June 3, 2020 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. EVALUATION OF THE FEED THE FUTURE YOUTH LEADERSHIP FOR AGRICULTURE (YLA) ACTIVITY Final Report YOUTH LEADERSHIP FOR AGRICULTURE (YLA) END-OF-ACTIVITY EVALUATION June 3, 2020 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ABSTRACT The purpose of the USAID/Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture activity (YLA) is to increase economic opportunities in agriculture-related fields for approximately 350,000 Ugandan female and male youth, aged 10 to 35, through building their entrepreneurship, leadership, and workforce readiness skills. 70 percent of participating youth were planned to be female. YLA set out to accomplish two major outcomes: (i) increasing incomes of youth working in agricultural value chains and (ii) improving skills and competencies of youth. The purpose of the YLA evaluation was to provide USAID and its development partners with evidence and lessons learned on how to strengthen youth economic empowerment. Specifically, the evaluation set out to answer how YLA’s interventions contributed to youth’s economic empowerment in the agricultural sector. The evaluation also set out to identify enabling and hindering factors, along with unintended consequences. The evaluation found rather strong evidence that YLA increased skills and incomes of young people. However, economic opportunities were mostly limited to farming activities, with few opportunities further down the value chain. The evaluation also found that gender constraints were not adequately addressed until the last year of implementation. The YLA’s adaptive management approach allowed staff to execute strategic pivots during its implementation to address lessons learned along the way, though the pivots mostly reflected the needs at the private-sector level. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was commissioned by USAID/Uganda and was prepared independently by Rossana M. Ramirez, Team Lead and Expert on Youth Economic Empowerment; Apollo Muyanja, Expert on Agri￾business Development; Samalie Nabaasa, Expert on Gender and Social Inclusion; Wolfgang Stuppert, Evaluation Design and Methodology Expert; and Daniel Kibuuka Musoke, Peer Research Team Lead, under contract with QED Group, LLC. and on behalf of the USAID/Uganda Learning Activity (ULA). The evaluation team was supported by Genevieve Onyango, ULA M&E Research Assistant, and Samuel Kagaba, ULA M&E Intern, as well as a team of 14 peer researchers under contract with the International Research Consortium Ltd. The authors appreciate the technical advice and support from USAID/Uganda in designing and conducting the evaluation and preparing this evaluation report. The evaluation team also highly appreciates the cooperation and input of the management and staff of the YLA Activity. The evaluation team would like to extend their sincere thanks to YLA’s private-sector partners and the many young women and men who agreed to share their insights and experiences with the evaluation team. CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... I 1. Project Background.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Country Background ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Summary Description of the Program.............................................................................. 1 2. Evaluation Objectives & Methodology ..................................................................... 5 2.1 Evaluation Purpose & Questions...................................................................................... 5 2.2 Evaluation Approach........................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................................... 6 2.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 8 3. Findings ......................................................................................................................10 3.1 Primary evaluation question: How did YLA’s interventions contribute to youth’s economic empowerment in the agricultural sector? .................................................................. 10 3.2 Question 1: Contributions to YLA’s Objectives ............................................................ 11 3.3 Question 2: Complementarity of Objectives .................................................................. 17 3.4 Question 3: Enabling & Hindering Factors .................................................................... 19 3.5 Question 4: Unintended Consequences .......................................................................... 26 3.6 Question 5: evolution of the Activity ............................................................................. 28 4. Conclusions, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations .......................................32 4.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 34 4.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 35 Annexes ............................................................................................................................... i Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ..................................................................................... ii Annex II: Case Selection Procedure ......................................................................................... viii Annex III: Data collection tools .................................................................................................. x Annex IV: Information Sources .............................................................................................. xliv Annex V: Additional Analyses .................................................................................................. lv Annex VI: Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest ..................................................................... lxxvi ACRONYMS AMELP BTVET DO Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan Business, Technical and Vocational Education and Training Development Objective FGD Focus Group Discussion KII Key Informant Interview OH NGO Outcome Harvesting Non-Governmental Organization PR Peer Researcher PSP Private-Sector Partner QCA Qualitative Comparative Analysis SACCO SOW Savings and Credit Cooperative Organization Scope of Work ToR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development VSLA YLA Village Savings and Loans Association Youth Leadership for Agriculture I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND The Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture activity (YLA) is a flagship program designed by USAID/Uganda’s Economic Growth Office. With a budget of $ 21.5 USD million, this five￾year long activity is managed by Chemonics International Inc., with an implementation period from July 14, 2015 to July 13, 2020. This Activity is part of USAID/Uganda’s Feed the Future (FtF) Value Chain Development Project, which integrates multiple actors and activities to promote an integrated value chain system that enhances the market value of products (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2019a). It contributes to Development Objective 1 - Community and Household Resilience and Development Objective 2 - Demographic Drivers of the USAID’s Uganda Country Development Cooperation Strategy. The purpose of YLA is to increase economic opportunities in agriculture-related fields for approximately 350,000 Ugandan female and male youth, aged 10 to 35, by increasing their incomes and building their entrepreneurship, leadership, and workforce readiness skills. YLA aimed at reaching 70 percent female participation. YLA set out to meet two specific objectives: Objective 1: Increased incomes of youth working in agricultural value chains Objective 2: Improved skills and competencies of youth YLA’s Theory of Change assumes that if YLA identifies private-sector opportunities that are appealing to youth and supports private-sector partners to adopt technologies that increase productivity, to enable access to markets and to provide relevant skills and competencies, youth will have increased economic opportunities along agricultural value chains. Thus, at the core of YLA are numerous partnerships that range in breadth and scope, resulting in a complex, multi-faceted program. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of the YLA evaluation is to provide USAID and its development partners with evidence and lessons learned on how to strengthen youth economic empowerment. To this end, the evaluation was tasked with tracing the pathways of change to ascertain how and why certain results of the activity were achieved or not. The insights and lessons learned from the evaluation will inform current and future programming for youth economic empowerment. The YLA evaluation SoW included one overarching question and five main questions. Overarching evaluation question: How did YLA’s interventions contribute to youth’s economic empowerment in the agricultural sector? Main evaluation questions: 1. How did the activity’s interventions affect (i) skills and competencies of youth; and (ii) youth income and employment opportunities in the agricultural sector? 2. How did the two key components (development of skills and competencies and improvement of income and employment opportunities) complement or constrain each other in achieving YLA’s II intended results? 3. What were the major enabling and hindering contextual factors for youth economic empowerment along the agricultural value chain? 4. What were unintended consequences (if any) of YLA’s interventions and how were they leveraged or mitigated in the implementation process? 5. How did YLA’s implementation evolve over time in response to the needs of the beneficiaries? EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation used a multi-method approach that centered on complexity-aware qualitative methods. This allowed the evaluation team to do justice to the complex design of YLA while ascertaining changes and tracing contributions to those changes. The evaluation team employed three evaluation methods that complemented each other: • Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): A methodology that enables the analysis of multiple cases in complex situations. QCA was used to select a sample of 16 partnerships that is representative of the variety of YLA partnership designs. • Forecast Survey: A double-blind survey conducted with external experts on youth economic empowerment. In the survey, experts were asked to assess the potential of YLA’s partnerships for youth economic empowerment in agriculture and to identify drivers that make partnerships less or more likely to achieve YLA’s objectives. • Outcome Harvesting: An exploratory and strongly participatory approach to analyze contributions of interventions to development outcomes. With Outcome Harvesting, the evaluation team collected outcome stories from youth and the staff of private-sector partners, and traced the processes that led to specific changes in the lives of youth and the contributions that partnerships made to these processes. Reported changes include intended and unintended consequences of the partnerships. Changes and partnership contributions were validated through the comparison of outcome stories across stakeholder types and in follow-up focus group discussions with youth. The final analysis triangulated data from all methods, including a desk study. If the analysis concluded that YLA’s contributions to a given outcome were pervasive among youth or for a considerable number indispensable in reaching the outcome, the contributions were called strong. If a contribution was rare or the analysis suggested that a number of youth was likely to have reached the outcome without it, the contribution was called weak. FINDINGS In addressing the first of the main evaluation questions, the team found that among the youth participating in the study, YLA investments resulted in the following validated outcomes: • Outcome I: Strong contributions to improved soft- and life-skills (e.g., communication and money management skills) for in-school youth, but rather limited contributions to entrepreneurship and workforce readiness of youth working in the agricultural sector. • Outcome II: Strong contributions to improved farming skills among youth, consisting of modern farming methods (e.g., mulching, pruning, and rotating crops), leading to increased yields. • Outcome III: Rather strong contributions towards increased income of youth. The increases in III income resulted from income gains on existing crops with higher yields and of better-quality or additional income generated by growing new crops. • Outcome IV: Rather weak contributions to direct employment along the agricultural value chain, with most of the employment concentrated on intermediary roles, such as field or village agents. Generally, improvements in positive outcomes were not as pronounced for young women. Female youth could not fully benefit because they faced numerous longstanding challenges such as cultural norms that limit women’s access to land and other resources. The evaluation team also identified some changes among several of the private sector partners, primarily in terms of an expansion of their supply chains, improved quality of the crops, and enhanced productivity of their business systems. As such changes were outside the scope of the evaluation, they were not investigated in their own right. They feature, however, in outcome stories that document changes among youth. For the second question regarding the relationship between the objectives, the evaluation team concluded that there is little evidence of their complementarity. Objective I focused on increasing incomes of youth working in agricultural value chains and Objective II focused on improved skills and competencies of in-school youth. There was little evidence of their complementarity because activities funded under Objective I almost exclusively targeted out-of-school youth with low skill levels. Due to limited off-farm economic opportunities along the agricultural value chain, in-school youth who participated in work-readiness/soft-skills training provided under Objective II would still need to compete for the same low-skilled income-generating activities created for the out-of-school target group. The third evaluation question asked about hindering and enabling factors for youth economic empowerment. In examining this question, the team drew from the Forecast Survey to conceptualize driving factors identified during field work. The evaluation found that enabling factors often work best in the following reinforcing combinations: • Training on good agricultural practices combined with access to appropriate and accessible technology. When better farming knowledge leverages agricultural tools and equipment, youth have larger and better-quality yields, which improve their ability to sell their produce at better prices. Digital technology, in particular, has the potential to overcome some of the cultural barriers that give preference to men over women, especially in terms of accessing their income. But technology in all its forms needs to be easily accessible by young people. • Access to reliable markets along with knowledge for negotiating market prices, and supported with technical advice on farming by intermediaries. For youth who did not have previous access to market, as the case is often with young women, they benefit greatly from the market linkages. As they learn to negotiate better prices, they are further empowered. Access to markets is usually supported through intermediaries, such as field or Village Agents who link youth to PSPs or other buyers. The potential gains from better yields, however, are lost when markets are not reliable, as was the case when PSPs lacked purchasing or processing capacity. • Financial education and financial services. Increased financial capabilities, especially on savings and budgeting, combined with access to a variety of formal and semi-formal financial services contributes to the ability of youth to invest in their farming. However, financial services mostly took the form of input credits and participation in Village and Savings Loan Associations, which did not meet all the financial needs of youth, such as larger loans for investments in their farms. IV Hindering factors that impede productive economic opportunities for youth include: • Cultural biases against young women and lack of gender-responsive programming. Negative views about the capabilities of females in agriculture persist, both among male youth as well as some PSP staff, thereby limiting female youth’s ability to make the most out of available economic opportunities. Cultural norms also constrain access to land. For example, land ownership is passed on to male heirs. In turn, such cultural biases limit young women’s access to income and financial services. YLA did not systematically address such issues during most of its implementation. Only in the last year of implementation, YLA engaged in a more concerted effort to address gender barriers, primarily through the implementation of learning events and workshops on women’s empowerment. • Insufficient assessment on value chain implications for youth. Because of the focus of YLA on PSPs and an expedited selection process, YLA did not conduct value chain analyses. In a few cases, this led to a miscalculation of the actual market potential of some PSPs. Plus, it neglected to identify off-farm economic opportunities, such as jobs in processing or sales. • Inadequate communication and technical support. There was insufficient communication by PSPs with youth about market risks and mitigation strategies. So when youth encountered market difficulties they were very discouraged. Youth also wanted, but did not receive, ongoing technical support after the series of initial farming training. • Climate change. Weather events affect all farmers, but extreme weather conditions can have a greater negative impact on youth farmers because of their limited experience in farming and access to resources that could help them manage those eventualities. While PSPs trained youth on a number of mitigation measures, ranging from proper application of pesticides and fertilizers to adequate mechanisms for soil and water conservation, the partnerships did not provide youth with resources that would prepare them to succeed under increasingly common conditions such as drought. Youth who were trained in growing drought-sensitive crops remained without access to an irrigation source. The evaluation team also found some unintended outcomes, both positive and negative: • The evaluation found strong evidence that youth who increased their income as a result of YLA interventions felt better equipped to pay for their children’s school fees and invest in productive assets, such as animals, housing, and motorcycles. The team also found a few cases of female youth reporting increased levels of self-confidence, and increased food security and nutrition resulting from improved yields and access to nutrition trainings. • There were also a number of negative outcomes, though the evidence was more limited. First, there were a few reports of young women facing increased domestic violence as a result of their newly-gained earning capacity. The team also found youth giving up on farming the crops they learned about when they encountered significant losses from not being able to sell their crops. Plus, there were a few instances of harmful practices when youth handled pesticides without protective gear. The final evaluation question asked how the implementation of YLA evolved over time. YLA undertook several programmatic pivots. The evaluation team found that they largely reflected internal management needs and PSP pain points. Only in the last year of implementation did they focus on the needs of young people, when the inclusion of young women and other disadvantaged segments of the population was addressed more intently. The focus of YLA on PSPs was driven by its facilitative approach, which strives primarily to unlock the business potential of PSPs. V CONCLUSIONS • Contributions to YLA’s Objectives: The evaluation found that YLA’s interventions succeeded in increasing skills and incomes of young people. These contributions to increased economic opportunities were concentrated on the production stage of the agricultural value chain. While a variety of other profitable, off-farm income opportunities were identified, they were few in number. The concentration of opportunities around the production stage may be a result of limited in-house expertise early on at YLA. It is reflective of the types of selected partners, which consisted mostly of traders and aggregators. • Complementarity of Objectives: The evaluation team concluded that activities under Objective I (increasing incomes) and Objective II (improving skills and competencies) were not sufficiently integrated to achieve clear benefits to both sets of activities. • Enabling and Hindering Factors: The evaluation team found that there are mutually reinforcing combinations of enabling factors. Examples are trainings supported with accessible technology, market access supported with technical advice, and the benefits of financial education maximized through financial services. Still, there were a number of hindering factors found by this evaluation, such as a lack of addressing cultural biases, insufficient assessment of challenges youth might face in agricultural value chains, and inadequate support to deal with climate change impacts. • Unintended Consequences: A major conclusion regarding positive unintended consequences is that as young people increase their farming income, they show a strong desire to invest in assets to grow and diversify their income. Regarding unintended outcomes, a significant conclusion is that an increase in income does not automatically benefit young women. Instead, it can result in harm such as increased gender-based violence. • Program Evolution: In evolving their approach, YLA took into account lessons learned from its partner selection process and the design of partnership agreements. However, YLA’s efforts largely missed the pain points faced by youth, with the exception of the last year of implementation, when YLA focused more intently on addressing the concerns of young women and other disadvantaged segments of youth. LESSONS LEARNED The evaluation team organized the lessons learned around three main themes: • Facilitative Approach: A major lesson learned from the implementation of YLA’s facilitative approach is that a program targeting youth cannot assume that investments in the private sector will automatically trickle down to young people. YLA’s approach seeks to facilitate changes by focusing on the private sector and taking into account existing structures (USAID Uganda 2015). It produced mixed results. While it addressed the business aspects of the PSPs and scaled up successful partnerships, it largely did not account for the pain points of youth, thus generating a disconnect with the intended objectives of the program. • Empowerment of Female Youth in Agriculture: A valuable lesson learned regarding female empowerment under YLA is that achieving a certain quantity and quality of female participation in economic empowerment programming will require a more intentional and innovative engagement with PSPs. For example, a program could offer premiums for mobilizing female youth or condition follow-up grants on reaching specific achievements with regard to female inclusion. The few isolated cases in which YLA did empower young women in agriculture included access to non-traditional roles (e.g. tractor drivers), services designed to meet young women’s specific needs (e.g. a financial product with reduced entry barriers for young women), and gender mainstreaming training (provided in a few partnerships). By and large, however, VI partnership agreements did not specifically address how partnerships would stimulate female participation. Overall, the evaluation found no evidence of a systematic approach to female empowerment. • Economic Opportunities for Youth in Agricultural Value Chains: Regarding the creation of economic opportunities for youth, the first lesson learned is that the inherent risks in agriculture, especially given the increasingly common extreme weather conditions caused by climate change, call for income diversification for youth engaged in this field.1 Diversified income can originate from service-related agricultural employment, e.g. tractor driving or managing machinery, or from growing a variety of cash crops. Income diversification can be especially beneficial for female youth who are resourced-constrained and need access to off-farm income opportunities. A second lesson learned is that a broad age range hampers the ability of a youth program to meet the varying needs of the target group. YLA was contracted to support youth from 10 to 35 years old. This represents a large segment of the Ugandan population across distinct life stages. By working with an age range that includes population segments who do not experience specifically youth-related barriers, the activity diminished its ability to empower youth. RECOMMENDATIONS Blended Facilitative Approach: Recognizing that there are valuable aspects of YLA’s facilitative approach, while also acknowledging its shortcomings, the evaluation team recommends a blended approach in future youth economic empowerment programming. The blended approach would draw from the positive aspects of a purely facilitative approach while integrating incentives and directive elements to further promote better integration of youth along all the stages of the value chain, with greater emphasis on tackling the barriers to female participation. Greater Investments in Off-Farm Opportunities for Female Youth: Off-farm work can be especially suitable for young women who have limited access to land and other productive resources. Expanding these opportunities will require collaboration with a greater variety of stakeholders along the agricultural value chain and increased sensitization efforts. Improved Engagement with Youth: Private-sector partners must be encouraged to better engage youth in understanding the risks in agriculture. Youth must also be provided with risk mitigation strategies and skills in analyzing the costs and benefit of available opportunities vis-à-vis their own resources and expectations. Evaluation stakeholders suggested that direct engagement of youth in the design and implementation process would ensure that youth pain points are identified and consistently addressed. Improved Integration of Productive Assets: The evaluation team recommends that in designing each partnership, the four assets (human, social, physical and financial) are fully integrated. This approach can result in a more comprehensive strategy for addressing the variety of pain points faced by youth. Broadening the Comparative Scope of Future Evaluations: Evaluation stakeholders showed a strong interest in a comparison of YLA’s approach to alternative implementation designs. The evaluation team therefore recommends to broaden the comparative scope of future evaluations and include a systematic comparison of activity designs and an exploration of alternative implementation scenarios. 1 The evaluation team recognizes that income diversification was not a specific objective of YLA. 1 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 COUNTRY BACKGROUND Uganda has one of the world’s youngest populations, and its population doubles in size every 16 years. This accelerated population growth collides with limited economic opportunities, as Uganda has one of the highest youth unemployment rates in Sub-Saharan Africa (USAID Uganda 2016). The Ugandan economy is largely agriculture-based, with 68 percent of the Ugandan work force engaged in the agricultural industry. About 41% of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture work. Among the different age groups, the segment of 14- to 17 year-olds has the highest proportion, with 65 percent (UBOS 2018). Since the majority of youth live in rural areas, Uganda’s way forward lies in fostering productive agricultural opportunities along the value chain for rural youth. In fact, despite commonly held myths about young people’s lack of interest in agriculture, according to a USAID/Uganda assessment, “youth are interested in agriculture, agro-enterprise development and small business development” (USAID Uganda 2016). Yet, gender roles in production, processing and marketing of different value chains are very complex. Key decisions on production and marketing are often made by men, while women provide much of the labor at crucial stages of production. These barriers are further accentuated for young women because they have even less access to resources, such as land, credit, and other production inputs. Recent legal changes aimed at strengthening land rights of women have had little effect on the ground, as land is commonly divided and inherited among male family members, leaving women to rely on either their husbands’ or fathers’ land (UNDP 2005). 1.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM It is within this context that USAID/Uganda’s Economic Growth Office designed the flagship Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture activity (“YLA”). YLA is a $21.5 million, five-year activity managed by Chemonics International Inc., with an implementation period from July 14, 2015 to July 13, 2020. The purpose of this flagship activity is to increase economic opportunities in agriculture￾related fields for approximately 350,000 Ugandan female and male youth, aged 10 to 35, in order to increase their incomes and build entrepreneurship, leadership, and workforce readiness skills. YLA was designed as part of USAID/Uganda’s Feed the Future Value Chain Development Project which integrates a wide range of activities targeting various actors, such as producers, traders, service providers, and policy makers, to promote an integrated value chain system aimed at enhancing the market value of products. The YLA activity is aligned with the USAID/Uganda Country Development Coordination Strategy (2016-2021) Development Objective (DO) 1 (Community and household resilience in select areas and target populations increased), while also contributing to DO 2 (Demographic drivers affected to contribute to long term trend shift). YLA has the following objectives and outcomes: Objective 1: Improved skills development (entrepreneurship, employability, leadership, and life skills) obtained through formal and non-formal education and training organizations. Outcome 1.1. Increased adoption of technologies to improve productivity Outcome 1.2: Increased provision of private sector market-driven technical 2 development services by private sector firms Outcome 1.3: Increased access to input and output markets by youth Outcome 1.4: Increased employment opportunities for youth along the value chain Objective 2: Increased incomes of youth working in agricultural value chains. Outcome 2.1: Increase provision of quality technical, workforce readiness and entrepreneurship skills Outcome 2.2: Increased opportunities to demonstrate leadership, social and entrepreneurship and community engagement by youth Outcome 2.3: Improved provision of life skills for healthy living The first objective focused on in-school youth ages 10 to 14 years of age, whereas the second objective focused on out-of-school youth ages 15 to 35 years old. YLA’s Theory of Change YLA’s programmatic objectives are grounded in YLA’s Theory of Change (see Figure 1). YLA’s development hypothesis is based on the premise that if YLA leverages and supports private sector partnerships, youth will be able to access technologies, input and output markets, and market-driven skill development. This will lead to increased skills and incomes along the agricultural value chain, resulting in increased economic opportunities for youth. Figure 1 - YLA’s Theory Change The assumptions underpinning this Theory of Change include: • Successful youth livelihoods need access to a mix of productive assets, including human, social, physical, and financial capital. Thus, YLA must be able to provide or strengthen these assets in its programming. • Existing private sector players along the agricultural value chain are best placed to make systemic and sustainable changes. As such, YLA must be primarily a facilitative market system approach. 3 • Youth have different needs and preferences that need to be considered. YLA must be able to stimulate skill development and employment opportunities appropriate to the different segmentations of youth, while also responding to private sector needs. While the Theory of Change does not specifically address gender goals, it is important to note that YLA committed to reaching predominantly young women, with a target of 70 percent of its beneficiaries. In line with this commitment, YLA employs the term "(w)youth" (pronounced "wouth") throughout its annual reports to emphasize this goal internally and externally. The YLA interventions are structured around these assumptions, with a private sector-led approach that prioritizes facilitation, and a supply-and-demand framework for all tasks. In recognition of a potentially changing environment that could affect the YLA interventions, YLA was designed to continuously adjust its implementation approach, by framing interventions with a learning agenda in mind. Through a process of Collaboration, Learning, and Adapting (CLA), YLA committed to continuously evaluate its actions to build on what worked and didn’t work. Finally, according to YLA’s most recent Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP), this theoretical framework faces a number of distinct risks: • Private sector partners may be negatively biased when working with youth. YLA will need to support youth in demonstrating a positive behavior in addition to competencies and workforce-readiness skills to garner the private sector’s interest. • Local governments at the district level, which have the political will to support or supplement YLA interventions, are subject to political changes. YLA will rely on private sector partners to engage with government units. • The presence of other actors in the targeted areas could result in the duplication of efforts. YLA will need to consider geographical coverage and nature of interventions to ensure a purposeful selection of private sector partners. Partnerships In total, YLA has executed 52 partnership agreements with 38 private-sector partners (PSPs).2 YLA’s facilitative approach has resulted in a varied number of private sector partners, including aggregators, traders, agro-processors, agri-tech and fin-tech enterprises, financial institutions, and social enterprises. An important upshot from the heterogeneous nature of these partnerships is that the types of economic opportunities that youth access vary significantly as well. Investments in partnerships included contract farming, direct employment, market-driven skill training, agricultural inputs, agricultural technology, and financial services. Some of the partnerships had a very specific focus. For example, partnerships with the Private Education Development Network focused entirely on in-school youth. In fact, the majority of activities contributing to Objective 1 (to improve skills and competencies of youth) were conducted through this partnership. Some of the technology-based partnerships, such as Ensibuuko and MobiPay focused on improving systems at the PSP level, which were intended to benefit youth. These partnerships did not directly engage with young people. 