This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of the YouthPower2: Learning and Evaluation AID Contract #47QRAA19D0006K/7200AA19M00018. The authors’ views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. USAID/ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT March 16, 2023 1 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV USAID/ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT March 16, 2023 By Paolo Abarcar, Researcher, Mathematica Jeremy Danz, Analyst, Mathematica Eskindir Tenaw, Local Data Collection Lead/Consultant, Making Cents International Yibeltal K. Alemayehu, Technical Advisor/CEO, MERQ Consulting Jennifer Blum, Principal Researcher, Mathematica USAID’s YouthPower2: Learning and Evaluation (YP2LE) generates and disseminates knowledge about the implementation and impact of positive youth development (PYD) and cross-sectoral approaches in international youth development. We are leading research, evaluations, and events designed to build the evidence base and inform the global community about how to transition young people successfully into productive, healthy adults. USAID defines PYD as: Positive Youth Development (PYD) engages youth along with their families, communities, and/or governments so that youth are empowered to reach their full potential. PYD approaches build skills, assets, and competencies; foster healthy relationships; strengthen the environment; and transform systems. For public inquiries and additional information, please email comms@youthpower.org or by mail to Making Cents International, Attn: YouthPower2: Learning and Evaluation, 1050 Connecticut Ave N.W., #65470, Washington, D.C. 20035. 2 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to thank USAID/Ethiopia for its collaboration and guidance toward the development and implementation of this baseline assessment. We especially thank Tahir Gero, Senior Education Advisor, and Rebecca Pagel, Senior Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Advisor, who contributed to the scope of work to establish the framework for this evaluation activity. We would also like to acknowledge our extremely hard-working and dedicated collaborators at MERQ Consultancy, especially Yibeltal K. Alemayehu, our co-author, and Setegn Tigabu, Senior Programmer and Data Manager, who contributed tirelessly to the development, implementation, and analysis presented in this report. MERQ played critical roles at all stages of this baseline assessment, including engaging with youth to review and translate the survey questionnaire, training the data collectors, fielding the data collection, and preparing and cleaning the raw data for analysis. Our Local Data Collection Lead and co-author, Eskindir Tenaw, also played an essential part in this evaluation thus far, including leading and managing the local IRB submission process; providing thoughtful feedback on the design, data collection approach, and survey; and collaborating closely with MERQ to provide oversight during data collection. Without the on-the-ground guidance and support from our team members, this evaluation would not have been possible. In addition, we want to acknowledge the openness and partnership of the Amref Health Africa Ethiopia team, Wasihun Andualem, Chalachew Tiruneh, and Yosef Bekele, who provided valuable insights both virtually and during our in-person visit to help guide the development of the evaluation to be in tune with the comprehensive structure of the Kefeta Activity. This report would not have been possible without the close support of administrators and staff at the youth centers, universities, and TVET schools, who helped arrange interviews and allowed the use of their facilities for interviews with respondents. Finally, we want to give thanks to each of the implementing agency partners that took time from their busy days to introduce us to the Kefeta Activity during our visit to Ethiopia in early 2022. 3 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 LIST OF EXHIBITS 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 CONTEXT 8 YOUTHPOWER2: LEARNING AND EVALUATION (YP2LE) 8 OVERVIEW OF THE INTEGRATED YOUTH ACTIVITY (IYA)/KEFETA 8 OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT 8 STUDY METHODS 9 STUDY FINDINGS 9 CONCLUSIONS 9 INTRODUCTION 11 BACKGROUND 11 ETHIOPIAN CONTEXT 11 KEFETA ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 11 GOALS OF THIS REPORT 11 IYA: KEFETA ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 12 PROGRAM LOGIC 12 TARGET BENEFICIARIES AND LOCATIONS 12 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND PROGRESS 13 METHODOLOGY 15 EVALUATION APPROACH 15 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 15 OUTCOME MEASURES 16 BASELINE DATA COLLECTION 17 4 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV SAMPLING STRATEGY 18 ANALYSIS APPROACH 19 BASELINE FINDINGS 20 DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 20 OUTCOMES AT BASELINE 23 YOUTH SKILLS 23 YOUTH ENGAGEMENT 27 ACCESS TO SERVICES 29 LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES 37 EQUIVALENCE ON KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES 40 LIMITATIONS 42 CONCLUSION 45 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 45 PLANS FOR FUTURE DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING 45 REFERENCES 47 ANNEXES 48 ANNEX 1. LIST OF ALL KEFETA ACTIVITY INTERVENTION SITES 48 ANNEX 2. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 49 ANNEX 3. KEFETA YOUTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 50 5 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Kefeta logic model ........................................................................................................................................12 Exhibit 2. Map of intervention and comparison cities.............................................................................................13 Exhibit 3. Research questions.......................................................................................................................................15 Exhibit 4. Likert scale used............................................................................................................................................17 Exhibit 5. List of intervention and comparison cities and regions for data collection....................................18 Exhibit 6. Sample size by sex, city, and site subgroup.............................................................................................19 Exhibit 7. Respondent characteristics.........................................................................................................................20 Exhibit 8. Household characteristics...........................................................................................................................22 Exhibit 9. Youth training ................................................................................................................................................23 Exhibit 10. Business knowledge and financial literacy .............................................................................................24 Exhibit 11. Soft skills.......................................................................................................................................................26 Exhibit 12. Youth engagement......................................................................................................................................28 Exhibit 13. Access to youth hubs.................................................................................................................................29 Exhibit 14. Perceptions of youth-responsiveness of youth hubs facilities..........................................................31 Exhibit 15. Access to SRH services.............................................................................................................................32 Exhibit 16. Knowledge of location to access FP among respondents familiar with FP methods^ ...............33 Exhibit 17. FP method used among current FP users (N=272)............................................................................34 Exhibit 18. Health literacy..............................................................................................................................................34 Exhibit 19. Perceptions of youth-responsiveness of FP facilities..........................................................................35 Exhibit 20. Access to financial services.......................................................................................................................36 Exhibit 21. Perceptions of youth-responsiveness of financial services................................................................37 Exhibit 22. Labor market outcomes............................................................................................................................38 Exhibit 23. Days worked a week and hours worked in a day among those who worked in the previous month (n=988).................................................................................................................................................................39 Exhibit 24. Income last month (in ETB) by type of employment .........................................................................40 Exhibit 25. Baseline equivalence in sample characteristics and outcomes.........................................................41 Exhibit 26. Exposure to the Kefeta Activity..............................................................................................................43 Exhibit 27. Exposure to the Kefeta Activity by study group, location, and site subgroup.............................44 6 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 28. Percent of respondents who provided data on different types of contact and social media information........................................................................................................................................................................46 7 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AMREF Amref Health Africa DHS Demographic Health Survey EC Emergency contraception EPHA Ethiopian Public Health Association ETB Ethiopian Birr FP Family planning GESI Gender equality and social inclusion IP Implementing partner IRB Institutional review board IUD Intrauterine device IYA Integrated Youth Activity MCI Making Cents International MERQ Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Quality Improvement OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PSI Population Services International PYD Positive youth development SACCO Saving and credit cooperative organization SGBV Sexual and gender-based violence SRH Sexual and reproductive health TVET Technical and vocational education and training YP2LE Youth Power2: Learning and Evaluation USAID United States Agency for International Development WORQ Workforce Outcomes Reporting Questionnaire 8 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTEXT Ethiopia is the second most populous nation in Africa, with more than one-third of its 110 million population aged 15–29 (DHS 2019, UN 2019). Ethiopian youth have limited educational opportunities, high rates of under- and unemployment, and poor access to youth-friendly, accessible health services. Gender inequality, high rates of early marriage (58 percent of women marry before their 18th birthday, Ethiopia DHS 2016) and unintended pregnancy (overall prevalence of unintended pregnancy in Ethiopia has been found to be 28 percent, Alene 2020) are widespread among Ethiopian youth. High rates of rural-to-urban migration—Ethiopia’s urban population is expected to almost double by 2030 (OECD/PSI 2020, Gibson 2012)—exacerbate the effects of rapid population increase and gender inequality, resulting in higher unemployment rates in urban and peri-urban areas. YOUTHPOWER2: LEARNING AND EVALUATION (YP2LE) USAID’s YouthPower2: Learning and Evaluation (YP2LE) is a five-year project, currently in its fourth year, that seeks to generate and disseminate knowledge about the implementation and impact of positive youth development (PYD) and cross-sectoral approaches in international youth development programming. YP2LE deepens the PYD evidence base through conduct of research activities, fostering an interactive Learning Network, disseminating knowledge through digital platforms, and providing rapid response technical support to United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Missions and operating units. In Ethiopia, YP2LE is conducting an impact evaluation of the USAID Mission to Ethiopia (USAID/Ethiopia) Integrated Youth Activity (IYA), known as the Kefeta Activity. OVERVIEW OF THE INTEGRATED YOUTH ACTIVITY (IYA)/KEFETA The $60-million Kefeta Activity covers a 5-year period (August 2021–August 2026). Led by Amref Health Africa (AMREF), Kefeta comprises a consortium of local and international agencies working collaboratively to empower Ethiopian youth. Specifically, Kefeta seeks to empower Ethiopian youth to increase their economic opportunities, create youth-led enterprises, and improve their voice in local, regional, and national policy dialogue, as well as expand access to youth-friendly essential services. Simultaneously, the Activity seeks to strengthen the capacity of Ethiopian higher education institutions, youth-serving organizations, and health and financial service providers to support economic and civic engagement opportunities for youth aged 15–29, with an emphasis on three subgroups: (1) out-of￾school youth, (2) university students, and (3) technical vocational and educational and training (TVET) students. Over this period, the Activity will work closely with the Government of Ethiopia’s Ministry of Women and Social Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labor and Skills, and the Ministry of Health to reach 2 million youth in 18 cities across Ethiopia to (1) increase youth’s capacity for advocacy and agency, (2) create new youth economic opportunities, and (3) expand youth’s access to youth-friendly essential services. OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT This report shares baseline data from a survey of youth conducted between August and December 2022, to estimate baseline levels of key characteristics and outcome measures of respondents and demonstrate the comparability of the intervention and comparison groups at the start of the Activity. 9 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV STUDY METHODS Baseline data collection was focused in eight locations (four intervention and four comparison cities) selected in partnership with USAID, AMREF/Ethiopia, and Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Quality Improvement (MERQ) Consultancy. We sought to include cities that are geographically representative and have high priority for the Activity implementation, which resulted in the selection of Harar in the East, Hawassa in the South, Bahir Dar in the Northwest, and Jimma in the Southwest. We conducted stratified random sampling by site subgroup, sex, and city as strata, and sampled simultaneously in both intervention and comparison cities. In total, 2,999 respondents, including 1,503 respondents at youth centers, 896 first year university students, and 600 TVET students were surveyed. Respondents were evenly distributed across the intervention and comparison groups. STUDY FINDINGS The most common respondent is an unmarried male between the ages of 15 to 29, who completed at least up to secondary education. Nearly all of the youth, drawn from youth centers, universities, and TVET centers, are presently enrolled in school and have lived in their current location for about a year, except for university students, who have lived in their current location for a month. The mean monthly household expenditure for these youth was ETB 4,545 ($84).1 Accounting for household size, mean monthly expenditure per individual was ETB 1,469 ($28). Respondents shared generally positive perceptions of the youth-friendliness of youth hubs, FP services and financial institutions, but this did not always translate into actual use of these services. While only about 8 percent of youth respondents indicated having started a business, 60 percent expressed a desire to start a business in the future. Employed youth reported relatively low earnings: median earnings were ETB 3,000 ($56) for the self-employed, ETB 1,500 ($28) for those in family work, and ETB 1,500 ($28) for those in wage employment. At the same time, we note very low levels of exposure to Kefeta Activity programs 5 months after launch, as measured by training participation or exposure to SRH posters and brochures. To demonstrate the comparability of the intervention and comparison groups at the start of the Activity, we assessed the degree of similarity between the intervention and comparison groups on sample characteristics and baseline outcome measures. At baseline, intervention and comparison youth respondents were similar in a range of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Specifically, we found no statistical differences in sex, age, marital status, school enrollment, household head identity, household size, and asset ownership We found both groups to be equivalent in a representative set of outcome measures in the youth engagement and access to services domains. Both groups also appeared equivalent on a self-assessment and objective indicator that measures SRH knowledge. In contrast, there were statistically significant differences in household expenditure, employment, and self-assessed financial literacy between intervention and comparison groups. In particular, the intervention group reported 23- percent higher household expenditure, were 7 percentage points less likely to work in the previous month and had a slightly better assessment of their financial literacy than the comparison group. CONCLUSIONS The results summarized above related to baseline equivalence increase our confidence that there are few underlying differences between the two study groups. Because observed differences among a range of indicators were few, this suggests that comparing outcome differences in follow-up periods is still 1 All currency was converted using Oanda currency converter and rounded to the closest $ (rates as of January 20, 2023). 10 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV likely to yield credible estimates of Kefeta’s impact. Our analysis will adjust for any detected baseline differences to estimate the Activity’s impact at follow-up. The survey data provide important contextual information for the evaluation and illustrate the potential for Kefeta to affect intended outcomes (e.g., knowledge and positive perceptions of services that do not necessarily translate into use, desire for engaging in entrepreneurship activities). Increasing youth’s engagement with Kefeta Activity programs and adoption of program content will be key to seeing improvements in knowledge, skills, youth engagement, and ultimately labor market outcomes. 11 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ETHIOPIAN CONTEXT Ethiopia is the second most populous nation in Africa with more than one-third of its 110 million population aged 15–29 (DHS 2019, UN 2019). At present, young people in Ethiopia have limited educational opportunities, high rates of under- and unemployment, and poor access to youth-friendly, accessible health services. The lack of opportunities for youth has created an environment for increased instability in a nation that has experienced persistent civil conflict for the past several years. Gender inequality, high rates of early marriage (58 percent of women marry before their 18th birthday, Ethiopia DHS 2016) and unintended pregnancy (overall prevalence of unintended pregnancy in Ethiopia has been found to be 28 percent, Alene 2020) are widespread among Ethiopian youth. High rates of rural-to￾urban migration—Ethiopia’s urban population is expected to almost double by 2030 (OECD/PSI 2020, Gibson 2012)— exacerbate the effects of rapid population increase and gender inequality, resulting in even higher unemployment rates in urban and peri-urban areas. KEFETA ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION In March 2022,2 The United States Agency for International Development Mission to Ethiopia (USAID/Ethiopia) formally launched the Integrated Youth Activity (IYA) Kefeta. Led by Amref Health Africa (AMREF), Kefeta comprises a consortium of local agencies working collaboratively to empower Ethiopian youth to increase their economic opportunities, create self-reliant organizations, and strengthen their voice in local, regional, and national policy dialogues, as well as expand access to essential services that are more youth-friendly. Additionally, Kefeta will improve the ability of Ethiopian higher education institutions, youth-serving organizations, and health and financial service providers to support economic and social opportunities for Ethiopian youth. GOALS OF THIS REPORT USAID’s YouthPower2: Learning and Evaluation (YP2LE) is conducting an impact evaluation of USAID/Ethiopia’s Kefeta Activity to establish the Activity’s causal impacts on youth outcomes. To provide evidence that is as rigorous as possible in this context, we have created a difference-in￾difference quasi-experimental design to compare the changes in outcomes of youth who were exposed to Kefeta activities in intervention areas with the changes in outcomes of a comparison group of youth in similar, non-intervention areas. This report describes the conditions in Kefeta intervention areas at the outset of the Activity life cycle (baseline), as well as the conditions in similar areas that will serve as a comparison group. The baseline report describes the socioeconomic status of survey participants and their knowledge, attitudes, and practices that relate to the key domains of the Activity. It also seeks to demonstrate the comparability of intervention and comparison groups at baseline, allowing for further analysis of the Activity’s impact at the midterm and final evaluation stages. 