SOURCE: USAID/COLOMBIA PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LET’S GO BAJO CAUCA GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE FINAL REPORT June 2023 DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government Contract Title: USAID/Colombia Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Activity Contract Number: 72051419C00001 Submitted: June 30, 2023 Contractor: Panagora Group, Inc. COR: Omar López Authors: Luis Fernando Monroy (Director of the Evaluation), Mauricio Aguilar (Evaluation Specialist), Ana Isabel Mejía (Quantitative Specialist), Pablo Gutiérrez (Qualitative Specialist), and Luis Felipe Duarte (Rural Development Expert). Members of MEL Activity: Orlando Gracia, Luisa Fernanda Cardona, Ana Isabel Mejía, Yazmín Medina, David Doncel, and Julieth Forero. Members of the coding team: Estefany Rodriguez, Pablo Velasco, Cesar Lucas, and Hansel Lancheros. Panagora Group Contacts: Ana María Rivera Chief of Party Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia Email: arivera@panagoracolombia.net Orlando García Lead Evaluation Expert Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia Email: ogracia@panagoracolombia.net Majella van der Werf Program Director 8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 805, Silver Spring, MD, USA Email: majellavanderwerf@panagoragroup.net TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS I ABSTRACT II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 LET’S GO BAJO CAUCA 1 METHODOLOGY 1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION 10 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY AND BACKGROUND 12 EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 16 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 16 METHODOLOGY 17 LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION 21 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION 23 AGRICULTURE COMPONENT 23 URBAN COMPONENT 53 EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT 61 CROSS-CUTTING FINDINGS 71 ANNEX I – RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX 75 ANNEX II – COMPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS AND INFORMATION 80 ANNEX III – MATRIX OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 100 ANNEX IV – DETAILED METHODOLOGY 105 ANNEX V – INSTRUMENTS 121 ANNEX VI – INFORMATION SOURCES 190 ANNEX VII – EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK – SOW 194 i | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AMELP Activity, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan APU Agricultural Production Unit BRS Brief Resilience Scale CLA Collaboration, Learning, and Adaptation COP Colombian Peso COR Contracts Officer Representative DO Development Objective GDA Global Development Alliance GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System LGBC Let’s Go Bajo Cauca MBA Agro Metodo Base de Aceleración Agroempresarial (Agro-Business Acceleration Training Program) MCA Multiple Correspondence Analysis MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Activity PDET Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial (Territorially Focused Development Programs) RF Results Framework RFP Request for Proposal RUV Registro Unico de Victimas (Unified Victims Registry) SOW Statement of Work UPA Unidades productivas agropecuarias USAID United States Agency for International Development UARIV Unidad para la Atencion y Reparacion Comprensiva de Victimas (Unit for Comprehensive Attention and Reparation of Victims) USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | ii ABSTRACT Let’s Go Bajo Cauca (LGBC) aims to contribute to inclusive, legal, and sustainable rural economic growth in six municipalities in the Bajo Cauca region of Antioquia through the development of agricultural chains for beekeeping and fish farming and the creation and comprehensive strengthening of urban businesses. This mid-term performance evaluation seeks to assess LGBC’s effectiveness in achieving results and determine its relevance to the territorial and population context, provide lessons learned and recommendations for LGBC, and provide inputs to USAID/Colombia for future programs.1 The methodology applied for the evaluation used a mixed methods approach that combines qualitative, quantitative, and geographical analyses. The qualitative approach included semi-structured interviews with participants, LGBC field staff, and other relevant actors, with whom focus groups, narrative multiplication exercises, social mapping, and ethnographic tours were also conducted. The evaluation team based the quantitative approach on administrative records and information collected through a field survey, which was then used to analyze descriptive statistical relationships, probability models, psychometric scales, and association analysis. The evaluation finds that, overall, LGBC has been effective in supporting the improvement of the participants’ productivity, sales, income, and access to markets. It also detected significant progress in the level of empowerment among participants. However, the evaluation identifies aspects that LGBC and/or USAID/Colombia can improve regarding the territorial focus of the intervention and promotion of its future sustainability. The evaluation suggests 17 recommendations for the remainder of the Activity, including some aspects already underway and ways to collect valuable lessons learned for future programs; 15 of them have already been accepted by USAID/Colombia and the GDA and the remaining two were rejected for not being implementable. 1 Due to security limitations explained in the corresponding chapter, the evaluation could not be a mid-term evaluation and was completed in the last year of the GDA. 1 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LET’S GO BAJO CAUCA Let’s Go Bajo Cauca (LGBC; referred to in Spanish as the Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, or ABC) is a Global Development Alliance (GDA) that seeks to contribute to inclusive, legal, and sustainable economic growth in rural areas in the Bajo Cauca region in the department of Antioquia. LGBC is a four and a half year GDA as of April 2019 with USAID contributions of USD $2.7 million and private partners leverage of USD $4.6 million. The GDA aims to do this by developing agricultural value chains and through the creation and comprehensive strengthening of small business entrepreneurial capacities. Program implementation targeted the six municipalities comprising Bajo Cauca: Caucasia, Cáceres, El Bagre, Nechí, Tarazá, and Zaragoza.2 Let’s Go Bajo Cauca includes four components: i) an Agricultural Component, which works to strengthen value chains and productive linkages among small beekeeping and fish farming businesses and entrepreneurs and small producer organizations to which they belong; ii) an Urban Component, which works to support the creation and strengthening of small businesses and improve their market access; iii) an Employability Component, which works to strengthen the abilities and technical skills of unemployed persons to improve their chances of finding formal employment; and iv) a Financial Component, which works to provide legal sources of financing through microcredit for entrepreneurs in the region. Of these four components, the evaluation covers only the first three: Agricultural, Urban, and Employability. LGBC uses several support models, including specialized training processes for the agricultural, Urban and Employability components: technical assistance and entrepreneurship support for small producer agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations; business consulting and specialized advisory services for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in urban centers; and an employability program that guides and trains unemployed people, providing them with tools to access formal jobs. It also provides psychosocial coaching support across the three components to encourage changes in participants’ mindsets to enable them to better tackle work-related challenges. The purpose of this performance evaluation is to assess whether LGBC is meeting its deliverables and outcomes and determine if they are relevant and to what extent, based on the current national and local contexts. Additionally, it seeks to provide lessons learned and recommendations that can contribute to LGBC achieving its expected results and provide inputs to USAID/Colombia for future programs.3 METHODOLOGY This evaluation used a mixed-methods approach that combines qualitative, quantitative, and geographic analyses. The mixed methods design integrated various datasets and qualitative information sources and 2 Municipalities are an administrative division of Colombian territory and governance, similar to a county in the context of the United States. 3 Due to security limitations explained in the corresponding chapter, the evaluation could not be mid-term and was completed in the last year of the GDA. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 2 insights to analyze the outcomes of each LGBC component while exploring the main determinants of these results, including complex contextual factors and the extent of their effect. The qualitative data used for this evaluation includes data from LGBC implementation plans and quarterly and annual reports, as well as primary data collected through 63 qualitative instruments administered to 130 different stakeholders, including GDA participants, LGBC field staff, and other relevant actors across the six targeted municipalities. The evaluation team conducted 15 focus groups, 34 semi-structured interviews, three group interviews, and 11 interviews in the agricultural production units (UPAs by its Spanish acronym). To collect qualitative information, three evaluation methods were used: narrative multiplication exercises, social mapping, and ethnographic tours.4 The team transcribed and coded this information according to previously agreed-upon criteria and analyzed the data to extract findings and conclusions. To conduct the quantitative analysis, the evaluation team used USAID’s MONITOR, the Activity, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP), and LGBC’s databases as key data sources for the early report and the development of findings, conclusions, and recommendations (FCR). The survey team complemented this information through four survey instruments. These surveys included (A) a census of agricultural production unit participants from beekeeping and fish-farming business incubators, (B) a census of producer organization leaders who participated in the Agribusiness Acceleration Training Program (MBA Agro by its Spanish acronym), (C) a census of small business entrepreneurs under the Urban component, and (D) a sample of participants receiving services through the LGBC Employability component. As requested by the GDA, the evaluation team applied the survey with participants from the first and second cohorts of the Urban component. The data collection firm hired for this evaluation collected survey data in two phases across six municipalities. The quantitative methodology used four tools detailed in this evaluation: a simple relationship analysis, probability models, psychometric scales, and a multiple correspondence analysis. Geographic analysis was conducted using social mapping and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) available through secondary sources and LGBC databases. The evaluation team used this information to conduct a spatial analysis of the locations, territorial dynamics, and contextual situations of the activities carried out under LGBC. The evidence obtained from the qualitative, quantitative, and geographical analyses was triangulated to increase the robustness of the findings. In addition, the team used all the previously mentioned sources as representative evidence when evidentiary material was reiterated and repeated, signaling a trend or tendency. The evaluation team identified 46 findings, which it used to develop 17 conclusions and 17 recommendations. The following section summarizes the main findings and conclusions. 4 Narrative multiplication is a method that uses the collective imaginations of participants’ “way of being”. These exercises usie the transformation of participants’ self-concepts as a theme: from a traditional producer to an agro-entrepreneur; from having a business to becoming an entrepreneur, and from having a job in “whatever comes up” to creating a defined labor profile. 3 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT QUESTION 1: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS LGBC’S MODEL BEEN IN ACHIEVING SALES, INCOME, AND PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES FOR THE AGRO-ENTREPRENEURS AND PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED? The majority of agro-entrepreneurs and leaders of producer organizations are satisfied with LGBC. Beekeepers perceive their participation in LGBC enables them to increase either their productivity, sales and/or income. These participants highlighted adopting good management practices in their businesses and learning from the agro-entrepreneurial strengthening and technical support provided by LGBC. Most agro-entrepreneurs indicated they have seen increases in their agribusiness’ productivity, sales, and income. Additionally, as a result of the perceived effectiveness of the LGBC model, agro￾entrepreneurs strongly believe they will continue to increase these indicators if they implement what they learned from LGBC. Moreover, leaders of producer organization indicated that there is an increased willingness and commitment among members and managers to participate and collaborate as a team in the interest of the productive and commercial development of organizations. Specialists from LGBC provide one-on-one technical assistance support by visiting the agricultural production units (APUs) of the agribusinesses. This support is a key focus area for the Activity. Agro￾entrepreneurs have a positive perception of technical assistance; however, the evaluation found that the participants detected weaknesses: the inconsistent presence and infrequent provision of the assistance. Given the importance of this technical assistance in LGBC’s model, this represents an element to review and strengthen. The model’s effectiveness is reflected in the adoption of practices to improve the productivity and management of agribusinesses, which LGBC promotes. There is a significant increase in beekeeping and fish farming companies’ adoption of good practices, which they did not use previously. A key practice recognized by the agro-entrepreneurs is keeping administrative records of production, costs, and sales associated with managing agribusinesses. Nevertheless, the evaluation found that many agro￾entrepreneurs, specifically those working in the beekeeping sector, think keeping up-to-date records is challenging. They indicated it as a burdensome and time-intensive practice and that sometimes they simply lack the time to do it. Agro-entrepreneurs perceive LGBC positively. However, the evaluation was unable to determine the exact extent of changes in their productivity, sales, and income. The evaluation team could not access comparable historical information to assess the evolution of these three variables. Nevertheless, data from 2021, collected during the evaluation, and secondary sources like USAID MONITOR indicate that between 2020 and 2021, APUs showed increases in productivity and sales, suggesting that the LGBC model was effective. The evaluation also found that while beekeeping and fish farming are not the only activities carried out by agro-entrepreneurs, these activities represent the largest share of income generated by beekeepers and fish farmers, respectively. Beekeeping and fish farming represent, on average, 30 percent of participants’ income, according to survey data. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 4 Another relevant finding is that with LGBC’s support, some agro-entrepreneurs reactivated beekeeping and fish-farming APUs that were previously inactive. Most participating beekeepers and fish farmers said they expect growth in these activities thanks to what they learned from LGBC. Entrepreneurs believe this expected growth could help consolidate beekeeping and fish farming as alternatives for agribusiness development and income generation in the region. Moreover, the evaluation found that during 2021, context specific factors threatened the productivity of the APUs, including the COVID-19 pandemic, limitations regarding physical access of agro￾entrepreneurs to their APUs, and, the main threat factor, excess precipitation caused by La Niña phenomenon. La Niña climate pattern affected a significant area of Colombia’s territory, including the Bajo Cauca region. However, agro-entrepreneurs largely indicated that their businesses maintained or increased their productivity. The evaluation therefore inferred that adopting the technical and environmental practices promoted by LGBC allows these businesses to respond to and cope with the negative effects of external factors on their productivity. LGBC also undertakes efforts to develop the commercial skills of agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations. The evidence collected for this evaluation shows that this support has helped participants overcome problems associated with “commercialization” of their products.5 Nevertheless, multiple challenges persist, mainly related to payment methods and timing, the application processes to obtain permits and licenses, and the logistics of receiving, storing, and transporting products. Many of these challenges are beyond the capacity of agro-entrepreneurs and producer groups to manage them directly themselves. They require solutions that incorporate interinstitutional and regional value chain approaches. The data collected shows that commercialization among beekeeping agro-entrepreneurs primarily takes place at the collective level, while fish farmers carry out commercialization efforts individually. Both individual agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations complete close to 90 percent of their sales at the municipal level or in the broader Bajo Cauca region via direct consumer sales, retail shops, or regional buyers. The evaluation also infered that the commercialization capacity of producer organizations remains a challenge in both beekeeping and fish farming value chains, as only one third of these organizations indicated their sales increased in 2021. LGBC promotes the strengthening of these organizations as a model to develop channels for added value and commercialization. However, the model places greater emphasis on promoting initiatives focused on each producer organization. This evaluation did not find evidence of actions guided by a vision of regional value chains that could combine stakeholder efforts and leverage previous progress in regional integration in this region. Based on the above, the evaluation found that the LGBC model has effectively maintained or increased productivity, sales, and income of targeted agro-entrepreneurs and beekeeping and fish-farming producer organizations targeted in Bajo Cauca, even under unfavorable conditions. However, it is necessary to strengthen some aspects of the technical assistance and advance the regional value chain approach to improve its effectiveness. 5 For the purposes of this evaluation, the term, "commercialization" appears in italics. It refers to activities related to the sales process. We reference this given the connotation of this term in Colombia. 5 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV QUESTION 2: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE LGBC MODEL BEEN IN EMPOWERING6 AGRO￾ENTREPRENEURS AND PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS? One of the most notable findings regarding the effectiveness of the model implemented by LGBC to empower agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations is that a number of beekeepers and fish farmers, motivated by what they learned, invested their own resources to add additional beehives and fishponds. Moreover, the evaluation found that the model and the conditions proposed by the Activity encourage beekeepers and fish farmers to participate in LGBC, considering their willingness to improve their knowledge of productive practices, their income, and their families’ quality of life. This motivation contrasts with traditional incentives from direct subsidies, whether in kind or in cash, for new hives or fishponds. The evaluation found that agro-entrepreneurs are willing to adopt planning practices to improve the management of their APUs. The evaluation team also found that participants feel they developed a long￾term vision for their future as entrepreneurs and improved their leadership skills, which allowed them to continue developing their agribusinesses autonomously. At the producer organization level, the evaluation found that most leaders who participated in the MBA Agro strengthened their management abilities. These abilities were especially mentioned in the survey results, at an average of 98.1 percent across six skills discussed. Despite most leaders saying they had gained new skills, fewer said they had put these new skills into practice, averaging 86.7 percent across the six targeted skills. This finding aligns with a greater perceived autonomy among 63 percent of these leaders, who stated they will continue with assessment, planning, and decision-making practices after LGBC ends. At the same time, however, organizations expressed the need for continued advisory services and financial support for organizational strengthening. Agro-entrepreneurs generally expressed satisfaction with the evolution of their producer organizations as a result of LGBC’s support in organizational strengthening, which resulted in some producer organizations improving their capacity to provide services to their members. The above findings allowed the evaluation to infer that the LGBC model effectively empowers beekeeping and fish-farming agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations in Bajo Cauca. However, additional efforts are necessary to strengthen these organizations’ commercialization and financial capacities. URBAN COMPONENT QUESTION 3: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS LGBC’S MODEL BEEN IN ACHIEVING INCREASES IN SALES, INCOME, AND MARKET ACCESS OF ENTREPRENEURS TARGETED IN BAJO CAUCA? Under the Urban component, most business owners indicated satisfaction with the consultations, advisory services, and support from LGBC and report increased sales, income, and market access. 6 For the purposes of this evaluation empowerment is defined as the ability of participants to use knowledge and experience acquired to recognize and see themselves as entrepreneurs with leadership, planning, and decision-making capacities. These capacities allow them to achieve their productivity, commercial, financial, personal, and family goals. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 6 The evaluation did not have access to sufficient information regarding sales to verify fluctuations between comparable periods. Nevertheless, the information available through the MONITOR system suggests positive tendencies of both sales and income. The evaluation team found that the evidence collected through qualitative and quantitative tools about business owners’ perceptions supports these trends. More than 60 percent of business owners reported an increase in sales, income, and market access, while 90 percent expressed optimism for future sales growth, with growth expectations between ten and 50 percent as a result of what they learned through LGBC. The aspects entrepreneurs referred to most frequently to explain these results are the tools provided by LGBC that allowed them to adopt improved management, business, and commercialization practices. Thanks to these practices, most entrepreneurs (91.4 percent) stated they have a strategic vision for their business that enables them to plan for the future. Specifically, having support in building or strengthening their business model not only brought significant satisfaction to participants, but the share of entrepreneurs with a business model also increased from 58.6 percent to 93.1 percent. Moreover, the probability model applied by the evaluation team revealed that having a written business model and implementing in accordance with LGBC’s workshops increased the probability of business owners growing their income by 26.2 percent. LGBC’s support model includes advisory services and personalized support tailored to the specific needs of each entrepreneur. Participants especially appreciated this customization aspect. Highly appreciated and widely adopted was also support with respect to commercialization, including strategies like digital marketing, advice on business image, and preparing for and participating in business fairs and roundtables. These tools allowed participants to better understand market requirements and needs and expand their business through increased client networking. Ultimately, these experiences improved participants’ confidence and future expectations. The COVID-19 pandemic represented a major contextual factor affecting participants; 70.9 percent identified it as the most critical factor that put their sales and income at risk. With this challenge, LGBC deployed virtual networking strategies to continue its interventions during the pandemic. These strategies provided valuable lessons in developing digital marketing and sales channels. As a result, 97.2 percent of entrepreneurs consider these methodologies and virtual workshops useful for their business. In this way, LGBC’s support helped accelerate the adoption of new technologies by targeted businesses. The evaluation team also found that LGBC actively recruited participants, mostly in 2020, when the effects of the pandemic were strongest. This active search process represents an important insight into how to identify and support entrepreneurs. Regardless of its success during the pandemic, recruitment also poses a future challenge. It may prove difficult to identify new populations to target future participant cohorts or for programs like LGBC. The evaluation also found that the LGBC model was effective in helping business owners improve their access markets and thereby increase their possibilities of improving sales and increasing their incomes. QUESTION 4: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS LGBC’S MODEL BEEN TO EMPOWER SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS? Among targeted entrepreneurs, 92.2 percent stated they identified their strengths and weaknesses, setting them on the path toward empowerment promoted by LGBC. In line with the data collected, individual assessment exercises showed entrepreneurs and their businesses how to acquire or complement the personal and managerial skills needed to further empower their productive activities. 7 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Key skills include autonomy, leadership, innovative spirit, and desire to contribute to regional development. One aspect entrepreneurs highlighted as essential to their empowerment is the tailored, one-on-one psychosocial coaching support provided by LGBC. Entrepreneurs claim this support helped them increase their autonomy, improve their decision-making skills, and become better listeners for their clients and employees. In this way, these participants consider themselves as agents of change in their own lives, for their employees, and for their families. Empowerment also showed tangible results regarding the formalization of businesses and labor. Seventy￾two percent of targeted companies not incorporated with their local Chamber of Commerce when they began participating in LGBC decided to take this step with the activity’s support. Of the businesses that attempted to formalize, more than 90 percent achieved this objective. Business owners also recognize the importance of offering formal contracts to their employees. This effort has lagged with many participating business owners arguing that it’s very expensive. Only 46.6 percent of business owners stated that they complied with the requirement of paying social security contributions after working with LGBC. The limited progress in this area is especially noteworthy considering that 32.8 percent were already offering formal benefits at the beginning of the program. These results allowed the evaluation to conclude that the LGBC model effectively empowered business owners who changed their mindset to be sustainable and grow in the market. Nevertheless, business formalization processes, while having advanced considerably, show there is still much progress to be made. EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT QUESTION 5: WHAT CHALLENGES AND BOTTLENECKS AROSE WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE COMPONENT? WHAT ARE THE MAIN LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES? One of the most valuable aspects of the Employability component, according to participants, is the mentoring process. This process consists of several steps: (1) a tailored assessment exercise, (2) together, the participant and mentor, define what the support will entail, and (3) building a career path. Within overall satisfaction with LGBC (71.8 percent), Employability component participants highlighted the mentoring process (58.9 percent) and their relationship with their mentor (61.5 percent) as the most positive aspects of the component. Participants mentioned several helpful aspects of the mentoring components, with no notable differences between participants who accessed formal work and those who did not. Mentoring emphasizes the development of soft skills and promoting changes in self-concept and life plans. This was one of the most valued aspects in the survey, with 54.1 percent satisfaction, followed by identifying skills and abilities with 48.9 percent. Participants also highlighted the personalized monitoring they received, noting that they could jointly build their profile and work on goals with their mentor. The evaluation identified coaching as also essential to a significant group of participants (40.8 percent), who found this psychosocial support helpful in coping with anxiety and mental health challenges brought on by their economic and work situation. Coaching helped participants manage stressful situations and stay focused on their search for business opportunities. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 8 Despite these positive findings, the component’s specific results are less encouraging, as 43.2 percent of participants surveyed said they currently did not have a job, and only 10.2 percent of those who have a job report they obtained it as a result of the LGBC Employability component. Nevertheless, participants that accessed an employment opportunity through these processes expressed high satisfaction, as they feel they obtained a job on their own merits and not through intermediaries or personal connections. The main bottlenecks resulting from the specific context that this evaluation identified in the Employability component relate to (1) the lack of demand for formal job opportunities in Bajo Cauca, and (2) the low availability of specialized labor supply in the region. Moreover, the requirements for the relatively few formal and long-term job opportunities in Bajo Cauca, in terms of training, experience, and others, often considerably exceed the skills of workers in the region. Large and medium enterprises (for example, the mining company Mineros SA and the pipeline operator and petroleum services firm Ismocol SA) and PDET projects predominate in the formal employment arena.7 These businesses and projects typically require specialized technical and professional skills and often bring staff to the region because of the region’s lack of relevant human resources. Formal businesses and these companies, which require specialized technical and professional skills, also face difficulties hiring staff from outside the region, as the precarious living conditions in parts of Bajo Cauca prevent many qualified professionals from moving to some municipalities in the region, such as Nechí or Tarazá. The Employability component benefits from working together with the Urban component, which enables LGBC to encourage the labor formalization of companies that participate in the Urban component. This formalization led these companies to open new job opportunities in the region, generating mutual benefits between the components. The main challenges to the promotion of formal employment in Bajo Cauca are developing capacities in the territory that respond to the specialized labor demand from businesses and improving job opportunities throughout the region. SENA, Mineros SA, and Comfama are addressing these challenges; however, efforts are incipient and require further strengthening to successfully drive formal employment. CROSS-CUTTING FINDINGS Although the evaluation team analyzed each component separately and presents findings separately in this report, it also identified common elements across all components and their corresponding cross￾cutting findings. The evaluation team used quantitative and qualitative tools to assess participant resilience (defined for the evaluation as the capacity to recover from stressful situations) in all three components.8 The evaluation team found that although agro-entrepreneurs are less likely to recover from challenging circumstances, according to the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and as documented in the narrative 7 Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial (development programs with a territorial focus, or PDETs) are promoted by the Territorial Renewal Agency (ART, by its Spanish acronym) with the goal of coordinating state intervention in rural areas that were heavily affected by Colombia’s armed conflict. 8 Stressful situations under the Brief Resilience scale refer, but are not limited to, any type of “hard times” the respondent has encountered, as well as difficult times, and the ability to bounce back from any event that represents a difficult time in their life. 9 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV multiplication exercises, they are also optimistic about the future regarding their productive activity.9 This optimism among agro-entrepreneurs is the same as that observed among urban entrepreneurs, whose BRS scores show the greatest resilience of all participants. In contrast, Employability component participants, with an intermediate value on the BRS, did not exhibit as much optimism for the future as documented in the narrative multiplication exercises. An important cross-cutting finding refers to the LGBC indicators in the MONITOR system. These did not allow the evaluation team to accurately measure changes, either positive or negative, in sales, income, or the productivity of agro-entrepreneurs, producer organizations, or urban entrepreneurs because the data collected is not comparable across periods. This gap in the data means that the evaluation team lacked a valuable tool in assessing the LGBC’s model’s effectiveness. 9 Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194-200. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 10 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION This mid-term performance evaluation aimed to evaluate if the Let’s Go Bajo Cauca (LGBC) Global Development Alliance (GDA) is achieving results and if these results are relevant to the activity’s territorial context and target population.10 The evaluation also sought to identify lessons learned and provide recommendations that can contribute to the management and implementation of LGBC, enabling the Activity to achieve its expected results and provide inputs to support USAID/Colombia in decision-making on future programs. The evaluation assessed the performance of LGBC across the Agricultural, Urban, and Employability components (see the next section for an in-depth description of LGBC components). USAID, LGBC, and LGBC's component participants are the primary audience for this evaluation. Meanwhile, the secondary audience is the direct and indirect public and private stakeholders in LGBC's area of influence. The evaluation team conducted an analysis of the Agricultural component by assessing the effectiveness of the intervention model in contributing to the strengthening of two value chains in Bajo Cauca: fish farming and beekeeping. The evaluation analyzed the effects of the component model on participants’ sales, income, and productivity and the sustainability of these effects over time. The evaluation team conducted an analysis of the Urban component by assessing the effectiveness of the LGBC model in strengthening non-agricultural businesses in Bajo Cauca and measuring the effect of the model on business growth through increases in sales, income, and market access, as well as the sustainability of these effects over time. The evaluation team conducted an analysis of the Employability component, specifically, evaluating the results of LGBC’s activities in terms of main lessons learned regarding obstacles encountered and good practices supporting participants’ access to formal employment. The evaluation analyzed the support provided to participants by LGBC under each component and collected information about how the different participants received this support in three areas: i) lessons learned, ii) practices adopted, and iii) changes perceived, defined as a path to sustainability (the capacity of participants to use skills and good practices over time, even after Activity close), through empowerment. In the design of the work plan, the evaluation team presented the following definitions to establish a common framework for the evaluation: • Efficacy is defined as the achievement of goals and objectives in terms of LGBC’s expected deliverables and products. • Effectiveness is defined as the degree to which desired results are achieved through LGBC’s products, deliverables, and intermediate outcomes. 10 Due to security limitations explained in the corresponding chapter, the evaluation could not be mid-term and was completed in the last year of the GDA. 11 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV • Productivity and efficiency measurements require quantifying inputs and outputs using physical and monetary units to generate benchmarks for appropriate comparisons. • Empowerment is defined as the ability of business owners, producer organizations, and agro￾entrepreneurs to use the knowledge and experience acquired through the program to recognize and see themselves as entrepreneurs with leadership, planning, and decision-making capacities. These capacities allow them to achieve their productivity, commercial, financial, personal, and family goals. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 12 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY AND BACKGROUND The subregion of Bajo Cauca, Antioquia, consists of six municipalities in the northeast of the department: Caucasia, El Bagre, Cáceres, Tarazá, Zaragoza, and Nechí (see Exhibit 1). Together these municipalities cover 8,485 square kilometers (km2), representing 13.5 percent of the departmental territory. Forecasts based on the 2018 census suggest that the population of Bajo Cauca included 264,760 inhabitants in 2021, 64.4 percent of whom lived in urban centers and 36.6 percent in rural areas.11 Nevertheless, the distribution between urban and rural populations varied among municipalities. For example, in Caucasia, home to 36.6 percent of the subregional population, 89 percent of inhabitants live in the urban center of the municipality, while in Cáceres, which represents 11.6 percent of the subregion’s population, 78.9 percent of inhabitants dwell in rural zones (see Exhibit 2). Exhibit 1. Map of Bajo Cauca Region. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE GIS MEL ACTIVITY TEAM According to the latest departmental development plan, the subregion of Bajo Cauca scored the lowest of all nine subregions of Antioquia on the Multidimensional Index of Quality of Life (MILQ). Bajo Cauca scored only a 26 on a scale of 100 and has one of the department’s highest multidimensional poverty levels, at 28.5 percent (this figure is higher among rural inhabitants, at 46 percent).12 11 National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE) (2020). Municipal population forecasts per area. 12 Governorship of Antioquia (2020). Development Plan Desarrollo Unidos por la Vida 2020. 13 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 2. Municipalities' population distribution in Bajo Cauca. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM USING DATA FROM DANE The economy of Bajo Cauca is predominantly based on mining and trade activities, which have a share of 23.1 percent and 15.9 percent, respectively. Agriculture represents only 7.3 percent of economic activity, with cattle, rice, cassava, and yam as the main products. Formal business activity, measured in terms of density, is the lowest of all subregions of the department, with 17.2 businesses for every 1,000 inhabitants. This equates to 4,394 formal businesses, of which 96.7 percent are micro-enterprises and only 0.1 percent are large enterprises. In 2019, Bajo Cauca experienced an unemployment rate of 9.1 percent among the economically active population compared to a rate of 10.5 at the national level, while the formal employment rate was just 26.7 percent. These rates indicate that while a large part of the population is employed, high levels of labor precarity exist. This trend is driven mainly by informal mining activity, low business formalization, and subsistence agriculture. Regarding security and public order, Bajo Cauca is among the subregions most affected by Colombia’s internal armed conflict and illegal economies. The subregion registers the highest homicide rates in Antioquia, with 125.4 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2018. In 2017, 22 percent of the population of Bajo Cauca was registered in Colombia’s Victim’s Registry (RUV, by its Spanish acronym). After signing Colombia’s Peace Accord in 2016, the main threats to public security stem from armed criminal groups associated with the cultivation of illegal crops, drug trafficking, and illegal mining. In this context, LGBC was created with Corporación Interactuar as the GDA’s Implementing Partner (IP). LGBC also includes the family compensation fund Caja de Compensación Familiar de Antioquia (Comfama), the mining firm Mineros S.A., and the Fundación Mineros.13 These organizations play a leading role across different components of the GDA, taking on the challenge of advancing and strengthening legal projects and economic activities in both the agricultural sector and urban economic life in Bajo Cauca. Members of the GDA aimed to contribute to the subregion’s inclusive and sustainable economic development, providing alternatives to help local populations avoid the trap of illegal economies. 13 The family compensation funds are department-level supplemental social benefit schemes, targeted to low- and middle￾income workers and their families and funded by employer contributions supplemental to social security payments. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 14 The GDA has an implementation period of four and a half years from April 2019 and has a global budget of USD $7.3 million. USAID contributes USD $2.7 million that are leveraged with contributions from GDA partners for USD $4.6 million. With this overarching purpose, LGBC defined different models, which have operated simultaneously during implementation, through four components: • Agricultural Component: this component is led by Corporación Interactuar and targeted to small producers (agro-entrepreneurs) in beekeeping and fish farming and their producer organizations. The goal of this component is to strengthen participants’ production and business practices through an assistance, training, and support model while offering technical assistance, developing their business skills, and improving their connection to markets. • Urban Component: this component is led by Corporación Interactuar and targeted to urban small business owners in the subregion. The component aims to create and strengthen businesses in the urban centers of targeted municipalities, using an assistance, training, and support model that offers commercial, technical, administrative, and financial advisory services and seeks to improve market access. • Employability Component: this cross-cutting component of the Activity is led by Comfama and targets persons who are unemployed or working in the informal sector. The component aims to strengthen participants’ skills and capacities through occupational guidance and vocational training, improving their opportunities to attain formal employment. • Financial Component: this is also a cross-cutting component that is led by Corporación Interactuar and targeted to entrepreneurs in the subregion. The component provides advice and credit analysis to grant microcredits as a source of leverage for small businesses in Bajo Cauca.14 The Agricultural component focuses on individual agro-entrepreneurs and on producer organizations separately. Agro-entrepreneurs belong to a group that, at the end of 2021, included 302 agro￾entrepreneurs who worked in 208 APUs, individual or collective. Seventy-six percent of these APUs focused on beekeeping, 22 percent on fish farming, and two percent engaged in both activities. With these APUs, the GDA implemented a training process called an agro-entrepreneurial “seedbed” (semillero) or incubator, with seven training modules. This component provides technical and environmental assistance to the APUs with the goal of improving their productivity through business￾level and organizational support, individual-level psychosocial support and coaching to develop life skills and bolster entrepreneurial mindsets. In addition, it provides commercialization support to help improve market access. LGBC has supported ten producer organizations, seven of which focused on beekeeping and three on fish farming. Most of the agro-entrepreneurs enrolled in the incubator training belonged to producer organizations, with only about one third being independent or belonging to other organizations. This 14 The performance of this component is not part of this evaluation. 15 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV group participated in Level 3 of MBA Agro with an initial group of 57 leaders identified from different organizations in Bajo Cauca, including ten organizations supported by LGBC. MBA Agro includes six management training seminars oriented toward developing management skills in group association agro-entrepreneurial activities. The MBA Agro provides differentiated support to each organization to formulate a business transformation project to create effective associative commercialization strategies and offers personalized psychosocial coaching support to empower leaders to mobilize their organizations. LGBC also provides commercial and commercialization technical advisory services to producer organizations, facilitating their connection to markets directly or through participation in trade fairs and events. Moreover, responding to observations during implementation, LGBC has extended association strengthening beyond leaders to incorporate agro-entrepreneurs into the process through workshops and training activities in working as a team and commercialization. The Urban component provides support by cohorts, with ten months allotted for each cohort. Participating small businesses take part in a selection process conducted by LGBC to identify the best￾qualified candidates based on an LGBC’s evaluation applied to the small businesses. By 2021, two cohorts had completed this process. The first cohort included 91 small businesses, and the second cohort included 69 small businesses. Seventeen businesses from the first cohort that wanted to continue the strengthening process also participated in the second cohort, meaning that the Urban component had provided support to 143 different companies as of 2021. The process begins with an assessment based on a Canvas model.15 Based on the results, LGBC classifies these businesses as being in a state of development or growth and defines a monitoring plan for them, which LGBC then adjusts according to the needs of each business. The support provided by LGBC includes general business advice for all entrepreneur participants and specialized advisory services as needed, covering aspects such as the business model, financial strategy, commercialization and digital marketing, and business processes. LGBC also provides psychosocial coaching support to promote a positive outlook and empowerment of entrepreneurs and advises on business image to help entrepreneurs improve their market positioning. Finally, LGBC offers advisory support to help recognize market gaps, develop commercialization strategies, and identify opportunities to generate new commercial linkages. This support is enhanced by preparing entrepreneurs to participate in commercial fairs and business roundtables. The Employability component offers services and support to increase participants’ skills and, therefore, employability, starting with actively recruiting people who lack employment or are looking for work and enrolling them in this component. The assistance model begins with the mentoring process, then each participant defines what other services to use. In the mentoring process, the participants identify their profiles to facilitate job search processes tailored to their strengths and potential. Also, they can receive psychosocial coaching support to help them define a self-concept, career goals, and a long-term life plan. The mentoring process also helps identify appropriate employee training and related career paths based 15 A management tool to document and illustrate existing business models or opportunities to develop, using nine strategic variables that can be applied to any undertaking. It was created by Alexander Osterwalder in 2009. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 16 on Comfama’s available trainings. Some participants decide to enroll in these courses to complement their job search. LGBC also offers scholarships, awarded based on merit to applicants for technical job training programs. The central axis of the Employability component is effective labor intermediation by Comfama, which connects employers seeking to fill vacancies with the human resources identified through Comfama’s public employment service. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY EVALUATION QUESTIONS To define final evaluation questions, the evaluation team and USAID discussed the questions initially proposed in the Statement of Work (see Annex VII), which included four questions, two for the Agricultural component, one targeted to the Urban component, and one for the Employability component. The first question of the Agricultural component inquired about the model’s effectiveness in increasing sales and income. The second focused on the model’s effectiveness in empowering agribusinesses and producer organizations. For the Urban component, the initial question was about the effectiveness in increasing sales and income for businessmen. Following these discussions and analyses, the evaluation team included a second question under the Urban component to evaluate the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ empowerment. The last question was about the Employability component, focusing on the challenges and lessons learned encountered in implementation. Therefore, the evaluation responds to the following five (5) guiding questions: AGRICULTURE COMPONENT Based on the Purpose of the Evaluation, evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the model: 1. How effective has LGBC’s model been to achieve sales, income, and productivity increases for the agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations involved? 2. How effective has the LGBC model been in empowering agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations? URBAN COMPONENT Based on the Purpose of the Evaluation, evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of the model: 3. How effective has LGBC’s model been to achieve increases in sales, income and market access of entrepreneurs targeted in Bajo Cauca? 4. How effective has been LGBC’s model to empower small business owners? EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT Based on the Purpose of the Evaluation, identify the principal variables that explain success cases. 17 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 5. What challenges and bottlenecks arose while implementing the component? What are the main lessons and best practices learned? METHODOLOGY16 The evaluation team used a mixed-method approach to answer the five evaluation questions. This approach combined three types of analysis that complement each other: (1) qualitative, (2) quantitative, and (3) geographic. Each type of analysis employed a different method. All three methods used primary and secondary information sources, including various data collection instruments and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) provided by USAID through the MEL activity. Mixed methods analyses allowed each method to complement each other to answer the evaluation questions and enhance the validity and reliability of the evaluation’s results. The evaluation units of analysis varied as informed by each evaluation component. The Agricultural component’s analysis unit was the APU and the producer organization. In contrast, the small business was the main unit of analysis in the Urban component, and the individual participant was the main unit of analysis in the Employability component. This approach was structured based on two main elements: (1) aspects common to all evaluation questions (i.e., those that are systematically used to address each evaluation question, such as the calculation and analysis of indicators from the surveys applied and triangulation with qualitative information from interviews and group activities) and (2) specific elements applied to some of the questions depending on their characteristics and the purpose of analysis (e.g., the development of regression models to find variables that were associated with the strengthening of economic activities).17 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH The qualitative analysis process enabled the evaluation team to gain an extensive understanding of LGBC and explain the implementation of the Activity based on participants’ experience. The evaluation team sought to answer the five guiding questions by formulating specific instruments for each component and by seeking perspectives from a broad selection of actors and points of view. The team sought to understand the opinions and perceptions of people involved with the different components of the Activity and to describe the narratives and meanings that they constructed based on their experiences as they related to key themes of the evaluation: • Agriculture Component: characterization and selection of participants, training, and incubator for agro-entrepreneurs, technical assistance, associativity, MBA Agro, market access 16 Detailed methodology for the evaluation and its specifications is found in Annex IV. 17 As shown in Annex IV, Evaluation Design Matrix section, evaluation matrix table. In Annex IV the evaluation team presents the evaluation matrix, which specifies how the team approached each of the questions, and sources for each dimension of the analysis. Annex V includes the data collection tools, and Annex VI includes the quantitative sample and data sources. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 18 • Urban Component: characterization and selection of participants, creation of a business model and entrepreneurial vision, specialized consultations, improvement of business processes and structures • Employability Component: characteristics and context of employment in Bajo Cauca, operational road maps, mentoring process, training process, job opportunities in the region INPUTS AND INFORMATION SOURCES The evaluation team conducted qualitative fieldwork in all six municipalities of Bajo Cauca between August-November 2021. The team conducted focus groups, social mapping, narrative multiplication exercises, and semi-structured interviews for each component. Each of the instruments developed by the team incorporated specific considerations under each component and cross-cutting criteria into its design, enabling a horizontal comparison across several components. Participants were intentionally selected from the three components, considering the program’s characteristics and progress in each municipality. During qualitative fieldwork, the team applied 63 instruments to 130 participants. (See Annex VI – Information sources.) ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY To analyze the qualitative data collected, the evaluation team coded transcripts from the instruments using Nvivo 12. The team coded data from agro-entrepreneurs on technical assistance, agribusiness training, productivity, and income generation. We coded data from producer organizations including commercial assessments and plans, networking and support as variables, as well as sales, and by categories based on the associative process. Under the Urban component, with regard to entrepreneurs, the team coded data by categories related to business technical advisory services and specialized support received, including the variables market access, income, and sales. For the Employability component, the analysis applied codes for mentoring, training processes, business management, and psychosocial support. It applied four cross-cutting codes across the three components to capture aspects related to empowerment processes: leadership, autonomy, sustainability, and long￾term vision. For each code, the evaluation team created a report segmented by actors and municipalities (included in Annex IV. Detailed methodology). QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH The evaluation addressed each of the five evaluation questions by analyzing the data obtained from each of the four types of surveys applied in two stages to the agricultural incubator participants, MBA Agro participants, Urban component participants, and Employability component participants, as well as USAID’s LGBC MONITOR data and other administrative records provided by the GDA. The evaluation team applied four complementary methodologies to analyze the data. It conducted: (1) a simple relationship analysis, including both descriptive statistics and statistical differences between means; (2) econometric probability models for increases in sales, income generation, productivity, and market access; (3) psychometric scales for resilience, long-term vision, and leadership; and (4) a multiple correspondence analysis. INPUTS AND INFORMATION SOURCES 19 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV In the early report for this evaluation, the evaluation team described the data and information gathered from the LGBC GDA in detail. This data and information comprised the inputs that were later used to help answer the evaluation questions. Annex VI – Information Sources provides further details. Moreover, the data collection firm conducted the surveys in two phases for each type of participant under the four components. Phase one (1) was conducted from April 23, 2022, to May 9, 2022, while phase two (2) went from August 21, 2022, to September 4, 2022, in the municipalities of Caucasia, El Bagre, Zaragoza, Tarazá, Nechí, and Cáceres, and with participants originally from these municipalities who had moved elsewhere. The evaluation team conducted the previously mentioned surveys to agricultural incubator participants, MBA Agro leader participants, Urban component participants, and Employability component participants. Detailed information regarding the distribution of surveys among the different municipalities and other relevant information is found in Annex VI – Information Sources. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS The evaluation team applied four complementary quantitative tools to analyze the data gathered from the surveys and USAID MONITOR’s LGBC database. The team’s first analysis method involved a simple relationship analysis, including the descriptive analysis of the data obtained. Descriptive analyses included the mean and dispersion of the responses in each question, any signaling trends, and response frequency. The second method was to use econometric probit models, providing an estimate of what factors from the LGBC intervention, as well as external contextual factors, while controlling for certain variables, increase or reduce the probability of an increase in sales, income, productivity, and market access in the Agriculture and Urban components, which helped answer questions one (1) and three (3). Finally, the team developed three psychometric scales. The first scale used a global measure named the Brief Resilience Scale, which measures the ability to recover from a stressful situation.18 The evaluation team also created other long-term perspectives and leadership scales based on research regarding these traits. The last quantitative analysis method was to conduct a multiple correspondence analysis using a diagram to aggregate categories of key questions about each component. This tool provided insights into participants’ perceptions of certain key elements within the LGBC GDA. Annex IV – Detailed Methodology offers specific information regarding these tools. GEOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS APPROACH The evaluation team employed two types of geographic analyses: social mapping and spatial analysis of information from secondary sources and LGBC databases. The evaluation team conducted social mapping for each municipality and component, drawing on participatory exercises during focus groups. For these exercises, members of the evaluation team guided participants in creating visual representations of their areas, explaining how they conducted their activities, the actors with whom they interacted, key locations, and economic flows.19 The social mappings allowed the team to visualize the behavior of the beekeeping and fish farming value chains, broken down by municipality for the Agriculture component. For the Urban component, the evaluation team observed the distribution of businesses in the urban centers; for the Employability component, the 18 Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine, 15(3), 194-200. 19 Focus groups brought together participants from the same component and provided them with maps of their municipality. Participants then placed visual elements on the map to represent their activities under the component. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 20 team observed the spatial distribution of employment opportunities and actors participating in the component. Using geospatial analysis, the evaluation team established the location of participants using official databases. Additionally, the evaluation team was able to compare and contrast location data with contextual factors that could affect economic activity, such as climatic anomalies or the distribution of environmental and security threats, such as illegal mining.20 TRIANGULATION The evaluation team carried out a triangulation process, which consisted of comparing and contrasting data obtained from surveys, focus groups, and individual and group interviews, as well as geographic information and other primary and secondary sources. The evaluation team collected and documented evidence from the three methodological pillars of the mixed-methods approach: quantitative, qualitative, and geographic. This evidence reflects the perceptions of different actors who participated in the evaluation, allowing the evaluation team to identify the main tendencies in the different topics of inquiry. Thus, the evidence analyzed and presented is not based on the position of individual actors, which might contain biases, but rather represents responses that the team encountered repeatedly and confirmed in interviews, focus groups, and surveys. 20 The detailed methodology is shown in Annex IV. Spatial Analysis Approach Section. 21 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV LIMITATIONS OF THE EVALUATION A key limitation of the evaluation was the inability to obtain reliable information regarding participants’ sales and income generation under the Agriculture and Urban components. LGBC cautioned the evaluation team about the reluctance of Bajo Cauca residents to provide accurate information regarding sales and income and warned that questions regarding these aspects might lead to interviewees avoiding questions entirely. One reason for this reticence about sales and income lies in the risk of visibility to armed groups in the region, which routinely extort businesses. Another reason stems from the informal nature of many livelihoods in the region, which may result in Colombian businesses and agro￾entrepreneurs worrying about the consequences if such information reached Colombian tax authorities or National Directorate of Taxes and Customs (DIAN, by its Spanish acronym). LGBC collected information on sales, income, and productivity for its MONITOR indicators, however, the methodology used to collect this data does not allow comparison between periods. This prevents the identification of changes in these variables during implementation. The evaluation team accessed other sources of information. Also, the purpose of the evaluation did not include quantifying changes in these variables. Nonetheless, the team considered the lack of information on these indicators to be a limitation, since had this information been available, it would have enabled a more comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of LGBC’s models. Security conditions in Bajo Cauca presented another important limitation. The area suffers from perennial insecurity which worsened with the imposition of an “armed strike” enforced by illegal actors in the region during Colombia’s presidential election campaign, whose final stretch coincided with the administration of our survey. The security situation also impeded the collection of qualitative information, as there were parts of the territory that the evaluation team, due to the need for precautions, could not access directly, including the municipality of Tarazá and the vereda of Cuturú in Caucasia.21 Concerning quantitative data collection, surveys had to be suspended on May 9, 2022, two weeks into the collection process (Phase 1). The data collection firm was able to complete these surveys only after elections were over, between August 21- September 4, 2022 (Phase 2). This situation not only limited access to direct information, but also affected the analysis process by making it non-continuous. Nevertheless, the evaluation team conducted a statistical comparison of the results obtained in Phases 1 and 2. This comparison showed no significant differences for most of the questions, validating the integrity of the survey results. Moreover, the initial evaluation design included an experimental economic analysis to conduct a quantitative measurement of empowerment to reduce the biases arising from answers originating exclusively from the self-perception of the respondents.22 However, LGBC requested the removal of this experiment, which also constitutes a limitation concerning the initial design proposed by the evaluation team. With the results that the experiment would have obtained, the evaluation team would have been able to validate participants’ perceptions of their own empowerment against actual decisions and behavior under controlled, experimental conditions. 21 Vereda – a term specific to Colombia – is a sub-division of a municipality, typically rural in nature and often containing households at a distance from one another. 22 Prosociality. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 22 The ongoing nature of the LGBC activity posed a limitation in terms of measuring results: this is a mid￾term evaluation whose purpose was to evaluate effectiveness in increasing sales, income, productivity, and levels of empowerment, but the implementation process has not yet concluded and the final results have yet to be consolidated. For this reason, the evaluation included variables to measure progress in adopting practices required to generate the expected changes. Finally, during qualitative and quantitative data collection, restrictions persisted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the evaluation team does not consider this a significant limitation for the evaluation, as it did not require changes in scheduling nor restrictions on access. 23 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION AGRICULTURE COMPONENT QUESTION 1: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS LGBC MODEL BEEN TO ACHIEVE SALES, INCOME, AND PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES FOR THE AGRO-ENTREPRENEURS AND PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED? FINDINGS F.1.1. Most beekeeper and fish farmer agro-entrepreneurs are satisfied with lessons shared and results achieved by LGBC. Among the surveyed agro-entrepreneurs, 96.3 percent of beekeepers and 81.6 percent of fish farmers indicated they are “satisfied” or “completely satisfied” with LGBC. Only 3.8 percent of beekeepers and 11.5 percent of fish farmers said they are “neither satisfied nor unsatisfied.” In comparison, 6.9 percent of fish farmers and no beekeepers declared they are “unsatisfied” or “completely unsatisfied” (see Exhibit 3). These satisfaction levels reflect participant perceptions of positive changes resulting from adopting new practices and agribusiness strengthening due to technical support. In interviews with agro￾entrepreneurs, many expressed perceptions like the following: “Thanks to God, to [LGBC], and to the specialists who helped us because we were really disorganized. We used to harvest just to harvest… [now] it is organized like this, it is organized here, and because of this we have been growing.” (Beekeeper, Nechí). Exhibit 3. Level of satisfaction among beekeeping and fish farming participants. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON INFORMATION FROM PARTICIPANT SURVEYS F.1.2. Beekeepers tended to demonstrate the highest levels of satisfaction with LGBC. This satisfaction is associated with the current level of development of their activity, the income they earned, and the individual operation of the APU, which is one household rather than as part of a collective. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 24 Exhibit 4. Factors associated with satisfaction with LGBC among beekeeping and fish farming participants. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON DATA FROM THE PARTICIPANT SURVEY By applying a multiple correspondence analysis to survey responses from 159 beekeeping participants and 44 fish farmers, it was possible to identify which factors drive satisfaction the most with LGBC.23 Beekeepers’ satisfaction is associated with those producers currently conducting productive activities and generating income; additionally, the level of satisfaction is higher when the producers or their families own or manage the APU they farm. In Exhibit 4, the yellow box shows a stronger association between satisfaction and these three conditions. Interviews with agro-entrepreneurs revealed that some of these participants had, in fact, thanks to LGBC, resumed beekeeping activities after a period of inactivity. Moreover, active beekeepers indicate that their connection to LGBC allowed them to continue their productive activity and improve the management of their APUs. On the other hand, the lowest rates of satisfaction corresponded to fish farmers, as shown in the blue box in Exhibit 4. Most fish farmers who expressed dissatisfaction are not currently engaged in fish farming nor earning the respective income. The associations reflected in the red box in Exhibit 4 show that while no relationship exists between neutral satisfaction (claiming to be “neither satisfied nor unsatisfied”) and currently implementing productive activities or earning income from those activities, a relationship does exist between neutral satisfaction and individual or family management of an APU. However, dissatisfaction and neutral satisfaction were much less frequent than satisfaction and high satisfaction, as noted in finding F.1.1. F.1.3. The adoption of management practices and productive techniques encouraged by LGBC positively affect beekeeping and fish farming APUs, which report high levels of learning, and, to a lesser degree, the adoption of practices aimed at improving productivity. 23 Annex IV – Detailed Methodology explains the application of multiple correspondence analysis, page 98. 25 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 5. Level of Learning about and adoption of agribusiness planing, vision, and forecast practices. *Note: Respondents include only participants actively implementing productive activities in line with work plans (150 beekeepers and 38 fish farmers). SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY On average, 97.9 percent of agro-entrepreneurs surveyed across the two value chains indicated that they “agree” or “completely agree” that they have learned about planning productive activities (see Exhibit 5). These learnings reflect positive results for LGBC’s knowledge transfer model using instruments including the agribusiness incubator. Nevertheless, a slight decrease occurs between the reported level of learning and adoption of management practices: when asked if productive activities followed a defined work plan, the average of respondents that “agree” or “completely agree” fell slightly to 94.3 percent. The comparative decrease in the adoption of practices is higher in the “completely agree” response since on average, between the two chains, this response dropped from 54.7 percent to 42.6 percent. In general, the responses of agricultural entrepreneurs in both value chains were similar. F.1.4. Beekeeping and fish-farming agro-entrepreneurs have a very positive outlook of future growth in terms of productivity, sales, and income compared to their current situation, which they hope to achieve by applying skills learned through LGBC. Our survey of agro-entrepreneurs and interviews with these participants provided an indication of how these actors perceive the current situation of their businesses. Agro-entrepreneurs largely perceived that in 2021, thanks to learning and adopting practices promoted by LGBC, they saw increased productivity, sales, and income (see Exhibit 7), which generated expectations of continued increases in the future. In the case of the productivity variable, as shown in Exhibit 6, 95 percent of the 150 beekeeping agro￾entrepreneurs and 92 percent of the 38 fish farmers surveyed indicated that they feel that by continuing to apply the learnings obtained through LGBC, their productivity will continue to increase in the future. The strength of this expectation for future productivity improvements is higher among the beekeepers, with 68 percent of the interviewees completely agreeing with the statement, compared to 58 percent of the fish farmers. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 26 Exhibit 6. Expectations of future productivity. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY With regard to expectations of future increases in sales, 90.7 percent of beekeepers and 89.5 percent of fish farmers “agree” or “completely agree” that they have developed skills to improve sales (see Exhibit 7). This confidence in the skills acquired seems to generate higher expectations of achieving better sales in the future by continuing to apply learnings from LGBC, with this potential scenario reaching 97.4 percent among beekeepers and 92 percent among fish farmers. Beekeepers agree more with this scenario, with 70.7 percent of beekeepers indicating “completely agree,” compared to 60.6 percent of fish farmers. Exhibit 7. Expectations for future sales. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Perception of agro-entrepreneurs of productivity increases, development of sales capacity, and expectations of future improvements in these factors are consistent with their perceptions of income increases in 2021, and, to a greater extent, are consistent with expectations of improvement in income. Exhibit 8 shows that 93.3 percent of beekeepers and 92 percent of fish farmers indicate that they increased their income in 2021. Moreover, 98 percent of beekeepers and 94.7 percent of fish farmers “agree” or “completely agree” that they will increase their income in the future. 27 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 8. Expectations of future income. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY F.1.5. Producer organization leaders indicated a greater willingness among organization members and managers to see producer organizations as spaces for effective participation and teamwork to reduce costs and improve productivity. Exhibit 9. Perceptions of improvements in organizational capacity in producer organizations. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY The organizational and commercial strengthening support that LGBC provided producer organizations (seven focused on beekeeping and three on fish farming) generated positive change in organizational conditions. This support strengthened aspects including communication between members and directors, generated mechanisms for communication and spaces for participation to identify needs, problems, and solutions, and increased demand in levels of participation and contribution of the members that represent a key condition for permanence in the organization and continued receipt of benefits. Recognition of these changes by producer organization leaders emerged in interviews, as shown, for example, by one leader from Caucasia, who participated in the MBA Agro and later explained that: “I learned to work with a group, it’s that sometimes there are associations, the USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 28 associations form, but we don’t know how to work as a group, and this creates many shortcomings in the associations and creates difficulties.” Moreover, the information collected through the survey shows that, averaged across the four responses shown in Exhibit 9, 97.7 percent of the leaders who participated in the MBA Agro indicated that they either “agree” or “completely agree” that they managed to make specified improvements in their organizations. F.1.6. The agribusiness training and technical support that LGBC provided has been key to adopting good management practices by agribusinesses. Participants have a positive perception of these support areas, with beekeepers expressing strongest levels of positive perception. The development of agribusiness training and technical support by LGBC shows a high level of effectiveness in encouraging the adoption of good agribusiness practices in both the beekeeping and fish farming value chains. The implementation of best management practices on APUs among the 156 beekeepers surveyed before they participated in LGBC showed an average of 46.9 percent across the ten technical good practices and methodologies investigated through the survey. However, by 2021, with their participation in LGBC, the average across practices reached 88.3 percent, as shown in Exhibit 10. Methodologies including breeding queens and swapping out low-producing queens went from 39.5 percent and 28.2 percent, respectively, before beekeepers participated in LGBC to 76.4 percent and 73 percent, respectively, after they began to participate in LGBC. Exhibit 10. Evolution in the adoption of good beekeeping practices. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY 29 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV This result was also reflected in interviews: Well, we have been implementing [activities], but they strengthened us in many things. [The trainer] taught us how to work better to get better quality. For example, to not just harvest honey in any weather, you can’t do that. In rainy weather, like last night, it rained, today [we cannot harvest]. You have to wait two or three days for the honey to come out with good moisture. (Beekeeper, Cáceres) Similarly, in the area of fish farming, agro-entrepreneurs recognized that they acquired knowledge transferred through the business incubator and technical assistance from LGBC, as noted by one fish farmer from Nechí, who said “(…) Of course, and I saw this in the incubator, and if I did not see it directly in the incubator, I saw it with the specialist, so, in any case, it came from [LGBC].” (Fish farmer, Nechí). Exhibit 11. Evolution in the adoption of good practices by fish farmers. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY As is reflected in Exhibit 11, before participating in LGBC, implementation of good practices on fish farming APUs stood at 43.8 percent, averaged across the 12 practices that the evaluation examined. Participation in LGBC, however, brought this average to 78.1 percent. For example, the percentage of fish farmers who periodically checked water quality in fishponds and maintained species-specific feeding schedules went from 29.5 percent and 36.8 percent, respectively, before LGBC, to 82.9 percent and 74.3 percent with participation in LGBC. Nevertheless, it is worth highlighting that practices that do not USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 30 depend solely on the will of the agro-entrepreneurs, however they require investment or the involvement of a third party, achieved a lower level of adoption. Some of these practices include using appropriate harvesting and processing equipment (which 68.9 percent of fish farmers now do), seeking permits from the authorities (54.3 percent), and the use of anti-bird mesh (51.9 percent). F.1.7. Participants identified weaknesses in productive technical assistance associated with the low frequency of technical visits and limited presence of the assistance provided by LGBC specialists to beekeeping and fish-farming agro-entrepreneurs over time. Agro-entrepreneurs recognized the technical assistance provided by LGBC as a key benefit, mainly because of the learning and adoption of good practices that LGBC catalyzed. However, interviews also found that both beekeepers and fish farmers feel that the technical support should include a greater frequency of visits to APUs and guarantee the sustainability of support over time. One beekeeper from Zaragoza stated: “Well, I don’t know, maybe the technical issue, I don’t know if [another producer] knows if during those days they were visited because the truth is that since [the technical specialist] left about two months ago, I have not received technical support from LGBC for two months…” Technical specialists interviewed for the evaluation also recognized that these aspects show room for improvement. One noted: In the organizations, we noticed that the technical aspect always depended a lot on the projects that come to the organizations, while the project [LGBC] is there, there is technical assistance, there are training; the project leaves and the organizations don’t have this base anymore, or they don’t have this support, right? Which should be permanent. (Field Officer, Nechí). The evaluation also identified differences between the technical support for beekeeping and fish farming. While 65.2 percent of agro-entrepreneurs indicated they are “completely satisfied” with the service, only 38.9 percent of fish farmers expressed the same level of satisfaction. Combining the totals for “completely satisfied” and “satisfied” reduces this gap, as the combined total for beekeepers equals 96.2 percent, and that for fish farmers stands at 91.6 percent. This phenomenon is consistent with fish-farm technical assistance quality issues, mentioned in interviews with participants in 2021 and confirmed in interviews with the LGBC team. The LGBC team indicated that they decided to adjust the technical assistance to fish farmers in 2021. F.1.8. Thanks to LGBC, agro-entrepreneurs learned how to keep records, perceiving this task as essential for their business. Nevertheless, some beekeepers said they encountered difficulties keeping these records up to date, stating that it was a cumbersome and time-consuming task and that they did not have enough time for it. 31 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 12. Challenges for keeping updated records. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEYS One of the good practices promoted by LGBC among agro-entrepreneurs is keeping records on production, costs, and sales. As seen in Exhibit 10, before LGBC, only 25 percent of beekeepers kept records for each hive, but by 2021, thanks to LGBC, 85.1 percent of beekeepers kept up this practice. Similarly, as seen in Exhibit 11, only 38.9 percent of fish farmers surveyed kept pond-level records for seeding, maintenance, cleaning, and production before the interventions of LGBC; by 2021, however, this percentage increased to 91.4 percent. Agro-entrepreneurs recognize this through testimonials like this one: …keeping records is vitally important, many producers don’t keep these records, so when it is time to assess how much they are earning from profits, they cannot forecast because they don’t have these records, I liked this [being able to see profits and make accurate forecasts] and [record-keeping] is something you have to do. (Fish farmer, Cáceres.) USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 32 Nevertheless, as shown in Exhibit 12, the participant survey also indicated that 39 percent of the 113 beekeepers surveyed, and 22.5 percent of fish farmers find keeping up-to-date records challenging. Among participants who said they find this practice difficult, 43.5 percent of beekeepers and 48.9 percent of fish farmers said that record-keeping is cumbersome and time-consuming and did not have time for it. A smaller percentage of participants who encountered difficulties with record-keeping, at 19.4 percent of beekeepers and 20.4 percent of fish farmers, indicated that they do not fully understand the formats that LGBC provided and presented for record-keeping. F.1.9. Most agro-entrepreneurs asserted that the instruments and activities implemented by LGBC had effectively increased or maintained their sales, income, and yields. Exhibit 13. Perceptions of agro-entrepreneurs of changes in sales, income, prodcutivity, and access to markets. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Agro-entrepreneurs surveyed perceived that since they began to benefit from the LGBC model, they have increased sales, income, yields, and market access. As shown in Exhibit 13, in 2021, perceived sales increased for 69.2 percent of 156 beekeepers and 56.3 percent of the 41 fish farmers surveyed. Perceived income increases were slightly less steep than perceived sales increases, as 64.7 percent of beekeepers and 53.7 percent of fish farmers perceived income increases. In comparison, 61.5 percent of beekeepers and 53.7 percent of fish farmers considered that they achieved productivity increases. Finally, the perception of access to markets shows smaller increases than the preceding variables, with perceived growth in market access reaching around 50 percent, taking an average across beekeepers and fish farmers. In general, the reasons provided in the survey by the agro-entrepreneurs who stated that they did not achieve increases in sales, income, productivity, or access to markets were related to winter weather situation (specifically, the excess precipitation due to La Niña phenomenon), the COVID-19 pandemic or security conditions. Other factors include null or low production, lack of commercial support, products only being marketed with the producer organization, or because the number of clients in the region was small. Given the close relationship between the four variables, it is evident that these effects, primarily on productivity and access to markets, can limit agro-entrepreneurs’ growth in sales and income. 33 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV F.1.10. The evaluation identified possible increases in productivity between 2020 and 2021, with beekeepers and fish farmers reporting total sales in 2021 of more than $654 million Colombian pesos (COP), equivalent to approximately USD $164,273. Given limitations concerning sales and productivity, as discussed in the cross-cutting findings, it was impossible to accurately determine total annual variation between 2020 and 2021 for these indicators. For productivity, the information reported by LGBC via the MONITOR system for 2020-2021 makes it possible to infer a possible increase in productivity by fish farmers between some quarters, as shown in Exhibit 14. This exhibit shows an average yield in the third quarter (Q3) of 2020 equal to 1.25 kilograms (kg) of fish meat per square meter (m2), while the first quarter (Q1) of 2021 saw average yields of 1.96 kg/m2, an increase of 57 percent. Nonetheless, this comparison does not correspond to data from the same quarter each year, nor to quarterly averages obtained for the total cumulative production for the year. Variations in yield between quarters can occur due to production cycles, making it necessary to complement the data from MONITOR with information on perceptions of productivity increases from the fish farmers themselves (a figure equal to 53.7 percent, as shown in Exhibit 12) and qualitative information gathered in interviews with fish farmers. Exhibit 14. Reported quarterly yields for 2020 vs. 2021. Note: Amounts for 2020 refer to Q3, and amounts for 2021 refer to Q1 SOURCE: MONITOR 2021 As for productivity in the beekeeping value chain, as shown in Exhibit 14, the information from MONITOR for quarter three (Q3) of 2020 reported an average yield of 17Kg of honey per hive while showing the production of 14.3kg per hive for quarter one (Q1) for 2021, indicating a 16 percent reduction. On the other hand, the information collected through the participant survey, comprising 118 beekeepers, suggested an average yield of 17.8Kg per hive, which means an increase of five percent in productivity between 2020 and 2021. For the same reasons given above about fish farmers, and because the information for each year for beekeepers corresponds to a different instrument, it is not possible to say with certainty that productivity increases occurred. Neither is it possible, however, to confidently claim that productivity decreased, but 61.5 percent of beekeepers surveyed perceived an increase in productivity in 2021 (see Exhibit 13). Drawing on the information collected through the participant survey, 118 of 159 beekeepers surveyed (74 percent) reported sales in 2021, with the sum of their total sales reaching COP$470.5 million USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 34 (Exhibit 15), with an average volume of COP$3,987,923 per beekeeper for the year. Of fish farmers surveyed, 23 out of 44 (52 percent) reported sales of fish, with the total value of their sales equal to COP$183.6 million for an average of COP$7,985,022 COP per fish farmer for the year.24 Exhibit 15. Information for total sales by agro-entrepreneurs in Colombian pesos for 2021. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY F.1.11. On average, 30 percent of agro-entrepreneurs’ incomes stem from beekeeping and fish farming activities supported by LGBC. As seen in Exhibit 16, the income of agro-entrepreneurs in LGBC does not come only from beekeeping and fish farming; at least six other income sources were reported in the participant survey. However, beekeeping and fish farming, with 30 percent, are the activities with the highest share of income generated among agro-entrepreneurs. Among beekeeping participants, 30 percent of their income comes from beekeeping, followed by informal paid work and individual or family business outside the APUs, with 17 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Among fish farmers, fish-farming activities also represent the main economic activity, at 30 percent, followed by other agricultural activities on the family APU, and formal paid work in a private or public enterprise, each of which represents a share of 15 percent. Fifty-one percent of beekeeper and fish farmers’ income comes from agricultural and rural activities and 60 percent of fish farmers’ income comes from these activities. These include activities supported by LGBC, while the remaining income stems from participants’ businesses and non-agricultural paid work. This economic profile is consistent with a typical profile of small rural producers who need to seek out various sources of income to supplement one or two main activities. 24 The 2022 monthly minimum wage in Colombia for an individual in a formal job was COP$908,526. 35 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 16. The makeup of household income among agro-entrepreneurs in LGBC. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY F.1.12. A perception among agro-entrepreneurs of increases in sales and productivity is associated with receiving training in environmental management and adopting good practices promoted and facilitated by LGBC. This evaluation used probability models to identify the activities promoted by LGBC that show the highest probability of increased productivity, market access, sales, and income for agro-entrepreneurs.25 Exhibit 17 shows that in beekeeping, queen breeding and the production of nuclei increase the APU’s productivity by 23.4 percent. Environmental technical support increases productivity by 56.1 percent, due to increases in the supply of flowers from which bees could draw nectar to make honey. Moreover, using and monitoring a flower calendar to schedule harvest cycles increases the probability of market access by 28.6 percent, while facilitating commercial connections increases this probability by 29.8 percent. Selecting and preparing appropriate areas for apiaries and training in environmental management increases the probability of a sales increase by 37.5 percent and 46.2 percent, respectively. Among beekeepers, training in environmental management increases the probability of increased income by 39.8 percent, while good harvesting and storage practices increase the probability of higher income levels by 34.6 percent. 25 The probit model used for these probability tests is explained in Annex IV – Detailed Methodology, page 95. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 36 Exhibit 17. Probability analysis for practices among beekeepers that increase sales, productivity, and income. SOURCE: CALCULATED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM USING PARTICIPANT SURVEY DATA In the case of fish farming, Exhibit 18 shows that the use of netting to deter birds is a practice with the greatest impact on the improvement of agribusinesses, as it increases the probability of sales increases by 52.3 percent, of increased income by 43.4 percent, and of productivity increases by 35.9 percent. The model also showed that problems associated with commercialization reduce the probability of improved access to markets by 42.6 percent. Exhibit 18. Probability analysis for practices among fish farmers that increase sales, productivity, and income SOURCE: CALCULATED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM USING PARTICIPANT SURVEY DATA F.1.13. Environmental factors, such as excess precipitation, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic pose a threat to APUs’ productivity. 37 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 19. External factors that affected APU productivity. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY As reflected in Exhibit 13, 38.5 percent of beekeepers and 46.3 percent of fish farmers surveyed claimed that their productivity neither changed or diminished in 2021. Exhibit 19 shows that 86.5 percent of 156 beekeepers and 53.5 percent of 41 beekeepers “agree” or “completely agree” that the challenging climate conditions in 2021 represented a key factor in productivity. During this period, much of Colombia suffered anomalies in precipitation, with an excess of between 30 percent and 60 percent compared to the levels of previous years.26 For example, in August of 2021, the national weather service (IDEAM) reported increased rains nationwide, highlighting excess rain compared to the reference climate study (1981-2010) and noting that this excess mainly affected the Andean region. This region includes southwest Antioquia; while Bajo Cauca is in the northeastern area of the department, this area also experienced the effects of heavy rainfall. In another example, Exhibit 20 shows significant accumulated precipitation in July of 2021, in the south of Bolívar, in the Orinoco basin, the Amazonian region, and the department of Antioquia, with specific emphasis on Bajo Cauca. When overlapping beekeeping and fish farming APU locations targeted by LGBC with a map of average rainfall for 2021 in the municipalities that make up the Bajo Cauca region, these municipalities received rainfall of between 2,500 millimeters (mm) to 3,500 mm, as shown in Exhibit 21. The map shows that high rainfall occurred over a large proportion of beekeeping APUs. A key element to bear in mind is that rain has a more significant impact on beekeeping than on fish farming given that, during the rainy season, the productivity of bees decreases, and it is not possible to harvest honey. The evaluation team found an alignment between these factors and the responses from those beekeepers who indicated climate as a factor that affects their productive activity. 26 IDEAM (September 2021). National Agroclimatic Bulletin. http://ideam.gov.co/documents/21021/113436056/Boletin+Agroclim porcientoC3porcientoA1tico+Nacional+- +Septiembre+2021.pdf/371f30f0-4c1b-4922-9075-a7f5921652fa?version=1.0 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 38 Exhibit 20. Precipitation in Colombia, July and August 2021 SOURCE: IDEAM – BOLETÍN AGROCLIMÁTICO NACIONAL, SEPTEMBER, 2021 Another factor agro-entrepreneurs indicated negatively affects their productivity (72.5 percent of beekeepers and 53.7 percent of fish farmers), was difficulty accessing their APU (see Exhibit 19). For many APUs, their lack of access was related to climate factors. Many tertiary roads become impassible in the rainy season (a situation confirmed by the evaluation team during field visits). Regarding the COVID￾19 pandemic, the perceptions of beekeepers and fish farmers were similar, as 61.5 percent and 56.1 percent, respectively, “agree” or “completely agree” that the pandemic produced negative effects for their businesses (see Exhibit 19). 39 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 21. APU locations vs. precipitation index 2021. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE GIS MEL ACTIVITY TEAM USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 40 F.1.14. LGBC helps beekeeping agro-entrepreneurs overcome some challenges associated with commercializing their products. Challenges remain mainly with regard to payment, permits, and the logistics of harvest and transportation. Exhibit 22. Main problems in improving commercialization. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Of the participants surveyed, 69.8 percent of 159 beekeepers and 70.3 percent of 44 fish farmers, indicated that they do not face challenges with regard to commercialization (see Exhibit 22). However, despite LGBC’s efforts to facilitate commercial connections, such as establishing committees of 41 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV commercial managers, participation in business roundtables and trade fairs, the agro-entrepreneurial incubator, and MBA Agro, a significant percentage of agro-entrepreneurs (23.3 percent of beekeepers and 18.2 percent of fish farmers) still reported difficulties in strengthening the commercialization of their products. As seen in Exhibit 18, the probability model also indicates that problems associated with commercializing products from fish farmers reduce the probability of achieving better market access. After inquiring what agro-entrepreneurs considered to be challenges to commercialization, the evaluation found that agro-entrepreneurs identify multiple challenges. For beekeeping, the main barrier, indicated by 40.5 percent of beekeepers, refers to buyers not paying immediately in cash and delayed payments from some clients. Delayed payments affect entrepreneurs’ cash flow, reducing the availability of working capital for maintenance and resources for investment in their agribusinesses. Obtaining permits and licenses to sell their product (29.7 percent) and logistical problems with collection, storage, and transportation (24.3 percent) also stand out, albeit at a lesser percentage. In the case of fish farming, agro-entrepreneurs who reported challenges in improving commercialization identified their main barriers to below capacity for storage and transportation of fish, as well as a lack of permits and licenses, with 50.5 percent of fish farmers surveyed identifying each one of these factors as a key problem. In addition, 36.9 percent of fish farmers mention buyers not paying in cash or delayed payments as one of the main problems they faced in commercializing their products. F.1.15. Beekeeping commercialization proceeds in a coordinated fashion through producer organizations, as approximately 70 percent of APUs sell at least part of their production with their organizations; in contrast, no more than 40 percent of fish farmers engage in collective sales. The participant survey showed, as seen in Exhibit 23, that producer organizations represent the primary channel for commercializing beekeeping products. Forty-six percent of beekeepers indicated that they deliver more than half, up to the entirety, of their production, to their producer organization for storage and commercialization, and 72 percent send at least a part to their association. In the case of fish farming, there is a different situation: 60 percent of the 41 fish farmers surveyed stated that they marketed their product individually, and only three percent send the entirety of their production for collective storage and sale. Exhibit 23. Proportion of APU production sent for collective storage and sale. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 42 The lower proportion of fish farmers engaging in collective commercialization aligns with multiple fish farmers interviewed who indicated that they had individual buyers near their farm or had access to local markets where they could sell their products directly without incurring greater logistical expenses, as expressed in this testimony: “I have several clients, I have the direct client, I sell, I don’t have a commercial partner like I said, I sell directly, which is the best sales there are, I take the fish out of the pond, I weigh it, and then it goes to the client.” (Fish farmer, Nechí). Additionally, in the last decade, the beekeeping value chain in Bajo Cauca and its producer organizations have been targeted by other USAID Activities. This has led to more development of collective commercialization in the beekeeping value chain than in the fish farming value chain. As discussed in finding F.1.14., fish farmers face a key issue in improving commercialization. This is limited ability to store and transport their product, which is perishable and requires a functioning cold chain, in addition to the need to secure permits from fishing and environmental authorities. This obstacle affects the possibilities of collective commercialization through producer organizations. F.1.16. Geographic isolation for fish farmers and a lack of financing and suitable equipment for the extraction and processing of honey for beekeepers reduce the possibility that APUs supported by LGBC will increase income. Our probability analysis highlights that for fish farming APUs, geographic isolation (the distance of the APUs from population centers, the degree of dispersion among them, and difficulties in access) decreases the probability of increased income by 41.2 percent (as shown in Exhibit 24). Exhibit 24. Probability analysis for variables that reduce sales, productivity, and income among fish farmers. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON DATA FROM THE PARTICIPANT SURVEY In the case of beekeeping, and as shown in Exhibit 25, analysis demonstrated that contextual variables, a lack of equipment for honey extraction and processing, and a lack of financing reduce the probability of increased income for beekeepers by 22.5 percent and by 16.9 percent, respectively. Similarly, the variable related to environmental and climatic problems reduces the probability of obtaining increases in productivity by 37.5 percent and sales by 23.7 percent, which is consistent with findings F.1.9. and F1.12. 43 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 25. Probability of variables that reduce sales, productivity, and incomes for beekeeping. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON DATA FROM PARTICIPANT SURVEY As for the variables related to interventions carried out by LGBC, the analysis indicated that challenges among beekeepers in maintaining production records reduce the probability of improving income by 23.2 percent and the probability of increasing sales by 13.5 percent. This finding demonstrates the importance of agribusiness management for improving income from productive activities. F.1.17. The production of beekeeping and fish farming APUs, individually and collectively, mainly caters to the market in the Bajo Cauca region through direct sales to the final consumer and local retail businesses. Exhibit 26. Proportion of sales by producer organizations to different types of clients. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 44 The survey demonstrated that beekeeping and fish-farming producer organizations sell almost exclusively in the local and regional market. As shown in Exhibit 26, 88 percent of sales go to clients in the Bajo Cauca region, specifically through direct sales to final consumers (41 percent) and to local or regional retail businesses (18 percent). This situation was corroborated through interviews with producer organization leaders, as evidenced by testimonies like this one from the leader of a beekeeping organization in Tarazá that has its own point of sale: Even though a few people always come by here, if we take a look, the resellers, the ones who buy from us for Tarazá, well, they do sell a lot because a single person sometimes takes 30 kilos and to sell 30 kilos, sometimes we need three days, it’s not that it’s more, but that maybe it is more constant… … They can sell more wholesale, we in wholesale right now are supplying around five clients, and those five clients take 30 kilos per week, and at retail in the association they are leaving approximately 100 kilos per week. (Beekeeping organization leader, Tarazá) F.1.18. One third of leaders of producer organization reported increases in the sales made by their organizations through the support of LGBC. As seen in findings F.1.9., F.1.12., and F.1.14., and despite the efforts and actions achieved by LGBC to improve commercial capabilities and access to markets, commercialization, especially that undertaken by producer organizations, remains challenging for the beekeeping and fish farming value chains in Bajo Cauca. The process of organizational strengthening is still ongoing to develop collective commercialization skills by supporting their members to consolidate their commercial supply effectively and in a way that meets market requirements. Stakeholders recognize these challenges, as one specialist from LGBC noted: Sometimes negotiations have failed because the associations don’t know what each member is producing in their apiary. I don’t know… we managed negotiations for two tons monthly, and as the [the producer organization] did not know what each member produced, they could not move forward… (LGBC Field Officer, Caucasia) Exhibit 27. Perception of changes in sales volume and income from sales in 2021. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY In the survey of producer organization leaders who participated in MBA Agro, 33.3 percent of surveyed leaders perceive a reduction in sales volumes, and 31.5 percent perceive a decrease in sales revenues, as shown in Exhibit 27. These declines align to the situation described in finding F.1.13 regarding the effects on productivity produced by the challenging climatic situation during 2021 and obstacles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted mobility and affected supply and demand for APU products. Nevertheless, a slightly higher percentage of leaders surveyed perceive increases in sales volumes and 45 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV sales revenues, at 35.2 percent and 37 percent, respectively. These perceived increases demonstrate that, for at least one third of the producer organization leaders surveyed, the organization-level commercial strengthening promoted by LGBC meant perceived improvements in commercial capabilities, which, in turn, allowed them to confront crisis, including the recent climate related crises. F.1.19. Organizational strengthening processes result in producer organizations wanting to develop their own marketing channels and add value; however, there is no evidence that this includes a vision for regional value chains that could build on previous initiatives. LGBC, through MBA Agro and support to businesses and producer organizations, contributes to organizational development of producer groups, whose leaders state that their organizations have improved the dynamics between the leadership of these organizations and their members and strengthened organizations’ planning and management capacities. However, this association capacity building was implemented with an individual focus for each producer organization and without an overarching strategy for organizational strengthening. The LGBC year four, quarter two implementation report notes several actions to partially address the situation described in this finding. However, a specific strategy has not yet emerged to promote commercial integration with a regional approach through which producer organizations and other actors propose a vision for a joint value chain to combine efforts and develop capacities. The beekeeping value chain, for example, displays a lack of connection between actors, which in turn hinders these actors from taking advantage of previous initiatives promoting commercial integration in Bajo Cauca. This situation was described by a representative of one of the main businesses working in the commercialization of apian products in the region: …the important thing is for the programs to not overlook the organizations that already have a process and that know what the weaknesses and shortcomings are of the whole process. So when they intervene, they don't take these organizations into account and they start doing alternative activities and they are leaving out the organizations that had a process and knew what the difference is… (Regional Business Representative, El Bagre). Interviews with leaders of producer organizations demonstrated that, in part, producer organizations confront a situation in which each organization may want to advance its own commercial management, without thinking about integration, and could be motivated by conflicts in the negotiation of the purchase prices with recognized commercial actors in the region, as expressed by a leader of a beekeeping producer organization from El Bagre: There have been many advances because we also negotiated with [a local business] through this because they had been paying us very little, so we told them, well, come on, through what we are doing, we are going to negotiate honey with you, let's go to negotiate to see how they are going to pay us because if they are not going to pay us a price that we see, that they do not raise our price, they have not raised our price for 3-4 years, then we have to look for another side because We cannot always be there either, even if it is an organization of ours, a company of ours, we can’t, as people say, stick our necks out. (Beekeeping organization leader, El Bagre) CONCLUSIONS C.1.1. Agro-entrepreneurs and their respective producer organizations are satisfied with the actions implemented by LGBC, including positive learnings and perspectives for the future concerning USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 46 productive and commercial improvements on their APUs, specifically for their revenues. Nevertheless, these results have yet to be fully consolidated. (Findings 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5). C.1.2. Despite the general satisfaction with and adoption of technical and productive learning provided through LGBC’s technical support, agro-entrepreneurs identify difficulties stemming from the relatively low frequency of in-person technical assistance visits in the territories to the APUs by providers. This area represents a key point for improvement. (Findings 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8). C.1.3. For many agro-entrepreneurs, beekeeping and fish farming are not the main economic activities. However, they perceive that LGBC was effective in generating increases in sales, incomes, and productivity. These increases led agro-entrepreneurs to see potential in these activities and desire growth in these areas, which offer an effective alternative to promote agribusiness development and generate income. (Findings 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11). C.1.4. For agro-entrepreneurs, despite the impact of weather conditions (specifically, excessive rainfall) and the COVID-19 pandemic on productive activities, adopting practices promoted by LGBC prevented even greater setbacks from these phenomena. Also, it helps agro-entrepreneurs maintain a positive outlook for achieving productivity gains. (Findings 1.12 and 1.13). C.1.5. Despite agro-entrepreneurs’ perceptions of positive results for the growth of productivity, sales, and incomes, marketing at both the individual and the collective level continues to pose difficulties that exceed the capacity of individual agro-entrepreneurs to address. This makes it more suited for a collective and inter-institutional approach through the lens of regional value chains. (Findings 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, and 1.19). RECOMMENDATIONS R.1.1. Promote the creation of a territorial strategy to offer agricultural extension services for the beekeeping and fish farming value chains in Bajo Cauca, from the lessons learned from LGBC, to ensure continuity of technical support to businesses after the closing of the Activity. (Conclusion 1.1). R.1.2. Continue to implement adjustments in LGBC’s technical assistance strategy to enable greater frequency and sustainability of this assistance and promote the strengthening of support for keeping up￾to-date records. (Conclusion 1.2) R.1.3. In implementing future initiatives focused on agricultural value chains, maintain the approach of technical support to improve the productivity of APUs and strengthen producer organizations' social and business capacities. (Conclusion 1.3). R.1.4. Ensure methodological transfer across territorial entities regarding the processes, instruments, and good practices implemented by LGBC to ensure the application of these practices to further territorial consolidation of agricultural value chains and strengthen regional capacity. (Conclusions 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5) R.1.5. As done until now, continue to advance in promoting inter-institutional connections with territorial and national level entities and other projects. Promote the design and implementation of a joint territorial strategy to strengthen and consolidate collective agribusiness commercialization to guarantee the productive and commercial development of priority value chains. (Conclusion 1.5). 47 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV QUESTION 2: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE LGBC MODEL BEEN IN EMPOWERING AGRO-ENTREPRENEURS AND PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS? FINDINGS F.2.1. Since agro-entrepreneurs began to participate in LGBC, 78 percent of beekeepers and 43 percent of fish farmers have invested in new hives and ponds with their resources, demonstrating empowerment in their agribusiness. Exhibit 28. New hives and fishponds set up by smaller producer participants with their resources. SOURCE: CALCULATED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM USING DATA FROM PARTICIPANT SURVEY The participant survey demonstrated that 122 beekeepers set up, using their own resources, new hives in numbers that ranged from one to eighty, for a total of 1,601 new hives and an average of 13 per beekeeper. Similarly, 18 fish farmers used their resources to build new fishponds in batches ranging from one to five, for an average of two per fish farmer, and a total of 40, as shown in Exhibit 28. These investments in new facilities are proof of agro-entrepreneurs’ interest in boosting the growth and development of their businesses. These investments align with the positive expectations for the future cited in finding F.1.4. Projects that aim to promote agricultural productivity often deliver subsidized productive units to their participants, but this is not the case for LGBC. The fact that participants have invested their resources in new productive units indicates their empowerment in this regard. F.2.2. Agro-entrepreneurs are willing to adopt planning practices to improve their productive and commercial processes (for example, through flowering calendars and staggered plantings). Exhibit 29 shows that LGBC has been effective in promoting the adoption of good practices by agro￾entrepreneurs, which shows the willingness and interest of these entrepreneurs in improving management and planning in their businesses and is an indicator of their empowerment. Only 26.9 percent of beekeepers used a flowering calendar before participating in LGBC, but 89.2 percent use this tool after joining LGBC. Among fish farmers, 49 percent used size and weight market requirements to guide their harvests prior to LGBC, while 88.7 percent do so after participating in LGBC. Interviews during fieldwork supported this finding, with agro-entrepreneurs manifesting their enthusiasm for the new production techniques to improve planning in their businesses, as noted by a fish farmer in Tarazá: “…now we have a very important part, which is the staggered planting. So, what does this guarantee? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 48 That we are going to have fish all the time to commercialize, this is the very important part, and we had thought about this, but we had not envisioned it like [LGBC] taught us.” Exhibit 29. Adoption of productive and commercial planning practices. SOURCE: Participant SURVEY F.2.3. Agro-entrepreneurs state that participation in LGBC increased their long-term vision and leadership capabilities to continue the independent implementation of their businesses, even if LGBC ends. Exhibit 30 shows that 96.8 percent of 159 beekeepers and 86.3 percent of 44 fish farmers expressed agreement or complete agreement that LGBC provided them with tools to define production and sales goals and create work plans for their businesses. Moreover, 91.2 percent of beekeepers and 86.2 percent of fish farmers stated that they defined a growth plan; and 91.2 percent of beekeepers and 88.5 percent of fish farmers indicated that they are currently re-investing earnings into their business. This mindset reveals a vision that goes beyond the daily work necessities and looks toward the future. This perspective, which infrequently appears among small agricultural producers, shows the development of empowerment and autonomy in this group of LGBC participants. Exhibit 30. Perceptions of LGBC's effects on entrepreneurial vision. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY 49 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV F.2.4. The motivation of agro-entrepreneurs to join LGBC does not depend on the delivery of inputs or the establishment of APUs, but rather focuses on improving knowledge, productive practices, income, and the quality of life in their homes. Exhibit 31. Motivations for participants to join LGBC SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY LGBC did not base its proposed intervention model on providing inputs or delivering subsidized productive units to participants. This situation encouraged participants to join LGBC for other reasons. As shown in Exhibit 31, 63.5 percent of 156 beekeepers joined with the motivation of improving their technical knowledge and productive practices. Among fish farmers, the primary motivation mentioned by 51.2 percent of 41 fish farmers was to improve the quality of life for their households. Another main reason mentioned by beekeepers and fish farmers was to improve their income levels, with 53.8 percent and 48.8 percent mentioning this motivation, respectively. As shown in the interviews conducted during fieldwork, the participants clearly understood since they entered the program that they would not receive direct subsidies, but rather learning and advisory support, to the point that several potential participants left the program before the start of implementation for this reason. It seems that this type of approach produced a different attitude toward the program, improving agro-entrepreneurs’ focus on learning rather than on waiting for subsidies. F.2.5. Leaders of producer organizations recognize they have gained learning to strengthen their management capacities, while a lower percentage put these learnings into practice. Producer organization leaders perceive the business and commercial strengthening processes promoted by the MBA Agro as being effective. These leaders mentioned they have put into practice what they learned regarding the six agribusiness skills of interest, whether partially or completely (as shown in Exhibit 32, 86.7 percent of leaders attested to this level of adoption, averaged across the six practices). USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 50 Exhibit 32. Learning and practice among MBA Agro participants. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Moreover, in terms of the learning and practice among MBA agro participants, as is reflected in Exhibit 32, communication and teamwork stand out with values of 100 percent for learning both skills, and 88.9 percent and 90.7 percent indicating that they had put into practice most or all of what they had learned. Implementation levels of learnings are high. Some training, however, remains to be implemented for producer organizations, as seen from the participant survey and during qualitative fieldwork. F.2.6. Producer organizations expressed a perception of autonomy to continue planning processes, including after the close of LGBC, although they also stressed the need for continued advice and financial support. Exhibit 33. Perception of autonomy for the continuity of the LBGC processes. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY 51 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 33 shows that 63 percent of the 54 producer organization leaders who participated in the MBA Agro believe they will continue to carry out planning processes independently with their organizations, even after LGBC ends, and recognize the importance of doing so. Nevertheless, 35 percent indicated they want to continue these processes but also needed advice to do so. Moreover, 81.5 percent of the 54 leaders indicated that their organizations lack support. Half of leaders believe their organization is unable to generate enough of their own resources to function, and 48.1 percent indicated that their organization has difficulty accessing financing. These factors threaten the empowerment of producer organizations. They impede them from functioning independently as well as the operations of their agribusinesses. While, as is reflected in the findings, producer organizations identified learning and improvements in the operations of their businesses, they still fear the prospect of operating without external support to shore up their sustainability. F.2.7. In general, agro-entrepreneurs indicated that they are satisfied with the role played by producer organizations toward their members. Because of LGBC, members identified improvements in the organizations’ capacities to provide them with services. Exhibit 34. Satisfaction of agro-entrepreneurs with the performance of producer organizations. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY In line with finding F.1.5. regarding the positive evolution of producer organizations towards greater participation and teamwork, Exhibit 34 shows that 83.8 percent of 142 beekeepers and 76.9 percent of 35 fish farmers reported they are satisfied or completely satisfied with the role played by their producer organizations. This finding was supported by interviews that found that agro-entrepreneurs perceive that with the support of LGBC, producer organizations improved their capacity to provide support services to their members, as evidenced by testimonials like this one: “Today, [the Campesino Beekeeper Association of Nechí] Acane after LGBC, thanks to LGBC, today they are providing the wax stamp to all members, completely free, there are uniform tools like this apparatus to check moisture, what is it called … the refractometer” (Beekeeper, Nechí). The evaluation lacks a measurement for participants’ satisfaction levels with producer organizations before LGBC. Nevertheless, this result shows that producer organizations appear to hold a good level of trust among its members, which is an indispensable requirement for these groups to work collectively and ensure their sustainability. F.2.8. MBA Agro generated learnings related to assessment, planning, and decision-making for organizational and commercial strengthening of the participating beekeeping and fish farming producer organizations. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 52 MBA Agro, with business and commercial support, demonstrated the effectiveness of its instruments in generating learnings and improvements in the management capacity of producer organization leaders, which led to benefits for the organizational and commercial empowerment of these organizations. As is reflected in F.2.8, participants recognize these improvements. Leaders who participated in this process say that they “agree” or “completely agree,” at a rate of 99.5 percent across the four factors of interest, that MBA Agro has helped organizations make progress in identifying strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, it has contributed to defining a vision for the future; in strategic planning to achieve short￾and long-term objectives, which they have started to implement with the participation of directors and members. This progress is portrayed in the interviews carried out for the evaluation, with participants making statements like the following: One can see the changes, you see the changes when an organization makes plans to go do whatever work, when they put together a schedule, something that simple, when everyone goes to work, when they assign certain roles in the organization, because before the president [of the producer organization] did everything. (Field Officer, Nechí) Exhibit 35. Perception of leaders about MBA Agro with regard to the strategic vision of their organizations. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY CONCLUSIONS C.2.1. LGBC was effective in generating changes in the entrepreneurial capacity of agro-entrepreneurs (concerning commitment, leadership, autonomy, and resilience), empowering them to advance in sustainable agricultural productive development with a long-term vision for their agribusinesses. This allowed these agro-entrepreneurs to better face the individual- and territorial-level difficulties that affect their productive activities. (Findings 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4). C.2.2. LGBC strengthened associativity in the region, with greater business management capacity of the producer organizations, by building long-term vision, improving participation of organization members, and strengthening managerial capabilities of the boards of directors. However, financial capacity and commercial management continue to demonstrate weaknesses that constrain the growth of producer organizations and their business operations. (Findings 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8). 53 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATIONS R.2.1. For the remaining duration of LGBC, strengthen access to credit for producer organizations by structuring robust financing projects for collective production and commercialization initiatives that promote the empowerment of these organizations. (Conclusions 2.1 and 2.2). R.2.2. In future initiatives, maintain strategies to promote linkages and empowerment among agro￾entrepreneurs based on training and technical support without depending on the delivery of inputs or the creation of APUs for participants. (Conclusions 2.1 and 2.2). R.2.3. Include initiatives like psychosocial coaching in future interventions to strengthen the business mindsets and long-term visions of producer organizations and their members. (Conclusion 2.2). URBAN COMPONENT QUESTION 3: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS LGBC’S MODEL BEEN TO ACHIEVE INCREASES IN SALES, INCOME AND MARKET ACCESS OF ENTREPRENEURS INTERVENED IN BAJO CAUCA? FINDINGS F.3.1. Entrepreneurs and other stakeholders interviewed for the evaluation reported increases in sales, incomes, and access to markets. Most entrepreneurs who participated in the program expect growth in the future. Exhibit 36. Perception of small business owners of sales, income, and access to markets. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY As shown in Exhibit 36, most entrepreneurs surveyed indicated that since participating in LGBC, their sales increased (62.9 percent), as did their access to markets (62.9 percent) and income (64.7 percent). In this vein, 86.2 percent consider that LGBC supported their business expansion and 45.7 percent claimed that LGBC influenced their decision to grow their clients for their business. Looking toward the future, 39.1 percent of entrepreneurs surveyed claimed that they expect their sales to increase 50 percent or more, 24.1 expect an increase between 30 percent and 49 percent, and 26.7 percent expect an increase between 11 percent and 29 percent. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 54 Exhibit 37. Quarterly sales among businesses supported by LGBC. * 2020 values refer to Q4 and 2021 values refer to Q2. ** In 2020, LGBC supported 94 businesses (65 undergoing formation and 29 growing) and in 2021, 91 (64 and 27, respectively). SOURCE: MONITOR 2021 As explained in the limitations section, the information obtained from USAID’s MONITOR database did not allow for measurements of change between comparable periods. Exhibit 37 shows behavior between two different quarters (Q4 of 2020 and Q2 of 2021), which suggests a growth trend. This suggestion receives support from the fact that in 2021, three fewer businesses participated in LGBC than in 2020. The monitoring information shows that between these two quarters, quarterly growth in sales reached 156 percent, largely due to an increase of 177 percent in businesses with positive growth. Between 2020 and 2021, the number of businesses supported by LGBC remained relatively stable, decreasing from 94 to 91. Finally, as reflected in Exhibit 38, which also draws from monitoring information, between Q4 of 2020 and Q2 of 2021, quarterly income increased by 120 percent, in line with a 149 percent increase in businesses with positive growth. Quantitative information provides evidence for the role of LGBC in supporting market access and in increasing participants’ expectations for a better future, which is reflected in participant interview statements like the following: [A company] needed to undertake beautification, because they have camps here in El Bagre they did not know how to conduct maintenance of a garden, of the green spaces. So we saw a need too and started to provide them with this support. (Interview, Urban component participant). In a way today [LGBC] is supporting us, because each one of its professionals who provides us with trainings so that we can all grow as entrepreneurs is a fundamental pattern to get started and to develop a 21st Century economy in our subregion. (Interview, Urban component participant). 55 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 38. Quarterly earnings among businesses supported by LGBC. * 2020 values refer to Q4 and 2021 values refer to Q2. ** In 2020, LGBC supported 94 businesses (65 undergoing formation and 29 growing) and in 2021, 91 (64 and 27, respectively). SOURCE: MONITOR 2021 Probability models applied by the evaluation team demonstrate that training and practical exercises are key factors for LGBC, as they boost the probability of increased sales by 22.5 percent and the probability of increased income for agro-entrepreneurs by 24.1 percent.27 Another critical aspect that increases the probability of sales (32.3 percent) and market access (19.9 percent) is acquiring new clients. Contextual variables, such as the inadequate quality of the product or service and harmful effects on business development due to the lack of state presence, decrease the probability of sales increases. The negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on business development reduced the likelihood of increased income. F.3.2. Among the entrepreneurs surveyed, 80.8 percent indicated that LGBC provided them with relevant tools for management, business, and commercial practices, contributing to increased sales, income, and market access. According to information collected through document reviews, interviews with participants, and a participant survey, entrepreneurs took ownership of the tools promoted by LGBC and used them to improve their managerial, business, and commercial practices. In this way, interviewees indicated that assessment tools help them gain clarity on administrative concepts, understand the state of their business and suggest recommendations to strengthen them, enabling them to organize their businesses and implement strategies in line with the recommendations received. As one participant stated: “this assessment is fundamental, first, because it had to understand what the needs were precisely for the participating businesses in the region, … So it was very important to determine what we were doing, how we were doing it, and how we could improve” (Focus group, Urban component participant). In addition, LGBC helped participants develop practices such as digital marketing to increase sales and the use of technology to maintain connections with clients and markets remotely. Business roundtables opened doors for entrepreneurs and taught them about the requirements for their products and services. In contrast, changes in their products’ image helped them gain market 27 Annex II – Complementary Analysis and Information and Annex IV – Detailed Methodology explain the probit model used; see pages 73 and 95. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 56 recognition. Exhibit 39 shows that surveyed entrepreneurs highlighted that LGBC gave them the tools to fashion a strategic vision for their business (91.4 percent) and make plans for future activities based on their capabilities and possibilities (89.7 percent), in addition to implement financial, strategic, and commercial planning techniques (86.9 percent). Moreover, entrepreneurs indicated that LGBC provided them with tools to build short-, medium-, and long-term sustainability strategies (81.1 percent), build or strengthen a financial strategy for their business (73.3 percent), and make new client relationships that are highly relevant to their business (66.9 percent). Exhibit 39. Perception of urban entrepreneurs regarding the tools provided by LGBC. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY F.3.3. LGBC participants consider the model effective in providing assistance and service to entrepreneurs and delivering advisory and support on issues relevant to the formation and growth of businesses in Bajo Cauca. The LGBC field team members interviewed indicated that one of the lessons learned from the model was to deliver personalized support tailored to the specific needs of the businesses served. Participants, meanwhile, said that the advisors answered their specific questions, especially about administrative and accounting issues. Similarly, the secondary information used for the evaluation shows that LGBC found a dynamic commercial context in Zaragoza, Caucasia, and El Bagre, with several already established companies with specific needs. Some of the businesses assisted had been established for over ten years. In these cases, the value added by LGBC lies in supporting generational change, promoting formalization, and helping prepare for new challenges through processes tailored to their specific needs. As one of the LGBC team members explained: “personalized support, well a lot is really part of the analysis that we do with each businessperson, so with each entrepreneur we set the time and day that the consultancy is going to be done” (Focus group, urban field officers). 57 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV F.3.4. Of participants surveyed, 89.7 percent are satisfied with LGBC, highlighting its recruitment strategy, which helps identify and serve participants, and writing out a business model. Exhibit 40. Level of Satisfaction with activities under LGBC. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY The surveys found that 89.7 percent of participants are satisfied with LGBC, and Exhibit 40 shows high levels of satisfaction for each of the actions implemented: individual assessment (94 percent), individual advice (94.9 percent), and workshops and courses (79.3 percent). This finding aligns with one of the highlighted factors, the support in developing a business model. 95.7 percent of participants surveyed feel that LGBC helped them manage their business better, and 88.2 percent feel that LGBC helped them through support to improve their business model. Before LGBC, only 58.6 percent of these entrepreneurs said they had a defined business model. After participating in LGBC and receiving business model advisory support, this percentage rose to 93.1 percent. Similarly, the probability models show that writing out a business model with forecasted business activities increased the probability of income increases by 26.2 percent.28 In addition, in terms of satisfaction, the evaluation team highlight the process of active search to identify participants, especially in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this technique was successful at the time, this approach to identifying and providing support to entrepreneurs could pose a challenge in the future for finding new beneficiary populations for the next cohorts. The multiple correspondence analysis applied to responses from the Urban component’s participants shows that those with higher levels of satisfaction with LGBC have expectations of expanding their businesses, connected more with other entrepreneurs, and received support for the structuring and monitoring of their business model.29 On the other hand, the most dissatisfied are those who perceive 28 Annex II – Complementary Analysis and Information and Annex IV – Detailed Methodology, contain an explanation of the probit model. 29 Annex II – Analysis and Complementary Information and Annex IV – Detailed Methodology contain an explanation of how multiple correspondence analysis is applied. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 58 they did not receive contributions in developing and monitoring their business model or were unable to connect with other entrepreneurs. F.3.5. Among the contextual factors, the COVID-19 pandemic represented the most significant obstacle for LGBC and required businesses to adapt, facilitated by the tools that LGBC promoted. Exhibit 41. Level of agreement on factors that affected sales, income, and access to markets for businesses. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Exhibit 41 shows that 70.7 percent of business owners surveyed feel that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected their business activities. This exceeded the percentage of those who perceived negative effects from unexpected weather events (50.9 percent), a lack of state presence (46.5 percent), and difficulties accessing the site of the business (44.8 percent). The secondary information used for the evaluation also clarified that the pandemic affected sales, income, and market access. Nevertheless, in the face of this challenge, both LGBC and targeted entrepreneurs adapted with positive results. Specifically, 94 percent of the entrepreneurs in the Urban component asserted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, LGBC used methodologies and workshops through virtual channels, with 97.2 percent of entrepreneurs who used these services or attended workshops further stating that they were helpful for their business. The pandemic accelerated the decision to move into virtual channels to expand sales opportunities, encouraging digital marketing use and resulting in businesses broadening their market niche. …after the pandemic, gyms appeared around the corner, that is, you would go out and here, there were five gyms and right now after the pandemic, look to one side, there’s one; look to the other, there’s another, and they are very informal, even out of a garage and they don’t have anything to do with anything, but even so, they are competition. So understand, for example, I said to myself, take it easy, you already have experience, you already know the market, prices are not going to go down. So it was like very… I put a lot into this and this gave me a lot of confidence. I say yes, I have 11 years [of experience], [clients] already know me, they know my brand, I’ve put in a lot of effort to get ahead. So I feel that the future of the local territory and basically of the region today is much more promising, 59 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV exactly because we entrepreneurs are gaining knowledge and strengthening ourselves more. (Focus groups, Urban component participant). Despite these difficulties, secondary information and interviews with participants confirmed the importance of business roundtables and digital marketing strategies to help keep businesses running and/or expand markets. These sources indicated that although the process was difficult initially, it developed normally. CONCLUSIONS C.3.1. The LGBC model effectively increased sales, income, and market access for participating business owners as a result of tailored advisory support, help developing participants’ business plans, and tools to improve management, business, and commercial practices. (Findings 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3) C.3.2. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic harmed businesses, LGBC and business owners adapted to participate in virtual markets, which enabled continued growth in sales and income to the satisfaction of participants, who expect to continue to grow. (Findings 3.4 and 3.5). RECOMMENDATIONS R.3.1. For the remaining duration of LGBC, continue implementing flexible models with tailored support for the specific needs of businesses in Bajo Cauca. (Conclusion 3.1) R.3.2. Establish search criteria to facilitate identification and support for businesses that require this assistance and would be applicable for both current LGBC cohorts and new interventions by LGBC member organizations. (Conclusions 3.1 and 3.2) QUESTION 4: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS LGBC’S MODEL BEEN TO EMPOWER SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS? FINDINGS F.4.1. The LGBC model has empowered entrepreneurs in Bajo Cauca, imparting and complementing both personal (soft) and business skills, including autonomy, an innovative spirit, leadership, and the desire to contribute to local development. Exhibit 42. Perceptions of LGBC contributions among urban entrepreneurs, based on the agreement that LGBC provided specific forms of support. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Exhibit 42 shows that 83.6 percent of business owners indicated that LGBC allowed them to access training that contributed to their commercial and negotiation abilities. In comparison, 90.5 percent asserted that LGBC gave them soft skills, including training and practical exercises, to improve their USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 60 business practices. Moreover, secondary information based on LGBC indicates that the most important principles among urban business owners are entrepreneurial culture, the opportunity to contribute to solving the problems in their territories, innovation, and the ability to take advantage of opportunities. In this line, entrepreneurs were optimistic regarding their future. Participants highlighted in LGBC reports and in interviews that LGBC, through tools such as business roundtables and psychosocial coaching support, allowed them to become more autonomous and determined. They mentioned that these tools help them understand how to listen to their clients and employees, how to be agents of change in their lives, as well as the lives of their families and their employees, and how to promote positive change in their municipalities. Finally, the testimonies of participants interviewed demonstrate that they perceive changes in their communication and leadership skills. “So, she was asking me and she told me how it should be, how was I feeling, so I think that I feel good talking to a person, how to have objectives and all these kinds of things” (Interview, Urban component participant). F.4.2. Business owners recognize their strengths and weaknesses, and the skills needed to lead their businesses. In line with this finding, 92.2 percent of business owners surveyed recognize that thanks to LGBC, they identified their strengths and weaknesses as entrepreneurs. According to the secondary information of LGBC, they also recognize the necessity of having a skillset that enables them to confront the challenges associated with being the head of their businesses. Responses highlight that adjustments in terms of face￾to-face and personalized attention were more in line with their needs, rather than the virtual assistance that LGBC was able to provide for the first cohort during the period of pandemic-related adjustments. Likewise, the testimonies of participants interviewed support this finding: That part was very good, it helped me because I did not have that capacity and that knowledge to direct all the staff, the group of people, because it is difficult to manage because not everyone wants to go the same way, so one as a boss, to know, not be like a boss, but be a friend of the collaborator. See the collaborator’s need, what he needs, because I have always said that the collaborators are the company because if they don't do the job for you, how can you do it? So that part helped me a lot in how to direct them. (Interview, Urban component participant). F.4.3. LGBC helped businesses overcome regulatory hurdles, as 17 of the 25 informal businesses registered with their Chamber of Commerce. While a considerable majority of surveyed entrepreneurs (78.4 percent) had registered with the Chamber of Commerce before the launch of LGBC, 72 percent of those that had not registered said that LGBC helped their businesses to formalize. In concrete terms, LGBC contributed to the registration of 17 of the 25 businesses that were informal before the launch of LGBC. Formalization was a recurring theme among LGBC field staff, who stressed the importance of this for the participants; one field officer noted that: “In this support we have worked carefully with these themes, you have the responsibility as a business for taxes and legal issues” (Group interview, urban field officers). F.4.4. LGBC promotes increased awareness around the issue of social security payments for employees of supported businesses, but putting this into practice remains a challenge. 61 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Only 32.8 percent of business owners surveyed asserted that they made formal social security payments for their employees before LGBC. Business owners who did not do this pointed out that LGBC emphasized the need to pay social security contributions. Even though the interviewees indicated that this payment was expensive, they recognized its importance. Forty-six point six of business owners indicated that they currently made this payment at the time of the evaluation. In the words of one participant: In the personnel part, I have had a lot of trainings too, I have not managed to do it, but it has made it more clear for me how to affiliate people with the insurance funds, social security and so on. […] One of the difficulties is the money because it’s, not an expense let’s say, it’s another investment that you have to make and these recent conditions with low production, and with low production there is a great deficiency in profitability too because if you don’t sell, well there’s no money, if you don’t produce, you don’t sell. So there you have the issue. (Focus group, urban participants). CONCLUSIONS C.4.1. The LGBC model empowered targeted business owners through skills that contributed to the registration of informal businesses and acquiring business and personal (soft) skills (Findings 4.1 and 4.2). C.4.2. The LGBC model promoted a change in the mindset of targeted business owners, who perceive themselves as more capable and recognize the importance of formalizing their businesses. However, business owners also mention the high costs associated with the payment of formal social security. Finally, the widespread culture of informality in the region impedes formalization (Findings 4.3 and 4.4). RECOMMENDATIONS R.4.1. Concentrate more efforts on awareness-raising about social security payments among business owners in Bajo Cauca (Conclusions 4.1 and 4.2). R.4.2. Establish a plan to disseminate positive experiences and changes in mindset acquired by entrepreneurs as part of LGBC to share and apply these learnings and good practices with current LGBC participants and new cohorts. (Conclusions 4.1, and 4.2). EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT QUESTION 5: WHAT CHALLENGES AND BOTTLE NECKS AROSE WHILE IMPLEMENTING THE COMPONENT? WHAT ARE THE MAIN LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES? FINDINGS F.5.1. Regarding the Employability component, 71.8 percent of participants are satisfied with LGBC’s work. Mentorship and personalized support are especially valued, with 61.9 percent and 58.5 percent of survey participants reporting satisfaction, followed by identification of job skills (48.5 percent) and changes in self-concept and life plan (54.1 percent). Only 10.8 percent said they are dissatisfied with this component, while the percentages of participants who are “satisfied” or “completely satisfied” represent 71.8 percent, as shown in Exhibit 43. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 62 Exhibit 43. Level of satisfaction with LGBC among Employability component participants. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY With regard to satisfaction with the actions implemented under LGBC’s Employability component, Exhibit 44 demonstrates that the employment activities with the most significant satisfaction levels are participants’ relationships with their mentor (61.9 percent “satisfied” or “completely satisfied”), followed by the registration and mentoring process and associated support (58.5 percent). Interviews and qualitative focus groups produced similar findings, with two areas showing lower levels of satisfaction. One of these was the allocation of scholarship funds (18.5 percent). This level of satisfaction with allocation is due to the limited number of scholarships available and lack of courses to cover the entire population (see findings F.5.8 and F.5.9). The aspect of this component that demonstrated low levels of satisfaction for opportunities provided by Comfama to connect job candidates with businesses. The reported level of satisfaction is 39.6 percent. The scarcity of job opportunities, limited by the sparse local business landscape and the prevalence of informality in the region, supports this finding (see findings F.5.5, F.5.6, and F.5.7). Exhibit 44. Level of satisfaction with activities of LGBC's Employability component. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY F.5.2. The assessment process that forms part of the mentorship exercise is valued positively by job candidates, with 40.4 percent of survey respondents expressing either “satisfaction” (27.8 percent) or “complete satisfaction” (12.6 percent) with this process. Participants highlighted that this aspect of the Employability component carries out personalized monitoring to create a job profile and work on goals. 63 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 45. Level of satisfaction with the personal job situation assessment. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Nevertheless, it is important to note that 36.8 percent of respondents in the sample indicated being “completely unsatisfied” or “unsatisfied” dissatisfaction with their personal job situation, as shown in Exhibit 45. Exhibit 46. Schematic of the mentoring process. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM Employability component participants highlighted the design of the mentoring process as a positive aspect. The personalized assessment focuses on the job candidates’ capabilities and interests while providing psychosocial coaching support to help candidates improve control of their emotions. Through this support, the component seeks to produce changes in participants’ self-concept, helping them build a career plan and life plan. Exhibit 46 presents a visual representation of the mentoring process. Personalized monitoring enables participants to develop an employment vision for their future. One participant from the municipality of Caucasia explained: USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 64 It helped me very much because as I said, it was certainly not focused on what I wanted to study, so the support that she provided us helped us want to do it. I, at least, was a little unfocused, like I was going to study this, I was going to study that, so said no, I am going to… and then from there I was orienting myself to what she was explaining and then I could do it. (Employability component participant, Caucasia). F.5.3. Participants who participated in the mentorship program feel it helped them identify their skills (48.9 percent) and improve their self-concept and life plans (54.1 percent). One of the mentoring process’s main objectives is to identify appropriate, useful competencies and skills for each job candidate. The participant survey shows that 31.6 percent of these participants feel “satisfied” and 17.3 percent “completely satisfied,” as seen in Exhibit 47. The evaluation team finds similar results in changes in self-concept and participants’ life plans, with 33.2 percent of participants “satisfied” and 20.9 percent “completely satisfied,” as shown in Exhibit 48. Exhibit 47. Level of satisfaction with support to identify competencies and skills. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY The Comfama mentoring program emphasizes the development of soft skills for all candidates. These skills include the development of useful habits, including time management, the distribution of tasks at home and at work, strengthening writing skills and reading comprehension, and supporting the identification of capabilities and interests for each candidate, through which they can build a defined career plan. One participant from Caucasia explained that the mentoring process enabled them to reflect on their vocations and the things they liked, as a way to focus their academic training and seek a possible life plan: It has helped me to have that faith in what I believe, I work with early childhood and that is what I like. When I spoke with [a mentor], I told her that I like what I do and I like children. She enabled me to focus on what interests me, not to jump from one thing to another, and if God allows me to do a degree in early childhood, that is what I want. (Group interview with Employability component participants, Caucasia). 65 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 48. Level of satisfaction with support for self-concept and life plans. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Mentors identify skills and abilities based on simple exercises, such as time management or writing a résumé, which may become relevant when applying for a job. One participant from Nechí explained the importance of these activities: I mean, to bring out my abilities, with the process I have gone through. So, as I have been changing it, they have gone on changing, so they organized more this structure by abilities, strengths, and abilities that have been improving and changing, and this always has helped me with my CV, because sometimes, gosh, like, they ask questions that sometimes you, gosh, but how am I going to write this or that, so with this knowledge you start organizing it, because sometimes you confuse one thing with the other and this way is more organized and in the moment of filling out the CV you have to put more than one quality, personal and work-related. (Employability component, Nechí) F.5.4. Employability component participants highlighted the importance of psychosocial support and coaching (40.8 percent) during the mentoring process. The labor situation in the municipalities in Bajo Cauca is complex and precarious, leading to youth experiencing an emotionally stressful situation, in which they do not see many options nor the possibility of leaving, which may lead to harmful decisions. Psychosocial coaching support is part of the mentoring process, and participants in the Employability component largely perceive this aspect positively, as Exhibit 49 shows, 26 percent of participants stated that they are “satisfied” with this component and 14.8 percent are “completely satisfied.” In contrast, 15.2 percent indicated that they are “completely unsatisfied,” and 19.9 percent say they are “unsatisfied” with the psychosocial support they received. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 66 Exhibit 49. Level of satisfaction with psychosocial support and coaching. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY Psychosocial support and coaching is a cross-cutting element that begins the first day for participants. Some participants experience mental health issues and feel overwhelmed by their economic and work situation, and this tension often impacts their families. The support allows participants to identify the emotions they are going through and manage stressful situations based on coping techniques drawn from neurolinguistic therapy. One participant from Caucasia explained the changes in their state of mind brought about by psychosocial coaching support: You get depressed, uff. In this moment I have been searching for work for months, and it’s hard, because now we’re in the pandemic, it’s really difficult, there are days when I wake up completely depressed, there are days when I wake up in high spirits, like the next day I am down. In these moments, I say that the psychosocial support is good, it’s very important, because now, as I am, [experiencing setbacks]… on that day that I had the interview with her, it is like an accompaniment both personally and for work, as it focuses us and helps us to see how we are personally and outside of everyday life. It has been very important to me and has taught me a lot. (Employability component participant, Caucasia). F.5.5. According to surveyed participants, only 10.2 percent found work as a result of the employment services offered by Comfama and LGBC and 89.9 percent did not (see Exhibit 50). The job opportunities in Bajo Cauca from the labor demand side are scarce, and at the same time, the supply of specialized jobs is also low. As a result, participants indicated that the main reasons for not finding a job are related to structural factors, such as: the lack of job opportunities in Bajo (35.7 percent), participants’ inadequate training and low access to education (24.4 percent), and the lack of work experience of participants (22.4 percent). 67 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 50. Employment index of participants in relation to the employment service. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY For participants who obtained employment, they feel they have experienced a significant transformational change. LGBC participants feel that they have gone through an impartial, fair process against other potential candidates and have been chosen for their capacity, rather than because of personal connections. One participant explained: Aha, before this, finding work was always with intermediaries, they recommended you and that was it, you didn’t need to go through all these steps, putting together a CV, thinking about how to do it, to apply, no, here very few [people] do that. I like it because it feels more secure. I feel that I earned it, not because another person said so, spoke for [me], no, it was because I earned it, because a lot of us participated and I earned it. It was an achievement, something fair, which will make [my employer] value my work more. (Employability component participant, El Bagre). F.5.6. Employment requirements in Bajo Cauca depend on and are shaped by large and medium-sized companies in the municipalities, as well as projects carried out by local governments. A social mapping exercise under the Employability component made it possible to identify the main employers that use Comfama’s public employment service. As shown in Exhibit 51, the territorial distribution of these employers is in three areas: the line of influence around the oil pipeline operated by Ismocol, the Nechí river basin where Mineros SA carries out its activities, and the rural areas of Cáceres and Tarazá. The main user of the employment service in Caucasia and Zaragoza is Ismocol, which uses the service for positions related to the construction and management of the oil pipeline that passes through the municipalities. The main employment opportunities in El Bagre and Nechí are related to businesses that provide services to Mineros SA, with needs centered on forestry services and the assembly and maintenance of power networks. In Cáceres and Tarazá the main job opportunities are related to the ongoing property surveys in the PDET municipalities, which require surveyors, geologists, and lawyers.30 30 Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial (development programs with a territorial focus, PDETs for its acronym in Spanish) are promoted by the Territorial Renewal Agency (ART) with the goal of coordinating state intervention in rural zones that were heavily affected by Colombia’s armed conflict. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 68 Exhibit 51. Distribution of the areas of influence of main businesses. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION GIS TEAM F.5.7. The linkage between the Urban component and the Employability component enables businesses to undertake a process of labor formalization with support from Comfama. It focuses on access to social security and formal contracts that meet legal requirements. One of the most daunting problems facing the Employability component of LGBC is the enormous extent of informality in the municipalities that make up Bajo Cauca. The Urban component of LGBC has sought to increase formalization among small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in the region. The relationship between LGBC and the employment service offered by Comfama provided an important factor in encouraging impartial recruitment processes and strengthening labor formalization. The relationship between the Urban and Employability components is synthesized in Exhibit 52, providing a visual depiction of how the enrollment of business owners in social insurance funds enables greater sustainability and continuity in business processes after LGBC reaches its scheduled closing. Small companies that received support from the Urban component of LGBC highlighted the importance of Comfama’s public employment service in making their personnel recruitment processes more efficient, integrating supply and demand, as well as supporting formalization, given that these businesses must comply with all the legal requirements for hiring. Two testimonials from the municipality of El Bagre shed light on this process: Because it’s the law that requires having all employees be formal and as a business this is one of the fundamental requirements to have all the employees be affiliated [with a social insurance scheme]. This is one of the supports and learnings that we have had with Comfama and we’ve been grateful for it. (Employer, El Bagre.) Maybe the savings haven’t been so much in terms of money, but in time, which in the end turns into money if it takes me 15 or 20 days to find an employee and I am waiting, in this time I stop producing, 69 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV stop offering services. In this moment I need three or four technicians, if I search here in this area [I won’t find them], but I have say to Comfama, find them for me, here they arrive. (Employer, El Bagre). Exhibit 52. Relationship between the Employability component and the Urban component. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM F.5.8. In small municipalities like Nechí or Tarazá, challenges emerge in recruiting specialized personnel who are willing to move to the territory given the precarious living conditions. Companies based in Bajo Cauca have specific personnel requirements given their particular activities (See Finding F.5.6.), which often do not match the training supply available in the area. This mismatch makes finding qualified employees from the region very challenging. Living conditions in the region make it difficult to find specialized personnel willing to move to the territory. The cases of two employers exemplify how this situation presents a bottleneck for LGBC: Medisalud, a healthcare company in Nechí, and Mineros SA in El Bagre. The main request for employees in Nechí comes from the Medisalud clinic, seeking a doctor, dentists, and radiologists. Filling these positions has proved difficult, as the living conditions in Nechí make the offer unattractive for applicants, despite a competitive salary. It has been very difficult to fill vacancies at the hospital, we can’t keep doctors, they last two months and they leave, turnover is very high, or when [doctors] find out that the offer is in Nechí they discard it. (Interview with Medisalud staff, Nechí) For instance, Mineros SA, the leading employer along the Nechí River, needs mining, metallurgical, mechanical, and geologists who have leadership experience and can manage the staff that dredge the river. Candidates who fit these requirements are challenging to find within the municipality and throughout Bajo Cauca, making it necessary to hire staff from Medellín or other regions in Colombia. [the job requirements] referring to mining engineers, materials engineers, I’m talking about metallurgical engineers, I’m talking about geologists, I’m talking about industrial engineers. Add to that experience, which in many cases is also necessary. For example, staff working on the dredges, clearly I need a person to lead work teams, I’m talking about a preparation captain, a cargo captain, a selective captain, a director for cargo preparation. These are very specialized positions. (Mineros SA, El Bagre) F.5.9. Participants and employers believe that training courses need to respond to the employment needs in Bajo Cauca. LGBC has advanced toward offering courses jointly with the National Training USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 70 Service (SENA), Mineros SA, and Comfama, but these courses were still under preparation at the time of the evaluation. Participants and employers believe LGBC should offer or promote short courses on machine operation, work at height, and forest management to certify candidates for these skills and enable access to jobs that require them. Given this demand, it is worth noting a project that was underway at the time of the evaluation was promoting technical training for youth in the region and connecting them with businesses through apprenticeships. This program brought together Mineros SA, SENA, and Comfama. These institutions have advanced work on evaluating and certifying the competencies of “empirical” workers, who have previously gained knowledge and skills without undergoing formal certification, allowing them to demonstrate their knowledge and performance on the job. SENA has also made significant investments in classrooms and laboratories for its regional branch in El Bagre. As one interviewee explained: This year SENA has made a big investment in laboratories, in [digital] simulations, in technological tools to strengthen [our offerings] and offer training that responds to the needs of the productive sector. Even now we are going to train 30 people in an electromechanical school that will have, with Mineros and with other businesses in the region, will have a contract starting at the learning stage. That is to say, the training lasts 15 months and from day one they will have an apprentice’s contract., This training will be dual-track, meaning in the business and in SENA, in a way that we focus on the training project aligned to the real needs of the productive sector as such. (Comfama staff, El Bagre.) CONCLUSIONS C.5.1. Technical assistance and mentoring, which is positively valued by participants, allows for personalized identification of competencies and skills according to the labor needs of Bajo Cauca. (Findings 5.1 and 5.2) C.5.2. The development of soft skills and psychosocial support generates transformations in how participants conceive their lives, enabling them to build a life and career plan based on formalization and legal status. (Findings 5.3 and 5.4) C.5.3. The Bajo Cauca subregion has specific work requirements that often go beyond the traditional training programs offered under LGBC. The main labor market demand is in mechanics, hydraulics, electrical work, and forest services. (Findings 5.5, 5.6, and 5.9) C.5.4. The link between businesses in the Urban component and the employment services offered by Comfama enables the strengthening of the business formalization process, offering the process sustainability over time. (Finding 5.7) C.5.5. An urgent need exists in Bajo Cauca for specialized technical training courses to provide formal employment alternatives for youth in the region. (Findings 5.8 and 5.9) RECOMMENDATIONS R.5.1. Gather experiences of the mentoring process to generate mechanisms to share learnings. (Conclusions 5.1 and 5.2) 71 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV R.5.2. Replicate in other programs or projects the lessons learned on developing soft skills. (Conclusion 5.2.) R.5.3. Extend the services offered by Comfama to producer organizations in the Agricultural component to promote business formalization, as has been done in the Urban component. (Conclusions 5.3 and 5.4) R.5.4. Offer specialized technical courses with employers in the Bajo Cauca subregion. (Conclusions 5.3 and 5.5.) CROSS-CUTTING FINDINGS Although USAID and the GDA specified in the evaluation’s terms that they would analyze the components of LGBC separately, the evaluation team identified common elements, which provided additional inputs to support the findings presented for each component. Three of these elements, specifically, deserve an in-depth analysis, as reflected in Exhibit 53. Exhibit 53. Psychometric scales by participant group. SOURCE: PARTICIPANT SURVEY First, the analysis of psychometric scales obtained in the results presented in Exhibit 53 shows that agribusinesses report lower resilience levels than urban groups.31 At the same time, agro-entrepreneurs match and slightly exceed urban groups in measures of long-term vision and leadership. Urban entrepreneurs show the strongest results on the resilience index. Fish farmers tend to have a higher level of resilience than beekeepers, however beekeepers show the best results regarding long-term vision and leadership. Given the conditions in which agro-entrepreneurs implement agricultural activities, they frequently face losses due to climate and weather, technical issues, and market barriers, it could be inferred that they would attain higher levels of resilience. Confronting stressful situations does not contribute to improving their capacity to recover from these shocks. 31 The Annex IV – Detailed Methodology explains how the psychometric scales were developed. (Page 107) USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 72 Exhibit 54. Themes from narrative multiplication exercises. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM Second, this evaluation considered resilience through a qualitative lens, drawing on the narrative multiplication exercises from the focus groups.32 In Exhibit 54, the left side presents the results that demonstrate the starting points discussed by participants for each component. On the right side, the diagram presents the forecasts for the future that participants defined. In the center of the exhibit, the diagram presents frequently recurring ideas among participants that combine their starting point and their perceived future. This analysis identified the starting points, forecasts, and axes of articulation that groups of participants from each component had in common. They identified different ways of overcoming difficulties of their territory: through reconstruction (Agriculture), hope (Urban), and help (Employability). In the Agriculture component, participants emphasized environmental damage and the effect mining has in their territory. Urban entrepreneurs focused on the values of the past and bringing in new lifestyles and opportunities, especially for youth. Meanwhile, under the Employability component, participants raised violence, situations of crisis in the territory, and family problems, among more difficult situations they faced. With regard to how they saw their future outlook, agro-entrepreneurs spoke of returning to their land, i.e. having a sustainable relationship with nature. At the same time, urban entrepreneurs cited effort and persistence, as well as development for youth as being important. In contrast, participants in the Employability component, while they indicated they perceived overcoming difficulties, were less optimistic and they indicated contemplating leaving the region, if necessary. 32 Annex IV – Detailed Methodology, contains an explanation of narrative multiplication, page 90. 73 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV The third element analyzed focuses on the empowerment process in the three components. Based on coding the qualitative instruments, this shows the distribution of mentions of learnings, adoption of practices, and changes generated for actors in each component, as shown in Exhibit 55.33 Recognition of learning is a common factor, comprising a third of the mentions in each component. From agro￾entrepreneurs, mentions of adopting new practices stand out, slightly ahead of mentions of changes generated, which could indicate an ongoing empowerment process. On the other hand, the urban entrepreneurs and Employability component participants made the most mentions of changes generated by the process, despite making the least reference to adopting practices. Exhibit 55. Qualitative mentions of empowerment processes per component. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON THE CODING OF QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS Finally, besides the three elements described, the evaluation team identified a cross-cutting finding that it considers significant enough to include it in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FCR) analysis and for LGBC current and future implementation. FINDING F.0.1. The indicators monitored by LGBC do not allow for the measurement of whether increases occurred in sales, income, or productivity of agro-entrepreneurs, producer organizations, or urban entrepreneurs. To obtain a comprehensive vision of its model for improving the economic conditions of the participants, LGBC provided the evaluation team with information from the MONITOR system, which defined indicators for sales from the Agriculture and Urban components (ABC-M1-04 and ABC-M2-09), income for the Agriculture and Urban components (ABC-M1-05 and ABC-M2-10), and productivity of beekeeping and fish-farming initiatives (ABC-M1-06 and ABC-M1-07). The evaluation team analyzed these indicators and found that data collection periods for the Agricultural component and for producer organizations is not homogenous, meaning that the data was not comparable across periods. For the Urban component, only one data point was available for each group of businesses per cohort, with no reference for comparison to previous or subsequent periods. 33 Annex IV – detailed methodology, contains an explanation of the process of qualitative data analysis for coding, page 91. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 74 CONCLUSION C.0.1. Regardless of the availability of information sources, LGBC lacks indicators to measure changes in its participants’ sales, income, and productivity levels. These measurements are key elements to evaluate the model’s effectiveness in contributing to economic growth in Bajo Cauca during and after its implementation (Finding 0.1.). RECOMMENDATION R.0.1. Conduct a Data Quality Assessment (DQA), considering the remaining time and resources available under LGBC to strengthen the final evaluation report for this Activity. The DQA should include effectiveness indicators under the model to show accurate results concerning the changes experienced by agro-entrepreneurs, producer organizations, and urban small businesses during the execution of the Activity (Conclusion 0.1). 75 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX I – RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX # RECOMMENDATION MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME ACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1 R.0.1. Conduct a Data Quality Assessment (DQA), considering the remaining time and resources available under LGBC to strengthen the final evaluation report for this Activity. The DQA should include effectiveness indicators under the model to show accurate results concerning the changes experienced by agro-entrepreneurs, producer organizations, and urban small businesses during the execution of the Activity (Conclusion 0.1). i) Perform a DQA for the data collected on variables for sales, income, and productivity of agro-entrepreneurs, producer associations, and small urban businesses to verify the reliability and timeliness of the data to measure variations that have occurred during the execution of the Activity. ii) Verify the comparability of results information collected across different periods. iii) If required, define actions to improve the collection of necessary information comparable between periods in the remaining duration of the Activity. iv) For the Urban component, if necessary, define a strategy to coordinate data collection from business owners who have concluded their process of support to obtain a data sample comparable with these participants’ subsequent progress. Short term (less than six months) USAID LGBC member organizations 2 R.1.1. Promote the creation of a territorial strategy to offer agricultural extension services for the beekeeping and fish farming value chains in Bajo Cauca, from the learnings gained by LGBC, to ensure continuity of technical support to businesses after the conclusion of the Activity. (Conclusion 1.1). i) Systematize and document, drawing on the experiences of the Activity’s technical team, the lessons learned about the agricultural extension (including technical business and commercial support) provided by LGBC. ii) Disseminate the LGBC experience in the regional spaces of exchange where USAID participates, emphasizing the importance of sustainable territorial strategies for agricultural extension. iii) Seek to identify mechanisms to ensure continuity in LGBC agricultural extension processes through other USAID Activities in the region, such as PMA. iv) Promote, on the part of USAID and especially among territorial institutions (which, under Law 1876 of 2017 for Agricultural Innovation, are responsible for offering agricultural extension services), a space for connection among actors with interest in the initiative and, if sufficient interest exists, form a working group or committee to continue to advance this initiative. v) Promote, on the part of USAID, an agreement among interested actors and with the participation of producer organizations, to participate in a strategy for organization, financing, and implementation of technical assistance (for example, an agricultural extension service provider, or EPSEA) to provide extension services and ensure its integration into the Departmental Plan for Agricultural Extension (PDEA) under Law 1876. Medium term (less than two years) USAID LGBC member organizations Associations, professionals, and technicians in the region, Municipal and departmental secretaries of agriculture Unidad Técnica Territorial Agencia de Desarrollo Rural USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 76 TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX # RECOMMENDATION MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME ACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR 3 R.1.2. Continue to implement adjustments in LGBC’s technical assistance strategy to enable greater frequency and sustainability of this assistance and promote the strengthening of support for maintaining up-to-date records. (Conclusion 1.2). i) Prepare a plan to improve or address the aspects or causes that could affect the frequency and sustainability of technical support to APUs. ii) Prepare and implement an evaluation instrument for the satisfaction of agro￾entrepreneurs with the frequency and consistency of technical assistance received. iii) Carry out the frequent follow-ups to enable adjustments based on the results shown in this evaluation instrument. iv) During each monitoring visit, follow up on the production status, cost and sales records for each agro-entrepreneur, and reinforce record-keeping practices. Short term (less than six months) LGBC member organizations 4 R.1.3. In implementing future initiatives focused on agricultural value chains, maintain the approach of technical support to improve the productivity of APUs and strengthen the producer organizations' social and business capacities. (Conclusion 1.3). i) Document lessons learned and systematize positive results of LGBC’s approach to improving productivity and social and business support achieved by the Activity. ii) Establish as a core component the technical assistance component with a focus on improving productivity and socio-entrepreneurial support for producer organizations to implement initiatives that seek to develop and strengthen agricultural value chains. Short term (less than six months) USAID 5 R.1.4. Ensure methodological transfer across territorial entities regarding the processes, instruments, and good practices implemented by LGBC to ensure its application in territorial consolidation of agricultural value chains and strengthen regional capacity. (Conclusions 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5) i) Systematize key processes and instruments and prepare inputs to be transferred to the territorial entities in the region by the LGBC team. ii) Coordinate with territorial entities, on the part of USAID, to create spaces and working groups to transfer processes and instruments. iii) Identify opportunities and coordinate participation, with support from USAID, in territorial planning spaces (for example, regional integration strategies (OIR), PDET implementation meetings, Regional Municipal Development Councils (Consejos Municipales de Desarrollo Rural - CMDR), to offer LGBC’s support for effective integration and implementation of the processes and instruments transferred to territorial entities and included in policy planning and regional sectoral initiatives. Short term (less than two years) LGBC member organizations USAID The governorate of Antioquia and municipal mayoralties 6 R.1.5. As has been done up to this point, continue to advance in promoting inter-institutional connections with territorial and national level entities and other projects. Promote the design and implementation of a joint territorial strategy to i) Continue to participate in and promote actions to integrate joint technical, administrative, and financial efforts for the commercial strengthening of producer organizations and the development of logistical capacities and regional commercial services in Bajo Cauca. ii) Promote, on the part of USAID, the creation of technical roundtables or regional value chain committees for the joint design and management of commercial development initiatives. This measure could be developed as part of implementing and monitoring Short term (less than two years) LGBC member organizations USAID Producer organizations Governorate of 77 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX # RECOMMENDATION MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME ACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR strengthen and consolidate collective agro-business commercialization to guarantee the productive and commercial development of priority value chains. (Conclusion 1.5). PDETs. iii) Promote, on the part of USAID, the socialization and adjustment of achievements to validate potential contributions from different actors and lay out work plans. iv) Advance the monitoring, tracking, and adjustments necessary to develop the work plan established by USAID. Antioquia and Municipal Mayoralties 7 R.2.1. For the remaining duration of LGBC, strengthen access to credit for producer organizations by structuring robust financing projects for collective production and commercialization initiatives that promote the empowerment of these organizations. (Conclusions 2.1 and 2.2). i) Provide advisory services to producer organizations on identifying working capital and investment needs to strengthen their commercial capacity. ii) Identify alternative solutions in conjunction with producer organizations, and advise on the formulation of projects for credit requests under the agricultural financing (Finagro) line with financial institutions. iii) Manage support of credit advisors from financial institutions while preparing projects with the producer organizations to avoid errors or repeated processes in the course of the credit application. Short term (less than six months) LGBC member organizations Producer organizations Financial institutions 8 R.2.2. In future initiatives, maintain strategies to promote linkages and empowerment among agro-entrepreneurs based on training and technical support without depending on the delivery of inputs or the creation of APUs for participants. (Conclusions 2.1 and 2.2). i) Work to ensure that the provision of inputs or subsidies does not incentivize beneficiaries of new projects, but rather prioritize and condition active participation in processes that develop technical, socio-entrepreneurial, and commercial skills. ii) Design alternative incentives to recognize and reward agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations with training, attendance at technical visits, participation in commercial spaces, etc., for results achieved in empowerment, such as establishing an APU with their resources. iii) For projects that include the provision of subsidies in inputs or investments, make the subsidies conditional on beneficiaries’ demonstrated commitment, as evidenced by their participation and adoption of the practices proposed by these projects. Short term (less than six months) USAID 9 R.2.3. Include initiatives like psychosocial coaching in future interventions to strengthen the business mindsets and long-term visions of the producer organizations and their members. (Conclusion 2.2). i) Document and systematize the learnings and results of the psychosocial support and coaching provided to agro-entrepreneurs and producer organizations. ii) Adjust the scheme of psychosocial support based on learning from implementation and results. iii) Replicate the psychosocial support and coaching in the design and implementation of new