2 The higher number of partnership agreements than actual partners is due to YLA engaging some PSPs in follow￾on agreements. 4 Target Population YLA targets youth ranging in age from 10 to 35 years old. Table 1 shows the breakdown of beneficiaries by age brackets according to the most recent figures provided by YLA. The largest age brackets are at the extremes of the age range, with 25 percent of youth aged 10 to 14; and 24 percent aged 30 to 35 years old. In terms of outreach to female youth, 49 percent of the beneficiaries were female. Table 1 - YLA Age Breakdown Age Brackets Percentage of All Youth Percentage of Female Beneficiary Between 10 and 14 25% 57% Between 15 and 19 18% 52% Between 20 and 24 17% 47% Between 25 and 29 17% 45% Between 30 and 35 24% 42% Source: YLA Outreach Strategy The entry points for PSPs to reach youth ranged from hiring youth as field or Village Agents to register youth farmers in their supply chains and aggregate their crops, to buying crops from cooperatives or producer organizations (see Table 2).3 The various models, which were largely already in place, are similar in that a PSP will reach youth through a field person who identifies youth through formal or informal youth groups. Table 2 - YLA Outreach Strategies Entry Points Number of PSPs Engaging with youth groups 8 Village Agents or an agency business model 7 Private sector companies 5 Local market facilitators, community-based facilitators, lead farmers or site coordinators 5 Primary/secondary schools or BTVETs/institutions of learning 3 SACCOs & VSLAs 2 Bulking centers, buying centers or collection centers 2 Cooperative societies 2 Rural producer organizations 2 Youth empowerment training centers 1 Source: YLA Partnership Agreements. 3 “Village Agent” is a model where youth are hired, usually on commission by a PSP as part of their buying or sales force. The classic model engages aggregators to become agents of change supporting farmers to increase their production (USAID FtF 2019). 5 2. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES & METHODOLOGY 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE & QUESTIONS The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID and its development partners with evidence and lessons learned on how to strengthen youth economic empowerment in agriculture. To this end, the evaluation will trace the pathways of change to ascertain how and why certain results of YLA were achieved or not. Insights and lessons learned are identified to inform current and future programming for youth economic empowerment. The evaluation SOW included one overarching question and five main questions (see Annex 1). The overarching evaluation question was: How did YLA’s interventions contribute to youth’s economic empowerment in the agricultural sector? The main evaluation questions were stated as follows: 1. How did the activity’s interventions affect (i) skills and competencies of youth; and (ii) youth income and employment opportunities in the agricultural sector? 2. How did the two key components (development of skills and competencies and improvement of income and employment opportunities) complement or constrain each other in achieving YLA’s intended results? 3. What were the major enabling and hindering contextual factors for youth economic empowerment along the agricultural value chain? 4. What were unintended consequences (if any) of YLA’s interventions and how were they leveraged or mitigated in the implementation process? 5. How did YLA’s implementation evolve over time in response to the needs of the beneficiaries? These evaluation questions guided data collection and analysis. They will structure the presentation of findings in this report. By providing detailed answers to these questions, the evaluation team will provide a comprehensive answer to the overarching evaluation question. 2.2 EVALUATION APPROACH The evaluation employed a multi-method approach that centers on complexity-aware qualitative methods. This allowed the evaluation team to do justice to the complex design of YLA, while ascertaining changes and tracing contributions to those changes. YLA was implemented through multiple partnerships with private sector partners who piloted and adapted different approaches to youth economic empowerment. This means that YLA’s contributions to its intended results were made along different pathways in different settings. The evaluation approach therefore needed to ensure that different perspectives of implementing partners and beneficiaries on the activity and its purposes were appropriately integrated in the analysis. Also, the methodology had to be able to identify intended and unintended outcomes, while describing and comparing the processes that lead to them. The evaluation team employed three evaluation methods that complemented each other. Table 3 summarizes key design features and uses of these methods in the framework of the YLA evaluation. 6 Table 3 - Evaluation Methods Method Purpose Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) QCA was used to select a sample of partnerships for Outcome Harvesting that is representative of the variety of YLA partnership designs. To this end, all 52 YLA partnerships were assessed regarding design features that were expected to influence who they affected and how. The 16 selected partnerships maximize the variation of these design features in the sample (see Annex II). Forecast Survey Through the forecast survey, the evaluation team leveraged the expertise of national and international experts on youth economic empowerment to increase their understanding of the 16 selected partnerships and identify potential drivers of effectiveness. Experts were asked in a double-blind survey to assess the potential of the partnerships for youth economic empowerment in agriculture (see Annex III). They were also asked to identify aspects of the partnerships that make them less or more likely to achieve YLA’s objectives. The results informed both data collection and analysis under the Outcome Harvesting approach. Outcome Harvesting Outcome Harvesting is an exploratory and strongly participatory approach to analyze contributions of interventions to development outcomes (Wilson-Grau/Britt 2012). The evaluation team collected (or “harvested”) outcome stories in focus group discussions and key informant interviews with youth and the staff of private￾sector partners. These stories trace the processes that led to changes in the lives of youth and the contributions that partnerships made to these processes. Reported changes include intended and unintended consequences of the partnerships. Changes and partnership contributions were validated through the comparison of outcome stories across stakeholder types and in follow-up focus group discussions with youth. 2.3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data collection and analysis for the evaluation was organized in three parallel tracks. Each track focused on particular evaluation questions, collected different sets of data, and produced distinct analytical results. The three tracks will be presented in the following sections. Figure 2 provides an overview of the evaluation process. Table 4 summarizes data collection across the three tracks. Track 1: Understanding the YLA design In this track, the evaluation team engaged with USAID and YLA staff to answer the fifth evaluation question: How did YLA’s implementation evolve over time in response to the needs of the beneficiaries? An initial set of YLA design changes was identified through a desk study of annual reports and other activity documentation. In 20 key informant interviews with USAID and YLA staff, the team inquired about additional changes in the YLA design and the processes that led to these changes (see Annex III). The insights from these interviews were triangulated with the results of the evaluation’s extensive field work in order to understand the extent to which changes in design responded to the changing needs of youth. 7 Figure 2 - Evaluation Tracks Overview Track 2: Leveraging expert knowledge Track 2 leveraged additional expert knowledge for answering evaluation questions 1 and 3. These questions focused on the contributions of YLA’s activities to its two major objectives and the role of contextual factors for youth economic empowerment. The expertise of national and international experts was leveraged through a double-blind survey. Respondents were asked to assess the potential for youth economic empowerment of 16 partnerships that were selected for in-depth field work and to identify aspects of the partnerships that make them less or more likely to achieve YLA’s objectives (see Annex V). “Double-blind” means that experts are not able to identify implementing partners behind the selected partnerships, and evaluation users will be unable to identify the experts behind survey responses. The expert opinions increased the teams understanding of the 16 selected partnerships and helped identify potential drivers of effectiveness. The results informed both data collection and analysis under track 3. Track 3: Harvesting partnership outcomes In track 3, the evaluation team collected (“harvested”) outcome stories from 16 of YLA’s 52 partnerships. These outcome stories provided the basis for answering evaluation questions 1 to 4. Case selection was based on a comparative analysis of partnerships. The analysis focused on design features that were expected to influence who was affected by the partnerships and how. The design features are described in Annex 2. The 16 selected partnerships maximize the variation of these design features in the sample. To harvest outcome stories, the evaluation team conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions with a total of 65 staff of private sector partners and 366 youth (see Table 4). Among the youth, 197 (53.8%) were male and 169 (46.2%) were female. 8 Table 4 - Number of Stakeholders Interviewed Track Type of stakeholder In Survey In KIIs (female/male) In FGDs (female/male) 1 USAID & YLA 20 2 Experts 26 3 PSP Staff 59 10 3 Youth 101 (44/57) 265 (125/140) For each of the 16 partnerships, the team followed a five-step case study procedure (see Figure 3). First, the available documentation of partnerships was studied to gain a better understanding of the partnership’s potential contributions to YLA’s objectives. Second, the team conducted KIIs with PSP staff and youth to identify outcome stories. Where possible, a FGD with PSP staff was added to this step. Third, the outcome stories were reviewed in a joint sensemaking workshop of senior experts and peer researchers to identify agreements and contradictions between interviewees and across stakeholder types. Fourth, FGDs with youth were conducted to understand the prevalence of identified outcomes and partnership contributions among beneficiaries. In a fifth and final step, outcome stories were compared across cases to identify common causal processes as well as hindering and enabling factors along value chains. If the analysis concluded that YLA’s contributions to a given outcome were pervasive among youth or for a considerable number indispensable in reaching the outcome, the contributions were called strong. If a contribution was rare or the analysis suggested that youth was likely to have reached the outcome without it, the contribution was called weak. Figure 3 - Outcome Harvesting Case Study Procedure 2.4 LIMITATIONS • Extent of field work – YLA’s partnerships are very diverse. Through the QCA-based selection procedure (see Annex II), the team was able to maximize the variation of design features in the sample, and optimize the validity of the findings for partnerships that were not included in the Outcome Harvesting. However, the limited number of partnerships the team was able to analyze risks underestimating the contributions of more infrequent partnership activities to YLA’s objectives. • Identification of contextual factors – Outcome Harvesting relies on the ability of interviewees to understand and describe processes that lead to the changes in their lives or in 9 their environment. External factors that are, for example, causally removed or affect outcomes in the long term may escape the notice of informants and are therefore difficult to identify by the evaluation team. To identify such factors, the evaluation team drew on the expertise of experts in the forecast survey. To draw the attention of interviewees to such factors, a set of probes were included in interviews. • Validity of outcome stories – Due to the qualitative nature of the Outcome Harvesting data collection, outcome stories may be strongly influenced by differences in perceptions and opinions. Personal biases may distort how causal processes present themselves to individual interviewers. Such threats to the internal validity of outcome stories were mitigated through a standardized validation process that involved the joint review of outcome stories and the triangulation of stakeholder perspectives. 10 3. FINDINGS This section presents the evaluation findings organized by evaluation question. The discussion of the overarching question offers a brief synopsis of the findings, whereas the discussion on the five sub￾questions delves deeper into details. Although the evaluation questions did not specifically address gender issues, the evaluation team included specific insights about the extent and quality of participation of female youth in agricultural value chains in recognition of the importance of gender in youth economic empowerment programming. The findings draw primarily from the evidence collected through Outcome Harvesting. The results of the Forecast Survey provided a frame of reference. The desk study and interviews with USAID and YLA were used to triangulate findings. The Outcome Stories in Annex 5 provide a detailed narrative of changes and PSP contributions as observed by youth who participated in the study. 3.1 PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION: HOW DID YLA’S INTERVENTIONS CONTRIBUTE TO YOUTH’S ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR? This section provides a synopsis of the findings. Overall, the evaluation team found that among the PSPs participating in the study, YLA investments resulted in: 1. Increased incomes for youth engaged in the production of crops. This resulted from improved technical skills, increased access to inputs and technologies, and direct access to markets. While there were also some reported increases in income from employment, these were mostly limited to commission-based jobs as field or Village Agents. 2. Improved skills and competencies in life-skills, such as financial literacy, and work-readiness/soft￾skills. Improvements in life skills were observed among many young people across a number of partnerships. Improvements in work-readiness/soft-skills were observed among in-school youth. Generally, improvements in positive outcomes were not as common for young women. Young women could not fully benefit because they faced numerous challenges such as cultural barriers limiting their access to land and other resources. These are well-known challenges impeding female economic engagement in agriculture. Contributions to these outcomes by PSPs consisted of training sessions in good agricultural practices (including sensitization on harmful environmental practices) as well as the provision of agricultural inputs (improved seeds and fertilizers, mostly at market rates, but sometimes subsidized), agricultural technology (tools and equipment, usually available for rent), access to markets (often through preferential contract farming agreements), and provision of financial services (mostly in the form of input credits). Some PSPs also included training on health (sexual and reproductive health or nutrition), financial literacy, and entrepreneurship. While not all PSPs offered the same combination of services, and the extent of these contributions varied by PSP, in general, most of them facilitated some type of agronomy training and provided a direct market for crops harvested by youth. In terms of the interaction between the two YLA objectives (Objective I focused on increasing income for older youth 15-35 and Objective II focused on skill development for in-school youth), the evaluation found limited complementarity. Had there been a greater array of partnerships under Objective I 11 providing stronger investments in off-farm agricultural job opportunities and employing appropriate job entry strategies, such as internships for in-school youth or trainee positions for youth with varying levels of educational attainment, the potential for in-school youth to benefit from the increased work￾readiness they gained under Objective I1 would be substantially higher. While YLA implemented an internship program for more than 85 beneficiaries through one of its NGO partners with placements at both YLA and PSPs, the internships focused on university graduates (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2018k). The evaluation team also identified a number of enabling and hindering factors that drive or impede economic opportunities for youth. Some of the enabling factors include training on good agricultural practices leveraged by agricultural and digital technology, access and knowledge of markets with additional technical support, and financial literacy reinforced by access or linkages to financial services. Conversely, hindering factors include cultural biases against female youth, insufficient assessment of barriers faced by youth in agriculture, insufficient communication with youth about risks and expectations in engaging in agricultural production, and climate change. During the evaluation, the team surfaced a number of unintended outcomes, some of them positive, some negative. Among the positive unintended outcomes, the team found young farmers invested in their children’s education as a result of their increased income, as well as in productive assets, such as animals, housing, and motorcycles. However, the team also heard from youth about incidences of increased domestic violence, discontinuation of certain crops, and exposure to chemicals due to a lack of protective gear. The final element of the evaluation examined how YLA evolved over time, as part of a built-in process for learning and adjusting. The team found that the YLA pivots responded primarily to the need for expedited partnership selection, improved partnership designs, and increased scalability of PSPs. In the final year’s work plan, YLA recognized a need to foster a more inclusive workforce among PSPs and decided to focus its efforts on increasing opportunities for females, as well as supporting young women to succeed as entrepreneurs. While YLA increased its efforts to explore ways to increase female participation together with PSPs, a review of partnership agreements in the final year of YLA did not demonstrate a systematic approach to addressing gender barriers. Overall, the strategic pivots did not specifically address the needs of youth, such as a greater array of financial services, consistent access to markets, and follow-on farming support. The following discussion of the five sub-questions of the evaluation provides further details on how YLA partnerships affected the skills, competencies, income, and employment of youth in agriculture. 3.2 QUESTION 1: CONTRIBUTIONS TO YLA’S OBJECTIVES How did the activity’s interventions affect (i) skills and competencies of youth and (ii) youth income and employment opportunities in the agricultural sector? Outcome: Strong contributions to improved soft- and life-skills for in-school youth, but rather limited contribution to entrepreneurship and workforce readiness in the agricultural sector. 12 In-school youth improved their work readiness/soft￾skills as a result of their participation in trainings provided by one PSP (see Box A). Evidence from the quasi-experimental evaluation conducted by YLA showed modest gains by youth in the treatment schools, who improved five percent in five key areas of higher-order thinking skills, positive self-concept, self-control, communication skills, and social skills; this is compared to a three percent improvement by the control group (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2019e). Out-of-school youth received life-skills training in addition to training on farming. Life-skill trainings consisted mostly of trainings on health, financial literacy, and entrepreneurship (see Table 5). The evaluation team found strong evidence that content related to entrepreneurship focused primarily on basic financial literacy concepts, such as saving and managing money. There were also some trainings on gender mainstreaming, which had some positive impact. The evaluation captured a few instances where males recognized that women can and should be equal partners in household economic decision-making. While the evaluation was not able to confirm whether these views were backed by specific positive actions toward young women, having a change in mindset is definitely a step in the right direction. There were also some reported improvements in soft-skills among out-of-school female youth. As young women gained farming knowledge and life skills to improve their standard of living, a few female respondents reported gaining a sense of independence in terms of their ability to join farmer groups, speak in public, make their own decisions, and stand on their own in case their partners decided to leave them. Table 5 – Life Skills Training Types Health (nutrition, sexual and reproductive health) Financial Literacy Entrepreneurship / Business Skills # of Partnerships 8 12 10 Source: YLA Partnership Agreements. Limitations Soft-skills are critical for success in any enterprise or work environment. However, there was limited evidence of how the in-school curriculum strengthens the technical and entrepreneurial skills for youth in such a way that prepares them for a successful entry into agricultural careers. The evaluation found that the link to agriculture was limited to using farming as an example throughout the curriculum and the provision of basic farming training in school gardens. The curriculum for in-school youth placed a greater focus on social and financial education, less so on entrepreneurship. There was, though, some effort to add a practical entrepreneurship component to the curriculum, with some trainings incorporating content on packaging, branding, marketing and sales management (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2017e). Examples that surfaced during field work, however, were limited to making table cloths and selling snacks to fellow students. Box A. Private Education Development Network and Aflatoun As part of YLA, PEDN, a Ugandan social enterprise, implemented the Aflatoun International curriculum for in-school youth. Studies of the Aflatoun curriculum have shown to result primarily in enhanced savings attitudes and behaviors (Evaluation Review, 2017). “We were encouraged that men should not be the only ones to engage in selling the product, but also involve the women” Male youth, 26 years old 13 Similarly, the evaluation team found limited evidence that out-of-school youth learned fundamental aspects of entrepreneurship. A few youth indicated that they learned about ‘farming as a business.’ However, when probed further about the topics they learned, the evaluation team found that in most instances, the content was limited to financial literacy, such as savings and budgeting, and record keeping. In only a few cases, the training included an overview of a cost-benefit analysis or business planning, but these training targeted field agents primarily. Financial literacy training certainly contains basic concepts applicable to both household and business finances. Yet, such a rudimentary understanding of finances is not enough to adequately guide youth to transition from subsistence farming to farming as an income-generating activity. Young people need to grasp market concepts and identify areas with higher value potential (CTA 2019b). A curriculum on “farming as a business” would typically need to impart concepts such as understanding the market, farm management, taking risks, and financial projections (FAO 2012), but there is limited evidence of PSPs that included this type of content. Another major limitation of this outcome was specific to female youth. The evaluation team found some evidence of young women reporting difficulties with attending training, as household roles and responsibilities constrained them. Since some of the trainings were provided over a small number of meetings, missing one or more training sessions could significantly limit a young woman’s learning potential. Outcome: Strong contributions to improved farming skills The evaluation team found improvements in farming methods among youth for most of the partnerships that provided training (15 out of 16 PSPs).4 Trainings varied in length from a short course lasting a few hours, to a series of one-day training sessions over a few weeks. By putting into practice better farming techniques, many youth were able to increase their yields and the quality of their crops, thereby strengthening their ability to sell their produce, especially for value chain buyers who require a certain level of quality. Many youth also indicated that they stopped unsafe environmental practices such as slash and burn. These improvements take place within a context where many youth were already familiar with traditional farming methods, through either growing crops for their own families or helping their parents. In many instances, this experience was limited to growing crops for consumption – typically cassava, bananas, maize, sorghum, and beans – relying on ineffective practices including use of pesticides. Some of the youth were also growing cash crops such as coffee, sesame, and vegetables, but were yielding small amounts of crops. Also, youth typically had very limited or no access to agricultural technology before YLA. Some of them were using only a simple hoe or drying out their crops on the ground, which stymied the quality of their crops. 4 The one exception to improved outcomes in agricultural skills was due to a number of factors, including finding the training insufficient or not being able to attend the training due to transportation costs. "They helped me to learn more on top of the knowledge that I already had. The new thing I learned was that if the coffee tree grows old, you need to cut it down so that it can bring fresh branches." Male youth, 33 years old 14 With YLA, most PSPs facilitated some type of training, usually on good agricultural practices (GAP), which included climate￾smart practices (see Box B). In some cases, the PSP staff were already providing some form of agronomy training to their farmers, though informally and not geared towards youth. In addition, the PSPs provided youth with improved seeds and some inputs, such as fertilizers, sometimes at subsidized prices. As noted by the youth themselves, these are critical components for generating higher yields. Several PSPs also facilitated access to agricultural technology, in the form of tools and equipment (e.g., shellers, moisture meters, tarpaulins), that offered mechanization for boosting efficiency or adding post￾harvest value. The outcome stories that the evaluation team collected show that the combination of modern farming techniques with agricultural technology resulted in higher yields and higher-quality harvests. Limitations Reportedly, many other development actors had offered training in farming for the same local youth that YLA partners had reached out to. This puts into question the extent to which PSPs’ training figured as the sole contributor to the reported improvements in skills.5 Moreover, the evaluation found some evidence of youth expecting to receive free seeds, as has been the case with other projects; this distorts markets and raises expectations of youth unrealistically. These additional interventions often took place before the YLA intervention. In a few instances, they seem to have either overlapped or taken place after the YLA partnership agreement. The evaluation team also found evidence that some youth could not fully maximize benefits from their newly acquired knowledge. First, youth needed additional on-site technical support, primarily in the form of advice about pests and diseases, especially if they were growing a new crop. However, this support was often not available. Without ongoing support, youth did not always have the experience or knowledge of how to deal with pests or other issues affecting their new crops. Second, in cases where youth learned farming at a demonstration garden set up by the PSP, they were not always able to replicate their learnings in their home environments because they lacked the necessary resources. For instance, one of the agricultural training institutions trained youth on growing onions which require significant amounts of water. The training institute met this need with an irrigation system on their land. But when youth went home, drought conditions meant that youth without access to water were unable to grow onions, or they stopped growing them since their crops were of inferior quality. In the case of females, their scarce access to land exacerbated this situation. Similarly, the team found evidence that some of the farming equipment and tools offered to youth arrived late in the agricultural season – with limited benefits to the youth – or late in the partnership 5 Development actors identified by youth and PSP staff offering training, agricultural support, or inputs: ABI, Action for Health, Agritera, Café Africa, Garuga, Great Lake, HURNS, LEAD, Kyedifida/CARE, Oiko Credit, Private Sector Foundation, Samaritan Purse, Sasa Kawa, Sokadido, SNV, Stryde, TechnoServe, WAVES, and Zoa. Box B. Modern Farming Modern farming methods included in training typically included: • Fertilizing & mulching • Planting in rows • Planting using improved seeds • Proper weeding and pruning • Managing pests & spraying • Crop rotation • Post-harvest handling, such as drying and storage. "In terms of percentage [the YLA PSP] contributed about 70% of the knowledge and skills that I have." Male youth, 27 years old 15 agreement. In the latter case, the team could not assess if there were any derived gains.6 Long and protracted procurement processes were typically the cause of these delays. Outcome: Rather strong contributions towards increased income The evaluation team found rather strong evidence that youth were able to increase their agricultural income. These gains mostly stemmed from increased yields of crops they were previously growing or income earned from growing new crops (Table 6). Table 6 - Sources of Farming Income Increases & Frequency in Evaluation Cases Crop type Process Prevalence Existing crops Increased yields and quality, obtained through a combination of improved farming methods and improved access to agricultural technology. 8 out of 9 partnerships that focused on existing crops New crops Especially in horticulture. Effectively diversified youth income. 3 out of 7 partnerships that engaged youth in growing a new crop These gains were possible because the PSPs provided direct access to a ready market. In fact, YLA made it possible in many instances for PSPs to meet their demand for crops by increasing their outreach capacity and expanding their supply chain. The study found that for youth who were previously subsistence farmers and did not have experience selling crops, market access was a significant factor. Even if their families engaged in commercial farming, youth did not always engage in selling crops. If they were primarily helping out on their family’s land, their parents would take the harvest to the local community market or trading centers. Thus, these youth also derived major benefits from having direct access to a market through their engagement with the PSP. Because of the exclusive buyer-seller relationship that PSPs established with most of the youth farmers, youth did not have to waste time or effort securing a buyer. Other youth had previous market experience, either because they were already part of a PSP’s supply chain or because they were previously selling to local buyers in community markets. However, most buyers who are active on local markets are not conversant on quality standards and consequently do not differentiate the prices they are willing to pay by the quality of crops. Thus, even though these experienced youth already had access to a market, typically through the same PSP that trained them, they also benefited from the partnership if it enabled the PSP to pay more for higher quality crops in larger quantities. 