friends, etc.) 9. Household Employee 10. Unknown NOTE THEIR SEX Male (M) Female (F) AGE (for younger than 1 year note 000) USE THE CORRECT CODE FOR EACH PERSON 1. None 2. Early Childhood Education Incomplete 3. Early Childhood Education Complete 4. Basic Education Incomplete 5. Basic Education Complete 6. High School Incomplete 7. High School Complete 8. College/ University Incomplete 9. College/ University Complete 10. Post-grad incomplete 11. Post-grad complete 11. Unknown USE THE CORRECT CODE FOR EACH PERSON 1. Business Owner 2. Employed at a business or organization 3. Public Servant 4. Household Employee 5. Agricultural Worker 6. Works at Home 7. Student 8. Unemployed, seeking work 9. Pensioner, Retiree 10. Sick, Incapacitated 11. Too young 12. Other (please explain) 13. Unknown IS THIS PERSON THE HEAD OF HOUSEH OLD 1. Yes 2. No 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 124 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M / F __ __ __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 YES / NO 125 SECTION 3: EDUCATION SECTION 3.1: EDUCATION HISTORY # QUESTION RESPONSE CODE INSTRUCTIONS 3.1 Are you enrolled in school or other educational institution this year? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ 3.3 3.2 Do you currently attend school or other education institution? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 2 ⇒ 3.5 3.3 What is the main reason you are not studying this year? Taking time off Completed studies Does not want to continue attending school Helps with managing household No institutions that provides level required or it is too far away Due to family problems or health problems Lack of economic resources Married or became pregnant Due to work Does not have permission (parent or spouse) Other (____________________) Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 88 99 3.4 Do you want to return to school? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 3.5 What is your highest level of education completed? None Early Childhood Education Incomplete Early Childhood Education Complete Basic Education Incomplete Basic Education Complete High School Incomplete High School Complete College/ University Incomplete College/ University Complete Post-grad incomplete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ Highest grade completed __ 126 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Post-grad complete Unknown No response 88 99 3.7 What is the highest level of education you would like to complete? None Early Childhood Education Basic Education High School College/ University Post-grad No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 88 99 Which level __ Which level __ Which level __ Which level __ Which level __ 3.8 Have you ever participated in any training courses outside of school? Yes………………………………. No……………………………... Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ SECTION 4 3 ⇒ SECTION 4 4 ⇒ SECTION 4 SECTION 3.2: TRAINING HISTORY This section should be filled out only for training courses that you have taken outside of school. Each course should be listed on a separate row and should have complete information about each of the four fields. ORDER OF RESPONS ES WHAT WAS THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE COURSE? 1. Starting a business 2. Food Service 3. Agriculture 4. Information Technology 5. Tourism/Hotels 6. Basic Skills (Reading, Writing, Arithmetic) 7. Electrical 8. Mechanics 9. Other (Specify) DURATION OF TRAINING COURSE (Write the number and select appropriate unit) STARTING YEAR OF TRAINING COURSE WAS THEIR A COST INVOLVE D WITH COURSE 1. Yes 2. No 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO 127 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __ __ Months Weeks Days __ __ __ __ YES / NO SECTION 4: EMPLOYMENT SECTION 4.1: EMPLOYMENT HISTORY # QUESTION RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE SKIP 4.1.1 In the last month did you: work with family or for others without pay (excluding household chores). Yes No Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 4.1.2 In the past month did you dedicate an hour or more to work paid in currency or through in￾kind payment, or did you obtain currency through another means (excluding household chores) Yes No Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 2 ⇒ 4.1.4 4.1.3 How much were you paid in the last month you worked? Lps. Unknown No response 88 99 LPS ⇒ 4.1.7 4.1.4 How long have you been without work? Days....................... Weeks............... Months.................... Years...................... Unknown No response __ __ 1 2 3 4 88 99 4.1.5 Though you are not currently working, do you have a job or business to which you will shortly return? Yes No Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 4.1.6 Why did you not work last month? Bad Weather............................................ Temporary ...................... Strike or being laid off..................................... Family or health problems........... Vacation.......................................... Training....................................... Other (_________________________) Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 128 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras No response 88 99 4.1.7 Did you look for work during the last month? Yes No Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ 4.1.9 4.1.8 Why did you not look for work last month? Job Secured Waiting for the next work season Health problems Belief that they will not find a job No time to look for work Caring for children/ the elderly or sick family members or friends Currently pregnant Family member did not allow it There is no need for them to work Cannot work due to age Other (_________________________) Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 88 99 ALL ⇒ 4.1.10 4.1.9 How long have you been continually looking for work? Days ....................... Weeks............... Months.................. Unknown No response __ __ 1 2 3 88 99 4.1.10 Have you tried to establish a business during the last month? Yes No Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 1 ⇒ 4.1.12 4.1.11 How long have you been trying to establish your own business? Days ....................... Weeks............... Months.................. Unknown No response __ __ 1 2 3 88 129 99 4.1.12 Have you worked before? Yes No Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 2 ⇒ SECTION 4.2 4.1.13 In total, how long have you been working to receive a salary, make a living or help a family member? Months Years Unknown No response __ __ 1 2 88 99 PRIMARY OCCUPATION 4.1.14 In your primary occupation do you receive assistance from the following: RAP... INJUPEMP....................................... INPREMA...................................... IPM ................................................... IHSS .................................................. Private Pension Fund...... Private medical insurance ............. Labor Union ......................................... Union or Workers Association None of the above...... Other (_________________________) Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 88 99 4.1.15 In your primary occupation do you work as one of the following: SALARIED EMPLOYEE Public sector employee or worker Private sector employee or worker....... Domestic worker................... SELF EMPLOYED Member of production cooperative Does not employ temporary labor Employs temporary labor.............. Active employee.......... AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER Owner or worker on farm............ Family member working without pay Working without pay Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 130 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 9 10 88 99 4.1.16 How many hours did you work last week at your primary occupation? Hours….. Unknown No response __ __ 88 99 4.1.17 How many hours a week do you work, on average, at your primary occupation? Horas…. Unknown No response __ __ 88 99 4.1.18 How long have you been working at this job? Days....................... Weeks............... Months................... Years..................... Unknown No response __ __ 1 2 3 4 88 99 4.1.19 Are you working under a contract? Individual Contract (named) ... Verbal Contract........................ Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 4.1.20 What is the duration of your primary occupation? Temporary…………………….. Permanent………………… Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 4.1.21 Do you have access to any of the following at work? (multiple response) Pension?............................... Employment benefits?....... Vacation?.......................... Overtime Pay?.......... Accident Insurance?.......... Bonus (Thirteenth Salary).... Fourteenth Salary?.......... Bonuses?..................... Life Insurance?.................... None of the above. Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 131 88 99 4.1.22 How often are you paid at your principal occupation? Month....................................... Fortnight............................... Week................................. Day........................................ Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 88 99 4.1.23 How much are you paid per period? [READ response to 21]? Lps Unknown No response 88 99 4.1.24 ¿Cuántos(as) [LEER la respuesta 21] trabajó el mes pasado? Unknown No response 88 99 4.1.25 How much do you receive a week in either currency or in- kind payments? Lps Unknown No response 88 99 4.1.26 Do you have a secondary job? Yes No Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 2 ⇒ 4.38 OCUPACIÓN SECUNDARIA 4.1.27 In your secondary occupation do you work as one of the following: SALARIED EMPLOYEE Public sector employee or worker Private sector employee or worker....... Domestic worker................... SELF EMPLOYED Member of production cooperative Does not employ temporary labor Employs temporary labor.............. Active employee.......... AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER Owner or worker on farm............ Family member working without pay Working without pay Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 132 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 8 9 10 88 99 4.1.28 How many hours did you work last week at your primary occupation? Hours…. Unknown No response 88 99 4.1.29 How many hours a week do you work, on average, at your secondary occupation? Horas…. Unknown No response 88 99 4.1.30 How long have you been working at this job? Days....................... Weeks............... Months................... Years..................... Unknown No response __ __ 1 2 3 4 88 99 4.1.31 Are you working under a contract? Individual Contract (named) ... Verbal Contract........................ Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 4.1.32 What is the duration of your secondary occupation? Temporary……………………. Permanent………………… Unknown No response 1 2 88 99 4.1.33 Do you have access to any of the following at work? Pension?............................... Employment benefits?....... 1 133 (multiple response) Vacation?.......................... Overtime Pay?.......... Accident Insurance?.......... Bonus (Thirteenth Salary) .... Fourteenth Salary?.......... Bonuses?..................... Life Insurance?.................... None of the above. Unknown No response 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 88 99 4.1.34 How often are you paid at your secondary occupation? Month....................................... Fortnight............................... Week................................. Day........................................ Unknown No response 1 2 3 4 88 99 4.1.35 How much are you paid per period? [READ response to 21]? Lps Unknown No response 88 99 4.1.36 ¿Cuántos(as) [LEER la respuesta 21] trabajó el mes pasado? Unknown No response 88 99 4.1.37 How much do you receive a week in either currency or in- kind payments? Lps Unknown No response 88 99 PRIMARY BUSINESS 4.1.38 Do you have your own business? YES No No response 1 2 99 2 ⇒ 4.49 4.1.39 Do you hire any of the following at your business? Temporary workers permanent workers?...... Both temporary and permanent employees? Do not hire................................ No response 1 2 3 134 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 4 99 4.1.40 How long have you worked at your business? Days....................... Weeks............... Months................... Years..................... No response __ __ 1 2 3 4 99 4.1.41 Where is the business where you worked last week located? Inside the home................ Workshop or location attached to home........ Independent farm, workshop or location At home or where client is located........................... In a public space....................... Travelling business…………. Other (_________________________) No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 99 4.1.42 In the last SIX months, how much was your average monthly earning as an employer? Lps No response 99 SECONDARY BUSINESS 4.1.43 Do you own a second business? Yes No No response 1 2 99 2 ⇒ 4.48 4.1.44 Do you hire any of the following at your business? Temporary workers permanent workers?...... Both temporary and permanent employees? Do not hire................................ No response 1 2 3 4 99 4.1.45 How long have you worked at your business? Days....................... Weeks............... Months................... Years..................... No response __ __ 1 2 3 4 99 135 4.1.46 Where is the business where you worked last week located? Inside the home................ Workshop or location attached to home........ Independent farm, workshop or location At home or where client is located........................... In a public space....................... Travelling business…………. Other (_________________________) No response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 99 4.1.47 In the last SIX months, how much was your average monthly earning as an employer? Lps No response 99 4.1.48 While meeting other work, study or chore demands do you wish to work more HOURS PER WEEK and are you available to do this for more economic benefit? Yes No No response 1 2 99 4.1.49 How many HOURS PER WEEK are you willing to work in addition to your other demands? Hours No response 99 4.1.50 Why are you not working? For health reasons ............... Due to my studies............................ For personal or family reasons..... Because I cannot find additional work.. Other (_________________________) No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 SECTION 4.2: TECHNICAL SKILLS For all questions in this section, I will ask you how confident you would feel performing a particular task. You will have four possible options: very confident, confident, somewhat confident or not confident. # QUESTION RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE 1 Using a computer for work purposes Very Confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 1 2 3 4 99 2 Writing a professional CV Very Confident 1 136 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 2 3 4 99 3 Interviewing for a job Very Confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 1 2 3 4 99 4 Job Seeking Very Confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 1 2 3 4 99 5 Dressing for a professional workplace Very Confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 1 2 3 4 99 6 Interacting with peers in a professional workplace Very Confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 1 2 3 4 99 7 Interacting with superiors in a professional workplace Very Confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 1 2 3 4 99 8 Starting your own business Very Confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident No response 1 2 3 4 99 137 SECTION 5: VIEWS AND OPINIONS SECTION 5.1: SELF ESTEEM For