initiatives. Medium term (less than two years) LGBC member organizations USAID 10 R.3.1. For the remaining duration of LGBC, continue i) Ensure continuity in the coordination mechanisms put in place among the institutions that make up LGBC, maintain presence and the provision of support in Bajo Cauca, as Medium term (less LGBC member USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 78 TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX # RECOMMENDATION MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME ACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR implementing flexible models with tailored support for the specific needs of businesses in Bajo Cauca. (Conclusion 3.1) they have done throughout the Activity. ii) Seek to integrate new partners into LGBC (including territorial entities) to expand the work that has thus far been implemented. iii) Seek financing mechanisms with USAID or other partners to enable continued support for current beneficiaries and maintain support on the ground after the scheduled close of LGBC. than two years) organizations Territorial entities 11 R.3.2. Establish search criteria to facilitate identification and support for businesses that require this assistance and would be applicable for both current LGBC cohorts and new interventions by LGBC member organizations. (Conclusions 3.1 and 3.2) i) As LGBC currently carries out active recruitment for beneficiaries, implement formal and informal alternatives to bring on board new cohorts. ii) Use local media avenues to promote LGBC, such as radio and social media, while using information held by local chambers of commerce to target new beneficiaries. iii) Incorporate territorial entities into the search for business owners eligible to participate in LGBC. Medium term (up to two years) LGBC member organizations, Territorial entities 12 R.4.1. Concentrate more efforts on raising awareness about the issue of social security payments among business owners in Bajo Cauca (Conclusions 4.1 and 4.2). i) Continue to raise awareness about social security payments and the importance of formalization in the Urban component. ii) Work with chambers of commerce and Comfama to support business formalization, providing economic support if necessary. iii) Connect with different alternatives from the national government, such as Estado Joven (a program that supports young people in attaining their first job), to reduce costs for businesses, as these programs promote youth employment and contribute to a culture of making social security payments. Short term (less than six months) LGBC member organizations 13 R.4.2. Establish a plan to disseminate positive experiences and changes in mindset acquired by entrepreneurs as part of LGBC to share and apply these learnings and good practices with current LGBC participants and new cohorts. (Conclusions 4.1, and 4.2). i) Identify and document LGBC’s success stories. ii) Define a strategy for a godfather/godmother scheme, which would develop spaces in which beneficiaries from earlier cohorts tell their success stories and provide information for new beneficiaries, allowing them to learn from the paths blazed by early adopters. These activities could be group-based or individual, depending on the topics or the sector. In addition, the scheme could provide incentives (monetary or non￾monetary based on positive recognition) for the “godparents.” iii) Use short audio and/or video messages to disseminate success cases; it may be useful also to utilize social media to spread these messages. Short term (less than six months) LGBC member organizations 14 R.5.1. Collect experiences on the mentoring process in i) Generate spaces to socialize the experiences of specialists working in this area of support. Short term (less than Comfama 79 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 1. RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX # RECOMMENDATION MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME ACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR order to generate mechanisms to share learnings. (Conclusions 5.1 and 5.2). ii) Organize and classify the main lessons learned from the mentorship experience. iii) Systematize the mentoring process. iv) Disseminate the process in other programs, institutions, or regions where they may be useful. six months) Interactuar 15 R.5.2. Replicate in other programs or projects the lessons learned regarding the development of soft skills. (Conclusion 5.2.). i) Based on this experience, compile the instruments used and facilitate access to them as a “toolbox” to support the development of soft skills. ii) Socialize the results achieved with the implementing partners that work with international cooperation programs to enable their potential replication. iii) Disseminate these results with local governments so that they can be used in their own social programs. Medium term (less than two years) Comfama Interactuar USAID Local governments 16 R.5.3. Extend the services offered by Comfama to producer organizations in the Agricultural component to promote business formalization, as has been done in the Urban component. (Conclusions 5.3 and 5.4) i) Identify needs related to business formalization in producer organizations. ii) Based on the relationship that Interactuar has constructed with producers, establish a linkage with the regional services of Comfama. iii) Seek alternatives to provide business formalization services in rural communities through producer organizations. Short term (less than six months) Interactuar Comfama 17 R.5.4. Offer specialized technical courses with employers in the Bajo Cauca subregion. (Conclusions 5.3 and 5.5.). i) Strengthen diagnostics of labor needs together with major employers. ii) Together with employers, design a plan for technical training that responds to the region's specific needs. iii) Together with SENA promote technical training for young people, focusing on the areas of electrical and mechanical skills, and on forest services. Long term (more than two years) Comfama SENA Local governments USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 80 ANNEX II – COMPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS AND INFORMATION DETAILED QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS: SELECTED RESULTS In the chapter on Evaluation Questions and Methodology and Annex IV – Detailed Methodology, the evaluation team described the four quantitative analysis methodologies that supported generating findings aimed at fully or partially answering the LGBC evaluation questions. The scope of these findings greatly depended on the primary data collection for this project. Considering that this methodology provided detailed and extensive results, some of these results are presented below in this annex. PROBABILISTIC REGRESSION MODELS As explained in the methodology, the probit or probabilistic models were estimated to determine the main factors that explain the perceptual increase in sales, income, productivity, and market access for beekeeping and fish farming producer participants in the LGBC Agricultural component. In addition, the evaluation team implemented similar models to determine the perceived increases in sales, income, and market access for non-agricultural entrepreneur participants in the LGBC Urban component. This section of the annex presents the results for each probabilistic regression model and their corresponding analysis. PROBABILISTIC REGRESSION MODEL FOR THE BEEKEEPING AGRO-INCUBATOR (SEEDBED) PARTICIPANTS As depicted in table 2, to determine the factors that increase or decrease the probability of an increase in sales, income, productivity, or market access for beekeeping producer participants from the LGBC GDA, the team arrived at the following set of control variables: number of apiaries in their household, number of beehives in the apiary, Agricultural Production Unit (APU) belonging only to the household, APU interviewed in the second phase of the data collection process, and a constant variable. Table 2 presents the variables deemed significant for each probit model in the probability of an increase in sales, income, productivity, or market access of beekeeping producer participants. TABLE 2. PROBIT MODEL FOR BEEKEEPING AGRO-INCUBATOR (SEEDBED) BENEFICIARIES VARIABLE SALES INCREASE INCOME INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE MARKET ACCESS INCREASE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE Activities developed with LGBC (Xi) Production registration difficulties -0.39 0.09 -0.63 0.01 Environmental technical facilitation 1.72 0 Environmental management training 1.23 0.01 1.04 0.03 Commercial connections facilitation 0.77 0 81 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 2. PROBIT MODEL FOR BEEKEEPING AGRO-INCUBATOR (SEEDBED) BENEFICIARIES VARIABLE SALES INCREASE INCOME INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE MARKET ACCESS INCREASE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE Appropriate beekeeping zones selection and suitability 0.99 0.02 Breeding of queens and nuclei 0.61 0.01 Floral calendar use and follow-up to schedule production and harvest cycles 0.74 0.02 Good honey harvest and collection practices with adequate equipment and containers, following sanitary measures 0.9 0.06 Contextual variables (Zi) Absence of financing -0.49 0.05 Low productivity as a result of climate and environmental problems -0.92 0.03 -1.54 0.01 Absence of adequate honey extraction and processing equipment -0.6 0.01 Geographical isolation -0.45 0.04 Control Variables Number of apiaries in the household 0.05 0.33 -0.05 0.34 0.08 0.18 0.08 0.11 Number of beehives in the apiary -0.01 0.09 0 0.73 0 0.53 0 0.49 APU belonging to the household only 0.2 0.64 -0.27 0.54 0.49 0.25 0.11 0.79 APU surveyed in the second phase of data collection -0.15 0.54 -0.03 0.9 -0.12 0.61 0.04 0.87 Constant -0.6 0.46 -0.14 0.86 -0.64 0.47 -1.44 0.01 Sample 156 156 156 156 Pseudo R2 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.1 As observed in table 2, given the technicalities of the model, the evaluation team was not able to make a straightforward interpretation of the numbers provided in the model. Thus, the evaluation team USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 82 translated the results from the models in the following paragraphs. The evaluation team analyzed the effects of each variable on the probability of an increase in sales, income, productivity, or market access. In the first model, production registration difficulties within the activities developed with LGBC and low productivity associated with climate and environmental problems reduce the probability of an increase in sales by 13.5 percent and 23.7 percent, respectively. Environmental management training and the selection and suitability of appropriate zones for the apiary from the activities developed with LGBC increased the probability of an increase in sales by 37.5 percent and 46.2 percent, respectively. In the second model, production registration difficulties in the activities with LGBC, as well as the absence of financing and the absence of appropriate honey extracting and processing equipment, reduced the probability of an increase in income for beekeeping producers by 23.2 percent, 16.9 percent, and 22.5 percent, respectively. Good honey harvesting and collection practices with adequate equipment and containers that follow sanitary measures, as well as environmental management training, increased the probability of an increase in sales by 34.6 percent and 39.8 percent. In the third model, low productivity associated with climate and environmental problems and geographical isolation or seclusion reduced the probability of an increase in productivity of beekeeping producers by 37.5 percent and 16.4 percent, respectively. Environmental technical assistance and the breeding of queens and nuclei increased the probability of an increase in the production of beekeeping producers by 26.1 percent and 23.4 percent. Lastly, in the market access model, commercial connections facilitation and the use and follow-up of a floral calendar to schedule production and harvest cycles increased the probability of an increase in market access for beekeeping producers by 29.8 percent and 28.6 percent. PROBABILISTIC REGRESSION MODEL FOR THE FISH-FARMING AGRO-INCUBATOR (SEEDBED) PARTICIPANTS To determine the factors that increase or decrease the probability of an increase in sales, income, productivity, or market access for fish-farming producer participants from the LGBC GDA, the evaluation team used the following set of control variables: number of fish tanks, water mirrors in squared meters, APU belonging to the household only, APU interviewed in the second phase of the data collection process, and a constant variable. Table 3 presents the variables deemed significant for each probit model in the probability of increased sales, income, productivity, or market access of fish-farming producer participants. TABLE 3. PROBIT MODEL FOR FISH-FARMING AGRO-INCUBATOR (SEEDBED) BENEFICIARIES VARIABLE SALES INCREASE INCOME INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE MARKET ACCESS INCREASE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE Activities developed with LGBC (Xi) Commercialization problems -1.3 0.02 Environmental management training 0.99 0.06 Anti bird nets usage 1.48 0.01 1,16 0.02 0.95 0.06 83 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 3. PROBIT MODEL FOR FISH-FARMING AGRO-INCUBATOR (SEEDBED) BENEFICIARIES VARIABLE SALES INCREASE INCOME INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE MARKET ACCESS INCREASE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE COEF P￾VALUE Contextual variables (Zi) Absence of stable and sufficient commercial agreements Geographical isolation -1,11 0.07 Control variables Number of fish ponds -0.05 0.47 -0.02 0.77 0.03 0.57 0 1 Water mirrors – Squared meters 0 0.99 0 1 0 0.82 0 0.45 APU belonging to the household only -0.36 0.43 -0.43 0.35 -0.23 0.63 -0.89 0.06 APU surveyed in the second phase of data collection -0.18 0.75 0.29 0,57 0.07 0.88 1.44 0.01 Constant -0.65 0.3 0.07 0,89 -0.33 0.48 -0.15 0.78 Sample 41 41 41 41 Pseudo R2 0.25 0.23 0.09 0.19 As mentioned in the probit models for the beekeeping producer participants and given the technicalities of the model, the evaluation team could not make a straightforward interpretation of the numbers provided in the model, as observed in table 3. Thus, the evaluation team translated and provided the corresponding interpretation in the following paragraphs. In the first model, environmental management training and the use of anti-bird nets from the activities with LGBC increased the probability of an increase in sales by 38.0 percent and 52.3 percent, respectively. In the second model, using anti-bird nets increased the probability of an increase in income by 43.4 percent, while geographical isolation decreased this probability by 41.2 percent. Lastly, from the activities with LGBC in the production and market access models for the fish-farming producer participants, using anti-bird nets increases the probability of increased production by 35.9 percent. In comparison, commercialization problems reduced the probability of increased market access by 42.6 percent. PROBABILISTIC REGRESSION MODEL FOR URBAN COMPONENT PARTICIPANT ASSOCIATIONS The evaluation team used the following set of control variables to determine the factors that increased or decreased the probability of an increase in sales, income, or market access for Urban component participant associations from the LGBC GDA: average number of employees who worked in the company during 2021, a dummy equal to one for companies with assets above COP$ 50 million, a dummy equal to one when the company pays social security for its employees, a dummy equal to one if USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 84 the company is formally registered with the chamber of commerce, a dummy equal to one if the business was interviewed in the second phase of the data collection, a dummy equal to one if the business belongs to the second cohort, a dummy consisting of a mix of the last two items and the constant variable. Table 4 presents the variables deemed significant for each probit model in the probability of increased sales, income, or market access for urban participant associations. TABLE 4. PROBIT MODEL FOR URBAN COMPONENT BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATIONS VARIABLE SALES INCREASE INCOME INCREASE MARKET ACCESS INCREASE COEF P-VALUE COEF P-VALUE COEF P-VALUE Activities developed with LGBC (Xi) Practical training and exercise tools 0.67 0.04 0.66 0.01 Written model for the forecast of their business activities 0.72 - Ability to generate new clients 0.97 - 0.58 - Context variables (Zi) Inadequate quality of the product or service -2.67 - Harmful effects on the development of the company due to Absence of state presence -0.42 0.01 Harmful effects on the development of the company due to the COVID￾19 pandemic -0.37 0 Control variables The average number of company employees during 2021 0.01 0.44 -0.01 0.29 0.02 0.19 Dummy for companies with assets of more than 50 million COP -0.06 0.87 -0.24 0.47 0.3 0.36 The company paid social security for its employees 0.06 0.86 0.08 0.81 -0.06 0.85 The company is formal, constituted under the chamber of commerce 0.91 0.16 0.46 0.29 1.43 0 Businesses surveyed in the second phase of the data collection 0.42 0.45 0.04 0.93 -0.4 0.4 Business from the second cohort 0.01 0.98 -0.15 0.71 0.01 0.98 Business from the second phase of the data collection and the second -0.44 0.58 0.95 0.16 0.74 0.27 85 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 4. PROBIT MODEL FOR URBAN COMPONENT BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATIONS VARIABLE SALES INCREASE INCOME INCREASE MARKET ACCESS INCREASE COEF P-VALUE COEF P-VALUE COEF P-VALUE cohort34 Constant -4.85 0 -3.76 - -2.21 - Sample 104 104 104 Pseudo R2 0.52 0.36 0.26 Given the technicalities of the model, the evaluation team could not make a straightforward interpretation of the numbers provided in the model, as observed in table 4. Thus, the evaluation team translated the table to provide the following corresponding interpretation. In the first model, the inadequate quality of the product or service and a negative effect on the company from the absence of state presence reduced the probability of an increase in sales by 74.0 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively. From the activities with LGBC, the training and practical exercise tools and the ability to generate new clients increased the probability of an increase in sales by 22.5 percent and 32.3 percent, respectively. Having a written model for the forecast of their business activities increased the probability of an increase in income by 26.2 percent. In the second model, the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the company's development reduced the probability of an increase in income by 13.3 percent. The training and practical exercises and having a written model of the company’s forecast for its activities increase the probability of an increase in income by 24.1 percent and 26.2 percent, respectively. Lastly, from the activities with LGBC, the ability to generate new clients increased the probability of increased market access by 19.9 percent. MULTIPLE CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS TO ESTABLISH ASSOCIATIONS IN PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTIONS The evaluation team performed a multiple correspondence analysis to evaluate the possible association in the answers provided under each component. The methodology section and its corresponding annexes describe the details of this methodology. The following joint category diagrams present the different answer options on a two-dimensional graph. The closeness or distance of the points represents the solid or weak association between the answers. MULTIPLE CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS AND JOINT CATEGORY DIAGRAM FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT In the blue square, the participants who have not received any income and/or no longer have agricultural activities are those who have low satisfaction with LGBC. In the red square, the participants whose APU 34 This analysis finds no evidence for differentiated effects for participants surveyed from Phase 2 and Cohort 2. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 86 is a property shared by the household and their producer organization are most likely to be “neither satisfied nor unsatisfied.” Lastly, in the yellow square, beekeeping/fish-farming participants with agricultural activities that receive income from commercialization and have an APU belonging to the household only tend to have the best satisfaction levels with LGBC (See Exhibit 56). Exhibit 56. Joint category diagram for selected questions aimed at the Agricultural component participants. SOURCE: SURVEY OF AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT PARTICIPANTS – PREPARED BY MEL ACTIVITY MULTIPLE CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS AND JOINT CATEGORY DIAGRAM FOR THE URBAN COMPONENT The blue square reflects how the perception of not generating the business model structure and follow￾up contributions or failure to connect with other entrepreneurs is associated with lower satisfaction levels with LGBC. The red square reflects that not having expectations of business expansion or continuing with Urban component activities is associated with dissatisfaction toward LGBC. Lastly, the yellow square shows that “completely satisfied” participants tend to simultaneously show expectations for business expansion, connections with other entrepreneurs, and support for business formation and follow-up under LGBC’s business model (See Exhibit 57). 87 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 57. Joint category diagram for selected questions to Urban component participants. SOURCE: SURVEY TO URBAN COMPONENT PARTICIPANTS – PREPARED BY MEL ACTIVITY MULTIPLE CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS AND JOINT CATEGORY DIAGRAM FOR THE EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT In the blue square, participants who could find employment received support from Comfama and considered the courses and workshops relevant were those who tended to be most satisfied with LGBC. In the red square, an association exists between people who do not consider the courses and workshops relevant, feel underprepared for selection processes, and spend time on household chores with complete dissatisfaction with LGBC (“completely unsatisfied”). As for the yellow square, people searching for work or working but had not found jobs tended to show intermediate and low satisfaction levels (See Exhibit 58). USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 88 Exhibit 58. Joint category diagram for selected questions aimed at the Employability component participants. SOURCE: SURVEY OF EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT PARTICIPANTS – PREPARED BY MEL ACTIVITY DETAILED QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: SELECTED RESULTS In the chapter on Evaluation Questions and Methodology and in Annex IV – Detailed Methodology, the evaluation team described the qualitative analysis tools used to compile information, the coding process, and the analysis of the information derived from that process. This information served to support the findings identified to answer the evaluation questions. The coding of 63 instruments yielded a variety of detailed results. This annex presents some of the most relevant results that were not included, for length reasons, in the evaluation's main body. The empowerment process was one of the leading indicators evaluated transversally for all components through the coding of the testimonies collected. The evaluation team defined empowerment as a process that begins with learning, continues with adopting practices based on learning, and is completed with the generation of changes resulting from the practices adopted. For the Agricultural component, the evaluation team examined the mentions collected from the qualitative instruments for the agro-entrepreneurship incubators and technical assistance, as well as mentions that referred to the productivity and income of agro-entrepreneurs. The team then classified these mentions according to the empowerment defined in terms of the contribution of the incubators and technical assistance to learning, adoption of practices or changes generated, or if, on the contrary, participants did not perceive a contribution from the component and provided recommendations on how to improve LGBC’s support processes. The evaluation team carried out the same process for the variables for productivity and income, whose mentions were classified by identifying whether participants were taught about these topics, adopted practices, or perceived changes and if they made recommendations on these topics. 89 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 59. Distribution of mentions, empowerment process among agro-entrepreneurs. SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON CODING OF QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS Exhibit 59 shows, first, the number of mentions highlighting the relationship with the agro￾entrepreneurial incubators and technical assistance, with reference to income and productivity. Regarding the distribution of these mentions in the empowerment process in percentage form and within results for the incubators, the mentions of learning and adoption of practices stand out with 34 percent each. In contrast, in technical assistance, the adoption of practices stands out with 43 percent. Regarding productivity, the highest proportion of mentions is about perceived changes generated with 46 percent. In comparison, in income, the mentions of changes generated are lower (27 percent) but present the highest percentage of mentions of adoption of practices with 52 percent. Concerning recommendations, these are proportionally low in all cases, with the highest percentage of mentions (14 percent) appearing in the area of technical assistance. For the agricultural component, the evaluation team examined the mentions collected via qualitative instruments that were applied to the MBA Agro participants on the diagnostic and commercialization plan, as well as business connections and commercial support. In this case, the variables being evaluated by mentions from producer group leaders and agro-entrepreneurs referred to sales, associational strength, and business vision. The evaluation team classified mentions about different aspects of the component and about the variables using defined categories for the empowerment process: learning, adoption of practices, and changes generated, including the option of recommendations for those mentions that included critiques or made suggestions. Exhibit 60 shows that mentions of associational strengthening were significantly more frequent than other options, while mentions of the diagnostic exercise and commercialization plan garnered comparatively low mentions. Concerning the distribution of mentions within aspects of the empowerment process in percentage form, mentions about learning stood out mainly in the diagnostic and the commercialization plan with 53 percent and in sales with 47 percent. In contrast, the proportion of mentions of adoption of practices was not as high for any of the activities or variables, with the variable for entrepreneurial vision appearing the most with 25 percent. Connections and commercial support received the highest proportion of mentions regarding changes generated with 38 percent, USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 90 closely followed by the variables of sales and associativity with 32 percent and 31 percent, respectively. In this case, the proportion of mentions of recommendations is higher, especially concerning the creation of connections and commercial support with 21 percent, and the variable for entrepreneurial vision, which reached 31 percent. Exhibit 60. The distribution of the empowerment process mentions in MBA Agro. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON CODING QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS The evaluation team analyzed mentions (collected through qualitative instruments) for the urban component) regarding business consultations and specialized advising under LGBC. In this case, the variables being examined comprised access to markets and income and sales together. The evaluation team classified mentions about these aspects of the urban component and their associated variables using defined categories of the empowerment process: learning, adoption of practices, and changes generated, including the option for recommendations with those mentions that offered critiques or suggestions. Exhibit 61. Distribution of empowerment process mentions among urban business owners. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON CODING QUALITIATIVE INSTRUMENTS 91 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 61 shows that mentions of business consultations and specialized advising outnumber mentions of market access, income, and sales. Income and sales received a very low number of mentions: only three out of a total of 122 mentions identified for this component. Concerning the distribution of these mentions across the empowerment process in percentage form, mentions of changes generated stand out in business consultations and in the variable for access to markets, at 62 percent and 67 percent, respectively. In contrast, mentions of learning appear conspicuously linked to specialized advising, with 49 percent. The proportion of mentions for adopting practices is generally low, with business consultations receiving the highest of mentions for this aspect (23 percent). As the variable for income and sales has so few mentions, its distribution is not representative. The proportion of mentions of recommendations for this component is also low, reaching just 10 percent and 11 percent in specialized advising and access to markets, respectively. For the Employability component, the evaluation team examined the mentions collected from qualitative instruments applied to mentoring, career pathways, labor intermediation, and psychosocial support and coaching. As with the preceding components, the evaluation team classified mentions about these aspects of the component using defined categories of the empowerment process: learning, adoption of practices, and changes generated, including the option for recommendations with those mentions that offered critiques or suggestions. Exhibit 62 shows the greatest number of mentions appearing for labor intermediation and career pathways, but more than half of the mentions are recommendations (52 percent and 54 percent, respectively). Regarding the distribution across the empowerment process in percentage form, mentions of changes generated stand out in mentoring and in psychosocial support with 38 percent and 67 percent, respectively, while mentions of learning appeared as most relevant for job training pathways and psychosocial support and coaching with 31 percent and 33 percent, respectively. Regarding the adoption of practices, the proportion of mentions is generally low, with mentoring receiving the highest proportion at 23 percent. Exhibit 62. Distribution of empowerment process mentions among Employability participants. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON CODING QUALITIATIVE INSTRUMENTS USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 92 As part of this analysis, the evaluation team also defined four variables related to empowerment based on the agreed-upon definition for this concept, as discussed in the section on the Evaluation Purpose. These variables were leadership, autonomy, long-term vision, and sustainability. The team coded these variables within the qualitative instruments and identified empowerment-related mentions, classifying mentions by variable for each component separately. Exhibit 63. Distribution of mentions by component and empowerment variable. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON CODING QUALITIATIVE INSTRUMENTS Exhibit 63 presents comparative results of the distribution of mentions of empowerment for each variable in each evaluated component in percentage form. In the case of agriculture, the highest proportion of mentions was sustainability at 35.3 percent, with this percentage also representing the highest percentage of mentions in comparison with the other components. The same also occurs with mentions of leadership where, with 24.6 percent of mentions, it holds a higher proportion in the agricultural component than with the other two components. In contrast, in mentions of long-term vision, although it has 21.4 percent within agro, this number is far exceeded in the other components. For the Urban component, the largest percentage of mentions appears concerning long-term vision, with 39.5 percent, followed by mentions of sustainability with 34.9 percent. A striking result appears concerning autonomy, which only garners 5.8 percent of mentions, representing the lowest percentage in the entire distribution for all components. In the employability component, the mentions of long-term vision and autonomy predominate, with 54.3 percent and 20 percent, respectively. These percentages represent the highest percentages for each variable. Still, at the same time, this component shows the lowest percentage of mentions for both leadership and sustainability, with 11.4 percent and 14.3 percent, respectively. DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS: SELECTED RESULTS In the Evaluation Questions and Methodology chapter and Annex IV – Detailed Methodology, the evaluation team described the spatial analysis inputs and tools supporting the findings identified to answer the LGBC evaluation questions. The results of this analysis appear in different mapping exercises, some of which make up part of the main body of this evaluation. 93 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV This annex incorporates maps prepared for each LGBC component, following the variables analyzed for each case. AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT The Agricultural component's evaluation team georeferenced agro-entrepreneurs' properties gathered by the participant survey. Drawing on this georeferencing exercise, the evaluation team cross-checked the available precipitation information from 2021 for each of the 159 beekeeping properties (Exhibit 64) and the 44 fish-farming properties (Exhibit 65). As noted in the finding F.1.13, beekeeping APUs were more affected by excessive precipitation in 2021, as shown in the referenced maps. The evaluation team also overlapped the location of APUs with information on illegal mining, as shown in Exhibit 66 (beekeeping) and Exhibit 67 (fish farming). These maps reveal that illegal mining is prevalent in areas of APU activity, mainly in Zaragoza, El Bagre, and Nechí, particularly for beekeeping APUs. The contextual information collected from participant surveys and qualitative interviews indicates that illegal mining is not a factor that significantly affects fish farming or beekeeping activities. On the other hand, these agricultural activities may mitigate the effects of mining, especially beekeeping, and can also become concrete economic alternatives to this illegal activity. URBAN COMPONENT Exhibit 68 shows that business owners who participated in this component concentrate in the urban centers of Zaragoza, El Bagre, and Caucasia, with Caucasia hosting the greatest density of business activity. In contrast, Tarazá, Nechí, and Cáceres show low density. EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT Exhibit 69 shows the density of Employability component participants in mentoring, which concentrates in Caucasia and, to a somewhat lesser extent, in El Bagre. The other four municipalities show much lower density. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 94 Exhibit 64. Location of beekeeping APUs overlapped with precipitation index for 2021. SOURCE: PREPARED FOR EVALUATION BY GIS TEAM 95 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 65. Location of fish farming APUs overlapped with precipitation index for 2021. SOURCE: PREPARED FOR EVALUATION BY GIS TEAM USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 96 Exhibit 66. Density of beekeeping APUs vs illegal mining. SOURCE: PRPARED FOR EVALUATION BY GIS TEAM 97 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 67. Density of fish farming APUs vs. illegal mining. SOURCE: PRPARED FOR EVALUATION BY GIS TEAM USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 98 Exhibit 68. Density of Urban businesses in Bajo Cauca SOURCE: PRPARED FOR EVALUATION BY GIS TEAM 99 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 69. Density of Employability component participants who participated in mentoring exercises in Bajo Cauca. SOURCE: PRPARED FOR EVALUATION BY GIS TEAM USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 100 ANNEX III – MATRIX OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE 5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Cross-cutting finding F.0.1. The indicators monitored by LGBC do not allow for the measurement of whether increases occurred in sales, income, or productivity of agro-entrepreneurs, producer organizations, or urban entrepreneurs C.0.1. Regardless of the availability of information sources, LGBC lacked indicators to measure changes in its participants’ sales, income, and productivity levels. These measurements are key elements to evaluate the model's effectiveness in contributing to economic growth in Bajo Cauca during and after its implementation. (Finding 0.1.) R.0.1. Conduct a Data Quality Assessment (DQA), considering the remaining time and resources available under LGBC to strengthen the final evaluation report for this Activity. The DQA should include effectiveness indicators under the model to show accurate results concerning the changes experienced by agro-entrepreneurs, producer organizations, and urban small businesses during the execution of the Activity. (Conclusion 0.1) Q1: How effective has been LGBC’s model to achieve sales, income and productivity increases of the associations and agriculture entrepreneurs involved? F.1.1. Most beekeeper and fish farmer agro-entrepreneurs are satisfied with the learnings shared and results achieved by LGBC. F.1.2. Beekeepers tend to have the highest satisfaction levels with LGBC. This satisfaction is associated with the current level of development of their activity, the income they have attained, and the individual operation of the APU (one household rather than as part of a collective). F.1.3. The adoption of management practices and productive techniques encouraged by LGBC positively affected the beekeeping and fish farming APUs, which report high levels of learning, and, to a lesser degree, the adoption of practices aimed at improving productivity. F.1.4. Beekeeping and fish-farming agro-entrepreneurs have a very positive vision for future growth in terms of productivity, sales, and income compared to their current situation, which they hope to achieve by applying skills learned through LGBC. F.1.5. Producer organization leaders indicated a greater willingness among organization members and managers to see producer organizations as spaces for effective participation and teamwork to reduce costs and improve productivity. F.1.6. The agribusiness training as well as the technical support that LGBC provided has been key to adopting good management practices among agro-enterprises. Participants perceive these support areas positively, with beekeepers expressing more positive perceptions. C.1.1. Agro-entrepreneurs and their respective producer organizations are satisfied with the actions implemented by LGBC, including positive learnings and perspectives for the future concerning productive and commercial improvements on their APUs, specifically in their income. Nevertheless, these results have yet to be fully consolidated. (Findings 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5). C.1.2. Despite the general satisfaction with and adoption of technical and productive learning provided through LGBC’s technical support, agro-entrepreneurs identified difficulties stemming from the relatively low frequency of in person technical assistance visits in the territories to the APUs by providers. This area represents a key point for improvement. (Findings 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8). C.1.3. For many agro-entrepreneurs, beekeeping and fish farming are not the main economic activities. However, they perceive that LGBC was effective in generating increases in sales, incomes, and productivity. These increases led agro￾entrepreneurs to see potential in these activities and desire growth in these areas, which offer an effective alternative to promote agribusiness R.1.1. Promote the creation of a territorial strategy to offer agricultural extension services for the beekeeping and fish farming value chains in Bajo Cauca, from the learnings gained by LGBC, to ensure continuity of technical support to businesses after the conclusion of the Activity. (Conclusion 1.1). R.1.2. Continue to implement adjustments in LGBC’s technical assistance strategy to enable greater frequency and sustainability of this assistance and promote the strengthening of support for maintaining up-to-date records. (Conclusion 1.2). R.1.3. In implementing future initiatives focused on agricultural value chains, maintain the approach of technical support to improve the productivity of APUs and strengthen the producer organizations' social and business capacities. (Conclusion 1.3). R.1.4. Ensure methodological transfer 101 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS F.1.7. Participants indentified weaknesses in productive technical assistance associated with the low frequency of technical visits and the limited presence over time ofthe assistance provided by LGBC specialists to beekeeping and fish-farming agro-entrepreneurs. F.1.8. Thanks to LGBC, agro-entrepreneurs have learned how to keep records, perceiving this task as essential for their business. Nevertheless, some beekeepers said they encountered difficulties keeping these records up to date, stating that it was a cumbersome and time￾consuming task and that they did not have sufficient time. F.1.9. Most agro-entrepreneurs stated that the instruments and activities implemented by LGBC had effectively increased or maintained their sales, income, and yields. F.1.10. The evaluation identified possible increases in productivity between 2020 and 2021, with beekeepers and fish farmers reporting total sales in 2021 of more than $654 million Colombian pesos (COP), equivalent to approximately USD164,273. F.1.11. On average, 30 percent of agro-entrepreneurs’ incomes stem from beekeeping and fish farming activities supported by LGBC. F.1.12. The perception among agro-entrepreneurs of increases in sales and productivity is related to training in environmental management and adopting good practices promoted and facilitated by LGBC. F.1.13. Environmental factors, such as excess precipitation, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, pose a threat to APUs’ productivity. F.1.14. LGBC has helped beekeeping agro-entrepreneurs overcome some challenges associated with commercializing their products. Challenges remain, principally with regard to payment, permits, and the logistics of harvest and transportation. F.1.15. Beekeeping commercialization has proceeded predominantly in a coordinated fashion through producer organizations, as approximately 70 percent of APUs sell at least part of their production with their organizations; in contrast, no more than 40 percent of fish farmers engage in collective sales. F.1.16. Geographic isolation for fish farmers, and lack of financing and suitable equipment for the extraction and processing of honey, for beekeepers, reduced the possibility that APUs supported by LGBC would increase income. F.1.17. The production of beekeeping and fish farming APUs, individually and collectively, is mainly aimed at serving the market in the Bajo Cauca region through direct sales to the final consumer and local retail development and generate income. (Findings 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11). C.1.4. For agro-entrepreneurs, despite the impact of weather conditions (particularly excessive rainfall) and the COVID-19 pandemic on productive activities, adopting practices promoted by LGBC has prevented even greater setbacks from these phenomena. Also, it has helped agro-entrepreneurs to maintain a positive outlook for achieving productivity gains. (Findings 1.12 and 1.13). C.1.5. Despite agro-entrepreneurs’ perceptions of positive results for the growth of productivity, sales, and incomes, commercialization at both the individual and the collective level continues to present difficulties that exceed the capacity of individual agro-entrepreneurs to address. This makes it more suited for a collective and inter￾institutional approach through the lens of regional value chains. (Findings 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, and 1.19). across territorial entities regarding the processes, instruments, and good practices implemented by LGBC to ensure its application in territorial consolidation of agricultural value chains and strengthen regional capacity. (Conclusions 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5). R.1.5. As has been done up to this point, continue to advance in promoting inter-institutional connections with territorial and national level entities and other projects. Promote the design and implementation of a joint territorial strategy to strengthen and consolidate collective agro-business commercialization to guarantee the productive and commercial development of priority value chains. (Conclusion 1.5). USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 102 TABLE 5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS businesses. F.1.18. A third of producer organization leaders perceived increases in the sales made by their organizations through the support of LGBC. F.1.19. Organizational strengthening processes have resulted in producer organizations wishing to develop their own channels for commercialization and addition of value, but there is not evidence that this includes a vision for regional value chains that could build on previous initiatives. Q2: How effective has LGBC’s model been in empowering agro￾entrepreneurs and producer organizations? F.2.1. Since agro-entrepreneurs began to participate in LGBC, 78 percent of beekeepers and 43 percent of fish farmers have invested in new hives and ponds with their resources, demonstrating empowerment in their agribusiness. F.2.2. Agro-entrepreneurs are willing to adopt planning practices to improve their productive and commercial processes (for example, through flowering calendars and staggered plantings). F.2.3. Agro-entrepreneurs stated that participation in LGBC had increased their long-term vision and leadership capabilities to continue the independent implementation of their businesses, even if LGBC does not continue. F.2.4. The motivation of agro-entrepreneurs to join LGBC did not depend on the delivery of inputs or the establishment of APUs but rather focused on improving knowledge, productive practices, income, and the quality of life in their homes. F.2.5. Leaders of producer organizations recognize that they have gained learning to strengthen their management capacities, while a lower percentage have put these learnings into practice. F.2.6. Producer organizations express a perception of autonomy to continue planning processes, including after the close of LGBC, although they also stress the need for continued advice and financial support. F.2.7. In general, agro-entrepreneurs indicate that they are satisfied with the role played by producer organizations toward their members. Because of LGBC, members identify improvements in the organizations’ capacities to provide them with services. F.2.8. MBA Agro generated learning related to diagnostics, planning, and decision-making for organizational and commercial strengthening of the participating beekeeping and fish farming producer organizations. C.2.1. LGBC was effective in generating changes in the entrepreneurial capacity of agro￾entrepreneurs (concerning commitment, leadership, autonomy, and resilience), empowering them to advance in sustainable agricultural productive development with a long￾term vision for their agro-businesses. This allowed these agro-entrepreneurs to better face the individual- and territorial-level difficulties at an individual and territorial level that affect their productive activities. (Findings 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4). C.2.2. LGBC strengthened associativity in the region, with greater business management capacity of the producer organizations, by building long-term vision, improving participation of organization members, and strengthening managerial capabilities of the boards of directors. However, financial capacity and commercial management continue to demonstrate weaknesses that constrain the growth of the producer organizations and their business operations. (Findings 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8). R.2.1. For the remaining duration of LGBC, strengthen access to credit for the producer organizations by structuring robust financing projects for collective production and commercialization initiatives that promote the empowerment of these organizations. (Conclusions 2.1 and 2.2). R.2.2. In future initiatives, maintain strategies to promote linkages and empowerment among agro￾entrepreneurs based on training and technical support without depending on the delivery of inputs or the creation of APUs for participants. (Conclusions 2.1 and 2.2). R.2.3. Include initiatives like psychosocial coaching in future interventions to strengthen the business mindsets and long-term visions of the producer organizations and their members. (Conclusion 2.2). 103 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Q3: How effective has been LGBC’s model to achieve increases in sales, income and market access of entrepreneurs intervened in Bajo Cauca? F.3.1. The entrepreneurs and other stakeholders interviewed for the evaluation reported increases in sales, incomes, and access to markets. Most agro-entrepreneurs who participated in the program expect growth in the future. F.3.2. Among the agro-entrepreneurs surveyed, 80.8 percent indicated that LGBC provided them with relevant tools for management, business, and commercial practices, contributing to increased sales, income, and market access. F.3.3. LGBC participants considered the model effective in providing attention and service to entrepreneurs and delivering advisory and support on issues relevant to the formation and growth of businesses in Bajo Cauca. F.3.4. Of participants surveyed, 89.7 percent are satisfied with LGBC, highlighting its recruitment strategy, which helps identify and serve participants, and writing out a business model. F.3.5. Among the contextual factors, the COVID-19 pandemic represented the greatest obstacle for LGBC, and required adaptations by businesses, facilitated by the tools that LGBC promoted. C.3.1. The LGBC model effectively increased sales, incomes, and market access for participating business owners due to tailored advisory support, help developing beneficiary business plans, and tools to improve management, business, and commercial practices. (Findings 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3). C.3.2. Even though the COVID-19 pandemic harmed businesses, LGBC and business owners adapted to participate in virtual markets, which enabled continued growth in sales and incomes to the satisfaction of participants, who expected to continue to grow. (Findings 3.4 and 3.5). R.3.1. For the remaining duration of LGBC, continue implementing flexible models with tailored support for the specific needs of businesses in Bajo Cauca. (Conclusion 3.1). R.3.2. Establish search criteria to facilitate identification and support for businesses that require this assistance and would be applicable for both current LGBC cohorts and new interventions by LGBC member organizations. (Conclusions 3.1 and 3.2) Q4: How effective has been LGBC’s model to empower small business owners? F.4.1. The LGBC model has empowered entrepreneurs in Bajo Cauca, imparting, and complementing both personal (soft) and business skills, including autonomy, an innovative spirit, leadership, and the desire to contribute to local development. F.4.2. Business owners recognize their strengths and weaknesses, and the skills needed to lead their businesses. F.4.3. LGBC helped businesses overcome regulatory hurdles, as 17 of the 25 informal businesses were registered and formalized with the Chamber of Commerce of the region. F.4.4. LGBC promoted increased awareness around the issue of social security payments for employees of supported businesses, but putting this awareness into practice remains a challenge. C.4.1. The LGBC model empowered the targeted business owners through skills that contributed to informal businesses got registered and acquire or complement their business and personal (soft) skills (Findings 4.1 and 4.2). C.4.2. The LGBC model promoted a change in the mindset among the targeted business owners, who perceived themselves as more capable and recognized the importance of formalizing their businesses. However, business owners also mentioned the high costs associated with the payment of formal social security and the widespread culture of informality in the region impeded the achievement of formalization in all cases (Findings 4.3 and 4.4). R.4.1. Concentrate more efforts on raising awareness about social security payments among business owners in Bajo Cauca (Conclusions 4.1 and 4.2). R.4.2. Establish a plan to disseminate positive experiences and changes in mindset acquired by entrepreneurs as part of LGBC to share and apply these learnings and good practices with current LGBC participants and new cohorts. (Conclusions 4.1, and 4.2). Q5: What are the challenges and bottle necks experienced implementing the component? What F.5.1. Of participants in the Employability component, 71.8 percent expressed satisfaction with the work of LGBC. Mentorship and personalized support were particularly valued, with 61.9 percent and 58.5 percent of survey participants representing satisfaction. High percentages of participants also highlighted the identification of job skills C.5.1. The accompaniment and mentoring, which is valued positively by the participants, allows for personalized identification of competencies and skills according to the labor needs of Bajo Cauca. (Findings 5.1 and 5.2) R.5.1. Collect experiences on the mentoring process in order to generate mechanisms to share learnings. (Conclusions 5.1 and 5.2). R.5.2. Replicate in other programs or USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 104 TABLE 5. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION QUESTION FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS are the main lessons and best practices learned? (48.5 percent) and changes in self-concept and life plan (54.1 percent). F.5.2. The diagnostic process that forms part of the mentorship exercise is valued by job candidates, with 40.4 percent expressing either satisfaction or complete satisfaction with this process. Participants highlight that this aspect of the Employability component carries out personalized follow-up to collaborate in creating a job profile and work goals. . F.5.3. Participants who participated in the mentorship program felt that it helped them identify skills (48.9 percent) and improve their self￾concept and life plans (54.1 percent). F.5.4. Employability component participants highlighted the importance of psychosocial support and coaching (40.8 percent) during the mentoring process. The labor situation in the municipalities of Bajo Cauca is complex and precarious, leading to young people experiencing an emotionally stressful situation, in which they may not see options, nor the possibility of exit, which may lead to harmful decisions. F.5.5. According to the participants surveyed, only 10.2 percent have found work due to the employment service offered by Comfama and LGBC. Participants identified as causes for not obtaining employment the lack of job opportunities in Bajo Cauca (35.7 percent), as well as (24.4 percent) and the requirements demanded by the businesses (22.4 percent). F.5.6. Employment requirements in Bajo Cauca depend on and are shaped by large and medium-sized companies in the municipalities, as well as projects carried out by local governments. F.5.7. The linkage between the Urban component and the Employability component has enabled businesses to undertake a process of labor formalization with the support from Comfama. It focuses on access to social security and formal contracts that meet legal requirements. F.5.8. In small municipalities, like Nechí or Tarazá, difficulties emerge in finding specialized personnel who are willing to move to the territory given the precarious living conditions. F.5.9. Participants and employers think that training courses should respond to the employment needs of Bajo Cauca. LGBC has advanced toward offering courses jointly with the National Training Service (SENA), Mineros SA, and Comfama, but these courses were still under preparation at the time of the evaluation. C.5.2. The development of soft skills and psychosocial support generates transformations in how participants conceive of their lives, enabling them to construct a life plan and career plan based on formalization and legal status. (Findings 5.3 and 5.4) C.5.3. The Bajo Cauca subregion exhibits specific work requirements that often go beyond the traditional training programs offered under LGBC. The principal work needs emerge in mechanical specializations, hydraulics, electrical work, and forest services. (Findings 5.5, 5.6, and 5.9) C.5.4. The linkage between businesses in the Urban component and the employment services offered by Comfama enables the strengthening of the process of business formalization, which can provide this process with continuity and sustainability over time. (Finding 5.7) C.5.5. An urgent need exists in Bajo Cauca for specialized technical training courses to provide formal employment alternatives for youth in the region. (Findings 5.8 and 5.9) projects the lessons learned regarding the development of soft skills. (Conclusion 5.2.). R.5.3. Extend the services offered by Comfama to producer organizations in the Agro component, in order to promote business formalization, as has been done in the Urban component. (Conclusions 5.3 and 5.4). R.5.4. Offer specialized technical courses with employers in the Bajo Cauca subregion. (Conclusions 5.3 and 5.5.). 105 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX IV – DETAILED METHODOLOGY This annex describes in detail the quantitative, qualitative, and spatial analysis methodology used by the evaluation team to answer each of the five evaluation questions for this mid-term performance evaluation of the LGBC GDA. The annex includes the following five sections: (1) the detailed qualitative analysis methodology, (2) the detailed quantitative analysis methodology, (3) a detailed spatial analysis methodology, (4) the data triangulation process, and (5) the design matrix as a methodological tool that establishes the evaluation's structure and content by linking the evaluation questions to the evaluation's categories, variables, and indicators. The evaluation team used the design matrix to analyze and triangulate the qualitative and quantitative information. DETAILED QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION Qualitative methods encompass a broad spectrum of research approaches and techniques from the social sciences, including ethnography, in-depth interviews, focus groups, life histories, and case studies.35 Despite their diversity, the common denominator among these ways of approaching social reality is the search for explanations of phenomena from the point of view of people. Qualitative methods are characterized by investigating the shared meanings and codes that specific subjects use to explain and make sense of their reality, the relationships they build among themselves, their practices, and the institutions that surround them.36 Qualitative research methods are based on the experiences and meanings of specific individuals, emphasizing a fundamental characteristic: the importance of context. Qualitative methods start from the recognition that people and institutions are located in a particular historical, social, and cultural context. Qualitative methods present fundamental characteristics to keep in mind:37 • Recognition of the importance of diversity (in terms of a plurality of contexts and perspectives) • Recognition of the importance of context and of human actions • Respect for the participant (in terms of considering that their narrative and voice has value) • Change in the researcher-participant relationship In this sense, the responses that come from qualitative research are interpretations of reality. The approach is hermeneutic, as it emerges from a socially constructed context to give reasons and respond to the why of people's actions, symbols, and behaviors.38 35 Flick, U. (2018 a). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage. 36 Geertz, C. (1980). La interpretación de las culturas. Barcelona: Gedisa. 37 Taylor, J. and Bogdan, R. (1998). Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación. Barcelona: Paidós. 38 Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2012). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Medellín: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 106 Qualitative methods and their associated research tools, in sum, allow researchers to address a very broad range of topics and research problems. In the same way, depending on the research questions to be pursued, qualitative methods allow for flexible research designs. Researchers can adapt various information needs and to the characteristics of reality they seek to understand. Moreover, researchers may deploy multiple qualitative tools in combination with each other or utilize these tools to complement or extend the reach of quantitative research, as qualitative information can help to explain results obtained from quantitative research.39 APPROACH AND METHODS Keeping in mind the purposes of this evaluation and the preceding discussion of the nature and characteristics of qualitative methods, the objective of the qualitative component of this evaluation was to design a series of tools that would allow the evaluation team to collect precise information about how different actors perceive, interpret, and evaluate LGBC. The evaluation team was interested in describing the opinions, stories, and meanings constructed by people in different positions relative to LGBC about the principal themes of interest of the evaluation: • Agriculture component: characterization and selection of participants, capacity-building and incubator for agro-entrepreneurs, strengthening of producer organizations, technical assistance, access to markets, and commercial connections. • Urban component: characterization and selection of participants, improving business models and entrepreneurial visions, business growth plans, specialized advising, and commercial connections. • Employability component: characteristics of the employment context in Bajo Cauca, implementation pathways, mentoring process, training process, work opportunities in the region. The evaluation team used five evaluation instruments to collect the qualitative information, as described below. FOCUS GROUPS A focus group consists of a meeting of a series of participants selected by researchers to talk, listen, and develop consensus from personal experience about a theme or social fact that is the object of investigation. The evaluation team chose participants deliberately and with intention, according to the relationship they would have had with LGBC, seeking to elicit a broad spectrum of perspectives and points of view.40 The study included three types of participants who participated in different components: (1) producer organizations and agro-entrepreneurs, (2) urban entrepreneurs who owned small and medium businesses in the process of formation or growth, and (3) participants in the Employability component. NARRATIVE MULTIPLICATION 40 Krueguer, R. (1998 a) Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 107 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV By utilizing a narrative multiplication instrument, the evaluation team to explore the collective imaginations of participants’ “way of being” since LGBC.41 The exercises used took as a guiding theme the transformation of participants’ self-concepts: from a traditional producer to an agro-entrepreneur, from having a business to becoming an entrepreneur, and from having a job in “whatever comes up” to creating a defined labor profile. The dynamic consisted of the following steps: • Projection exercise: exercise of association with an animal and its related attributes. • Narrative multiplication: the group divides into pairs, with each pair instructed to construct a story, with one person beginning the story and the other continuing to tell the story. If time permits, the exercise is repeated three times. • Each pair tells the story they constructed together and gives it a title. All the stories are placed on a flipchart or board. • All the participants engage in a collective interpretation exercise to find similarities and differences and among the various narratives. • The group tries to find one common title that can encompass all of the stories and account for all the narratives. SOCIAL CARTOGRAPHY The evaluation team used social cartography to reveal different stakeholders' perceptions of the transformations of their territory through the intervention of LGBC. After each focus group, a social mapping exercise was carried out, in which the participants indicated on a map the type of intervention carried out by LGBC, and then used the map to present densities and diversity of activities as production flows and commercialization. Three maps were created for each municipality: one map of the rural zone to depict the Agricultural component, one of the urban zone for the Urban component, and one of the urban or rural areas (depending on the municipality42) for the Employability component. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS The semi-structured interview is a method that seeks to understand the significance of the core themes of the evaluation, seeking qualitative knowledge expressed in everyday speech without the intention of quantification. This method works with words and not with numbers. Nevertheless, this method focuses on responding to research questions in the most precise way possible while still leaving space for new and unanticipated themes to emerge for the first time.43 It seeks to describe as precisely as possible the experiences of participants in LGBC from the position they occupy: agribusinesses, entrepreneurs, participants in the Employability component, Interactuar field staff, Comfama officials, and the trainers and mentors working in all three components. 41 Fernández, AN. 2007. Lógicas colectivas. Imaginarios, cuerpos y multiplicidades. Editorial Biblos: Buenos Aires. 42 The Employability component exhibited differences among municipalities, as in Caucasia and El Bagre the component was mainly urban, while in Tarazá and Zaragoza this component was fundamentally rural, with labor associated with agriculture and mining. 43 Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews. London: Sage Publications. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 108 ETHNOGRAPHIC TOURS Drawing on the information gathered from discussion groups and semi-structured interviews, the evaluation team planned, using a map of the region, an ethnographic tour of Bajo Cauca, to integrate qualitative information with spatial analysis.44 These tours benefitted from the local knowledge of a guide from the region, agro-entrepreneurs or business owners who participated in LGBC and accompanied the team during the tour and were present for visits to their farm (finca) or vereda, thereby enabling the evaluation team to gain direct observation of the changes that the Agriculture, Urban, and Employability components had generated. DATA ANALYSIS The methodological approach for the qualitative data analysis carried out for this evaluation initially supposed the generation of an initial proposal of categories.45 After data had been collected, the evaluation team returned to the initial categories defined in the evaluation matrix and compared this data with the new categories that emerged from the empirical material and that were not designed from the beginning or that complement the initial categories. Once the evaluation team organized the final categories through this iterative deductive-inductive process, they coded the empirical material (information from focus groups, social mapping, semi-structured interviews, and ethnographic tours) with the help of software, (in the case of this evaluation, using N Vivo), carried out category saturation, created the analytical lines, and interpreted the results.46 Below is a brief description of the main steps: ORGANIZATION OF MATERIALS FOR ANALYSIS The first step, in this case, consisted of grouping the documents according to the characteristics of each one, including: type of instrument, component (agro, Urban, Employability), gender, municipality, and type of participant (participant, LGBC staff, beekeeping or fish-farming agro-entrepreneur, entrepreneur in a stage of business formation or growth, or users of the employment service). Defining these variables appropriately allowed the evaluation team to segment the information more precisely and thus designate different units of comparison. CODING The evaluation team leveraged the software N Vivo to enable qualitative data coding. This process consists of identifying and grouping data segments related to a theme or category. The qualitative data segments are then grouped under a code that contains them, and all the codes are linked to each other, forming a system of relationships. Appropriate codification enables effective data management, making searches for information faster and more orderly and enabling researchers to establish similarities, differences, patterns, and anomalies. It 44 Coffey, A. (2018). Doing ethnography. London: Sage Publications.; Spradley, J (1980) Participant observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Publications. 45 Gibbs, G. (2018) Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage Publication. 46 Silver, C. (2007) Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide. London: Sage Publications. 109 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV should also be noted that this coding exercise forms part of a process of analysis, but it is not itself an analysis. In the same sense, coding qualitative information allows researchers to generate emergent categories, that is, thematic groupings or analytic variables that the researchers did not initially contemplate but that emerge from the empirical material collected. For this reason, the evaluation team completed the coding exercise using the categories and emergent codes that arose from fieldwork.47 SEGMENTATION, CATEGORY SATURATION, AND DATA ANALYSIS Once the evaluation team coded the documents, the team proceeded to segment the documents by levels of complexity. Data can be filtered by families of documents, or segmented by codes, the relationships between codes, or through a concurrency matrix. The segmentation process permits researchers to reconsider information, establish comparisons, relationships, or repeated patterns, and use these in a second level or round of coding. Category saturation describes the process through which researchers determine patterns of meanings, common places, or opposites present in each category or code. When a category exhibits patterns or repetitions, it forms a secure basis for the induction of findings from the material for subsequent analysis. DRAFTING ANALYTICAL NOTES During fieldwork and in the coding process, ideas occur to the researchers and are recorded as notes. Such notes may speak to the context under observation, emerging questions, preliminary findings, hypotheses, or more structured ideas in the form of conclusions about the data. The notes reflect the researcher's own interpretations, which distinguishes these notes from the codes. The evaluation team used this process of drafting analytical notes, which are often useful in drafting the final report, to prepare this evaluation.48 SECONDARY INFORMATION For this evaluation, the team used secondary information from LGBC and the MEL Activity to complement the analysis based on primary data collection. DETAILED QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The quantitative methodology seeks to answer, partially or entirely, the five evaluation questions. The evaluation team used four methodological approaches: simple relations, probabilistic models, psychometric indexes, and multiple correspondence analysis for associations in participants' perceptions. The difference lies in the depth and complexity of the conclusions drawn from each analytical tool. In this section, we elaborate further on these ideas. These analyses stem from the information available to produce this evaluation: surveys to participants and USAID's MONITOR system indicators. 47 Saldaña, J. (2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications. 48 Corbin, J. y Strauss, A. (2012). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Medellín: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 110 SIMPLE RELATIONS METHODOLOGIES GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS This evaluation uses general descriptive statistics and their corresponding graphs to describe the characteristics of a specific variable for a particular group from the data. These methods analyze the central tendency measures of the data, such as the mean in the answers to a certain question, the dispersion in terms of how close to the mean are the answers provided or not, and frequency measures that signal trends in the data. The evaluation team was able to understand the information using descriptive statistics and find patterns and topics of interest for further examination. From a methodological standpoint, these analyses use crossed frequency tables, averages and standard deviations, graphs (like histograms or box-plots), and thematic maps using geographic information systems (GIS). GIS will be explained in detail in the spatial analysis methodology. HYPOTHESIS TESTING OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS Additionally, some hypothesis testing in the analysis of the simple relation enhances the process and allows statistical inference regarding cross-frequency, cross-average, and contingency tables. A Student's Pairwise T-Tests Of The Null Hypothesis Of Zero Difference In Means is applied when we want to know if the difference between two variables for the same subject is statistically significant or is a random result of the sample. The survey phase and a factor other than the phase, like between men and women, can separate the variables. For example, we used T means tests to know if the responses to specific survey questions of those surveyed in phase one (I) (April 23, 2022 to May 9, 2022) were different from the responses from those surveyed in phase two (2) (August 21, 2022 to September 4, 2022), and if its change was statistically significant. We prepared the following tests or statistical analyses: PROPORTION Z-TEST49: We used the Z-Test to compare two or more groups to determine if there were significant differences among the percentages obtained with qualitative variables. This test uses a binomial distribution to calculate some chosen event's value or proportion P. Assuming we want to compare this proportion P between two groups or categories A and B, we would use the values 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 and 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵. In this case, we can contrast the null hypothesis H0: 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 = 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 with this test 𝑍𝑍 = 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴−𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵 �𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴∗𝑄𝑄𝐴𝐴 𝑛𝑛𝐴𝐴 +𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵∗𝑄𝑄𝐵𝐵 𝑛𝑛𝐵𝐵 , where 𝑄𝑄𝐴𝐴 = 1 − 𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 and 𝑄𝑄𝐵𝐵 = 1 − 𝑃𝑃𝐵𝐵. If we reject the null hypothesis, we will find significant differences in the chosen proportion (i.e., business size, sector, gender, or age) among the analyzed groups: agriculture entrepreneurs, businesses, and employability participants. STUDENT'S T-TEST, MEAN DIFFERENCE50: We used the Student's T-Test for independent samples to determine significant discrepancies between the means reported through different information characterization analyses. Mathematically, these tests use two samples n1 and n2, from populations with means 𝜇𝜇1 and 𝜇𝜇2 and variances 𝛿𝛿1 2 and 𝛿𝛿2 2. 49 López, L (2017). Bioestadística. Ed. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Chapter 9. Page. 72. 50 López, L (2017). Bioestadística. Ed. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Chapter 9. Page. 72. 111 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV The random variable 𝑍𝑍 = (𝑋𝑋1−𝑋𝑋2)−(𝜇𝜇1−𝜇𝜇2) �𝛿𝛿1 2 𝑛𝑛1 + 𝛿𝛿2 2 𝑛𝑛2 follows a standard normal distribution. Considering we do not know if both samples have the same variance, we use the following form of the T-Test: 𝑡𝑡 = (𝑋𝑋1−𝑋𝑋2)−(𝑑𝑑0) 𝑆𝑆𝑝𝑝� 1 𝑛𝑛1 + 1 𝑛𝑛2 , where 𝑠𝑠𝑝𝑝 2 = 𝑠𝑠1 2(𝑛𝑛1−1)+𝑠𝑠2 2(𝑛𝑛2−1) 𝑛𝑛1+𝑛𝑛2−2 with the sample's standard deviation 𝑠𝑠1 and 𝑠𝑠2. In this case, we can express the null hypothesis as H0: 𝜇𝜇1 − 𝜇𝜇2 = 𝑑𝑑0. In other words, if 𝑑𝑑0 = 0 the results do not have significant differences. We reject the null hypothesis when −𝑡𝑡𝛼𝛼 2,𝑛𝑛1+𝑛𝑛2−2 < 𝑡𝑡 < 𝑡𝑡𝛼𝛼 2,𝑛𝑛1+𝑛𝑛2−2 and conclude significant differences between the means reported from both samples. PROBABILISTIC REGRESSION MODELS After using the simple relations analysis, it is necessary to tackle the evaluation questions using quantitative methodologies that offer in-depth, representative results based on tailored approaches. To accomplish this purpose, one of the proposed methodologies includes three PROBIT or probabilistic regression models to determine those factors attributable to the LGBC GDA or of a contextual nature that increase or reduce the probability of a perceived increase in sales, income, productivity, and market access.51 As described below, these models include factors in each case that are included as control variables. In the case of the PROBIT models for non-agricultural associations that are participants of the Urban component, there is no model for the perceived increase in productivity, given the variety of measures across sectors. In contrast, the Agricultural component's beekeeping and fish-farming seedbed participants include this productivity PROBIT model. In the case of the models for beekeeping and fish-farming participants, the model will assess four dependent variables in the case of the beekeeping and fish-farming models (Yi: perceived change in sales, perceived change in income, perceived change in productivity, and perceived change in market access).52 In addition, the independent variables made up a vector captured in the surveys designed for these participants (Xi: acquiring agribusiness practices, adopting good environmental and technical practices, adopting socio-business practices, and adopting commercialization practices, among others). Finally, the perceptual variables regarding the regional context can be helpful to explain the dependent variables we modeled (Zi: perceived security in the municipality, perception of illegal activities, and trust in institutions, among others). Following the previous guidelines, we used the following econometric details: 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 = 𝑓𝑓(𝛾𝛾0 + 𝛾𝛾1𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾2𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖) (1) Where: 51 This analysis targets the following questions: Q2: How effective has been LGBC GDA’s model to empower associations and agricultural entrepreneurs? Q4: How effective is the LGBC GDA's model to empower entrepreneurs? (Urban) 52 The answer variables proposed are categorical-multinomial in nature; for that reason, in the strategy to estimate the parameters, we assessed the most suitable function (f) form (multinomial probit, multinomial logit, multinomial logistic regression). USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 112 𝑖𝑖: Productive unit 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖: Error Moreover, in the case of the Urban component participants’ associations, we estimated an econometric model to assess three dependent variables (Yi: perceived change in sales, income, and market access53). This was done to analyze the factors determining how entrepreneurs perceive sales, income, and market access changes. The independent variables made up a vector captured in the surveys designed for these participants (Ci: acquiring good management practices, adopting good business practices, developing managerial skills, and creating commercial relations, among others). Finally, the perceptual variables regarding the regional context helped explain the dependent variables we modeled (Di: perceived security in the municipality, perception of illegal activities, and trust in institutions, among others). Following the previous guidelines, we used the following econometric details: 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖 = 𝑓𝑓(𝛾𝛾0 + 𝛾𝛾1𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 + 𝛾𝛾2𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖) (2) Where: 𝑖𝑖: Business 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖: Error Note: The econometric specification of equations (1) and (2) was subject to changes depending on the quality of the primary information produced by this evaluation. Some issues, like regional security conditions and the health crisis deriving from the COVID-19 pandemic, could endanger this process. Additionally, it is important to bear in mind that the scope of these econometric models does not establish causal relations among variables. The main goal is to quantify the primary associations, anticipate probable results that may answer the guiding questions, and offer better recommendations to improve future LGBC initiatives. PSYCHOMETRIC INDEXES BRIEF RESILIENCE SCALE (BRS) The brief resilience scale (BRS)54 is a report to assess the most basic definition of resilience, which is the "capacity to bounce back from a stressful situation." This scale includes six indicators using a five-point system where one means "in complete disagreement" with a given statement and five means "in complete agreement" with the same statement. Researchers have used this scale extensively in different countries and studies,55 making it suitable for a region like Bajo Cauca, which established a resiliency baseline for LGBC's stakeholders (across the three components). Measuring changes in resilience can be instrumental in understanding the model's sustainability amid the region's adverse conditions. The six indicators included in the measurement are depicted in Table 6. 53 Same as previous footnote. 54 Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine, 15(3), 194-200. 55 Smith et al., 2008. 113 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 6. BRIEF RESILIENCE SCALE (BRS) INDICATORS56 INDICATOR BRS 1 I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times 2 I have a hard time making it through stressful events (R57) 3 It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event 4 It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens (R) 5 I usually come through difficult times with little trouble 6 I tend to take a long time to get over setbacks in my life (R) Different case studies have evaluated the psychometric properties with Cronbach's Alpha coefficients over 0.8; also, empirical measures have shown that these six coefficients assimilate to a one-dimensional construct using factorial analysis. As in international studies, to assess the reliability of the BRS, we measured Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient to determine the psychometric scales applied to the LGBC GDA context. It is essential to bear in mind that this coefficient turns a value between 0 and 1; it assesses the consistency of a variable when compared to a scale. Results between 0.5 and 0.6 are poor; between 0.6 and 0.7 are weak; between 0.7 and 0.8 are acceptable; between 0.8 and 0.9 are good, and over 0.9 are excellent.58 56 Source: Smith et al., 2008. 57 R = Reverse Scale Indicators 58 George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. LEADERSHIP SCALE AND LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE SCALE In this case, the evaluation team developed a set of guiding questions in the surveys. Compiling all of the results in each case in an index enabled the team to establish, similarly to the BRS, the level of leadership in each component and their level of a long-term perspective. The questions used for this purpose are listed in Table 7. TABLE 7. PSYCHOMETRIC INDICATORS PROPOSED BY THE TEAM INDICATOR LEADERSHIP 1 In my community, I am known as someone who promotes new initiatives and projects of all kinds that help improve our living conditions. 2 I have distinguished myself as a promoter of [LGBC] within my community. 3 In my community, I often act as a mediator in different situations. 4 I am a respected person who has a positive influence on the on general decisions of my community and in particular within my work environment / productive sphere. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 114 TABLE 7. PSYCHOMETRIC INDICATORS PROPOSED BY THE TEAM INDICATOR LONG-TERM VISION 1 I consider myself an entrepreneur / agro-entrepreneur / worker who likes to set objectives and goals. 2 I consider myself a progressive and adventurous entrepreneur / agro-entrepreneur / worker who is always willing to take risks and make important changes that show the possibility of obtaining additional earnings and growing my business. 3 I consider myself a conservative and calm entrepreneur / agro-entrepreneur / worker who prefers to have a secure income over making changes or taking actions that could put at risk my current stability and that of my household. MULTIPLE CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS TO ESTABLISH ASSOCIATIONS IN PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTIONS Multiple correspondence analysis is valuable for analyzing and illustrating all possible associations in the contingency tables.59 In practical terms, to examine associations among variables included in the surveys the evaluation team applied this methodology in each of the three components for all evaluation questions. This analysis began with a frequency matrix F, with the form ∑ ∑ 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 1 𝐽𝐽 =1 𝐼𝐼 𝑖𝑖=1 ; with this, we built a data matrix 𝑍𝑍 = 𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 −1/2 𝐹𝐹𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶 −1/2 with each component's: 𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = � 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖.𝑓𝑓. �. Using matrix operations, we obtained joint projections by row 𝐶𝐶𝑓𝑓 = 𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 −1/2 𝑍𝑍𝐴𝐴2 and by column 𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐 = 𝐷𝐷𝑐𝑐 −1/2 𝑍𝑍𝐵𝐵2, where 𝐴𝐴2 contains the vectors 𝑍𝑍′𝑍𝑍. The result commonly obtained from this analysis was the joint category diagram or perceptual map; this diagram graphs the possible categorical replies on a two-axis plane. The distance between points represents the degree of association among answers. Multiple correspondence analysis is a methodology to reduce the scale of the original data; that is why the graph axes from the joint category diagram represent the scores of the two main components that can summarize the study variables. These dimensions are latent variables obtained from the analysis and help compile the information, increasing the original data's total variance in this bi-dimensional plane. DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The evaluation team designed spatial analysis methods to take into account and complement the collection of information in the field; primary information sources provided by the Activity; data collected by the evaluation team; and secondary information sources from publicly available and frequently updated official sites, such as Colombian Mining Monitoring CoMiMo60 for illegal mining and the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)61 for precipitation data. Likewise, for 59 Peña, D. (2002). Análisis de datos multivariantes. Mc Graw Hill. Chapter 7. Page. 201-218. 60 Saavedra, S. (2021), “The response of illegal mining to revealing its existence” available in Social Science Research Network. 61 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration - NASA (2021). Global Precipitation Measurement. https://gpm.nasa.gov/ 115 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV information processing, georeferencing and calculation of spatial densities were used to generate maps to support the results. The final maps were developed in two stages: • Primary sources: the evaluation team collected information using social cartography, which was applied during focus groups in each municipality and for each component. For the Agricultural component, the geospatial processes consisted of locating, together with participants, the areas in which fish-farming and beekeeping production were being carried out and the location of value chains. For the Urban component, the geospatial exercise mapped participants’ businesses, while the Employability component mapped out the locations of job offers and of the participants in this component. Moreover, the data analyzed was amplified using information from the databases provided by LGBC and the data collected in the participant surveys. • Secondary sources: the evaluation team worked with sources of secondary information, including data on precipitation and areas affected by illegal mining, in order to complement and contrast the sources of primary information described above. For the Agricultural component, the evaluation presents maps that show the location of participants, the incidence of precipitation, and the presence of illegal mining close to the participants. For the Urban component, information on the density of businesses was crossed with the locations of individuals who participated in the Employability component to create maps of commercial and residential zones and to show/present a logic of localization and closeness. Concerning the Employability component, the evaluation team created thematic maps that showed job openings in the territory and the density of participants according to type of activity to identify the influence of businesses in the intervention area. DATA TRIANGULATION PROCESS The evaluation team triangulated the quantitative, qualitative, and geographical information to examine several points of view and to provide more robust support for the quantitative and qualitative analysis results. The evaluation team used this strategy to validate the findings from different information sources and to mitigate potential bias from a single methodology or weakness in one tool. Triangulation techniques are helpful to contrast, verify, or challenge any findings; they also allow the team to use different perspectives to find convergent or divergent patterns in the results. In this performance evaluation, triangulation means using quantitative and qualitative methodologies, various tools, processed data, and analysis from researchers with different approaches and backgrounds to produce comprehensive conclusions and recommendations. This process occurred during the following stages: • Methodological design: the logical model allowed the evaluation team to triangulate the performance evaluation by linking the intervention, the products, and the results. The evaluation matrix used quantitative and qualitative variables and information to undertake each question, using both quantitative and qualitative perspectives, including viewpoints from all stakeholders. • Data collection: the information accrued by the evaluation team includes a variety of qualitative and quantitative tools, like focus groups, narrative expansion, social mapping, semi-structured interviews, ethnographic tours, and surveys. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 116 • Direct observation: the evaluation team collected qualitative field information, guaranteeing more involvement from the GDA’s counterparts in the performance evaluation process and ensuring that the team had first-hand knowledge of the LGBC GDA's interventions. The team transcribed the data literally, preparing daily field templates to improve the reports. • Analysis: The evaluation team consolidated findings from all information sources, using the coding books and topic categories for analysis. The evaluation team compared quantitative and qualitative results and answers from different informants. Also, the social mapping and ethnographic tour products contributed an additional point of view to enrich the triangulation from the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Finally, each researcher conducted their analysis independently and then discussed it later in meetings with the rest of the team, allowing them to reach an agreement regarding findings, conclusions, and recommendations. EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX The following evaluation design matrix (see Table 8) names each component, shows how they relate, and lists the subtopics for analysis, quantitative and qualitative indicators, interviewees, data sources, and data collection mechanisms. This matrix worked as a roadmap that helped us address each question systematically, triangulate the available information, and comprehensively analyze the data collection instruments and different points of view. Although the questions for the Agricultural and Urban components were similar, we treated them separately in this matrix to observe any differences regarding indicators and interviewees. The Employability component also had a different treatment with question five. 117 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 8. EVALUATION MATRIX - PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS COMPONENT EVALUATION QUESTION ANALYSIS SUBTOPICS QUANTITATIVE – INDICATORS DESIGNED FROM SURVEY DATA QUALITATIVE – TOPICS FROM SURVEYS AND FOCUS GROUPS INTERVIEWEES DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES Agriculture How effective is the LGBC GDA’s model in increasing sales, income, and productivity for the associations and agriculture entrepreneurs involved? Adopting new practices. Changes in sales, income, and productivity Agribusinesses: Adopting agribusiness practices Adopting good environmental and productive practices Sales, income, and productivity Perceived changes in sales, income, and productivity Contextual factors Associations (management) and agriculture entrepreneurs: Adopting social and business practices Adopting marketing practices Adopting associative practices Sales, income, and productivity Contextual factors Agribusinesses: Adopting agribusiness practices Adopting good environmental and productive practices Efficient use of resources Planning production Perceived changes in sales, income, and productivity Contextual factors Associations (management) and agriculture entrepreneurs: Association’s role Support to improve productivity Support to decrease costs (scale economies) Support to increase sales (marketing management) Adopting LGBC GDA’s tools and knowledge Adopting managerial approach Designing and implementing a commercial plan Adding value (gathering, selecting, packaging) Regional public servants Fish farming entrepreneurs Beekeeping entrepreneurs Fish farming associations Beekeeping associations Group interviews Focus groups Face-to-face interviews Ethnographic research Social mapping Online interviews Surveys to agriculture entrepreneurs Indicators USAID’s MONITOR (AMELP) Surveys to beneficiaries How effective has been LGBC GDA’s model to empower associations Changes in mentality Associativity (trust and cooperation) Agribusinesses: Commitment Autonomy Agribusinesses: Autonomy (self-management) Degree of dependence Regional public servants Fish farming entrepreneurs Beekeeping Group interviews Focus groups Face-to-face interviews Surveys to beneficiaries List experiments USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 118 TABLE 8. EVALUATION MATRIX - PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS COMPONENT EVALUATION QUESTION ANALYSIS SUBTOPICS QUANTITATIVE – INDICATORS DESIGNED FROM SURVEY DATA QUALITATIVE – TOPICS FROM SURVEYS AND FOCUS GROUPS INTERVIEWEES DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES and agriculture entrepreneurs ? Sustainability Leadership Long-term vision (risk aversion) Resilience Associations (management) and agriculture entrepreneurs: Commitment Trust Cooperation Autonomy Leadership Long-term vision (risk aversion) Resilience Sustainability of the business model Communication skills Autonomy Leadership Long-term vision Associations (management) and agriculture entrepreneurs: Association’s role Sustainability of the business model Trust Cooperation (teamwork) Commitment Communication skills Autonomy Leadership Long-term vision Managerial approach Long-term commercial relations Participation in value chains entrepreneurs Fish farming associations Beekeeping associations Ethnographic research Social mapping Online interviews Surveys to agriculture entrepreneurs List experiments Urban How effective is the LGBC GDA’s model in increasing sales, income, and market access for entrepreneurs targeted in Bajo Cauca? Adopting new practices. Changes in sales, income, and productivity Entrepreneurs: Adopting managerial practices Strategic approach (in design) Innovative and sustainable approach (growing) Adopting business Entrepreneurs: Adopting LGBC GDA’s tools and knowledge Adopting managerial practices Strategic approach (in design) Innovative and sustainable approach (growing) Planning and adopting business Regional public servants Growing businesses Emerging businesses Group interviews Focus groups Face-to-face interviews Ethnographic research Social mapping Indicators USAID’s MONITOR (AMELP) Surveys to beneficiaries 119 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 8. EVALUATION MATRIX - PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS COMPONENT EVALUATION QUESTION ANALYSIS SUBTOPICS QUANTITATIVE – INDICATORS DESIGNED FROM SURVEY DATA QUALITATIVE – TOPICS FROM SURVEYS AND FOCUS GROUPS INTERVIEWEES DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES practices Financial strategies Marketing strategies Operational practices Acquiring commercial skills Creating new commercial liaisons Sales, income, and market access Perceived changes in sales, income, and market access Contextual factors practices Financial strategies Marketing strategies Operational practices Acquiring commercial skills Creating new commercial liaisons Perceived changes in sales, income, and market access Creating value Contextual factors Online interviews Surveys to entrepreneurs How effective is the LGBC GDA’s model to empower entrepreneurs ? Changes in mentality Sustainability Trust Cooperation Commitment Autonomy Leadership Strategic overview Long-term vision (risk aversion) Resilience Autonomy (self-management) Sustainability of the business model Communication skills Leadership Trust Cooperation Commitment Strategic approach (as opposed to the technical approach) Long-term vision Business innovation Long-term commercial relations Banking and loan management Regional public servants Growing businesses Emerging businesses Group interviews Focus groups Face-to-face interviews Ethnographic research Social mapping Online interviews Surveys to entrepreneurs Economic experiments Surveys to beneficiaries Economic experiments Employability What are the challenges and bottlenecks experienced Mentoring Training Satisfaction with and appropriateness of the process (mentoring, orientation, training) Regional specificities Identification with the subject Link between job demand and Regional public servants Active students Group interviews Focus groups Face-to-face Indicators USAID’s MONITOR USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 120 TABLE 8. EVALUATION MATRIX - PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS COMPONENT EVALUATION QUESTION ANALYSIS SUBTOPICS QUANTITATIVE – INDICATORS DESIGNED FROM SURVEY DATA QUALITATIVE – TOPICS FROM SURVEYS AND FOCUS GROUPS INTERVIEWEES DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA SOURCES implementing the Employability component? What are the main lessons and best practices learned? Type of job (formal/informal, permanent/temporary) Average time to get a job Job’s final sustainability (once hired) Unemployment Job abandonment (causes) New approaches supply Coordination with the public job service Coordination among stakeholders Communication among stakeholders Additional services offered Contributions from the private sector Challenges Satisfaction with and appropriateness of the process from the subject’s point of view Self-awareness of job skills Creating a life plan (work) Satisfaction with and appropriateness of the process from the businesses’ point of view Formalization Job abandonment Termination causes Employed graduates Medium-size employers Big employers interviews Ethnographic research Social mapping Online interviews Surveys to beneficiaries Surveys to beneficiaries 121 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX V – INSTRUMENTS QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS For qualitative data collection, the evaluation team prepared interview guides for semi-structured individual interviews, semi-structured group interviews, focus groups, social mapping exercises, and ethnographic tours. These instruments were differentiated by component to collect specific information and thus there are instruments specific to the Urban component, the Agricultural component, and the Employability component. Within these components, the team also applied different instruments to each actor or group of actors: thus, there are separate instruments for LGBC field staff, for urban small business owners, for agro-entrepreneurs, for the leaders of producer organizations, and Employability component participants. This annex contains the qualitative instruments used by the evaluation team, presented separately for each component of the LGBC Activity. AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT GROUP INTERVIEW WITH LGBC FIELD STAFF Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía entrevista grupal enlaces territoriales componente agro Enlace territoriales componente agro. Duración: 2 horas. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre la alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre esta alianza; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Presentación de participantes. Vamos a realizar una entrevista grupal donde cada uno de los participantes se encarga de desarrollar un tema particular, en el cual tenga mayor experiencia o información, desde luego los compañeros pueden complementar o ilustrar su punto de vista. Los temas que vamos a tratar son: contexto y origen de la Alianza, semilleros con agro empresarios, MBA, asociatividad y comercialización. 1. Contexto. a. Por favor describa el desarrollo técnico y comercial que habían tenido las cadenas de apicultura y piscicultura en el municipio y la región antes de la Alianza ABC. b. ¿Cuál había sido el impacto y resultados que habían tenido los programas y proyectos de fomento apícola y piscícola ejecutados en el territorio antes de ABC y qué tan sostenibles han resultado? 2. Antecedentes a. ¿En que consistió el proceso de caracterización y selección de asociaciones y agro empresarios y cuáles fueron los criterios principales que utilizaron? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 122 b. ¿Cuáles fueron los resultados del diagnóstico que se hizo a partir de la caracterización en cuanto a: i. Cadena apícola? ii. Cadena piscícola? iii. Situación agroempresarios iv. Situación asociaciones 3. Proceso a. Semilleros. i. ¿Cuál es el perfil de los agro empresarios que participan en los semilleros? ii. ¿Cuáles son sus principales intereses y necesidades? iii. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias del modelo de semilleros (pedagógicas y didácticas) para propiciar aprendizajes efectivos en los agroempresarios? iv. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de aprendizaje de los agro empresarios? v. En general ¿cuáles son las nuevas prácticas que han adoptado los agroempresarios a raíz de su participación en la Alianza? b. MBA, asociatividad y agregación de valor i. ¿Cuál es el perfil de los líderes que participan en el MBA y cómo es su relación con las asociaciones que representan? ii. ¿Cuáles son las principales necesidades de las organizaciones y qué expectativas tienen estos líderes frente a estas con la Alianza? iii. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias del modelo MBA 3 (pedagógicas y didácticas) para propiciar en los líderes aprendizajes que puedan aplicar con sus organizaciones? iv. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de aprendizaje de los líderes y cómo se relaciona este proceso de MBA con las asociaciones y sus miembros? v. ¿Cuáles acciones se han impulsado para fomentar la agregación de valor a los productos piscícolas/apícolas con las organizaciones y qué avances se han alcanzado? vi. En general ¿cuáles son las nuevas prácticas que se han implementado en las asociaciones a raíz de su participación en la Alianza? c. Asistencia Técnica (AT) i. ¿Cuáles son las principales debilidades que afectan la productividad y competitividad de los UPA piscícolas/apícolas? ii. ¿Cuál ha sido el enfoque que se la ha dado a la AT para impulsar el mejoramiento productivo y rentabilidad de las UPA piscícolas/apícolas? d. Acceso a mercados y conexiones comerciales i. ¿Cuáles son las principales dificultades que identificaron para la comercialización de los agroempresarios y de sus asociaciones piscícolas/apícolas en la región? (Volumen, calidad, oportunidad) ii. ¿Cuáles son los principales mercados y compradores identificados de los productos piscícolas/apícolas de la región? iii. ¿Cuáles estrategias ha implementado ABC para fortalecer las capacidades de los agroempresarios y sus asociaciones para mejorar su acceso a mercados? iv. ¿Cuáles acciones se han impulsado para propiciar conexiones comerciales de agroempresarios y organizaciones piscícolas/apícolas y qué avances se han alcanzado? e. Obstáculos 123 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ¿Cuáles han sido los principales obstáculos que han enfrentado con los agroempresarios, sus asociaciones y líderes para: i. lograr los objetivos del semillero? ii. lograr los objetivos del MBA y para consolidar la sostenibilidad y el crecimiento de las asociaciones? iii. lograr la adopción de mejores prácticas productivas? iv. que mejoren sus capacidades de acceder a mercados y comercializar? f. Cambios generados. (10 minutos) ¿Qué cambios han evidenciado i. en las actitudes y prácticas de los agro empresarios y qué efectos han tenido en el manejo y resultados de sus agronegocios? ii. en las actitudes y prácticas de los líderes del MBA y qué efectos han tenido en el desarrollo y resultados de sus organizaciones? iii. en el relacionamiento entre las asociaciones y sus asociados? iv. en las prácticas productivas de los agro empresarios piscícolas/apícolas y qué efectos han tenido en sus rendimientos y eficiencias? v. en las capacidades y prácticas de los agroempresarios y sus organizaciones piscícolas/apícolas para acceder a mercados y qué efectos han tenido en la comercialización de sus productos? g. Contexto territorial ¿Qué afectación ha ocasionado el COVID19 y las condiciones de orden público en: i. en el desarrollo y resultados del semillero? ii. en el desarrollo y resultados del MBA y para el fortalecimiento asociativo? iii. en el desarrollo y resultados de la AT? iv. en las posibilidades de mejoramiento comercial? h. Oportunidades de mejora ¿Si estuviera en sus manos el diseño de un nueva Alianza: i. qué mejoras harían al semillero? ii. qué mejoras harían al MBA y al trabajo con las asociaciones? iii. qué mejoras harían al modelo de AT? iv. qué mejoras harían al modelo de apoyo a la comercialización y acceso a mercados? 4. Futuro (10 minutos) a. ¿Qué planes tiene este componente con los agroempresarios, con las asociaciones piscícolas/apícolas y con sus líderes? i. Inmediatos ii. Corto plazo iii. Mediano plazo b. ¿Qué acciones se deben tomar para que los agro empresarios y sus asociaciones sean sostenibles una vez salga la Alianza ABC? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 124 SOCIAL CARTOGRAPHY WITH LGBC FIELD STAFF Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía cartografía social Enlaces territoriales componente agropecuario. Duración: 3 horas. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Presentación de participantes. Vamos a realizar un ejercicio de cartografía social, consiste en una aproximación al programa de empleo desde su intervención en el territorio. Presentan mapas: - Caucasia - El Bagre - Zaragoza - Nechí - Tarazá - Cáceres Presentación íconos: en estas calcomanías encontramos una serie de íconos que representan actividades. La idea es ubicar las actividades en el mapa. Lista de actividades: o Fincas o Colmenas o Estanques o Centros de acopio o Mercados o Beneficiarios que han participado en semilleros o Beneficiarios que han participado en MBA o Asistencia técnica ABC A partir de esta descripción inicial se hace un relato del proceso de intervención en el municipio. Se repite el ejercicio para los seis municipios. Aproximadamente veinte minutos por municipio. 125 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV INTERVIEW WITH PSYCHOSOCIAL FIELD STAFF Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía entrevista enlace psicososial componente agro Enlace territoriales componente agro. Duración: 2 horas. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre la alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre esta alianza; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? 1. Contexto. a. ¿Qué conocimiento tenía del territorio en cuanto a los productores apícolas y piscícolas y sus asociaciones? b. De acuerdo con su experiencia hasta ahora ¿Cuál cree que había sido el impacto y resultados que habían tenido los programas y proyectos de fomento apícola y piscícola ejecutados en el territorio antes de ABC en términos de sostenibilidad y empoderamiento? 2. Antecedentes a. En una primera aproximación de diagnóstico desde su perspectiva profesional ¿cómo definiría la situación en la que se encontró a los agroempresarios y a sus asociaciones? 3. Proceso a. Semilleros. i. ¿Cuál es el perfil de los agroempresarios que participaron en los semilleros? ii. ¿Cuáles eran los principales intereses y necesidades de los agroempresarios con respecto al trabajo psicosocial? iii. ¿Cuáles eran los principales propósitos de la intervención psicosocial en el semillero? iv. ¿Cuáles fueron las estrategias de la intervención psicosocial para propiciar aprendizajes y cambios efectivos en los agroempresarios? v. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de aprendizaje de los agro empresarios? vi. En general ¿cuáles son los cambio más relevantes que han adoptado los agroempresarios a raíz de su participación en los semilleros? b. MBA, asociatividad y agregación de valor i. ¿Cuál es el perfil de los líderes que participan en el MBA y cómo es su relación con las asociaciones que representan? ii. ¿Cuáles son las principales intereses y necesidades de los líderes de las organizaciones y qué expectativas tienen con respecto al trabajo psicosocial? iii. ¿ Cuáles son los principales propósitos de la intervención psicosocial en el MBA con respecto a los líderes y con respecto a sus asociaciones? iv. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de intervención psicosocial en el MBA Agro para propiciar en los líderes aprendizajes y cambios que puedan aplicar con sus organizaciones? v. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de aprendizaje de los líderes del MBA? vi. ¿Cómo se relaciona este proceso de MBA con las asociaciones y sus miembros? vii. En general ¿cuáles son los cambios más relevantes que se han implementado en las asociaciones a raíz de los aprendizajes adquiridos por sus líderes en el componente psicosocial del MBA? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 126 c. Obstáculos ¿Cuáles han sido los principales obstáculos que el componente psicosocial ha enfrentado con los agroempresarios, sus asociaciones y líderes para: i. lograr los objetivos del semillero? ii. lograr los objetivos del MBA y para consolidar la sostenibilidad y el crecimiento de las asociaciones? iii. lograr la adopción de prácticas hacia el empoderamiento y la sostenibilidad? d. Cambios generados. (10 minutos) Con respecto a la intervención psicosocial ¿Qué cambios han evidenciado i. en las actitudes y prácticas de los agro empresarios y qué efectos han tenido en su empoderamiento y en el manejo, resultados y sostenibilidad de sus agronegocios? ii. en las actitudes y prácticas de los líderes del MBA y qué efectos han tenido en su empoderamiento y en el desarrollo, resultados y sostenibilidad de sus organizaciones? iii. en el relacionamiento entre las asociaciones y sus asociados? e. Oportunidades de mejora ¿Si estuviera en sus manos el diseño de un nueva Alianza: i. qué mejoras harían al semillero? ii. qué mejoras harían al MBA y al trabajo con las asociaciones? 4. Futuro (10 minutos) a. ¿Qué planes tiene este componente con los agroempresarios, con las asociaciones piscícolas/apícolas y con sus líderes? i. Inmediatos ii. Corto plazo iii. Mediano plazo b. ¿Qué acciones se deben tomar para que los agro empresarios y sus asociaciones sean sostenibles una vez salga la Alianza ABC? 127 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV INTERVIEW WITH BEEKEEPING OR FISHFARMING ENTREPRENEUR Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Entrevista agro empresarios Beneficiarios de la Alianza componente Agro: Agro empresarios apícolas y piscícolas. Duración: 1 horas Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre la alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre esta alianza; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? 1. Antecedentes. a. ¿Desde hace cuánto se dedica a la piscicultura/ apícola y qué tan importante es esta actividad para sus ingresos familiares? b. ¿Cómo está compuesta su unidad productiva piscícola/apícola? (número de apiarios, número de colmenas activas, número y tamaño de los estanques, densidad de siembra de peces) c. ¿La unidad productiva es familiar o colectiva? Si es colectiva, ¿quiénes hacen parte y como se distribuyen labores? d. ¿Antes de ABC, cómo realizaba la producción y cómo administraba su agronegocio piscícola/apícola? e. ¿Tuvo apoyo de algún programa o proyecto de cooperación o del gobierno? Antes de la llegada de ABC. f. ¿Cuál fue la principal motivación para participar en ABC y qué compromisos adquirió para hacerlo? g. ¿Pertenece a alguna asociación de productores piscícolas/apícolas? ¿Desde hace cuánto y qué apoyo recibe por parte de la asociación para su agronegocio? 2. Proceso a. Cambios administrativos i. ¿Cuáles fueron los aprendizajes más relevantes que obtuvo del semillero que cree le pueden servir para mejorar el desarrollo de su agronegocio piscícola/apícola? ii. ¿Qué de lo que han aprendido en el semillero están utilizando para el manejo de su agronegocio piscícola/apícola? iii. ¿Cómo lleva los registros de su finca (productivos, costos, ventas)? ¿Cómo lo hacía antes, cómo lo hace ahora? iv. ¿Los cambios que ha hecho en su agronegocio han producido algún cambio en sus ingresos? v. ¿Qué diferencias encuentra entre un productor tradicional y un agro empresario? b. Cambios técnicos. i. ¿Ha recibido asistencia técnica (AT) por parte de ABC? ii. ¿Cómo se desarrolla (frecuencia, metodología, enfoque) la AT que reciben de ABC? iii. ¿A partir de la la AT recibida ha aprendido nuevas prácticas que estén utilizando en su producción piscícola / apícola? ¿Cómo lo hacía antes, cómo lo hace ahora? iv. ¿Estos cambios técnicos que menciona en qué medida han mejorado la productividad de los estanques/ colmenas? v. ¿Ha mejorado la calidad de la miel/ pescado? ¿Cómo era antes, cómo es ahora? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 128 vi. ¿Qué técnicas utiliza para el manejo de residuos? ¿Para la conservación ambiental? c. MBA y Asociatividad i. ¿Usted ha participado del MBA?¿Cuáles han sido las principales enseñanzas del MBA que cree le sirven para liderar sus organización? ii. (sólo si participó en el MBA) ¿Qué de lo que han aprendido en el MBA están poniendo en práctica en las labores que desarrollan en sus asociaciones? iii. ¿A partir de la intervención de ABC cuáles cambios ha percibido en el funcionamiento de la asociación con respecto al apoyo que brinda a sus asociados? iv. ¿Cuáles cambios ha percibido en los asociados con respecto a la manera de relacionarse con su asociación? d. Acceso a mercados y conexiones comerciales i. Sí le fuéramos a seguir el rastro de sus productos miel/ pescado desde que sale de su predio hasta que llega al consumidor, ¿Cómo sería ese proceso? ii. ¿A partir de su participación en ABC qué problemas ha identificado que le impide tener una mejor comercialización de sus productos piscícolas/apícolas como agroempresario y como asociación? iii. ¿Qué ha aprendido con ABC y qué ha puesto en práctica hasta ahora como agroempresario en su predio y en su asociación, para mejorar sus oportunidades de tener una comercialización mas segura y rentable? iv. (si no ha mencionado el plan comercial) ¿Han desarrollado un plan comercial con el apoyo de ABC? ¿En qué consiste y qué avances han hecho? v. ¿ABC ha facilitado el encuentro con posibles compradores para usted o su asociación como ruedas de negocios o similares? ¿Cómo fue la experiencia y qué resultados obtuvieron? e. Cuáles cree que han sido los principales obstáculos que ha afrontado la alianza ABC hasta ahora en el soporte que brinda a su agronegocio y a su asociación? f. Si estuviera en sus manos, ¿qué cambios le harían a la alianza ABC para dar un mejor apoyo a los agronegocios y asociaciones? 3. Prospectivo a. ¿Cómo ve el futuro de su UPA como agronegocio y cuáles van a ser los principales cambios suyos como agroempresario? b. ¿Cómo creen que va a ser el funcionamiento de su asociación una vez termine la Alianza ABC y cuáles serán los principales cambios en el comportamiento de los directivos y de los asociados? c. ¿Cómo ve el futuro de su municipio y del Bajo Cauca Antioqueño? 129 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV INTERVIEW WITH PRODUCER ORGANIZATION LEADER Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Entrevista Asociación agro Beneficiarios de la Alianza componente Agro: Asociaciones apícolas y piscícolas. Duración: 1 horas Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre la alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre esta alianza; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? 1. Antecedentes. a. ¿Cuáles son sus nombres y que cargo ocupa cada uno en la asociación? b. ¿Cómo se llama y hace cuánto tiempo esta constituida esta asociación? c. ¿Cuántos asociados tienen y cómo están distribuidos por municipio? d. ¿A qué actividades principales se ha dedicado la asociación desde que inició? e. ¿La asociación tuvo apoyo de algún programa de cooperación o del gobierno? Antes de la llegada de ABC. f. ¿Cuál ha sido la principal o principales fuentes de sustento de la asociación para su funcionamiento desde que inicio? g. ¿Qué servicios ha prestado la asociación a sus asociados desde su inicio hasta antes de entrar a la alianza? h. ¿Cuál fue la principal motivación que tuvieron, como asociación, para participar en ABC y qué compromisos adquirieron para hacerlo? 2. Proceso a. Cambios Asociatividad y visión empresarial i. ¿Cuáles han sido los aprendizajes más relevantes para cada uno, como líder, que han obtenido en el MBA que creen que les pueden servir para dirigir el desarrollo del agronegocio piscícola/apícola con la asociación? ii. ¿Cuáles han sido los principales aprendizajes que les ha dado la alianza para su asociación que podrían servir para mejorar su funcionamiento y sostenibilidad? iii. ¿Qué de lo que han aprendido con la Alianza para mejorar su liderazgo lo han puesto en práctica en la dirección de su asociación? iv. ¿Qué cambios se han puesto en práctica en la asociación pensando en mejorar su desempeño actual y la sostenibilidad futura? v. ¿A partir de lo que han puesto en práctica han percibido cambios en la relación de los asociados y su asociación? Por favor explicar. vi. ¿Qué nuevos servicios está prestando la asociación a sus asociados, o qué servicios se han mejorado, a partir de la participación en la alianza? b. Cambios técnicos percibidos. i. ¿Desde la asociación han percibido cambios en la productividad de los estanques/ colmenas de sus asociados a partir de su participación en la alianza? ii. ¿Han percibido cambios en la calidad de la miel/ pescado de sus asociados? ¿Cómo era antes, cómo es ahora? c. Acceso a mercados y conexiones comerciales USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 130 i. ¿Con la ayuda de la Alianza, qué problemas han identificado que les impiden tener una mejor comercialización asociativa de sus productos piscícolas/apícolas? ii. ¿Cómo asociación han desarrollado un plan comercial con el apoyo de la alianza? ¿En qué consiste y qué avances han hecho? iii. ¿La alianza ha facilitado para la asociación el encuentro con posibles compradores en ruedas de negocios o similares? ¿Cómo fue la experiencia y qué resultados obtuvieron? iv. ¿Con la intervención de la alianza la asociación ha tenido algún cambio en sus ventas o ingresos? Por favor explicar. d. ¿Cuáles creen que han sido los principales obstáculos que ha afrontado la alianza hasta ahora para impulsar el fortalecimiento de su asociación? e. Si estuviera en sus manos, ¿qué cambios le harían a la alianza ABC para darle un mejor apoyo a las asociaciones? 3. Prospectivo a. ¿Cómo creen que va a ser el funcionamiento de su asociación una vez termine la Alianza ABC y cuáles serán los principales cambios en el comportamiento de los directivos y de los asociados? b. ¿Cómo ve el futuro de su municipio y del Bajo Cauca Antioqueño? 131 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FOCUS GROUP, SOCIAL MAPPING, AND NARRATIVE MULTIPLICATION WITH AGRO￾ENTREPRENEUR Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía grupo focal agro Beneficiarios del programa Agropecuario: Agro empresarios (apícolas, piscícolas), miembros asociaciones productivas (apícolas, piscícolas). 6 a 8 participantes. Duración: 3 horas Presentación del consultor. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Me gustaría que iniciáramos presentándonos, el nombre, de qué vereda provienen, qué actividad agrícola desarrolla, sí pertenecen o no a alguna asociación, y qué es lo que más les gusta de su municipio. 1. Antecedentes. a. ¿Hace cuánto son productores piscícola/apícola y qué tan importante es esta actividad para sus ingresos familiares? b. ¿Hace cuánto están vinculados con su asociación y qué posición tienen en ella? c. ¿Habían participado en programas similares a Alianza ABC antes? ¿Cuáles? 2. Aprendizajes ABC a. En los proceso de formación como agroempresarios individuales (semilleros, MBA, seminarios, Asistencia técnica), cada uno diga cuál ha sido el principal aprendizaje que ha tenido en su proceso de formación personal. b. Ahora traten de ponerse de acuerdo en los tres aprendizajes más importantes como agroempresarios individuales, priorizándolos de 1 a 3 (más importante es 1) c. (Identificar primero quiénes están o han participado del MBA) En su proceso de fortalecimiento como asociaciones y miembros de asociación, cuáles han sido los principales aprendizajes que han tenido. d. Ahora traten de ponerse de acuerdo en los tres aprendizajes más importantes para las asociaciones y sus asociados, priorizándolos de 1 a 3 (más importante es 1) 3. Adopción de prácticas. a. De los aprendizajes anteriormente señalados como agroempresarios individuales ¿Cuáles ya ha puesto en práctica en su unidad productiva agropecuaria? b. De los aprendizajes anteriormente señalados para las asociaciones y sus asociados ¿Cuáles ya han puesto en práctica en su asociación o entre los asociados? c. Como agroempresarios y asociaciones ¿Qué les hace falta poner en práctica y por qué no lo han hecho? 4. Cambios generados y resultados obtenidos USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 132 a. A partir de las nuevas prácticas que han aplicado en su UPA como agroempresarios, ¿qué tipo de cambios se han generado en su producción y qué resultados han obtenido hasta ahora? (indagar por productividad, ingresos, ventas) b. A partir de las nuevas prácticas de la asociación y sus asociados, ¿qué cambios se han generado en su funcionamiento y qué resultados han obtenido hasta ahora? (indagar por servicios prestados a los asociados, confianza, cooperación, compromiso, ventas asociativas) 5. Recomendaciones. a. Si hoy los pusieran a ustedes como consejo directivo al frente de la Alianza ABC para una nueva fase con nuevos productores, por favor pónganse de acuerdo en ¿qué cambios le harían al programa ABC para mejorar sus resultados? i. ¿En el fortalecimiento de los agroempresarios y su UPA? ii. ¿En el fortalecimiento de las asociaciones piscícolas/apícolas? Receso y refrigerio. 