6 According to YLA management, follow-up conversations with PSPs indicated that equipment that arrived late was used in subsequent seasons. "Previously I had no understanding of growing crops for selling, all I knew was growing crops for food, but after the training I understand that to gain in farming you don't have to only engage in it to sustain your appetite but to also earn a living." Male youth, 22 years old 16 Limitations Some PSPs were not always able to buy crops from youth. This typically occurred when a PSP’s purchasing capacity or processing capacity was constrained. In these cases, youth had to secure their own markets, usually resorting to selling their crops to local traders who often did not pay as well as the PSPs. For similar reasons, some youth reported delayed payments, as some of the PSPs did not have an adequate cash flow to pay youth. In a few cases, youth reported losing their highly-perishable crops (such as vegetables) because they were not picked up by the PSP. Thus the causal chain leading to improved economic outcomes can be interrupted. In a total of six partnerships, youth encountered difficulties with delayed payments or selling their crops. Youth who faced this situation expressed dismay at having to sell their high-quality crops for the same amount as lower-quality crops. In some instances, youth who worked on family plots were not able to directly receive the income from the harvest. Due to cultural norms, this affected mainly female youth, whose husbands or fathers would take their harvests to the market and keep the profit. But this also occurred to a few male youth working in coffee. In Uganda, coffee plantations typically belong to parents and agricultural payments are provided to the owner of the land, so parents would receive the harvest income despite youth undertaking all of the farming work. Outcome: Rather weak contributions to employment7 The evaluation found that the creation of employment opportunities under YLA was limited. Table 7 shows an overview of the types of employment opportunities originally targeted by the partnerships, as specified in the partnership agreements.8 Table 7 - Direct Employment Types Employment Types PSPs Jobs Jobs for female youth Village Agents / Field Agents / Extension Workers 22 1,460 858 Machine / Tractor Operators 2 198 80 Non-Farm Jobs 2 59 40 Source: YLA Partnership Agreements. Many partnerships included the employment of youth as Village Agents, field agents, or extension workers. These youth were usually paid on a commission basis by the PSPs to serve as their agents. In this role youth offered a variety of services, including profiling and registering other youth into the PSP’s supply chain, conducting training, offering extension services, and bulking crops. Youth working in these 7 The evaluation team did not consider contract farming as employment. The youth farmers grow crops on their own land and provide crops as a product they are selling. This economic relationship to a PSP is very similar to that of other agricultural producers and very different from that of an employee to his employer. 8 This table was derived from desk study, in which the evaluation team assessed all 52 partnership agreements according to a number of criteria, including types of employment. “Sometimes I harvest chili, dry it, and when you take it to [the PSP] they tell you there is no market, so you just pour it away.” Female youth, 20 years old 17 intermediary roles were often already working as aggregators. PSPs professionalized many of these youth by training them in agronomy and group leadership. In addition, approximately 85 youth participated in an internship program managed by one of YLA’s NGO partners. This program helped youth obtain non-farming entry-level skills by placing them in internships with YLA and PSPs. Some of the youth were eventually recruited into permanent positions with PSPs (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2019l). However, these youth were primarily university graduates (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2018k). Overall, the evaluation found limited evidence of direct employment opportunities beyond those roles. Jobs further downstream, in processing or retail, were scarce. One rare example of job opportunities further downstream were offered by a maize cooperative which hired youth as mill operators, shop attendants, drivers, and security guards. Notably, these types of non-farm jobs are well suited to increase economic opportunities for females in agriculture because of their limited access to land and resources. Yet, low levels of literacy among many of the youth posed a major limitation to the ability of PSPs to hire youth in non-farm jobs. For instance, office jobs often require a minimum level of literacy, including digital literacy, that is often beyond the reach of YLA’s target group. To an even lesser extent, the evaluation found evidence of youth hiring casual labor to help them with weeding and harvesting. As yields increase, youth have greater amounts of crops to harvest. In some cases where youth lacked land to farm, they were able to earn income as casual labor, especially as they now had better farming knowledge and skills. 3.3 QUESTION 2: COMPLEMENTARITY OF OBJECTIVES How did the two key components (development of skills and competencies and improvement of income and employment opportunities) complement or constrain each other in achieving YLA’s intended results? The two components of YLA focused on distinct target sub-segments and offered different types of services. Objective 1 focused on increasing incomes of out-of-school youth, ages 15 to 35, working in agricultural value chains. To accomplish this, YLA invested primarily in PSPs directly involved in agriculture to train youth farmers, supply inputs, facilitate access to a ready market, and in some cases also equip youth with agricultural technology. Objective 2 aimed to improve skills and competencies of in-school youth, ages 10-14, by providing mostly training on work readiness/soft-skills and life skills (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2019a). The evaluation team concluded that there was little evidence for the complementarity of the two objectives. In principle, the investment in the development of work-readiness/soft skills and life skills for in-school youth can act as a foundation for any type of income-generating activity in any sector. Given the limited economic opportunities in rural areas, the likelihood of in-school youth eventually engaging in agriculture is admittedly high. In theory, as the younger in-school segment leaves school, they could participate in activities funded under Objective 1, including access to farming skills, input and output markets, technologies, and employment. However, the transition to work in agriculture is complex. According to an analysis on labor market transition of young people in Uganda, the transition from the end of schooling to work is completed when the young person attains a first stable or satisfactory job (UBOS 2016). YLA’s objectives do not work in unison to lead to that outcome. In fact, based on the evaluation findings, the resulting connection looks very different from that of the YLA conceptual framework (see Figure 4). 18 Figure 4 - Complementarity of YLA Objectives This is because activities funded under Objective I almost exclusively targeted out-of-school youth with low skill levels. Because of a lack of other economic opportunities along the agricultural value chain, youth who are better prepared for the job market as a result of their participation in Objective II activities would still need to compete for the same low-skilled economic opportunities created for the out-of-school target group. The younger youth might eventually gain employment as Village Agents, since they acquired work-readiness/soft-skills, but they would still need to develop specific skills and competencies in agriculture. The limited complementarity of activities under both objectives also depends to a large degree on the sustainability of partnership agreements. In order for these two components to complement each other, PSPs would need to sustain the same services over time, continuing to benefit the younger groups after they leave school and YLA support winds down. While the study found evidence of the intent of PSPs to continue working with young people, this will likely be limited to offering direct market access, as the continuation of the training is at risk without external funding. The investments in some of the agricultural technology, especially machinery, should still be accessible over time, but it might be difficult to make it available to larger numbers of youth. Moreover, while the evaluation team found that the two objectives resulted in positive outcomes, the skills and competencies developed for the younger, in-school segment do not directly function as part of a cohesive strategy to prepare youth for successful entry into agriculture-related fields besides farming. This primarily affects the ability of youth to secure job opportunities Although YLA implemented an internship program with one NGO partner, the internship opportunities were few in number and focused on university graduates. Had there been a wider array of partnerships offering off-farm agricultural job opportunities and utilizing an appropriate job entry strategy through internships or trainee positions, for example, the potential for in-school youth to benefit from their increased work￾readiness would be substantially higher. Finally, for youth who continue in school for additional years, this framework does not offer any suitable income-generating prospects. For youth with more advanced schooling, engaging in farming, or being employed as machinery operators or as field agents, could be an underutilization of their abilities. 19 3.4 QUESTION 3: ENABLING & HINDERING FACTORS What were the major enabling and hindering contextual factors for youth economic empowerment along the agricultural value chain? Enabling Factors This study identified evidence on a number of factors that contribute to expanding and strengthening economic opportunities for young people along the agricultural value chain. Many of these factors have been previously identified as essential in youth economic empowerment programming (USAID FtF 2016). Results of the Forecast Survey show that current expert opinion is in line with these findings as well. This section describes how enabling factors play out in the YLA context. The team found that these factors often work in pairs. This section first describes a description of each individual factor followed by a discussion on how the combined factors have shown the ability to drive youth economic empowerment across the contexts of individual partnerships. Good Agricultural Practices + Technology As evidenced earlier in this report, technical skills in farming are crucial for youth to increase their income. Young people tend to have less experience in agriculture and often learn farming from their own parents. With specialized high-quality training in farming, youth can greatly improve yields of their crops, produce enough crops to farm as an income-generating activity, and diversify income by growing new crops. The combination of these factors enables youth to access value chain markets that would otherwise not be available to them because of PSPs that require minimum standards for the crops they buy. Also, since the farming methods can often be applied to a variety of crops, youth are able to derive benefits beyond the PSP’s value chain. The successful application of improved farming techniques that youth learn often depends on accessing improved inputs and utilizing agricultural technology. Agricultural technology, such as shellers, moisture meters, and tarpaulins, can ensure that crops reach the quality that will generate the greatest income for youth. The evaluation team observed that, with the support of field agents, some of the PSPs provided machinery that could be rented by youth, thus making it financially viable for the youth to use, while also generating income for the agents. Agricultural technology, though, has to consider the seasonality of agriculture as well as practicality of the intervention. For instance, one of the partnerships provided hired tractors to open up additional land for youth to grow sesame. This represented a significant opportunity for youth because their parents were already planting sesame. However, there were procurement delays, resulting in the tractors arriving late in the planting season, which did not fully benefit the target youth. In a few cases, the equipment portion of in-kind grants arrived too late in the project to make an appropriate assessment of their contributions during this study. YLA staff recognized that procurement timelines were often longer than they anticipated, though no specific remedial action was taken. A similar example is the need for irrigation. Crops such as vegetables require appropriate irrigation, which were available at some of the demonstration plots of PSPs. But youth did not always have access to water sources on their own plots of land. "They brought us shellers here. The truth is we need them, everyone was excited about them. But the shellers we got are very heavy for us to take in the garden because most farm on hills. The sheller does not have wheels, you need a vehicle to transport it there, which needs fuel also, so it has not helped us really." Male youth, 23 years old 20 Experts participating in the Forecast Survey concluded that access to agricultural equipment and related learning for using the equipment is a combination that can drive improvements in skills. Together, these elements increase the yields and quality of their crops. With YLA, the evaluation team found strong evidence that the combination of these factors – farming knowledge, improved inputs, and farming equipment – resulted in the best outcomes for youth farmers. Digital technology in particular offers many potential advantages and can overcome some of the cultural barriers that give preference to men over women in earning an income. For instance, if PSPs pay their registered farmers via mobile money, female youth could gain direct access to their harvest earnings. However, the use of technology needs to consider the ability of youth to access and sustain use of it over time. As observed during the evaluation, access to mobile phones and mobile money is still not prevalent in the field, especially among female youth.9 For instance, the team observed the case of one aggregator PSP that aimed to pay its youth farmers via mobile money. The partnership started in 2018, but by the time the evaluation team met with them, in March of 2020, they had only paid 100 out of 7,000 farmers. According to this PSP, one of the complications was that many youth farmers did not have their own mobile phones. Similarly, an agri-tech PSP that trained 120 village agents in the use of a mobile application on extension services could only provide 50 smart phones to the agents. A critical point that experts from the Forecast Survey have raised about the use of digital technology is ensuring that investments that lead to increased profitability for the PSP get passed down to youth farmers. In fact, the evaluation team was unable to find evidence of how some of the investments in business systems and technology will eventually increase income or employment opportunities for the target youth. There is an even greater question whether those investments will benefit young women. Ensuring the continued use of technology is another critical aspect. For instance, one PSP aggregator provided smart phones to a cadre of youth village agents so they could profile and register farmers. The PSP took away the smart phones after the agents completed the registration, thereby limiting the potential benefits from accessing this technology. Access & Knowledge of Markets + Technical Support Young people usually have limited social capital because they tend to have few network links to individuals who control resources, especially if they are of school age. Thus, they may not have enough contacts to access the best markets or may not have enough confidence to negotiate prices. Without extensive knowledge of the market players, youth face the risk of not profiting from their crops. YLA addressed some of these issues when youth were supported by intermediaries, such as Village Agents or lead farmers, who extended their market networks. By connecting youth to markets, PSPs helped youth think beyond local buyers (USAID FtF 2016). Some of the training provided by PSPs included sessions on cost-benefit analysis and supply-and-demand. As a result, youth learned to wait for prices to increase before selling their crops, and some youth engaged in a cost-benefit analysis to 9 This is consistent with findings from a World Bank database which indicates that while 45% of males have received a mobile money payment, only 35% of females have (Global Findex, 2017). “The fact that the partnership focuses more on record management, and not much on production itself, might not necessarily lead to increased youth income but rather more realistic and accurate data and information on income. This is mere profiling.” Youth Agricultural Economic Expert 21 determine the profit they might expect. This skill carried greater weight for youth who lacked experience in how to approach and negotiate market prices. PSPs provided youth with access to a ready market as part of an exclusive input/buyer relationship, where PSPs also delivered agricultural inputs. At the same time, though, such an exclusive relationship can negatively affect youth when crops fail to meet the standards set by the PSPs, the PSP is unable to buy the entire production or payments are delayed. Thus, as experts from the Forecast Survey pointed out, the added labor, expense, and attentiveness required for producing a high quality or certified crop may not always pay off for youth farmers. They also caution that single-buyer projects like YLA often result in buyers not paying on time. The study also found some evidence that YLA built social capital by strengthening youth producer groups, who learned to engage in collective bargaining that can lead to better prices for their crops. A few youth groups were able to pull together their resources to secure inputs and agricultural equipment at a lower cost. Social capital in the form of new and larger networks can be especially valuable for female youth, who tend to be isolated at home with household responsibilities. As found in a few instances throughout the evaluation’s case studies, these connections buttressed the confidence of young women by strengthening their ability to engage and negotiate with market actors. The ability of youth to maximize their yields and profits can be further bolstered through technical support provided by field or Village Agents who provide extension services. Yet, while many youth discussed wanting to receive additional follow-up technical support, very few did, as the PSPs did not have the staff capacity or enough field agents to visit individual youth farms. Among the 16 case studies, one very promising approach to leverage technology to provide ongoing technical support was the use of mobile applications for extension services. For instance, an agri-tech PSP leveraged a proprietary mobile application that Village Agents could use to recognize pests and diseases and provide solutions as they visited farmers. Youth found this support very helpful. However, even with such an approach there are complications in its operationalization, as the PSP secured only 50 mobile phones for 120 Village Agents. According to experts from the Forecast Survey, a leveraged approach of complementing training with technology-based follow-up support could foster a stronger and longer-term productive engagement with intermediaries such as Village Agents, benefitting both youth farmers by receiving more technical support, and service providers as they get paid for their services. Experts also pointed out that youth can greatly benefit from connections to successful farmers, visiting establishing farms and learning from their experiences, especially if they are growing new crops. Financial Education + Financial Services Some of the PSP training included financial management concepts, including how to budget and save, thereby instilling valuable life-skills that can help youth manage their money more effectively. Given the risks in agriculture, solid financial skills are a valuable resilience mechanism for weathering income “Village agent told me that he just puts the question on the phone sends it and within a few minutes he gets answers. So whenever I have issues, let’s say about a certain pest, or had forgotten the pesticide or fertilizer amounts, I make just a phone call to the village agent and get answers quickly.” Female youth, 30 years old "The truth is that the yields may increase but the market is not there." Male youth, central region 22 fluctuations. While the evaluation team found evidence of savings being used for farm investments, there were no reports of youth using these savings to cope with financial challenges. Access to financial services is essential for everyone, but it is even more critical in rural areas because of the seasonality of agricultural income. For young people who tend to have few assets and resources, and who may face the financial pressures of a new or growing family, timely access to savings and credit can make a major difference in their ability to invest adequately in their crops. With the support of YLA, many PSPs provided credit to youth in the form of input credit, which are repaid when youth sell their crops to the PSPs. Many youth expressed a desire to access additional financing to hire labor to help with weeding and harvesting. For female youth who are also burdened with household chores, lack of access to such capital is even more dire. The evaluation found many cases where input credit was found insufficient for the needs of youth. Also, in several instances input credit was provided to youth farmers only for demonstration purposes during the initial training, and not in later seasons, possibly because the PSPs did not have the cash flow to finance the credit. Similarly, one agro-processing PSP that initially offered inputs on credit had to stop this service the second season because of a high default rate. Some of the PSPs connected youth to or helped them form Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs). These local semi-formal financial mechanisms act as a valuable financial resource for youth, as they provide both a saving mechanism as well as a source of credit. Plus, VSLAs could be a stepping stone to formal financial services, as there have been some efforts to link VSLAs to financial serving institutions. However, VSLAs have limited amounts to loan out to their members and the evaluation did not surface specific examples of youth VSLAs connected to formal financial institutions. Thus, while VSLAs represent a very important community-based financial mechanism, they are a limited source of funding that does not always avail the loan amounts youth need at the time they need them. There were few instances in which youth were directly linked to formal financial institutions, such as banks, credit unions, or Savings and Credit Cooperative Organizations (SACCOs). The study found that in cases when youth had access to a greater variety of financial services, they were better equipped to address the pain points they faced in agriculture. YLA also invested in PSPs’ systems to pay their youth suppliers with mobile money. Digital payment systems increase efficiencies and reduce risks of theft or loss. However, as with agricultural technology, accessibility is a key issue for the successful application of mobile technology. Unfortunately, most youth participating in the study had not yet received a mobile payment. This was partly a result of many youth not having a phone of their own, but it was also due to mobile payment services not completely set up at the time of this study. “I have access to a loan in our VSLA, but… it is very little, there was not enough money to attain the loan I desire, the little that we save is not enough.” Focus group with male youth 23 When considering the needs of female youth farmers, appropriate design of financial products is also key to enabling their full participation in agriculture. Because of the multiple constraints females face, financial products for females need to be more flexible. One of the PSPs, a SACCO, offered a very good example of appropriate product design. The SACCO structured its loan requirement in recognition of the barriers women face while acknowledging the widely-held view that women are reliable and trustworthy borrowers. The regular loan required males to have prior savings at the SACCO of 35 percent of the requested loan amount, whereas female youth were required to provide only 10 percent (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2019e). The lower requirements made it easier for female farmers to qualify for loans, which they could use to rent land, buy agricultural inputs, or hire additional labor. Hindering Factors A number of different factors impeded the achievement of some of the YLA objectives, some of which were more pronounced than others. Because there are multiple and overlapping factors, this discussion lists four major categories that are explored in detail. Cultural Biases and Lack of Gender-responsive Programming The study found that female youth continue to face long-established barriers to fully benefit from the YLA interventions. Because of a combination of limited knowledge about their own rights and pervasive cultural norms that favor men over women, young women struggle securing land and other resources. In addition, household responsibilities greatly burden young women, keeping them from going to the market by themselves. Cultural norms give preference to men in production and marketing decision-making. Often, female youth have to ask their husbands or parents for land they can farm on. Even when they do have access to land, they are not always able to profit from their harvests, as their husbands or parents feel entitled to take the harvests to market and keep the earnings. Denial of legal rights to land ownership also affects the ability of females to access credit, as land is often required as collateral, thus stymieing their ability to invest in their farms (UNDP 2015). The evaluation team also heard repeated negative comments about female youth in terms of their perceived attitude and ability to engage in productive agricultural opportunities. Many males, including male youth as well as some PSP staff, view young women as weak and not hard working, not interested in agriculture, and not knowledgeable enough about agriculture. Until these barriers are tackled, young women will continue being at a disadvantage with youth economic empowerment programming. Furthermore, YLA did not systematically address these gender considerations during most of its implementation. There were only a few partnerships that took explicit steps to empower females. Examples include: • Promoting non-traditional roles for young women. The main example of this was an NGO partner that hired young females as tractor drivers. There were also some youth hired to be Village Agents, a role that young women typically do not take on. • Designing services to meet young women’s needs. As cited earlier in the report, one financial "The loan I got, I used it to harvest and hire people to go sell my harvest in the market." Female youth, 26 years old 24 institution partner designed a financial product with lower requirements for young women as a way to incentivize their participation. Another PSP provided day care for young mothers working in agriculture. • Gender mainstreaming. YLA incorporated some gender mainstreaming training sessions for target youth, resulting in improved awareness among males about the importance of equality between men and women. But a review of all partnership agreements identified only eight instances in which a training on gender mainstreaming was included. Only in the last year of implementation YLA engaged in a more concerted effort to address gender barriers, primarily through the implementation of learning events and workshops on women’s empowerment (i.e. the Breaking the Mold conference and follow-on regional workshops). Overall, the evaluation found there was no consistent gender approach implemented throughout the program. By not directly and purposefully tackling the challenges faced by young women, young women could not fully take advantage of all the program’s offerings. Insufficient Assessment on Value Chain Implications for Youth Because of the PSP-centric approach to the program, YLA staff did not incorporate a value chain or market systems analysis into their approach. However, a greater understanding of value chains could have revealed potential barriers that youth face and have led to appropriate mitigation against those barriers. Experts participating in the Forecast Survey pointed out that a value chain like coffee is challenging because it is unlikely parents would give their children their established plots. Indeed, the coffee value chain proved to be very challenging for engaging young farmers. Coffee plots take a long time to become established and are usually owned by an older segment of the population. This resulted in a coffee-processing PSP having difficulties securing participation of farmers younger than 35 years old. Crops that require a longer￾time horizon can be especially difficult for female farmers to cultivate, as such investments only make sense if one has reliable access to land over time. The particularities of the coffee value chain also had other implications. According to YLA staff, target youth did not typically own coffee plantations, but their parents did. As such, even when youth worked on their parents’ land to grow coffee, the payment would be received by parents who are the owners of the land. Some parents refused to give the earnings to the youth arguing that they could not pay their own children for working on their farm. "The ladies were few, they come here for knowledge and then go back and support their husbands. But remember they cannot sell their husband coffee, so in short, it is mainly men who benefit from this intervention." Male youth, 30 years old 25 Other value chains also presented some challenges. As indicated earlier in the report, horticulture can be especially difficult for young people because of the fragility of crops and the limited knowledge youth have about the markets. Timing is critical with these crops, and without a ready market, youth risk losing their crops, as happened in a few cases. Similarly, an efficient intermediary service is essential for aggregating youth crops at a centrally-located collection place. When this connection was missing, youth had to pay for transportation themselves, reducing their profits and potentially risk losing perishable crops. In considering the potential challenges in a value chain, YLA also needed to examine the extent to which youth were diversifying their crops. A lack of diversification, especially with cash crops, exposes youth to a number of risks. Some of the crops faced significant price drops or were impacted by severe weather (drought or floods), resulting in losses for the youth. Although price fluctuations and weather disruptions affect all farmers regardless of age, the impact felt by youth engaged in farming for the first time has greater implications for the sustainability of youth in agriculture. Finally, a value chain assessment would show how certain investments in PSPs could ultimately benefit youth. The evaluation found that the causal chain of some of the partnerships structured around infrastructure investments are very long and possibly tenuous. For instance, one of the key grant activities of the PSP that focused primarily on in-school youth included the implementation of a digital system to improve the financial management of schools. But the evaluation team did not find adequate evidence of how this investment resulted in improved skills and competencies of youth. This is not to say that there are no benefits from such an investment, but the benefits are primarily in efficiencies at the institutional level. A relevant question raised by Forecast Survey experts is how some of these infrastructure investments will translate into productivity gains and increased income for young people, at least in the short-to￾medium term Inadequate Communication and Limited Technical Support Opinions from the Forecast Survey experts point to the need of establishing clear and transparent communication channels with youth. When PSPs are not engaging with youth about the potential challenges they can face in agriculture, or teaching youth appropriate mitigating measures, they risk youth ending engagement when they face a major disruption. In the case of a horticulture processor, the PSP recognized early on that youth were reluctant to join their supply chain because they had concerns about “the availability and sustainable market of hot peppers, having been disappointed by other organizations”. Yet, youth with this same PSP also encountered difficulties because of the unpredictability of that particular value chain. As experts from the Forecast Survey indicated, a lack of clarity on the terms and conditions in contract farming stands as a major hindering factor. A related challenge is inadequate support provided by field or Village Agents. Young people without “They encouraged us to grow tomatoes on a large scale in the first season, and yet they did not provide support. Members would not manage large gardens effectively which made them to lose out after they had invested a lot in it." Male youth, 27 years old "Sometimes the process may not have a direct link to the young person. For example, how can improving the accounting system have a direct link with helping the young people? But, at the technical review level you must go with whatever the team has decided even if you are not in total agreement." YLA staff 26 previous farming experience require more advice and ongoing support. Experts also agreed that a major obstacle in providing appropriate support is not hiring enough Village Agents, resulting in too many youth per Village Agent or extension worker. For instance, one cooperative recognized this difficulty as it only had one agronomist to support 1,600 youth. In addition to that, experts point to the risk that youth who work as Village Agents might not have as much experience as a trained extension service provider. PSPs need to be clear on what youth can expect from training. Forecast survey experts commented that residential trainings are not at all like „real world“ production. This was evident with some youth that did not learn enough about the many challenges they were to encounter in their own fields. Thus, providing additional guidance for youth who are primarily learning farming on demonstration plots is key for their future success. Climate Change A common thread throughout most of the PSPs was the difficulty growing crops when facing drought conditions. With climate change, extreme weather patterns are increasingly common, disrupting the ability of farmers of all ages to grow their crops. Extreme weather can have a greater negative impact on youth farmers, though, because they have less experience and fewer assets to resort to in case of extreme weather events. Although there are a variety of weather conditions that can affect agriculture, drought was the most commonly mentioned. Given this reality, any agricultural economic empowerment project needs to consider mitigation strategies. Many of YLA’s PSPs guided youth in implementing soil and water conservation measures, such as mulching, and crop rotations. However, few PSPs had irrigation systems that youth could utilize, and even when they did, the irrigation systems were available only on the land of the PSPs. Youth themselves did not always have water sources they could tap into, which impeded their ability to grow crops in their home plots. Other strategies, such as crop insurance, can offer some protections (see Box C), but the evaluation team found only two instances of PSPs offering this option. 