Final cover page to include GRZ, UNICEF and Barclays Bank logos

AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING YOUNG FUTURES (BYF)

AND WHEELS FOR CHANGE (WfC) PROJECTS IN ZAMBIA

REVISED DRAFT REPORT

11thJuly 2016

UNICEF Zambia

AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING YOUNG FUTURES (BYF)

AND WHEELS FOR CHANGE (WfC) PROJECTS IN ZAMBIA

Final Report – Updated Version

WfC beneficiaries in Livingstone during a mentorship workshop ©Matoka/2016

29th July 2016

Acknowledgement We would like to thank UNICEF Zambia for commissioning the assessment of the Building Young Futures (BYF) and Wheels for Change (WfC) programme and giving us an opportunity to participate in this important exercise. We are grateful to representatives of the programme’s various stakeholders including, but not limiting ourselves to Ministry of Youth, Sport and Child Development, Ministry of Community Development and Social Welfare, Drug Enforcement Commission, UNICEF, Advocates of Hope, Africa Directions, Kasama District Business Association, Kasama One Stop Centre, Trauma Healing Centre, Young Women Christian Association, Zambia Chambers of Small and Medium Business Associations, Zambia Development Agency and Zambia Co-operative Federation who set aside time to be interviewed as key informants. We sincerely thank BYF and WfC projects beneficiaries who participated in the assessment through the questionnaire survey, focus group discussions and case studies. We have taken care to faithfully reflect the views and perceptions of the study participants and to ensure the accuracy of information used in this report. We, however, take full responsibility for any errors of omission and commission. The analysis and conclusions in this report are those of the assessment team and should not be taken to represent the official positions of the Government of the Republic of Zambia, Ministry of Youth, Sport and Child Development, UNICEF, Barclays or any other stakeholder. Assessment team Ephraim M. Dhlembeu International Consultant Chabila C. Mapoma (PhD) National Consultant Mwewa E. Kasonde Researcher Justine M. Nkaama Researcher Tambulani Chayima Nyirenda Researcher Herbert Tato Nyirenda Researcher (Team members’ profiles given in Appendix 5.2)

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Youth empowerment situation in Zambia Zambia has one of the most youthful populations in Africa with 37 percent of its 15 million population being youths1. It has an annual population growth rate of 2.4 to 3.0 percent with a projected population of approximately 24.5 million by 20302. The youth cohort will continue to expand with an in built momentum of high fertility. Young people make up a significant proportion of the country’s labour force and the unemployment rate for the 20 to 24 years age group is estimated at five times greater than for those older. Among factors for this are misalignment of education and labour market needs, lack of experience, nepotism and corruption in labour markets and a lack of skills and entrepreneurship training. There are also gender issues in youth employment with certain sectors considered to be available only for men or women. Young women are more likely to report lower pay or not being paid at all for their work. The Zambian government has a number of policies and programmes aimed at uplifting the socio-economic lives of young people. Among these are the National Youth Policy, the Citizens Economic Empowerment Fund (CEEF), the National Action Plan on Youth Empowerment and Employment Strategy and the Youth Development Fund (YDF). The YDF seeks to promote active participation of youths in economic development by venturing into sustainable income generating activities (IGAs) and through sustainable youth employment opportunities. Government youth development initiatives are, however, resource constrained. Given the high numbers of vulnerable youth, resources for these initiatives fall far short of the demand. The BYF and WfC projects It is against the background of high youth unemployment rate that UNICEF, with funding support from Barclays, partnered with the Government of Zambia’s Ministry of Youth, Sport and Child Development (MYSCD) and other organisations on a programme for youth economic empowerment. The Building Young Futures (BYF) programme was implemented from October 2012 to October 2015 with a budget of US$1,392,870 and the Wheels for Change (WfC) component of this, which was aimed at providing young people with access to entrepreneurship opportunities and mentoring support, was implemented from August 2015 to April 2016 with a budget of US$246,293.97. BYF sought to establish sustainable solutions to supporting youths aged 15 to 25 years to enter the business world and labour force through: training of and equipping 4,500 youths with basic entrepreneurship, marketing and finance skills, helping 3,000 youth to start-up IGAs, helping 1,500 youth to access start-up funds, providing 1,500 youth with follow-up business advice, linking 1,000 youths to existing collective saving schemes and help at least 30% of these to open bank accounts and start saving. BYF was implemented in partnership with MYSCD, Advocates of Hope, Africa Directions, CAMFED, Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), Trauma Healing Centre, Young Women Christian Association (YWCA) Chipata, Mansa One Stop Centre, Kasama One Stop Centre, Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) and Zambia Bureau of Standards. The project was implemented in twenty districts. BYF is reported as having surpassed its targets with: 9,869 youths trained in basic business, marketing and finance using the Get Ahead and OSAWE programmes; most of the youths mentored by the various stakeholders and also referred to appropriate institutions for additional support;