6. Cartografía social. (20 minutos) a. Se le pide a cada participante que ubique las siguientes preguntas en un mapa del municipio. Contaremos con calcomanías de las actividades y marcadores que pueden utilizar. b. ¿Cuáles son las principales actividades agropecuarias en este municipio (en esta vereda)? c. ¿Cuáles son las principales asociaciones para el municipio? ¿Qué función cumplen y en dónde operan? d. Piscícolas e. Apícolas f. Otras g. ¿Qué importancia tiene la piscicultura/apicultura para el desarrollo rural del municipio? h. ¿Dónde están y cómo es el acceso a los principales centros de acopio y comercialización? 7. Empoderamiento: variables psico emocionales, cambios en el modo de ser y auto concepto. (1 hora) a. Ejercicio de asociación: vamos a hacer una comparación entre el productor tradicional y el agro empresario: sí un productor tradicional fuera un animal, ¿qué animal sería?; sí un agro empresario fuera un animal, ¿Qué animal sería? (Indagar valores asociados al animal) b. Ejercicio multiplicación narrativa. i. El grupo se divide en parejas, se les da la siguiente instrucción: van a inventarse una historia, uno la inicia, otro la continua, la idea es tener una narración compartida. Se repite el ejercicio tres o cuatro veces. ii. Una vez terminada la construcción de historias las presentan al grupo y en conjunto se le pone un título. iii. De forma grupal se busca encontrar parecidos y diferencias entre las narraciones, quizás encontrar una historia colectiva que las integre. 133 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ETHNOGRAPHIC TOURS Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Recorridos etnográficos Beneficiarios del programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca: Agroempresarios apícolas y piscícolas, empresas en estructuración y crecimiento A partir de la información recogida en los grupos focales y la cartografía social, se plantea sobre un mapa de la región un recorrido etnográfico, para integrar los datos cualitativos con la metodología de análisis espacial. Los recorridos deben contar con un guía de la región para observar en terreno los avances del programa. Durante el recorrido se realizan entrevistas etnográficas a la población. Los recorridos permiten establecer una cartografía social de un corredor geográfico particular. Tomando como base dicha representación espacial se diseñan dos rutas, un agro otra no agro, donde se llevará a cabo los recorridos etnográficos, teniendo el acompañamiento de una persona de la región que servirá como “guía” durante el recorrido. Se deben plantear seis recorridos: dos para la cadena apícola, uno para la piscícola, dos para empresas en estructuración, uno para empresas en crecimiento. La idea es que en cada recorrido se realice la entrevista semi estructurada “in situ”. Exhibit 70. Visual Story map. SOURCE: MEL ACTIVITY Información de análisis espacial. Los recorridos etnográficos son muy importantes para obtener la información que servirá de insumo para el análisis espacial del territorio. Durante el recorrido se tomarán fotos de los diferentes aspectos que se vayan encontrando: estado de las colmenas y estanques, proceso productivo en las empresas, USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 134 empaque de los productos, manejo de residuos, estado de las vías, medios de transporte, puntos de comercialización, entorno económico y social. Es importante que la cámara tenga activado el GPS para que la información quede adecuadamente georreferenciada para su posterior análisis. Entrevistas etnográficas. Durante el recorrido se realizarán entrevistas etnográficas, las cuales por definición no son estructuradas, parten de la observación e interacción directa entre el investigador y participante casual en su contexto natural. Son entrevistas cortas, de no más de 10 minutos, que tratan sobre los cambios que perciben a partir de las actividades del programa. Los participantes pueden ser: otros productores, vecinos, clientes. Toda la información recolectada será clasificada y ordenada en un software de información geográfica que permita visualizar diferentes rutas en el corredor geográfico seleccionado, lo que se conoce como un “story map”. Nota: Los espacios a recorrer con los agroempresarios estarán orientados principalmente en lo que ellos manifiesten en sus entrevistas con respecto a su actividad y a los cambios implementados con ABC. A continuación y a manera de orientación, una lista de posibles aspectos a cubrir en las unidades productivas agropecuarias: Apícola: - Apiarios con sus colmenas - Sitio de almacenamiento de equipos, indumentaria e insumos - Sitio de almacenamiento de producto - Sitios de disposición y manejo de residuos de producción - Registro de planeación de la producción (p.e. calendarios florales) - Registros de actividades de producción y cosechas de miel - Registros de costos - Registros de ventas - Registros de asistencia técnica Piscícola - Estanques con peces en producción - Fuentes y sistemas de manejo de agua (drenajes) y de su calidad - Sitio de almacenamiento de equipos, insumos y alimentos - Sitio y elementos de eviscerado - Sitio y elementos para almacenamiento de producción - Sitios y sistemas de disposición y manejo de residuos de producción - Documentos de formalización (AUNAP, CAR, concesión de aguas) - Registro de planeación de la producción (producción escalonada) - Registros de actividades de producción y cosecha - Registros de costos 135 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV - Registros de ventas - Registros de asistencia técnica URBAN COMPONENT GROUP INTERVIEW WITH LGBC FIELD STAFF Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía entrevista enlaces territoriales componente urbano Enlaces territoriales componente urbano. Duración: 1 hora. Presentación del consultor. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Vamos a realizar una entrevista grupal donde cada uno de los participantes se encarga de desarrollar un tema particular, en el cual tenga mayor experiencia o información, desde luego los compañeros pueden complementar o ilustrar su punto de vista. 1. Contexto (10minutos) a. ¿Cuál es la situación socio económica en las áreas urbanas del municipio y de la región del Bajo Cauca Antioqueño? b. ¿Cuáles son las características del sector empresarial en el municipio? 2. Antecedentes (10 minutos) a. ¿En qué consistió el proceso de caracterización y selección de empresarios en la región? b. ¿Cuáles fueron los resultado del diagnóstico que se realizó a partir de la caracterización? 3. Proceso a. Consultoría transversal (20 minutos) i. ¿Cuál es el perfil de los empresarios que participan en el programa? ¿Cuáles son las diferencias en los perfiles de empresarios de empresas en estructuración y de empresas en crecimiento? ii. ¿Cuáles son sus principales intereses y necesidades? (diferencias entre estructuración y crecimiento) iii. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias de la consultoría para propiciar que los empresarios reorienten la dirección de sus negocios? (diferencias entre estructuración y crecimiento) iv. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de apropiación de estas indicaciones por parte de los empresarios? (diferencias entre estructuración y crecimiento) b. Asesorías Temáticas, de imagen corporativa y psicosocial (20 minutos) i. ¿Cuáles son las estrategias del modelo de asesorías para propiciar en los empresarios aprendizajes en sus áreas de mayor debilidad y que puedan aplicar en sus negocios? ii. ¿Cuál es el enfoque de la asesoría psicosocial para apoyar el desarrollo de los negocios? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 136 iii. ¿Cómo ha sido el proceso de apropiación de estas enseñanzas por parte de los empresarios? c. Conexiones comerciales (20 minutos) i. ¿Cuáles son las principales dificultades que se identificaron con el diagnóstico comercial con los empresarios del municipio? ii. ¿Qué uso se le ha dado a los resultados de este diagnóstico con los empresarios a favor de la comercialización? iii. ¿Cuáles estrategias ha implementado ABC con los empresarios para mejorar su acceso a mercados? iv. ¿Cuáles acciones se han impulsado para propiciar conexiones comerciales de los empresarios y qué avances se han alcanzado? d. Obstáculos ¿Cuáles han sido los principales obstáculos que han enfrentado con los empresarios para: i. lograr los objetivos de la consultoría transversal, asesorías temáticas y psicosocial? ii. lograr la adopción de prácticas gerenciales y empresariales en sus negocios? iii. lograr la adopción de prácticas especializadas en las áreas de debilidad? iv. que mejoren sus capacidades de acceder a mercados y comercializar? e. Cambios generados ¿Qué cambios han evidenciado i. en la adopción de prácticas gerenciales acordes con el estado de sus emprendimientos y qué efectos han tenido en sus negocios? ii. en la adopción de conocimientos especializados en áreas de debilidad y qué efectos han tenido en sus negocios? iii. en las capacidades y prácticas de los empresarios para acceder a mercados y qué efectos han tenido en la comercialización de sus productos? c. Contexto territorial ¿Qué afectación ha ocasionado el COVID19 y las condiciones de orden público en: i. en el desarrollo y resultados de las consultorías y asesorías? ii. en las posibilidades de mejoramiento comercial? d. Oportunidades de mejora ¿Si estuviera en sus manos el diseño de un nuevo programa: i. qué mejoras harían a las consultorías transversales? ii. qué mejoras harían a las asesorías temáticas y psicosocial? iii. qué mejoras harían al modelo de apoyo a las conexiones comerciales y acceso a mercados? 4. Futuro (10 minutos) a. ¿Qué expectativas tienen de los empresarios que terminaron la primera cohorte? i. Corto plazo ii. Mediano plazo b. ¿Qué acciones se deben tomar para que los cambios propiciados en los empresarios sean sostenibles una vez salgan del programa ABC? 137 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV SOCIAL MAPPING WITH URBAN FIELD STAFF Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía cartografía social Enlaces territoriales componente urbano Duración: 3 horas. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Presentación de participantes. Vamos a realizar un ejercicio de cartografía social, consiste en una aproximación al programa ABC no agro/ urbano desde su intervención en el territorio. Presentan mapas: - Caucasia - El Bagre - Zaragoza - Nechí - Tarazá - Cáceres Presentación íconos: en estas calcomanías encontramos una serie de íconos que representan actividades. La idea es ubicar las actividades en el mapa. Lista de actividades: - Ubicación empresas participaron en consultoría - Actividades económicas beneficiarios - Participantes capacitaciones ABC - Participación talleres grupales ABC - Principales mercados - Vías, tiempos, costos. A partir de esta descripción inicial se hace un relato del proceso de intervención en el municipio. Se repite el ejercicio para los seis municipios. Aproximadamente veinte minutos por municipio. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 138 INTERVIEW WITH URBAN SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Entrevista empresarios urbano Beneficiarios de la alianza componente No Agro: Empresas en crecimiento y en estructuración Duración: 1 hora Presentación del consultor. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre la alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre esta alianza; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? 1. Antecedentes a. ¿Qué es lo que más le gusta de ser empresario? b. ¿Cuándo surge su empresa? c. ¿Cuál es su principal producto o servicio que ofrece y qué necesidades cree que atiende con él en el municipio, región? d. ¿Cuántas personas emplea? ¿Son contratadas de planta o prestación de servicios? e. ¿Antes de ABC cómo funcionaba su empresa y cómo calificaría su desempeño en ventas y rentabilidad? f. ¿Qué porcentaje representa en sus ingresos familiares? 2. Proceso a. Selección i. ¿Cómo se enteró de la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? ii. ¿Cuál fue su principal motivación para participar en la alianza? iii. ¿Por qué considera que su empresa fue seleccionada? iv. ¿En qué categoría se encuentra (estructuración o crecimiento) y por qué lo ubicaron allí? b. Consultoría empresarial y asesoría especializada i. ¿Cuáles fueron los aprendizajes más relevantes que obtuvo de la consultoría empresarial que cree le pueden servir para orientar la estrategia de su negocio? ii. ¿En cuáles asesorías temáticas participó y cuáles fueron los aprendizajes que considera les pueden ser útiles para mejorar el funcionamiento de su negocio? iii. ¿Cuáles fueron las orientaciones de la asesoría psicosocial que creen les pueden servir para gerenciar su negocio? iv. ¿Cuáles de todas estas enseñanzas (consultoría, asesoría especializada, asesoría psicosocial) realmente ha puesto en práctica en su negocios y qué resultados ha obtenido? v. ¿Qué cambios ha traído a su empresa estas nuevas prácticas, en su operación, en sus ingresos, en su rentabilidad? vi. ¿Qué cambios cree que le ha traído ABC como empresario en la visión que tiene de su negocio? c. Acceso a mercados y conexiones comerciales 139 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV i. ¿A partir de su participación en ABC qué problemas identificó que le impedían tener mayor acceso a mercados y mejorar sus ventas? ii. ¿Qué enseñanzas recibió de ABC para mejorar el acceso a mercados y aumentar la comercialización de sus productos/servicios? ¿Cuáles ha puesto en práctica y que resultados ha tenido? iii. ¿Cuáles acciones adelantó directamente ABC para impulsar sus conexiones comerciales y cómo valoran los resultados obtenidos? iv. ¿ABC ha facilitado el encuentro con posibles clientes de manera directa, en ruedas de negocios o similares? ¿Cómo fue la experiencia y qué resultados obtuvo? v. La alianza ¿Ha recibido apoyo de otras entidades gracias a la gestión de ABC? vi. ¿A partir de su participación en ABC, considera que sus ventas han aumentado? vii. ¿Qué tan determinante fue para usted y su empresa haber participado en ABC para afrontar los retos relacionados con la pandemia? d. Talleres grupales ABC i. ¿En cuáles de los talleres grupales y seminarios participó? ¿En qué consistieron? ii. ¿Qué aporte hicieron estas actividades grupales a su proceso y al de su empresa, con respecto a los resultados que alcanzó con ABC? e. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido los principales obstáculos que ha afrontado la alianza ABC hasta ahora para obtener los resultados esperados en su empresa? f. ¿Cómo ha sido su relacionamiento con la cámara de comercio? ¿En qué le ha apoyado? g. Si estuviera en sus manos, ¿qué cambios le harían a la alianza ABC para mejorar estos resultados? 3. Prospectivo a. ¿Cómo ve el futuro de su empresa? b. ¿Qué cambios produjo ABC en su visión como empresario? c. ¿Cómo ve el futuro de su municipio y del Bajo Cauca Antioqueño? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 140 FOCUS GROUP, SOCIAL MAPPING AND NARRATIVE MULITPLICATION WITH URBAN SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía grupo focal No Agro Beneficiarios del programa componente urbano: empresas en crecimiento y empresas en estructuración. 6 a 8 participantes. Duración: 3 horas Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Me gustaría que iniciáramos presentándonos, el nombre, qué es lo que más le gusta del municipio. 1. Antecedentes (10 minutos) a. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca? b. ¿Cuál fue su principal motivación para participar en el programa? c. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de convocatoria? (Formulario virtual, entrevista, visita) d. ¿Por qué considera que su empresa fue seleccionada? 2. Aprendizajes ABC En su proceso de formación en el programa de empleo cuales fueron los principales aprendizajes que han tenido en su proceso de consultoría y talleres grupales, y qué prioridad le darían. APRENDIZAJE PRIORIDAD Diagnóstico empresarial (CANVAS) Acompañamiento psicosocial Financiero Mercado Modelos de negocio Formalización empresarial Fortalecimiento organizacional Innovación Fortalecimiento comercial Ruedas de negocios 141 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 3. Nuevas prácticas. De los aprendizajes anteriormente señalados a. ¿Cuáles ha puesto en práctica en su empresa? b. ¿Qué cambios ha traído para su empresa? NUEVAS PRÁCTICAS CAMBIOS GENERADOS Consultoría Capacitación Acompañamiento comercial 4. Recomendaciones. a. Si estuviera en sus manos, ¿qué cambios le harían al programa de empleo para mejorar sus resultados? b. ¿Cómo ve el futuro de su empresa? (inmediato, a un año, a cinco años) c. ¿Cómo ve el futuro del Bajo Cauca Antioqueño? Receso y refrigerio. 5. Cartografía social. (30 minutos) a. Utilizamos un mapa del casco urbano del municipio donde los participantes deben señalar. b. ¿Dónde está ubicada su empresa? c. ¿Cuáles son las principales actividades económicas en el casco urbano? d. ¿Lugares del municipio donde se concentra el comercio? e. ¿Lugares del municipio donde está la industria? f. ¿Cuáles son los principales mercados del municipio? g. ¿Cuáles son las principales vías y medios de transporte del municipio? (indagar costos y tiempos) 6. Empoderamiento: variables psico emocionales, cambios en el modo de ser y auto concepto. (1 hora) a. Ejercicio de asociación: vamos a hacer una comparación entre el productor tradicional y el empresario: sí un comerciante o productor tradicional fuera un animal, ¿qué animal sería?; sí un empresario fuera un animal, ¿Qué animal sería? (Indagar valores asociados al animal) b. Ejercicio multiplicación narrativa. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 142 i. El grupo se divide en parejas, se les da la siguiente instrucción: van a inventarse una historia, uno la inicia, otro la continua, la idea es tener una narración compartida. Se repite el ejercicio tres o cuatro veces. ii. Una vez terminada la construcción de historias las presentan al grupo y en conjunto se le pone un título. iii. De forma grupal se busca encontrar parecidos y diferencias entre las narraciones, quizás encontrar una historia colectiva que las integre. 143 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT GROUP INTERVIEW WITH FIELD STAFF Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía entrevista grupal enlaces territoriales componente empleo Enlaces territoriales componente empleo. Duración: 2 horas. Presentación del consultor. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Presentación de participantes. Vamos a realizar una entrevista grupal donde cada uno de los participantes se encarga de desarrollar un tema particular, en el cual tenga mayor experiencia o información, desde luego los compañeros pueden complementar o ilustrar su punto de vista. 1. Contexto a. ¿Cuál es la situación socio económica del municipio y de la región del Bajo Cauca Antioqueño? b. ¿Cuál es la situación del empleo en el municipio (fuentes de empleo, informalidad, jóvenes, mujeres)? c. ¿Las fuentes de empleo han variado en los últimos años? d. Instituciones de educación presentes en la región 2. Antecedentes a. ¿En qué consistió el proceso de caracterización del empleo en la región? b. ¿Qué diagnóstico se realizó a partir de la caracterización? 3. Proceso a. Mentoría i. Prueba previa ii. Construcción historia laboral iii. Identificación de fortalezas y competencias iv. Estructuración de un perfil laboral v. Elaboración de la hoja de vida vi. Orientación búsqueda de oportunidades laborales vii. Unidades móviles de empleo b. Ruta de formación i. Instituciones aliadas de formación ii. Cursos que ofrecen iii. Necesidades de capacitación del territorio c. Acompañamiento Psicosocial i. ¿En que consiste el acompañamiento psicosocial? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 144 ii. ¿Qué resultados han obtenido en los beneficiarios? d. Empresas i. ¿Cómo se relacionan son las empresas del municipio y la región? ii. Visitas por parte del gestor empresarial, en qué consisten iii. Identificación necesidades de la empresa iv. Proceso de selección v. Cuantos empleos efectivos han conseguido, en que áreas e. Programa de becas i. ¿El programa de becas se ha implementado en el municipio? ii. ¿Qué temas se tratan? iii. ¿Cómo se realizó la convocatoria y selección? iv. ¿Cómo ha sido la participación de los jóvenes y las mujeres en el programa de becas? 4. Cambios generados a. Cambios socio emocionales, en el auto concepto de los beneficiarios b. Cambios en el proyecto de vida laboral c. Cambios en las empresas 5. Futuro (10 minutos) a. Qué planes tiene el componente agropecuario i. Inmediatos ii. Corto plazo iii. Mediano plazo 145 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV SOCIAL MAPPING EMPLOYABILITY FIELD STAFF Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía cartografía social Enlaces territoriales componente empleo. Duración: 3 horas. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Presentación de participantes. Vamos a realizar un ejercicio de cartografía social, consiste en una aproximación al programa de empleo desde su intervención en el territorio. Presentan mapas: - Caucasia - El Bagre - Zaragoza - Nechí - Tarazá - Cáceres Presentación íconos: en estas calcomanías encontramos una serie de íconos que representan actividades. La idea es ubicar las actividades en el mapa. Lista de actividades: - Ubicación de los participantes de mentoría o Localización beneficiarios o Número de beneficiarios o Actividades proyecto de vida laboral - Instituciones aliadas ruta de formación - Ubicación empresas o Agropecuarias o Industria o Comercio o Servicios A partir de esta descripción inicial se hace un relato del proceso de intervención en el municipio. Se repite el ejercicio para los seis municipios. Aproximadamente veinte minutos por municipio. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 146 INTERVIEW WITH EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT PARTICIPANT Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía entrevista Beneficiario empleo Beneficiarios componente empleo. Duración: 2 horas. Presentación del consultor. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Presentación de participantes. Vamos a realizar una entrevista grupal donde cada uno de los participantes se encarga de desarrollar un tema particular, en el cual tenga mayor experiencia o información, desde luego los compañeros pueden complementar o ilustrar su punto de vista. 1. Antecedentes a. Cuéntenos un poco sobre su vida, con quien vive, donde vive, ocupación de los padres. b. Estudios realizados c. Trabajo que tenía antes de ingresar al programa 2. Proceso a. Ingreso i. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa de empleo de ABC? ii. ¿Qué lo motivó a ingresar al programa? iii. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de prueba previa virtual? b. Mentoría i. ¿Cómo fue la construcción de su historia laboral? ii. ¿Cómo se identificaron sus fortalezas y competencias? iii. ¿Cómo fue el acompañamiento en la elaboración de la hoja de vida? iv. ¿Cómo fue la orientación para la búsqueda de oportunidades laborales? c. Acompañamiento psicosocial i. ¿Ha tenido acompañamiento psicosocial? ii. ¿Cómo ha sido ese acompañamiento? iii. ¿Qué cambios produjeron en dichas asesorías? (cambios en el auto concepto laboral) d. Cursos de formación i. ¿Ha participado en los cursos de formación? ii. ¿Qué institución ofrece el curso? (horarios, virtual, presencial) iii. ¿Qué temas trataron en el curso? iv. ¿El curso fue útil para fortalecer su perfil laboral? v. ¿Para usted en que consisten las “competencias del ser”? ¿Por qué son importantes? e. ¿Cuáles cree que han sido los principales obstáculos que ha afrontado el programa ABC hasta ahora para mejorar el empleo en la región? 147 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV f. Si estuviera en sus manos, ¿qué cambios le harían al programa ABC para mejorar estos resultados? 3. Prospectivo a. Una vez termine el programa de acompañamiento y formación que cambios espera en su perfil laboral b. ¿Cómo ve su futuro laboral? (inmediato, a un año, a cinco años) c. ¿Cómo ve la situación de empleo de jóvenes y mujeres en el Bajo Cauca? 4. Ejercicio asociación Finalmente vamos a hacer una comparación entre un aspirante sin perfil laboral claro y un aspirante con perfil laboral definido: sí un comerciante un aspirante sin perfil laboral fuera un animal, ¿qué animal sería?; sí un aspirante con perfil laboral definido fuera un animal, ¿Qué animal sería? (Indagar valores asociados al animal) USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 148 FOCUS GROUP, SOCIAL MAPPING, AND NARRATIVE MULTIPLICATION WITH EMPLOYABILITY PARTICIPANTS Programa Avancemos Bajo Cauca (ABC) Guía grupo focal Beneficiarios del programa componente empleo: estudiantes activos programa de empleo. 6 a 8 participantes. Duración: 3 horas Presentación del consultor. Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”. Para nosotros es muy importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este programa; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Presentación de participantes. Me gustaría que iniciáramos presentándonos, el nombre, en que barrio viven y que es lo que más les gusta del municipio. 1. Antecedentes a. ¿Cuál es su situación laboral actualmente? ¿En que trabajan? b. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa de formación para el empleo de Avancemos Bajo Cauca? c. ¿Cuál fue su principal motivación para participar en el programa? d. ¿Cómo fue el proceso de convocatoria para participar en el programa? 2. Aprendizajes ABC En su proceso de formación en el programa de empleo cuales fueron los principales aprendizajes que han tenido en su proceso de formación y que prioridad les dan. APRENDIZAJE PRIORIDAD Historia laboral Identificación fortalezas y competencias Estructuración perfil laboral Elaboración hoja de vida Acompañamiento psicosocial Cursos de formación Orientación y búsqueda laboral 149 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 3. Nuevas prácticas. De los aprendizajes anteriormente señalados a. ¿Cuáles ha puesto en práctica en la elaboración de su perfil laboral? b. ¿Los aprendizajes adquiridos los aplica actualmente en su trabajo c. ¿Qué cambios ha traído en su perfil laboral? NUEVAS PRÁCTICAS CAMBIOS GENERADOS Mentoría Formación 4. Recomendaciones. a. Si estuviera en sus manos, ¿qué cambios le harían al programa de empleo para mejorar sus resultados? b. ¿Cómo ve su futuro laboral? (inmediato, a un año, a cinco años) Receso y refrigerio 5. Contexto- Cartografía social. Utilizamos un mapa del casco urbano del municipio donde los participantes deben señalar. a. ¿Lugar donde vive? b. ¿Lugares donde ha trabajado? c. Principales fuentes de empleo del municipio: d. Servicios e. Comercio f. Industria g. Agropecuario h. ¿Las fuentes de empleo han variado en los últimos años? i. Transporte, distancias, costos, tiempos, medios de transporte j. Instituciones de educación técnica y superior presentes en el municipio 6. Empoderamiento: variables psico emocionales, cambios en el modo de ser y auto concepto. (1 hora) a. Ejercicio de asociación: vamos a hacer una comparación entre el trabajador tradicional y el trabajador que tiene un proyecto laboral definido: sí un trabajador tradicional fuera un animal, ¿qué animal sería?; sí un trabajador con un proyecto laboral definido fuera un animal, ¿Qué animal sería? (Indagar valores asociados al animal) b. Ejercicio multiplicación narrativa. i. El grupo se divide en parejas, se les da la siguiente instrucción: van a inventarse una historia, uno la inicia, otro la continua, la idea es tener una narración compartida. Se repite el ejercicio tres o cuatro veces. ii. Una vez terminada la construcción de historias las presentan al grupo y en conjunto se le pone un título. De forma grupal se busca encontrar parecidos y diferencias entre las narraciones, quizás encontrar una historia colectiva que las integre. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 150 QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENT To gather quantitative information, the evaluation team designed a unique survey instrument that was divided into sections for participants of each component. The evaluation team divided the instrument into sections for an administrative data sheet, the introduction, the characterization of the survey-taker, and their general evaluation of LGBC, which apply to all participants surveyed. The survey includes sections differentiated among and within the different activity components. The Agricultural component instrument, for example, includes a section for business owners who participated in the agro-entrepreneurial incubator (semillero), separate sections for beekeeping and fish-farming entrepreneurs, and concludes with a section targeted to organization leaders who participated in the MBA Agro. For the Urban component, the instrument includes a separate section for targeted business owners and incorporates an additional section for Employability component participants. A final section, applied to all participants, covers mindset, associativity, and sustainability questions. As discussed in the chapter on Limitations of the Evaluation (pg. Error! Bookmark not defined.), the instrument was applied in two phases. In phase two (2), the evaluation adjusted the instrument that was used in phase one (1), with the main change being the exclusion of an experimental economic analysis tool, as requested by LGBC. LGBC also requested adjustments to response options for some questions to avoid sensitivities related to security in the region. The following pages present the final survey form that was applied in phase two (2), which informed the subsequent quantitative analysis. 151 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ALIANZA AVANCEMOS BAJO CAUCA FORMULARIO ARD620 SECCIÓN I. CONTROL OPERATIVO Fecha encuesta: Día|___|___| Mes |___|___| Año |___|___| Hora inicio encuesta: |___|___|:|___|___| 1. a. Nombre del encuestador: b. Identificación: 2. a. Nombre del supervisor: b. Identificación: 3. NIM: |___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___| 4. Región: 5. a. Departamento: b. Municipio: c. Código DANE: |___|___|___|___|___| 6. Zona (aplicación encuesta): Centro poblado 1 Rural disperso 2 Cabecera municipal 3 7. Barrio/ Vereda / Centro Poblado (aplicación encuesta): 8. Dirección (aplicación encuesta): 108A Coordenadas GPS: ______________________ Encuestador: A continuación, señale el lugar donde fue tomado el punto GPS Lugar de residencia 1 109 UPA 2 109 Asociación 3 Lugar de trabajo/empresa/emprendimiento 4 109 Oficina ABC 5 Núcleo 6 Otro, ¿cuál? _________ 7 108B Zona (UPA/residencia/emprendimiento): Centro poblado 1 Rural disperso 2 Cabecera municipal 3 108C Barrio/ Vereda / Centro Poblado (UPA/residencia/emprendimiento): 108D Dirección (UPA/residencia/emprendimiento): 109 Teléfono 1: 109A Teléfono 2 (otro teléfono de contacto personal, familiar, etc.): 109B Correo electrónico de contacto: ______________________________@_____ . ____ No tiene 1 110 ¿A qué segmento pertenece la persona a encuestar, según la base de datos? Unidad productiva – Apicultura 1 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 152 Encuestador: Verificar que los que pertenecen a 1, 2 o 3, también pueden ser 6, es la única opción múltiple posible. Unidad productiva – Piscicultura 2 Unidad productiva – Apicultura & Piscicultura 3 Unidad productiva no agrícola – Componente Urbano 4 Beneficiarios servicios de empleabilidad 5 Miembros MBA Agro 6 110A ¿Es MBA? Aplica 1 No aplica 0 111 Actualmente, ¿tiene síntomas que le generen sospecha de que está contagiado con COVID-19? Sí 1 No 2 112 En los últimos 7 días, ¿ha tenido contacto estrecho (menor a 2 metros y por más de 15 minutos) con personas sospechosas o confirmadas con COVID-19 recientemente? Encuestador: Si respondió que SÍ, sondee para confirmar si se refiere a un hecho que genere riesgo de contagio. Sí 1 No 2  Encuestador: Si el informante responde Sí en alguna de las preguntas (111-112), agradezca y termine. B. RESULTADO DE VISITA, TIPO DE SUPERVISIÓN Y CONTROL DE VISITAS SECCIÓN II. INTRODUCCIÓN Y CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO 201. Buenos días/tardes, mi nombre es ____________, trabajo para SEI, empresa contratada por Panagora SAS para realizar un estudio sobre la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” y el impacto que ha tenido en la región. Su participación voluntaria como agro-productor, empresario, emprendedor o trabajador es valiosa para los propósitos de la investigación y no implica ningún riesgo físico o emocional. Los responsables de los datos que nos suministre aseguramos el respeto de sus derechos. Su nombre no será usado en ningún tipo de publicación y sus datos personales estarán protegidos bajo la reserva estadística contemplada en las normas vigentes de conformidad con la Ley 1581 de 2012 y las políticas de manejo de datos personales de SEI, que podrá consultar en la página de la firma. Si tiene alguna duda, puede comunicarse con Diego Velandia, director de Gestión de Datos de SEI (tel. 6017425757 Ext. 1026) o al 113 Resultados de la encuesta Completa 21. Ocupado 24. Por seguridad 27. Incompleta 22. Ausente temporal 25. Teléfono errado/ contacto sin ubicación precisa 28. Rechazo 23. Ausente permanente sin ubicación precisa 26. Otro motivo ¿Cuál? _______ 29. 114 ¿Qué tipo de supervisión realizó? Acompañamiento 1. Verificación personal 2. Verificación posterior 3. Ninguna 4. No. Visita a. Fecha de la visita b. Hora inicial c. Hora fin d.Duración de la visita e. Resultado parcial (Utilizar mismos de resultado de encuesta.) Día Mes Año Hora Minutos Hora Minutos Hora Minutos M1 1 2 3 153 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV correo electrónico diego.velandia@sei-consultores.com.co. Esta encuesta será grabada únicamente con el propósito de monitorear y controlar la calidad. No compartiremos ninguna grabación fuera del equipo de investigación y la eliminaremos una vez que nuestro estudio haya concluido. Adicionalmente sería muy valioso si pudiéramos contar con algunas fotografías para complementar nuestro informe. ¿Acepta participar bajo los términos antes expuestos y autoriza a Panagora a usar la información que nos suministre? Sí 1 No 2 Terminar SECCIÓN III. CARACTERIZACIÓN PERSONAL DEL ENTREVISTADO 301. ¿Cuál es el municipio donde se ubica su actividad económica? Tarazá 1 Cáceres 2 Nechí 3 Caucasia 4 El Bagre 5 Zaragoza 6 Otro, ¿cuál? ____________________ 7 302. ¿Usted ha sido beneficiario de la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca de USAID (a través de Interactuar o Comfama)? Sí1 No 2 304. ¿Cuál es su nombre completo? a. Primer nombre b. Segundo nombre c. Primer apellido d. Segundo apellido 304A ¿Usted tiene algún sobrenombre, apodo o chapa con el cual sea conocido en la zona? Sí 1  ¿Cuál? _______________________________ No 2 305. ¿Cuál es su sexo?: Hombre 1 Mujer 2 Intersexual 3 Prefiero no responder 4 306. ¿Cuántos años cumplidos tiene? |___|___| 307. ¿Vive en la cabecera municipal? Sí 1 No 2 308. ¿Cuál es su estado civil? Soltero(a) 1 Casado(a) 2 En unión libre 3 Divorciado(a)/Separado(a) 4 Viudo(a) 5 309. ¿Tiene hijos? Sí 1  ¿Cuántos? |___|___| No 2 310. Actualmente, ¿cuántas personas hacen parte de su hogar, incluyéndose usted? |___|___| 311. ¿Es usted el/la jefe de hogar? Sí 1 No 2 312. ¿Alguien en su hogar ha sido beneficiario de alguno(s) de los siguientes programas o ayudas en el año 2021?: a. Programas de formación para el trabajo Sí 1 No 2 b. Subsidio al desempleo Sí 1 No 2 c. Programa Nacional Integral de Sustitución de cultivos (PNIS) Sí 1 No 2 d. Programa de restitución de tierras Sí 1 No 2 e. Programa Oro Legal Sí 1 No 2 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 154 f. Programa Territorios de Oportunidad (CDLO/USAID) Sí 1 No 2 g. Programa de Alianzas Comerciales (PAC/USAID) Sí 1 No 2 h. Servicios público de Asistencia técnica / Extensión agropecuaria Sí 1 No 2 i. Proyecto Alianzas Productivas (Ministerio de Agricultura) Sí 1 No 2 j. Microcrédito / Crédito Sí 1 No 2 k. Otro programa de desarrollo productivo, ¿cuál? Sí 1 No 2 Ninguno (Encuestador solo se marca para quienes respondieron NO desde a hasta k) 3 313. De acuerdo con su cultura, pueblo o rasgos físicos usted es o se reconoce como: Indígena 1 Gitano(a) 2 Raizal 3 Palenquero(a) 4 Negro(a), mulato(a), afrodescendiente, afrocolombiano(a) 5 Ningún grupo étnico 6 314. ¿Sabe leer y escribir? Sí 1 No 2 315. ¿Cuál es el máximo nivel educativo que usted ha alcanzado? Encuestador: Indagar por el último grado aprobado. Ninguno 1 Primaria 2 Bachiller 3 Técnico o tecnológico 4 Universitario 5 Posgrado 6 316. f. ¿A cuál de los siguientes regímenes de seguridad social en salud está afiliado? Contributivo 1 Especial (Fuerzas armadas, Ecopetrol, Universidades Públicas) 2 Subsidiado 3 No está afiliado(a) 4 No sabe, no informa 5 SECCIÓN IV. EVALUACIÓN GENERAL ALIANZA AVANCEMOS BAJO CAUCA Encuestador: Lea la siguiente introducción al capítulo. A continuación, voy a hacerle unas preguntas sobre la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca del cual usted es beneficiario. Recuerde que la Alianza busca contribuir de manera inclusiva y sostenible al desarrollo y crecimiento de la economía del Bajo Cauca Antioqueño. Para ello, se enfoca en el desarrollo de las cadenas productivas agropecuarias, la creación de negocios integrales y el fortalecimiento de las unidades productivas no agrícolas en la región. 401. ¿Cómo se enteró por primera vez de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Encuestador: Espere respuesta. Por una asociación a la que pertenece 1 Por líderes de su comunidad 2 A través de la alcaldía 3 A través del equipo de la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca 4 Por un miembro de hogar o conocido 5 Medios de comunicación 6 Redes sociales 7 A través de COMFAMA 8 Otro, ¿cuál? _________________________________ 9 402. ¿Cuántos miembros de su hogar son beneficiarios de la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”? Son beneficiarios quienes participan o han participado en actividades apoyadas por la alianza. |___|___| 403. Encuestador: Esta pregunta aplica para los segmentos (Cód. 1, 2 y 3 en pregunta de clasificación en P_110) |___|___| Ninguna 0. 405 155 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV ¿A cuántas asociaciones pertenece? 404. ¿Cuál es el nombre(s) de la(s) asociación(es) a las que pertenece?, si es más de una por favor organícelas poniendo de primera la asociación con la que se sienta más identificado(a) y así en orden descendente. Encuestador: Es importante tener en cuenta que en los módulos posteriores (#5) se va a evaluar por la asociación con la que se siente más identificado el productor. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 405. Encuestador: Esta pregunta aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación de la 1 a la 6 en P_110). Con base en su experiencia como beneficiario y utilizando una escala de 1 a 5, en donde 1 significa que se encuentra completamente insatisfecho y 5 completamente satisfecho, ¿Qué tan satisfecho se encuentra con la Alianza? Totalmente insatisfecho Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho Satisfecho Totalmente satisfecho 1 2 3 4 5 406. Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3, pregunte: Por favor cuénteme brevemente, ¿cuáles han sido las principales razones de su respuesta? SECCIÓN V. ADOPCIÓN DE PRÁCTICAS AGROEMPRESARIALES Encuestador: Esta sección aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación 1, 2 y 3 en P_110). 500 Actualmente ¿tiene actividades agropecuarias apícolas/piscícolas? Sí 1 501 No 2 500.1 ¿Hace cuánto dejó de desarrollar la actividad? |___|___| Años 1 Meses 2 500.2 ¿Cuál fue la razón? 501. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con planeación, visión y proyección empresarial propuestas a través de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Gracias a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca reconocí mis fortalezas y debilidades como productor agropecuario (apícola/piscícola) 1 2 3 4 5 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 156 2. Con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca aprendí cómo planear hacia futuro las actividades de mi unidad productiva según mis capacidades y posibilidades. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Las frases 3 y 4 aplican si en P_500 es igual a 1. 3. Actualmente tengo un plan definido de lo que tengo proyectado para mis actividades agropecuarias (apícolas / piscícolas) para un periodo de un año por lo menos. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Las actividades productivas que realizo diariamente, las hago de acuerdo con el plan de trabajo definido para mi producción. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 5. ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con planeación, visión y proyección empresarial? 502. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con las prácticas de registro de costos propuestas a través de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca entendí por qué es importante tener un registro de los costos de mi producción agropecuaria piscícola/apícola. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Gracias a las capacitaciones de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca aprendí cómo llevar detalladamente los registros de costos y gastos de insumos, jornales, herramientas, equipos y servicios. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Las frases 3 y 4 aplican si en P_500 es igual a 1. 3. En mis actividades productivas (apícolas/piscícolas) actualmente llevo un registro actualizado y detallado de mis costos y gastos. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Los registros de costos que llevo los estoy utilizando para organizar las finanzas de mi agronegocio en cada ciclo productivo. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 5. ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con las prácticas de registro de costos? 503. ¿Se le ha dificultado tener actualizados los registros de costos? Sí 1 No 2 505 No aplica 3 505 504. ¿Por qué razón o razones se le ha dificultado tener actualizados los registros de costos?: a. Todavía no entiendo bien los formatos que nos explicaron b. No tengo en que llevar los registros c. Es una labor dispendiosa y no me queda tiempo d. No me parece útil e. Otra, ¿cuál? ________________ 505. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con las prácticas de registro de ventas propuestas a través de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Totalmente En Ni de De acuerdo Totalmente 157 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV en desacuerdo desacuerdo acuerdo ni en desacuerdo de acuerdo 1. Con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca entendí por qué es importante tener un registro de las ventas de mi producción agropecuaria piscícola/apícola. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Gracias a las capacitaciones de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca aprendí cómo llevar detalladamente los registros de ventas identificando clientes, cantidades, calidades y precios. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Las frases 3 y 4 aplican si en P_500 es igual a 1. 3. En mi actividad agroempresarial (apícola/piscícola) actualmente llevo un registro actualizado y detallado de mis ventas por fecha, cliente, cantidad, calidad y precio. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Los registros de ventas que llevo los estoy utilizando para organizar las finanzas de mi agronegocio en cada ciclo productivo. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 5 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con las prácticas de registro de ventas? 506. ¿Se le ha dificultado tener actualizados los registros de ventas? Sí 1 No 2 508 No aplica 3 508 507. ¿Por qué razón o razones se le ha dificultado tener actualizados los registros de ventas? a. Todavía no entiendo bien los formatos que nos explicaron b. No tengo en que llevar los registros c. Es una labor dispendiosa y no me queda tiempo d. No me parece útil e. Otra, ¿cuál? ________________________ 508. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con las prácticas de registro de producción propuestas a través de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Gracias a las capacitaciones de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca aprendí cómo llevar detalladamente los registros de actividades productivas por apiario y colmena/estanque. Encuestador: Las actividades productivas por apiario/colmena/estanque se refieren a labores de establecimiento o siembra, de alimentación, labores de control de plagas y enfermedades, labores de seguimiento y mantenimiento de colmenas/estanques, registro de cosecha. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Las frases 2 a 4 aplican si en P_500 es igual a 1. 2. En mi actividad productiva (apícola/piscícola) actualmente llevo un registro actualizado y detallado de mis actividades productivas y el estado de cada apiario y colmena /estanque. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Los registros de producción que llevo los estoy utilizando para organizar mis labores de mantenimiento 1 2 3 4 5 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 158 de mi unidad productiva y de cosecha con el fin de mejorar mi producción. 4. Gracias a los registros de producción que llevo, en cada venta que realizo puedo identificar de cuál apiario o colmena/estanque obtuve la miel/ los pescados que vendí y el manejo que recibieron los productos durante el proceso. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 5 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con las prácticas de registro de producción? 509. ¿Se le ha dificultado tener actualizados los registros de producción? Sí 1 No 2 511 No aplica 3 511 510. ¿Por qué razón o razones se le ha dificultado tener actualizados los registros de producción? a. Todavía no entiendo bien los formatos que nos explicaron b. No tengo en que llevar los registros c. Es una labor dispendiosa y no me queda tiempo d. No me parece útil e. Otra, ¿cuál? ________________________ 511. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas específicamente con las condiciones actuales generales de su negocio y el mejoramiento en los niveles de ventas, ingresos y productividad, que ha percibido a partir de las implementaciones que ha venido adelantando a través la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Encuestador: Las siguientes frases aplican si en P_500 es igual a 1. Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca ha generado cambios positivos en los niveles de acceso a mercados de mi agronegocio apícola/piscícola. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca he desarrollado capacidades que me han ayudado para incrementar y mejorar las ventas de mi agronegocio apícola/piscícola. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Gracias a la mejora en productividad, ventas y manejo agroempresarial de mi actividad productiva apícola/piscícola, hemos visto un mejoramiento en los ingresos de mi hogar. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Con lo que he aprendido con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca y estoy aplicando en el manejo de mi actividad productiva apícola/piscícola estoy seguro de que voy a seguir aumentado mi productividad en el futuro. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Con lo que he aprendido con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca y estoy aplicando en el manejo de mi agronegocio apícola/piscícola estoy seguro de que voy a tener más y mejores ventas en el futuro. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Considero que con las mejoras en acceso a mercados y ventas de mi agronegocio apícola/piscícola en el futuro vamos a tener un mejoramiento significativo de los ingresos de mi hogar. 1 2 3 4 5 159 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 7. Conozco la cadena en la que se comercializa actualmente mi producto, quiénes son los compradores y para qué mercado se dirige (quién es el comprador final de mi producto). 1 2 3 4 5 8. Conozco con claridad cuáles son los requerimientos de calidad de mi producto apícola/piscícola que tienen los diferentes mercados identificados para que acepten comprarlo 1 2 3 4 5 9. He identificado cuáles son las principales debilidades que tiene mi producto o el de mi asociación para poder comercializar en mercados más rentables. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Tengo definida una estrategia individual o asociativa para mejorar mis posibilidades de comercialización. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Ya he aplicado la estrategia de comercialización definida y he visto mejores resultados. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 12 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con las condiciones actuales generales de su negocio y el mejoramiento en los niveles de ventas, ingresos y productividad, que ha percibido a partir de las implementaciones? 512. Actualmente, ¿tiene problemas para mejorar la comercialización? Sí 1 No 2 515 No aplica 3 515 513. ¿Cuáles son los principales problemas que tiene actualmente para poder mejorar la comercialización? a. La calidad del producto no es la adecuada para las características que nos pide el mercado. b. No podemos reunir el volumen suficiente de producto para cumplir las necesidades del mercado. c. Nos piden un producto procesado y no tenemos cómo hacer el procesamiento. d. No tenemos los permisos o licencias que se requieren para vender el producto en el mercado que queremos. e. No tenemos cómo recoger, acopiar y/o transportar el producto hasta el sitio de compra. f. Aunque el precio es bueno no pagan de contado o se demoran mucho en pagar. No sé cuáles problemas tenemos para comercializar mejor 1 h. Otro, ¿cuál? __________________________________ 515. Encuestador: Solamente hacer preguntas P_515, P_516, P_517, P_518 si el entrevistado confirmó en 403 que pertenece a alguna asociación. Se debe aclarar que las preguntas se refieren a la asociación con la que se sienta más identificado dentro de las que están en la lista de las que están en la Alianza Bajo Cauca. Si NO pertenece a ninguna asociación debe pasar a 601 Nombre de asociación 1 (P_404): Encuestador: Leer: Ahora vamos a hablar sobre su percepción con respecto al rol que juega esta asociación y del apoyo que le brinda en general. Tenga en cuenta que las asociaciones juegan un rol clave para apoyar y coordinar la producción y comercialización de sus asociados con el fin de integrarse a cadenas productivas de tal forma que estabilicen y mejoren las ventas e ingresos de todos. En una escala de 1 a 5, donde 1 significa que se encuentra “Totalmente Insatisfecho” y 5, que se encuentra “Totalmente Satisfecho”, ¿qué tan satisfecho se encuentra frente al rol general que viene desempeñando su asociación? Totalmente insatisfecho Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho Satisfecho Totalmente satisfecho 1 2 3 4 5 516. Encuestador: Solo aplica si respondieron 1, 2 o 3. Para las demás respuestas pase a 517. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 160 Por favor, cuénteme brevemente cuáles son las razones de su respuesta. 517. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con el rol que ha jugado su asociación? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Mi asociación ha tenido un rol muy importante en el mejoramiento de la productividad de mi agronegocio y en la calidad de mis productos apícolas/piscícolas (Ej. gestión de asistencia técnica, fomento de buenas prácticas productivas, entre otras) 1 2 3 4 5 2. Mi asociación ha tenido un rol clave en la identificación de alternativas que me han permitido generar reducciones de costos para mi agronegocio (Ej. compras colectivas de insumos, servicios de logística para la comercialización, organización de convites, entre otras) 1 2 3 4 5 3. Mi asociación me ha apoyado a través de iniciativas comerciales que han permitido que mi negocio tenga mejores oportunidades, acceso a mercados y estabilidad en las ventas. 1 2 3 4 5 518. A continuación, quiero que hablemos de las debilidades más importantes que usted puede haber identificado en su asociación y los posibles cambios o mejoras que se pueden haber presentado a partir de la participación de su asociación en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases? Comencemos con las frases relacionadas con las debilidades: Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. En general considero que no hay buenos canales de comunicación entre los asociados y las directivas de la asociación. 1 2 3 4 5 2. En general los miembros no participan activamente de la asociación y tienen muy poco sentido de pertenencia. 1 2 3 4 5 3. La asociación no se interesa ni busca atender las necesidades ni los problemas de sus asociados. 1 2 3 4 5 4. La asociación permite que haya asociados que no participan ni aportan igual que los demás, no se les exige cumplimiento, pero terminan recibiendo los mismos beneficios. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Las responsabilidades y labores de la asociación están concentradas en una o muy pocas personas. 1 2 3 4 5 6. La asociación no tiene una clara oferta de servicios 1 2 3 4 5 161 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV para sus asociados. 7. La asociación no cuenta con fuentes de ingresos que le den sostenibilidad a su funcionamiento. 1 2 3 4 5 8. El funcionamiento de la asociación no es organizado y sus planes no son claros. 1 2 3 4 5 Ahora vamos a hablar de los cambios o mejoras que puede haber identificado: Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 9. Se han mejorado los canales de comunicación entre los asociados y las directivas de la asociación. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Se ha incrementado la participación activa de los asociados y ha mejorado su sentido de pertenencia. 1 2 3 4 5 11. La asociación ha mostrado mayor interés en las necesidades y los problemas de sus asociados y está buscando cómo atenderlos. 1 2 3 4 5 12. La asociación ha aumentado la exigencia sobre la participación y aportes de sus asociados y condiciona la pertenencia y los beneficios a los asociados que cumplan con sus compromisos. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Se han distribuido mejor las responsabilidades y labores de la asociación entre los miembros de las directivas y con los asociados. 1 2 3 4 5 14. La asociación ha definido mejor y con claridad su oferta de servicios para los asociados. 1 2 3 4 5 15. La asociación ha desarrollado o está definiendo un plan a través del cual obtenga ingresos estables que le den sostenibilidad a su funcionamiento. 1 2 3 4 5 16. El funcionamiento de la organización se percibe más organizado y los asociados tenemos claridad sobre sus planes. 1 2 3 4 5 SECCIÓN VI. COMPONENTE - APICULTURA Encuestador: Esta sección aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación 1 y 3 en P_110). 601. ¿Usted y su hogar participan o participaron en la actividad de apicultura de la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”? Sí 1 No 2 701 602. ¿Cuáles fueron sus principales motivaciones para convertirse en beneficiario de la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” a través de la actividad de apicultura? Encuestador: Esperar respuesta y sondear por todas las razones que lo llevaron a ser parte de la alianza. a. Mejorar su nivel de ingresos b. Mejorar las posibilidades de comercialización de sus productos c. Mejorar las condiciones de calidad de vida suyas y de su hogar d. Mejorar el conocimiento técnico y prácticas para su actividad productiva e. Mejorar los rendimientos de miel por colmena obtenidos de su actividad productiva f. Otra, ¿cuál? _______ USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 162 No sabe/No responde 88 603. Mientras ha participado de la Alianza, ¿usted o su hogar han recibido algún tipo de ingreso por su actividad de producción y comercialización apícola? Sí 1 No 2 605 604. ¿Con qué frecuencia recibe(n) ingresos por el desarrollo de la actividad de apicultura? Diaria 1 Trimestral 6 Semanal 2 Semestral 7 Quincenal 3 Anual 8 Mensual 4 No sabe/No responde 88 Bimestral 5 605. ¿La UPA apícola de la cual deriva sus ingresos es únicamente de su hogar o es colectiva (varios hogares)? Solo de mi hogar 1 609 Colectiva 2 Del hogar y colectiva 3 606. ¿Cuántos hogares incluyendo el suyo se benefician de esta UPA? |___|___| 607. ¿Cómo se distribuyen los costos y beneficios por cada hogar? Todos por igual 1 609 Tenemos participaciones diferentes 2 608. ¿Qué porcentaje le corresponde a su hogar? |___|___|% 609. Actualmente, ¿cuántas personas trabajan en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA)? |___|___|___| Ninguna 0 610. Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 610 para opciones 1 y 3 en P_605 1. En el último año (2021), ¿cuántos apiarios tuvo su hogar? Encuestador: Se debe incluir la información de toda la UPA (hogar) |___|___| Ninguno 0 610A Apiario 2. ¿Cuántas colmenas tuvo en el apiario____? 3. ¿Cuántas colmenas estuvieron activas? 4. En el último año (2021) ¿cuál fue la producción promedio de miel de toda la UPA? (cifras en kg) 1 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 2 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 3 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 4 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 5 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg TOTAL |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 610ª Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 610 para opciones 2 y 3 en P_605 1. En el último año (2021), ¿cuántos apiarios tuvo la UPA colectiva? Encuestador: Se debe incluir la información de toda la UPA (colectiva) |___|___| Ninguno 0 611 Apiario 2. ¿Cuántas colmenas tuvo en el apiario____? 3. ¿Cuántas colmenas estuvieron activas? 4. En el último año (2021) ¿cuál fue la producción promedio de miel de toda la UPA? (cifras en kg) 1 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 2 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 3 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 163 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 4 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 5 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg TOTAL |___|___|___| |___|___|___| |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 611. A partir de sus aprendizajes en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca ¿cuántas nuevas colmenas ha activado con sus propios recursos desde que inició su participación en ella? |___|___|___| 612. Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 612 y 613 para opciones 1 y 3 en P_605 De la producción TOTAL de los apiarios de su hogar (P_610.4), ¿cuántos kilogramos se vendieron en el último año (2021)? |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 613. ¿Cuál fue el valor total de estas ventas en pesos (apiarios de su hogar)? $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___| 612.1 Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 612.1 y 613.1 para opciones 2 y 3 en P_605 De la producción TOTAL de los apiarios de la UPA colectiva (P_610A.4), ¿cuántos kilogramos se vendieron en el último año (2021)? |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 613.1 ¿Cuál fue el valor total de estas ventas en pesos (UPA colectiva)? $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___| 614. ¿Qué porcentaje de los ingresos de su hogar provienen de la actividad apícola? |___|___|___|% 615. ¿Por favor clasifique el porcentaje de ingresos de su hogar que provienen de la actividad apícola? Nada Menos de la mitad La mitad Más de la mitad Todo 1 2 3 4 5 616. Encuestador: Si 614 o 615 es 100% o “Todo” pase a 617. ¿De qué actividades provienen el resto de los ingresos de su hogar y en qué porcentajes? Encuestador: La sumatoria de porcentajes entre esta pregunta y la 614 debe ser igual a 100%. Encuestador: Si en P_500 es igual a 2, aplique pregunta 616 y pase a 619. 1. Actividades 2. ¿En qué porcentaje? a. Otras actividades agropecuarias en la UPA familiar 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% b. Actividades de jornaleo en otras UPA 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% c. Compra y venta de productos agropecuarios de otras UPA diferentes a la suya 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% d. Trabajo remunerado no formal o como contratista 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% e. Trabajo remunerado formal en empresa pública o privada 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% f. Negocio propio o familiar diferente a la UPA 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% g. Otro ¿cuál? ______________________________ 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% 617. Después de descontar los costos de producción de esta miel, ¿cuál estima que fue la ganancia en pesos en el último año (2021) para usted y su hogar proveniente de la comercialización de este producto? $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___| 618. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde 1 significa “Nada” y 5 significa “Todo”, de la venta total de miel de su UPA, ¿cuánto dedica al _________? Nada Menos de la mitad La mitad Más de la mitad Todo a. Acopio y venta asociativa 1 2 3 4 5 b. Comercialización individual 1 2 3 4 5 619. Ahora quiero entender qué aportes genera la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca a la apicultura en las actividades que han desarrollado con usted y su hogar. A continuación, le voy a leer una serie de aportes y dimensiones para que usted me diga en cada caso, si ha recibido o recibió este tipo de beneficios o acompañamiento y qué tan satisfecho o insatisfecho, se encuentra con cada uno. Para evaluar la satisfacción, le voy a pedir que utilice una escala de 1 a 5, en donde 1 significa que se encuentra “Totalmente insatisfecho” y 5, que se encuentra “Totalmente Satisfecho” USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 164 1. ¿Ha recibido o recibió __________? 2. ¿Qué tan satisfecho está con _____________? Aportes y dimensiones Totalmente insatisfecho Insatisfech o Ni satisfecho ni insatisfech o Satisfecho Totalmente satisfecho a. Acompañamiento técnico ambiental 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 b. Acompañamiento técnico en apicultura 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 c. Asesoría técnica en comercialización de miel y subproductos 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 d. Cartillas del semillero como soporte agroempresarial y técnico 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 e. Capacitaciones técnicas apícolas 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 f. Acompañamiento en manejo de elementos de seguridad en los apiarios 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 g. Capacitación y asesoría agroempresarial 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 h. Capacitación manejo ambiental 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 i. Fortalecimiento asociativo 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 j. Acompañamiento psicosocial 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 k. Facilitación de conexiones comerciales 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 l. Otro1, ¿Cuál? 