all questions in this section, I will read you a series of statements. I will then ask you whether or not you agree with the statement. You will have five possible options: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. # QUESTION RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE 5.1.1 In general, I am satisfied with myself Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.2 Sometimes I feel like I am not good at doing something Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.3 I feel I have many good qualities Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.4 I am able to do the same things as almost everyone else Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.5 I feel I have very little to be proud of Strongly Agree Agree 1 2 138 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 3 4 5 99 5.1.6 Without a doubt, I feel useless sometimes Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.7 I feel I am worth something, at least on the same scale as anyone else. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.8 I wish I had more self-respect Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.9 I constantly think I am a failure. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.10 I have a positive attitude towards myself. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 139 No response 99 5.1.11 I get along well with others. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.12 My friends and co- workers think I am important to them. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.13 I think my friends and co- workers respect me. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.1.14 I feel like an important member of my community. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 SECTION 5.2: GENDER NORMS For all questions in this section, I will read you a series of statements. I will then ask you whether or not you agree with the statement. You will have five possible options: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree. # QUESTION RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE 5.2.1 The most important role for women is to take of the home and cook for their family. Strongly Agree Agree 1 2 140 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 3 4 5 99 5.2.2 Diaper changes, feeding and bathing children should be the responsibility of the mother. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.3 The presence of a father is very important in the life of a child, even if the parents are divorced. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.4 A man should have the final say when it comes to decisions about his home. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.5 Only women should help with household chores. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.6 A girl should obey her brother even if he is younger than she is. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.7 The father should be responsible for providing for the Strongly Agree 1 141 family economically. . Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.8 A wife should ask her husband for permission to visit her parents. . Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.9 It is ok for boys to play with dolls. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.10 It is ok for girls to play sports like soccer. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.11 It is important for a guy to have a male friend to talk to about her problems. . Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.12 It is important for a boy or man to be able to express his emotions, for example crying when in pain. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 142 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 5.2.13 You must be tough to be a man. If a man tells his friends he is scared, he will look weak. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.14 If a man gets a woman pregnant it is the responsibility of both parents to take care of the child. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.15 Men should understand pregnancy, child birth and family planning before getting married. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.16 The woman is responsible for avoiding pregnancy. . Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.17 If I see a man hurting his wife, I should try to stop him. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.18 I respect and appreciate a man who moves away from or prevents a fight. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 143 No response 99 5.2.19 If someone insults me, I will defend my name with force if necessary. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.20 A woman should deal with spousal violence to keep the family together. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.21 I think it is acceptable for a husband to hit his wife if she disobeys him. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.22 Violence is a natural reaction for men- it is something they can’t control Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.23 If I see a guy bothering a woman I should stop him. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.24 If a woman insults her husband, he has the right to hit her. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 144 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Strongly Disagree No response 5 99 5.2.25 If a woman becomes pregnant by a professor it is her fault. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 5.2.26 Le tiene respeto y aprecio a un hombre que evita ó se retira de una pelea. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree No response 1 2 3 4 5 99 SECTION 5.3: RISK BEHAVIOR - FRIENDS In the following section, I will ask you questions about your friends. Think of the friends with whom you spend most of your time. I will read you a series of statements and ask, to the best of your knowledge, how many of your friends have participated in the activity over the last 30 days. I will not ask for any names and will have no way of knowing which of your friends may have engaged in which activity. You will have five possible options: none, some, about half, most or all. # QUESTION RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE 5.3.1 Over the last 30 days, have how many of your friends have gotten into a fight or hit someone? None Some About half Most All Don’t know No response 1 2 3 4 5 88 99 5.3.2 Over the last 30 days, have how many of your friends have been involved in gang or crew activities? None Some About half Most All Don’t Know No response 1 2 3 4 5 88 99 145 5.3.3 Over the last 30 days, have how many of your friends have done drugs? None Some About half Most All Don’t Know No response 1 2 3 4 5 88 99 5.3.4 Over the last 30 days, have how many of your friends have engaged in unprotected sex with a new partner? None Some About half Most All Don’t Know No response 1 2 3 4 5 88 99 5.3.5 Over the last 30 days, how many of your friends have been involved in a crime? None Some About half Most All Don’t Know No response 1 2 3 4 5 88 99 5.3.6 Over the last 30 days, how many of your friends have been incarcerated? None Some About half Most All Don’t Know No response 1 2 3 4 5 88 99 SECTION 5.4: RISK BEHAVIOR - SELF In this section, I will ask you the same four questions from the previous section. However, instead of focusing on your friends, this time I will ask whether or not you have engaged in the activities. I understand that these questions are sensitive and that you might not feel comfortable telling me whether or not you have taken part in any of these activities. To ensure that neither myself nor anyone else involved in this study knows how you answered, we will use a die to make your responses secret. 146 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras Let’s practice with an example. I will ask you a sample question and you will roll the die behind the card. If you roll a 1, answer “YES”. If you roll a 6, answer “NO”. If you roll between 2-5, tell me the TRUTH. Remember, don’t show me the die and don’t tell me what number you roll. Are you ready? “DO YOU LIKE BALEADAS?” For each statement, I will ask you to roll the die and keep the result hidden from me behind this card. • If you roll a 1, you have to answer “YES” – even in the statement is not true • If you roll a 6, you have to answer “NO” – even if the statement is true • For all numbers between 2 and 5, you have to tell me the TRUTH At no point will I know what number you rolled. Because of this, it is impossible to know whether the answer you provided was the truth or was forced by the rules of the game (1 or 6). # QUESTION RESPONSE OPTIONS CODE 5.4.1 Over the last 30 days, have you gotten into a fight or hit someone? Yes No No response 1 2 99 5.4.2 Over the last 30 days, have you been involved in gang or crew activities? Yes No No response 1 2 99 5.4.3 Over the last 30 days, have you done drugs? Yes No No response 1 2 99 5.4.4 Over the last 30 days, have you engaged in unprotected sex with a new partner? Yes No No response 1 2 99 5.4.5 Over the last 30 days, have you been involved in a crime? Yes No No response 1 2 99 5.4.6 Over the last 30 days, have you been incarcerated? Yes No No response 1 2 99 SECTION 6: ADVANTAGES OF PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT 147 INSTRUCTIONS: The following contains a list of positive characteristics you can have within yourself, within your family, your friends, neighbors, school and community. For each situation that is relevant to you in the past three months please check the box in the appropriate column. NEVER OR RARELY– RARELY OR SOMETIMES– GREATLY OR OFTEN– EXTREMELY OR ALMOST ALWAYS If you do not wish to respond at any time, leave the question blank. Please try to answer all questions to the best of your ability. Note: The term “parents” signifies 1 or more adults responsible for caring for and raising the person. NEVER OR RARELY RARELY OR SOMETIMES GREATLY OR OFTEN EXTREMELY OR ALMOST ALWAYS I … 1. Defend my principles     2. Feel in control of my life and my future     3. Feel good about myself     4. Avoid situations that are unhealthy or unsafe     5. Like reading or being read to     6. Make friends with other people     7. Like my school     8. Do my work (homework, housework)     9. Avoid alcohol, tobacco and other drugs     10. Enjoy learning     11. Express my feelings in a healthy way     12. Feel good about my future     13. Look to my parents for advice     14. Deal with hardship in a positive way     15. Deal with critique in