3.5 QUESTION 4: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES What were unintended consequences (if any) of YLA’s interventions and how were they leveraged or mitigated in the implementation process? The study found evidence of a few unintended outcomes, both positive and negative. While the evidence was not very strong in all cases, the evaluation team found it important to include these findings. Some of the positive consequences were targeted as desired outcomes in the original design of YLA, but were not included in the YLA progress report indicators. Positive Unintended Outcomes The team found rather strong evidence of youth who felt better equipped to pay for their children’s Box C. Weather-Index Insurance New technologies are emerging that can provide some level of protection to smallholder farmers. For instance, mobile-enabled weather-index insurance. By registering insured seeds via mobile phone allows farmers to be geo-tagged. The registration relies on remote monitoring via weather satellites to measure rainfall, and provides an automatic mobile money payout when the measurements fall under a certain level (CGAP 2017) 27 school fees as a result of their increased income; youth in 12 out the 16 partnerships reported this outcome. Youth also reported being able to pay for their own fees to go back to school, though this was the case for only a few Village Agents who generated an income from both farming and commissions paid by the PSP. Some youth also reported being able to buy livestock, primarily goats and cows. In a few cases, youth were able to reinvest in their farms, for instance by buying oxen that they could use to plough their fields. This finding has significant implications, because as youth invest in their farms, they can potentially generate even larger yields and income gains, resulting in broader and more sustained outcomes. A few youth reported being able to acquire physical assets such as motorcycles, so they could start their own boda boda (motorcycle taxi) business, or improve their housing. Though investing in income￾generating assets such as these can lead youth to economic opportunities outside agriculture, it is nonetheless economically empowering. The team also found evidence, though limited, of female youth reporting increased levels of self￾confidence, especially those employed as Village Agents. These youth expressed gaining a sense of independence by being able to join farmer groups, speak in public or engage in their own economic decision making. Finally, as noted earlier, youth were applying their newly-acquired farming methods to a variety of crops. Since female farmers are usually responsible for growing crops for consumption, this outcome has positive impacts for the household as a whole, as investing in female youth’s farming skills is a direct contribution to food security – as long as the training provided is not too crop-specific. As mentioned above, while some of the outcomes were expected as part of the theoretical framework for YLA, the program did not leverage these outcomes in any specific way. That is, the services were not structured to build on these positive outcomes. For example, the acquisition of assets could have been leveraged to help youth secure financing for additional farming investments. The one exception was that the gains in food security were sometimes supplemented with training on nutrition. As females increase their yields and apply their learnings to other crops, they improve their family’s food security. Then, by applying their learnings on nutrition, they can provide better nourishment for their families. However, the evaluation found just a few instances of training focused on nutrition. Negative Unintended Outcomes There were a few reports of women facing increased domestic violence as a result of their newly-gained earning capacity. Gender-based violence (GBV) takes many forms – physical, sexual, emotional and psychological, and socio-economic. Some female youth were subject to some form of domestic violence by their husbands/partners when they engaged in farming as an income-generating endeavor. For some female youth, domestic violence would start once they asked their husbands for their harvest income after selling off their crops. While the YLA investment in PSPs helped many female youth increase their agricultural income, they risked being mistreated by their partners when seeking control of their own crops and harvest. To a certain extent YLA tried to prevent this situations, by engaging youth in a discussion about the quality of men and women. However, there were few instances of gender mainstreaming training provided by PSPs. The team also found some evidence of youth giving up on farming the crops they learned about. This resulted from their disappointment at getting paid less than what they were expecting (due to price fluctuations), or having their crops rejected (because they failed to meet the required PSP’s quality 28 standards), or not being able to sell their crops at all (due to some PSPs having limited purchasing capacity). Similarly, youth grew frustrated when they were not paid on time and decided to start selling their harvests to other buyers. Although PSP staff seemed aware of this outcome, there were no specific actions taken to alleviate the frustration of youth. While YLA overall espoused environmentally-friendly practices that many PSPs integrated into their training and practices, the study found instances of harmful practices. In the case of a horticulture agribusiness, youth experienced health-related problems, especially in their eyes, while spraying their gardens with pesticides. Youth at that PSP reported not having protective gear, such as gloves and masks, to use while spraying their gardens. They were only told to wash their hands with soap after spraying. Female farmers can be at greater risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals because male household heads typically have the money and the decision-making power to purchase safety equipment. In this case, the evaluation team did not find evidence that PSP or YLA staff were aware of these harmful practices. The YLA intervention created a market distortion in at least one instance, where a PSP that used to provide training for a fee started offering the training for free as part of YLA. This is likely to affect the sustainability of the PSP, or at the very least the provision of training, as it undermines one of their income sources. Finally, the evaluation team also found that one of the unintended outcomes was that some of the beneficiaries of program services included people over the YLA age limit. This resulted in YLA not being able to count those beneficiaries in their overall metrics. However, this operational challenge also reflects the reality that many PSPs found it difficult to differentiate by fixed age limits, since age is not a success factor for the PSPs. 3.6 QUESTION 5: EVOLUTION OF THE ACTIVITY How did YLA’s implementation evolve over time in response to the needs of the beneficiaries? From the onset, YLA was expected to implement adaptive management techniques in line with USAID’s Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) approach to development. Programmatic shifts resulted from a continuous learning process, building on what works and eliminating what doesn’t (USAID Uganda 2015). Drawing from lessons learned throughout the life of the program, YLA experienced five significant pivots throughout its implementation (see Figure 5). YLA considers these pivots transformational, but also in line with the programmatic objectives and contractual obligations. The pivots resulted primarily from lessons learned on partnership selection processes and partnership design. 29 Figure 5 - YLA Pivots At the beginning of the activity, the partnership selection process was very lengthy, so management shifted to a swifter partnership selection process, a ‘quick-in, quick-out’ approach, during the second year of implementation. As the program evolved, management also observed that the selection process was generating a wide array of partnerships, some of which worked, and others that failed or did not make business sense (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2018c). This led to some of the more significant pivots in YLA, the implementation of a ‘sniffing’ process to identify viable business opportunities and a design-in￾reverse approach, in which YLA and PSPs co-design the agreement focused on improving the business profitability and efficiencies of the partner. The last two pivots focused primarily on strengthening business performance and scaling up successful partnerships in order to create more opportunities for youth in agriculture over time. During this time, YLA management also started investing in building the knowledge and skills of YLA staff in business development services through a series of trainings. For instance, YLA staff met with the Feed the Future Market Systems Monitoring team from MIT/George Washington University to review and better understand agricultural market systems (USAID Uganda YLA 2017ai). 30 It is important to highlight that the initial pivots did not specifically address the needs or challenges of youth or female youth. Instead, the evolution of the YLA implementation during the first four years of the program reflected primarily internal management needs and PSP pain points. In the last year of YLA’s implementation, however, the last pivot broadly focused on inclusion of young women and people with disabilities. In recognition of the low numbers of beneficiary female youth in the program, YLA started incorporating some elements, including women empowerment events, gender mainstreaming training, and partnerships with a greater focus on females. The focus on the PSPs was largely a result of YLA’s facilitative approach.10 The facilitative approach focuses on working with private sector and within existing structures to facilitate changes. This approach allowed YLA to address the pain points of PSPs and scale up successful partnerships by equipping PSPs with the necessary investments and technical support to unlock their business potential. Many PSP staff mentioned that YLA allowed them to achieve the growth they envisioned much more quickly. In understanding the PSP motivations and focusing on their specific needs, the facilitative approach will also likely result in the sustainability of many of the services after the end of the partnership agreements. This entire approach’s underlying assumption is that as organizations strengthen their business capacity and accelerate their growth, they will, in turn, expand economic opportunities for youth. However, the evaluation found that the facilitative approach missed addressing many of the pain points faced by youth, thereby limiting the ability of youth to fully benefit from YLA’s investments. During the evaluation, youth talked about several pain points they faced (see Table 8). The more common pain points included: • Limited financial services: There were some financial services available to youth, mainly in the form of credit for inputs, as well as savings and loans provided through VSLAs, and one direct linkage to a SACCO. However, these services were either not consistently available or not sufficient to meet youth needs. Financing casual labor is especially critical for female youth who are already burdened with household responsibilities. • Difficult market access: While PSPs provided a ready market in many instances, youth encountered numerous challenges to access markets in full. In some cases, PSPs were not able to buy crops from youth because they either did not have enough cash or because they lacked 10 As defined in the USAID contract with Chemonics, “a facilitative market systems approach is focused on the private sector and takes into account the existing structures and incentives within an economy. This approach seeks to facilitate changes across the system to improve efficiencies and achieve large scale impact. Under this approach, interventions aim to stimulate the value chain to develop and grow but do not become a part of the chain. Because the approach works through local actors and is designed with replicability in mind, it is more likely to be sustainable and adopted by others who were not directly involved with the original intervention” (USAID Uganda 2015). "We’ve changed the soft enabling environment, to bring more women into meaningful employment in the private sector. For example, addressing sexual harassment, providing day care centers, talking to family farms at the household level about importance of gender equality at household level." YLA staff "After they realized that partnership managers were not well conversant about business, they hired a consultant to train them for eight weeks.” YLA staff 31 the necessary processing capacity to absorb the produce harvested by youth. Thus, some youth incurred losses by not earning a better price for their higher-quality crops or losing their fragile crops because of delays in payments. Finally, numerous youth talked about the high costs in transporting crops to the market when the PSP did not facilitate a pickup system or set up a local collection center. • Insufficient technical support: Youth wanted to receive additional technical assistance from the PSPs, not just a one-off training. This was especially critical for youth who were new to farming or growing new crops. Youth appreciated the technical visits of PSP intermediaries, but the on￾site visits were rare. Table 8 - Youth Pain Points Need for financial services Difficulty accessing markets Need for more technical support PSPs where youth pain point surfaced but was not addressed 5 7 5 Source: YLA Evaluation Field work. 32 4. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents conclusions, lessons learned, and recommendations. Conclusions are organized according to the evaluation questions. This is followed by lessons learned regarding three major themes: YLA’s facilitative approach, empowerment of female youth in agriculture, and economic empowerment. The recommendations section draws on the findings and lessons learned to set out an improved course for future programming on youth economic empowerment. 4.1 CONCLUSIONS Contributions to YLA’s Objectives Overall, YLA’s interventions met their objectives to increase skills and incomes for youth. These economic opportunities were concentrated around farming-related skills and incomes for out-of-school youth, as well as soft-skills for in-school youth. Most economic opportunities that YLA created confined youth to the production end of the agricultural value chain. Employment opportunities consisted for the most part of work as PSP field agents who often engaged in sales of agro-inputs or bulking. Figure 6 shows a simplified representation of an agricultural value chain, with each of the various links along the chain. The darker stages along the value chain show where the income generating opportunities created by YLA partnerships were concentrated, whereas the lighter colors indicate limited or no opportunities created. Figure 6 - YLA Economic Opportunities along Agricultural Value Chain Economic opportunities further downstream require additional training, beyond good agricultural practices and financial literacy. Thus, the evaluation team would expect a narrowing down of opportunities available for youth further down the value chains. Still, there are a number of appropriate income-generating activities that could have been facilitated through YLA (see Annex V). Youth could, for example, work as seed multipliers, quality certification staff, and sales representatives. Opening such opportunities would have required offering additional market-driven training for out-of-school youth 33 besides farming. Even the work readiness/soft-skills training provided for in-school youth would likely not satisfy the types of skills required for jobs further down the agricultural value chain.The narrow set of economic opportunities is also a factor of the types of the YLA partnerships, which included largely aggregators and traders of agricultural commodities. Complementarity of Objectives The evaluation team concludes that the two programmatic objectives resulted in two fairly separate sets of activities that did not benefit from each other. In fact, the activity under Objective II (to improve skills and competencies of in-school youth) acted almost as its own distinct program with a very narrow set of interventions (i.e., social and financial inclusion plus some farming training) operated by one major partner, whereas activities under Objective I (to increase incomes) had a greater array of interventions (farming training, inputs, access to agricultural equipment) implemented by numerous partners. Thus, there were no clear benefits to offering both interventions as part of a single program. In fact, the skill sets required by staff to implement activities under Objective I (e.g., knowledge of and experience with agricultural market systems) are quite different than those for activities under Objective II (e.g., knowledge of soft-skills training and school systems). Enabling and Hindering Factors The evaluation team found that there are mutually reinforcing combinations of enabling factors. Examples are trainings supported with accessible technology, market access supported with technical advice, and the benefits of financial education maximized through financial services. Hindering factors identified by the evaluation team highlight gaps in the approach. While the original YLA design acknowledged some of the barriers that female youths might face, there were not enough mechanisms put in place to address those at the individual, household, or institutional level. In essence, a program such as YLA needs to have a strategy in place, otherwise the barriers will continue stymying female empowerment, as the evaluation team observed among YLA beneficiaries. While YLA was specifically designed to provide opportunities along agricultural value chains, the implementation did not consider the potential barriers youth could face in the agricultural value chains in which the PSPs operate. According to YLA staff, no value chain assessments were carried out because that was not the emphasis of the program. However, if a program wants to open up opportunities along agricultural value chains, it needs to generate a greater understanding of agricultural market systems as well as the barriers youth might face within those. Unintended Consequences YLA did not have a process in place for identifying and learning about unintended consequences. As a result, positive consequences were not systematically leveraged to improve outcomes, and negative consequences were not consequently addressed to mitigate their impact. Regarding positive unintended outcomes identified by this evaluation, a major conclusion is that young people have a strong desire to invest in assets to grow and diversify their income. They do this by buying animals that can generate additional income or by buying motorcycles that they can operate as a taxi business. Regarding negative unintended outcomes, the evaluation team found that an increase in income does not always benefit young women. Instead, it can result in harm. Although female interviewees rarely 34 reported cases of gender-based violence, individual instances are still concerning, and require a close examination in future programming. Program Evolution The evolution of YLA produced mixed results. The programmatic shifts responded well to the need for expedited partnership agreements and better partnership design processes. As YLA evolved, however, it did not fully take the needs of young people into account. There was no standard process for identifying the barriers young people face in agriculture, so addressing their pain points along the various value chains remained deficient. While YLA took a more intentional turn in its last year to address the inclusion of female youth and other vulnerable populations, those efforts arrived very late in the program’s life and did not lead to systematic changes in the design of partnerships or major outcomes for females. 4.2 LESSONS LEARNED Facilitative Approach A significant lesson learned from YLA’s facilitative approach is that focused investments in PSPs do not automatically translate into significant economic opportunities for young people along the agricultural value chain. The assumption that building the business capacity of PSPs leads to increases in productive opportunities for young people does not always hold true. Furthermore, the quick-in, quick-out approach applied by YLA in the identification of partnerships could have resulted in staff missing some potential weaknesses of PSPs and setting unrealistic targets. This led to situations where, for example, some PSPs were not able to absorb the entire production by youth. The scopes of work for each partnership suggest that YLA staff performed their due diligence, within their own abilities, in identifying partners and designing agreements. Yet, YLA staff were simultaneously building their own capacity in business development, which suggests an initial lack of in-depth expertise. This complicated the ability of staff to spot potential problems, especially early on in the program. Thus, the focus of YLA’s facilitative approach on PSPs compounded by limited experience in the provision of business development support hampered the program’s ability to benefit young people. To fully take advantage of the possibilities along the agricultural value chain, economic empowerment programs need a high level of expertise in market systems. YLA management took steps towards equipping their staff with more extensive knowledge and skills related to agricultural value chains by providing trainings and specialized meetings with experts. However, this kind of knowledge needs to be in-house from the onset in order to operationalize it. Empowerment of Female Youth in Agriculture A major lesson learned from YLA is that achieving a certain quantity and quality of female participation in economic empowerment programming will require a more concerted and innovative engagement with PSPs. While a few PSPs were able to integrate females and afford them productive opportunities, (e.g., equipping school girls with training and tools to grow passion fruit, or training and hiring females to drive tractors), by and large partnership agreements were not specifically designed to spur female participation. Many partnership agreements had a target number of female beneficiaries, but they did not detail specific actions or mechanisms for reaching those figures. Overall, there was no clear strategy to incentivize or inspire PSPs to look for solutions. 35 Economic Opportunities for Youth in Agricultural Value Chains As evidenced in this report, multi-dimensional interventions seem more effective at achieving outcomes. This is especially the case when human capital (i.e., knowledge) is integrated with physical (i.e., equipment), financial (i.e, savings and loans), and social capital (i.e., market networks). These four dimensions were part of the YLA design, which indicates that the initial strategy was sound and robust. Another important lesson learned is that the inherent risks in agriculture, especially given the increasingly common extreme weather conditions caused by climate change, call for income diversification for youth engaged in this field. Youth seem to often be drawn to opportunities to diversify their income sources. As observed during the evaluation, as youth increased their income, they started investing in assets and other income-generating activities. Such diversification can help them endure market fluctuations or extreme weather-related events. New crops are another important source of diversification, not only in terms of generating a new income source, but for improving soil stability and, through crop rotation, preventing erosion. Income diversification can especially be beneficial for female youth who are resourced-constrained. Engaging in chili production as an additional cash crop, for instance, requires small plots of land, which is more suitable for women with limited land access. Engaging women in off-farm income generating activities, such as driving tractors, also offers opportunities for young women without access to land. A final lesson learned in economic empowerment programming is that having a target group with a wide age range can lower program effectiveness. YLA was contracted to support youth aged 10 to 35. This age range encompasses a large segment of the Ugandan population across different life stages. Based on UBOS population projections for 2020, 49 percent of the total population in Uganda falls into the YLA age range. First, the age range includes very distinct life stages, with varying needs and preferences. YLA tried to account for the differences in life stages by distinctly separating the set of activities targeting younger, in-school youth from the older youth segments. However, even with this distinction there are significant life stage differences to consider. Most of the YLA partnerships did not account for these differences. Second, while there are certainly very youth-specific needs and circumstances, people in the older segments of the target group, for example the 30 to 35-year olds, do not differ greatly from farmers beyond that age, e.g. in their 40s. Youth economic empowerment programs exist because of a recognition of specific barriers youth face that older population segments do not. By defining an age range that can include more mature population segments, programs dilute their objectives and impact (USAID FtF 2016). 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS YLA as a flagship youth activity was designed to pioneer innovative approaches to mainstreaming youth in agriculture, building on the experiences of USAID/Uganda’s Feed the Future activities (USAID Uganda, 2015). In this section the evaluation team sets out a series of recommendations that builds on the positive elements of YLA while addressing its weaknesses. Blended Facilitative Approach Future youth economic empowerment programming should consider implementing a blended facilitative approach, drawing from the positive aspects of a purely facilitative approach, combined with some incentives and directive elements, to further promote better integration of youth, with greater emphasis on tackling the barriers to female participation. For example, a program could offer premiums for mobilizing female youth and making training sessions more accessible, add a second grant component for 36 the facilitation of female inclusion, or condition a follow-on grant on reaching specific achievements. To achieve this blended approach, programs should replicate the co-design process that YLA implemented, but they should also incorporate mechanisms for identifying and tackling the pain points youth face. In some instances, this will require an assessment of youth conditions, but not always. There is already extensive documentation of value chains as well as the needs of youth in agriculture, though some value chains might be more complex and require a deeper understanding. What is needed to operationalize this approach is in-house expertise in agricultural value chains and market systems (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2017a), along with expertise in youth programming. In addressing the pain points of youth, and especially of female youth, the evaluation team recommends implementing a human-centered design approach (HCD).11 This design thinking method is a creative and collaborative approach to problem solving. Because HCD is based on an ongoing process of learning, it is consistent with the CLA approach espoused by USAID. Furthermore, it builds empathy with the target beneficiaries, in this case young people, because the results are specifically designed to address their pain points. HCD can also help identify strategies for addressing major barriers female youth face to access land and other resources. A blended approach will also require better coordination with development actors to address the complications emanating from overlapping activities. A market systems analysis can identify the multiple stakeholders that need to be involved in a discussion of how to avoid dependency and conflict among different donors and implementing partners. Greater Investments in Off-Farm Opportunities for Female Youth The evaluation team also recommends making more specific investments in off-farm economic opportunities for young women. Off-farm work can be especially suitable for female youth who need to manage domestic tasks and have limited access to land (CTA 2019a). Uniquely suitable jobs for young women facilitated through YLA included tractor drivers and shop attendants. Expanding off-farm opportunities will require a more directive approach. The result can be a real pathway to mixed livelihoods (USAID FtF 2016). Given that production and post-harvest handling opportunities at the farmer level are typically very populated in similar youth economic empowerment programs (USAID FtF 2016), broadening the variety of economic prospects for young women will require systemic changes that involve partnerships with a greater variety of stakeholders. Improved Engagement with Youth Future USAID economic empowerment programs need to improve their engagement with youth. First, the evidence points to the need for USAID to ensure that PSPs establish better communication strategies with target youth. This is especially relevant for contract farming, where youth need to be clear about the terms and conditions. PSPs also need to engage young farmers in a discussion about farming risks as well as corresponding mitigation strategies. The risks involved in agriculture is a difficult 11 IDEO.com is a good resource on human-centered design processes to implement in development work. “Young people are more inclined than older people to take part in the entire value chain; they are innovative and opportunistic in developing ways to make a living as part of a social network, not just through farming.” (CTA, 2019) 37 topic to broach, as it could potentially deter inexperienced youth. Yet, if the topic is addressed along with specific mitigation strategies, youth will be better equipped to handle unexpected market changes, thereby benefitting youth as well as PSPs by having a consistent and reliable supply chain. For instance, after learning about fluctuating prices for maize and bean, YLA and an agro-processor PSP started setting sales targets based on average prices for that value chain, accounting for seasonal fluctuations (USAID FtF Uganda YLA 2018a). This is the type of communication that also needs to be shared with youth, so they are better prepared to manage the risks. Second, evaluation stakeholders suggested that USAID should increase the direct engagement of youth in the design and implementation of activities. Based on the evaluation’s findings, they recommended that youth should be included in the co-design process and regularly consulted throughout activity implementation. In their view, this would ensure that youth pain points are identified and consistently addressed. Improved Integration of Productive Assets The evaluation team recommends a more systematic implementation of the productive assets framework, which was included in the YLA design, that emphasizes the provision of a mix of factors: human, social, physical, and financial assets. Under YLA, these elements were not always present at the partnership level. For instance, PSPs typically offered training (human capital) and market access through agents (social capital), but not credit youth need to invest in their farms (financial capital) or the necessary equipment to achieve better quality (physical capital). The evaluation team recommends that in designing partnerships, these four factors are examined to ensure they are addressed. This approach can result in a more comprehensive strategy for addressing the variety of pain points faced by youth. In examining the four different productive assets at the partnership level, there are specific design issues to consider that would address many of the pain points identified in this report: Human Capital • Training in off-farm activities: This could be possible by engaging PSPs involved in links further downstream, such as value-addition, agro-processing, sales, and export. • Training in contract terms and conditions, farming risks, and risk-mitigation strategies: PSPs should include content in their farming training that covers not only supply and demand market forces, but also a discussion of market and weather-related risks, along with a discussion of how various financial strategies can address price fluctuations, and what youth can expect from PSPs to minimize market disruptions. Social capital • Greater engagement of female youth in value chain networks: Although all youth can benefit from networks, female youth would reap even greater benefits. This engagement could take the form of specific engagements with buyers and traders, dedicated internships, visits and connections to other female farmers, engagement with family-based agriculture to promote the inclusion of women in the succession of assets, and more technical support. "They should continue sensitizing us on price in the markets so that we are aware of the price." Female youth, 26 years old 38 Physical capital • Build in extra time for procurement of agricultural technology: Considering that procurement times can be lengthy, partnership agreements should take into account more realistic timelines if they cannot reduce them. This would require potentially longer partnership timeframes and planning against the seasonal calendar to maximize the utility of the investments. • Incorporate strategies for continued access to technology: In designing partnerships, discussions should include how youth will be able to continue accessing technology past the partnership agreements. Financial capital • Engage more financial institutions in tripartite partnerships: More financial institutions need to be involved in tri-partite agreements, since formal financial services constitute a major tool to address many of the barriers young people face. • Promote financial inclusion and innovation: Since obtaining credit from a financial institution is difficult even for adults who lack collateral and credit history, facilitating a formal relationship with a bank, starting with a savings account, can lay the foundation for youth to tap into a greater array of formal financial services over time. Plus, in East Africa there is a growing sector of financial services innovation that is developing algorithms drawing on data from bank accounts and mobile money transactions to create a credit profile that financial institutions can utilize to assess credit risk. There are also a number of innovative financial products that are specifically design for the pain points faced by farmers in agriculture that could be leveraged and extended to de-risk transactions involving youth-owned enterprises, including warehouse receipts, start￾up subsidies, and loan guarantees (CTA 2019a). Broadening the Comparative Scope of Future Evaluations Evaluation stakeholders showed a strong interest in a comparison of YLA’s approach to alternative implementation designs. For example, the evaluation team received feedback that it would have been helpful for future USAID cross-office activities if the team had explored alternative activity designs that could have achieved a better integration of YLA’s objectives. Evaluation stakeholders also expressed interest in a detailed comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of YLA’s facilitative approach with direct implementation approaches. The evaluation team therefore recommends to include a systematic comparison of activity designs and an exploration of alternative implementation scenarios in future evaluation SoWs. i ANNEXES Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ........................................................................ ii Annex II: Case Selection Procedure............................................................................. viii Annex III: Data collection tools ....................................................................................... x Key Informant Interview Guide for Interviews with USAID/YLA............................................ x Key Informant Interview Guide for Interviews with PSP Staff ................................................. xi Key Informant Interview Guide for Interviews with Youth .................................................... xiii Focus Group Discussion Protocol for Private Sector Partners .................................................. xv Focus Group Discussion Protocol for Youth .......................................................................... xvii Forecast Survey ........................................................................................................................ xix Annex IV: Information Sources.................................................................................... xliv List of Stakeholders Consulted ............................................................................................... xliv List of Documents Consulted .................................................................................................. xlvi Annex V: Additional Analyses ......................................................................................... lv Forecast Survey Analysis ........................................................................................................... lv Partnership Outcomes from a Youth Perspective .................................................................... lvii Value Chain Analysis .............................................................................................................. lxxi Annex VI: Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest.......................................................... lxxvi ii ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK BACKGROUND Uganda has the world’s second youngest population and its job gap continues to grow rapidly. It is estimated that each year, over 400,000 youth enter the labor market and yet are competing for only 80,000 formal jobs. A School-to-Work Transition Survey (2016), revealed that only 27% of youth have successfully transitioned to stable employment or satisfactory self-employment. The large majority remain in transition at 56%, and in the “transition-not-started” category at approximately 17%. Uganda faces an economic strain and demographic “dividend” with an economy reliant on agriculture for growth and food security. 75% of the workforce in Uganda is engaged in the agricultural sector. 55% of them are youth (Shroff 2012, cited in FTF YLA Contract, p. 8). Uganda’s path forward therefore lies in creating opportunities for rural youth in the sector. INTRODUCTION It is against this background that USAID/Uganda’s Economic Growth Office designed the flagship Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity (“YLA”). The purpose of the activity is to increase economic opportunities for approximately 350,000 youth (aged 10 to 35) in agriculture-related activities in order to increase their incomes through capacity building in entrepreneurship, leadership and workforce readiness. YLA started in July 2015 and will end in July 2020. It has a budget of $21.5 million. The activity supports Ugandan partners to work with youth and identify ways to implement sustainable and cost-effective approaches that incorporate youth, especially female youth, in all aspects of the agriculture sector as leaders, farmers, entrepreneurs, and employees. In fiscal year (“FY”) 2019, YLA worked with 23 private sector firms across Uganda to facilitate youth gain access to new economic opportunities. The implementation strategy is crafted around a youth-driven approach that prioritizes facilitation, targets in-school and out-of-school youth and leverages the private sector and workforce institutions to ensure buy-in and sustainability of interventions. The activity helps youth to link up with the private sector so that young people develop a career. It focuses on unlocking the potential for winning partnerships between youth motivated to gain income-earning opportunities, private sector employers interested in fulfilling workforce needs, and growing businesses in emerging and underserved markets. It also supports self-employed youth and young entrepreneurs to enter supply chains or access markets, find efficiencies, increase income, and grow revenues. In FY 2019, 77% of the Youth benefitted from YLA through gaining access to digital financial platforms. 19% improved agricultural-related technical skills and/or their workforce readiness, 4% accessed quality inputs, and 3% signed farming contracts. Less than 1 percent accessed financial services through YLA￾supported activities. Through these interventions, YLA has focused on achieving the following two objectives: 1. Increased incomes of youth working in agricultural value chains, and 2. Improved skills (entrepreneurship, employability, leadership, and life skills). YLA’s development hypothesis (Theory of Change) is that “if YLA is able to identify private sector opportunities that are attractive to youth and if through partnerships with the private sector, YLA implements innovations that increase adoption of technologies proven to increase productivity and access to input and output markets, coupled with the provision of market-driven technical, workforce readiness, entrepreneurship and life skills, then such partnerships shall result in increased skills and competencies and increased income and employment opportunities along agricultural value chains” (FTF YLA AMELP 2015, p. 7). iii Given the complexity of constructively engaging the youth, YLA’s interventions were framed with a learning agenda in mind. Through collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA), the activity continuously re-evaluated actions and visions to build on what works, learn from what doesn’t work, and maximize partnership opportunities to promote and scale inclusive youth development across Uganda. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of the YLA evaluation is to provide USAID and its development partners with evidence and lessons learned on how to strengthen youth economic empowerment. To this end, the evaluation will trace the pathways of change to ascertain how and why certain results of the activity were achieved or not. The insights and lessons learnt from the evaluation will be instructive for current and future programming for youth economic empowerment. EVALUATION QUESTIONS How did YLA’s interventions contribute to youth’s economic empowerment in the agricultural sector? a. How did the activity’s interventions affect (i) skills and competencies of youth; and (ii) youth income and employment opportunities in the agricultural sector? b. How did the two key components (development of skills and competencies and improvement of income and employment opportunities) complement or constrain each other in achieving YLA’s intended results? c. What were the major enabling and hindering contextual factors for youth economic empowerment along the agricultural value chain? d. What were unintended consequences (if any) of YLA’s interventions and how were they leveraged or mitigated in the implementation process? e. How did YLA’s implementation evolve over time in response to the needs of the beneficiaries? EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation team is expected to develop and seek approval for a detailed methodology with USAID/Uganda before commencing fieldwork. The team will justify the choice of methods in reference to each of the main evaluation questions in the SOW. The evaluation team is encouraged to consider a range of methods, and select an appropriate mix, considering the following methodological issues: • The methodology should reflect the fact that YLA is a complex intervention. The activity is implemented through multiple partnerships with private sector actors who pilot and adapt different approaches to youth economic empowerment. The different pathways in which the activity contributes to its intended results are emergent. This means that first, data collection and analysis must be based on a thorough understanding of the environment in which the activity operates. The evaluation must be informed by the different perspectives of implementing partners on the activity and its purposes. Secondly, the methodology should be able to identify intended and unintended outcomes, while describing and comparing the processes that lead to them. Lastly, the methodology should be able to ascertain tipping points for change. • The methodology needs to strike a balance between the breadth and depth of data collection and analysis. On the one hand, the evaluation’s findings should be reflective of the very different partnerships and experiences youth may have had with the activity. On the other hand, only in￾depth qualitative data collection and analysis will allow the evaluation to draw conclusions regarding the complex causes for economic empowerment of youth in agricultural value chains. • Data collection should cover different levels of analysis. The first level of analysis is for youth, as the main target group of YLA’s interventions. Here, data collection should be representative of the different types of youth and youth experiences with YLA. The second level of analysis is regarding partnerships with private sector actors, through which YLA’s interventions are implemented. These partners implement different approaches to youth economic empowerment iv for different groups of youth. The third level of analysis is with agricultural value chains in which both YLA’s partners and youth play important roles. Here, data collection is expected to provide findings regarding enabling and hindering factors for youth economic empowerment, and the ability of the program to successfully address them. • The role of gender equality is key across USAID/Uganda’s results framework. The evaluation will have to ensure that data collection and analysis provides gender-sensitive answers to all evaluation questions. DELIVERABLES Deliverables Tentative Due Date 1. In-briefing Introduction of the Evaluation Team and discussion of the scope of work, initial presentation of the proposed evaluation methodology, work plan, and other emerging issues that may affect the evaluation. February 6, 2020 2. Inception Report The report will include: • The evaluation team’s interpretation of the key evaluation questions and their approach to how each question will be addressed. This will include a detailed analysis plan/map for each of the evaluation questions, along with a justification for proposed methods of data collection and analysis. A completed evaluation design matrix will be attached. • Methodology including sampling/selection procedures for selecting respondents/informants to be interviewed, and project sites to be visited. • A detailed work plan showing a timeline for each evaluation activity to be undertaken, including the field work and allocation of expertise efforts as well as the methods to be used to answer each evaluation question. • Preliminary instruments for data collection. February 14, 2020 3. Data Collection This proceeds in at least three consecutive phases. Between these phases, preliminary analyses will be conducted to inform the next stage of data collection. 1. Desk review and KIIs with USAID, YLA staff, private sector partners, and experts. 2. KIIs with youth and their employers/business partners. 3. FGDs and workshops with private sector partners and youth. 4. Out-briefing Presentation that at a minimum covers major findings as well as preliminary conclusions and recommendations for each of the main evaluation questions. The evaluation team will liaise with the Mission to agree on the date, audience, venue and other logistical arrangements for this briefing. May 4, 2020 v 5. Draft Evaluation Report The content should cover all the main elements of the report including major findings, conclusions, lessons learned, and relevant annexes, in line with USAID/Uganda Evaluation Report standards. The report should be submitted in an electronic copy (*.docx and *.pdf). The report will also include a two- to four-page executive summary that highlights the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in an attractive and easy to understand format for the wider public use. May 15, 2020 6. Final Evaluation Report The report should be in line with USAID/Uganda Evaluation Report standards. It should be submitted in an electronic copy. It should explicitly address the comments by USAID/Uganda, either by submitting a second version with track changes or by submitting a separate document. The report should be cleared by USAID/Uganda. May 29, 2020 Provided comments by USAID/Uganda have been received by May 22. 7. Synthesis Abstract A two- to three-page briefer highlighting key findings, conclusions and recommendations from the evaluation for public use. June 3, 2020 8. Wider Stakeholder Debrief The format of the debrief should be participatory and allow for a joint discussion of the evaluation’s major findings, conclusions and recommendations by USAID/Uganda, YLA implementation partners, and youth representatives. The evaluation team will liaise with the Mission to agree on the date, audience, venue and other logistical arrangements for this debrief. June 5, 2020 9. Discussion of Synthesis Abstract Presentation of the evaluation’s key findings and conclusions, and discussion of USAID/Uganda’s responses to its recommendations. June 12, 2020 TEAM COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS At a minimum, the evaluation team will comprise: (1) team leader and expert on youth economic empowerment, (2) expert on private sector engagement, (3) expert on agricultural value chain development, (4) a team of peer researchers lead by a youth and gender expert. The following are proposed key personnel: 1. Team Leader & Expert on Youth Economic Empowerment (International or Local Expert) a. Responsibilities: I. Ensuring the overall quality of the evaluation. II. Coordinating the evaluation activities, assigning tasks to team members and providing overall supervision of their performance. S/he will serve as the main point of contact between the evaluation Activity Manager at USAID/Uganda and the Evaluation Team. III. Reviewing all outputs and submitting quality products to USAID on a timely basis. IV. Developing, managing and, as needed, communicating updates to USAID on evaluation progress. V. S/he will contribute to the design of data collection tools, collect and synthesize data, prepare and participate in presentations and writing the report. b. Education and Relevant Experience: I. Master’s degree in social sciences, agriculture, social work or a related field. vi II. Significant expertise in conducting evaluations in Eastern Africa, with a minimum of ten years’ experience in evaluation management including evaluations of youth activities. III. Experience in designing, managing or executing a minimum of seven evaluations, at least five of which preferably focused on youth or agriculture. IV. Must have successfully led a minimum of five evaluations, with at least two having been of similar scale. V. Experienced in researching youth in development and youth economic empowerment, or in evaluating or implementing development activities designed to economically empower youth, preferably in Uganda. VI. Demonstrable skills and experience in the use of complex quantitative and qualitative methods. VII. Must have demonstrated experience producing high-quality reports for evaluations of complex, multi-sector activities. 2. Expert on Agri-business Development (Local Expert) a. Responsibilities: I. S/he will contribute to the design of data collection tools, collect and synthesize data, prepare and participate in presentations and writing the report. b. Education and Relevant Experience: I. Master’s degree or higher in agri-business development, agriculture economics or a related field. II. Minimum of five years’ experience in researching agriculture or agricultural value chains or in evaluating or implementing development activities to develop agricultural value chains in Uganda. 3. Expert on Gender and Social Inclusion Expert (Local Expert) a. Responsibilities: I. S/he will contribute to the design of data collection tools, collect and synthesize data, prepare and participate in presentations and writing the report. b. Education and Relevant Experience: I. Bachelor's degree or higher in gender, social inclusion or a related field. II. Minimum of five years’ experience in evaluating or implementing development activities around gender and social inclusion in Uganda. 4. Peer Researchers (“PR”) (Local) a. Responsibilities: I. Team lead: 1. Preparing and facilitating a minimum of three days of hands-on training on peer interviewing, and on facilitating focus group discussions in the framework of the YLA evaluation. 2. Production of field manuals for PR that provide all necessary information on the evaluation and the interviews/FGDs. 3. Coordinating deployment of PR, quality assurance of data collection, reviewing notes, and collation of collected data. 4. Production of a preliminary report on the collected data. 5. Contribution to the design of data collection tools, collect and synthesize data, prepare and participate in presentations and writing the report. II. Peer Researchers: 1. Scheduling and conducting interviews and focus group discussions. vii 2. Producing detailed notes. 3. Participating in preliminary data analyses. a. Education and Relevant Experience: I. Team lead: 1. Experienced in researching youth and gender, or in evaluating or implementing development activities designed for youth and/or dealing with gender, preferably in Uganda. 2. Significant expertise in managing, conducting and providing trainings on qualitative data collection including for youth activities. 3. Demonstrated experience producing high-quality reports for evaluations of complex, multi-sector activities. II. Peer Researchers: 1. Enrolled in or recent graduate of a Bachelor's or advanced degree in International Development, Monitoring & Evaluation or another relevant field. LOE REQUIRED The YLA performance evaluation is estimated to begin on January 27, 2019 and be completed no later than June 15, 2020. The following table provides a summary of LOE by the main evaluation team members. Team Member LOE required (days) Team Leader & Expert on Youth Economic Empowerment 60 Expert on Agri-business Development 45 Gender and Social inclusion Expert 45 15 Peer Researchers (Team Lead & Youth Researchers) 375 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES BY USAID AND ITS PARTNERS USAID’s roles and responsibilities: • Review and approval of the SOW and all deliverables from the consultants. • Provide recommendations for selection and approval of consultants for this assignment. • Provide clearance on access to data by the evaluation team. • Review consultants’ work, especially key deliverables, to ensure they respond to the SOW and meet USAID quality standards. • Facilitate fieldwork by providing introductory letters. YLA’s roles and responsibilities: • Provide comprehensive documentation on YLA, including the SOW for the Activity, work plans, annual reports, and reports of previous evaluations to QED, before the start date of the evaluation. • Facilitate fieldwork by providing contacts to private sector actors and setting up meetings and interviews. • Review and comment on the SOW and draft deliverables. viii ANNEX II: CASE SELECTION PROCEDURE Over the course of its implementation, YLA initiated a total of 52 partnerships with 38 private-sector partners. While each partnership possesses unique qualities, the evaluation team identified a set of recurring features that were expected to strongly influence the types of outcomes that the team would be harvesting from a given partnership. These features are: • Infrastructure investment: Did the partnership invest in physical or digital infrastructure? If it did, we expected the partnership to realize more limited outcomes for a larger group of youth than a partnership which concentrates its efforts on a smaller target group that it works with directly. • Skill development: Did the partnership’s activities directly aim at increasing the skills and competencies of youth? If they did, we expected the partnership to realize stronger skill-related outcomes. • Economic opportunities outside farming: Was the partnership designed to provide economic opportunities that did not involve farming? We expected that such economic opportunities produced very different outcomes than those that could be realized through farming. • Outreach to groups: Did the partnership reach out to pre-existing groups of youth to implement its activities? If it did, we assumed that group structures, and therefore outcomes, would be more sustainable. • Improving linkages in the value chain: Was the partnership designed to improve linkages between actors at different positions in an agricultural value chain? If it was, we expected the partnership to produce stronger income-related outcomes. • Positive action for women: Was the partnership designed to improve the status of women, or strengthen their economic position in agricultural value chains? If it was, we expected more substantial economic opportunities for women, and overall stronger income-related outcomes. To assess which partnership featured which characteristics, the evaluation team analyzed the partnerships’ SOWs. If a feature was present, the partnership was rated with “+” for the respective feature; if it was absent, it was rated with “-”. The resulting assessment grid provides an overview of the available combinations of partnership features and their prevalence among the 52 partnerships. In total, 26 unique combinations of features were discovered. The most common combination was present five times. Table 1 - Partnership Assessment Grid Infra￾structure investment Skill Develop￾ment Economic opportuniti es outside farming Outreach to groups Improving linkages Positive action for women n - + + + + + 5 - + - - + - 4 - + + - + - 4 - + + - + + 4 + + + + + + 4 + + - - + - 3 ix + + + + + - 3 - + - - + + 2 - + + + + - 2 + - - - + - 2 + + + - - + 2 + + + - + + 2 + + + + - + 2 - - - + - + 1 - + - - - - 1 - + - - - + 1 - + - + - - 1 - + - + - + 1 + - - + + - 1 + - + + - - 1 + + - - - - 1 + + - + - - 1 + + - + + - 1 + + + - - - 1 + + + - + - 1 + + + + - - 1 The partnership assessment grid was used to select the 16 case studies for Outcome Harvesting in such a way that they represented the maximum possible number of YLA partnerships. To achieve that, only one partnership per combination of features was selected, starting with the most frequent combination. By selecting 16 partnerships for field work, the evaluation team was able to investigate the underlying combinations of features for 42 of the 52 partnerships, or 81% of all partnerships. x ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS Key Informant Interview Guide for Interviews with USAID/YLA 1. Evolution and Responsiveness of the YLA Design (30 minutes) a. What are the main differences in the YLA design as of today, compared to how it was originally designed? Let’s discuss each major difference at a time. For each of the differences, ask: i. Why did the change happen? ii. Who identified that the change needed to happen? iii. How did YLA know that the change was needed? Probe for data, research, indicators. iv. How did this change respond to beneficiaries’ needs? v. Who benefited the most from the change? Why? vi. How well have the changes worked? Why? Probe for specific positive and negative outcomes. b. Are there any other significant changes in the way you implement YLA today, compared to how you implemented it in the beginning? Use same probing questions as above. 2. Rationale of Selected Private Sector Partnerships (PSP) (30 minutes) * This question will be most applicable to staff who worked on PSP selection. a. From your perspective, what have been some of the most successful PSP in achieving the YLA objectives? b. What are the factors that have enabled these PSPS in being successful? c. What have been some of the PSPs least successful in achieving the YLA objectives? d. What are hindering factors that have prevented these PSPs from succeeding? 3. Cooperation with other USAID/Uganda activities (15 minutes) a. How did YLA coordinate efforts and/or interventions with other USAID/Uganda activities? b. What worked well in these coordination efforts? Why? c. What didn’t work well? Why? xi Key Informant Interview Guide for Interviews with PSP Staff Instructions and preparation Make sure all participants have signed a consent form already. Text in regular font: Information to be said by facilitator Text in italics: Specific instructions for the facilitator Introduction (5 minutes) Introduce yourself and share the objective of the interview: I am an evaluator hired to conduct research on the agricultural economic opportunities in your community. Before you start, review with the interviewee the activities of the PSP under YLA. 1. Change Questions (10 minutes) a. What significant changes have you observed among youth working with [name of the PSP] in [timeframe of the PSP participation in YLA]? i. Their skills in earning a living? ii. Their employment opportunities? iii. Their income? Write down each of the changes so you can review each of them in detail b. Do you see these changes being positive or negative for youth? Why? c. To what degree are the changes different for females than males? Why? 2. Significance (Why) (5 minutes) a. In what way does this change increase economic opportunities for young people in agriculture? 3. Contribution (What/ How/ When) (30 minutes) a. Which of these changes were influenced by [name of private sector partner PSP], if any? b. How did the [name of PSP] contribute to the change? Describe the chain of events for each change: 1. What aspects of the PSP contribution contributed to the change? 2. How did these aspects contribute to the change? 3. Who contributed to the change? 4. When did they contribute to the change? c. How were the [contributions by [name of the PSP] different for females and males? xii Continue probing for each activity along the chain of events until the PSP staff runs out of ideas. 4. Counterfactual Probing (10 minutes) a. Would the change have taken place without the support of YLA? Probing: Would the PSP have enough contracts / funding at that time without YLA to be able to hire the same number of youth / provide skills? Would the PSP have the technical capacity to provide the same types of services without the support from YLA? How do you know the changes resulted from YLA and not from other projects? b. What would happen if YLA were not involved? Probing: Will the PSP be able to continue hiring/ providing services to these youth without the support of YLA? Closing Thank you for taking part in this discussion. This information will be used to help develop better projects for youth in agriculture in the future. xiii Key Informant Interview Guide for Interviews with Youth Instructions and preparation Make sure all participants have signed a consent form already. Text in regular font: Information to be said by facilitator Text in italics: Specific instructions for the facilitator Introduction (5 minutes) Introduce yourself and the rest of the evaluation team, and share the objective of the interview: I am a researcher hired to conduct research on the agricultural economic opportunities in your community. 1. Change Questions (5-10 minutes) a. What significant changes have you experienced during [period of PSP participating in YLA] as a result of your interaction with [name of PSP]? Please wait for a response before you probe with the following sentence: This could be, for example, changes in: i. your skills in earning a living, ii. your employment opportunities, and iii. your income. Write down each of the changes so you can review them in detail during the rest of the interview. b. Are these changes positive or negative for you? c. What would be different if you were [different gender: male/female]? 2. For up to 3 of the changes mentioned above ask the following questions: a. Outcome Description (What/ Who/ When/ Where) (15-20 minutes) Every change should be explained in terms of either changes in relationships, behaviors, actions or activities. Tell me more about [one of the changes described above]: i. What was the situation before the change? ii. Who changed their ways? iii. When did the change happen? iv. Why was this change important to you? b. Contribution (What/ How/ When) (20 minutes) i. Which of these changes were influenced by your work with [name of private sector partner PSP], if any? xiv ii. How did the [name of PSP] contribute to the change? Show cards/sheets of paper with the numbers 1-5 written on them. Use them to help participant identify the chain of events. Show the card with the number one (1) and ask: iii. What was the first thing that happened that resulted in this change? For each activity in the chain of events, ask: iv. Who did [the action]? v. When did it take place? Follow up with each card until the participant runs out of ideas. 