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 m. Otro2, ¿Cuál? 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 n. Otro 3, ¿Cuál? 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 620. ¿Para usted cuáles de los siguientes factores son obstáculos para el desarrollo de la actividad apícola en su región?: a. Falta de convenios comerciales suficientes y estables Sí 1 No 2 b. Falta de capacidad de compra del acopiador regional Sí 1 No 2 c. Calidad insuficiente del producto de la región Sí 1 No 2 d. Los precios de la miel en la zona la hacen poco rentable Sí 1 No 2 e. Altos costos de los insumos apícolas Sí 1 No 2 f. Falta de financiamiento Sí 1 No 2 g. Baja productividad ocasionada por problemas ambientales y climáticos Sí 1 No 2 h. Falta de capacitación técnica Sí 1 No 2 i. Falta de equipos apropiados para la extracción y procesamiento de la miel Sí 1 No 2 j. Falta de mano de obra Sí 1 No 2 l. Problemas asociados a la pandemia de COVID 19 Sí 1 No 2 m. Aislamiento geográfico (las colmenas quedan en zonas muy alejadas) Sí 1 No 2 n. Otra, ¿cuál? ________________________________ Sí 1 No 2 621. Ahora, le voy a mencionar una serie de labores productivas y quiero que, por cada una, me cuente: (1) Si la realizaba antes de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca; (2) Si aprendió a realizarla o la perfeccionó con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca y (3) Si la realiza actualmente. Encuestador: Si en P_500 es igual a 2, no aplique preguntas 621.3 (¿Realiza actualmente_____? 165 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Labor. 1. ¿Realizaba ____ antes de ABC? 2 ¿Aprendió a ____ con ABC? 3 ¿Realiza actualmente ____? a. Selección y adecuación de zonas apropiadas para el apiario. Encuestador: Presencia flora, distancia entre apiarios, entorno apropiado, señalización, acceso, limpieza, orientación y distancia entre colmenas). Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 b. Registros de manejo y producción por colmena. Encuestador: El registro hace referencia a la identificación y marcación de las colmenas). Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 c. Producción biológica de reinas y núcleos Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 d. Traslado e instalación de núcleos manteniendo cuidado sobre las abejas Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 e. Revisión y mantenimiento de colmenas al menos cada 15 días Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 f. Cambio de reinas por baja producción Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 g. Alimentación de sostenimiento en épocas de escasez. Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 h. Uso y seguimiento del calendario floral para programar ciclos de producción y cosecha. Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 i. Buenas prácticas de cosecha y acopio de miel con equipos y envases adecuados, siguiendo medidas sanitarias. Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 j. Manejo integrado de plagas y enfermedades (control varroa) Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 622. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que su nivel de ventas: Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 623. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de ventas (respuesta P_622)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 622 624. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que su nivel de ingreso: Encuestador: El ingreso/utilidad se define como la diferencia de ventas - costos): Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 625. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de ingreso (respuesta P_624)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 624 626. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que la productividad en su UPA (rendimientos medidos en kg de miel/colmena/año para apicultura): Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 166 Disminuyó 3 627. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de productividad (respuesta P_626)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 626 628. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que el acceso a mercados: Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 629. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que el acceso a mercados (respuesta P_628)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 628 630. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con factores que pudieron haber afectado el desarrollo de su actividad productiva en ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados en el último año (2021)? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 3. La falta de presencia estatal tuvo efectos negativos en el desarrollo de mi actividad productiva (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 4. Se presentaron eventos climáticos inesperados con efectos negativos en el desarrollo de mi actividad productiva (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 5. Se presentaron dificultades para acceso al sitio de la actividad productiva, generando efectos negativos en su desarrollo (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 6. La pandemia por COVID-19 tuvo efectos negativos en el desarrollo de la actividad productiva (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 SECCIÓN VII. COMPONENTE - PISCICULTURA Encuestador: Esta sección aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación 2 y 3 en P_110). 701. ¿Usted y su hogar participan o participaron en la actividad de piscicultura de la alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca”? Sí 1 No 2 801 702. ¿Cuáles fueron sus principales motivaciones para convertirse en beneficiario de la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” a través de la actividad de piscicultura? Encuestador: Esperar respuesta y sondear por todas las razones que lo llevaron a ser parte de la alianza. a. Mejorar su nivel de ingresos b. Mejorar las posibilidades de comercialización de sus productos c. Mejorar las condiciones de calidad de vida suyas y de su hogar d. Mejorar el conocimiento técnico y prácticas para su actividad productiva e. Mejorar los rendimientos de peces por estanque obtenidos de su actividad productiva 167 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV f. Otra, ¿cuál? _______ No sabe/No responde 88 703. Mientras ha participado de la Alianza, ¿usted o su hogar han recibido algún tipo de ingreso por su actividad de producción y comercialización piscícola? Sí 1 No 2 705 704. ¿Con qué frecuencia recibe(n) ingresos por el desarrollo de la actividad de piscicultura? Diaria 1 Trimestral 6 Semanal 2 Semestral 7 Quincenal 3 Anual 8 Mensual 4 No sabe/No responde 88 Bimestral 5 705. ¿La UPA piscicultura de la cual deriva sus ingresos es únicamente de su hogar o es colectiva (varios hogares)? Solo de mi hogar 1 709 Colectiva 2 De mi hogar y colectiva 3 706. ¿Cuántos hogares incluyendo el suyo se benefician de esta UPA? |___|___| 707. ¿Cómo se distribuyen los costos y beneficios por cada hogar? Todos por igual 1 709 Tenemos participaciones diferentes 2 708. ¿Qué porcentaje le corresponde a su hogar? |___|___|% 709. Actualmente, ¿cuántas personas trabajan en la Unidad de Producción Agropecuaria (UPA)? |___|___|___| Ninguna 0 710. Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 710 para opciones 1 y 3 en P_705 En el último año (2021), ¿cómo estuvo conformada la UPA de su hogar? 1. Cantidad de estanques 2. Tipo ¿tierra o geomembrana? 3. Estanques activos 4. Estanques inactivos |___|___|___| Ninguno 0 710A Tierra 1 Geomembrana 2 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 5. Espejo de agua - metros cuadrados 6. Densidad utilizada de siembra 7. Cantidad de Kg de pescado producidos |___|___|___|___| . |___| m2 |___|___|___|___|___| peces por m2 |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 710A Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 710 para opciones 2 y 3 en P_705 En el último año (2021), ¿cómo estuvo conformada la UPA colectiva? 1. Cantidad de estanques 2. Tipo ¿tierra o geomembrana? 3. Estanques activos 4. Estanques inactivos |___|___|___| Ninguno 0 711 Tierra 1 Geomembrana 2 |___|___|___| |___|___|___| 8. Espejo de agua - metros cuadrados 9. Densidad utilizada de siembra 10. Cantidad de Kg de pescado producidos |___|___|___|___| . |___| m2 |___|___|___|___|___| peces por m2 |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 711. A partir de sus aprendizajes en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, ¿cuántos nuevos estanques ha puesto en funcionamiento con sus propios recursos desde que inició su participación en ella? |___|___|___| 712. Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 712 y 713 para opciones 1 y 3 en P_705 De la producción total (P_710.7), ¿cuántos kilogramos se vendieron en el último año (2021) de la UPA de su hogar? |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 713. ¿Cuál fue el valor total en pesos de estas ventas (UPA hogar)? $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___| 712.1 Encuestador: Aplicar pregunta 712.1 y 713.1 para opciones 2 y 3 en P_705 De la producción total (P_710A.7), ¿cuántos kilogramos se vendieron en el último año (2021) de la UPA colectiva? |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 713.1 ¿Cuál fue el valor total en pesos de estas ventas (UPA colectiva)? $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___| 714. ¿Qué porcentaje de los ingresos de su hogar provienen de la actividad piscícola? |___|___|___|% 715. ¿Por favor clasifique el porcentaje de ingresos de su hogar que provienen de la actividad piscícola? Nada Menos de la mitad La mitad Más de la mitad Todo USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 168 1 2 3 4 5 716. Encuestador: Si 714 o 715 es 100% o “Todo” pase a 717. ¿De qué actividades provienen el resto de los ingresos de su hogar y en qué porcentajes? Encuestador: La sumatoria de porcentajes entre esta pregunta y la 714 debe ser igual a 100%. Encuestador: Si en P_500 es igual a 2, aplique pregunta 716 y pase a 719. 1. Actividades 2. ¿En qué porcentaje? a. Otras actividades agropecuarias en la UPA familiar 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% b. Actividades de jornaleo en otras UPA 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% c. Compra y venta de productos agropecuarios de otras UPA diferentes a la suya 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% d. Trabajo remunerado no formal o como contratista 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% e. Trabajo remunerado formal en empresa pública o privada 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% f. Negocio propio o familiar diferente a la UPA 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% g. Otro ¿cuál? ______________________________ 2 No  1 Sí |___|___|% 717. Después de descontar los costos de producción de estos pescados, ¿cuál estima que fue la ganancia en pesos en el último año (2021) para usted y su hogar proveniente de la comercialización de este producto? $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___| 718. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde 1 significa “Nada” y 5 significa “Todo”, de la venta total de pescado de su UPA, ¿Cuánto dedica al _________? Nada Menos de la mitad La mitad Más de la mitad Todo a. Acopio y venta asociativa 1 2 3 4 5 b. Comercialización individual 1 2 3 4 5 719. Ahora quiero entender qué aportes genera la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca a la actividad de piscicultura en las actividades que han desarrollado con usted y su hogar. A continuación, le voy a leer una serie de aportes y dimensiones para que usted me diga en cada caso, si ha recibido o recibió este tipo de beneficios o acompañamiento y qué tan satisfecho o insatisfecho, se encuentra con cada uno. Para evaluar la satisfacción, le voy a pedir que utilice una escala de 1 a 5, en donde 1 significa que se encuentra “Totalmente insatisfecho” y 5, que se encuentra “Totalmente Satisfecho” 1. ¿Ha recibido o recibió __________? 2. ¿Qué tan satisfecho está con _____________? Aportes y dimensiones Totalmente insatisfecho Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho Satisfecho Totalmente satisfecho a. Asesoría para formalización de la actividad piscícola ante la AUNAP y Corantioquia 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 b. Acompañamiento técnico ambiental 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 c. Acompañamiento técnico en piscicultura 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 d. Asesoría técnica en comercialización de pescado 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 e. Cartillas del semillero como soporte agroempresarial y técnico 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 f. Capacitaciones técnicas piscícolas 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 g. Acompañamiento psicosocial 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 169 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV h. Capacitación y asesoría agroempresarial 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 i. Capacitación manejo ambiental 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 j. Fortalecimiento asociativo 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 k. Facilitación de conexiones comerciales 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 l. Otro1, ¿Cuál? 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 m. Otro2, ¿Cuál? 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 n. Otro 3, ¿Cuál? 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 720. En su opinión, ¿cuáles de los siguientes factores son obstáculos para el desarrollo de la actividad piscícola en su región?: a. Falta de convenios comerciales suficientes y estables Sí 1 No 2 b. Falta de capacidad de compra en la región Sí 1 No 2 c. Calidad insuficiente del producto de la región Sí 1 No 2 d. Altos costos del alimento Sí 1 No 2 e. Los precios del pescado en la zona la hacen poco rentable Sí 1 No 2 f. Falta de financiamiento Sí 1 No 2 g. Baja productividad por problemas ambientales o climáticos Sí 1 No 2 h. Falta de capacitación técnica Sí 1 No 2 i. Falta de equipos adecuados para el manejo de sacrificio y postcosecha (eviscerado, cadena de frio) Sí 1 No 2 j. Dificultad para formalizar la actividad piscícola (AUNAP, Corantioquia) Sí 1 No 2 l. Problemas asociados a la pandemia COVID 19 Sí 1 No 2 m. Aislamiento geográfico (los estanques están en zonas muy alejadas) Sí 1 No 2 n. Otra, ¿cuál? ________________________________ Sí 1 No 2 721. Ahora, le voy a mencionar una serie de labores productivas y quiero que, por cada una, me cuente: (1) Si la realizaba antes de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca; (2) Si aprendió a realizarla o la perfeccionó con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca y (3) Si la realiza actualmente. Encuestador: Si en P_500 es igual a 2, no aplique preguntas 721.3 ¿Realiza actualmente_____? Labor. 1. ¿Realizaba ____ antes de ABC? 2 ¿Aprendió a ____ con ABC? 3 ¿Realiza actualmente ____? a. Adecuación de los estanques durante al menos 10 días previos a la producción Encuestador: Vaciado, secado, limpieza, desinfección, encalado, verificación de profundidad óptima. Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 b. Manejo adecuado de toma de aguas Encuestador: Análisis de calidad de agua, filtros, trampas de arena. Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 c. Uso de sistema de recambio de aguas y de drenaje Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 d. Uso de mallas anti pájaros Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 e. Obtención de semilla de proveedores certificados Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 f. Registros de siembra, de mantenimiento, sanitarios y de producción por estanque (requiere identificación y señalización de estanques) Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 g. Control periódico de calidad del agua con equipos de medición adecuados (turbidez, temperatura, oxígeno, PH) Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 h. Manejo y aplicación de la tabla de Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 170 alimentación de la especie. i. Trámite de permisos ante AUNAP y Corantioquia Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 j. Cosecha de peces según requerimientos del mercado (talla y peso) Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 k. Uso de equipos adecuados para cosecha y beneficio (mesa de eviscerado, cadena de frío) Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 l. Monitoreo y control de plagas y enfermedades Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 Sí 1 No 2 722. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que su nivel de ventas: Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 723. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de ventas (respuesta P_722)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 722 724. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que su nivel de ingreso: Encuestador: El ingreso/utilidad se define como la diferencia de ventas - costos): Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 725. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de ingreso (respuesta P_724)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 724 726. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que la productividad en su UPA (rendimientos medidos en kg de pescado/ mt2 /año para piscicultura): Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 727. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de productividad (respuesta P_726)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 726 728. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, en términos generales, usted considera que el acceso a mercados: Aumentó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 729. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que el acceso a mercados (respuesta P_728)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 728 730. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con factores que pudieron haber afectado el desarrollo de su actividad productiva en ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados en el último año (2021)? 171 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 3. La falta de presencia estatal tuvo efectos negativos en el desarrollo de mi actividad productiva (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 4. Se presentaron eventos climáticos inesperados con efectos negativos en el desarrollo de mi actividad productiva (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 5. Se presentaron dificultades para acceso al sitio de la actividad productiva, generando efectos negativos en su desarrollo (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 6. La pandemia por COVID-19 tuvo efectos negativos en el desarrollo de la actividad productiva (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 SECCIÓN VIII. COMPONENTE - MBA AGRO Encuestador: Esta sección aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación 6 en P_110). 801. ¿La organización que representa en el MBA, cumple funciones de comercialización de sus asociados? Sí 1 No 2 Producto 802. ¿Qué producto comercializa? 803. En el último año (2021), ¿cuál ha sido el volumen de ventas de ______ de la asociación? Miel 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|, |___|Kg Pescado 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|, |___|Kg 804. En el último año (2021)¿cuál ha sido el valor en pesos de los ingresos correspondientes a las ventas de la asociación? $ |___|___|___|.|___|___|___|.|___|___|___| 805. Con respecto al año 2020, el volumen de ventas de la asociación para el 2021: Creció 1 Disminuyó 2 Se mantuvo igual 3 806. Con respecto al año 2020, los ingresos por ventas de la asociación para el 2021: Creció 1 Disminuyó 2 Se mantuvo igual 3 807. Hablando del último año (2021), de los siguientes tipos de clientes, ¿cuáles tuvo la asociación y qué porcentaje representó cada uno del total de sus ventas? 1. Tipo de clientes 2. % de ventas a. Consumidores finales locales (ventas directas) 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% b. Negocios minoristas locales o regionales 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% c. Empresa regional (del Bajo Cauca) comercializadora mayorista o agroindustrial (transformadora) 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% d. Otras asociaciones de productores de la región 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% e. Empresas comercializadoras mayoristas de fuera del Bajo Cauca 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% f. Empresas agroindustriales de fuera del Bajo Cauca (transformadoras) 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% g. Intermediarios informales 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 172 h. Otros: Cuál ________________ 2 No 1 Sí |___|___|___|% 808. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con el conocimiento de la cadena de valor apícola/ piscícola? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Con el MBA Agro hemos identificado con mayor claridad la cadena o cadenas de valor en las que participa nuestra asociación apícola/piscícola, identificando los actores que las componen y el papel que tiene cada uno. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Hemos reconocido cómo está ubicada nuestra asociación en las cadenas de valor en las que participa y qué papel estamos desempeñando. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Con el apoyo del MBA Agro hemos definido cuál es el rol que queremos desempeñar en la cadena de valor, en dónde empezar, en dónde terminar y con qué actores debemos relacionarnos directamente. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 4 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con el conocimiento de la cadena de valor apícola/ piscícola? 809. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con la visión estratégica de futuro que han trabajado para la asociación en el MBA Agro? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Gracias al MBA Agro de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca identificamos las fortalezas y debilidades de nuestra asociación para afrontar los retos y proyectos de corto, mediano y largo plazo. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Definimos una visión de futuro que queremos para nuestra asociación en relación con el agronegocio apícola/piscícola. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Planteamos estrategias específicas para nuestra asociación que son útiles para alcanzar nuestros objetivos de corto y largo plazo. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Hemos empezado a implementar estas estrategias en nuestra asociación involucrando a los demás directivos y asociados. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 5 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con la visión estratégica de futuro que han trabajado para la asociación en el MBA Agro? 810. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con el trabajo que ha hecho con el fin de mejorar la asociatividad al interior de la organización? 173 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Promover una mejor comunicación entre los asociados y las directivas de la asociación, definiendo o mejorando canales y medios de comunicación. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Definir mecanismos para que las directivas conozcan mejor las necesidades y los problemas de sus asociados. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Promover más espacios de participación con los asociados en los que se planteen las principales problemáticas y se busquen soluciones. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Hemos aumentado la exigencia sobre la participación y aportes acordados de los asociados, condicionando la pertenencia y los beneficios a aquellos que cumplan con sus compromisos. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 5 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con el trabajo que ha hecho con el fin de mejorar la asociatividad al interior de la organización? 811. A continuación, voy a leerle una lista de habilidades gerenciales. Por favor indíqueme en cuáles de ellas ha tenido aprendizajes con el MBA Agro y en cuáles ha puesto en práctica estos aprendizajes: Para dimensionar los cambios en sus habilidades gerenciales, le voy a pedir que utilice una escala de 1 a 5, en donde 1 significa que “no he puesto nada en práctica” y 5, que “ha puesto en práctica todo lo aprendido” 1. ¿He tenido aprendizajes en_____? 2. ¿Ha puesto en práctica _____________? Aprendizajes No he puesto nada en práctica He puesto en práctica unas pocas cosas Parcialmente he puesto en práctica los aprendizajes He puesto en práctica la mayoría de lo aprendido He puesto en práctica todo lo aprendido a. Liderazgo: capacidad de motivar con mis acciones, palabras y gestiones a los miembros de la asociación hacia objetivos comunes. 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 b. Pensamiento estratégico: capacidad de entender los problemas de la asociación y sus causas para identificar o definir vías de solución innovadoras y efectivas. 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 c. Habilidades de negociación: capacidad para desarrollar acuerdos equilibrados hacia el interior de la asociación con los asociados y directivos y hacia el exterior con clientes, proveedores y aliados. 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 174 d. Comunicación asertiva: capacidad de transmitir mis mensajes a los asociados, directivos, clientes, proveedores y aliados de manera clara, directa y respetuosa, sin importar que sean mensajes positivos o negativos para ellos. 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 e. Capacidad de toma de decisiones: manera de analizar las situaciones que requieren de una resolución basado en la información que tenga disponible para definir oportunamente la opción que considere más viable y asumir esa responsabilidad 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 f. Trabajo en equipo: capacidad para trabajar colectivamente con los demás miembros de la asociación, distribuyendo responsabilidades según capacidades, cumpliendo mis compromisos y haciendo seguimiento al cumplimiento de los otros. 2 No 1 Sí 1 2 3 4 5 812. ¿Durante el desarrollo del MBA realizaron algún ejercicio de diagnóstico para evaluar la situación o capacidades de la asociación que representa? Sí 1 No 2 814 813. A continuación, voy a leerle una serie de atributos de su asociación que pudieron haber sido evaluados en el diagnóstico. Le voy a ir leyendo cada uno y usted me irá indicando cómo resultó evaluada: 1 ¿Cómo resultó evaluada la ____? 2. ¿Dentro de la asociación han definido estrategias que sirvan para fortalecer este aspecto como plan de fortalecimiento organizacional? ¿Se evaluó este atributo? Se identifico como debilidad No se identificó como debilidad, pero tampoco como fortaleza. Se identificó como fortaleza a. Participación, gobernanza y recurso humano: nivel de participación de los asociados, representatividad de las directivas y tipo de vinculación que tienen. No 2  Sí 1  1  2  3  Sí 1 No 2 b. Capacidad económica y financiera: recursos físicos y financieros con los que cuenta la asociación para el desarrollo de sus actividades. No 2  Sí 1  1  2  3  Sí 1 No 2 c. Capacidad gerencial, administrativa y de gestión: No 2  Sí 1  1  2  3  Sí 1 No 2 175 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV preparación de las directivas, líderes y gerente para dirigir la asociación, administrar sus recursos y gestionar su crecimiento. d. Capacidad de prestar servicios a los asociados: servicios que la asociación ofrece a sus asociados en asuntos productivos, financieros, comerciales, de proyectos o de capacitación. No 2  Sí 1  1  2  3  Sí 1 No 2 e. Capacidad de liderazgo y comunicación: reconocimiento que tienen los asociados de sus líderes y mecanismos que tienen para relacionarse y transmitir la información dentro de la organización. No 2  Sí 1  1  2  3  Sí 1 No 2 f. Plan estratégico y evaluación: capacidad para el cumplimiento de objetivos a través de la planeación, seguimiento y evaluación de resultados. No 2  Sí 1  1  2  3  Sí 1 No 2 814. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con el Plan de Transformación Empresarial PTE de la asociación? Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3: ¿Cuál o cuáles son las razones de su respuesta o qué le hace falta para calificar con 5? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1 Gracias a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca hemos identificado oportunidades de crecimiento comercial para la asociación y los cuellos de botella que nos lo dificultan. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Con la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca hemos elaborado un Plan de Transformación Empresarial, definiendo metas, acciones y estrategias para superar los cuellos de botella identificados 1 2 3 4 5 3. Con el acompañamiento de la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca hemos empezado a implementar el Plan de Transformación Empresarial de la asociación. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Para la implementación del Plan de Transformación Empresarial hemos definido actividades, tareas y responsables para hacer seguimiento a su avance. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 5 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con el Plan de Transformación Empresarial PTE de la asociación? 815. Con respecto a las actividades de planeación No creo que vayamos a seguir haciendo planeación, es una pérdida de 1 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 176 que han aprendido y desarrollado con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca como el Plan de Transformación Empresarial, ¿qué piensa que va a pasar con su asociación cuando termine el trabajo de la Alianza en el territorio? tiempo. Aunque la planeación es interesante nosotros no la necesitamos, somos una asociación pequeña 2 Quiero que sigamos haciendo planeación, pero necesitamos que nos sigan asesorando para poder hacerlo. 3 Vamos a seguir haciendo actividades de planeación, la necesitamos y creo que estaremos listos para hacerlo nosotros solos. 4 Otra, ¿cuál? __________________________ 5 817. Ahora le voy a leer una lista de posibles obstáculos que podría enfrentar su asociación para lograr mayor consolidación. Le voy a pedir que por favor me confirme cuáles aplican o no para su asociación. 1. Los cambios periódicos en las directivas que impiden que se completen los aprendizajes Aplica1 No aplica1 2. Las ayudas recibidas no son lo que verdaderamente requiere la asociación Aplica1 No aplica1 3. Falta más apoyo y ayudas para las asociaciones Aplica1 No aplica1 4. Presencia de muchos actores de cooperación y fomento en el territorio de manera desorganizada Aplica1 No aplica1 5. Imposibilidad de generar recursos propios suficientes para poder funcionar Aplica1 No aplica1 6. Dificultades de acceso a fuentes de financiación asociativa Aplica1 No aplica1 8. Problemas de movilidad y acceso en el territorio por mal estado o inexistencia de vías Aplica1 No aplica1 9. Dificultades para la formalización de la producción o la comercialización. Aplica1 No aplica1 SECCIÓN IX. COMPONENTE - NO AGRO – URBANO ESTRATEGIA EMPRESARIAL & MODELO DE NEGOCIOS Encuestador: Esta sección aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación 4 en P_110). 900.1 Actualmente ¿tiene actividades No Agro de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Sí 1 901 No 2 900.2 ¿Hace cuánto dejó de desarrollar la actividad? |___|___| Años 1 Meses 2 900.3 ¿Cuál fue la razón? 901. ¿Por favor indíqueme en que actividades No Agro de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca participó usted? a. Diagnóstico individual b. Asesoría individual c. Talleres y cursos 902. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente insatisfecho” y “5” que está “Totalmente satisfecho”, ¿qué tan satisfecho está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con las actividades No Agro (actividades urbanas) de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Totalmente insatisfecho Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho Satisfecho Totalmente satisfecho 1. Diagnóstico individual 1 2 3 4 5 2. Asesoría individual 1 2 3 4 5 3. Talleres y cursos 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 4 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con las actividades No Agro (actividades urbanas)? 903. Quisiera entender qué enseñanzas ha generado la alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” que sean un aporte significativo para su negocio. Para que me dé su respuesta, le voy a ir leyendo algunas áreas en las que la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” pudo haber tenido enseñanzas que aporten significativamente al negocio. Le pido que por favor me vaya diciendo en cada caso si hubo o no un aporte relevante de la Alianza y qué tipo de aporte fue. 177 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Área/frente ¿Qué aportes recibió para esta área/frente_________? a. Financiera b. Administrativa c. Comercial y mercadeo d. Gerencial e. Negociación f. Imagen corporativa g. Otro, ¿Cuál? 904. ¿Considera que el modelo de acompañamiento de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca lo ha ayudado a implementar mejor su negocio? Sí 1 No 2 905. ¿Su empresa tenía un modelo de negocio definido antes de que llegara la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Sí 1 No 2 907 906. ¿La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca ha generado algún tipo de aporte para que usted pueda mejorar ese modelo de negocio que tenía definido? Sí 1  ¿Cuál(es)? __________ No 2 907. ¿Hoy en día, tiene un modelo de negocios definido? Sí 1 No 2 909 908. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, ¿ha generado algún tipo de aporte para que usted pueda estructurar y hacer seguimiento a ese modelo de negocios para su empresa? Sí 1  ¿Cuál(es)? __________ No 2 909. Pensando en los servicios brindados por la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, responda sí o no a las siguientes afirmaciones: 1. Participé en cierre de negocios Sí 1 No 2 2. Participé en ruedas de negocios Sí 1 No 2 3. Tuve acercamiento o contacto con otros empresarios Sí 1 No 2 910. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con la “Adopción de políticas y prácticas” propuestas a través de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. La alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha proporcionado las herramientas en términos de capacitación y ejercicios prácticos para mejorar las prácticas empresariales que venía implementando en mi negocio. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Gracias a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca reconocí mis fortalezas y debilidades como emprendedor 1 2 3 4 5 3. Con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca aprendí cómo planear hacia futuro las actividades de mi negocio según mis capacidades y posibilidades 1 2 3 4 5 4. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha dado las herramientas para construir la estrategia de sostenibilidad de mi negocio a corto, mediano y largo 1 2 3 4 5 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 178 plazo. 5. Considero que la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha ayudado con herramientas que me han permitido tener una visión estratégica de mi negocio. 1 2 3 4 5 6. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha proporcionado herramientas para construir o robustecer la estrategia financiera de mi negocio 1 2 3 4 5 7. Actualmente tengo un modelo por escrito de lo que tengo proyectado para mis actividades empresariales para un periodo de un año por lo menos. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Las actividades que realizo diariamente en relación con mi negocio, están alineadas con el modelo de negocio que he definido para mi producción. 1 2 3 4 5 9. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha brindado herramientas para la definición o redefinición de mi estrategia en términos de los mercados y grupos de clientes a quienes estoy dirigido con mis productos y servicios. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Gracias a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca he tenido acceso a entrenamientos y herramientas en general que me han ayudado a desarrollar y mejorar mis habilidades comerciales y de negociación. 1 2 3 4 5 11. A través de la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” he logrado hacer nuevos clientes de alta relevancia para mi negocio. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 12 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con la “Adopción de políticas y prácticas” propuestas? 911. ¿Su empresa se encontraba formalizada (constituida ante Cámara y Comercio) antes de que llegara la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Sí 1 914 No 2 912. ¿La alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca ha generado algún tipo de aportes para que su empresa se formalizara (constituyera ante Cámara y Comercio)? Sí 1 No 2 913. En la actualidad ¿su empresa se encuentra formalizada (constituida ante Cámara y Comercio)? Sí 1 No 2 914. ¿Cuál fue el valor (en pesos) de los activos totales de la empresa a 31 de diciembre de 2021 (en caso de que cuenten con contabilidad precisa)? Menos de $500.000 1 Entre $500.001 y $3.000.000 2 Entre $3.000.001 y $5.000.000 3 Entre $5.000.001 y $10.000.000 4 Entre $10.000.001 y $20.000.000 5 Entre $20.000.001 y $50.000.000 6 Entre $50.000.001 y $100.000.000 7 Más de $100.000.000 8 No informa 9 915. ¿Cuál fue el valor de los activos fijos tangibles (edificaciones, maquinaria, equipo) de la empresa en Colombia a 31 de diciembre de 2021? Menos de $500.000 1 Entre $500.001 y $3.000.000 2 Entre $3.000.001 y $5.000.000 3 Entre $5.000.001 y $10.000.000 4 Entre $10.000.001 y $20.000.000 5 Entre $20.000.001 y $50.000.000 6 Entre $50.000.001 y $100.000.000 7 Más de $100.000.000 8 No informa 9 179 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 916. ¿Cuál fue el valor total de las ventas de la empresa para el año 2021? Menos de $500.000 1 Entre $500.001 y $3.000.000 2 Entre $3.000.001 y $5.000.000 3 Entre $5.000.001 y $10.000.000 4 Entre $10.000.001 y $20.000.000 5 Entre $20.000.001 y $50.000.000 6 Entre $50.000.001 y $100.000.000 7 Más de $100.000.000 8 No informa 9 917. ¿Cuál fue el valor total de los costos por remuneraciones laborales (nómina, honorarios) de la empresa en Colombia para el año 2021? Menos de $500.000 1 Entre $500.001 y $3.000.000 2 Entre $3.000.001 y $5.000.000 3 Entre $5.000.001 y $10.000.000 4 Entre $10.000.001 y $20.000.000 5 Entre $20.000.001 y $50.000.000 6 Entre $50.000.001 y $100.000.000 7 Más de $100.000.000 8 No informa 9 918. Sin incluir las remuneraciones laborales (nómina u honorarios), ¿cuál fue el valor total de los demás costos operacionales de la empresa en Colombia para el año 2021? Menos de $500.000 1 Entre $500.001 y $3.000.000 2 Entre $3.000.001 y $5.000.000 3 Entre $5.000.001 y $10.000.000 4 Entre $10.000.001 y $20.000.000 5 Entre $20.000.001 y $50.000.000 6 Entre $50.000.001 y $100.000.000 7 Más de $100.000.000 8 No informa 9 919. ¿Cuántas personas en promedio laboraron en la empresa durante el 2021? 1. Hombres |___|___|___| 2. Mujeres |___|___|___| 3. Total |___|___|___| 920. ¿Su empresa realizaba el pago a seguridad social de sus empleados antes de que llegara la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Sí 1 922 No 2 921. ¿La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca ha hecho algún tipo de énfasis sobre la necesidad de que su empresa realice el pago a seguridad social de sus empleados? Sí 1 No 2 922. En la actualidad ¿su empresa realiza el pago a seguridad social de sus empleados? Sí 1 No 2 923. En el último año (2021) ¿qué porcentaje de empleados contaron con el pago de la seguridad social (salud, pensiones y ARL)? Ninguno (0%) 1 Entre 1% y 25% 2 Entre un 26% y 50% 3 Entre un 51% y 75% 4 Entre 76% y 100% 5 924. ¿Qué porcentaje de crecimiento esperaría que tuvieran las ventas de su negocio en el 2022 a partir de todo el ejercicio de acompañamiento que ha venido teniendo a través de la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Entre 0% y 10% 1 Entre un 11% y 29% 2 Entre un 30% y 49% 3 50% o más 4 Se esperan pérdidas económicas 5 925. Encuestador: Si en P_900.1 es igual a 2, pase a P_926. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con las condiciones actuales de su negocio y el mejoramiento en los niveles de ventas, ingresos y acceso a mercados que ha percibido a partir de las implementaciones a través la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 180 Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha proporcionado herramientas que me han ayudado para incrementar los niveles de venta e ingreso general de mi negocio y hogar. 1 2 3 4 5 2. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha ayudado en la implementación de técnicas de planificación estratégica, comercial y financiera para mi negocio. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Con lo que he aprendido con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca y estoy aplicando en el manejo de mi negocio, estoy seguro de que voy a tener más y mejores ventas en el futuro. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Considero que con las mejoras en la relación con los clientes en el futuro vamos a tener un mejoramiento significativo de los ingresos de mi hogar. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Conozco con claridad cuáles son los requerimientos de calidad de mi producto o servicio que tienen los diferentes mercados y/o clientes identificados para que acepten comprarlo. 1 2 3 4 5 6. He identificado cuáles son las principales debilidades que tiene mi producto y/o servicio para poder expandirme. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 7 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con relacionadas con las condiciones actuales de su negocio y el mejoramiento en los niveles de ventas, ingresos y acceso a mercados? 926. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza, usted considera que su nivel de ventas: Incrementó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó. 3 927. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de ventas (respuesta P_926)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 926 928. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza, usted considera que su nivel de ingreso: Encuestador: El ingreso/utilidad se define como la diferencia de ventas - costos): Incrementó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 929. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que su nivel de ingreso (respuesta P_928)? Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 928 930. Desde que comenzó a beneficiarse de la Alianza, usted considera que el acceso a mercados: Incrementó 1 Se mantuvo relativamente igual 2 Disminuyó 3 931. ¿Por qué razón o razones usted considera que el acceso a mercados (respuesta P_930)? 181 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Encuestador: Aplica para cualquier respuesta en 930 932. ¿Cuáles son los principales problemas que tiene actualmente para poder mejorar las ventas de su producto o la prestación de su servicio? a. La calidad del producto / servicio no es la adecuada para las características que le pide el mercado y los clientes b. No podemos tenemos el inventario suficiente de producto / o alcance del servicio para cumplir las necesidades del mercado y de los clientes c. No tenemos los permisos o licencias que se requieren para vender el producto / servicio en el mercado que queremos 1. No sé cuáles problemas tenemos para vender mejor 1 e. Otros, ¿Cuáles? 933. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con factores que pudieron haber afectado el desarrollo de su actividad productiva en ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados en el último año (2021)? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 3. La falta de presencia estatal tuvo efectos negativos en el desarrollo de mi empresa (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 4. Se presentaron eventos climáticos inesperados con efectos negativos en el desarrollo de mi empresa (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 5. Se presentaron dificultades para acceso al sitio de la empresa, generando efectos negativos en su desarrollo (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 6. La pandemia por COVID-19 tuvo efectos negativos en el desarrollo de la actividad de mi empresa (ventas, ingreso o acceso a mercados) 1 2 3 4 5 935. ¿Tiene expectativas de expandir su negocio (crecimiento del actual/ abrir más locales/ abrir otros canales de venta) en los próximos meses o en el próximo año? Sí 1 No 2 938 936. ¿La alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca le ha proporcionado algún tipo de apoyo para este proceso de expansión de su negocio? Sí 1 No 2 938 937. ¿Qué tipo de apoyo le ha proporcionado la alianza? 938. ¿Su empresa cuenta con sucursales? Sí 1 No 2 941 939. ¿Con cuántas sucursales cuenta su negocio a la fecha? |___|___| 940. ¿Con cuántas sucursales inició? |___|___| 941. ¿Planea expandirse con nuevas sucursales en los próximos meses o en el próximo año? Sí 1 No 2 943 942. Considera usted que la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” a través de las herramientas y apoyos que le ha brindado como beneficiario: Ha influenciado totalmente sus decisiones de expansión en términos de clientes para su negocio 1 Ha influenciado medianamente sus decisiones de expansión en términos de clientes para su negocio 2 No ha influenciado para nada sus decisiones de expansión en términos de clientes para su negocio. 3 943. ¿Durante la pandemia la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” utilizó y desarrollo metodologías y talleres mediante canales virtuales? Sí 1 No 2 1001 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 182 944. ¿Las metodologías y talleres fueron de utilidad para su empresa? Sí 1 No 2 945. ¿Cuáles fueron las principales limitaciones de las metodologías y talleres? a. Falta de conectividad b. No claridad de los contenidos c. Falta de seguimiento d. No me parece útil e. Otra, ¿Cuál? Ninguna 1 SECCIÓN X. EMPLEABILIDAD Encuestador: Esta sección aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación 5 en P_110). 1001. ¿En qué actividades de empleabilidad de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca participó? a. Registro y/o mentorías Sí 1 No 2 b. Certificaciones en habilidades para el empleo Sí 1 No 2 c. Empleo efectivo Sí 1 No 2 d. Cursos de capacitación para el empleo Sí 1 No 2 e. Procesos de selección a través de COMFAMA Sí 1 No 2 f. Asignación de becas Sí 1 No 2 g. Otra, ¿cuál? Sí 1 No 2 1002. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente insatisfecho” y “5” que está “Totalmente satisfecho”, ¿qué tan satisfecho está con las siguientes actividades de empleabilidad de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Totalmente insatisfecho Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho Satisfecho Totalmente satisfecho 1. Registro y/o mentorías y su respectivo acompañamiento 1 2 3 4 5 2. Relacionamiento con su mentor. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Certificaciones en habilidades para el empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Cursos de desarrollo de habilidades para el empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Procesos de selección a través de COMFAMA. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Oportunidades para conectar con empresas. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Asignación de BECAS. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Acompañamiento psicosocial. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Si la calificación es 1, 2 o 3 en alguna de las frases, pregunte: 9 ¿Qué le hace falta a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca para calificar con 5 las frases relacionadas con las actividades de empleabilidad? 1003. Encuestador: Solo aplica para quienes respondieron Sí en la opción f de la pregunta 1001 ¿Cuál fue el medio y/o mecanismo por el cual se enteró del programa de becas? 1004. ¿En qué actividad ocupó la mayor parte del tiempo la semana pasada? Trabajando 1 1008 Buscando trabajo 2 Estudiando 3 1008 183 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Oficios del hogar 4 1008 Otra actividad, ¿Cuál? 5 1008 1005. Durante las últimas 4 semanas ¿hizo alguna diligencia para conseguir un trabajo? Sí 1 No 2 1007 1006. ¿Qué hizo en las últimas 4 semanas para conseguir un trabajo? Encuestador: Para cualquier opción de respuesta, pase a pregunta 1008 Pidió ayuda a familiares, amigos, colegas a. Visitó, llevó o envió hojas de vida a empresas o empleadores b. Visitó, llevó o envió hojas de vida a bolsas de empleo o intermediarios c. Puso o consultó avisos clasificados d. Se presentó a convocatorias e. Hizo preparativos para iniciar un negocio f. Otro, ¿Cuál? g. 1007. ¿Por qué motivo principal usted no adelantó ninguna actividad enfocada en su objetivo de buscar un trabajo en las últimas 4 semanas? Ya encontró trabajo 1 No hay trabajo disponible en la ciudad o región / No encuentra trabajo en su oficio o profesión 2 Está esperando que lo llamen o esperando temporada alta 3 No sabe cómo buscarlo 4 Está cansado de buscar 5 Carece de la experiencia necesaria 6 No tiene recursos para instalar un negocio 7 Los empleadores lo consideran muy joven o muy viejo 8 Usted se considera muy joven o muy viejo 9 Responsabilidades familiares 10 Problemas de salud 11 Está estudiando 12 Otro, ¿Cuál? 13 1008. En el último año (2021) ¿ha participado en el programa de prácticas empresariales de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Sí 1 No 2 1009. En el último año (2021) ¿ha recibido educación técnica por parte de COMFAMA? Sí 1 No 2 1010. En el último año (2021) ¿ha recibido apoyo por parte de COMFAMA para mejorar su empleabilidad? Sí 1 No 2 1011. Antes de ser beneficiario de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, ¿usted tenía un trabajo? Sí 1 No 2 1014 1012. ¿Cuál fue el último trabajo que tuvo, antes de convertirse en beneficiario de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca desde el frente de empleabilidad? 1. Cargo ocupado 2. Lugar en que trabajó 3. Tiempo laborado 4. Tipo de contrato 5. Plazo del contrato a. Empresa: |___|___|___| meses Formal (escrito) 1 Informal (verbal) 2 Indefinido 1 Definido 2 Prestación de servicios 3 b. Ciudad: 1013. ¿Cuáles son las razones por las cuales dejó su anterior empleo? 1014. ¿Actualmente tiene trabajo? Sí 1 No 2 1015.1 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 184 1015. ¿Este empleo lo consiguió gracias a las actividades de empleabilidad de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca? Sí 1 1016 No 2 1015.1 Gracias a las actividades de empleabilidad de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, ¿en algún momento ha conseguido empleo? Sí 1 No 2 1016 1015.2 ¿Cuánto tiempo duró en ese empleo? |___|___|___| meses 1015.3 ¿Cuáles son las razones por las cuales no continuó con ese empleo? a. Terminación de contrato b. Retiro/renuncia voluntaria c. Búsqueda de otras oportunidades laborales d. Bajas condiciones laborales e. Baja remuneración salarial f. Otro ¿cuál? 1016. Encuestador: Si en preg. 1014 respondió SÍ aplica preg. 1016 y 1017 ¿Cuánto tiempo duró consiguiendo su empleo actual? |___|___|___| meses 1017. Podría indicarme por favor el cargo ocupado, tipo de contrato, el lugar en el que trabaja actualmente (empresa y ciudad) y el tiempo que lleva en su actual cargo. Encuestador: Para cualquier opción de respuesta, pase a pregunta 1019 1. Cargo ocupado 2. Lugar en que trabajó 3. Tiempo laborado a la fecha 4. Tipo de contrato 5. Plazo del contrato a. Empresa: |___|___|___| meses Formal (escrito) 1 Informal (verbal) 2 Indefinido 1 Definido 2 Prestación de servicios 3 b. Ciudad: 1018. ¿Por qué razón o razones cree usted que no ha conseguido un empleo? a. Falta de estudios/preparación b. Falta de experiencia c. No hay convocatorias/ofertas laborales d. Las ofertas laborales no son atractivas e. Piden muchos requisitos para obtener el empleo f. Otro ¿cuál) ________ 1019. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente insatisfecho” y “5” que está “Totalmente satisfecho”, ¿qué tan satisfecho está con los siguientes beneficios generales y líneas de apoyo de la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” en el frente de empleabilidad? Encuestador: Si la calificación es menor a 4 pregunte: ¿Cuál o cuáles son las razones de su respuesta o qué le hace falta para calificar con 5? Totalmente insatisfecho Insatisfecho Ni satisfecho ni insatisfecho Satisfecho Totalment e satisfecho 1. Diagnóstico personalizado de la situación laboral 1 2 3 4 5 a. No ha recibido ese beneficio b. Falta de acompañamiento c. Falta de oportunidad d. Falta de capacitación e. Otro ¿Cuál? 2. Acompañamiento psicosocial. 1 2 3 4 5 a. No ha recibido ese beneficio b. Falta de acompañamiento c. Falta de oportunidad d. Falta de capacitación e. Otro ¿Cuál? 185 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 3. Identificación de competencias y capacidades. 1 2 3 4 5 a. No ha recibido ese beneficio b. Falta de acompañamiento c. Falta de oportunidad d. Falta de capacitación e. Otro ¿Cuál? 4. Autoconcepto y proyecto de vida. 1 2 3 4 5 a. No ha recibido ese beneficio b. Falta de acompañamiento c. Falta de oportunidad d. Falta de capacitación e. Otro ¿Cuál? 1020. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con los beneficios generales y líneas de apoyo de la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca en el frente de empleabilidad? Encuestador: Si la calificación es menor a 4 pregunte: ¿Cuál o cuáles son las razones de su respuesta o qué le hace falta para calificar con 5? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me proporcionó herramientas en términos de acompañamiento y orientación para lograr la consecución efectiva de una oportunidad laboral. 1 2 3 4 5 a. No ha logrado conseguir trabajo con ayuda de ABC b. No le proporcionaron acompañamiento y/o orientación c. Otro ¿Cuál? _____ 2. El proceso de la línea de mentoría de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca fue pertinente para lograr mi objetivo de encontrar un empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 a. No ha logrado conseguir trabajo con ayuda de ABC b. No recibió mentoría c. Otro ¿Cuál? _____ 3. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me proporcionó herramientas en términos de capacitación y entrenamiento que me ayudaron en el proceso para lograr un enganche laboral efectivo. 1 2 3 4 5 a. No ha logrado conseguir trabajo con ayuda de ABC b. No recibió capacitación y/o entrenamiento c. Otro ¿Cuál? _____ 1021. ¿Qué tan preparado se siente para atender un proceso de selección en una mediana o gran empresa? Muy preparado 1 Algo preparado 2 Poco preparado 3 1022. En los próximos 5 años ¿qué tan probable considera usted que tendrá un negocio/empresa propia? Muy probable 1 Algo probable 2 Poco probable 3 No me interesa 4 1024. ¿Durante la pandemia la Alianza “Avancemos Bajo Cauca” utilizó y desarrollo metodologías y talleres mediante canales virtuales? Sí 1 No 2 1027 1025. ¿Los cursos y talleres sobre habilidades para el desarrollo del empleo fueron pertinentes para su proceso de empleabilidad? Sí 1 No 2 1026. ¿Cuáles fueron las principales limitaciones de las metodologías y talleres? a. Falta de conectividad b. No claridad de los contenidos c. Falta de seguimiento d. No me parece útil e. Otra, ¿Cuál? 1027. ¿Recibió acompañamiento para el desarrollo empresarial y para el autoempleo? Sí 1 No 2 1028. ¿COMFAMA le facilitó encontrar y desarrollar prácticas laborales? Sí 1 No 2 XII NA 3 XII USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 186 1029. ¿Cuáles fueron las principales ventajas en desarrollar prácticas laborales? 1030. ¿Cuáles fueron las principales desventajas en desarrollar prácticas laborales? 1031. ¿Se siente acompañado en los espacios de práctica por COMFAMA? Sí 1 1201 No 2 1032. ¿Qué se necesitaría por parte de COMFAMA para mejorar este acompañamiento? SECCIÓN XII. MÓDULO DE MENTALIDAD, ASOCIATIVIDAD, SOSTENIBILIDAD Encuestador: Esta sección aplica para todos los encuestados con clasificación 1 a 6 en P_110). RESILIENCIA 1201. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con los comportamientos, actitudes en su vida diaria y el impacto general de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca en su vida? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Tiendo a recuperarme fácilmente después de pasar por momentos y situaciones difíciles en mi negocio o empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Me cuesta trabajo superar eventos estresantes relacionados con mi negocio o empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 3. No me toma mucho tiempo recuperarme de un evento estresante relacionado con mi negocio o empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Es difícil para mí recuperarme cuando sucede algo malo con mi negocio o empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 5. En general, en mi negocio o empleo, suelo atravesar por momentos difíciles sin problemas. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Tiendo a tomar mucho tiempo para superar los contratiempos y momentos difíciles en mi vida y en mi negocio o empleo. 1 2 3 4 5 VISIÓN DE LARGO PLAZO: 1202. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con los comportamientos, actitudes en su vida diaria y el impacto general de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca en su vida? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo 1. Me considero un emprendedor / agro emprendedor / trabajador al que le gusta proponerse objetivos y metas. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Me considero un emprendedor / agro emprendedor / trabajador progresista y aventurero, que está siempre dispuesto a tomar riesgos y hacer cambios importantes siempre que haya una posibilidad de obtener ganancias adicionales y hacer que mi negocio crezca. 1 2 3 4 5 187 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 3. Me considero un emprendedor / agroemprendedor/ trabajador conservador y tranquilo que prefiere tener asegurado un ingreso que realizar cambios o tomar acciones que pueden poner en riesgo mi estabilidad actual y la de mi hogar. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Estas afirmaciones aplican para todos los encuestados con clasificación 1, 2 y 3 en P_110). Agro. 4. La Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca me ha proporcionado herramientas con las que he definido metas de producción y ventas en mi actividad piscícola/apícola. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Con lo aprendido en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca he definido un plan de crecimiento de mi unidad productiva (en apiarios, colmenas, estanques, siembras de peces) utilizando fuentes de financiación propias. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Gracias a lo que aprendí con la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca ahora calculo y reinvierto en mi propia producción una parte de lo que recibo por mis ventas para poder mantener funcionando mi agronegocio 1 2 3 4 5 7. Desde mi participación en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca he definido un plan de trabajo de mi predio que utilizo para el desarrollo de mis actividades. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Estas afirmaciones aplican para todos los encuestados con clasificación 6 en P_110). MBA Agro. 8. Gracias a la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca estamos manejando herramientas de planeación para la asociación (por ejemplo, presupuestos de ingresos y egresos, planes estratégicos de producción o comercialización a 1 año o más) 1 2 3 4 5 9. Con el acompañamiento de la Alianza estamos identificando cuáles son las necesidades financieras de la asociación para asegurar su funcionamiento. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Hemos empezado a definir dentro de la asociación metas a corto, mediano y largo plazo que aseguren el fortalecimiento o crecimiento de la asociación en el territorio. 1 2 3 4 5 AUTONOMÍA: 1203. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con los comportamientos, actitudes en su vida diaria y el impacto general de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca en su vida? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo Encuestador: Estas afirmaciones aplican para todos los encuestados con clasificación 1, 2 y 3 en P_110). Agro. 1. Como agroempresario(a), actualmente, me siento capaz de auto gestionar todos los asuntos que tienen que ver con mi agronegocio para adquirir, producir y vender, sin intervenciones de otros programas o proyectos. 1 2 3 4 5 2. En este momento, utilizo las herramientas que me ha proporcionado la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, para que pueda seguir mejorando la 1 2 3 4 5 USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 188 actividad productiva y comercial de mi negocio sin depender necesariamente de ayudas externas. 3. Si se acabara el apoyo de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, igual seguiría trabajando en mi actividad productiva. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Estas afirmaciones aplican para todos los encuestados con clasificación 6 en P_110). MBA Agro. 4. Necesitamos gestionar ayudas y proyectos que nos permitan seguir funcionando como asociación 1 2 3 4 5 5. Aún tenemos necesidades de inversión como asociación en los que requerimos gestionar ayudas para terminar de consolidar nuestro agronegocio. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Aunque nos vendría bien más ayuda, hemos definido un Plan de Transformación Empresarial que pueda funcionar con lo que ya tenemos. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Sabemos qué necesitamos para terminar de consolidar nuestro Plan de Transformación Empresarial y queremos autogestionarlo a partir del mismo negocio, con alianzas de negocios o acceso a financiación. 1 2 3 4 5 LIDERAZGO: 1204. En una escala de 1 a 5, en donde “1” significa que está “Totalmente en desacuerdo” y “5” que está “Totalmente de acuerdo”, ¿qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes frases relacionadas con los comportamientos, actitudes en su vida diaria y el impacto general de la alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca en su vida? Totalmente en desacuerdo En desacuerdo Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo De acuerdo Totalmente de acuerdo Encuestador: Estas afirmaciones aplican para todos los encuestados con clasificación 1 al 6 en P_110). 