2 Launch date listed per USAID’s announcement: https://et.usembassy.gov/u-s-launches-kefeta-a-60-million-investment-to-lift-up￾ethiopias-youth/. 12 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV IYA: KEFETA ACTIVITY BACKGROUND A consortium of 15 international and local partners, led by prime partner AMREF, implements the Kefeta Activity. To achieve its goals, Kefeta works closely with the Government of Ethiopia’s Ministry of Women and Social Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labor and Skills, and the Ministry of Health. PROGRAM LOGIC As shown in Exhibit 1, the logic model relies on several causal assumptions. Kefeta’s theory of change assumes that if grassroots-based youth networks are strengthened or established to serve as a platform for youth to become more resilient to promote development for themselves and their communities, and if youth become more civically engaged in society, then they will exercise their voice, agency, and leadership constructively. In addition, Kefeta assumes that if youth (1) acquire employability and entrepreneurship skills, (2) are linked to economic opportunities, and (3) can benefit from youth-friendly services to support their health, social, and economic well-being, then they will be empowered to advance their economic, civic, and social development and contribute to Ethiopia’s peace and prosperity. Exhibit 1. Kefeta logic model TARGET BENEFICIARIES AND LOCATIONS The Activity is focused on 15- to 29-year-old youth, with an emphasis on out-of-school youth who participate in youth center activities and university and TVET students. All youth participating in youth hubs are Kefeta’s target population, while at the university level, Kefeta targets only students in undergraduate programs. At TVET centers, Kefeta does not focus on students enrolled in short-term training programs (lasting 1 week to 3 months), but on students enrolled in longer term programs. The Activity emphasizes engagement with girls and young women who are disproportionately affected by unemployment and have generally weaker civic engagement. A detailed list of Kefeta’s intervention areas can be found in Annex 1. In Exhibit 2, we highlight cities identified for baseline data collection. Youth Advocacy and Agency Strengthened Youth Economic Opportunity Expanded Access toYouth-friendly Services Increased Youth Policy Environment • National youth coalition active • National and local-level youth-related line ministries and parastatal organization held accountable on youth agenda • Policies reflect youth’s voice • Collective dialogue reduces ethnic and cultural divide • Policy changes to reduce barriers to youth enterprise are enacted • There is a sustainable Youth Empowerment Fund • Public and private sectors support youth-owned businesses • Public and private institutions design services specially for youth • There are more youth service providers across all institutions • Digital technology is used to increase youth’s access to services Youth￾serving\ Youth-led Organizations • Networks are created to amplify youth’s voices • Civic engagement and advocacy are fostered • Youth-serving and youth-led organizations are strengthened • Youth hubs are established • All sectors create opportunities for youth employment • Youth have access to internship, mentorship, and fellowship • There are tailored financial products for youth and youth-led enterprises • Safe spaces are accessible to youth • Youth-friendly service providers are strengthened • Youth-friendly services are expanded Youth • Youth’s self-efficacy and skills are strengthened • Youth are engaged in leadership roles in community and country • Youth advocate for their rights and engage in their community • Youth are resilient to conflict and value diversity • Youth’s assets and agency are strengthened • Youth gain entrepreneurship and employability skills • Youth are economically active • Youth-led enterprises are established • Youth are physically and emotionally healthy • Knowledge and practice of SRH are increased • Youth’s health-seeking behavior is increased • There is increased access to platforms designed and targeted to youth Individual Outcome Inform policy development as a contribution to policy content through data and research Systemic Outcome 13 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 2. Map of intervention and comparison cities IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND PROGRESS The $60-million Kefeta Activity covers a 5-year period (August 2021–August 2026). Over this period, the Activity is expected to reach 2 million youth in 18 cities across Ethiopia to (1) increase youth’s capacity for advocacy and agency, (2) create new youth economic opportunities, and (3) expand youth’s access to youth-friendly essential services. To achieve these three goals, the Kefeta Activity works to: • Establish a greater voice and role for youth in governance and civic affairs • Implement youth-led solutions for community development • Strengthen systems for youth to acquire skills that make them more employable • Link youth with the private sector to improve job placements • Establish and promote youth-led enterprises • Decrease barriers to accessing quality youth-friendly services across health, education, career support, and finance The strategies the Kefeta Activity employs to advance these goals include: • Encouraging youth to join democratic and representative coalitions • Establishing a youth empowerment fund 14 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV • Providing seed grants for the creation of youth-friendly service platforms and social grants to increase youth assets within their community and establish youth-led and -managed savings and credit cooperatives (SACCOs) • Supporting higher education institution partnerships • Remodeling of 20 city-level youth hubs managed by youth coalitions • Creating a platform of 16 universities and TVET institutions to develop approaches to align education and workforce needs • Working with private companies to support youth employment • Improving access to youth-friendly and gender-sensitive services • Turning selected interventions and end products into enterprises as part of youth coalition capacity-building In 2022, the Kefeta Activity team was focused on creating partnerships with each implementing partner (IP) and formalizing relationships with government and regional officials in each of the 17 Activity locations, except Mekele, where Kefeta could not start its interventions due to the conflict situation (Annex 1). In addition, Kefeta began implementing work plan activities in all the 17 cities. This entails: • Establishing 19 youth coalitions in 17 cities (3 in Addis Ababa) • Conducting formative and post-conflict assessments that informed programing • Addressing immediate needs of the post-conflict-affected young populations in the internally displaced population sites in Debre Berhan, Dessie, Kombolcha, and Semera/Logia cities—reaching more than 50,000 young people with comprehensive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services with the majority of youth in the post-conflict cities through the quick-win mechanisms • Remodeling of 14 youth hubs • Adapting skill-based training manuals for life skills, functional literacy, financial literacy, effective work habits and employability, entrepreneurship, and business skills, which IPs are to use across Kefeta As of September 2022, Kefeta had also provided foundational skills training for youth—1,847 for those who were not able to read and write on functional literacy, 5,380 on life skills, 1,902 on employability, 1,923 on entrepreneurship and business skills development, and 2,292 on youth sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Kefeta created employment opportunities for 648 young people in different private-sector companies and 145 internship opportunities for youth professionals both at the Kefeta consortium partners and other government and nongovernmental stakeholders. To improve the university–industry linkages and create access to economic opportunities, Kefeta established a higher education institution alliance with a blueprint and work plan. Kefeta also provided career counseling and professional development skills training for 1,620 students in different universities and TVETs. In creating financial access for youth, Kefeta established SACCOs in four cities (Adama, Bahir Dar, Debre Berhan, and Hawassa). SBC strategy was also developed and Kefeta started below-the￾line promotional and advocacy activities in the different thematic areas. The Activity developed and disseminated print materials, audio, and radio spot messages in the intervention cities. Kefeta carried out gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) and disability situation assessment and a GESI audit in the youth hubs and other service outlets and provided training on GESI and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) prevention to Kefeta service providers. Kefeta initiated capacity strengthening of its local-level partners and collaborated with other U.S. government partners to leverage resources and streamline bidirectional referrals. 15 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the evaluation approach, research questions, preparations for baseline data collection, sampling plan, analysis sample, and our approach for analysis. EVALUATION APPROACH We are conducting a mixed-methods evaluation that consists of a rigorous impact evaluation and a qualitative study. For the impact evaluation, we will use a quasi-experimental design to compare the changes in outcomes of youth who were exposed to Kefeta activities in intervention areas to the changes in outcomes of a comparison group of youth in similar, non-intervention areas. This will quantify the Kefeta Activity’s impacts on youth outcomes approximately 22 months after the activities were launched in target cities and calculate the Activity’s cost-effectiveness by comparing program costs to estimated effects on youth. The qualitative interviews will summarize the programmatic context, explore participants’ experiences with and perceptions of the Activity, and identify facilitators and barriers to achieving the envisioned outcomes. Together, this evidence will inform Kefeta staff, IPs, and other partners in Ethiopia as to what aspects of the Activity they may want to modify in later stages of implementation. In addition, this rigorous analysis will help inform broader programmatic learning for both Kefeta and other youth programs in Ethiopia.3 We collaborated with youth in the design and implementation of the baseline survey. Specifically, our Ethiopia-based data collection partner conducted a sense-making workshop with 38 young people to gather feedback on the survey instrument. The purpose of the sense-making workshop was to obtain inputs from youths (potential beneficiaries of the project and expected respondents of the baseline assessment) that can be used to make sure the data collection tool makes sense to them. All enumerators (some of whom engaged in the sense-making workshop) and some data collection supervisors were also youth. These individuals participated in multi-day training and piloting activities prior to collecting data from study participants. The team plans to continue to engage youth in data collection activities for this evaluation and validation of findings. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Exhibit 3 lists the research questions that informed the evaluation design and the development of the survey questionnaire. These questions, developed in collaboration with Making Cents International (MCI), USAID, and Kefeta IPs, will shape the midterm and final data collection and analysis processes, as well as tell the story of the Kefeta Activity by determining whether there has been progress toward expected outcomes. Exhibit 3. Research questions 1. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF IYA ON YOUTH IN ADVANCING THEIR OWN ECONOMIC, CIVIC, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT? a. What are its impacts on youth’s skills, especially on soft skills, financial literacy, health literacy, and business development skills? b. What are its impacts on youth’s community and civic engagement? c. What are its impacts on youth’s knowledge of and access to youth-friendly services, in particular financial services and SRH and family planning (FP) services? 3Although the evaluation involves a mixed-methods approach, this baseline focuses on the quantitative component. The qualitative study will occur in the next stage of the evaluation. 16 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV d. What are its impacts on youth labor market outcomes, including employment, entrepreneurship, income, and savings? e. How do these impacts vary by sex, age, and location? 2. HOW AND WHY DOES IYA LEAD TO THESE OUTCOMES? a. In what ways does IYA’s employment component lead to greater alignment between higher education institutions’ curricula and skills training and employers’ workforce needs? b. Has IYA’s youth empowerment fund led to greater access to credit for youth-owned businesses? In what ways has it been an enabling factor for youth to access credit for businesses? c. In what ways does IYA’s capacity-building component improve the capacity of SRH/FP health and financial services providers to deliver youth-friendly services? d. In what ways has establishing/strengthening virtual spaces (digital media, safe space for youth-friendly services) contributed to increased youth engagement in advocacy and leadership and/or affected youth-friendly service use? 3. HOW COST-EFFECTIVE IS IYA? WHAT LESSONS ARE THERE FOR FUTURE INTEGRATED OR LAYERED PROGRAMMING? (THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED AT THE ENDLINE.) OUTCOME MEASURES The YP2LE team collaborated with USAID to select specific outcome areas to address in the survey instrument, as well as to identify sub-areas for inquiry within this tool. The domains identified for measurement at baseline represent those areas where the Kefeta Activity has concentrated its programming. Consequently, we anticipate seeing movement on key indicators by the midterm evaluation and, especially, by the final evaluation. The outcome measures and sub-areas selected are displayed in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4. Outcome measures EA SUB-ITEMS Youth skills • Education/training (enrollment in school or college) • Financial literacy (self-perceived level of financial literacy, score on an assessment measuring knowledge of key financial literacy concepts) • Health literacy (self-perceived level of health literacy, score on an assessment measuring knowledge of SRH/FP) • Business development skills (self-perceived level of business development skills, score on an assessment measuring knowledge of skills to start and operate a business) • Soft skills (scores on assessments related to self-control/self-efficacy, positive self￾concept, and higher-order thinking skills) Youth engagement • Youth engagement (societal value, awareness of youth policies, participation in civic activities, and leadership roles) Access to services • Access to financial services (debt considerations, cumulative savings, satisfaction with financial situation) • Access to SRH/FP services • Access to youth hub Labor market outcomes ● Employment (recent work, job satisfaction, self-employment) ● Earnings (wage history, gross earnings) 17 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV BASELINE DATA COLLECTION MERQ Consultancy and MCI’s Ethiopia-based consultant and local data collection lead managed the data collection, and the YP2LE study team provided oversight and technical guidance. Several activities were conducted in preparation for baseline data collection, including a sense-making workshop, a multi-day training, and a pilot study. The sense-making workshop took place in July 2022, and included a review of the survey instrument, practical use of the instrument, and back translation. MERQ identified 38 youth (15 females and 23 males) similar to potential Kefeta participants to participate in the sense-making workshop. These participants included youth from youth centers, TVET and university students, and other young people who had previous experience as data collectors during the Kefeta Activity’s formative assessment. The evaluation team developed a data collector manual with input from all members of the study team. We used the manual to guide a 3-day data collection training that occurred in August 2022. Of the 26 individuals who took part in the training, 8 were supervisors recruited from target universities (21 of these individuals, including 3 supervisors, were youth). Most data collectors had some familiarity with Kefeta because they had helped conduct the formative assessment of the Activity through MERQ, and all had the requisite language and research skills to carry out the data collection in the field. Training sessions were devoted to detailed, section-by-section review of the survey instrument and discussion of any items or concepts that needed clarity. Data collectors also had the opportunity to practice using the tool in peer role-playing sessions. Other topics covered during training included background and rationale for the evaluation, an overview of the methodological approach and sampling selection, field procedures and ethical considerations, and roles, responsibilities, and quality assurance. In August 2022, we pre-tested the study tool in one TVET and multiple youth hubs in Addis Ababa.4 Each data collector had the opportunity to pilot the survey with two respondents.5 We had refined the survey version used for piloting based on feedback obtained during training activities. We also provided data collectors with guidance on sample selection procedures and asked them to document potential challenges that may arise during actual data collection. Before data collection began in mid-August 2022, the data collectors participated in a final briefing that covered refinements to the tool, decisions related to sampling approach and methodology, and the standards of practice for data collectors’ adherence. After the pilot, the team decided to use a uniform, visual Likert scale for data collection. Kefeta had previously used the scale (Exhibit 4) for other, similar survey questionnaires and it was well appreciated by participants in the training activities and pilot survey. We made further edits to the survey instrument and updated the programming based on feedback from the pilot. The team was then ready to begin data collection. 4 The team had hoped to conduct piloting in all three data collection entry points (youth hubs, TVET, and a university). However, logistic and bureaucratic obstacles prevented the possibility of pilot data collection in a university. 