a positive way     16. Think it is important to help others     17. Feel safe at home     18. Plan ahead and make good decisions     19. Resist bad influences     148 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras 20. Resolve conflict without harming others     21. Feel valued or appreciated by others     22. Take responsibility for what I do     23. Tell the truth even when it is difficult     24. Accept those who are different than me     25. Feel safe at school     Note: The term “parents” signifies 1 or more adults responsible for caring for and raising the person. NEVER OR RARELY RARELY OR SOMETIMES GREATLY OR OFTEN EXTREMELY OR ALMOST ALWAYS I AM 26. Actively looking to learn new things     27. Clear about my goals in life     28. Motivated by others to try new things that may be good for me.     29. Included in chores and decision making at home.     30. Helping to make my community a better place     31. Involved in religious groups or activities.     32. Practicing good health habits     33. Excited about helping others     34. Participating in sports, clubs or other groups     35. Helping to resolve problems in my community.     36. Being given useful tasks.     37. Developing respect for other people.     38. Anxious about doing well in school and in my other activities.     39. Sensitive to the needs and feelings of others     149 40. Participating in activities that promote creativity like theater, music and art.     41. Serving others in my community     42. Taking advantage of my time at home with my parent(s)     I HAVE . . . 43. Friends that are good role models     44. A school that provides clear ground rules for the students     45. Adults that are good role models     46. A safe neighborhood     47. Parents that help me to be successful.     48. Good neighbors that look out for me     49. A school that looks out for children and motivates them     50. Teachers that push me to have goals and achievements     51. Support from adults other than my parents     52. A family that provides clear ground rules     53. Parents that motivate me to do well in school     54. A family that gives me love and support     55. Neighbors that take care of me     56. Parents that I can talk to about things     57. A school that meets education goals justly and effectively.     58. A family that knows where I am and what I am doing     150 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras ANNEX R: ADDITIONAL MIGRATION QUESTIONS Note: All migration related questions from the survey instrument are noted here. Those bolded (Questions 1a, 2, 3a, 3g, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) are new. 1a. ¿Alguna vez ha considerado migrar fuera de Guatemala? Si No (pase a pregunta numero 4) 1b. ¿En qué mes y año consideró hacerlo por primera vez? (Anote el mes y el año) 2. ¿Ha tratado de migrar a otro país? Si No (pase a pregunta numero 4) 3a. ¿Cuántas veces (ha tratado migrar)? (Anote el numero) (Repita las preguntas 3b-3i para cada intento de migrar.) 3b. ¿Cuándo ocurrió ese intento de migrar? (Anote el mes y el año) 3c. ¿A cuál país intentó migrar? (Anote el país) 3d. ¿TRATÓ DE MIGRAR CON MIEMBROS DE SU FAMILIA? Si No 3e. ¿Trató de migrar con amigo(s)? Si No (pase a pregunta número 3g) 3f. ¿Cómo conoció a su(s) amigo(s)? (select all that apply) En mi barrio En mi escuela En mi trabajo Por medio de mi familia (For A Ganar youth only) Del programa A Ganar Otro (___________) 3g. En el momento que intentó migrar, ¿cuál fue la razón principal por la que decidió migrar? Para ganar más dinero Para encontrar un trabajo Para reunirme con familiares Para acompañar a un familiar Para escapar de la violencia y el crimen Otro (______________________) 3h. Por favor clasifique las siguientes razones para ordenar de la más importante (1) a la menos importante (8). Para ganar más dinero Por falta de trabajo Para reunirme con familiares 151 Por amenazas o extorsión contra mí o mi familia Por la delincuencia en mi comunidad, por ejemplo, asaltos y robos Violencia en mi hogar Por presión de unirme de las maras Para ir a la escuela o continuar mis estudios 3i. ¿Llegó a su destino durante este intento? Si No 4. ¿Piensa que trataría de migrar (de nuevo) fuera de Guatemala en el futuro? Si (pase a pregunta numero 6) No 5. ¿Por qué no trataría de migrar/migraría de nuevo? Porque gana un buen salario Porque tiene un trabajo Porque desea permanecer junto a su familia Porque se siente seguro/a Otro (______________________) 6. ¿Conoce usted a alguien que ha tratado de migrar fuera de Guatemala? Si No (pase a pregunta numero 9) 7. ¿Cuántos miembros de su familia (cercana y extendida) han tratado de migrar de Guatemala? Ninguno Algunos Cerca de la mitad La mayoría Todos 8. ¿Cuántos amigos suyos han tratado de migrar de Guatemala? Ninguno Algunos Cerca de la mitad La mayoría Todos 9. Por cada relación de parentesco, por favor responda a la lista de preguntas sobre su migración o intento de migrar: Relación de parentesco respecto del encuestado ¿Cuantos han tratado de emigrar? ¿Cuántos viven fuera de Guatemala ahora? ¿Cuantos viven en los Estados Unidos? Padres Hermanos Hijos Otros familiares Amigos 152 A Ganar Alliance Impact Evaluation Endline Report - Honduras U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523