1. Dentro de mi comunidad, soy conocido (a) como un promotor de nuevas iniciativas y proyectos de todo tipo que ayudan en el mejoramiento de nuestras condiciones de vida 1 2 3 4 5 2. Me he destacado como un promotor de la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca dentro de mi comunidad. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Dentro de mi comunidad, suelo actuar como mediador en diferentes situaciones. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Soy una persona respetada y escuchada que influencia de manera positiva las decisiones generales de mi comunidad y especialmente de mi entorno productivo / laboral. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Estas afirmaciones aplican para todos los encuestados con clasificación 1, 2 ,3 y 6 en P_110). Agro. 5. Con mi participación en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, he mejorado la manera como me comunico sobre mi agronegocio con las personas que trabajo en mi predio y dentro de mi asociación 1 2 3 4 5 6. Con mi participación en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, estoy tomando mejores decisiones sobre el desarrollo de mi agronegocio. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Con mi participación en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, he aprendido a resolver mejor los conflictos que se presentan en el desarrollo de mi 1 2 3 4 5 189 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV agronegocio con las personas que trabajo en mi predio y dentro de mi asociación 8. Con mi participación en la Alianza Avancemos Bajo Cauca, me estoy esforzando más en cumplir los compromisos que adquiero como agro empresario con mis proveedores, clientes y asociación. 1 2 3 4 5 Encuestador: Agradezca y termine. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 190 ANNEX VI – INFORMATION SOURCES This evaluation uses two main sources of primary information: i) surveys applied to participants in each component and ii) interviews and group activities. It also draws on secondary sources from USAID Monitor, LGBC documentation, and relevant databases. This annex describes relevant elements of each source. SURVEY TO COMPONENT PARTICIPANTS It is important to remember that the evaluation team conducted the surveys in two data collection phases: (1) April 23, 2022 to May 9, 2022 and (2) August 21, 2022 to September 4, 2022. The data collection firm applied the survey instrument in the municipalities of Caucasia, El Bagre, Zaragoza, Tarazá, Nechí, and Cacerés, as well as to participants originally from these municipalities who had moved elsewhere. The evaluation team designed one survey to gather information on LGBC participants' perceptions. It included four general sections that addressed (1) the characteristics of the participant, (2) the household income structure, (3) a general section on participants’ assessment of the program, and (4) an empowerment module with questions addressed to gather information in this regard. In addition, this survey incorporated tailored sections for each targeted participant so that the evaluation team could adapt one survey to each component participant. The survey's first and second tailored sections corresponded to a module for the beekeeping and fish farming value chains and had 60 questions. The evaluation team directed these tailored sections at a census of 218 APUs, comprising 171 beekeeping, 41 fish-farming, and six mixed units. As a result, the evaluation team applied these two sections to 203 agri-business incubator participants, including 159 beekeeping units and 44 fish-farming units. They used expansion factors to represent the census of this target agricultural seedbed participants. The evaluation team used the resulting data from this section of the survey to answer evaluation questions one (1) and two (2). Additionally, a third tailored section of the survey included 17 questions and was targeted to a census of 56 MBA Agro leader associations. The results show that it was applied to 54 agricultural MBA Agro participants, representing the previously mentioned census after applying expansion factors. This section was also used to answer evaluation questions one (1) and two (2). Moreover, a fourth tailored section of the survey corresponded to a startup or enterprise characterization section and was comprised of 45 questions. The evaluation team directed the survey to a census of 131 Urban component participants: 91 from the first cohort and 40 from the second. The data collection firm applied this section to 116 Urban component participants who, with expansion factors, represented the previously mentioned census, composed of 61 participants from the first cohort, 36 from the second, and 17 from the first and second cohorts. The evaluation team used this section's resulting data and information to answer evaluation questions three (3) and four (4). Lastly, a fifth tailored section included a specific employability module and was comprised of 32 questions. In this case, it was aimed at a sample of the total population of 2012 Employability component participants, using a sampling error lower than five percent and a confidence level of at least 95 percent. 191 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV As a result, the survey was applied to 564 Employability component participants representing the total population. For the last evaluation questions, the applied surveys represented a sample of the Employability component participants, with 564 surveys representing 2012 participants. The evaluation team used this data and information from this tailored section to answer evaluation question five (5). Exhibit 71 shows the distribution of surveys in each municipality for each component. Exhibit 71. Distribution of Surveys in the LGBC region municipalities for each component. SOURCE: SURVEYS TO PARTICIPANTS – PREPARED BY MEL ACTIVITY INTERVIEWS AND GROUP ACTIVITIES The evaluation team applied the qualitative instruments across all the municipalities targeted by LGBC for each of the three evaluated components (agro, Urban, and Employability) for a total of 63 qualitative implements applied across this territory, distributed as shown in Exhibit 72. Exhibit 72. Distribution of qualitative instruments applied by municipality and component. SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 192 As explained in annex IV, the instruments were divided between focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Within the focus groups, the team applied different tools in addition to these discussions, including social mapping, narrative multiplication, and associations. The interviews could be either group or individual interviews, with the individual interviews also being carried out on visits to participant APUs and ethnographic tours. Table 9 shows the distribution of the types of instruments. TABLE 9. DISTRIBUTION OF QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS BY TYPE AND COMPONENENT COMPONENT FOCUS GROUP GROUP INTERVIEW INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW INTERVIEW AT APU TOTAL AGRO 6 3 11 11 31 EMPLOYABILITY 4 15 19 URBAN 5 8 13 15 3 34 11 63 SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM The number of persons that participated in the application of these different tools totaled 130, and they represented different actors within each component. Table 10 shows the distribution by type of actor and by component of the people who participated in the qualitative tools. TABLE 10. DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY TYPE OF ACTOR COMPONENT TYPE OF ACTOR NUMBER OF PEOPLE AGRO Agro-entrepreneur 51 Producer organization representative 12 Field staff / Technical Assistance provider 6 URBAN Businessperson 30 LGBC Field Staff 3 EMPLOYABILITY Beneficiary 18 Employer 7 LGBC field staff 2 SENA Official 1 TOTAL 130 SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM LGBC DOCUMENTATION AND DATABASES The evaluation team examined the following documents provided by LGBC: • Evaluability Assessment • Annual and quarterly reports, 2019 - 2021 193 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV • AMELP Plan • Annual Implementation Plan, 2019 • Caracterización Bajo Cauca Antioqueño, Enero 2020 • Agro Incubator Primers • MBA Agro pedagogical material • Databases o AMEL Indicators o Agro Incubator participants o MBA Agro participants o Employability database USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 194 ANNEX VII – EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK – SOW Let’s Go Bajo Cauca (LGBC) Performance Evaluation PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of this performance evaluation is to assess whether LGBC’s deliverables and outcomes are being accomplished, to determine whether they are relevant and in what extent based on the current national and local contexts. The evaluation also must provide lessons learned and recommendations contributing to the management and implementation of LGBC, and the achievement of its expected results, as well as providing input to help USAID/Colombia to make decisions on upcoming programming. TABLE 11. MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF LGBC Strategy/Project/Activity Name Let’s Go Bajo Cauca (LGBC) USAID Office USAID / Colombia Implementer(s) Fundación Interactuar Cooperative Agreement # AID- 72051419CA00007 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity (TEC) $ 7.13 million Life of Strategy/Project/Activity 04/01/2019 through 09/30/2023 Active Geographic Regions LGBC is implemented in Tarazá, Cáceres, Caucasia, Nechí, El Bagre, Zargoza (Antioquia) Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO3 – Improved conditions for inclusive rural economic growth External or internal evaluation? External BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND CONTEXT In the department of Antioquia, located northwest of Colombia, the bajo Cauca region, which is composed of six towns: Caceres, Caucasia, El Bagre, Nechi, Taraza and Zaragoza, which represent 13.5 percent of the total area of the department, with approximately 312.331 inhabitants, of which 49.9 percent are women and 50.1 percent are men. Caucasia is the most populous town: it represents 37.7 percent of the region’s population, doubling that of El Bagre (16.1 percent), the second-most populated; In the rest of the towns that compose Cauca, population differences are not very marked, with the exception of Nechi, which, with only 27,915 inhabitants, has less than ten percent of the total population of the subregion. Approximately 61.1 percent of the region’s population is grouped in the town centers (urban areas). The subregion is largely inhabited by children under 29, corresponding to 63 percent, distributed among children, youth and young adults, only six percent are over 60 years old. 195 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV The latest Antioquia’s Quality of Life Survey (2013), shows this subregion has the department’s lowest Quality of Life Index (QLI) with 59 points in the urban area, 36.7 in the rural area and 47.8 in total, while Antioquia has an indicator of 71.6 in the urban area, 55.8 in the rural area and 63.3 in total. The percentage of households in this subregion with at least one unmet basic need (UNB) is higher than the levels registered by other department’s subregions, with 49.4 percent in total, 16.5 percent urban and 82, five percent rural; while Antioquia has 15.1 percent in total, 4.1 percent urban and 45 percent rural. According to the latest Antioquia’s Governor’s Office Administrative Planning Department report (2015), the department produced a GDP of COP $ 110 trillion, of which Bajo Cauca contributed $ 3.8 trillion COP (3.5 percent) and, although this value is insignificant compared to the total, between 2013 and 2015, the subregion improved its economic performance, rising one position among the nine regions and ranking sixth. Of the $ 3.5 trillion that Bajo Cauca generated in 2015, the activities of the commercial and mining sectors, manufacturing industry and financial establishments accounted for 60 percent of the sub regional added value. On the other hand, the less representative economic sectors were agriculture and transport, both with 6.6 percent, while utilities (power gas and water) only contributed 2.8 percent. As a basis for the study carried out in 2017 by the Public Mercantile Registry, the Chambers of Commerce of Medellín for Antioquia and the Magdalena Medio, it was identified that the business structure of the subregion is composed by 4.080 business units, which represent 2.1 percent of the companies in the department. The assets of these companies amount to COP $475 billion, equivalent to 0.07 percent of the departmental total. Regarding the distribution of companies according to size, it is observed that microenterprises are configured as the business base. According to the analysis by town, Caucasia has 2,266 companies, just over two thirds of the sub￾region’s total, El Bagre 619, Zaragoza and Taraza between 300 and 400, and Caceres and Nechi between 200 and 260. Although Nechi, Taraza and Zaragoza represent lower number of companies, these three recorded the largest increases in their business bases between 2016 and 2017. Analyzing the Employability component, 5.737 people of the subregion enrolled in the Public Employment Service, which corresponds to 3.3 percent of those enrolled in the department. The highest percentage of registered people corresponds to under-28 (46.8 percent); The population group between the ages of 29 and 44 represents 37.8 percent, and that over 44, 15.4 percent. 44.5 percent of the total registered say they are head of household. The analysis showed that job vacancies by town are: 43.1 percent in Caucasia, 19.2 percent in Zaragoza, 16.6 percent in El Bagre, 11.5 percent in Taraza, 5.3 percent in Caceres and 4.4 percent in Nechi, and of this population the majority lives urban areas: 85.5 percent. According to the economic sector, most vacancies are in personal services: 22.6 percent, civil engineering works: 15.6 percent and labor intermediation and outsourcing companies: 11.2 percent, while agriculture, livestock, hunting, and related services activities only represent 1.1 percent. People enrolled in the Public Employment Service have lower educational levels than university degree: 14.8 percent elementary, 11.8 percent high school, 28.3 percent college, 9.5 percent technological, 12.5 percent technical in crafts, 4.9 percent professional-technical, 7.4 percent university undergraduate, and graduate represents only 1 percent. A match of these with the educational levels required in the vacancies, shows that most of these do not demand higher education, since 4.8 percent require elementary, 16.8 percent, college 11 percent technological, 20.2 percent technical in crafts, 4.2 percent professional-technical, 24.2 percent university undergraduate and 0.9 percent graduate. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 196 The projections of the socioeconomic profile of the Chamber of Commerce of Medellín for Antioquia in 2019 show positive perspectives in general. Bajo Cauca will receive annual Industry and Commerce Tax revenues close to two billion pesos, representing an annual increase of 143 percent due to the direct effect of the Prosperity Highway works. Also, during the construction phase, 2.633 payroll positions and 3.290 induced jobs will be generated. Domestic trade is projected to increase on average 5 percent, equivalent to 1.172 extra cargo-tons per week, and agricultural production by 14 percent (8.400 tons per year). Finally, it is expected that for the operation phase, the GDP of the subregion will increase by an annual average of 1.4 percent. This economic growth will be reflected in a significant increase in access to opportunities, and an example of this is the utility coverage, which could increase by 107 percent. In contrast to the good economic prospects of the subregion, it has been affected by the armed conflict, whit 22 percent of the population registered as victims of the armed conflict in the UIARV’s (Unit for Integral Attention and Repair of Victims) Unique Registry of Victims - URV - in April of 2017. Bajo Cauca Antioqueño has a location that provides access to the sea and articulation to the international market, which connects the north coast and the center of the department. This situation has turned the area into a conducting corridor to the commercialization of illegal crops, which in 2013 had 2.355 hectares, and after the withdrawal of the FARC in 2016 grew to 15.627 hectares, with greater presence in Taraza, followed by Caceres and El Bagre. This increase was led by a drug dealer who was captured in 2017. This triggered a war for the territory between “El Golfo” clan and the criminal group known as “Caparrapos”, a structure dedicated to illegal mining and micro-trafficking. According to statistics issued by the Department’s Secretariat of Government, this war of powers left more than 80 deaths from January to March 5, 2018; and compared to the same period of 2017, homicides increased by 184.6 percent. The homicides are concentrated in Caucasia, Caceres and Taraza; additionally, in these last two towns, there were more than 800 cases of forced displacement during this period. There are different criminal groups in the area: “Clan del Golfo”, “Héroes del Nordeste”, “La Nueva Generación”, “Los Caparrapos”, “Los Chatas”, “Los Pachely”, “Los Paisas”, “Los Rastrojos”, “Los Triana” and “Los Zorros”; and these have developed alliances with the Mexican cartel and “La Oficina”; additionally there are ELN fronts and FARC dissidents. To counteract these incursions by illegal groups, the government has arranged the public force (armed forces) in that region with 1.430 Army soldiers and 1.400 police officers, in addition to Judicial Police units and artillery helicopters with special armament, all of this in addition land restitution strategies and public-private alliances, among others. According to the above, the challenge lies in how to promote and strengthen legal projects and economic units of both, agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, which allow the development of the region so people don’t fall into the trap of producing and taking part in illicit economies such as illegal mining, optimizing its potential with respect towards natural resources and availability of human capital. The challenge also includes the economic empowerment of women and young people, through employment, entrepreneurship, and access to financial services, therefore reducing the gaps that support social inequality. DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION TO BE EVALUATED AND THEORY OF CHANGE Within the framework of the United States Agency for International Development USAID’s strategy for Colombia, whose objective is to achieve a "Colombia better able to successfully implement an inclusive 197 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV and lasting peace", Interactuar Corporation, Comfama, Mineros and Mineros Foundation; organizations with more than 7 years of joint and articulated work, decide to form an alliance to continue wagering together on the integral economic development of the Bajo Cauca antioqueño and, consolidate the "Let’s Go Bajo Cauca" Alliance with the objective of "Contributing to the inclusive and sustainable rural economic growth of Bajo Cauca antioqueño, through the development of agricultural value chains, the creation of integral businesses, and the strengths of non-agricultural production units, through public-private leverage". The Alliance's approach is aimed at promoting modified territory, increasing institutional and business presence in a region that needs private sector investment, integrating local, regional and national governments, academic and community leaders. Likewise, the Alliance is interested in boosting the local economy in the medium and long terms and permanently promoting opportunities for people to find income generation options through entrepreneurship and employability that will provide a better quality of life for them and future generations. With this Alliance aims, among others, to consolidate transformative capacities and new leadership in the territories so that the communities embrace and generate new opportunities through projects and programs with differential services focused on improving and diversifying the agricultural and non￾agricultural economic activities. This will be possible thanks to the capitalization of the experience and trajectory of the allies in the territory, of the articulation of these with local and regional institutions and management for other public and private actors contribute to the socio-economic development of the region. All expected results can be found in the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP). THEORY OF CHANGE Since the Let’s Go Bajo Cauca alliance seeks to contribute to the rural social and economic development of the region, in an inclusive, lawful and sustainable manner, with a focus on the population of women and youth, through the development of sustainable and productive value chains, the development of managerial skills that allow the increase of income to entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs, the connection to markets and the increase of the levels of formal employment in the region, it is proposed to achieve this by: • A model of assistance, training and support for agricultural businesses and apiculturists’ and piscicultures’ associations producers. • Financial products tailored to the needs of productive chains. • A model of assistance, training and support for businesspeople and entrepreneurs that facilitates the creation, structuring and growth of non-agricultural businesses. • Creation of networks and market connections. • Microcredit services for business strengthening. • An employability program to guide and train unemployed people, providing them with tools that allow them to access formal jobs. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 198 In this way, Bajo Cauca will become an empowered, strengthened, and sustainable region, with transformative community leaders, able to recognize its history and its reality, to transform it into better opportunities for economic and social development. The theory of change is visualized in the LGBC Results Framework below: 199 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Exhibit 73. LGBC Results Framework. SOURCE: MEL ACTIVITY USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 200 EVALUABILITY ASSESSMENT FOR LET’S GO BAJO CAUCA (LGBC) MAIN FINDINGS Theory of change, critical assumptions and results framework. The LGBC activity’s TOC is clearly specified, and it is internally coherent. It references the possible reduction in employment in illegal activities if LGBC can create and strengthen legal enterprises using local human resources, in particular youth and women. It is possible to measure strengthening, expansion or creation of legal enterprises and increased employment opportunities for youth and women by collecting data on generation of employment in LGBC’s beneficiary enterprises. The corollary, however, is not true: it is not possible to measure tendencies of employment in illegal enterprises in Bajo Cauca. Thus, it is not possible to know whether the proposed causal link in the TOC operates in practice, i.e., that increased legal employment opportunities have the effect of dissuading employment in illegal activities. The LGBC results framework does not have a clear hierarchy of results and intermediate results. However, there is proposed causality which is reasonable: strengthening the entrepreneurial capacity, competitiveness, and access to capital of licit agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises in Bajo Cauca will generate higher volumes of production and income, creating new employment opportunities in the region. The proposed indicators in the MEL Plan are appropriate, although the results of the Employability component are limited to a measurement of the number of beneficiaries. LGBC activity context. The LGBC IPs have the necessary capacities to support an impact evaluation and to utilize the evaluation results to guide the program interventions. They all express support for the evaluation. It is clear from the interviews with the IP teams that their organizational culture supports the use of data for decision-making. The LGBC IPs consider that an IE would be most useful for guiding LGBC program management decisions in those program interventions that support agricultural value chains in pisciculture and apiculture, and in the creation/strengthening of non-agricultural industrial and service enterprises. However, they urge caution in IE design and utilization, owing to the significant endogenous variables that will affect LGBC implementation in the Bajo Cauca region, especially the presence of armed groups, illicit crops, and illegal mining, which can create obstacles to licit economic activities. GOC efforts to combat armed groups, eradicate illicit crops and interdict illegal mining could create additional obstacles in the short-term—although the LGBC consortium members consider that in the medium and long-term it will create a more dynamic local economy and opportunities for LGBC’s beneficiary enterprises. Availability and quality of information. The activity context creates many challenges for supporting an appropriate IE. All the IP management and field staff refer to concerns about data quality. They believe that both rural and urban enterprises systematically underestimate income and sales. This is principally owing to security concerns, as companies and individuals are subjected to extorsion by armed groups in Bajo Cauca. While IPs believe that with time income and sales data will become more reliable as LGBC gains their trust, this creates a problem of an unreliable baseline. The problem is less severe in agricultural value chains, where Mineros Foundation has gained trust over more than a decade of work in rural areas. Whether or not LGBC utilizes an IE approach to measure the impacts of the different program interventions, in any case the data quality issue will continue to be a major concern. The IPs have not incorporated into the MEL Plan approaches for conducting robust data quality assessments on the 201 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV productivity, sales, net income and employment data provided by the program beneficiaries. They recognize that any IE design would need to address the issues of the accuracy and consistency of data provided by beneficiaries. Design requirements for an IE. USAID’s “gold standard” for IEs is premised on a quasi-experimental design, in which beneficiaries are not assigned randomly to treatment and control groups. The 300+ beneficiaries in the agricultural value chains have been chosen by the Mineros Foundation in its ongoing programs prior to the creation of the LGBC activity, selecting larger enterprises with more experience. The remaining 200 or so enterprises in these two value chains are smaller and usually not dedicated full time to this activity. They are not an appropriate control group. Given the special characteristics of the Bajo Cauca region, it would be difficult to identify an appropriate control group in a different region. Similarly, Interactuar’s selection criteria for the enterprise strengthening program interventions are biased towards larger or more experienced enterprises. Thus, LGBC program beneficiaries in this component are not assigned randomly. However, there is a universe of about 4,800 enterprises from which to choose a control group, based on the Chamber of Commerce database of registered companies. Hence for this program component of LGBC it is possible to identify an appropriate control group in the region. The component on labor market skills and access to employment opportunities is based on self￾selection; thus, the beneficiaries for the labor market orientation are not chosen at random. However, there is a large universe of unemployed people in the region from which to choose a control group. The LGBC MEL plan does not contain an impact indicator on this component, rather only the number of beneficiaries. Alternative indicators for measuring impact in this component could be developed, such as the percentage of LGBC beneficiaries finding employment, or average job search time required to find employment. Timing, logistics and impacts of an IE on program interventions. There is not adequate time to plan, design and conduct the impact evaluation in the context of the LGBC activity’s implementation schedule. In the urban enterprise component, interventions start in April 2020. The logistics required would involve contracting a survey firm, designing an instrument and data collection methods (ensuring data quality), conduct pre-tests, and then field data collection. Minimum time to baseline measurement will be three months, which will affect LGBC activity implementation. Planned interventions would have to be delayed up to two months. CONCLUSIONS The main conclusions extracted from the findings of the evaluability assessment of the LGBC activity in relation to the possibility of conducting an IE are presented below. In the main text, there are other conclusions related to LGBC TOC, results framework, AMELP indicators, program monitoring, and data quality. • In principle it would be possible to conduct an IE on the non-agricultural component of the LGBC activity, using a quasi-experimental design. In this case the treatment group assignment would be based on self-selection, and the control group could be selected by sampling enterprises from Chamber of Commerce data bases using techniques such as propensity score matching or similar. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 202 • It would not be possible to conduct an IE on the agricultural component, given the small size of the universe of producers and the significant differences in the characteristics of the treatment group and those producers not participating in the LGBC program, which would make it difficult to employ matching techniques to create an appropriate control group. The unique characteristics of the Bajo Cauca region preclude creating a control group from a different region of Antioquia or Colombia. • In principle, it would also be possible to conduct an IE on the Employability component, comparing treatment and control groups on indicators such as the percentage of LGBC beneficiaries finding employment, or average job search time required to find employment. There would be no difficulty in using matching techniques to create a control group based on a sample of unemployed people from the Bajo Cauca region. • However, a major limitation is time. All three components of the LGBC program are close to starting implementation (non-agricultural enterprises and Employability components) or have already started (agricultural value chain component). In the former, this would require a significant delay in starting implementation, and in the latter, it would require reconstructing a baseline, which could add to existing data validity concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONDUCTING AN IE OF LGBC 1. Based on the findings set out in the previous section, this assessment recommends that USAID not conduct an impact evaluation of the LGBC activity using a quasi-experimental design based on surveys of treatment and control groups. 2. While it is feasible to conduct an IE on the non-agricultural and Employability components, the assessment recommends that USAID explore other alternatives, so as not to cause significant delays in activity implementation. 3. The next best alternative would be to conduct a mid-term and final performance evaluation (PE) using data collected by the IPs for the LGBC AMELP. For this purpose, LGBC should develop a set of evaluation questions, which would be aligned with the MEL Plan indicators, to ensure that LGBC is collecting data that will allow it to answer the key evaluation questions. It would also be possible to introduce additional indicators into the AMELP as required by the evaluation questions. The mid￾term PE should take place in the second semester of CY 2021, about 14 months after start of program implementation, which would allow for two more years of implementation before closeout and a final PE should USAID and the LGBC IPs so decide. RECOMMENDATIONS ON OTHER MEL STRATEGIES 1. Irrespective of the decision with respect to conducting an IE versus a PE, this assessment recommends that LGBC consider alternative methods of monitoring program impacts in the different components. In the case of the agricultural component, LGBC should consider conducting a robust baseline analysis of the apiculture and pisciculture value chains, to identify areas for focusing program resources. This analysis could be repeated in the third year to identify areas that have improved. 2. In the non-agricultural component, LGBC should consider developing a tool for measuring and monitoring improvements in entrepreneurial capacity, given its importance in the approach proposed by Interactuar. There are different approaches and tools available for this purpose. 203 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 3. Similarly, it would be possible to conduct a benchmark analysis of the Employability component, for example, comparing average job search time required to find employment between the LGBC beneficiaries and a sample of non-beneficiaries. While it could not be construed as a valid measure of impact, it would tell the LGBC IPs how well their beneficiaries are doing in comparison to the universe of job seekers in the region. 4. The assessment recommends that LGBC take action to address the issues of quality of indictors data collected from program beneficiaries (productivity, sales, net income, and employment). The expectation that increased trust of beneficiaries in LGBC will improve data quality is not a substitute for a robust MEL data quality system. 5. Finally, the assessment recommends that LGBC explore the use of new technologies for collecting data for performance monitoring, whether computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) or other technologies using smart phone and tablet platforms. This would reduce exposure to risks from armed conflict and violence in rural areas. RESULTS FRAMEWORK (RF) A Results Framework is a diagram of the cause and effect logic for achieving a development objective over a defined time period. The RF uses causal logic, i.e. if lower-level results are achieved, then the next higher-level result can be achieved, as long as the critical assumptions hold. The accompanying development hypothesis narrative statement identifies the specific development problem that the Development Objective addresses, and explains the causal logic between results, generally through a series of if-then statements that describe the theory of change underlying those relationships. It is helpful to consider that the development hypothesis focuses on the lines linking the lower-level results with the higher-level results and must reference the evidence supporting those causal linkages. Related with the RF is the public value generation model, which starts from identifying a socio-economic situation that needs to be modified based on project or GDA or public policy. Thus, once the needs of the target population have been identified, a public intervention or GDA is designed to meet the need or solve the problem identified for the appropriately targeted population. Subsequently, its objective is determined, in which the solution to the identified problem is specified and the value chain is determined, which is the sequential and logical relationship between inputs, processes, outputs (products) and outcomes (results). Performance measurements allow to verify the productivity and efficiency of spending, the efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality of public intervention. As can be seen in Figure below, efficacy is understood as the degree of fulfillment of goals and objectives at the level of products and results. Effectiveness is the degree to which the desired results are achieved through the products, while cost-effectiveness relates the average cost for each unit of final result achieved. On the other hand, to have appropriate measurements of productivity and efficiency it is necessary to quantify inputs and outputs in both physical and monetary units to generate benchmarks that allow an appropriate comparison. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 204 Exhibit 74. Performance Measurements. SOURCE: MEL ACTIVITY PROJECT OR ACTIVITY MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING (MEL) PLAN [Included as Annex 1 in submitted evaluation Scope of Work] EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation team will review and finalize questions in collaboration with USAID prior to finalizing the evaluation design. USAID expects the MEL Activity to provide recommendations regarding all issues included in the evaluation. The MEL Activity should also highlight any regional differences identified while answering the evaluation questions. AGRICULTURE COMPONENT 1. How effective has been LGBC’s model to achieve sales, income and productivity increases of the associations and agriculture entrepreneurs involved? Following the results framework described in the last section, assess efficacy and effectiveness. 2. How effective has been LGBC’s model to empower associations and agriculture entrepreneurs? Following the results framework described in the last section, assess efficacy and effectiveness. Empowerment is defined by the ability of the associations and agriculture entrepreneurs to use the acquired knowledge and experience to recognize herself (themselves) and project herself (themselves) as a manager with leadership, planning and decision-making capacities that allow her (him) to achieve productive, commercial, financial, personal and family objectives. NON-AGRICULTURE COMPONENT How effective has been LGBC’s model to achieve increases in sales, income and market access of entrepreneurs intervened in Bajo Cauca? Following the results framework described in the last section, assess efficacy and effectiveness. 205 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV EMPLOYABILITY COMPONENT What are the challenges and bottle necks experienced implementing the component? What are the main lessons and best practices learned? Identify main variables that explain the success stories. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The MEL Activity, in collaboration with USAID, will develop the evaluation methods before fieldwork begins. USAID expects de MEL Activity to, at a minimum: 1. Combine techniques and tools for quantitative and qualitative analysis. 2. Specify the quantitative and qualitative methodology, define key variables for measurement, and the implications in terms of the proposed information gathering and analysis to answer the Evaluation Questions. The proposed methodology should include strategies to assess and reflect differences between different LGBC regions. 3. Specify how the proposed methods, sources and design will allow the MEL Activity to answer each of the evaluation questions. 4. Define the information gathering strategy that includes logistics, preparation, and approach, as well as the techniques and tools for mapping information. 5. For the quantitative analysis, the primary information gathering is done using a statistical sampling strategy, for which it must describe the sampling design in detail. This includes defining the target population, defining the reporting unit, calculating the sample size, applying the sampling technique (simple, stratified, conglomerates, etc.), defining estimators, the admissible precision and confidence, defining domains of interest (strata/income bracket, sex, age groups, etc.), sample selection technique, and other statistical concepts that describe both knowledge and expertise of the subject and clarity of the method to be applied. Quantitative information is expected to be representative at departmental level, for each of the six municipalities in which LGBC operates. 6. Specify the primary and secondary sources of information that will be used. 7. Define a strategy for connecting and providing feedback between quantitative and qualitative information. 8. Meet and interview USAID project beneficiaries, Implementing Partner staff, relevant stakeholders, and GoC counterparts at appropriate levels; as well as USAID staff and relevant experts working in the justice sector. This evaluation will not collect baseline data for assessing empowerment of the associations and agriculture entrepreneurs because the contextual factors of the region where the GDA will be implemented do not allow to applied long data collection instruments to measure leadership, planning and decision-making capacities. Any base line data collection design would need to address the issues of the accuracy and consistency of data provided by participants while the GDA build confidence with the population. Additionally, the logistics required would involve contracting a survey firm, designing an USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 206 instrument and data collection methods (ensuring data quality), conduct pre-tests, and then field data collection. Minimum time to baseline measurement will be three months, which will affect LGBC activity implementation. The MEL Activity will submit the preliminary evaluation design for review by USAID, and this task should be included in the evaluation time frame. The evaluation Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will approve the finalized evaluation design. The MEL Activity needs to develop an evaluation design matrix that will include a data analysis plan for each evaluation question (the following table is a suggested way for the MEL Activity to present the information, other design matrix designs are allowable). EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX The evaluation design matrix shown below enumerates all possible data sources, collection methods and analysis approaches, however this list is not exhaustive, the evaluation team will review and propose specific tools and methods for answering each question. TABLE 12. EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX QUESTIONS DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION METHODS DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Agriculture component How effective has been LGBC’s model to achieve sales, revenue and productivity increases of the associations and agro-entrepreneurs involved? How effective has been the empowerment of the associations and agro-entrepreneurs to achieve increases in sales and revenue? Non agriculture component How effective has been LGBC’s model to achieve increases in sales, revenue and market access of entrepreneurs intervened in Bajo Cauca? Monitor Gender Strategy Activity’s work plans Yearly and Quarterly reports Activity’s newsletter AMELP Quantitative survey Qualitative based data Qualitative and quantitative Document review Key informant interviews (KII) Focus Groups Survey Mixed methods analysis DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION WORK PLAN: The work plan will include: 1. Draft schedule and logistical arrangements. 2. Members of the evaluation team delineated by roles and responsibilities. 3. Evaluation milestones. 4. Anticipated schedule of evaluation team data collection efforts. 207 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV 5. Locations and dates for piloting data collection efforts, if applicable. 6. Proposed evaluation methodology including selection criteria for comparison groups, if applicable; and 7. Evaluation Report outline (if different from the one suggested in Annex VIII). The MEL Activity will update the evaluation work plan (the lists of interviewees, survey participial, the schedule) and submit the updated version to the COR for approval as needed. EVALUATION DESIGN: The evaluation design will include: 1. Detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions from the SOW (in their finalized form) to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; 2. Draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; 3. List of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include sampling methodology and methods, including a justification of sample size and any applicable calculations); 4. Limitations to the evaluation design; and 5. Dissemination plan (designed in collaboration with USAID). The design will become an annex to the evaluation report. All dissemination plans should be developed with USAID and include information on audiences, activities, and deliverables, including any data visualizations, multimedia products, or events to help communicate evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations. If applicable based on the Disclosure of Conflict of Interests Forms submitted with the awardee’s proposal, the evaluation design will include a conflict of interest mitigation plan. 1. Inputs for the quantitative data collection firm Request for Proposals (RFP): The inputs for the quantitative data collection firm RFP will be delivered by week four. General guidelines in terms of sample size, geography and thematic lines will be required. 2. Interim Meetings: The Evaluation team is expected to hold interim meetings with USAID designated team on the status of the evaluation, including potential challenges and emerging opportunities. 3. Early Report: The Evaluation team should deliver an Early Report. The scope and timing of the early report will be defined before the work plan approval. 4. Findings, conclusions and recommendations presentation: USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 208 The evaluation team will develop a detailed presentation with the findings, conclusions and recommendations derived from the execution of what is included in the SoW. This presentation will receive comments from USAID and the different stakeholders, which will be included in the final report. 5. Final Evaluation Report: The Evluation team will summit a final report following the parameters established in section VIII of this SoW. 6. Infographic The One Pager should summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, and conclusions (plus recommendations and lessons learned, if applicable). The One Pager should communicate the information visually for clarity. This document should be done after the final report has been presented and reviewed by USAID as part of the dissemination. 7. Submission of Dataset(s) to the Development Data Library: Per USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579, USAID Development Data) the contractor must also submit to the COR and the Development Data Library (DDL), at www.usaid.gov/data, in a machine￾readable, non-proprietary format, a copy of any dataset created or obtained in performance of this award, if applicable. The dataset should be organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation. Please review ADS 579.3.2.2 Types of Data To Be Submitted to the DDL to determine applicability. 8. Submission of Final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse: Per USAID policy (ADS 201.3.5.18) the contractor must submit the evaluation final report and its summary or summaries to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within three months of final approval by USAID. It is important to mention that the evaluation team is expected to participate in all proposed USAID dissemination activities. For these events, the evaluation team should prepare new slides if required and participate in the requested preparations activities. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The contractor must provide information about evaluation team members, including their curricula vitae, and the responsibilities they will hold within the evaluation, and how each one contributes to the SoW. Submissions of writing samples or links to past evaluation reports and related deliverables composed by proposed team members are highly desirable. Per ADS 201.3.5.14, all team members must provide to USAID a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project or activity being evaluated (i.e., a conflict of interest form). 209 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 13. TEAM MEMBERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES TITLE (NUMBER OF PEOPLE) MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES TEAM MEMBERS' RELEVANT EXPERIENCE MEL-Lead Evaluation Expert 1. Close coordination with MEL COP and USAID COR. 2. Responsible for staffing, SOW development, and financial management and reporting, staff direction and oversight. MEL-Evaluation specialist MEL Quantitative specialist 1. Close coordination with MEL COP and USAID COR. 2. Support in evaluation management. Qualitative analyst (1) Qualitative data analysis: i) Refine the study coding system based on the methodological design; ii) Sort and classify information from the field work; iii) Encode and integrate interviews and other documents in the NVivo program; iv) Analyze qualitative data GIS specialist (1) Provide technical expertise on spatial data collection, map series creation, compile available geospatial data sets, conduct spatial analysis, data visualization and interpret aerial photos or satellite images CLA specialist (1) Lead tasks and efforts to ensure evaluation findings and recommendations are transparent, disseminated and distributed to relevant stakeholder. Lead tasks to ensure evaluations have a collaborative approach. Monitoring specialist (1) Analysis of indicators and data from Monitor. Initial assessment of performance of the evaluation using Monitor indicators. Evaluation leader (1) 1. Lead the performance evaluation design, including the work plan, data collection and analysis methods, the sampling strategy, data collection tools, data analysis plan, and report outline. 2. Serve as the primary contact with USAID counterparts and the Global Development Alliance. 3. Lead and manage the evaluation team operation. 4. Implement the methodology, the work plan, and the data analysis. 5. Lead the writing of the main technical deliverables and technical communications, including the performance evaluation. 6. Oversee the quality and timeliness of the data collection implemented by a local firm. 7. Oversee the anonymization process of the quantitative data. 8. Lead debriefs and presentations to USAID Education: BA in economics, social sciences, or other relevant field and thirteen (13) years of relevant experience or master’s degree and ten (10) years of relevant experience Work Experience: • Skills or knowledge on project administration, economics, and team management. • At least five (5) years of experience in managerial positions at international cooperation projects, field-based academic projects, and/or field-based public or private social investment projects. Minimum of three (3) years of that experience conducting or leading the evaluation of projects. • Good knowledge of rural development with emphasis in productive inclusion in conflict￾affected areas in Colombia is preferred. • Skills or knowledge on project administration, economics, and team management. • Experience designing mixed-method USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 210 TABLE 13. TEAM MEMBERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES TITLE (NUMBER OF PEOPLE) MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES TEAM MEMBERS' RELEVANT EXPERIENCE and the Global Development Alliance. 9. Facilitate participatory evaluation methods with the Global Development Alliance to promote collaboration, learning, and adapting. 10. Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data collection. evaluation methodologies. • Ability to analyze and synthesize qualitative and quantitative data. • Advance report writing skills. • Ability to work and manage teams remotely. • Intermediate or advanced knowledge of written and spoken English and Spanish. • Experience with USAID evaluations preferred. Rural development expert (1) 1. Support the design of the methodology and instruments to assess the rural development affairs with emphasis in economic inclusion in the Bajo Cauca antioqueño. 2. Review of primary and secondary sources of information related to rural development affairs in conflict affected areas with emphasis in economic inclusion. 3. Contribute to the analysis of data for the performance evaluation, with ownership of the analysis of rural development affairs with emphasis in economic inclusion. 4. Support the Evaluation Leader in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the Global Development Alliance. 5. Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data collection. 6. Oversee the anonymization process of the quantitative data. Education • BA in social sciences, economics or other relevant field. • Graduated degree in social sciences or other relevant field. Work Experience: • More than seven (7) years of experience in conducting evaluations with some degree of qualitative analysis. • At least two (2) years of experience in Colombian rural development affairs with emphasis in economic inclusion in conflict affected rural areas. • Experience working in Bajo Cauca antioqueño would be preferred. • Knowledge or experience working with fish farming or beekeeping value chains. • Proven ability to deliver a quality analysis, tables, and written products and explanations. • Intermediate or advance knowledge of written and spoken English. • Ability to conduct interviews and focus groups in Spanish. • Experience with USAID evaluations preferred but not required. Qualitative methods specialist (1) 1. Support the Evaluation Leader with the design of the methodology for the Work Plan drafting, including sampling methodology, design of the instruments for qualitative data collection, analysis, and drafting of the final qualitative report. 2. Help oversee and ensure the quality of data collection for the performance Education • Professional in social sciences, economics, or other related fields. • Graduate degree or higher in social sciences and related fields Work Experience • A minimum of seven (7) years of experience 211 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 13. TEAM MEMBERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES TITLE (NUMBER OF PEOPLE) MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES TEAM MEMBERS' RELEVANT EXPERIENCE evaluation. 3. Support the analysis of qualitative data for the evaluation. 4. Support the triangulation of sources of information for the performance evaluation. 5. Support the Evaluation Director in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the Global Development Alliance. 6. Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data collection. conducting qualitative research. • Proven experience in conducting high-quality qualitative analysis. • Education in a specific subject area, with country experience, would be helpful. • Strong background and training in mixed methods research. • Experience and knowledge of qualitative data analysis and data management techniques. Experience in Nvivo preferred. • Intermediate or advanced knowledge of written and spoken English. • Experience with USAID evaluations preferred but not required. Quantitative specialist (1) 1. Support the Evaluation Leader with the design of the methodology for the Work Plan drafting including sampling methodology, design of the instruments for quantitative data collection, analysis, and drafting of quantitative final report. 2. Help oversee and ensure the quality of data collection for the performance evaluation. 3. Lead the analysis of quantitative data for the evaluation. 4. Support the triangulation of sources of information for the performance evaluation. 5. Support the Evaluation Director in preparing reports and presentations for USAID and the Global Development Alliance. 6. Oversee the anonymization process of the quantitative data. Education • Professional in economics, statistics, social sciences, and related fields. • Graduated degree in economics, statistics, and related fields. Work Experience • A minimum of seven years (7) of experience conducting quantitative research and analysis. • Proven experience in conducting high-quality quantitative analysis. • Strong background and training in mixed methods research. • Experience and knowledge of data analysis and data management techniques. • Intermediate or advanced knowledge of written and spoken English. • Experience in data analysis related to rural development would be preferred, but not required. • Experience with USAID evaluations preferred but not required. Evaluation Planning specialist (1) 1. Lead the design of the methodology of the evaluation in particular the evaluation design matrix. 2. Guide and coordinate the qualitative and quantitative data collection with the data collection firm and the MEL’s activity Education • Professional in economics, social sciences, project management, government, or other relevant fields • Masters or two (2) years of graduate education in evaluation, economics, business USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 212 TABLE 13. TEAM MEMBERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES TITLE (NUMBER OF PEOPLE) MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES TEAM MEMBERS' RELEVANT EXPERIENCE administrative staff. 3. Lead the planning of each stage of the evaluation including a detailed list of activities, inputs needed, and a schedule. 4. Coordinate the deliverables and reporting, including the data, reports, and presentations. 5. Perform the application of qualitative instruments in fieldwork for the qualitative data collection. 6. Oversee the anonymization process of the quantitative data. intelligence, or related area. Work Experience • Seven (7) years of proven experience conducting and leading evaluations. • Proven knowledge and experience in mixed methods, conducting structured and non￾structured interviews, and focus groups. • Demonstrated capability in managing and designing evaluations, managing and interpreting qualitative and quantitative data collection, analysis processes, and utilizing secondary data. • Experience or knowledge in team management. • Proficient computer skills including Microsoft Word, Excel, and Outlook. • Intermediate or advanced knowledge of written and spoken English. • Experience with USAID evaluations preferred but not required. Quantitative data collection (firm) Quantitative data collection. Proven experience in producers surveys in conflict municipalities. EVALUATION SCHEDULE The below evaluation schedule is illustrative for the MEL Activity to present the time frame and can be updated in collaboration with USAID prior to finalization of the work plan. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCHEDULE TABLE 14. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCHEDULE PHASE ACTIVITIES/MIL ESTONE 2020-2021 2021-2022 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY Definition B. Evaluation Team SoW drafting and approval C. Evaluation Team recruitment and hiring 213 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE 14. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCHEDULE PHASE ACTIVITIES/MIL ESTONE 2020-2021 2021-2022 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY Planning D. Kick-off E. RFP technical section for data collection firm sent to administrative procedures F. Work Plan and Evaluation Design draft G. Work Plan and Evaluation Design presentation and feedback H. Work Plan and Evaluation Design approved Data collection and analysis I. Qualitative data collection, transcriptions and coding J. Early report K. Data collection firm on-board L. Quantitative data collection M. Analysis and triangulation with CLA support Final report N. Findings, conclusions and recommendatio ns drafting O. Findings, conclusions and recommendat ions presentation P. CLA meetings around FCR and USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 214 TABLE 14. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCHEDULE PHASE ACTIVITIES/MIL ESTONE 2020-2021 2021-2022 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY recommendatio ns matrix Q. Final report draft R. Final report approved S. Final report uploaded on DEC Use and dissemination T- Use and dissemination FINAL REPORT FORMAT Abstract (not more than 250 words) Executive Summary (between two-five pages) Evaluation Report (35- 60 pages) 1. Evaluation Purpose (not more than 500 words) 2. Activity description and background (not more than two pages) 3. Evaluation questions and methodology (not more than two pages) 4. Evaluation findings and conclusions - messaging approach- (between 20 and 40 pages) 5. Evaluation recommendations (not more than four pages) Annexes: I. Recommendations actions matrix II. Supplemental analysis and data III. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations table IV. Detailed Methodology V. Instruments VI. Sources of information VII. Evaluation SOW VIII. Summary information about evaluation team members IX. Signed disclosures of conflicts of interest from evaluation team members. X. Statement of Differences (when applicable) 215 | LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Page indications • Font: Gill Sans MT • Letter Size: Eleven (11) • Line spacing: Single Graphs and tables • Title: Gill Sans MT; Eleven (11); Single • Maximum of graph/table: Layout Height 6 / Layout width3 • Source: Gill Sans M; Eight (8); Single CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure quality: • Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity. • Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. • The Executive Summary should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. • Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. • Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information or data properly identified. • Limitations to the evaluation should be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. • Conclusions should be specific, concise, and include an assessment of quality and strength of evidence to support them supported by strong quantitative and/or qualitative evidence. • If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. • If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. USAID.GOV LGBC MID-TERM EVALUATION FINAL REPORT | 216 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Checklist and Review Template from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance OTHER REQUIREMENTS All modifications to the required elements of the SOW of the contract/agreement, whether in evaluation questions, design and methodology, deliverables and reporting, evaluation team composition, schedule, and/or other requirements will be agreed upon in writing by the COR. Any revisions made will be noted in the SOW annexed to the final Evaluation Report. SOW LIST OF ANNEXES (Not included in the evaluation final report) Annex 1 - AMELP Annex 2 - Award documents, including modification to include humanitarian assistance Annex 3 - Quarterly Reports Annex 4 - Annual Work Plans Annex 5 - Baseline Report