1 CSO, 2010 Census of Population and Housing 2 UNDP, Zambia Human Development Report 2013

3

7,589 young people running their own businesses of which 2,865 received start-up capital from UNICEF; 1,164 youths linked to job markets by ZDA; 5,760 youths started saving either as individuals or part of collective saving schemes; and 2,654 opened bank accounts3. BYF monitoring concluded that the majority of the BYF graduates were unable to start or grow their businesses due to limited access to capital. It was for this reason that UNICEF and MYSCD with further funding support from Barclays Bank UK created the WfC grant support programme to provide seed money to eligible BYF beneficiaries. The objective of WfC was to stimulate creation of wealth and employment opportunities by supporting the growth and sustainability of youth-led enterprises. This was to be achieved through disbursements of small grants of up to 5,000 Kwacha (+US$500) to eligible BYF beneficiaries to enable them start or grow their businesses followed by mentorship workshops. Among topics covered in the mentorship workshops were: the art of planning, perseverance, hard work, financial discipline, opportunity seeking, risk taking, information seeking, art of saving and ploughing back profits, associating with successful people, willingness to start small even from own little resources, self-confidence, consulting others, ambition, self-starters, goal setting, motivation to excel, making the customer the most important person in the business operations, being creative and innovative, elimination of the “self-pity” feeling and shyness, and separating business matters from family and friendship issues. WfC was implemented in partnership with Advocates of Hope, Africa Directions, DEC, Trauma Healing Centre, YWCA Chipata, Mansa One Stop Centre, Kasama One Stop Centre, Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia (PPAZ) and ZDA. It reached 575 vulnerable young people aged 15 – 25 years with grants in fourteen districts. The programme surpassed the originally planned figure of 250 grants4. Purpose, objectives and methodology of assessment In order to learn lessons from BYF/WfC programme and thereby contribute to the evidence base for further advocacy and inform existing and similar future youth programmes, this assessment was commissioned to:

a) assess the BYF and WfC programmes in terms of the design, methodology, organisational structures and implementation and their efficacy with respect to youth empowerment

b) document the lessons that can be drawn on project(s) design, methodology, implementation and monitoring of a youth empowerment programme, and

c) document how lessons learnt from BYF/WfC can inform the Government’s YDF and CEEF as well as other programmes for the empowerment of youths.

The assessment involved literature review, 20 national and district level key informants interviews, four focus group discussions (FGDs), eleven case studies and a structured questionnaire survey of 122 BYF and 155 WfC beneficiaries in 14 districts. Appropriate measures were taken throughout the study in line with UNICEF child research ethics. The main challenges experienced were a tight schedule, locating sampled beneficiaries and distances between interviewees. The assessment team navigated around these by working round the clock and piecing together information on beneficiaries held by Implementing Partners (IPs). On the whole, the team has high confidence in the findings. A draft assessment report was subjected to a validation workshop before finalisation.