5 There were 36 survey respondents in the pilot. Exhibit 4. Likert scale used in the survey 18 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Prior to going into the field for data collection, we formally informed each regional government body that the study was taking place. After taking care of the formalities, we started data collection. The team collected all data via face-to-face interviews, using handheld electronic devices. Annex 2 provides the survey questionnaire. Once the team finished the pilot, made the requisite changes to the survey and its programming, and finalized the Amharic and Afaan Oromiffa translations of the survey content, data collectors went into the field to begin data collection. Data were transferred via the internet directly to MERQ’s data center in Addis Ababa for quality control, oversight, and review. The local data collection lead managed quality control and oversight of the data collection process and coordinated the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from the Ethiopian Public Health Association (EPHA) (EPHA-IRB/095/2). YP2LE personnel provided technical guidance at all stages of this process. SAMPLING STRATEGY The YP2LE team worked closely with USAID and AMREF to identify the cities selected for data collection. We jointly determined that focusing the evaluation on four intervention and four comparison cities would be sufficient to produce generalizable findings. We sought to include intervention cities that are geographically representative and have high priority for Kefeta implementation. This resulted in the selection of Harar in the East, Hawassa in the South, Bahir Dar in the Northwest, and Jimma in the Southwest. We considered Addis Ababa for the evaluation, given its importance as the capital city; however, we decided that it would not have been possible to find a suitable comparison city. We excluded Mekelle due to the civil conflict. We selected a comparison city that closely resembles each intervention city, but that the intervention activities were not anticipated to reach. In general, we sought to identify cities that were geographically nearby, similar in socioeconomic and cultural characteristics, and have universities and colleges like those in the intervention city. Discussions with USAID/Ethiopia and IPs informed the final list of cities excluded from baseline data collection. Potentially high-priority central cities were excluded for several reasons, including to allow for regional representation, minimize travel to low-security zones due to a lack of appropriate comparison cities, and follow USAID/Ethiopia’s and AMREF’s advice and input. The list of intervention and comparison cities selected for baseline data collection, along with their regions, is presented in Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5. List of intervention and comparison cities and regions for data collection INTERVENTION CITIES (REGION) COMPARISON CITIES (REGION) Jimma (Oromia) Assela (Oromia) Harar (Harari) Chiro (Oromia) Hawassa (Sidama) Arba Minch (SNNPR) Bahir Dar (Amhara) Debre Markos (Amhara) To ensure that the evaluation estimates impacts among youth exposed to Kefeta, we sampled youth from sites that serve as the main points of contact to encourage youth to participate in Kefeta. We conducted stratified random sampling using as strata three sites—youth hubs, universities, and TVET centers, sex, and city, and collected data simultaneously in intervention and comparison cities. 19 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV We targeted 3,000 youth (1,500 intervention and 1,500 comparison) and recruited equal numbers of youths across cities, allocated proportionally by site (50 percent from youth hubs, 30 percent from universities, and 20 percent from TVET).6 Our calculations suggested this would enable us to detect impacts as small as a 4.6-percentage point change in literacy (youth skills), a 4.0-percentage point change in civic engagement (youth engagement), a 4.4-percentage point change in contraceptive use (access to youth-friendly services), a 3.2-percentage point change in employment, and a 39-percent change in unconditional earnings (labor market outcomes).7 For baseline data collection, 2,999 respondents completed surveys, including 1,503 respondents at youth centers, 896 university students, and 600 TVET students, evenly distributed across cities (Exhibit 6). One survey from Jimma was found to be incomplete and was dropped from the dataset. Exhibit 6. Sample size by sex, city, and site subgroup City Youth Center University TVET Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Bahir Dar 93 95 56 56 37 38 375 Debre Markos 132 56 56 56 42 33 375 Jimma 96 91 59 53 58 17 374 Assela 122 66 58 54 45 30 375 Harar 115 73 64 48 40 35 375 Chiro 96 92 54 58 41 34 375 Hawassa 95 93 56 56 37 38 375 Arba Minch 117 71 62 50 41 34 375 Total 1,503 896 600 Note: Although we intended to sample equal numbers of males and females for the evaluation, this was not possible for several cities and sites. For example, a few youth hubs had too few females to include for data collection. ANALYSIS APPROACH Upon receipt of the cleaned data set from MERQ in Ethiopia, the team developed variable constructs for items included in the survey questionnaire, such as individual binary variables for multi-select questions in the survey questionnaire. For some specific variables, such as disability status, we followed preexisting guidelines for how to determine whether or not a specific respondent should be considered as having ability, based on precedent set by groups such as the Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Group means for binary variables (identified as having a minimum of zero and a maximum of one) are multiplied by 100 and displayed as percentages, unless otherwise noted. Outliers were recoded as missing and removed from the overall analysis. All analyses were conducted using Stata 17 and data custody. Secure transfer protocols were arranged in advance with MERQ and MCI. In a few situations, the survey questions, programming of the skip patterns and relevance constraints produced situations where questions were posed to a smaller subset of respondents than intended. For example, several subsidiary questions related to the details of contraceptive use and experience with SRH service providers were asked only of those respondents who provided a specific age for their first experience of sexual intercourse, instead of simply confirming whether the respondent had had sexual 6 We sampled more from youth hubs because of Kefeta’s focus on these sites. 7 Calculations were for a 95-percent confidence interval and 80-percent power. 20 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV intercourse or currently considered themselves to be sexually active. These programming issues will be addressed for midterm data collection. BASELINE FINDINGS This chapter presents key findings from the baseline youth survey conducted between August and December 2022. The baseline survey was conducted to (1) estimate baseline levels of key demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and outcome measures among respondents, and (2) demonstrate the comparability of the intervention and comparison groups at the outset of the Activity, setting the stage for the analysis of Activity’s impacts at the midterm and final stages of the evaluation. We address the first objective by examining the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of youth respondents and baseline indicators in the four main outcome domains that the Activity seeks to influence: (1) youth skills, (2) youth engagement, (3) access to services, and (4) labor market outcomes. We show results for all respondents and then by site that serve as Kefeta’s main point of contact for youth (i.e., youth from youth centers, universities, or TVET centers). For binary indicators depicting percentages, we show means and frequencies in the data tables; for numerical indicators, we show means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values. These data provide important contextual information for the evaluation. To address the second objective, we assess the degree of similarity between the intervention and comparison groups on key characteristics and outcome measures at baseline. We compare means by study group and test for statistical differences. Establishing equivalence between the two study groups at baseline bolsters confidence that at follow-up rounds, we can attribute differences in the outcomes between the two groups to the effect of Kefeta. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS About 44 percent of baseline survey respondents were female, average age was 20, and 97 percent were unmarried (Exhibit 7). Less than half (43 percent) of all respondents considered themselves heads of their household.8 Although most respondents were enrolled in school (89 percent), the highest educational attainment varied by site subgroup. Most youth from youth centers were currently enrolled in or had completed up to secondary education (60 percent), while almost all university and TVET youth attended university or TVET education, respectively, reflecting the sampling approach.9 Most respondents (69 percent) mainly speak Amharic at home, while 24 percent speak Afaan Oromiffa. On average, respondents had lived in their current location for about a year, except youth from universities, who had lived in their current location for about a month, reflecting their residency in school dormitories. Only few respondents indicated they had recently moved due to conflict (0.3 percent) or were classified as having a disability (0.6 percent). Exhibit 7. Respondent characteristics ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] 8 For the purpose of this survey, we considered students living in the university dormitory as one household. This is not in line with the conventional definition because a university is usually considered a collective quarter and is excluded from all household-level surveys. This may be one reason that the result in this survey significantly varies with other household-level survey estimates. 9 A few students from the university and TVET samples indicated that they were currently not enrolled in these educational institutions, but we believe this simply reflects misunderstanding of the survey question or an enumerator error. 21 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) Head of household a 43.4 (1.303) 17.2 (883) 98.5 (883) 27.0 (162) Female 44.2 (1,327) 42.4 (637) 48.1 (431) 43.2 (259) Age (in years) 20 ± 3 [15–29] 20 20 22 Married 3.0 (91) 3.5 (52) 0.8 (7) 5.3 (32) Language at home: Afaan Oromiffa 24 (708) 18 (263) 31 (278) 28 (167) Amharic 69 (2,058) 73 (1,102) 64 (570) 64 (386) Other 2 (69) 2 (30) 4 (35) 1 (4) Presently enrolled in school 89.7 (2,689) 79.4 (1,193) 100.0 (896) 100.0 (600) Highest educational level reached: Elementary b 7.9 (236) 15.6 (235) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Secondary b 29.6 (887) 58.9 (886) 0.1 (1) 0.0 (0) Technical/Vocational b 24.3 (728) 8.5 (128) 0.4 (4) 99.3 (596) University 37.1 (1,114) 14.7 (221) 99.3 (890) 0.5 (3) Masters 1.1 (34) 2.2 (33) 0.1 (1) 0.0 (0) Months living in current location 9 ± 9 [0–35] 13 1 12 Recently moved because of conflict 0.3 (10) 0.3 (4) 0.7 (6) 0.0 (0) Has a disability c 0.6 (19) 1.1 (16) 0.2 (2) 0.2 (1) Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 from universities, and 600 from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. a We considered each student living in the university dormitory as one household. This is not in line with the conventional definition because a university is usually considered a collective quarter and is excluded from all household-level surveys. This may be one reason that the result in this survey significantly varies with other household-level survey estimates. b A few students from the university and TVET samples indicated they were currently not enrolled in these educational institutions, but we believe this simply reflects misunderstanding of the survey question or an enumerator error. c Based on previously established procedures for the Washington Group on Disability Statistics instrument, respondents are here considered as “having a disability” if they responded “a lot of difficulty” or “cannot do at all” on an array of five questions measuring vision, hearing, mobility, concentration and memory, and communicating. We also asked respondents about their household, defined as a set of people who live in the same dwelling space and share meals together (Exhibit 8). Youth center and TVET respondents tended to live in relatively large households, with an average household size of 4.2 to 4.5, compared to the average Ethiopian household size of 3.6 in urban areas (Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia 2020). On the other hand, the average respondent from universities indicated that they lived alone. The mean household expenditure per month was ETB 4,545 ($84)10, but this was much lower for youth in universities, mainly because they were in their own households. Accounting for household size, mean monthly expenditure per individual was ETB 1,469 ($28). Almost all (94 percent) respondents indicated piped water as their household’s main water source. As an additional measure of wealth, we gathered data on household ownership of various assets: 86 percent owned mobile phones, 70 percent reported access to 10All currency was converted using Oanda currency converter, all rounded to the closest $ (rates as of January 20, 2023). 22 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV electricity, only 27 percent owned a refrigerator, 27 percent owned an electric mitad (a type of home grill), and 20 percent owned a computer.11 Exhibit 8. Household characteristics ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Household size (number) 3.4 ± 2.4 [1.0–12.0] 4.5 1.0 4.2 Household expenditure (ETB)a 4,545 ± 4,493 [0–90,000] 6,119 1,364 5,353 Main water source is piped water 94.2 (2,824) 94.5 (1,421) 94.6 (848) 92.5 (555) Household owns any of the following assets: Mobile phone 86.3 (2,587) 97.1 (1,459) 59.5 (533) 99.2 (595) Electricity 69.5 (2,085) 86.5 (1,300) 29.2 (262) 87.2 (523) Bed with mattress 66.5 (1,994) 90.3 (1,357) 10.5 (94) 90.5 (543) Chair 57.7 (1,731) 78.1 (1,174) 10.5 (94) 77.2 (463) Table 56.3 (1,688) 76.4 (1,149) 10.4 (93) 74.3 (446) Stove 54.3 (1,628) 77.1 (1,159) 0.8 (7) 77.0 (462) Television 52.8 (1,584) 77.6 (1,166) 1.0 (9) 68.2 (409) Radio 28.9 (868) 40.7 (611) 0.9 (8) 41.5 (249) Refrigerator 27.2 (816) 40.1 (603) 1.0 (9) 34.0 (204) Electric Mitad 27.0 (809) 40.1 (603) 0.9 (8) 33.0 (198) Computer 20.3 (609) 25.6 (385) 11.9 (107) 19.5 (117) Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. Household was defined as a set of people who live in the same dwelling space and share meals together. University students living on their own in dormitories were classified as having a household size of one. a Overall mean monthly household expenditure is $84, with a standard deviation of $83, ranging from $0 to $1,669. Means by site subgroup for youth centers, university, and TVET respondents are $113, $25, and $99, respectively. 11 We found it puzzling that youth from universities reported much lower rates of asset ownership than other youth in our sample. This may be because majority of these youth lived in school dormitories, where most assets we asked about in the survey were under the universities’ ownership. Still, this cannot explain why mobile phone ownership is much lower for university students. We will revisit our survey protocol at midterm data collection to investigate whether we are phrasing the asset questions incorrectly for university youth. 23 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV OUTCOMES AT BASELINE YOUTH SKILLS The baseline survey captured information on participation in any training in the past 6 months, as well as their current business and soft skills, and knowledge about health and finance. These are the proximate outcomes that Kefeta seeks to affect. We would expect the Activity to have an impact on youth’s labor market outcomes only if we observe that youth participate substantively in Kefeta activities, and then gain the knowledge and skills they can apply as they enter the labor force. The findings indicate relatively high youth participation in any training at baseline (Exhibit 9). About 28 percent reported receiving some form of training in the past 6 months from the government, schools, or NGOs, either in life or soft skills, vocational training, financial education, SRH, business development, or other. This high rate of training participation is a counterpoint to the low rate of participation in Kefeta training to date, as discussed in the previous section. This suggests that for many participants, Kefeta will not be the first exposure to training courses. In terms of the types of training received, youth reported life or soft skills and SRH or FP training as the most common (16 percent and 11 percent, respectively). On average, the total duration of training courses received spanned between 4 to 6 days, except for vocational training, which participants indicated took around 32 days to complete. Exhibit 9. Youth training ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Participated in any training in the past 6 months 27.6 (826) 34.9 (524) 21.0 (188) 19.0 (114) Type of training received: Life or soft skills training 15.5 (466) 19.1 (287) 14.8 (133) 7.7 (46) Vocational training 5.1 (152) 6.0 (90) 2.3 (21) 6.8 (41) Financial education training 2.9 (86) 4.0 (60) 2.6 (23) 0.5 (3) SRH or FP training 11.1 (332) 16.6( 250) 6.7 (60) 3.7 (22) Business development training 3.9 (116) 5.7 (86) 1.1 (10) 3.3 (20) Other 1.6 (48) 2.3 (34) 0.6 (5) 1.5 (9) Duration of training by type (in days) among participants Life or soft skills training (n=466) 4.4 ± 7.5 [1.0–90.0] 5.1 2.6 4.6 Vocational training (n=152) 32.2 ± 39.7 [1.0–300.0] 28.1 26.4 44.3 Financial education training (n=86) 6.2 ± 14.7 [1.0–120.0] 7.7 2.4 5.7 SRH or FP training (n=332) 4.3 ± 5.2 [1.0–70.0] 4.6 3.1 3.8 Business development training (n=116) 4.7 ± 3.7 [1.0–24.0] 4.7 5.8 3.8 24 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. Where sample size rates vary, the “n” per item is listed for each variable. Despite seemingly high rates of knowledge and skills on starting and developing a business, the data indicate low rates of current business activity (Exhibit 10). Respondents gave themselves high marks when asked to rate their own business knowledge and skills; on average, they rated themselves 4 on a scale between 1=low and 6=high. To obtain a more objective measure of business skills, we also gathered information on whether youth could correctly identify best practices for running a business (e.g., keeping personal finances separate from business expenses; developing a business plan before starting a business; and conducting an analysis of a business concept’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). Respondents obtained an average score of 2.9 out of 3 on the assessment questions. Yet, only about 8 percent have in fact started a business and 1 percent have expanded a business. However, 15 percent professed a desire to start a business 6 to 12 months from the time of the survey, while 60 percent expressed a desire to do so after 12 months, indicating the potential value of Kefeta’s training on business development. Exhibit 10. Business knowledge and financial literacy ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Business knowledge Score on self-assessment of business knowledge and skills (1=low, 6=high) 4.0 ± 1.2 [1.0–6.0] 3.9 3.9 4.2 Score on objective assessment measuring business knowledge (out of 3) a 2.9 ± 0.4 [0.0–3.0] 2.9 2.8 2.9 Have started a business 7.6 (227) 9.7 (146) 3.7 (33) 8.0 (48) Have an expanded business 0.7 (20) 0.9 (13) 0.2 (2) 0.8 (5) Planning to start a business in 6 to 12 months 14.7 (442) 19.3 (290) 5.7 (51) 16.8 (101) Would like to start a business >12 months from now 60.2 (1,806) 59.4 (893) 57.1 (512) 66.8 (401) Financial literacy (Score on self￾assessment: 1=low, 6=high) Of overall financial literacy 3.8 ± 1.2 [1.0–6.0] 3.7 3.8 4.0 Of money management skills 4 ± 1 [1.0–6.0] 4 4 4 Of personal savings habits 3.7 ± 1.6 [1.0–6.0] 3.6 3.8 3.9 Correct answer on a financial knowledge question b 27.3 (815) 27.1 (405) 28.1 (251) 26.6 (159) Keeps written record of money spent 20.0 (599) 19.0 (285) 19.4 (174) 23.3 (140) 25 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Keeps written record of money received 17.7 (531) 16.8 (253) 17.1 (153) 20.8 (125) Knows the following financial services provider: Microfinance institution 29.9 (896) 32.5 (489) 24.4 (219) 31.3 (188) Savings and credit association 38.1 (1,142) 39.7 (597) 32.7 (293) 42.0 (252) Other 9.0 (269) 13.4 (201) 0.9 (8) 10.0 (60) Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. a The objective assessment rated youth on whether they could correctly identify best practices for running a business (e.g., keeping personal finances separate from business expenses; developing a business plan before starting a business; and conducting an analysis of a business concept’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) b The financial knowledge question asked the respondent to calculate the amount they needed to save given an interest rate, in order to achieve a target savings goal. Respondents also rated themselves highly on subjective self-assessments of financial literacy but scored low on more objective measures. On average, respondents scored slightly above the scale’s midpoint in overall financial literacy, money management skills, and personal savings habits (between 3.7 to 4.9 on a scale between 1=low and 6=high). However, only 27 percent gave a correct answer on a financial knowledge question on interest rates. A low fraction of respondents have adopted best practices in personal finance, such as keeping written records of money spent and received (20 and 18 percent, respectively). Only about a third of respondents know microfinance institutions or savings and credit associations (30 and 38 percent, respectively). Respondents rated themselves highly on three types of soft skills: self-control, positive self-concept, and higher-order thinking skills (Exhibit 11). We asked respondents whether they agreed with various statements about themselves, such as: “I know how to see things from different angles” or “I know how to relax when I feel tense.” We drew these assessment questions from internationally validated tools of soft skills.12 On average, respondents agreed with 5.9 out of 7 questions that assessed their self-control, 5.5 out of 6 questions that assessed their positive self-concept, and 5.6 out of 6 questions that assessed their higher-order thinking skills. Exhibit 11 further shows the percentage agreeing with individual statements about each soft skill. In general, there was high agreement with many statements that measured soft skills, although we must interpret these results with caution because youth may be merely reporting socially acceptable answers, a common limitation of self-reported soft skills measures. 