3. Counterfactual Probing (5 minutes) a. Would the change have taken place without your work with the [name of the PSP]? b. Could the change be a result of other projects? Why or why not? c. What would you do if you did not have an opportunity to work with the [name of the PSP]? Closing Thank you for taking part in this interview. This information will be used to help develop better projects for youth in agriculture in the future. xv Focus Group Discussion Protocol for Private Sector Partners Instructions and preparation for FGD Make sure all participants have signed a consent form already. Text in regular font: Information to be said by facilitator Text in italics: Specific instructions for the facilitator Welcome and Ice-breaker (5 minutes) Welcome and thank you for joining us today. Introduce yourself and the rest of the evaluation team, and share the objective of the interview: We are evaluators and have been hired to conduct research on the agricultural economic opportunities for young people in your community. 1. Change Questions (15 minutes) a. What changes have you observed among youth working with [name of the PSP] in the last three (3) years in i. Their skills in earning a living? ii. Their employment opportunities? iii. Their income? Write down each of the changes so you can review each of them in detail b. Do you see these changes being positive or negative for youth? Why? 2. Outcome Description (What/ Who/ When/ Where) (15 minutes) For each of the changes (up to 3), ask: a. What was the situation before? b. What were the reasons the ‘before’ situation was present? c. Which key person or organization made the change? Who adjusted their way of doing things? d. When did the change happen? 3. Significance (Why) a. In what way does this change increase economic opportunities for young people in agriculture? xvi 4. Contribution (What/ How/ When) a. Which of these changes were influenced by [name of private sector partner PSP], if any? b. How did the [name of PSP] contribute to the change? Describe the chain of events. For each activity in the chain of events, list who did the action and when. Closing Thank you for taking part in this discussion. This information will be used to help develop better projects for youth in agriculture in the future. xvii Focus Group Discussion Protocol for Youth Instructions and preparation for FGD Make sure all participants have signed a consent form already. Text in regular font: Information to be said by facilitator Text in italics: Specific instructions for the facilitator Materials: A small bag of beans (one bean for each participant) Three (3) note cards or sheets of paper. Write FULLY, PARTIALLY, and NOT AT ALL in the different note cards/sheets. Welcome and Ice-breaker (5 minutes) Say: Welcome and thank you for joining us today. Introduce yourself and the rest of the evaluation team, and share the objective of the interview: We are evaluators and have been hired to conduct research on the agricultural economic opportunities in your community. Optional: Explain the ice breaker (“hot potato”) activity and tell them that the person who ends up with the “ball” should say: Age Married or single Children or no children (how many children) 1. Validating changes identified by youth (20-25 minutes) Today we want to talk about changes in the lives of young people in [period of partnership]. We have identified changes that other people that interacted with [the name of the PSP] have experienced and would like to understand whether you have experienced these changes as well. Provide a short description of the change (provided by the Senior Team) and then ask the following for EACH change. Distribute one (1) bean to each person and place the three note cards in front of the participants. a. To what degree did you experience this change yourself? Fully, partially, or not at all? Ask them to place their bean on the card that corresponds to how they want to respond. If some beans are placed on the FULLY card, point to the card and ask: b. For those of you who fully experienced this change, tell me more about your experiences that are just like this change. xviii If some beans are placed in the PARTIALLY card, point to the card and ask: c. For those of you who experienced this change only partially, what aspects of your own experiences have been different? If some beans are placed in the NOT AT ALL card, point to the card and ask: a. For those of you who have not experienced at all this change, what aspects of your own experiences have been different? 2. Validating contributions of the PSP (20-25 minutes) Now we want to talk about to what degree the [name of the PSP] has contributed to these changes. Provide a short description of the contribution of the PSP to the change (to be provided by the Senior Team). Distribute one bean back to each participant, and leaving the three note cards in front of the participants. a. How much do you agree with the description of [specific contribution by the PSP] led to this change? Do you fully agree, partially agree, or disagree with it? Ask them to place their bean on the card that corresponds to how they want to respond. If some beans are placed in the FULLY agree, point to the card and ask: b. For those of you who are in full agreement, tell me more about why you agree that the [mention specific contribution of the PSP] led to the changes we just discussed. If some beans are placed in the PARTIALLY agree card, point to the card and ask: c. For those of you who are only partially in agreement, why do you partially agree in [mention specific contribution of the PSP] resulting in the changes we just discussed? If some beans are placed in the NOT AT ALL agree card, point to the card and ask: a. For those of you who completely disagree, why do you do you disagree about the [mention specific contribution of the PSP] resulting in the changes we just discussed? Closing Thank you for taking part in this discussion. This information will be used to help these organizations develop better projects for youth in agriculture in the future. xix Forecast Survey Thank you very much for participating in this survey. We will present you with short descriptions of different approaches to youth economic empowerment in agriculture. For each intervention, we will ask for your expert opinion regarding their likely effect on (i) skills and competencies and (ii) income and employment opportunities of youth in agriculture. We will also ask you to explain your assessment. The approaches are modelled after real-world partnerships of a USAID activity with private-sector actors. Most of the partnerships facilitate existing agribusinesses to expand their businesses and involve additional youth. The survey contains 16 partnerships with different combinations of components. They are presented in random order. We would very much appreciate if you took the time to answer questions to all of them. If, however, this requires more time than you would like to commit, we would be grateful if you could answer questions to at least eight of them. The survey is anonymous. The survey software will only track whether invited experts have answered to the survey or not. The aggregated results of the survey will be made available to all participating experts. You can interrupt responding to the survey at any time and resume later by opening the link again. Again, thank you very much for your participation! Before we start, could you please tell us in which ways you have gained expertise on youth economic empowerment in agriculture? Please choose all options that apply. • I have been conducting or currently conduct research and/or evaluations on youth economic empowerment in agriculture and/or closely related fields. • I have been working or currently work for development partners and/or non-governmental organizations that economically empower youth in agriculture and/or work in closely related fields. • I have been working or currently work for government institutions that deal with agriculture and/or youth. • I have (also) gained expertise on youth economic empowerment in agriculture or a closely related field through: ________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: With the support of the partnership, 1,500 female youth farmers are newly contracted by a Ugandan agribusiness to produce chilis for export. The female youth farmers are organized in clusters to which a lead farmer provides agronomic trainings. They have access to inputs which are sold to them on credit. Also, the partnership supports the agribusiness in procuring and installing two solar driers and a crusher. This enables the agribusiness to cost-effectively process chilis of varying quality for export, either as pods or xx powder. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxi Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports a Ugandan agribusiness to contract 35 producer organizations with 1050 youth farmer members to produce upland rice for sale under its own rice brand. The partnership also supports an input supplier to provide quality inputs at subsidized prices and agronomic trainings to these youth farmers. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxii In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports a Ugandan agribusiness with 1,600 youth farmers to improve post-harvest handling of maize grain by supporting the development of quality assurance guidelines and the procurement of tarpaulins, moisture meters, and mobile shellers. It also supports the agribusiness to update its financial accounting system software and train staff to use the upgraded software. xxiii In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxiv Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: With the support of the partnership, 100 youth are trained by a Ugandan agribusiness to each provide extension services in maize and bean production to two groups of 100 youth farmers. The partnership provides the youth extension workers with mobile shellers to provide shelling services to farmers. Also, the youth extension workers each run a demonstration garden plot established under the partnership. Additionally, the partnership supports the agribusiness to hire 100 youth as casual laborers at its processing facilities. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxv In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports the roll-out of a mobile application for financial management and performance tracking to 140 schools in Uganda. In these schools, a Ugandan education organization had previously established learners’ clubs through which it provides trainings on soft skills as well as agricultural and financial skills. Under the partnership, school staff is provided with two tablets and trainings on how to use the application. The application allows payments of school fees through mobile money, savings by learners’ clubs as well as the tracking of teachers’ and pupils’ attendance and performance. It also allows parents to xxvi access data relevant to their children’s progress. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o xxvii Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: With the support of the partnership, 120 youth are trained by a Ugandan agribusiness to provide extension services to 7,200 youth farmers through a proprietary app-based service platform. Support to youth farmers includes access to agricultural production services, marketing support, and training on improved agricultural practices. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxviii In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports the UTZ certification of 2,800 youth coffee farmers by a Ugandan agribusiness. As part of the certification process, the youth farmers are trained in coffee agronomy, quality management, financial literacy, and gender mainstreaming. Additionally, 200 youth are trained to provide extension services to certified farmers. These service providers are encouraged to form a network association. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? xxix Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxx Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: Under the partnership, 5000 youth farmers are registered, trained, and provided with inputs against cash or on credit by a Ugandan maize milling company. 100 of them are supported to set up model gardens. Also, 50 youth village agents are trained to provide inputs to farmers and bulk their produce on commission. The partnership supports the company in procuring and installing an industrial grade milling machine. This enables the company to increase its daily processing capacity. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? xxxi Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: Under the partnership, 150 young female famers are trained in smallholder farming in a newly developed four-month course by a Ugandan agricultural college with a range of production facilities. The female youth farmers are contracted by the parent company to produce onions during their training. The female youth farmers are contracted by the parent company of the college – an agribusiness - to produce onions during their training. After graduation, they are provided with extension services to continue as contract farmers. The partnership supports the company and college to acquire services of a senior agronomist and a business development services specialist for one year. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? xxxii Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxxiii Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports a Ugandan agribusiness in recruiting and training 20 field agents to contract 3000 youth farmers for chili production and to organize them in 100 groups. The partnership also supports the establishment of 100 demonstration gardens to train a total of 6000 farmers in good agricultural practices and post-harvest handling techniques. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? xxxiv Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports a farmers’ savings and credit cooperative in contracting 1500 youth farmers for sunflower and soybean production. Through field agents, youth farmers have access to extension services, including agricultural inputs on credit. The cooperative deducts membership fees, the price of a share in the cooperative, and mandatory minimum annual savings from the youths’ earnings. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? xxxv Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxxvi Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: Under the partnership, 100 youth farmers are recruited and organized in four groups with their own demonstration plots, trained in farming as a business and good agricultural practices, and contracted as cabbage and tomato farmers by a Ugandan agribusiness. The agribusiness provides them with inputs on credit and extension services through field extension workers. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? xxxvii Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports a Ugandan agribusiness in training 200 youth farmers in the production of organic sesame and good agricultural practices and procuring tractor services to plough one acre of land per youth farmer. Under the partnership, the agribusiness hires an expert to limit contamination of sesame with chemicals and ensure compliance with organic production and fair-trade standards. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? xxxviii Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xxxix Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports a Ugandan youth-led agribusiness to recruit, train and contract 200 youth farmers to grow tomatoes and cabbages for two seasons. The youth farmers form groups based on their location and the crop they want to produce. These groups are trained to develop a budget and a projection of their performance. The agribusiness owns a shop where youth can buy inputs on credit. The partnership supports the agribusiness in procuring six solar/ pedal water pumps that are shared among youth farmers to provide irrigation for year-round production. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? xl Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership supports a Ugandan agribusiness in procuring financial management software and integrating a digital mobile payment system. Training manuals are developed, and accounting staff is trained. Youth farmers are supported in procuring SIM cards so that they can engage in digital money transactions. The agribusiness works with 13 youth-focused farmer cooperatives to produce and market vegetable oils. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? xli Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ xlii Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ Please consider the following partnership: The partnership provides a Ugandan agribusiness with a digital financial, procurement, and records management system to improve farmer profiling, tracing, and monitoring. Field staff are trained to use the system and carry out farmer profiling. The improved monitoring capabilities facilitate the certification of youth farmers as organic producers of chia, sesame, flax, amaranth, and quinoa for export. In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor or no increases in skills and competencies of participating youths? Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No increases in skills/competencies o o o o Only Minor increases in skills/competencies o o o o Substantial increases in skills/competencies o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to increase the skills and competencies of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ In your opinion, how likely is it that this partnership will lead to substantial, minor, or no improvements of participating youth's income and/or employment opportunities? xliii Not at all likely Rather unlikely Rather likely Very likely No improvements in income/employment o o o o Only Minor improvements in income/employment o o o o Substantial improvements in income/employment o o o o Which aspects make the described partnership more likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Which aspects make the described partnership less likely to improve the income and/or employment opportunities of participating youth? ________________________________________________________________ Please use the space below if you have any additional comments on the partnership. ________________________________________________________________ xliv ANNEX IV: INFORMATION SOURCES List of Stakeholders Consulted # Name Organization Role Date 1 Joyce Wanican USAID Alternate Chief of Party, YLA Activity 2/27/2020 2 Peter Birigenda USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Economic Growth 2/28/2020 3 Regina Mackenzie USAID Director, Economic Growth 2/27/2020 4 Richard Businge YLA M&E Manager 2/28/2020 4/17/2020 5 Kelly Cronen YLA COP 2/28/2020 6 Sandra Chebett YLA Regional Team Leader 2/28/2020 7 Winnie Kalyesubula YLA Technical Director 2/28/2020 4/16/2020 8 Madonna Sali YLA Deputy Chief of Party 2/28/2020 9 Bashir Kasekende YLA Regional Team Leader 2/28/20204/ 16/2020 10 Simon Peter Okiring YLA Regional Team Leader 2/28/2020 4/16/2020 11 Flavia Maroushka YLA Communications Director 2/28/2020 12 Stephen Kabagambe YLA M&E Manager 4/16/2020 13 Gloria Asiimwe YLA Partnership Manager 4/16/2020 14 Pauline Akol YLA Grants Manager 4/17/2020 15 Fredick Kibira YLA M&E Manager 4/17/2020 16 Najib Seguya YLA Operations Director 4/17/2020 17 Martin Oyoin Kampala Capital City Authority Youth Development Specialist 3/13/2020 18 Abraham Salomon Agriworks Uganda Founder 3/13/2020 19 Miyuki Yamashita World Food Program Head of Programmes 3/14/2020 xlv 20 Joseph Okellowage World Food Program Senior Agricultural Specialist 3/15/2020 21 Haruna Sekabira IITA Agri-Food Systems Scientist 3/16/2020 22 Albino Gaw Dar Foundation of Youth Initiative Managing Director 3/18/2020 23 Kamadi Victor Bill World Vision-Kenya Project Officer 3/18/2020 24 Christopher Tusiime CARE Youth Empowerment and Entrepreneurship Specialist 3/18/2020 25 Charles Owach FAO Assistant FAO Representative, Programmes 3/20/2020 26 Tom Sengalama DFID Climate Change Advisor 3/24/2020 27 Johnbosco Birenge International Fertilizer Development Center National Agriculture and Sector Coordination Expert 3/25/2020 28 Tubi Ibukunoluwa Oyo State Agricultural Development Program Coordinator of Youths in Agriculture 3/27/2020 29 Miriam Katunze Lingnan University PHD Student 3/27/2020 30 Richard Miiro Makerere University Senior Lecturer 3/27/2020 31 Nathan Emuron Technoserve Agribusiness Specialist 3/18/2020 32 Bjorn Van Campenhout International Food Policy Research Institute Senior Research Fellow 3/20/2020 33 Allan Wayiira Senior Agribusiness Expert SNV Craft Project 4/30/2020 34 Francis Chesang Chief Operations Officer Abitrust Ltd 4/30/2020 Name of PSP # of PSP Staff consulted in... # of youth consulted in… KIIs FGDs KIIs (Female) KIIs (Male) FGDs (Female) FGDs (Male) Akorion Company Limited 3 0 4 3 11 4 Anchor Foods Limited 5 0 4 3 11 15 Ankole Coffee Processors ltd 3 0 2 3 3 8 xlvi Aponye Uganda Limited 4 0 1 6 5 15 Consult Agri Query Limited 3 0 1 4 0 9 Diners Group/Responsible Suppliers 4 0 4 3 8 16 Geneber Outspan 4 0 3 4 7 14 Green Growers 3 0 3 4 7 0 Kiima Foods 4 0 4 3 16 0 Godson Commodities 4 0 0 0 5 4 New Kakinga Millers 5 0 2 5 8 0 Ngetta Tropical Holdings Limited 4 0 3 4 0 9 The Private Education Development Network (PEDN) 4 5 4 3 11 8 Sebei Farmers' SACCO 4 5 3 4 16 8 Sunshine Agro Products Limited 3 0 4 3 10 16 Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2 0 2 5 7 14 TOTAL 59 10 44 57 125 140 List of Documents Consulted Author Year Title Akorion Company Ltd 2017a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 2 Akorion Company Ltd 2017b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 4 Akorion Company Ltd 2017c USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 3 Anchor Foods Ltd 2019a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - quarterly report 1 Anchor Foods Ltd 2019b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - quarterly report 2 Anchor Foods Ltd 2019c USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - quarterly report 3 Ankole Coffee Processors Ltd 2018a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 1 Ankole Coffee Processors Ltd 2018b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 2 xlvii Author Year Title Ankole Coffee Processors Ltd 2019 USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 3 Aponye Uganda Limited 2017 LMF workshop at Aponye Mubende facility report - Aponye Uganda Limited 2018a Good agronomic practices (GAP) training - milestone 6 Aponye Uganda Limited 2018b Purchasing of produce from youth farmers report - milestone 4 Aponye Uganda Limited 2018c Purchasing of produce from youth farmers report - milestone 9 Aponye Uganda Limited 2018d Seed Distribution report - milestone 5 Aponye Uganda Limited 2018e Post-harvest handling report - milestone 7 Aponye Uganda Limited 2018f Financial inclusion for 10000 youth farmers report - milestone 8 Chemonics International Inc 2016f Stakeholder mapping: Mbale Masindi and Gulu Consult Agri-Aquery 2018a MEL monitoring and data verification report Consult Agri-Aquery 2018b Access to inputs report for second season Consult Agri-Aquery 2018c Training report milestone 1 Consult Agri-Aquery 2019 MEL verification for sales report - February 2019 CTA 2019a Challenges and opportunities in agriculture for African youth CTA 2019b Creating jobs for rural youth in agricultural value chains CTA 2019c Making Agriculture attractive to young people FAO 2012 Entrepreneurship in Farming: Farm management extension guide Geneber Outspan Organic Farmers Association 2019a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 1 Geneber Outspan Organic Farmers Association 2019b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 2 Geneber Outspan Organic Farmers Association 2019c USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 3 Geneber Outspan Organic Farmers Association 2019d USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 4 Godson Export Commodities Ltd 2019a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 1 Godson Export Commodities Ltd 2019b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 2 Godson Export Commodities Ltd 2019c USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 3 Green Growers 2018a Access to Seeds and Other inputs report - milestone 1 Green Growers 2018b Training report - Milestone 2 Green Growers 2018c Supply of input for 100 youths report - milestone 3 Green Growers 2018d Sales report - milestone 4 Kiima Foods 2018a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 1 Kiima Foods 2018b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 2 xlviii Author Year Title Kiima Foods 2018c USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 3 Kiima Foods 2018d USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - progress report No. 4 New Kakinga Millers 2019a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Sept New Kakinga Millers 2019b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Oct New Kakinga Millers 2019c USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Nov New Kakinga Millers 2019d USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Dec New Kakinga Millers 2020a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Jan New Kakinga Millers 2020b USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Feb Ngetta Tropical Holdings Ltd 2017a MOUs with Framers' Cooperatives Ngetta Tropical Holdings Ltd 2017b Activity report for inspection procedures for bulking Centers Ngetta Tropical Holdings Ltd 2017c Activity report detailing the selection criteria for the Youth leaders Sebei Framers SACCO 2017 Report on 20 youth agent recruitment and training Sebei Framers SACCO 2019 Sunflower purchase report - milestone 5 Sebei Framers SACCO 2020a Access to credit by VSLAs report - milestone 4 Sebei Framers SACCO 2020b Savings monitoring tool Sebei Framers SACCO 2020c Farmers training report - milestone 3 Sebei Framers SACCO 2020d Group leaders training on SACCO systems, processes, mobile banking..report Sebei Framers SACCO 2020e Access of crop finance report Sebei Framers SACCO 2020f VSLA training report - milestone 2 Smart Food Ltd 2019 USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - final report Sunshine Agro 2018a Agents training report Sunshine Agro 2018a Field verification status report Sunshine Agro 2018b Framer training report Sunshine Agro 2019 Seed distribution narrative report Supanantaroek et al. 2017 The Impact of Social and Financial Education on Savings Attitudes and Behavior Among Primary School Children in Uganda. Evaluation Review, 41(6), 511–541. The Private Education Development Network 2019a Enhanced Aflatoun curriculum delivery and Kupaa activity baseline survey report The Private Education Development Network 2019b Enhanced Aflatoun and Kupaa Activity Summary Report 1 The Private Education Development Network 2019c Financial Literacy Photos xlix Author Year Title The Private Education Development Network 2019d Enhanced Aflatoun and Kupaa Activity Summary Report 2 The Private Education Development Network 2019e Enhanced Aflatoun and Kupaa Activity Summary Report 3 The Private Education Development Network 2019f Enhanced Aflatoun and Kupaa Activity Summary Report 4 The Private Education Development Network 2019g Enhanced Aflatoun Curriculum and Kupaa Activity - Kupaa Utilization Feedback Report The Private Education Development Network 2020a Integration of Kupaa within Private Education Development Network (PEDN) schools The Private Education Development Network 2020b Photos for delivery of materials Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019a USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Feb Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019b January 2019 sales brief Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019c Progress report on application of technologies Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019d USAID Feed the Future Uganda Youth Leadership for Agriculture Activity - monthly report - Mar Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019e Report on health training Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019f Report on input access, technology application and sales Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019g Training report for June and July 2019 Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2019h Extension training report for June 2019 Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise 2020 Report on technology application and sales (individual and company sales) Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2016 Labor Market Transition of young people in Uganda: Highlights of the School-to-Work Transition Survey 2015 Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2018 National Labour Force Survey 2016/17 UNDP 2005 Uganda Human Development Report “Linking Environment to Human Development: A Deliberate Choice” UNDP 2015 Uganda human development report: Unlocking the development potential of Northern Uganda USAID Feed the Future 2016 Youth Engagement in Agricultural Value Chains across Feed the Future USAID Feed the Future 2019 Village Agent Model Study: Likely effects on the Ugandan agricultural sector USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2014 Combining agriculture improvements and youth development shows promise for both USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2015a Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan - draft USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2015b YLA quarterly progress report (FY 2015 Q4) l Author Year Title USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2015c Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2015d Statement of Work (SOW) USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2015e Year 1 annual work plan USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016a Gender analysis and baseline USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016b A superhero to the rescue USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016c Year One Annual progress report USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016d Year 2 annual work plan USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016e Assessment report for scale up USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016f Akorion Company Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016h Anchor Food Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016i Byeffe Foods Company Limited I Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016j Caio Shea Butter Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016k Equator Seeds Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016l Sing With Me Happily (SWMH) Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2016m The Private Education Development Network (PEDN) I Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017a Market system monitoring activity map USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017aa KadAfrica Ltd Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017ab Kiima Foods Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017ac Kulika Uganda Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017ad Ngetta Tropical Holdings Ltd Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017ae Responsible Suppliers Ltd Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017af Sebei Farmers' SACCO Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017ag Sunshine Agro Products Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017ah TOTCO Uganda Limited (TOTCO) Partnership SOW li Author Year Title USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017ai YLA weekly update (17-28 July 2017) USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017b Power of the Pumpkin USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017c Year two annual progress report USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017d Year 3 annual work plan USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017e YLA activity update, November 6-24 2017 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017f YLA activity update, Oct 30-Nov 3 2017 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017g YLA weekly update (April 10-21, 2017) USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017h YLA weekly update. April 24-28 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017i YLA weekly update (4-15 September) 2017 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017j YLA weekly update (8th-12th May 2017) final USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017k YLA weekly update Aug 28-1 Sept 2017 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017l YLA weekly update 29th May-2nd June 2017_final_2 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017m YLA weekly update (September 11-29, 2017)_2 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017n Weekly buzzer Special Edition (March 31st 2017-April 6, 2017) USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017o African Innovations Institute (AfrII) Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017p Agrinet Uganda Ltd Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017q Agromart Agricultural Company Ltd Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017r Aponye Uganda Limited I Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017s Brilliant Youth Organization Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017t Consult AgriQuery Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017u East African Seeds Uganda Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017v Ensibuuko Technologies Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017w Faith Agro - Out of school initiative Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017x Faith Agro - In School initiative Partnership SOW lii Author Year Title USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017y G-Trades Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2017z Green Growers Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018a Year Three Annual progress report USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018aa Ngetta Tropical Holdings Ltd II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018ab The Private Education Development Network (PEDN) II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018ac Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise Limited (TACE) Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018b YLA quarterly progress report (October 2018-December 2018) USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018c Year 4 annual work plan USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018d Grant Activity-weekly buzzer Jan 30-Feb 2018_Final USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018e Sowing the seeds of equal access to resources in Uganda USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018f Beneficiary Stories-weekly buzzer August 20-24, 2018 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018g Partner Achievements-weekly buzzer August 27-31, 2018 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018h Unlocking Children's Potential-weekly buzzer April 9-27, 2018 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018i Business Development in Acation weekly buzzer April 30-May 4, 2018 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018j updates-weekly buzzer Feb 12-16, 2018_Final USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018k Internship program updates-buzzer Feb 26-March 2, 2018 final USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018l updates-weekly buzzer March 5-16, 2018_2 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018m weekly buzzer March 19-April 6, 2018 final USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018n Ensibuuko a success story on youth USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018o Sharing health information to boost agricultural productivity USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018p Partner updates-weekly buzzer (July-August 2018) USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018q weekly buzzer July 2-6 2018 buzzer USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018r Looking Beyond The Numbers Ensibuuko_s Aha Moment USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018s weekly buzzer September 3-7, 2018 liii Author Year Title USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018t Acila Enterprises Limited (Acila)-I (2018) Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018u Ankole Coffee Processors Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018v Byeffe Foods Company Limited II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018w Consult AgriQuery Limited II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018x Equator Seeds Limited II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018y Jolah Company Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2018z MobiPay Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019a Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019aa The Private Education Development Network (PEDN) III Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019b Year 5 annual work plan USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019c YLA quarterly progress report 2019 Q2 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019d YLA quarterly progress report 2019 Q3 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019e Year Four Annual progress report USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019f Spotlight newsletter - issue 1 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019g Spotlight newsletter - issue 2 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019h Spotlight newsletter - issue 3 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019i Spotlight newsletter - issue 4 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019j Spotlight newsletter - issue 5 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019k Spotlight newsletter - issue 6 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019l Spotlight newsletter - issue 7 USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019m Acila Enterprises Limited II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019n Aponye Uganda Limited II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019o Ensibuuko Technologies Limited II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019p Equator Seeds Limited - Day Care Initiative Partnership SOW liv Author Year Title USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019q Equator Seeds Limited III Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019r Geneber Outspan Organic Farmers Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019s Godson Commodities Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019t Kulika Uganda II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019u New Kakinga Millers Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019v New Kakinga Millers II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019w Sebei Farmers' SACCO II Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019x Smart Foods Limited Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019y St. Anthony School, Mpigi Partnership SOW USAID Feed the Future Uganda YLA Activity 2019z Stina Food Ltd Partnership SOW USAID Uganda 2015 Contract with Chemonics Inc. USAID Uganda 2016 USAID Uganda Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2016-2021. World Bank 2017 The global findex database: Measuring financial inclusion and the fintech revolution lv ANNEX V: ADDITIONAL ANALYSES Forecast Survey Analysis The purpose of the Forecast Survey was to leverage the expertise of national and international experts for the analysis of outcome stories, and the identification of enabling and hindering factors for youth economic empowerment. Methodology The Forecast Survey was implemented as a double-blind online survey. “Double-blind” means that experts were not able to identify implementing partners behind the selected partnerships and evaluation users will be unable to identify the experts behind survey responses. Experts were identified through an extensive online search of publications on youth economic empowerment in agriculture in Uganda, and through personal networks of an initial set of experts. 85 experts were identified and invited to the survey. Respondents were asked to assess the potential for youth economic empowerment of the 16 YLA partnerships that were selected for in-depth field work, and to identify aspects of the partnerships that make them less or more likely to achieve YLA’s objectives. The partnerships were presented in random order. Experts provided a total of 68 ratings. The survey tool is reproduced in Annex III. Results A vast majority of the experts that we consulted found it rather likely that the 16 selected YLA partnerships would lead to substantial improvements in skills and competencies, as well as income and employment opportunities of youth beneficiaries. Generally, experts tended to rate partnerships highly that (i) directly aimed their activities at increasing skills and competencies, (ii) required substantial resource investments on the side of participating youth, and (iii) were designed to empower women. The partnership designs were praised, for example, for improving market access (12 partnerships), making use of existing interpersonal, group or partner networks (9 partnerships), supporting participants to put their training into practice (8 partnerships), and improving linkages in the value chain (6 partnerships). Experts negatively remarked that trainings seemed to be unnecessary, or not practice￾oriented enough (8 partnerships), partnerships provided no or poor access to markets (6 partnerships), or created dependency on one or few buyers (5 partnerships); trainers appeared to be not qualified enough (5 partnerships), and partners lack the right incentives to deliver what they promised (5 partnerships). Regarding skills and competencies, experts found 14 of the 16 partnerships rather likely to lead to substantial increases. Only two partnerships were expected to fail in producing such outcomes. Here, experts questioned the pay-off of investments in digital infrastructure. They doubted that app-based information would translate into the development of practical skills or that a better profiling of farmers would translate into better trainings. Table 1 lists aspects of partnerships that experts mentioned most frequently as salient design features for increasing the skills and competences of youth. lvi Table 1 - Top 5 enabling and hindering partnership features for increasing skills and competences Rank Enabling features Hindering features 1 Use of existing networks (interpersonal, groups, partner) Training not relevant 2 Support to "put into practice" what participants learned Poor quality of trainers 3 Improved access to market as motivation Lack of incentives for partners to perform as envisioned 4 Training included back-end business Lack of back-end business training 5 Advantages of using digital infrastructure No use of existing networks (interpersonal, groups, partner) 13 of the 16 partnerships were expected to lead to rather substantial improvements in income and employment opportunities. The criticism of the remaining three partnerships did not follow an overarching theme. For the first partnership, it was argued that failing to offer start-up capital to participants would mean that their training could not translate into income improvements. The second partnership was criticized for setting access requirements that would exclude those most in need of the profit from the partnership. With regard to the third partnership, experts questioned that investments in the certification of farmers would translate into sufficient income improvements to justify the expense. Table 2 lists aspects of partnerships that experts mentioned most frequently as salient design features for improving incomes and economic opportunities of youth. Table 2 - Top 5 enabling and hindering partnership features for improving incomes/economic opportunities Rank Enabling features Hindering features 1 Improved access to market (incl. through contract farming) Lack of market access 2 Improved linkages in value chain (e.g. extension services, excl. buyers) Dependency on one or few buyers 3 Improved quality of produce (incl. certification) Lack of group cohesion 4 Improved access to tools/machinery Lack of incentives for partners to perform as envisioned 5 Use of existing networks (interpersonal, groups, partner) Little or no value added to product lvii Partnership Outcomes from a Youth Perspective 1. Diners Rice Farmer’s Group (DRFG) Outcome statement: Youth increased their incomes as a result of transitioning from growing traditional food crops like beans and maize to commercial rice growing. This was made possible by training in modern rice growing, acquisition of entrepreneurship skills and linkage to the markets. Additionally, youth were mobilized to form a savings group. Change: Youth farmers were previously engaged in growing traditional food crops like beans, cassava and rice on very small scales. Their income was minimal because they lacked the requisite skills and knowledge in good farming and management practices. Most youth reported challenges in keeping their children in school consistently and acquiring household essential items because of insufficient incomes. Most youth reported that after their collaboration with DRFG, they engaged in rice growing as a business. These youth farmers adopted the skills, knowledge and farming management practices taught in the DRFG trainings; this led to increased rice production and increased sales. Furthermore, participants capitalized on new market linkages made through the DRFG network. Some youth reported, however, that DRFG failed to provide seeds and fertilizers to them after the trainings. This meant that in order to use the acquired knowledge and skills to engage in rice growing, they had to rely on their own financial resources. Some youth were not able to use their own resources and therefore could not engage in commercial rice growing. Some of the youth also acquired entrepreneurship skills and a savings culture. They were mobilized to form a SACCO which enabled them to save some of their earnings. They also accessed credit that was used to purchase improved inputs, and they started other businesses as additional income sources. However, most youth reported that they felt discouraged from taking loans due to their age and lack of collateral security. Participants also reported that they were told that SACCOs were only intended to teach them savings culture. One person did not join the SACCO due to several reports of mistrust among the members. Contribution: DRFG made a strong contribution to the knowledge and skills of youth in rice growing. Most youths reported that DRFG trained them on improved growing of upland rice, including land preparation, weed management, fertilizer application and post-harvest handling. This enabled them to move beyond the traditional or cultural methods of farming which they were formerly using. DRFG also provided linkages to the markets which enabled farmers to quickly and easily sell their produce during harvesting periods. DRFG also made a strong contribution to the income of these participants. Most youth reported that they would not have easily increased their income without engaging in rice growing as a business. Transitioning to commercial rice farming would not have been possible without trainings because they lacked the requisite technical knowledge and skills. Additionally, they lacked capital for inputs, and had no access to credit and ready markets. However, DRFG supported farmers to develop a savings culture and mobilized them to join a savings group. The youth farmers did not identify any other willing potential partners to support them in same way as DRFG. 2. Sebei Farmer’s SACCO Outcome statement: Youth participants increased their incomes due to increased production and sales of sunflower produce. This was achieved by using improved agronomic practices and credit that lviii was obtained from Sebei Farmer’s SACCO. The sunflower produce was sold through the market linkages that were created by Sebei Farmers’ SACCO. The increased income was used to acquire household investments like motorcycles, Friesian cows and land. Change: Youth were previously earning low incomes from traditional food crops like maize, cassava and coffee. Their low income was insufficient for their basic household needs. Many youth reported that they had low financial literacy, poor savings culture, and could not access credit from reputable financial institutions. After collaborating with Sebei Farmer’s SACCO, most youth acquired knowledge and skills in improved agronomic practices for sunflower growing and financial literacy. A few youth were supported to open a savings account with Sebei Farmer’s SACCO, and later obtained loans which they used to expand their sunflower production by: (i) Renting additional parcels of land and tractors for ploughing; (ii) Purchasing quality seeds and fertilizers; (iii) Hiring labor to support their expanded farming activities. Some of the youth registered increased yields and used the market linkages created by Sebei Farmer’s SACCO to sell their produce. This led to increased incomes. However, most youth reported that the SACCO delayed the delivery of improved seeds which led to delayed planting and its associated challenges. Additionally, some of the seeds were reportedly of bad quality, as they never germinated. Some youth used the additional income to start other income generating projects. Contribution: Sebei farmers SACCO contributed to increased incomes among youth. Most youth who reported increased incomes stated that they would not have increased their income without the support from Sebei Farmer’s SACCO. They did not have any other potential partner who was willing to provide similar support. SACCO support majorly consisted of agronomic trainings and market linkages for farmers to sell their produce. Trainings covered the following areas: Land preparation, fertilizer application, weed management, pests and disease management, record keeping, finance management, post-harvest handling and storage. The SACCO also provided loans for several of the youth; these loans were used to hire laborers for weeding, ploughing and harvesting, although not all farmers benefited from this. The cooperative also linked youth farmers to the markets for their sunflower produce. However, some youth reported that the SACCO failed to buy the bulk produce from them. Additionally, some participants claim the SACCO delayed supply of sunflower seeds which led to delayed planting, provided seeds of lower quality that failed to germinate, provided their loans at high interest rates, and delayed disbursement of loans. 3. Partnership in Education Network (PEDN) Outcome statement: Pupils acquired life skills such as saving and budgeting, vegetable growing and making handicrafts that enabled them to contribute to their own education costs. This was made possible through their engagement with Aflatoun Clubs where pupils received training in these skills. Aflatoun Clubs are run by PEDN. Change: Before the collaboration with PEDN, pupils had no knowledge of saving, budgeting or making handicrafts. All pupils were relying on their parents to provide all school requirements (books, pens, and pencils). Any money that was available to pupils was mainly spent on snacks and sweets. Through their participation in the Aflatoun Clubs, most pupils claim that they acquired a saving and budgeting culture, changing their behavior towards money. Pupils started saving money from various lix sources (ie: asking their parents, engaging in odd jobs, receiving gifts from relatives). Some of this income stemmed from making handicrafts (table clothes, mats, door mats, hats and baskets), preparing food items for sale, and growing vegetables like carrots and tomatoes. Instead of spending this money on snacks and sweets, participants learned to apportion some of their savings to buy school materials or contribute to school fees, lifting some burden off their parents. Contribution: Aflatoun Clubs made strong contributions to pupils engaging in income generating activities, and encouraged the budgeting and savings of their earnings. It would not be possible for the pupils to learn these life skills without the support of PEDN. They had no knowledge of saving and budgeting, and they did not know how to grow vegetables or make handicrafts. The pupils could not identify any other partner supporting similar activities like those provided by PEDN. In Aflatoun Clubs, PEDN empowered pupils with a saving and budgeting culture. This inspired them to lighten some of the financial burden placed on their parents by using some of their savings to cover educational needs. In these clubs, PEDN also trained pupils in making tablecloths, table mats, door mats, hats and baskets. Through selling these items, pupils gained their own income. Additionally, PEDN trained pupils on vegetable growing practices including how to prepare and take care of a nursery bed for tomatoes and carrots, the proper application of fertilizers and water, and techniques for transplanting seedlings. Furthermore, students were taught how to mulch, spray for pests and diseases, and harvest their crops. 4. Sunshine Agro Outcome statement: Youth increased their income after diversifying their harvest by adding chili, ginger, lemon grass, hibiscus and moringa to their traditional crops. This was facilitated by the technical knowledge, skills and linkages to the market provided by Sunshine Agro. Some youth used the increased income to return to school. Change: Before the collaboration with Sunshine Agro, youth were engaged in growing traditional crops like cassava, millet, potatoes and green grams. These crops were not marketable because most farmers in the village grow them. Therfore, prices were very low. Farmers reported low yields from traditional crops. Yields were only sufficient for home consumption, but insufficient for sale. Some of the youth resorted to causal labor and producing local brew to earn a living. Sunshine Agro trained youth, providing them with better technical skills with which to grow moringa, hibiscus, red pepper, and chili. Following the training, youth were provided with seed loans of at least 20,000 UGX, and a ready market for their produce. Sunshine Agro planned to purchase produce from the participants directly, while linking them to other agents for occasional purchase. However, few youth were able to realize a sustained increase in their income due to price fluctuations. They also experienced delayed payments after delivery of produce to the SA stores. Most youth reported that they did not see a significant benefit. Some participants stopped growing chili after some time due to price fluctuations. Others had abandoned chili growing after the first planting when the seeds failed to germinate. Some youth used the income from the sale of their produce to pay school fees for their children, and purchase domestic animals and other household items. Contribution: Sunshine Agro made a weak contribution towards increasing the incomes of the farmers. Not only because price fluctuations interrupted their sales, but also due to the delayed payments from SA after farmers delivered produce to their stores. lx The youth that did report income changes reported that they would not have experienced these changes in the absence of the interaction with Sunshine Agro because they lacked the technical skills and knowledge to engage in cultivation of moringa, hibiscus, chill, red pepper, did not have access to seeds, nor access to a ready market. SA provided trainings in chili and moringa growing which covered the following areas: nursery preparation, land preparation, spacing, weed management, post-harvest handling, marketing, and financial management. The youth did not identify any organization within their locality that was willing to provide similar support. SA also provided seed loans that were redeemed after selling the produce, provided a market by buying the produce directly from the farmers at an attractive price, created linkages to the other produce buyers, and saved farmers from the transport costs by purchasing the produce directly from their homesteads. 5. Twezimbe Area Cooperative Enterprise (TACE) Outcome statement: Youth participants were given training to improve farming methods which resulted in an increased maize yield; in turn, they earned a higher income. Training in these modern farming methods and market linkages was provided by Twezimbe ACE. Additionally, the youth were mobilized to form savings groups which enabled them to save some of their earnings, access credit in order to purchase inputs, and to invest in other businesses. This resulted in further additional income. Change: Youth farmers were previously engaged in maize growing but were producing poor yields, both in quality and quantity due to lack of knowledge on modern farming methods. As a result, they earned little income. Some youth were also engaged in other forms of business aside from farming. Participants had no access to credit for inputs, they resorted to borrowing funds in order to buy inputs and were always forced to sell at low prices to pay back their loans. Many youth lacked a ready market for their produce. Some youth reported challenges in keeping their children in school consistently, and acquiring essential items because of insufficient incomes. The youth were organized in youth groups that had previously worked with TACE before receiving support under the partnership with YLA. Within the partnership, youth received training from TACE on modern farming methods which they adopted. As a result, most youth reported yields that improved both in quality and quantity. The youth groups received shellers, drying materials and moisture meters which enabled them to improve the quality of their maize produce during the post-harvest period. A few of the youth were unable to engage in maize growing using modern farming techniques due to the lack of capital available to buy improved inputs like seeds and fertilizers. Most youth reported improvement in standards of living, including the ability to comfortably take their children to school. The youth also acquired a savings culture. They were mobilized to form a VSLA, which enabled them to save some of their earnings and also access credit to purchase improved inputs. Contribution: Participants reported that TACE made strong contributions to their knowledge and skills on modern farming methods. Although some youth were already engaged in maize growing, they lacked knowledge about modern methods of farming. TACE trained youth on practices including: land preparation, spacing, pruning, weeding, spraying, use of fertilizers, improved seeds, observing the correct timing for planting, post-harvest handling and drying maize in a clean environment. It was reported that TACE organized the trainings in collaboration with other organizations like YLA, REDS, Uganda Food Programme (UDP), E-granary Uganda, Kawakomu and HALUWE. TACE provided youth with post-harvesting equipment which they used to maintain the quality of yields after harvesting. Previously, they did not have access to materials that facilitated improved post-harvest handling. The PHH equipment TACE provided included shellers, moisture meters (used to measure the lxi moisture content of maize) and tarpaulins for drying maize more efficiently. Some youths reported that the shellers were too heavy to be moved from one farm to another with a motorcycle. As renting a vehicle was too costly, the shellers could only be used by a few youth. TACE encouraged youth to join Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs), which reportedly enabled participants to access credit to purchase agricultural inputs. TACE also claimed that they provided space at the factory where youth could store their bulk produce while waiting for improvements in the market price. Youth reported that bulking was carried out with the village agent because TACE does not collect small amounts. Once the village agent had enough maize, then TACE retrieved the bulk maize. TACE also created linkages to markets which enabled farmers to quickly and easily sell their produce at a good price. However, some youth reported challenges with previous TACE management in which reoccurring discrepancies regarding amounts of maize delivered directly to Twezimbe stores went unaddressed. The effected youth then decided to bulk within their own community. This usually took place with the village agent or in order to sell to buyers other than Twezimbe. Although some youth had worked with other organizations supporting agricultural activities in their community, they failed to identify other potential partners willing to provide similar support. 6. New Kakinga Millers Outcome statement: Youth acquired improved knowledge and skills in maize growing as a result of training in modern farming techniques by New Kakinga Millers Ltd. This training led to increased yields for some youth farmers. Additionally, youth received support in form of post-harvesting equipment. Change: Youth farmers were previously engaged in traditional subsistence farming, primarily of maize. They lacked adequate skills and knowledge in modern farming techniques. Most farmers reportedly kept maize from previous seasons as seed for the next season, grew maize on small parcels of land, dried and stored maize on the ground. All of these practices adversely affected the quality of produce causing them to sell at low prices to available traders. Through the partnership, youth acquired skills and knowledge in modern farming techniques, and were supported with post-harvesting equipment. Most youth farmers were able to adopt and apply the newly acquired skills. For some youth farmers, this led to increased maize yields and improvement in the quality of their produce. Others were yet to practice the techniques that they learned from New Kakinga Millers. Increases in income had still not been realized because at the time of the evaluation, farmers had not yet harvested their post-training produce. However, youth anticipated receiving a good price for the maize once they harvested. Notedly, one person disagreed under claims that farmers’ incomes were infringed upon by traders that used faulty scales and managed to cut into what would have been the farmers’ profit. Contribution: New Kakinga Millers strongly contributed to the knowledge and skills of youth farmers on improved maize growing. Youth stated that it would not have been possible for them to acquire skills and knowledge in modern farming methods of growing maize. Aside from one farmer who reported learning about modern farming methods in school, most youth farmers failed to identify any partner who provided the knowledge and skills provided by New Kakinga Millers. lxii New Kakinga Millers trained youth on modern farming techniques for growing maize including land preparation, fertilizer application, correct spacing, pruning and weed management, post-harvest handling. Some youth adopted the new techniques learned from New Kakinga Millers and abandoned the traditional subsistence farming methods which they practiced before. Others had not yet been able to practice the new techniques. Youth farmers were empowered through demonstration plots that allowed them to practically observe the impact of the farming techniques with the help of extension workers from New Kakinga Millers who would demonstrate the different techniques to the farmers. New Kakinga also provided the inputs that were used at the demonstration farms. Some youth were able to access improved seeds at a subsidized price for their gardens. Although some youth accessed tarpaulins and packaging materials at a subsidized price, others reported that tarpaulins were very few. Some youth reported the tarpaulins were sold to chairpersons of groups who utilized them as personal items. Youth reported that members could access a storage facility rented from New Kakinga millers at a subsidized price. Most youth did not yet profit from market linkages provided by New Kakinga Millers. A few farmers reported that New Kakinga Millers offered a better price than the open market. However, youth reported that New Kakinga Millers required a group to bulk maize to around 12000 metric tonnes before it could be collected; this negatively affected the time in which farmers could sell their produce. One participant also reported receiving training in life skills from New Kakinga Millers regarding hygiene. The farmers group was trained on the use racks for utensils, keeping the toilet clean, having water and soap for washing hands, keeping a clean kitchen, sleeping on clean beddings, and keeping containers for drinking water clean. 7. Kiima Foods, Ltd. Outcome statement: Youth received incomes and improved their livelihoods as a result of growing onions as a business. This was made possible by training in modern onion growing by Kiima Foods, Ltd. However, due to harsh weather conditions and a lack of irrigation systems, most youth were unable to continue onion growing. Change: Youth farmers had no knowledge of onion growing and were previously engaged in growing traditional food crops like cotton, maize, and beans. Some were not engaging in agriculture at all. Farmers faced harsh weather conditions including prolonged heavy sunshine. Participants reported earning insufficient income due to their lack of skills and knowledge in good farming and management practices. Although some youth reported attaining secondary education, most youth reported challenges with staying in school because of insufficient funds. Two of the youth had studied agriculture in school. Through the partnership, youth received knowledge and skills in onion growing through a practical course taught on training plots provided by Kiima Foods. Youth farmers realized good yields and were able to sell their onions at a high price. However, youth reported that they had to forfeit between 20% - 50% of the harvest to Kiima Foods for the support they received in form of inputs, space for farming and storage. Also, for most youth onion growing was a one-time activity that ended with the course. They were unable to continue with onion growing due to the harsh weather conditions (prolonged excess lxiii sunshine) and lack of access to an irrigation system. The proceeds from the sale of onions were invested back into the livelihoods of participants. This effort included paying for other courses offered at Kiima Foods, like tailoring and hair dressing. A few of the youth benefitting from the partnership persisted with the onion growing using irrigation provided by Kiima Foods. Youth reported reduced pressure in meeting household requirements due to the increase in incomes. Contribution: Kiima Foods made strong strong contributions to the knowledge and skills among youth regarding onion growing. Kiima Foods trained youth on onion growing practices including: nursery bed preparations, land preparation, fertilizer application, mulching, drilling, earthing, spraying, irrigation, weeding, transplanting and harvesting. Kiima Food also trained youth on growing other vegetables like green pepper, tomatoes, and cabbages. Youth were availed land at the Kiima Foods farm to practice; they were also given the tools to grow the onions themselves, the space to store the onions after harvesting, and the opportunity to sell their harvests. Besides onions, they grew other crops like tomatoes, cabbage, green pepper and egg plants which increased their income. Some youth reported that they were availed free onion seedlings. However, most youth reported they had to pay back Kiima foods for the inputs once they harvested the onions. Kiima Foods provided the market which enabled farmers to easily sell their produce. Youth reported that Kiima Foods obtained buyers and sold on behalf of the farmers, retaining a certain percentage of the sales (which varied for different farmers). Furthermore, Kiima Foods contributed towards the provision of agricultural extension services to youth in their communities. However, for most youth, Kiima Foods made no sustainable contributions to their income. While most youth reported that it would not be possible for them to learn about onion growing, or to make onion farming a business without the support of Kiima Foods, Ltd., they also indicated that they would only be in a position to continue growing onions if Kiima Foods were to support them further. This is because of the harsh climate and the lack of irrigation system in their home farms. 