3 UNICEF Zambia, End of Project Report, Building Young Futures, October 2015 4 UNICEF Zambia, End of project Report, Wheels for Change, April 2016

4

How the youths have benefited from BYF and WfC The assessment found the BYF/WfC programme implementation generally consistent with the design and with indications of contributing to expected results. The indications notwithstanding, the assessment did not delve much into matters of outcome and impact as these may take long to fully manifest. Rather, the assessment focused more on programme processes. There were indications that BYF and WfC have benefited young people. BYF has equipped youths with knowledge and skills to grow their old businesses (45.0 percent of respondents), start new businesses (26.7 percent) and start and grow their businesses (27.0 percent). After acquiring business and entrepreneurship skills leading to starting and/or growing their businesses, beneficiaries reported improvements in their livelihoods. A majority, 82.0 percent and 74.0 percent, reported improvements in access to food and clothing, respectively. None of the youths that participated in the survey reported being directly linked to jobs by the project. WfC provided seed capital for youths to start or grow their businesses. There were 575 WfC beneficiaries (F:308 M: 267) of whom 138 were reported to have used their grants to start new businesses and 437 who used their grants to grow existing businesses5. The assessment findings corroborate these reports. WfC grants helped most beneficiaries (86.0 percent of respondents) to start new businesses. This includes youths that were already in business but used grants to open new business lines. Of those that started new businesses, one female and two males (representing 2.5 percent of respondents that started new business) were youths below 18 years. Of youths that were already in business, 84.4 percent reported that the grant helped them grow their businesses. A majority (95.3 percent) of respondents that already had businesses reported improvement in business performance as a result grant allocation. About 37 percent of youth reported having employed other youths as a result of establishing or growing their businesses with support from BYF/WfC. According to FGDs and case studies conducted, BYF/WfC beneficiaries engaged in business involving agriculture, poultry, grocery shops and trading, restaurants, saloons and barber shops, and trading in computer services and phone accessories. Agriculture, poultry and trading were predominantly in rural areas. What worked well and what could have been done better The BYF/WfC programme had many aspects that worked well and worth highlighting. The public private partnership (PPP) involving Barclays, UNICEF, MYSCD and civil society organisations demonstrated that it is possible to bring together different stakeholders for concerted effort towards youth economic empowerment. Among civil society participants were NGOs, traditional leaders (in Mansa district) and Churches (in Nakonde district). The projects engaged diverse partners without diverting them from their core businesses, but rather building on them. For example, implementing partners such as DEC and PPAZ continued with their usual work with youths focusing on drugs and adolescent sexual reproduction health, respectively, while linking youths to BYF/WfC initiatives which in a way took their usual work to higher levels. Involvement of MYSCD which has the YDF mandate was a good strategy as that provided for BYF/WfC to inform national youth empowerment policies and programmes. Besides IPs, BYF/WfC also collaborated with many other organisations. BYF, for example, engaged Plan International to train trainers in OSAWE. WfC used guest speakers in mentorship workshops from a diverse range of organisations including ZDA, CEEF, Barclays, Finance Bank, Zambia National Commercial Bank, Patents, Companies Registration Agency and traditional leaders.