12 The seven questions on self-control were taken from the International Youth Development Survey and the six questions each on positive self-concept and higher-order thinking skills were taken from the Chinese Positive Youth Development Scale. 26 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 11. Soft skills Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: We do not disaggregate the data by site because there are no differences by site subgroup. *Answers on these two statements were reversed scored when calculating the aggregate assessment score for self-control because agreement with these statements indicates lack of self-control. 7 I believe there is a solution for any problem I know how to see things from different angles I will try new ways to solve my problems I know how to find the causes of and solutions to a problem I know how to develop plans to achieve my objectives I can differentiate the good and bad aspects of things 98% 94% 97% 89% 93% 93% Higher-order thinking 5.5/6 I can do things as well as others Compared with my classmates/friends, I am satisfied with my performance I am satisfied with my body and appearance I feel that I am welcomed by others I am a person with self-confidence I know my strengths and weaknesses 84% 85% 96% 92% 98% 94% Positive self-concept 5.5/6 I know how to relax when I feel tense I am always able to keep my feelings under control I know how to calm down when I am feeling nervous I control my temper when people are angry with me It's important to think before you act I rush into things, starting before I know what to do* I answer without thinking about it first* 89% 69% 88% 76% 99% 85% 84% Self-control 5.9/7 27 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV YOUTH ENGAGEMENT One of the key outcomes of interest for Kefeta is youth engagement (including societal value, awareness of youth policies, participation in civic activities, and leadership roles). As part of the baseline, we asked survey participants about their perceptions of having value and voice in society, participation in youth organizations, and participation in the democratic process. On a scale of one to six (1=no agreement and 6=strong agreement), respondents expressed an average rating of 4 across a range of indicators, as shown in Exhibit 12. Despite these ratings, respondents indicated a low level of actual participation in youth-focused organizations and/or the democratic process. While nearly a quarter of participants indicated that they had participated in youth-focused clubs (23.5 percent) and 18 percent reported having done community service, participating in mentorship opportunities, membership in youth coalitions, and experience with advocacy and community decision-making were notably less common. In terms of democratic processes, just over one-fifth of respondents indicated they had registered to vote in local and about a third in parliamentary elections. Of these, more than 9 out of 10 respondents reported that they did vote in the most recent local (92.1 percent) or parliamentary elections (93.1 percent). While approximately half of respondents stated they knew how to get in contract with the local council (46.8 percent), few reported having signed a petition (2.9 percent) or written a letter of complaint (6.3 percent) in the past 2 years. There were no differences across subgroups. All respondents were also asked about any migration aspirations. Nearly 40 percent (36.7 percent) indicated that they had considered moving abroad in the last 6 months and 12.9 percent had looked for a job abroad in the last 6 months. Interest in migration within Ethiopia was similarly of interest, with 35.3 percent and 15.5 percent of respondents indicating that they had considered moving or looking for a job in another region in the country within the last 6 months, respectively. International migration was of greater interest to university students, while interest in relocating within the country was of similar interest across the three subgroups. 28 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 12. Youth engagement 4.5 4.4 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.4 4.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Youth are valued in society; their positive contributions are recognized and rewarded Youth have a strong voice in local institutions The government provides robust and youth-friendly policies Society has balanced and fair gender norms The government has balanced and fair gender policies Youth have a strong voice in national institutions I can have an impact on what happens in this country Perceived level of having value and voice in society 8.7 10.3 54.6 18.3 2.7 23.5 9.2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Advocacy Mentorship Volunteering Community service Community decision-making processes Youth-focused clubs Member of youth coalition, network, or interest group Participation in youth organizations 46.8 6.3 2.9 21.7 32.9 92.1 93.1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Knows how to get in contact with the local council Has written a letter of complaint in the past 2 years Has signed a petition in the past 2 years Registered to vote in local elections Registered to vote in parliamentary elections Voted in most recent local elections (if registered to vote ) Voted in most recent parliamentary elections (if registered to vote) Participation in the democratic process (if eligible) 36.7 12.9 35.3 15.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Considered moving abroad in the last 6 months Looked for a job abroad in the last 6 months Considered moving in another region within the country in the last 6 months Looked for a job in another region within the country in the last 6 months Migration aspirations Youth engagement 29 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ACCESS TO SERVICES Another primary outcome of interest for the Kefeta evaluation is access to services. We asked survey respondents a series of questions to gauge their current use and perceptions of youth-friendliness of youth hubs, SRH/FP services, and financial services. Exhibit 13 presents an overview of respondents’ use and perceptions of youth hubs at baseline. On average, respondents visited a youth hub nearly twice a week. Not surprisingly, respondents interviewed at youth centers were significantly more likely to frequent these facilities, with youth center respondents reporting an average of 3.5 visits per week versus fewer than one visit per week among respondents from universities and TVETs. Respondents who reported that they did not visit a youth hub at least once a week were asked to list reasons for not visiting the hubs. Of the respondents who did not report visiting a youth hub at least once a week, nearly half (47.7 percent, n=611) stated they had no time to use the services. Others felt that the facilities were too far to reach, in poor condition, offered services that were not useful, or just had no specific reason to go there. Others also reported that they did not know the youth hub. Youth center respondents were significantly less likely to indicate that distance from the center was a deterrent. University and TVET students were more likely to report that the services at youth hubs were less useful to them. Respondents noted that the library, sports facilities, and training programs were the most used services at youth hubs. Youth center respondents were more likely to take advantage of the training programs and general information offered at youth hubs; whereas more than half of TVET respondents indicated that they used the library services at the facility. Exhibit 13. Access to youth hubs ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Times a week usually visiting a youth hub 1.9 ± 2.2 [0.0–8.0] 3.5 0.3 0.4 Reasons for not visiting a youth hub (n=1292) (n=39) (n=766) (n=487) No time to use services 47.3 (611) 43.6 (17) 48.2 (369) 46.2 (225) Youth hub is too far 20.0 (258) 5.1 (2) 20.2 (155) 20.7 (101) Don’t know the youth hub 9.1 (117) 10.3 (4) 8.1 (62) 10.5 (51) Services are not useful 6.3 (82) 7.7 (3) 5.9 (45) 7.0 (34) Facilities are in poor condition 4.2 (54) 15.4 (6) 3.0 (23) 5.1 (25) No specific reason 3.9 (50) 2,6 (1) 4.0 (31) 3.7 (18) Dislike the people there 0.5 (6) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (2) 0.8 (4) Other 8.8 (114) 15.4 (6) 10.3 (79) 6.0 (29) Services used in a youth hub^ (n=1878) (n=1,463) (n=302) (n=113) Library 36.3 (682) 37.7 (551) 21.5 (65) 58.4 (66) Sports facilities 29.6 (555) 29.6 (433) 26.2 (79) 38.1 (43) Training programs 29.7 (558) 36.0 (527) 7.6 (23) 7.1 (8) General information 20.8 (391) 25.4 (371) 2.6 (8) 10.6 (12) Cafeteria 17.5 (329) 17.8 (260) 12.6 (38) 27.4 (31) Internet/computer services 16.5 (309) 17.2 (251) 9.6 (29) 25.7 (29) 30 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Gym 6.9 (129) 6.7 (98) 6.6 (20) 9.7 (11) Showers 6.1 (114) 6.6 (97) 4.3 (13) 3.5 (4) Health clinic 1.0 (17) 1.0 (14) 3.8 (3) 0.0 (0) Other 9.3 (154) 10.0 (147) 1.3 (1) 5.3 (6) Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. ^Among those who reported usually visiting a youth hub at least once a week: n=1,878. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. Given the interest in youth engagement, we asked respondents to answer a series of questions to gauge their perceptions of the youth-friendliness of youth hubs. Exhibit 14 shows their responses. Youth center and university respondents had similar and largely positive perceptions of the youth-friendliness of youth hubs. TVET respondents expressed less positive views of the youth hubs on all elements except for accessibility of the youth hub in terms of the hours that they are open. Approximately three￾quarters of respondents felt that the hours are convenient for youth. 31 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 14. Perceptions of youth-responsiveness of youth hubs facilities Note: Among those who report usually visiting and using services from a youth hub at least once per week (n=1,874) USE, ACCESS, AND KNOWLEDGE OF SRH/FP SERVICES A primary outcome of interest for the Kefeta evaluation is access to SRH and FP services. We surveyed respondents to understand their use of services at baseline (Exhibit 15). Approximately 10 percent of respondents indicated that they had visited an SRH provider. Due to the programming of the survey instrument, questions about contraceptive use were only posed to respondents who provided a specific age for their first experience of sexual intercourse (n=724). Knowledge and access to FP methods did not correspond to the percentage of participants currently using an FP method: 37.6 percent of respondents who reported their age for first sexual intercourse indicated that they currently use an FP method. Rates of current use of contraception are similar to the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) and other recent reports from Ethiopia—2016 and 2019 DHSs recorded current modern contraceptive usage rates among married women of 35 and 41 percent, respectively (Ethiopia Mini DHS 2019). 74.5% 29.5% 28.1% 25.5% 30.0% 23.2% 27.2% 24.5% 21.9% 16.9% 17.9% 20.2% 16.2% 25.5% 40.7% 16.2% 15.9% 82.9% 80.5% 76.5% 74.5% 71.0% 69.5% 67.4% 62.8% 60.7% 56.5% 55.4% 54.7% 52.8% 49.0% 49.6% 49.6% 48.7% 74.2% 71.2% 68.4% 66.6% 64.0% 61.7% 61.4% 56.6% 54.0% 49.7% 48.8% 48.6% 46.2% 44.7% 43.6% 43.6% 42.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hours are convenient for youth Youth are welcome regardless of their religion or ethnicity Staff treat youth with respect Location is convenient for youth Youth are welcome regardless of their age or marital status Comfortable surroundings for youth Cost of service is affordable for youth Staff honor privacy of youth Youth perceive that staff will be attentive to their needs Adequate space and sufficient privacy Youth feel they can trust the staff providing the services Staff honor confidentiality of youth Youth perceive they have sufficient involvement in decisions about themselves Youth group discussions are available Staff allow adequate time interaction between youth and adults Youth are aware of service ability for their needs and rights Staff have been specially trained to work with or to provide services to youth Youth Center University TVET 32 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Respondents sought related health services from a medical professional on average 2.2 times in the past year. More than half of respondents (52.9 percent) frequented government clinics and private clinics received just over a third of respondents (35.7 percent). Fewer than 5 percent of respondents visited youth clinics, youth corners within existing clinics, and health clinics at schools. There were no discernable differences between the three respondent subgroups. Exhibit 15. Access to SRH services ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Ever visited an SRH provider a 9.1 (272) 10.4 (156) 5.5 (49) 11.2 (67) Currently using an FP method b 37.6 (272) 37.5 (142) 27.1 (39) 45.3 (91) Of those who reported age at first intercourse (n=272) Times sought SRH services from a medical professional in the past year c 2.2 ± 1.7 [1.0 - 12.0] 2.3 2.2 2.1 Times sought SRH information from a medical professional in the past year c 2.2 ± 1.8 [1.0 - 12.0] 2.1 2.2 2.3 Last type of health facility visited Government health facility 52.9 (144) 50.6 (79) 53.1 (26) 58.2 (39) Private clinic 35.7 (97) 35.3 (55) 42.9 (21) 31.3 (21) Clinic in youth center 4.0 (11) 6.4 (10) 0.0 (0) 1.5 (1) Youth corner within an existing clinic 0.4 (1) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) Health clinic at school 0.7 (2) 0.6 (1) 0.0 (0) 1.5 (1) Overall satisfaction with services at the last visit (1=not very satisfied, 6=very satisfied)c 4.7 ± 1.2 [1.0 - 6.0] 4.7 4.6 4.7 Felt comfortable asking provider questions about FP (n=84) 70.2 (59) 75.5 (37) 58.3 (7) 65.2 (15) Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse; for these variables, all sample sizes are shown due to variation in data collected as noted below. a SRH provider is defined as a health facility or doctor of any kind, including a pharmacy, that provides services or information on contraception, pregnancy, abortion, or sexually transmitted infections. b Due to the programming of the survey instrument, questions about contraceptive use were only posed to respondents who provided a specific age for their first experience of sexual intercourse (n=724). c This question was asked only to those respondents who reported asking for SRH services or information from a doctor, medical professional, or pharmacy over the last year (n=272). Nearly all survey respondents indicated that they knew of a method to prevent pregnancy (96.8 percent). Participants who responded affirmatively were asked to name the methods that are known to them. More than 9 out of 10 respondents indicated that they were familiar with the pill, injectables, implants, and male condoms. Three-quarters of respondents reported that they were familiar with 33 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV emergency contraception (EC), the intrauterine device (IUD), and natural family planning methods; approximately half knew of the female condom. Less than half of respondents were familiar with male or female sterilization (data not shown). There were no sizable differences in knowledge across the three respondent subgroups. Respondents who indicated knowledge of a specific method were asked whether they knew where they could access these methods (Exhibit 16). There were no discernable differences by subgroup. Exhibit 16. Knowledge of location to access FP among respondents familiar with FP methods^ ^Note: Of the three institutional subgroups, 1,450 youth center respondents, 871 university students, and 583 TVET students reported knowing a method that could prevent pregnancy. 97% 92% 90% 87% 75% 66% 45% 43% 37% 96% 95% 93% 92% 79% 73% 55% 54% 48% 98% 95% 94% 94% 83% 72% 43% 36% 34% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Male condom Pill Emergency Contraception Female condom Male sterilization Youth Center University TVET 34 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 17. FP method used among current FP users (N=272) Note: Respondents could give more than one answer. Among respondents indicating they sought SRH information or services in the last year, we collected information about current use of FP methods. Exhibit 17 shows that 29 percent reported using EC, 30.5 percent use male condoms, 22.8 percent use injections, and 17.3 percent use implants. Fewer than 10 percent of respondents stated that they used birth control pills and natural family planning methods. HEALTH LITERACY As mentioned above, nearly all respondents stated they were aware of methods to prevent a pregnancy. To estimate youth’s health literacy, we also asked respondents a series of questions on SRH knowledge. We assessed those responses to develop an overall knowledge score, which averaged about 3 out of 5 (data not shown). In addition, respondents were asked to provide a self-assessment of their SRH knowledge using a 6-point Likert scale. Self-assessment scores were similar across respondent groups, with an average score of 4.3 out of 6, as shown in Exhibit 18. Exhibit 18. Health literacy ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Knows a method that prevents pregnancy 96.8 (2,904) 96.5 (1,450) 97.2 (871) 97.2 (583) Score on self-assessment of SRH knowledge (1=low, 6=high) 4.3 ± 1.3 [1.0–6.0] 4.3 4.4 4.4 Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. Pill 8. Injection 22.8 Implant 17.3 Male condom 30. EC 29 atural methods 6.3 35 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV YOUTH RESPONSIVENESS OF FP FACILITIES Given the interest in youth engagement, we asked respondents who have visited a FP facility in the past year a series of questions to gauge their perceptions of the youth-friendliness of FP facilities. Exhibit 19 shows their responses. More than three-quarters of youth had favorable perceptions of the youth￾responsiveness of FP facilities, with no discernable differences by subgroup. Respondents in all three subgroups indicated that youth group discussions were less commonly available to them. Exhibit 19. Perceptions of youth-responsiveness of FP facilities 85.7% 79.6% 79.2% 73.5% 77.6% 72.1% 89.8% 85.7% 72.9% 75.0% 77.1% 42.2% 77.6% 85.7% 79.6% 75.3% 80.6% 76.8% 71.6% 80.5% 67.8% 79.7% 79.6% 69.6% 67.6% 75.3% 43.5% 73.9% 73.0% 71.4% 76.7% 78.8% 76.0% 70.8% 80.3% 67.8% 80.8% 83.2% 69.9% 71.2% 76.1% 40.3% 75.9% 78.3% 76.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Location is convenient for youth Hours are convenient for youth Adequate space and sufficient privacy Comfortable surroundings for youth Cost of service is affordable for youth Staff have been specially trained to work with or to provide services to youth Staff treat youth with respect Staff honor privacy and confidentiality of youth Staff allow adequate time interaction between youth and adults Youth perceive they have sufficient involvement in decisions about themselves Youth feel they can trust the staff providing services Youth group discussions are available Youth are welcome regardless of their age or marital status Youth perceive that staff will be attentive to their needs Youth are aware of service availability for their needs and rights Youth Center University TVET 36 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES A primary outcome of interest for the Kefeta evaluation is access to financial services, including debt considerations, cumulative savings, and satisfaction with current financial situation. We surveyed respondents to understand their use of financial services at baseline (Exhibit 20). More than three￾quarters of respondents indicated they had a bank account and had visited a financial service in the last year. On average, respondents stated they had held bank accounts for 3 to 4 years. About half of respondents reported they held over ETB 1,001 ($19) in savings at a bank. About a third of respondents noted they had savings ranging from ETB 1,001 ($19) to ETB 10,000 ($186 USD); less than 10 percent reported a personal savings greater than ETB 10,000 ($186). Youth center respondents were twice as likely to report savings greater than ETB 10,000 ($186) than university respondents. Respondents were generally satisfied with their current savings, with an average score of 3.1 on a 6-point Likert scale. About a quarter of respondents reported having borrowed money in the last year with outstanding loans approximating ETB 8,570 ($159). Youth center respondents reported the highest debts and university students reported the lowest debts. Exhibit 20. Access to financial services ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Has a bank account 84.6 (2,538) 75.2 (1,131) 98.5 (883) 87.3 (524) Years used a bank account 3.6 ± 2.8 [0.0–15.0] 3.9 3.1 4.0 Visited a financial service provider in the past year 81.0 (2,430) 72.3 (1,087) 93.2 (835) 84.7 (508) Total savings in a bank account ETB 10,000 (> $186) 6.2 (157) 8.1 (92) 3.7 (33) 6.1 (32) Owns livestock 16.3 (490) 13.3 (200) 19.9 (178) 18.7 (112) Value of livestock (in ETB) (n=490) 24,413 ± 46,881 [200–500,000] 21,600 23,147 31,449 Satisfied with savings (1=not very satisfied, 6=very satisfied) 3.1 ± 1.6 [1.0–6.0] 3.0 3.3 3.1 Borrowed money in the past year 26.0 (774) 28.6 (426) 24.3 (217) 22.0 (131) Loan outstanding (in ETB)a, b (n=747) 8,570 ± 35,702 [0–400,000] 10,677 5,643 6,480 Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. For variables with large differences in response rates, sample size is listed next to variable name. a Two outliers of ETB 1.5 million ($27,849) and 1.2 million ($22,279) were reclassified as missing values. b In USD, this is equivalent to the following: All= $159±662, Youth Center=198, University=105, TVET=120. 