8. Aponye Uganda Ltd. Outcome statement: Youth increased their incomes as a result of shifting from primarily growing maize for home consumption to growing for commercial purposes. This was made possible by the training in modern farming methods from Aponye Uganda Ltd. Some youth were employed as Local Market Facilitators, in which they received training in agricultural extension services; they were then recruited as trainers, and earned additional income every time they facilitated a training. Change: Youth farmers were previously engaged in growing maize utilizing traditional methods. They lacked skills and knowledge of modern farming methods. They were not using fertilizers or improved seeds; they did not practice spraying, nor did they engage in proper post-harvest practices. Farming was on small scale, and as a result, their yields were barely sufficient for home consumption. Some youth were reported to be unemployed, but they were reluctant to engage in agriculture because of the small amount of money that one would reap during the harvest season. Through the partnership, youth learned how to engage in maize growing as a business. After acquiring the skills and knowledge in modern farming methods, they were able to utilize these modern farming methods, and some youth produced more maize. lxiv Some youth got increased sales/income as a result of the market linkages provided by Aponye. However, most youth reported that Aponye was not able to provide farmers with money for the maize immediately, which forced farmers to supply to other buyers at very low prices. Youth also reported that Aponye failed to provide transport in form of a truck to retrieve maize from the bulk stores within the communities. This left the farmers with no option but to sell to local traders who paid very little for their good quality produce. Some youth secured employment from Aponye as Local Market Facilitators which enabled them to earn additional income. Contribution: Aponye contributed to knowledge and skills among youth in modern farming methods. Youth were trained on good agronomic practices such as pruning and wedding and post handling techniques. Youth were also trained on good business practices, gender mainstreaming, and how to form and manage VSLAs. Youth reported that trainings similar to those offered through Aponye were offered elsewhere as well. The organizations offering these services include: SNV under WFP in Kyenjojo, Enterprise Uganda, and the Integrated Effort for Youth and Women Empowerment Uganda (IEYAWE). Trainings in Good Agronomic Practices enabled them to abandon the traditional methods of maize growing which they practiced before, and adopt the modern techniques of farming which they had learned from Aponye. Aponye provided groups of youths with shellers, moisture meters, free improved seeds and fertilizers for use on demonstration farms. This enabled Local Market Facilitators to lead the training of the participants by demonstrating the modern farming techniques. Furthermore, Aponye made linkages with FICA, the suppliers of improved seeds. However, some youth reported that they were never provided with the inputs that were promised by Aponye. Most youth reported that Aponye was unable to provide a ready market for the maize to enable farmers to quickly and easily sell their produce. Aponye and its representatives (LMFs) were never in the position to provide farmers with money for the maize when participants supplied it, which forced farmers to supply to other buyers at very low prices. Youth also reported that Aponye failed to provide transport in the form of a truck to retrieve the maize from the bulk stores within the communities. This left the farmers with no other option but to sell to the local traders who paid very little for their good quality produce. Aponye encouraged youth to adopt a savings culture by introducing them to VSLAs where youth could save and access loans. However, youth never succeeded in borrowing funds from the VSLAs, as the groups had little savings and funds were not always available. Some youth reported that Aponye representatives trained them on how to form and manage VSLAs, however they never joined the VSLAs because of the costs attached to obtaining the loans. Additionally, Aponye trained and employed some youth as local market facilitators (LMFs) which gave them additional income. 9. Ankole Coffee Processors Ltd Outcome statement: Youth increased their incomes as result of the training in modern coffee farming methods offered by Ankole Coffee processors. lxv Change: Most of the youth farmers were previously engaged in growing coffee traditionally. However, they were earning insufficient income because they lacked skills and knowledge in good farming and management practices. Through the partnership, youth were trained in modern farming methods for coffee, which led to increased coffee yields. Some youth also used these skills to access employment opportunities as casual laborers, especially for elderly farmers that hired casual labor for physical activities such as pruning, mulching, and grafting; this earned the youth extra income. Contribution: Ankole Coffee Processors trained the youth on modern practices of growing coffee including spacing, pruning and weeding. Participants learned proper application of fertilizer and pesticides, and techniques for picking and drying coffee using tarpaulins. They were also trained in using the equipment required to grow coffee. This enabled participants to abandon traditional methods of growing coffee and adopt modern farming techniques. Youth farmers did not identify another potential partner who was willing to provide similar support. Youth reported that some of the changes would have happened because they had also learnt how to grow coffee from elders in their community who were engaged in coffee growing. However, after the trainings provided by ACPL, the youth farmers were able to apply modern practices of coffee growing. The youth also reported that when they sold their coffee to ACPL, there were delays in payments. This is why they resorted to selling their coffee to other buyers. 10. Anchor Foods Ltd. Outcome statement: Youth acquired skills in growing chili and other crops like hot peppers, eggplants and tomatoes. This was made possible through the training provided by Anchor Foods Ltd. Additionally, some youth were employed as youth trainers; as such, they received additional income. Most of the youth were unable to obtain the anticipated income from chili growing, either because Anchor Foods was paying much less than they anticipated, or because Anchor Foods did not retrieve the chili for reasons that were not communicated to the farmers. Change: Before their interaction with Anchor Foods, most youth were engaged in growing traditional crops like ground nuts, tomatoes, eggplants, maize, cassava, and sweet potatoes on family land, as most of them did not have land to use; this was particularly true for female participants. They were to earn little or no income because they primarily grew crops for home consumption, and they lacked the skills and knowledge of good farming and management practices. A few of the youth were engaged in other income generating activities, such as other small businesses, animal rearing, and construction. However, they were earning insufficient wages from their endeavors. Through the partnership, youth were primarily trained on how to grow chili, and they were successful in adopting these new skills. For most of them, this led to increased chili production. They also acquired skills and knowledge in good farming and management practices. These skills can be applied to other crops as a result of the collaboration with Anchor foods. However, most youth reported little or no sales. This resulted in losses, and most of these youth abandoned chili growing. In many cases, Anchor Foods picked the chili but paid much less than what had been anticipated. Some of the youth were informed by the Anchor Foods representative that some of the chili was too ripe and could not be considered for export. In some cases, the chili were never retrieved by representatives of Anchor Foods Limited, with no explanation provided. Yet, for most lxvi youth, there was no other market for chili. Only some of the youth were able to sell to other buyers who were buying at much lower prices. Contribution: Anchor Foods made strong contributions to the knowledge and skills of youth on chili growing. Anchor Foods trained youth on chili growing practices including: nursery bed and land preparation, transplanting, strategic planting and spacing, disease and pest identification, fertilizer application, and harvesting and post-harvest handling. Most youths strongly agreed that it would not have been possible to earn additional income through chili growing without the support of Anchor Foods. There was no other partner that they could identify that would have provided this support. However, even with the support of Anchor Foods, only a few youth were able to earn regular income from chili growing, as Anchor Foods did not provide them with a reliable, ready market. 11. Akorion Company Ltd Outcome statement: Youth farmers were taught improved farming methods and given access to other extension services which increased yields of crops like maize and coffee. These changes led to an increased income for participants. Village Agents were trained on how to use the Ezy app, a digital platform for the provision of extension services. This increased their income. Change: Youth farmers were previously engaged in growing food crops using traditional methods. They grew crops such as, beans, maize, and coffee, but would produce very poor yields. Incomes were reportedly very low because the farmers lacked skills and knowledge in good farming and management practices. Furthermore, they had no access to information on authentic sources of agricultural inputs, prices of produce, pests and pesticides, and lacked access to markets for their produce. Most youth reported challenges in acquiring essential household items because of insufficient incomes. Through the partnership, the youth acquired the skills and knowledge of good farming and management practices and employed the modern farming methods to improve their yields of maize and coffee. Village Agents were using app-based services provided by Akorion to provide extension services to these youth. The agents received trainings from Akorion on how to use the Ezy app to give farmers correct information on agriculture such as how to use fertilizers and what fertilizers to use, which pests are harmful to certain crops and which pesticides are currently being used, which organizations sell the best farm inputs, weather patterns and the best time to plant and the prices of agriculture produce sold around Uganda. The improvement in yields was both quantitative and qualitative. Increased incomes were also achieved because of the market linkages that were provided by Akorion’s app-based platform. As Village Agents, youth were able to earn from providing extension services to farmers using the app. Contribution: Akorion contributed to the knowledge and skills of youth regarding modern farming practices. Youth were trained in the use of improved seeds, land preparation, fertilizer and pesticide application, watering, identifying harmful pests, mulching, correct spacing, weed management and post￾harvest handling. Akorion also provided youth farmers with access to agricultural extension services through Village Agents. Youth reported accessing the following services at their farms for a fee: acquisition of inputs like seeds, spraying, and the acquisition of fertilizers. Most youths stated that it would not have been possible for youth farmers to earn additional income without the support of Akorion. The youth farmers did not identify another potential partner who was lxvii willing to provide similar support, specifically the services they obtained through the Ezy app. 12. Ngetta Tropical Holdings Limited Outcome Statement: Youth increased their incomes due to increased yields from sunflower production. This was facilitated by the provision of trainings on good agronomic production, seed loans and ready markets for their produce. The MOBIPAY digital platform enabled NTH’s agribusiness to effectively manage their finance and operations along with the required trainings and technical services to support the launch and maintenance of the platform. Some youth used the increased income to pay their children’s school fees and to improve the quality of their housing. Change: Most youth were engaged in growing traditional crops like maize, groundnuts, cassava and soya bean, but their harvests were mainly for home consumption. They earned some income from selling some of the produce they were growing. Some youth were also involved in sunflower farming on a small scale. A few individuals survived on the little income which was earned from providing casual labour on other people’s land within the same communities. Since the the partnership, most youth are now earning more income from increased sunflower production, due to improved planting techniques learned from Ngetta Tropical Holdings Limited. This includes proper spacing, using improved seeds, line planting, weeding, harvesting and post-harvest handling. As a result, many youths registered increased yields. Thus, they sold more to the ready market which was provided by Ngetta Tropical Holdings. Contribution: Ngetta Tropical Holdings contributed to the youth changes mainly through trainings on good agronomic practices. In turn, the incomes of youth improved. Most of the youths stated that they would not have earned increased incomes from sunflower growing without the interventions from Ngetta Tropical Holdings, since no other organization had reached out to them in order to support them. The trainings covered the following topics: (i) Importance of growing marketable sunflower seeds; (ii) Spacing sunflower by counting four spaces; (iii) When to weed, for example twice in a season; (iv) How to access loans: and (v)Training on market linkages and prices for sunflower. The youth reported gaps in the support provided by NTH such as poor storage facilities, lack of drying materials for sunflower,especially during the rainy season, lack of transport to deliver produce to collection points, delays in delivery of seeds, and delays in receiving payment after delivery. 13. Green Growers Outcome Statement: Youth increased their incomes as a result of changing from growing traditional cereal crops to horticulture production, or increasing existing horticultural production using improved technical skills. With the support from Green Growers, farmers were provided with practical technical knowledge and skills on growing vegetables, and given seed loans and quality inputs like fertilizers and pesticides. This led to increased yields and sales through the market linkages that were created by Green Growers. Some youth used the earned income to provide school fees, and to construct improved housing for themselves. Change: Prior to the collaboration, some of the youth were unemployed, while others were engaged in growing traditional cereal crops, like maize and beans on a small scale; other vegetables were grown for household consumption. This generated insufficient income which could not sustain many of their respective household needs. Those who were engaged in vegetable growing had limited knowledge about the recommended practices for better production. lxviii Through the partnership, many youth were mobilized into groups by Green Growers and were later trained on demonstration plots in improved horticultural production. Using the improved technical skills, many farmers changed from cereals to growing vegetables, and some started vegetable growing for the first time, reporting high yields. Green Growers bought their produce directly from the youth, or linked the farmers to other buyers who would buy the produce directly. Many youth reported increased income following these sales; this enabled them to invest in their household through improvements like solar lighting systems, bicycles and well built houses for themselves. Some youth used the increased income to hire casual labor to expand their farms. Others utilized the money to diversify their income with enterprises like piggery. Most youth strongly agreed that they acquired knowledge and experience in growing vegetables, such as tomatoes, on a commercial scale. Learning techniques like using effective fertilizers, stalking , and mulching helped them to increase the crop yields. This ultimately earned the farmers a greater income from the sales of these tomatoes and other vegetables. The youth managed to save of their money on their mobile money accounts; those participants were able to purchase livestock, and invested in other income generating projects. Contribution: Green Growers contributed to changes in the farming practices of youth participants mainly through offering a training on improved horticultural practices, including but not limited to: techniques for preparation, the use of pesticides and fertilizers, the post-harvest business skills , and much more. Most participants strongly agreed that they would not have made this improvement without the support of Green Growers because they possessed limited skills for growing tomatoes and other vegetables with strong yields. In addition, they could not identify any other partners who were willing to provide similar support. Most of the youth strongly agreed that the trainings enabled them to learn how to prepare nursery beds, mulching, and application of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Furthermore, most participants strongly agreed that their yields increased following application of these improved horticultural techniques. The youth farmers also strongly agreed that the seed loans provided by Green Growers helped them with timely planting at the onset of rains. Participants also strongly agreed that they were connected with tomato vendors in both Nwoya and Gulu markets who organized considerable purchases of their produce with only a phone call. 14. Geneber Outspan Outcome Statement: Youth increased their incomes by increasing their production and sale of sesame. Geneber Outspan provided part of the youth farmers with training in organic farming methods. For all youth farmers, it provided market linkages. The youth used their increased incomes to improve their standards of living and to purchase livestock, like cows and goats. Change: Most of the youths were not attending school, and survived on income from growing and selling traditional crops. Some of the youths had experience with growing sesame on a small scale using traditional farming methods. However, this was insufficient to meet their basic household needs, and they could not save for their own future needs. During their collaboration with Geneber Outspan, youths learned professionalized organic farming lxix techniques for sesame. The youths were taught benefits of being in cooperatives and how to use money in business. Geneber purchased the produce from the farmers. The youth farmers managed to increase their yields and subsequent sales after using the suggested farming methods. Some farmers used the increased income to expand their plots; in turn, this growth led to more yields, and increased sales to Geneber Outspan. With the additional income, farmers acquired livestock, including goats and cows. Contribution: Most youths improved their incomes through use of improved agronomic practices, access to free tractor services, seed loans and ready market for their produce. They attributed the increased income to the support which was provided by Geneber Outspan. Many youth reported, however, that they were not able to take part in the trainings provided by Geneber Outspan. The trainings on improved farming techniques included the proper selection of appropriate organic farming sites and efficient methods to plant, weed, harvest and store organic sesame, along with the importance of not using chemicals like pesticides and inorganic fertilizers. In these trainings, youth also learned useful farming strategies about crop rotation, the dangers of monoculture, intercropping, how to best utilize money in a business, and the benefits of cooperatives. Geneber Outspan also provided farmers with seed loans and other inputs, like tractor ploughing services that allowed youth to cultivate more land. In addition, farmers had access to a ready market for their produce. 15. Consult AgriQuery Outcome Statement: Youth participants increased their incomes by applying improved technical knowledge and skills to their onion, cabbage and tomato harvests. The youths were then able to use the increased income to pay school fees for their children and met other basic household needs. Other youth purchased livestock including goats, cows and pigs. Change: Most of the participating youth had dropped out of school. Some were unemployed while others were earning an insufficient income from growing soya beans, maize, beans, millet and sorghum. During the collaboration with Consult Agri-Query, the youths acquired the technical skills and knowledge required to grow onions, cabbages and tomatoes. These technical skills enabled the youth to set up and manage larger farming areas that led to higher yields, and ultimately more sales and income. Most youth reported that they manage to save some of the earned income with the Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs). Contribution: The farmers were trained to effectively sow and plant seeds, and they were informed about the importance of weeding and harvesting when the crops are ready. Consult Agri-Query taught participants how to apply fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides to the crops. Youth also acquired skills in managing money and record keeping. Consult Agri-Query connected youth the vegetable vendors in the markets who bought their produce and provided them access to reliable inputs such as high-quality seeds, fertilizers and sprayers. A majority of the youths agreed that it would not have been possible to experience the changes reported without the support from Consult Agri-Query. They did not identify any other reliable partner who was willing to provide similar support. However, some of the youths only partially attributed positive changes to their collaboration with lxx Consult Agri-Query. These participants reported that seeds failed to germinate, and herbicides and pesticides bought from the Consult Agri-Query shops were ineffective in some cases. 16. Godson Commodities Outcome statement: Godson Commodities offered youth participants the training, skills and knowledge required to create small businesses through growing organic chia. This was facilitated by seed loans, quality inputs, and providing a ready market. Income acquired from the initial sales of chia to Godson enabled participants to invest in items such as ox ploughs, purchased land for cultivation, motorcycles and livestock. Some youth managed to build better houses for themselves. Change: Some youths had previously been engaged by other companies to grow organic chia. However, these companies never returned to purchase the chai from the farmers, which offered little incentive to continue with the venture. Other youth farmers were earning an insufficient income from the production and sale of organic chia seeds. After the collaboration with Godson Commodities, some youths were able to use the organic farming skills to increase their production and sale of organic chia seeds. This improvement was also facilitated by the high-quality seeds, and other inputs which were provided to the participants, along with the ready buyers of Godson Commodities. Contribution: Most youth attributed the changes they experienced to the support from Godson Commodities. Participants noted that the training in organic chia farming, their customized seed loans, and the taught practice of avoiding the use of chemicals were specifically impactful. In addition, Godson Commodities also bought the produce directly from the farmers. These participants agreed strongly that Godson Commodities contributed to their improvement. However, some youth reported delayed payment for the produce, which posed a major challenge. This delay forced most farmers to go back to growing traditional crops like maize, sesame and cassava. Other participants dropped out of agricultural production entirely. lxxi Value Chain Analysis A youth economic empowerment program can identify potential off-farm opportunities for young people by examining agricultural value chains. Off-farm activities are especially valuable for young women, who have limited access to land and other resources. These opportunities can be part of a co￾design process with private sector partners, to ensure the opportunities will be sustainable over time and not dependent on external funding. The following is a brief analysis of employment and other-income generating opportunities across three value chains that are part of the YLA partnerships. This analysis focuses primarily on value chains where several of the YLA PSPs were active that were selected as cases studies for the evaluation. Edible Oil Seeds Value Chain The oil seed subsector is now recognised as one of four strategic crops by the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal, Industry and Fisheries. Key oil seed crops in Uganda include sesame, groundnuts, cotton, and sunflower. With an annual production of close to 220,000 MT, the sunflower value chain remains the leading edible oil seed in Uganda offering myriad income generating opportunities. Sunflower in Uganda is grown in three key regions, Northern, Central, and Western. As Figure 7 shows, within the edible oil seed subsector, the sesame and sunflower value chains present a number of low-skill, off-farm income￾generating opportunities for young people. Figure 7 - Off-farm income-generating opportunities for youth in edible oil seeds value chain lxxii Three of the case studies included in the evaluation field visits are engaged in this industry. Each of them represent different nodes within the sunflower and sesame value chains, from upstream value chain opportunities in the Karamoja and Lango regions to downstream value chain stages. There are numerous issues along the value chain that presented opportunities as well as challenges for youth. For one of the PSPs that provided inputs on credit, the high default rate one season led them to eliminate this financial service the following season. Some farmers pay exorbitant prices for land clearance services, as those types of services are scarce. One PSP that contracted a tractor service encountered several difficulties because the tractor drivers had no local knowledge, so there were problems engaging with youth farmers. The following table shows an overview of the types of income-generating opportunities that were provided by the PSPs as well as those that were missed, drawing in part from the lessons learned through YLA. Table 9 - Types of income-generating opportunities provided by PSPs in edible oil seeds value chain Income-Generating Activities (IGAs) PSPs offering IGAs (3 total) Missed Opportunities Agro-input dealers to supply improved sunflower seeds One PSP Youth could be hired as intermediaries to provide seeds or bulking services. Field agents to bulk sunflower produce from the farmers One PSP Land clearing providers (tractor or ox-plough services) Not directly One PSP contracted out this service, foregoing the opportunity to train and provide an additional income source for youth. Value-addition processing / factory workers None Youth could be trained and hired to process crops. Last mile distributors None Youth could sell oil to retailers on a commission basis. Organic certified farmers None With certification, youth could obtain employment as certification managers. Vegetable Value Chain The predominantly smallholder farmer-driven sector engages in the production of a number of priority crops including bananas, beans, maize, cassava, tea, coffee, dairy, fish, livestock (meat), cocoa, cotton, oil seeds, and oil palm, fruits and vegetables. The vegetable value chain is recognised as one of the national strategic crops. Over 400,000 smallholder farmers grow vegetables throughout the country. Most vegetables can be grown and sold within a space of 40 days, as compared to crops like rice and pulses that require up to 90 days before harvest. For this reason, vegetables represent an attractive value chain for young people. Six YLA PSPs that were part of the evaluation case studies work in this value chain. One of the challenges in this value chain is the significant price fluctuations, often resulting from a glut in the market, which can be very discouraging for youth. Also, the crops are perishable, so there is a short window of time between the time when youth can harvest them and when they can be sold. Some of lxxiii these crops, especially chili, require certain standards in order to be accepted by certain vendors. For certain crops, such as chili, there is an opportunity to process them into powder, thereby adding value to it while also preventing loss if the market is unavailable. Figure 8 and Table 10 show the opportunities in this value chain that were provided and those that were missed by YLA PSPs. Figure 8 - Off-farm income-generating opportunities for youth in vegetable value chain Table 10 - Types of income-generating opportunities provided by PSPs in vegetable value chain Income-Generating Activities (IGAs) PSPs offering IGAs (6 total) Missed Opportunities Value addition processors None Drying and crushing equipment could have offered opportunities to train and hire youth to process hibiscus, moringa, onion, and chili into powder. Field / village agents (to profile and register farmers, sell agro￾inputs, and bulk crops) Two PSPs Some of the crops in this value chain require ongoing technical support, which field agents could have also provided on a commission basis. Transportation providers None Youth could be organized to facilitate transportation of crops, which can be especially valuable when farms are far from the local market or when youth need to find other buyers because the lxxiv local markets don’t have the capacity to absorb all the production. Quality certification managers None Training and hiring youth to check quality standards could ensure the PSPs attain the desired quality levels. Maize and Beans Value Chain Maize and beans are produced by about 1.8 million farmers in Uganda, mostly smallholders engaged largely in subsistence farming. These crops are part of the staple diet for Ugandans. Beans are estimated to be the second most important source of dietary protein and the third most important source of calories. It is estimated that about 20 million MT of beans are produced annually. In Africa, Uganda is one of the ten biggest producers of beans. Both the maize and beans value chains have been earmarked by the government of Uganda as strategic crops, and Uganda is now a net exporter of both maize and beans in the east African region and to the rest of the world. This value chain provided the greater array of income-generating opportunities for young people, though still largely concentrated in the production end of the value chain. Three PSPs that were selected as case studies for the evaluation were working in this value chain. Figure 9 - Off-farm income-generating opportunities for youth in maize and beans value chain lxxv Table 11 - Types of income-generating opportunities provided by PSPs in maize and beans value chain Income-Generating Activities (IGAs) PSPs offering IGAs (3 total) Missed Opportunities Value addition processors, with village agents earning a commission from shelling maize. One Youth could have been trained and to process grains into flour, or other value-addition forms. Sales representatives / shop attendants One This type of non-farm employment is especially important for young women, and could have been further explored by the other PSPs. Machine operators One There were just a couple of instances of young people hired to be a machine operator, though there was no specific training provided through YLA. Other PSPs in this value chains could train and hire youth to manage value-addition machinery. lxxvi ANNEX VI: DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST lxxvii Name Rossana M. Ramírez Title Senior Consultant Organization Self-Employed Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) N/A I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes …No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date May 13, 2020 lxxviii Name Nabaasa Samalie Mafigiri Title Gender and Social Inclusion Expert Organization Equal Opportunities for Women and Children in Uganda Evaluation Position? Team Leader  Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument)( Agreement number USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) YLA Project I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes  No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 7. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 8. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 9. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 10. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 11. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 12. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 12/05/2020 lxxix Name Apollo Muyanja Mbazzira Title Agribusiness Development Expert Organization QED GROUP Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) YLA Chemonics I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes …No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizationsbeing evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 13/05/2020 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523