5 UNICEF Zambia, End of project Report, Wheels for Change, April 2016

5

BYF rode on the tried and tested OSAWE and the International Labour Organisation’s “Get Ahead” business training packages thereby building on them by introducing financial skills training and mentorship. The OSAWE and Get Ahead training packages were, therefore, enriched for BYF beneficiaries. Introducing WfC for grant support to beneficiaries of BYF was opportune in demonstrating the possible effect of a package of services, in this case entrepreneurship training and access to finance for small business, to a target group. Experiences with youth empowerment programmes in Zambia and other countries is that of different services operating independent of each other. The BYF/WfC approach will, therefore, be a learning point on common targeting of services. Other programme areas that worked well are: reaching out to twenty districts (with relatively small budgets totalling US$1.639m for the two projects) including some very remote districts such as Nakonde; the rural and urban inclusion; the involvement of both female and male youths (of the 575 WfC beneficiaries, 308 were females and 267 male)6; and exclusion of businesses involving potentially harmful products such as tobacco, beer and drugs, notwithstanding the study coming across isolated cases of breach of this provision. Areas for improvement included some design and operational aspects. With respect to design, utilisation of the National and District Steering Committees to their full potential could have been considered. The National and District Steering Committees could have been made programme think-tanks at national and district levels, respectively, providing policy direction, coordinating IPs and addressing implementation issues faced by IPs. In addition, creating a platform for interaction of IPs would have provided for sharing experiences and finding common approaches to operational issues. Operational areas for improvement include: having written memoranda of understanding with IPs for accountability; involving national level offices of IPs that were participating at district level; broadening the dissemination of information on training and funding support opportunities in order to go beyond youths that are associated with the IPs; standardising the system and procedures for selection of beneficiaries for training and financial support; managing expectations of BYF beneficiaries regarding grant support; establishing and maintaining data bases on trainees and grant recipients for monitoring and follow-up support by IPs; structured monitoring and follow-up support to beneficiaries. Areas relating to IPs, such as data bases and selection and monitoring of beneficiaries, also point to the need for capacity building of IPs. This need was also picked up by UNICEF and MYSCD monitoring visits where it was observed that some IPs in districts did not have the requisite credentials and experience to offer regular mentorship and entrepreneurship counsel to youths under their purview. There were two main support services to beneficiaries under the WfC programme namely, disbursement of small grants for seed capital followed by mentorship workshops. The sequence of the support services could probably have been better in reverse order such that the mentorship workshops could also have contributed to further training of BYF graduates and to screening of grants recipients. Although the majority of mentorship workshop participants (609 out of 944 participants) attended workshops without having received WfC grants, more non grant recipients could have benefited from the workshops. The study did not come across any signs of tension between grant recipients and non-recipients. Mentorship workshops content were relevant to all youths aspiring to venture into or already in business. Some of the topics, e.g. willingness to start small even from own little resources, would encourage BYF graduates not to view access to capital as the panacea to starting a business.

6 The survey findings corroborated the programme’s gender sensitivity as 53.28 percent and 50.32 percent of respondents turned out as female youths that received training under BYF and grants under WfC, respectively