37 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTH-RESPONSIVENESS OF FINANCIAL SERVICES We asked respondents a series of questions to gauge their perceptions of the youth-friendliness of financial services. Exhibit 21 shows their responses. Three-quarters of respondents felt that the location and hours were convenient for youth. Respondents had similarly positive perceptions of the trustworthiness of the staff, the cost of the services, and their comfort level at the financial service institution. There were no sizable differences by subgroup. Exhibit 21. Perceptions of youth-responsiveness of financial services LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES A primary outcome of interest for the Kefeta evaluation is employment (defined as wage employment, self-employment, or family work). We surveyed respondents at baseline on their current employment and the characteristics of this work (Exhibit 22). A third of youth respondents (33 percent) worked in the previous month to earn money. Among those employed, almost all worked only on a single job. The most common type of employment was wage employment (55 percent), followed by self-employment (37 percent), and family work (9 percent). More than a half (59 percent) of respondents reported being completely satisfied with their work situation. At the same time, almost a quarter (24 percent) of workers reported being unable to meet either basic household or personal expenses. Among those who were not completely satisfied with their work situation, the top three reasons for dissatisfaction were 74.3% 72.7% 73.7% 74.1% 64.8% 66.7% 75.7% 71.7% 68.4% 66.2% 61.6% 56.3% 76.9% 73.1% 71.0% 69.8% 65% 60.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Location is convenient for youth Hours are convenient for youth Staff treat youth with respect Youth feel they can trust the staff providing the service Comfortable surroundings for youth Cost of services is affordable for youth Youth Center University TVET 38 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV not enough work (55 percent), not enough pay (26 percent), and inconvenient working hours (18 percent). Exhibit 23 provides further information on days worked per week and hours worked per day, by type of employment. On average, wage workers were employed full time (5 days a week and 8 hours a day). Those in self-employment or family work worked slightly fewer days a week (4.6 days a week for both types) and slightly less hours per day (6.5 and 6.8 hours respectively). This did not differ for youth from youth centers, universities, or TVET centers. Exhibit 22. Labor market outcomes ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Worked in the previous month to earn money 32.9 (988) 39.9 (599) 19.9 (178) 35.2 (211) Number of jobs worked in the previous month 1.1 ± 0.2 [1.0–3.0] 1.1 1.0 1.0 Type of primary economic activity Wage employment 55 (538) 57 (342) 40 (72) 59 (124) Self-employment 36.9 (365) 35.7 (214) 39.9 (71) 37.9 (80) Family work 8.6 (85) 7.2 (43) 19.7 (19.7) 3.3 (7) Completely satisfied with current work situation 41.1 (179) 39.9 (239) 59.6 (106) 28.9 (61) Unable to meet either basic household or personal expenses 24.2 (239) 22.9 (137) 29.8 (53) 23.2 (49) Reasons for dissatisfaction^ Not enough pay 52.7 (307) 53.9 (194) 33.3 (89) 59.3 (89) Not enough work 56.0 (326) 59.7 (215) 25.0 (18) 62.0 (93) Dangerous job 17.9 (93) 20.0 (72) 16.7 (12) 13.3 (20) Job too far 4.1 (24) 3.3 (12) 12.5 (9) 2.0 (3) Inconvenient hours 10.3 (60) 9.7 (35) 19.4 (14) 7.3 (11) Reasons for not working in the previous month ^^ In school 87.4 (1,757) 82.9 (749) 95.7 (687) 82.5 (321) Can’t find work 9.1 (182) 12.9 (117) 1.5 (11) 13.9 (54) Other 3.5 (71) 4.2 (38) 2.6 (19) 3.6 (14) Looked for work in the last four weeks 16.1 (324) 18.9 (171) 7.1 (7.1) 26.2 (102) Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. ^ Among the 582 reporting that they are not completely satisfied with work situation. ^^ Among the 2,011 reporting they did not work in the previous month to earn money. 39 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 23. Days worked a week and hours worked in a day among those who worked in the previous month (n=988) Another important outcome measure for Kefeta is youth earnings. We examined the earnings of employed youth as measured by their income in the last month (Exhibit 24). Average income earned in the last month varied somewhat between types of employment. Mean income in the last month was the highest among the self-employed (ETB 5,310, $99), followed by those in family work (ETB 3,790, $70) and those in wage-employment (ETB 2,108, $39). However, these mean values are driven by a few youth who reported very high income in the past month. When looking at median income in the past month—a more useful indicator when the mean is distorted by outliers—earnings are lower: ETB 3,000 ($56) for the self-employed, ETB 1,500 ($28) for those in family work, and ETB 1,500 ($28) for those in wage employment. These earnings at baseline are quite low. Using data from the 2019 Ethiopia Living Standards Measurements Survey, we computed that the mean income for a nationally representative sample of youth aged 15–29 (the same definition of youth as in this survey) in the last month was ETB 4,787 ($89). 4.8 4.7 4.3 0 1 2 3 4 Wage employment Self employment Family work Days worked a week 7.4 6.8 6 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 Wage employment Self employment Family work Hours worked a day 40 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 24. Income last month (in ETB) by type of employment Focusing on youth who did not report working in the previous month, the majority noted being in school (87 percent) as a reason they did not work (Exhibit 26). This is expected because respondents consist of mostly school-aged youth in youth centers, universities, and TVET centers, so these youth are not necessarily looking for employment. Nine (9) percent reported as a reason for unemployment that they simply could not find work, while 16 percent stated that they looked for some form of job to earn money in the last 4 weeks. EQUIVALENCE ON KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES To estimate the impact of Kefeta, our evaluation uses a design where we will compare the changes in outcomes of youth who are exposed to Kefeta in intervention areas with the changes in outcomes of a comparison group of youth in similar non-intervention areas. This design has greater credibility if the comparison group’s characteristics and outcomes are as similar as possible to the intervention group at baseline. We worked closely with USAID and Kefeta staff at the onset of the evaluation to identify the four intervention and four comparison cities so we can draw a comparable sample of youth at baseline that will allow us to rigorously estimate the Activity’s impacts in follow-up rounds. In this section, we assess the degree to which we were able to achieve similarity between intervention and comparison groups at baseline. We focus on assessing equivalence on a limited but representative set of baseline characteristics and outcomes to avoid the problem of “multiple comparisons.” This occurs when conducting a large number of statistical comparisons; at least a few indicators are likely to be statistically significant by chance, even if no true difference exists between groups (Schochet 2009). 19 16 1 2 0 100 200 300 400 00 Frequency 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Income last month (in birr) 290 44 18 1 3 2 1 1 Frequency Income last month (in birr) 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 0 100 200 300 81 3 1 0 20 40 60 80 Frequency 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Income last month (in birr) 41 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV At baseline, intervention and comparison youth in our sample were similar in a range of characteristics and outcomes. Exhibit 25 shows means by study group, the estimated difference between groups, and p￾values for these comparisons. We detected no statistically significant differences across all baseline measures of youth engagement and access to services. Although the intervention group reported 23 percent more household expenditure than the comparison group and were 7 percentage points less likely to work in the previous month, many demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of both the intervention and comparison groups were similar, including asset ownership. In terms of youth skills, intervention group youth rated themselves lower on overall financial literacy, although the estimated difference relative to the comparison group is small (0.3 on a Likert scale from 1 to 6). It will be important to adjust for these baseline differences in the impact analysis, but the few observed differences between groups among a range of indicators suggest that we were overall successful in achieving baseline equivalence for our study sample and comparing outcome differences in follow-up periods is likely to yield credible impact estimates of Kefeta. Exhibit 25. Baseline equivalence in sample characteristics and outcomes INTERVENTION GROUP MEAN COMPARISON GROUP MEAN DIFFERENCE P-VALUE Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics Head of household 42.9 44.0 -1.1 0.66 Female 46.2 42.3 4.0 0.19 Age (in years) 20 20 0.3 0.25 Married 3.1 2.9 0.2 0.84 Presently enrolled in school 88.2 91.1 -2.9 0.37 Household size (number) 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.69 Household expenditure (in ETB)a 5013 4077 937 0.01*** Asset index b 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.28 Youth skills Score on self-assessment of overall financial literacy (1=low, 6=high) 3.6 3.9 -0.3 0.02** Score on self-assessment of SRH knowledge (1=low, 6=high) 4.3 4.4 -0.1 0.65 Score on assessment measuring knowledge of SRH and FP (out of 5) 3.1 3.2 -0.1 0.18 Youth engagement Registered to vote in local elections 19.4 23.9 -4.5 0.40 Registered to vote in parliamentary elections 34.4 31.4 3.1 0.57 Access to services Has a bank account 85.2 84.1 1.1 0.72 Visited a financial service provider in the past year 79.9 82.1 -2.2 0.64 Participates in a youth hub 49.6 51.9 -2.3 0.57 Ever visited an SRH provider 9.8 8.3 1.5 0.59 Labor market outcomes Worked in the previous month to earn money 29.4 36.5 -7.0 0.03** Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey 42 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. The mean for the intervention group has been regression adjusted for location fixed effects. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. */**/***Treatment–control difference is statistically significant at the 10/5/1 percent level of significance using a two￾tailed test. a This is equivalent to the following in USD: Intervention group mean=$93, Comparison group mean=$75; Difference $17. b The asset index is a summary measure of relative wealth. It is computed based on the number and kinds of assets respondents said they own, ranging from a mobile phone to a television, car, or computer. LIMITATIONS The data for this baseline analysis were drawn from a sample of youth surveyed between August and November 2022. This period corresponds roughly to 5 months after Kefeta officially launched in March 2022, and initial field-level activities had begun. Initial activities consisted of building partnerships, planning training modules, and other preparations that did not involve direct interaction with participants. However, we would still have ideally surveyed youth before the start of the Activity to ensure that findings represent the true baseline situation. This was not possible for two reasons. First, the study team was engaged for the evaluation in February 2022. Before conducting the baseline survey, we needed a few months to design the evaluation, build consensus among stakeholders, hire a local data collection firm, and develop the survey questionnaire. Second, data collection was further delayed due to an unanticipated late start of the academic year at some of the universities selected for the baseline. We could not start data collection without students present in schools. The delay in the baseline survey until after the start of the Activity could affect the interpretation of findings from the baseline data because available baseline Kefeta might have already affected indicators related to youth’s skills, engagement, and labor market outcomes. The delay may also reduce our ability to detect impacts in follow-up periods. For example, we might find that the change in outcomes of the intervention group relative to the comparison group between baseline and midterm is small and conclude that Kefeta had limited impacts when the small change is due to the baseline already capturing some of the Activity’s impacts. It is unlikely, however, that the delay in the baseline survey is a major concern for findings in this report and the impact evaluation. In the previous section, we demonstrated that there were minimal differences between intervention and comparison groups in baseline outcomes. Because youth from the comparison group are from cities not receiving any Kefeta programs, the similarity of the intervention group’s outcomes suggests that field activities have not yet had an impact on outcomes of interest. At the same time, we find little exposure to Kefeta at baseline, as indicated by data on Kefeta training participation or exposure to Kefeta SRH materials.13 Of the full sample of 2,999 youth, less than 5 percent have participated in Kefeta training of any kind in the past 6 months, while almost all (99 percent) report not having seen a Kefeta poster or brochure in health facilities (Exhibit 26). Disaggregating the training data further by study group, location, and site (Exhibit 27), we find that exposure to Kefeta training so far has been confined to the intervention group youth, as expected, with only 9 percent of youth saying they had participated. However, the data suggest that implementation progress has been uneven across cities and sites—more training has occurred in youth centers than in universities or TVET centers. In Harar, 13 Two of Kefeta’s core components include training on various topics such as life skills, vocational, financial education, SRH, or business development, and the provision of youth-friendly SRH services. The baseline survey tried to capture the progress of implementing these two components by asking respondents whether they participated in any Kefeta training or were exposed to any Kefeta posters or brochures on SRH. We did not collect exposure measures on other Kefeta activities because we did not want the survey questionnaire to be too long and we had the understanding that we will be able to access exposure data from the Activity’s intake forms later. 43 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 26 percent of the youth center respondents report having received Kefeta training, followed by 23 percent in Bahir Dar, and 11 percent in Jimma. Overall, the low Kefeta exposure rates and baseline equivalence of outcomes between intervention and comparison groups suggest that the findings in this report still mostly capture the true baseline situation. Exhibit 26. Exposure to the Kefeta Activity ALL (N=2,999) YOUTH CENTER (N=1,503) UNIVERSITY (N=896) TVET (N=600) PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] PERCENTAGE (FREQ.) MEAN ± SD [MIN–MAX] Participated in Kefeta training in the past 6 months 4.8 (144) 8.4 (126) 0.7 (6) 2.0 (12) Type of Kefeta training received: Life or soft skills training 3.4 (102) 6.3 (94) 0.1 (1) 1.2 (7) Vocational training 0.2 (6) 0.4 (6) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) Financial education training 0.7 (21) 1.4 (21) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) SRH or family planning training 1.1 (34) 1.7 (26) 0.6 (5) 0.5 (3) Business development training 1.4 (43) 2.6 (39) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (4) Other 0.2 (6) 0.3 (5) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Exposed to Kefeta posters or brochures on family planning: Posters only 0.4 (12) 0.5 (7) 0.2 (2) 0.5 (3) Brochures only 0.1 (3) 0.1 (2) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (1) Both 0.6 (19 ) 0.8 (12) 0.8 (7) 0.0 (0) None 98.9 (2,946) 98.6 (1,471) 99.0 (883) 99.3 (592) Source: Kefeta baseline youth survey Note: The sample size is 2,999. The survey included 1,503 youth selected from youth hubs, 896 youth from universities, and 600 youth from TVET centers. Actual sample sizes may vary per outcome because of item nonresponse. 44 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 27. Exposure to the Kefeta Activity by study group, location, and site subgroup These findings are not generalizable to the entire Ethiopian youth population. Although the team took every effort to make the sample as representative as possible, including the careful consideration of intervention and comparison cities for inclusion, we caution against treating the results of this baseline survey as a reflection on population-level macro-trends. Findings are also based on self-reports of sampled youth, which are not immune to bias. Finally, we note that the Kefeta Activity was not randomly assigned to intervention and comparison groups in this study. Although we found limited differences between the two study groups at baseline, it is still possible that youth in these two groups differ in unobserved ways that the data do not capture. This may occur, for example, if comparison cities may be much less of commercial hubs than the intervention counterparts. This may bias the impact estimates at follow-up, but we will adjust the impact estimates for any baseline differences observed. Although this baseline data collection exercise operated with budgetary and timeline-related constraints, we took every effort to ensure that all aspects of the process were conducted at the highest possible levels of quality and rigor. However, readers should be aware of some limitations resulting from skip patterns, generalizability, translation of non-English language responses, and reported rates of university student asset ownership. 