6

Lessons and good practices There were some good practices developed by the projects that are worth highlighting. One good practice was on direct disbursement of grants to WfC beneficiaries through Finance Bank branches. While there were some operational hitches like delays in receiving grants by some beneficiaries owing to mismatch of names and national identity card numbers and distances to bank branches, the direct disbursement approach must have been a cost efficiency factor. It probably also contributed to the aforementioned extensive coverage with a relatively small budget. Many programmes involving donors and UN Agencies working with IPs tend to pass resources through the IPs, thereby incurring intermediary costs and reducing the amounts that eventually reach the intended beneficiaries. The WfC grant disbursement approach eliminated the intermediary costs. The Bank which disburses these funds already has an existing Long Term Agreement (LTA) with the UNICEF Country Office to provide this services which the Child Protection team took advantage. The bank charges a two percent handling fee. In the case of the WFC the handling fee was paid from the UNICEF general resources. A second good practice was the partnership approach involving a UN Agency, a Government Ministry and institutions and civil society organisations. Further to working collaboratively, the programme structures such as the National and District Steering Committees for WfC beneficiaries’ selection were designed for inclusivity of IPs operating at the different levels. This was a measure for transparency. The partnership approach also created platforms for the programme to influence the policies and practices of stakeholders. For example, referral systems to link young BYF beneficiaries to available jobs and local markets were put in place with a view of creating a national referral system for young entrepreneurs. MYSCD was reported as having selected to continue improving on this activity as it moved towards creating jobs for 500,000 youths in the country by December 20157. A third good practice was from the BYF project whereby some youths formed voluntary savings and loans groups along the OSAWE model. These savings groups enabled some youths to raise start-up capital for small businesses and others to grow their businesses. Closely related to this was a fourth good practice where some WfC beneficiaries pooled their grants to increase capital for businesses that were above their individual grant amounts. This also ensured commitment and accountability by members through peer support. These two good practices from BYF and WfC were highlighted in FGDs and case studies. A number of lessons can be drawn from the programme on youth economic empowerment. One major lesson is that not all youths are interested in business and entrepreneurship skills. To cater for this, BYF had a referral mechanisms for mentoring and job information through which youths were monitored by the various stakeholders. Young people who needed additional support like funding, education, psycho-social support, were referred to appropriate institutions. The screening for WfC beneficiaries did not, however, take the lesson into account. IPs tended to simply bring in youths that they were associated with in their programmes without any screening for interest in business. It was noted that not everybody has entrepreneurial aptitude and that, for some youths no amount of training will make them entrepreneurs or business persons. For those that inherently have entrepreneurial aptitude, training either stimulates or sharpens it for them to embark on or grow their business enterprises. The WfC project design was, therefore, right in focusing on youths already with businesses. Those already in business would have demonstrated business aptitude. The implementation of WfC may not have fully respected this design element as monitoring and follow-up counsel to beneficiaries by some IPs was not robust.

7 UNICEF Zambia, End of Project Report, Building Young Futures, October 2015

7

Another important lesson is the potential tension between BYF and WfC projects. The former was found to train in, among other entrepreneurial aspects, raising capital for business. The WfC project grants made BYF graduates highly expectant of grants thereby killing the capital mobilisation spirit instilled by BYF. This potential tension fuels the debate on grants versus small loans approach. A majority (ranging between 59.09 to 100 percent) of respondents in the fourteen districts preferred grants to loans while fewer, but as significantly high as 40.91 percent in some district, favoured loans. While loans have advantages of strengthening ownership and commitment to business enterprises and provide for more beneficiaries to be reached by revolving funds, there were found to have challenges associated with a poor loan repayment culture and some youths being so disadvantaged they need grants to start them off. This assessment reached a conclusion that grants and small loans approaches are not mutually exclusive. There was also an important lesson on screening and monitoring of beneficiaries. The BYF and WfC projects were meant to benefit out of school and unemployed youth. The assessment came across a case of one youth who received a grant from the WfC project and used the same to return to school. The person that enrolled in school was reported to have remained in school. Overall about 3.9 percent of respondents that were WfC beneficiaries were above the WFC upper limit age but this could be explained by the number of years that have passed since they were trained in BYF. However the assessment still points to the imperative of stronger mechanisms for screening, monitoring and following up beneficiaries. Youths with family responsibilities like being heads of households and those already running businesses were found to be more business focused than those without responsibilities and for whom important decisions were taken on their behalf by parents or guardians. Conclusion and recommendations The BYF/WfC approach to youth empowerment is effective. The BYF/WfC programme demonstrated the potential effectiveness and efficiency of (a) partnership and collaborative approach (b) building on existing government and civil society structures through the National and District Steering Committees (c) riding on proven processes such as OSAWE and Get Ahead entrepreneurship training packages (d) providing a package of support services to a target group (e) extensive programme reach to twenty out of 105 districts in the country with a relatively small combined budget of US$1.64 million, and (f) disbursement of funds direct to beneficiaries. BYF/WfC programme has already demonstrated potential towards youth unemployment and poverty reduction through youth starting and growing businesses. Like with any programme there were some operational aspects that could have been done differently for better effect. Notwithstanding these, the BYF/WfC programme design was quite sound and offers some lessons to youth empowerment programmes. In view of the findings, the following recommendations are proposed to Barclays and UNICEF and to future economic empowerment programmes including the current Government supported YDF and CEEF.

1. Barclays, UNICEF and MYSCD should consider conducting a comparative impact assessment of BYF and the combined BYF/WfC approaches on youth empowerment in order to get a fuller appreciation of the effects of different packages of support services after a couple of years or such time that programme impact would have fully manifested.

2. Future youth empowerment programmes should consider a mix of entrepreneurship,

marketing and finance training on one hand and grants for seed capital and small loans on the other. Grants should be used for youths who would not have access to finance in any other way but are keen to venture into business. Resources permitting, revolving funds should be used to support youth in businesses they wish to grow. Market linkages for small

8

loans should also be encouraged for youths who are positioned to access small loans from banks and microfinance institutions. The balancing act between grants and small loans requires thorough screening of young entrepreneurs’ capacities and interests.

3. Economic empowerment programmes such as YDF and CEEF should consider adopting the

public private partnership (PPP) approach used by BYF/WfC. Involving Government institutions, private sector players and civil society organisations has been demonstrated to facilitate cost effectiveness, extensive reach and transparency and integration of support services that include entrepreneurship, market and finance training and access to capital. The efficacy of the PPP approach can be further enhanced by the establishment and use of inclusive structures at national and lower levels to provide strategic direction and coordination of stakeholders.

4. Youth empowerment programmes where a partnership and/or collaborative approach is

used with different participating IPs should provide for platforms for the interaction of IPs and capacity building of IPs to ensure standardisation of support to beneficiaries under their watch. This is an imperative in view of that entrepreneurship development and supporting young entrepreneurs would not be the core business but rather an add-on for most organisations that become IPs.

5. Information on entrepreneurship training and business funding opportunities, be they grants

or small loans, should be disseminated extensively to reach out to all potential young entrepreneurs and not only those already associated with IPs. The application processes should also be kept as simple as possible in order not to exclude youths with little or no formal education but have entrepreneurial aptitudes.

6. Youth empowerment programmes that support entrepreneurship training and access to

finance should prioritise youth that have, in different ways, demonstrated entrepreneurial aptitude either by starting income generating activities on their own, have applied for business loans with or without success, or taken some other action towards starting a business.

i

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures and Tables ......................................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. iv 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background to Building Futures and Wheels for Change projects ...................................................... 1

1.2 Youth unemployment situation in Zambia ................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Youth empowerment in Africa ..................................................................................................................... 4

2. ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 5 2.1 BYF/WfC assessment objectives .................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 BYF/WfC assessment methodology ............................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Study team and ethical considerations ...................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Study challenges .............................................................................................................................................. 7

3. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 8 3.1 Background characteristics of beneficiaries ............................................................................................. 8

3.2 BYF project methodology and potential contribution to impact ......................................................... 9

3.2.1 Awareness of the BYF project by youths ........................................................................................ 10

3.2.2 Selection of youths for the BYF project ........................................................................................... 10

3.3 Benefits of the training on businesses of young people ..................................................................... 12

3.4 Effects on livelihoods after training ......................................................................................................... 14

3.5 WfC grant administration and project monitoring ............................................................................... 14

Summary findings on WfC ..................................................................................................................................... 14 3.5.1 Selection criteria of beneficiaries for the WfC grant ................................................................... 15

3.5.2 Benefits accruing due to the WfC grant .......................................................................................... 16

3.5.3 WfC grant operational structures ..................................................................................................... 17

3.5.3 Monitoring of the WfC grant beneficiaries .................................................................................... 17

3.6 WfC project and the Youth Empowerment Programme ..................................................................... 19

3.7 Access to loans and sustainability of businesses set after BYF project ........................................... 19

3.8 Grants vs. Small loans .................................................................................................................................. 22

3.9 Good practices and lessons learnt ........................................................................................................... 23

3.9.1 Good Practices ...................................................................................................................................... 23