0 1 0 0 0 8 4 3 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 26 11 23 0 10 20 30 40 0 Arba Minch Chiro Asela Debre Markos Hawassa Harar imma ahir Dar Youth Center University T ET 45 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV CONCLUSION SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The survey data give us important contextual information for the evaluation. Survey responses indicate that the most common respondent is an unmarried male between the ages of 15 and 29 who completed at least up to secondary education. Nearly all of these youth, drawn from youth centers, universities, and TVET centers, were presently enrolled in school and have lived in their current location for about a year, except for university students, who have lived in their current location for a month. The monthly household expenditure of these youth averaged ETB 4,545 ($84). The survey data also illustrate the potential of Kefeta to affect intended outcomes. For example, only about 8 percent of youth respondents indicated having started a business, while 60 percent expressed a desire to start a business more than 12 months in the future. Employed youth reported relatively low earnings: median earnings were ETB 3,000 ($56) for the self-employed, ETB 1,500 ($28) for those in family work, and ETB 1,500 ($28) for those in wage employment. Respondents offered general positive perceptions of the youth-friendliness of youth hubs, FP services, and financial institutions, but this did not always translate into actual use of these services. With respect to FP services, knowledge of FP methods and where to obtain them was quite high; however, this again did not translate into use. These baseline results demonstrate much room for Kefeta to have an impact among the population. At the same time, we note very low levels of exposure to Kefeta Activity programs to date, as measured by training participation or exposure to SRH posters and brochures. Increasing youth’s engagement with Kefeta Activity programs and adoption of program content will be key to seeing improvements in knowledge, skills, youth engagement, and ultimately, labor market outcomes. The data also show that the intervention and comparison groups were similar in a range of characteristics and outcomes at baseline. Specifically, we found no statistical differences in sex, age, marital status, school enrollment, household head identity, household size, and asset ownership. We found both groups to be equivalent in a representative set of outcome measures in the youth engagement and access to services domains. Both groups also appeared equivalent on a self-assessment and objective indicator that measures SRH knowledge. These results increase our confidence that there are not many underlying differences between the two study groups. In contrast, there were statistically significant differences in household expenditure, employment, and self-assessed financial literacy between intervention and comparison groups. In particular, the intervention group had significantly higher household expenditure, were less likely to work, and had a slightly better assessment of their financial literacy than the comparison group. However, because such observed differences among a range of indicators were few, they suggest that comparing outcome differences in follow-up periods is still likely to yield credible estimates of Kefeta’s impact. Our analysis will adjust for any detected baseline differences to estimate the Activity’s impact at follow-up.14 PLANS FOR FUTURE DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING We plan to conduct midterm data collection in 2024. The midterm will consist of both qualitative and quantitative components. The qualitative component will include key informant interviews with a range of stakeholders and focus group discussions with youth in the project intervention areas and youth in 14 There are several ways to adjust impact estimates for baseline differences at follow-up. One way would be to include variables with preexisting differences as explanatory variables when estimating the impact of Kefeta. This would factor out outcome differences that are not due to Kefeta between the intervention and comparison groups from the impact estimates. 46 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV comparison areas. The qualitative study will enable us to gather a nuanced understanding of the programmatic context (including specific partnerships and intervention components), explore participants’ experiences with and perceptions of the Activity, and identify facilitators and barriers to achieving the outcomes envisaged in the program logic. For the quantitative component, we plan to reinterview the respondents from this baseline survey to measure and compare any changes in outcomes between the intervention and comparison groups. This will produce the impact estimates of Kefeta, capturing the effects of about 22 months of Kefeta’s implementation. To facilitate locating respondents at follow-up, we collected contact information for respondents at baseline, including their social media usernames and contact information for two other people who may know how to locate them. Exhibit 28 demonstrates that we were mostly successful at gathering mobile phone numbers. Working closely with our partners at MERQ Consultancy, we will use this information to facilitate data collection at the midterm. Exhibit 28. Percent of respondents who provided data on different types of contact and social media information TYPE OF CONTACT INFORMATION PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS PROVIDING THE INFORMATION Respondent’s mobile phone number 98% Respondent’s email 27% Respondent’s Facebook name 60% Respondent’s Telegram name 72% Contact 1’s mobile phone number 97% Contact 1’s email 0.5% Contact 2’s mobile phone number 74% Contact 2’s email 0.4% We will use the results of our midterm analysis to produce a Kefeta evaluation report, which we plan to submit to USAID in the second quarter of 2024. The report will draw on both quantitative and qualitative data to answer the key research questions related to the Kefeta Activity. 47 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV REFERENCES Alene M., L. Yismaw, Y. erelie, . Kassie, R. Yeshambel, and M.A. Assemie. 2020. “Prevalence and determinants of unintended pregnancy in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.” PLoS One. Apr 7;1 (4):e0231012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231012. PMID: 32255774; PMCID: PMC7138300. Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and World ank. 2020. “Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS).” Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Washington D.C., USA: CSA and World Bank. Central Statistical Agency (CSA) [Ethiopia] and ICF. 2016. “Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016.” Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: CSA and ICF. Ethiopian Public Health Institute (EPHI) [Ethiopia] and ICF. 2021. “Ethiopia Mini Demographic and Health Survey 2019: Final Report.” Rockville, Maryland, USA: EPHI and ICF. Gibson M.A. and E. Gurmu. 2012. “Rural to Urban Migration Is an Unforeseen Impact of Development Intervention in Ethiopia.” PLoS O E 7(11): e48708. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048708. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Population Services International (PSI). 2020. “Rural Development Strategy Review of Ethiopia: Reaping the enefits of Urbanisation.” Paris, France: OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a325a658-en. Schochet, Peter Z. 2009. “An Approach for Addressing the Multiple Testing Problem in Social Policy Impact Evaluations.” olume 33, Issue 6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0193841X09350590. 48 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEXES ANNEX 1. LIST OF ALL KEFETA ACTIVITY INTERVENTION SITES NUMBER REGION CITY 1 Addis Ababa Addis Ababa 2 Dire Dawa Dire Dawa 3 Harari Harar 4 Oromia Adadama 5 Oromia Bishoftu 6 Oromia Shashemene 7 Oromia Jimma 8 Amhara Bahir Dar 9 Amhara Dessie 10 Amhara Kombolcha 11 Amhara Debre Berehan 12 SNNP Hawassa 13 SNNP Dila 14 Tigray Mekele 15 Somali Jijiga 16 Afar Semera/Logia 17 Gambella Gambella 18 Benishangul-gumuz Assosa 49 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX 2. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Questions included in the survey instrument were derived from a variety of vetted sources, including materials developed for USAID and other international donors. Questions and response categories were adapted for an Ethiopian context and tailored for the Activity specifications to the highest degree possible. General sources for individual sections of this instrument are included in the table below. SECTION SOURCING Demographics and background information 2016 Ethiopia DHS Previously vetted Mathematica survey instruments Household assets 2016 Ethiopia DHS Financial literacy World Bank Financial Literacy Assessment Tool (Bosnia) Financial services 2016 Ethiopia DHS Employment and earnings Measuring Employment and Earnings Using the Workforce Outcomes Reporting Questionnaire (WORQ): a Toolkit, [including Impact section] Sexual and reproductive health “Asking Young People about Sexual and Reproductive ehaviors,” Topics for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions: partner selection, sexual behavior and risk taking, by John Cleland, Roger Ingham, Nicole Stone (World Health Organization 2001) 2016 Ethiopia DHS Soft skills Chinese Positive Youth Development Scale: A Validation Study, by Daniel Shek, Andrew MH Siu, Ty Lee (2007) Measuring Soft Skills and Life Skills in International Youth Development Programs: A Review and Inventory of Tools (2017) Positive Youth Development Measurement Toolkit: A Practical Guide for Implementers of Youth Programs, USAID Business development knowledge and skills “Microenterprise Training and Technical Assistance; The Microenterprise Fund for Innovation, Effectiveness, Learning and Dissemination,” Aspen Institute Civic engagement Mathematica question bank developed for previous YP2LE project, including items from Citizens’ Attitudes, Survey of Conflict, and Afro Barometer Migration Mexican National Survey of Occupation and Employment Survey of Migration at the Northern Border “Survey Instruments and survey data on migration aspirations,” QuantMig Disability status Washington Group Short Survey ECDD 50 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX 3. KEFETA YOUTH SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE BASELINE Administered by MERQ Informed Consent Hello, my name is _____________ and I am a youth researcher working with YouthPower2: Learning and Evaluation (YP2LE), a group of research organizations from the United States and MERQ, a data collection firm based in Addis Ababa. I am visiting you today because we are conducting a study of Kefeta, a program funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) that seeks to empower youth to advance their economic, civic, and social development. Specifically, we are interested in understanding the needs of Ethiopian youth and the potential effects of training programs and youth-friendly services that Kefeta aims to implement, which may be useful to you. This study is endorsed by the Government of Ethiopia’s Ministry of Labor and Skills Development; Ministry of Women, Children, and Youth; Ministry of Science and Higher Education; Ministry of Health; and the Jobs Creation Commission. We are currently conducting surveys of approximately 3,000 youth across four regions of the country who are in youth hubs, universities and technical vocational education and training (TVET) centers. We invite you to participate in the study. Procedures: If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete a short survey. The survey will cover information about your background characteristics, skills, employment, and knowledge of and access to financial and health services. We estimate that it will take approximately 60 minutes to complete the survey. I (or another member of the research team) will return to administer a follow-up survey in mid-2024 so that we can measure change over time. To be able to reach you again at that time, we will ask for you and your friends’ or relatives’ contact information. There are no right or wrong answers to the survey questions. You may skip any questions you do not want to answer, but we hope you will answer them all, because the information you provide is important. Risks and Benefits: This research will help us better understand the needs of the youth to improve future interventions directed toward youth in Ethiopia and other countries. There are no risks to participating in the survey, and there are no direct benefits, though your participation may benefit youth like yourself who participate in future programs. Confidentiality: 51 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV All of your responses will be kept private. In reporting the results from the survey, your name will not be associated with any of your answers. Only research staff at YP2LE and MERQ will have access to any data that could potentially identify you. We will not share your contact information and survey responses. We will only use your responses to illustrate the situation of youth in Ethiopia generally and, later, in about a year’s time, to contact you for follow-up data collection. Your contact information will be separated from the survey responses to ensure anonymity. Voluntary Participation: Participation in this study is entirely voluntary and declining will not affect your opportunity to participate in any Kefeta program activities nor your status with local organizations involved in the study. You may choose to end your participation at any point of the study for any reason. By voluntarily agreeing to participate in this study, you are agreeing to answer these questions with responses that are true for you. • Do you understand the purpose of our conversation today? • Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin? Response: If I have answered all your questions, do you agree to participate in this study? (Surveyor should indicate person’s response) Yes____ No____ Contact (Further Questions): If you have questions or concerns, you may contact our Field Manager, XX at XXXXXXXXX. 52 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV BASELINE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Location:__________________________________ Interviewer Name: ___________________________ Time Started:________ Time Ended: __________ Sample: [youth from youth hub, university, or TVET] Date (dd/mm/yyyy): _____/______/ __________ Youth ID: _______________________ (assigned during encoding) SECTION 1: DEMOGRAPHIC AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION B1. What is your first name? 2. What is your last name (i.e., father’s name)? B3. What is the region of your current physical address? B4. What is the city of your current physical address? B5. What is the sub-city of your current physical address? B6. What is the woreda/kebele of your current physical address? B7. How many months have you been living in [name of current city/town/village], since you most recently arrived from another location? [If answer is 6 months or less, go to B8; otherwise, go to B10] B8. Just before moving here (if relevant), did you live in an urban or a rural area? [Ask only if moved here less than 6 months ago.] 1. Urban 2. Rural 3. Did not move recently (within the last 6 months) 4. Prefer not to answer B9. Was the primary reason for your move due to unrest or conflict in your home region? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer B10. What is your age in years (Record age in completed years)? B11. What is your date of birth? (DD/MM/YYYY) [record 3 aspects of birthday separately, using the Ethiopian calendar] 53 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV B12. What is your sex 1. Female 2. Male 3. Prefer not to answer B13. What is your current marital status? 1. Never married 2. Married 3. Consensual union 4. Divorced 5. Widowed 6. Separated 7. Prefer not to answer B14. What is your language most commonly spoken at home? 1. Afaan Oromoo 2. Amharic 3. Sidam 4. Somali 5. Tigrigna 6. Gamo 7. English 8. Other (Specify): 9. Prefer not to answer B15. Are you presently enrolled in school? 1. Yes (if yes, answer question B12) 2. No (if no, answer question B13) 3. Prefer not to answer B16. If enrolled in school, what level are you attending? 1. Grade 1 54 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 2. Grade 2 3. Grade 3 4. Grade 4 5. Grade 5 6. Grade 6 7. Grade 7 8. Grade 8 9. Grade 9 10. Grade 10 11. Grade 11 12. Grade 12 13. Technical/vocational (1st year) 14. Technical/vocational (2nd year) 15. Technical/vocational (3rd year) 16. Technical /vocational (4th year) 17. Higher/university (1st year) 18. Higher/university (2nd year) 19. Higher/university (3rd year) 20. Higher/university (4th year) 21. Master’s 1st year/5th Year Engineering/Law/Medical school 22. Master’s 2nd year/6th Year Engineering/Law/Medical school 23. Master’s 3rd year/7th Year Engineering/Law /Medical school 24. PhD 25. Prefer not to answer B17. If not currently enrolled in school, what is the highest level you have completed? 1. Grade 1 2. Grade 2 3. Grade 3 55 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 4. Grade 4 5. Grade 5 6. Grade 6 7. Grade 7 8. Grade 8 9. Grade 9 10. Grade 10 11. Grade 11 12. Grade 12 13. Technical/vocational (1st year) 14. Technical/vocational (2nd year) 15. Technical/vocational (3rd year) 16. Technical /vocational (4th year) 17. Higher/university (1st year) 18. Higher/university (2nd year) 19. Higher/university (3rd year) 20. Higher/university (4th year) 21. Master’s 1st year/5th Year Engineering/Law/Medical school 22. Master’s 2nd year/6th Year Engineering/Law/Medical school 23. Master’s 3rd year/7th Year Engineering/Law /Medical school 24. PhD 25. Never attended schooling 26. Prefer not to answer B18. Do you presently participate in activities at a youth center or youth hub? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer B19. Are you presently enrolled in any training or TVET (technical vocational education and training, such as mechanics’ training, metal working, cooking, carpentry, or sewing) programs? 56 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer B20. Are you the head of your household? (Enumerator note: a household is generally defined as a group of related or unrelated persons who live together in the same dwelling unit and have common arrangements for cooking and eating their food. However, if the youth respondent is living in an urban area apart from parents/family, the respondent should be categorized as the head of a household, with one member). 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer B21. Including yourself, how many people in total live in your household? (Enumerator note: This is 1 if the respondent is the only member of the household) B22. Over the last 12 months, how much, on average, does your household spend per month? (Enumerator note: for students living away from their families, including in dormitories, their education-oriented living situation should be categorized as their household. Generally, this will refer to a household of 1. These expense categories should include food & drinks, transportation, infrequent services and durable goods, clothes, and energy, among others.] B23. Does your household have any of the following? [check all that apply] [for students living away from their families, including in dormitories, their education-oriented living situation should be categorized as their household. Generally, this will refer to a household of 1.] 1. Television 2. Table 3. Chair 4. Refrigerator 5. Stove 6. Oven 7. Bed with mattress 8. Radio 9. Computer 10. Electric mitad 11. Clothing iron 12. Washing machine 57 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 13. Electricity 14. Non-mobile phone 15. Mobile phone 16. Bicycle 17. Motorcycle or moped/scooter 18. Animal-drawn cart 19. Car or truck 20. Boat with motor 21. Tricycle (Bajaj) 22. Prefer not to answer B24. Mobile Phone Usage: Do you own a functional mobile phone? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer B25. If you do own a mobile phone, is it a data-enabled phone? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer B26. If you do own a data-enabled phone, how frequently do you use internet using your phone? 1. More than 4 hours per day, on average 2. Between 3 and 4 hours per day, on average 3. Between 2 and 3 hours per day, on average 4. Between 1 and 2 hours per day, on average 5. Less than 1 hour per day, on average 6. Almost never 7. Prefer not to answer B27. What is the main source of drinking water for members of your household? 1. Piped water 58 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 2. Tube well 3. Dug well 4. Water from spring 5. Rainwater 6. Tanker truck 7. Small tanker (“jerrycan”) 8. Big tanker 9. Surface water 10. Bottled water 11. Other (specify): 12. Prefer not to answer B28: What kind of toilet facility do members of your household usually use? 1. Flush 2. Pit latrine 3. Composting 4. Bucket toilet 5. Overhung latrine 6. No facility/bush/field 7. Body of water (lake, river, etc.) 8. Other (Specify): 9. Prefer not to answer B29: What is the main type of fuel or energy source that your household usually uses for cooking? 1. Alcohol/ethanol 2. Gasoline/diesel 3. Kerosene/paraffin 4. Coal/lignite 5. Charcoal 6. Wood 59 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 7. Straw/shrubs/grass 8. Agricultural crop 9. Animal dung 10. Processed biomass (pellets) or woodchips 11. Garbage/plastic 12. Sawdust 13. Electricity (grid) 14. Electricity (solar) 15. LPG 16. Biogas 17. No food cooked in household 18. Prefer not to answer B30. What is the main material of the floor of your dwelling? 1. Earth/sand 2. Dung 3. Wood planks 4. Palm/bamboo 5. Parquet or polished wood 6. Vinyl or asphalt strips/plastic tile 7. Ceramic tiles 8. Cement 9. Carpet 10. Other (Specify): 11. Prefer not to answer B31. What is the main material of the exterior wall of your dwelling? 1. No walls 2. Cane/palm/trunks 3. Dirt 60 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 4. Bamboo with mud 5. Stone with mud 6. Uncovered adobe 7. Plywood 8. Cardboard 9. Reused wood 10. Cement 11. Stone with lime/cement 12. Bricks 13. Cement blocks 14. Covered adobe 15. Wood planks 16. Other (Specify): 17. Prefer not to answer B32. What is the main material of the roof of your dwelling? 1. No roof 2. Thatch/mud 3. Sod 4. Rustic mat/plastic sheet 5. Reed/bamboo 6. Wood planks 7. Cardboard 8. Metal/corrugated iron 9. Wood 10. Calamine/cement fiber/asbestos 11. Ceramic tiles 12. Cement 13. Roofing shingles 61 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 14. Other (Specify): 15. Prefer not to answer Note: The next questions ask about difficulties you may have doing certain activities because of a HEALTH ISSUE 33. Do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing eyeglasses? Would you say …? 1. No difficulty 2. Some difficulty 3. A lot of difficulty 4. Cannot do at all 5. Prefer not to answer 6. Don’t know 34. Do you have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing aid(s)? Would you say … ? 1. No difficulty 2. Some difficulty 3. A lot of difficulty 4. Cannot do at all 5. Prefer not to answer 6. Don’t know 3 . Do you have difficulty walking or climbing steps? Would you say … ? 1. No difficulty 2. Some difficulty 3. A lot of difficulty 4. Cannot do at all 5. Prefer not to answer 6. Don’t know B36. Do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating? Would you say … ? 1. No difficulty 2. Some difficulty 3. A lot of difficulty 62 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 4. Cannot do at all 5. Prefer not to answer 6. Don’t know B37. Do you have difficulty with self-care, such as bathing or dressing? Would you say …? 1. No difficulty 2. Some difficulty 3. A lot of difficulty 4. Cannot do at all 5. Prefer not to answer 6. Don’t know B38. Do you have difficulty communicating, for example understanding or being understood? Would you say …? 1. No difficulty 2. Some difficulty 3. A lot of difficulty 4. Cannot do at all 5. Prefer not to answer 6. Don’t know SECTION 2: TRAINING, KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, ACCESS TO YOUTH-FRIENDLY SERVICES, AND EMPLOYMENT Trainings T1. Have you participated in any of the following types of trainings in the past six months? [for each type of training, record the number of “separate courses” in which the respondent participated] [If answer to T1 is 7 or 8, skip to FL1] 1. Life or soft skills training 2. Vocational training 3. Financial education training 4. Sexual and reproductive family health / family planning training 5. Business or business development training 6. Other (Specify): 63 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 7. None 8. Prefer not to answer T2. Who provided this training (refer to most recent training if taken more than once)? [Ask this question for each training, based on the number of times the respondent reports participating in the particular training] 1. Government 2. School 3. NGO (Kefeta) 4. NGO (Other) 5. Other (Specify): 6. Prefer not to answer T3. What was the total duration of training you received (in days)? [repeat question for each type of training referenced in T1] Financial Literacy FL1. How would you assess your level of financial literacy? [six-point Likert, 6 = high, 1 = low] a. 1 (low) b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 (high) FL2. How would you asses your personal money management skills? [six-point Likert, 6 = high, 1 = low] a. 1 (low) b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 (high) FL3. How would you asses your personal savings habits? [six-point Likert, 6 = excellent, 1 = low] a. 1 (low) 64 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 (excellent) F4. Do you keep written records of the money you spend? 1. Yes, always 2. Yes, sometimes 3. No, never 4. Prefer not to answer F5. Do you keep written records of the money you receive (including gifts)? 1. Yes, always 2. Yes, sometimes 3. No, never 4. Prefer not to answer Now I will ask you a few questions about how you calculate your spending/income (finances). FL6. If you have Birr 500 saved and are earning/getting Birr 1000 a month by doing a job. If you want to start your own small business which requires 2000 Birr capital. If you want to start this small business in six-month time, how much do you need to save every month in order to reach your goal (?) ______ irr (If the respondent says “I don’t know” input “9999”) FL7. How did you prioritize your buying/spending needs? 1. By prioritizing my needs first 2. By prioritizing my wants 3. By prioritizing both my needs & wants 4. By spending all my money? Financial Services FS1. Have you visited a bank, a microfinance institution, or a savings and credit cooperative (SACCO) in the past year? 1. Yes 2. No 65 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 3. Prefer not to answer FS2. If yes, please indicate which of the following statements you agree with: [check all that apply] 1. Location is convenient for youth 2. Hours are convenient for youth 3. Comfortable surroundings for youth 4. Cost of services is affordable for youth 5. Staff treat youth with respect 6. Youth feel they can trust the staff providing the service 7. Prefer not to answer FS3. Do you have a bank account? [If answer is No, skip to FS6] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer FS4.How long have you been saving money in a bank account [in years]? FS5. How much savings do you have in total in your bank account? 1. Less than 1001 birr 2. 1001 to 10,001 birr 3. 10,001 to 50,001 birr 4. 50,001 to 100,000 birr 5. More than 100,000 birr FS6. Other than a bank account, which financial service provider do you know to save your money? 1. Micro finance institution 2. Saving & credit association 3. Other (Specify) 4. Prefer not to answer FS7. Do you own livestock (cows, goats, etc.)? [If answer is No, skip to FS8] 1. Yes 2. No 66 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 3. Prefer not to answer FS8. If you do own livestock, what is the approximate value of your herd(s) FS9. In general, how satisfied are you with your current total amount of savings? (1 = not very satisfied at all, 6 = Very satisfied) a. 1 (not very satisfied at all) b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 (Very satisfied) g. Prefer not to answer FS10. Do you use your mobile phone for any financial transactions (including deposits, withdrawals, and transfers)? [Include this question only as relevant for respondents who own mobile telephones according to question B24]. 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer FS11. Have you or anyone in your household borrowed money from a lender, a bank, a microfinance organization, another family member, or a friend in the last year? [If answer is anything other than ‘yes’, skip to E1] 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer FS12. What did you, or your household member(s), borrow money for? [check all that apply] 1. Food 2. Rent 3. Education 4. Medical expenses 5. Transportation 6. Communication 67 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 7. Entertainment 8. Loan payment 9. Utilities (including water bills, electricity bills, etc.) 10. Household business expenses 11. Loans for construction or the purchase of home/land 12. Others (specify): 13. Prefer not to answer FS13: From where did you or your household member(s) borrow money? [check all that apply] 1. Immediate family 2. Extended family 3. Friends 4. Neighbors 5. Bank 6. Microfinance institutions 7. Other private lender 8. Others (Specify): 9. Prefer not to answer FS14: How much of the loan(s) is currently outstanding? Employment and Earnings E1. In the previous month, meaning in [month year] did you do anything to earn money? [If no, skip to E27] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer E2. In the previous month, meaning [insert month year], how many different jobs did you do to earn money? Please count any jobs where you were working for yourself as one job, even if you provided services to multiple people. If you worked for wages for different people, please count each of those jobs separately. E3. Now, think what you did to earn most (the primary economic activity) of your income in [month, year]. Was that activity: 68 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 1. Family work. Helping in a business that is run by someone who is related to you and who lives with you [to earn money] (continue to question E5 if E2>1; otherwise, go to E) 2. Own employment. Running a business that you own independently or you own with someone else, that is, working for yourself [to earn money] (continue to question E5 if E2>1; otherwise, go to E) 3. Wage employment. Working for someone else [to earn money] (continue to question E4) 4. Prefer not to answer E4. Is this work you did for someone else in [month, year] 1. Regular (something you did for a set number of hours every week) 2. Irregular (something you did when work was available/as needed) 3. Prefer not to answer E5. In the previous month, meaning in [insert month year], did you do anything else (the secondary economic activity) to earn money? [If no, skip to next modules for the primary economic activity] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer E6. Was that activity: 1. Family work. Helping in a business that is run by someone who is related to you and who lives with you [to earn money] 2. Own employment. Running a business that you own independently or you own with someone else, that is, working for yourself [to earn money] 3. Wage employment. Working for someone else [to earn money] 4. Prefer not to answer E7. Is this work you did for someone else in [month, year] 1. Regular (something you did for a set number of hours every week) 2. Irregular (something you did when work was available/as needed) 3. Prefer not to answer [The primary economic activity is given by the respondent’s answer to E3. The secondary economic activity is given by the respondent’s answer to E6. We want to ask the following employment and earnings modules for both the primary and secondary economic activities. For example, the respondent may have two separate wage-paying jobs, in which case, the Wage Employment module should be asked twice – first for the wage paying job in which they earn the most, and then for the one in which they earn the next most. If the respondent has wage employment and family work, then the Wage Employment module will be asked first and then the Family Work module] 69 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Wage Employment: Working for someone else [Ask the following for the primary and secondary economic activities mentioned in the previous section if these pertain to wage employment (E3=3 or E6=3] E8. When did you start working at this job? [month, year] E9. Who is your employer at this job? 1. Private company or person 2. Government 3. NGO 4. Faith-based organization 5. Other (specify): 6. Prefer not to answer E10. In a typical week, how many days do you normally work in this job? 1. 1 day 2. 2 days 3. 3 days 4. 4 days 5. 5 days 6. 6 days 7. 7 days 8. Prefer not to answer E11. On a typical day, approximately how many hours per day do you work at this job? E12. What is your typical pay period (how often do you receive wages)? 1. Daily 2. Weekly 3. Once every two weeks 4. Once a month 5. Other (specify) 6. Prefer not to answer 70 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV E13. How much is your normal take home (net) pay, per pay period? E14. How many days did you work at this job in the last week? 1. 1 day 2. 2 days 3. 3 days 4. 4 days 5. 5 days 6. 6 days 7. 7 days 8. Prefer not to answer E15. When you last worked at this job, how many hours did you work that day? E16. How much money did you receive as pay for doing this work in the previous month? Own Employment. Running own business or with someone else [Ask the following for the primary and secondary economic activities mentioned in the previous section if these pertain to own employment (E3=2 or E6=2)] E17. Did you pay someone with money to help you in this work that you do for yourself? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer E18. In a typical week, how many days do you do this work? 1. 1 day 2. 2 days 3. 3 days 4. 4 days 5. 5 days 6. 6 days 7. 7 days 8. Prefer not to answer 71 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV E19. In a typical day, how many hours do you do this work? E20. How much did you earn (net payment) from this work in the last week? E21. How much did you earn (net payment) from this work in the last month? E22. How much money did you spend to pay others or buy supplies to do this work in the previous month, that is, in [month year]? Family work. Employed in family business or household enterprise [Ask the following for the primary and secondary economic activities mentioned in the previous section if these pertain to own employment (E3=1 or E6=1)] E23. In a typical week, how many days do you usually help out with or work on this business? 1. 1 day 2. 2 days 3. 3 days 4. 4 days 5. 5 days 6. 6 days 7. 7 days 8. Prefer not to answer E24. In a typical day, how many hours do you usually help out with or work on this business? E25. How much money, did you receive as pay for doing this work in the previous month, that is, in [month year]? E26. How much money, did you contribute toward the expenses of this family business in the previous month, that is, in [month year]? Didn’t do anything to earn money in the previous month [If no to question E1] E27. What is the main reason you did not do anything to earn money? 1. On leave voluntarily 2. Ill – self or family illness 3. Business closed 4. Not the right season 5. Could not find work 72 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 6. In school or in training 7. Had to take care of home, children, and/or older family members 8. Other (Specify) 9. Prefer not to answer E28. In the last four weeks, have you looked for a job to help you earn money or receive payment in some other form? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer E29. If you were offered a job that fits your expertise, would you be willing to take it? [If no, go to E30; otherwise go to E31] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer E30. If no, why would you turn down the job? 1. Pay is too low 2. Work is too demanding/dirty/dangerous 3. Transportation is too expensive 4. Commute is too long 5. Childcare not possible 6. In school or training 7. Other (Specify): 8. Prefer not to answer E31. Which of the following have you done so far in preparing for a job/career? [Check all that apply] 1. Prepared a CV/resume 2. Applied for a job 3. Developed a business plan 4. Started a business 5. Applied for a loan 73 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 6. Received a loan 7. Visited a job site 8. Met with someone (employer/family/friend, etc.) to learn about their work or available positions 9. Other (Specify): 10. Nothing 11. Prefer not to answer E32. Are you satisfied with your current work situation (for unemployed respondents this refers to their unemployed status)? Would you say you were completely satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied? 1. Yes, completely satisfied 2. Yes, somewhat satisfied 3. No, not satisfied 4. Prefer not to answer E33. What are some of the reasons you are not completely satisfied with your work situation? [Do not read categories; check all that apply] 1. Not enough pay 2. Not enough work 3. Dangerous job 4. The job is too far/commute too far or expensive 5. Hours are inconvenient or too long 6. Other (specify): 7. Prefer not to answer E34. What are your aspirations for employment? 1. Be self-employed and start my own business 2. Be hired by a government organization 3. Be hired by an NGO 4. Be hired by a faith-based organization 5. Be hired by a private company 6. Other (specify) 74 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 7. Prefer not to answer E35. Can you meet your basic personal and household expenses from what you are currently earning? [Do not read categories] 1. Yes, both personal and household 2. Yes, personal only 3. Yes, household only 4. No 5. Not sure 6. Prefer not to answer E36. Can you save a lot, a little, or nothing at all from your current earnings? 1. A lot 2. A little 3. Nothing 4. Not sure 5. Prefer not to answer E37. Who usually makes decisions about making major household purchases? 1. Respondent themselves 2. Spouse/partner 3. Respondent and spouse/partner jointly 4. Parents 5. Other (specify): 6. Prefer not to answer E38. Who usually makes decisions about spending your income? 1. Respondent themselves 2. Spouse/partner 3. Respondent and spouse/partner jointly 4. Parents 5. Other (specify): 6. Prefer not to answer 75 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV Sexual and Reproductive Health and Contraception/Family Planning Knowledge SRH1. How would you assess the level of your knowledge about sexual and reproductive health, contraception and family planning? [six-point Likert, 6 = high, 1 = low] a. 1 (low) b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 (high) g. Refused SRH2. Do you know a method that prevents pregnancy? [If yes, advance to question SRH3. If no, go to SRH5] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer SRH3. Now I have some questions about contraception, that is, the ways in which people can avoid getting pregnant. Which methods do you know about? [Check all that apply] 1. Pill: a woman can swallow a pill every day 2. Injection: a woman can have an injection in her arm every 2 or every 3 months 3. Implant: a woman can have hormonal contraceptives placed in her arm that can last for 3 to 5 years 4. Male condoms: a barrier method placed over a penis before having sex 5. Emergency contraception: a woman can take pills three to five days after having sex 6. Withdrawal: a man can pull out of a woman before ejaculating 7. Natural family planning including periodic abstinence/standard days method or lactational amenorrhea method 8. Female condom 9. Intrauterine device (IUD) 10. Female sterilization 11. Male sterilization 12. Other methods, specify: 76 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 13. Prefer not to answer SRH4. For each contraceptive method that you know about, do you know where young people could obtain this method? [Check all that apply] 1. Pill: women can swallow a pill every day 2. Injection: women can have an injection in her arm every 2 or every 3 months 3. Implant: a woman can have hormonal contraceptives placed in her arm that can last for 3 to 5 years 4. Male condoms: a barrier device that is placed over a penis before sex 5. Emergency contraception: a woman can take pills three to five days after having sex 6. Withdrawal: a man can pull out of a woman before ejaculating 7. Natural family planning including periodic abstinence/standard days method or lactational amenorrhea method 8. Female condom 9. Intrauterine device (IUD) 10. Female sterilization 11. Male sterilization 12. Other methods, specify: SRH5. Now I have some questions on sex, reproduction, and family planning. I will read you some statements. Please tell me whether you personally consider the statement to be correct, incorrect or whether you don't know. [Questions should attempt to identify the respondent’s views on the matter, as opposed to respondent’s understanding of societal judgements.] 1. A woman can get pregnant the very first time that she has sex a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 2. After the birth of a child, a woman can become pregnant before menses/her period has returned a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know 77 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV d. Prefer not to answer 3. You can have a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and be unaware that you have it a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 4. It is a curse from God if someone gets an STI a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 5. Contraceptive methods such as pills, injectables, implants and IUDs have negative effects on the health of adolescent girls a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 6. Women who use family planning / contraception are promiscuous a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 7. Couples who use family planning/contraception are being financially responsible (planning not to have children which they may not be able to support financially) a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 8. It is a woman’s responsibility to use and plan for the use of FP/RH methods 78 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 9. It is acceptable for a woman to use family planning/contraception before she has a child a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 10. A girl who has never had her period/menstruated will not get pregnant, even if she has sex a. Correct b. Incorrect c. I don’t know d. Prefer not to answer SRH6. What was your age [In completed years] the first time you had sex? [If never, code 999 and skip to SRH10; follow-up questions will be relevant if the response to SRH6 is not 999]. SRH7. Which methods of contraception have you or a sexual partner ever used? [check all that apply] 1. Pill 2. Injection 3. Implant 4. Male condoms: a barrier method placed over a penis before having sex 5. Emergency contraception 6. Withdrawal 7. Natural family planning including periodic abstinence/standard days method or lactational amenorrhea method 8. Other methods: IUD, female sterilization, male sterilization, female condom, other (specify): 9. None of these methods and no other methods 10. Prefer not to answer SRH8. Are you or your partner currently doing something or using any method to delay or avoid getting pregnant? 79 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 1. Yes (advance to question SRH10) 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer SRH9. Which method are you currently using? [check all that apply] 1. Emergency contraception 2. Female condoms 3. Female sterilization 4. Implants 5. Injectables 6. IUD 7. Male condoms 8. Male sterilization 9. Natural family planning including periodic abstinence/standard days method or lactational amenorrhea method 10. Pill 11. Withdrawal 12. Other modern method (specify): 13. Other traditional method (specify): 14. Prefer not to answer SRH10: In the last six months, have you: [Check all that apply] 1. Heard about family planning/contraception on the radio? 2. Seen anything about family planning/contraception on the television? 3. Read about family planning/contraception in a newspaper or magazine? 4. Received information about family planning/contraception at a training or from an NGO? 5. Heard about family planning/contraception at a community event / conversation? 6. Received a voice or text message about family planning/contraception on a mobile phone? 7. Seen anything about family planning/contraception on the internet? 8. Seen anything about family planning/contraception on social media (Telegram, TikTok, etc.)? 9. Prefer not to answer 80 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV SRH11. Have you ever visited a health facility or doctor of any kind, including a pharmacy, to receive services or information on contraception, pregnancy, abortion, or sexually transmitted infections (STIs)? [If no, skip to SS1.1 (the next section)] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer SRH12. Thinking about your last visit to a health facility, what type of health facility did you visit to seek health information or services? 1. Government clinic 2. Private clinic 3. Youth clinic 4. Youth corner within an existing clinic 5. Health clinic at a university or school 6. Other (Specify): 7. Prefer not to answer SR13. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the services received at your last visit to a health facility? Six-point Likert (1=low, 6=high) 1. 1 (low) 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 (high) 7. Prefer not to answer SRH14. How many times have you sought these kinds of services from a medical professional in the last 12 months? SRH15. How many times have you sought information regarding these kinds of services from a medical professional in the past 12 months? SRH16. Please indicate which of the following statements you agree with about services provided in this clinic: 1. Location is convenient for youth 81 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 2. Hours are convenient for youth a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 3. Adequate space and sufficient privacy a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 4. Comfortable surroundings for youth a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 5. Cost of service is affordable for youth a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 6. Staff have been specially trained to work with or to provide services to youth a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know 82 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV d. Prefer not to answer 7. Staff treat youth with respect a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 8. Staff honor privacy and confidentiality of youth a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 9. Staff allow adequate time interaction between youth and adults a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 10. Youth perceive they have sufficient involvement in decisions about themselves a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 11. Youth feel they can trust the staff providing services a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 12. Youth group discussions are available a. Agree 83 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 13. Youth are welcome regardless of their age or marital status a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 14. Youth perceive that staff will be attentive to their needs a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer 15. Youth are aware of service availability for their needs and rights a. Agree b. Disagree c. Don’t know d. Prefer not to answer SRH17, Of the items included in SR16, which are the top three most important for you? (Select 3) 1. Location is convenient for youth 2. Hours are convenient for youth 3. Adequate space and sufficient privacy 4. Comfortable surroundings for youth 5. Cost of service is affordable for youth 6. Staff have been specially trained to work with or to provide services to youth 7. Staff treat youth with respect and are not judgmental 8. Staff honor privacy and confidentiality of youth 9. Staff allow adequate time interaction between youth and adults 84 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 10. Youth perceive they have sufficient involvement in decisions about themselves 11. Youth feel they can trust the staff providing services 12. Youth group discussions are available 13. Youth are welcome regardless of their age or marital status 14. Youth perceive that staff will be attentive to their needs 15. Youth are aware of service availability for their needs and rights 16. Prefer not to answer SRH18. During your last visit to a health facility, what was your reason for going? 1. Contraception 2. STI 3. Gynecological exam 4. Pregnancy test 5. Pregnancy termination 6. Maternal and child health services 7. Vaccination(s) 8. Wellness checks 9. To inquire about health-specific information 10. To seek support for substance use/abuse 11. Other (specify): 12. Prefer not to answer SRH19. At this facility, did you see any posters on family planning/contraception? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer SRH20. Were you given brochures on family planning/contraception? [If yes, answer SRH21, SRH22 and SRH24-28; otherwise, skip to SRH 22] 1. Yes 2. No 85 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer SRH21. If you have seen posters or received brochures on family planning/contraception, did any of these materials have Kefeta branding? 1. Yes, the posters only 2. Yes, the brochures only 3. Yes, both the posters and brochures 4. No 5. I don’t know 6. Prefer not to answer SRH22. Did you request family planning/contraceptive services during the consultation? [If yes, answer question SRH23 and also SR24-28] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer SRH23. Did the medical professional talk to you about: [check all that apply] 1. Contraception/family planning [if selected, answer questions SR24-28] 2. STIs 3. Pregnancy 4. Other ________________ 5. Prefer not to answer SRH24. When you obtained information or services about family planning/contraceptive method(s), were you told about side effects or problems you might have with these methods? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer SRH25. If you were told about side effects of the family planning/contraceptive method, were you told what to do if you experienced side effects or problems? 1. Yes 86 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer SRH26. Were you told that you could switch to a different method of family planning/contraception in the future? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer SRH27. Were you told by your healthcare provider about methods of family planning/contraception other than the method you received? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer SRH28. Did you feel comfortable enough to ask your healthcare provider questions about family planning/contraception methods? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer Soft Skills Please indicate which of the following statements you agree with: SS1.1 I believe there is a solution for any problem. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.2 I know how to see things from different angles. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer 87 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV SS1.3 I will try new ways to solve my problems. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.4 I know how to find the causes of and solutions to a problem. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.5 I know how to develop plans to achieve my objectives. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.6 I can differentiate the good and bad aspects of things. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.7 I know how to relax when I feel tense. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.8 I am always able to keep my feelings under control. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.9 I know how to calm down when I am feeling nervous. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer 88 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV SS1.10 I control my temper when people are angry with me. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.11 It's important to think before you act. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.12 I rush into things, starting before I know what to do. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.13 I answer without thinking about it first. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.14 I can do things as well as others. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.15 Compared with my classmates/friends; I am satisfied with my performance. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.16 I am satisfied with my body and appearance. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer 89 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV SS1.17 I feel that I am welcomed by others. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.18 I am a person with self-confidence. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer SS1.19 I know my strengths and weaknesses. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 3. Prefer not to answer Business Development Knowledge and Skills BD1. How would you assess your knowledge and skills on starting and operating a business? [six-point Likert, 6 = high, 1 = low] 1. 1 (low) 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 (high) 7. Prefer not to answer BD2. I will now read you some statements. Please tell me whether you think the statement is true, or false, or whether you don't know. [For programming, these three response options should be included for each one of the 3 statements below] 1. When managing a business’ finances, it is important to keep personal finances separate from business income and expenses 2. It is not necessary to develop a business plan before starting a business 3. Before setting up a new business, it is important to first assess the potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the business concept to be prepared. 90 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 4. Prefer not to answer BD3. Which of the following applies to you and your business planning now? BD3.1 I have started a business. 1. Yes 2. No BD3.2 I have an expanded business 1. Yes 2. No BD3.3 I am planning to start a business in 6-12 months. 1. Yes 2. No BD3.4 I would like to start a business at some future point (more than 12 months). 1. Yes 2. No BD3.5 I sold my business 1. Yes 2. No BD3.6 I closed my business 1. Yes 2. No BD3.7 I have not, and will not, start a business [skip remaining questions in the business development section] 1. Yes 2. No BD4. [Only ask for those who answered yes to BD3.1] For those who started a business: BD4.1 When did you start it? BD4.2 Did you receive a loan? 1. Yes 2. No 91 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV BD4.2.1 From whom? 1. Bank 2. Micro finance institution 3. Saving & credit association 4. Other (Specify) BD4.2.2 How much (in Birr)? BD4.3 Did you receive other capital (such as real estate, equipment, machinery)? 1. Yes 2. No BD4.3.1 From whom? BD4.3.2 How much in value (in Birr)? BD5. [Only ask for those who answered yes to BD3.2] For an expanded business: BD5.1 When did you expand it? BD5.2 Did you receive a loan? 1. Yes 2. No BD5.2.1 From whom? 1. Bank 2. Micro finance institution 3. Saving & credit association 4. Other (Specify) BD5.2.2 How much (in Birr)? BD5.3 Did you receive other capital? 1. Yes 2. No BD5.3.1 From whom? BD5.3.2 How much (in Birr)? SECTION 3: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Civic Engagement 92 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV C1. How much do you agree with each of the following statements? [Should be programed with a 6- point Likert scale for each of the 6 items – 1 = not at all, 6 = strongly agree, with a 7th option for “Prefer not to answer” for each of the 6 items.] 1. Youth are valued in society; their positive contributions are recognized and rewarded. 2. Youth have a strong voice in local institutions. 3. The government provides robust and youth-friendly policies. 4. Society has balanced and fair gender norms. 5. The government has balanced and fair gender policies. 6. Youth have a strong voice in national institutions C2. Have you actively participated in any of the following activities in the past 2 years? [check all that apply] 1. Advocacy 2. Mentorship 3. Volunteering 4. Community service 5. Community decision-making processes 6. Youth focused-clubs 7. None 8. Prefer not to answer C3. In which of these activities have you held a leadership role? [Check all that apply] 1. Advocacy 2. Mentorship 3. Volunteering 4. Community service 5. Community decision-making processes 6. Youth focused-clubs 7. None 8. Prefer not to answer C4. Did you register to vote in the most recent local elections? 1. Yes 93 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer 4. Not eligible C5. Did you vote in the most recent local elections? (Local elections refer to council members of a nationality zone, zone, woreda, city, sub-city, or kebele). 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer 4. Not eligible C6. Did you register to vote in the most recent parliamentary elections? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer 4. Not eligible C7. Did you vote in the most recent parliamentary elections? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer 4. Not eligible C8. Do you know how to get in contact with a representative from your local (kebele) council? [adjust wording to reflect the lowest administrative level which would be relevant] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer C9. To what extent do you agree with this statement: I see myself as an individual who can have an impact on what happens in this country. [six-point Likert, 6 = high, 1 = low] 1. 1 (low) 2. 2 3. 3 94 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 (high) 7. Prefer not to answer C10. Which of the following groups are most likely to influence your opinion on political matters? [adjust response categories for culturally appropriate options] 1. Religious leaders 2. Elders 3. Activists 4. Youth / interest groups 5. Civil society organizations 6. Government representatives 7. The media 8. Family members 9. Friends 10. Schools 11. Other (specify): 12. Prefer not to answer C11. Are you or have you ever been a member of a youth coalition/network/interest group? [Note: A youth coalition is a permanent platform for youth to network and collectively advocate for their rights, amplifying their voices and fortifying their action.] 1. Yes, currently 2. Yes, but not now 3. No 4. Prefer not to answer C12. Are you interested in being a member of a youth coalition? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not ready 4. Prefer not to answer 95 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV C13. Which youth coalition/network/interest group are you a member of? [Only ask for those answering “Yes, currently” to C11] C14. What is the highest position you have in the network/interest group you are a member of? [Only ask for those answering “Yes, currently” to C11] 1. Member 2. Member of executive/management committee 3. Member of governance board 4. Other (Specify): 5. Prefer not to answer C15. Have you written a letter of complaint to national or local authorities in the past two years? (This question includes any social, political, or legal complaint which could be related to ideas, services, or access to services.) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer C16. Did you sign any collective petition to the national or local authorities in the past two years? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer C17. Here is a list of actions that people sometimes take when they are dissatisfied with government performance or actions. For each of these, please tell me whether you, personally, have done any of these during the past year? 1. Joined others in your community to request action from government 2. Contacted the media, like calling a radio program or writing a letter to a newspaper 3. Contacted a government official to ask for help or to make a complaint 4. Refused to pay a tax or fee to government 5. Other (Specify) 6. Prefer not to answer Youth Hubs YH1. How many times in a week do you usually visit and use services from a youth hub? [If >0, answer questions YH3 and YH4. If 0, answer question YH2.] 96 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV YH2. If you do not visit and use services from a youth hub, what is the main reason? 1. Facilities are in poor condition. 2. Services are not useful. 3. I have no time to use services 4. Youth hub is too far 5. I dislike the people there 6. Other (Specify) YH3. Which of the following services do you use? [check all that apply] 1. Gym 2. Health clinic 3. Library 4. Internet and computer services 5. Cafeteria 6. Sports facilities (volleyball, soccer, table tennis, etc.) 7. Showers 8. Training programs 9. General information (to help access information and services for youth) 10. Other (specify) 11. Prefer not to answer YH4. Please indicate which of the following statements correctly describe the youth hub you visit: 1. Location is convenient for youth 2. Hours are convenient for youth 3. Adequate space and sufficient privacy 4. Comfortable surroundings for youth 5. Cost of service is affordable 6. Staff have been specially trained to work with or to provide services to youth 7. Staff treat youth with respect 8. Staff honor privacy of youth 97 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 9. Staff honor confidentiality of youth 10. Staff allow adequate time for youth and adult interaction 11. Youth perceive they have sufficient involvement in decisions about themselves 12. Youth feel they can trust the staff providing the service 13. Youth group discussions are available 14. Youth are welcome regardless of their age or marital status 15. Youth are welcome regardless of their religion and ethnicity 16. Youth perceive that staff will be attentive to their needs 17. Youth are aware of service availability for their needs and rights 18. Prefer not to answer Migration Aspirations M1. Have you, in the last 6 months, seriously considered moving abroad for an extended period or permanently? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer M2. In the last 6 months, have you tried to look for a job in another country, or have you prepared to leave for a job in another country? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer M3. Do you feel that if you were given the opportunity to move to another country, you might have more work opportunities or better living conditions? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer M4. Have you, in the last six months, seriously considered moving within the country for an extended period or permanently? 1. Yes 98 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer M5. In the last 6 months, have you tried to look for a job in another region of the country, or have you prepared to leave for a job in another region in the country? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Prefer not to answer M6. Do you feel that if you were given the opportunity to move to another region in the country, you might have more work opportunities or better living conditions? 1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know 4. Prefer not to answer SECTION 4: CONTACT INFORMATION FOR FOLLOW-UPS As I mentioned to you earlier, we will reach out to you for a follow-up interview after two years. For this reason, I would like to get your contact details. Own contact details FU1. What is your mobile phone number or a phone number where we can reach you? FU2. What is your email? FU3. What is your name on Facebook? FU4. What is your number / name for Telegram? Alternative contact details If we need to contact you again in the future, can you give us the name, phone number, and email of two people who will know how to find you? FU8. Name of Contact #1 FU9. Mobile phone of contact #1 FU10. Email of contact #1 FU11. Name of contact #2 FU12. Mobile phone of contact #2 FU13. Email of contact #2 99 | ETHIOPIA IYA IMPACT EVALUATION BASELINE REPORT USAID.GOV [Reminder] If you are planning to leave the country for any extended period of time, can you please contact us at +X XXX XXX XXXX? Thank you very much for participating in our study. Additional Comment