3.9.2 Lessons Learnt ....................................................................................................................................... 24

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 26

5. APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Appendix 5.1 References ................................................................................................................................... 28

ii

Appendix 5.2 Assessment team members profiles ..................................................................................... 28

Appendix 5.3 National level Key Informants interview guide ................................................................... 30

Appendix 5.5 Beneficiaries focus group discussion guide ......................................................................... 32

Appendix 5.6 Case studies guide ..................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 5.7 Participants information sheet ............................................................................................... 34

Appendix 5.8 Participant consent form ......................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 5.9 Beneficiaries questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 36

iii

List of Figures and Tables

Table 2.2 Study samples by district ........................................................................................................................ 7

Table 3.1 Percent distribution of BYF and WfC beneficiaries’ characteristics .............................................. 8

Figure 3.2.1 Percent distribution of beneficiaries’ awareness about the BYF project ............................ 10

Table 3.2.2 Percent distribution of the selection for beneficiaries of the BYF project............................ 11

Figure 3.3(a) Percent distribution of usefulness of training to beneficiaries ............................................ 12

Figure 3.3(b) Percent distribution of beneficiaries who received mentorship for their business after

training ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 3.4 Percent distribution of beneficiaries’ livelihood of after the training ..................................... 14

Table 3.5.1 Beneficiaries’ responses on guidelines, requirements, selection process and giving of

grants .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 3.5.2 Percent distribution of beneficiaries on how grant helped business ................................... 16

Figure 3.5.3 Beneficiary’s responses by district on businesses that were checked after they received

the grant .................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3.6 Beneficiaries responses on how the WFC project can complement YEP ................................ 19

3.7(a) Percent distribution that beneficiaries sought for loans and managed to get after training .... 19

Figure 3.7(b) Percent distribution on entrepreneurship skills beneficiaries are able to apply skills

without difficulties .................................................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 3.7(c) Percent distribution on performance of business after receiving WfC project ................ 20

Figure 3.7(d) Percent distribution on sustainability of business without grants ...................................... 21

Figure 3.8 Percent distribution on preference between grants and loans, by district ............................ 23

iv

Abbreviations and Acronyms AAIN African Agribusiness Incubator Network

AgBIT Agribusiness Incubation Trust

BDS Business Development Support

BYF Building Young Futures

CSO Civil Society Organisation

CEEC Citizens Economic Empowerment Commission

CEEF Citizens Economic Empowerment Fund

DSC District Steering Committee

FARA Forum for Agricultural research in Africa

FGD Focus Discussion Group

GRZ Government of the Republic of Zambia

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus

IGA Income Generating Activity

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

ILO International Labour Organisation

IPs Implementing Partners

IMOD Inclusive Market-Oriented Development

KI Key Informant

MCDSW Ministry of Community Development and Social Welfare

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MYSCD Ministry of Youth, Sport and Child Development

NAP National Action Plan

NYP National Youth Policy

NSC National Steering Committee

OSAWE Own Savings and Wealth creation

PAYE Commonwealth Plan of Action for Youth Empowerment

PPAZ Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia

PPP Public Private Partnership

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

SNDP Sixth National Development Plan

ToR Terms of Reference

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Children Fund

UniBRAIN Universities, Business and Research in Agricultural Innovation

YWCA Young Women Christian Association

WfC Wheels for Change

WPAY World Programme of Action for Youth

YDF Youth Development Fund

YEP Youth Empowerment Programmes

ZCSMBA Zambia Chambers of Small and Medium Business Associations

ZDA Zambia Development Agency

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to Building Futures and Wheels for Change projects Set up in 2008, Building Young Futures (BYF) is an award-winning partnership between Barclays and UNICEF with an investment of €5 million aimed at empowering thousands of young people between the ages of 15-35 across 13 countries. Worldwide, over 74.5 million young people between the ages of 15 and 25 years are unemployed and financially excluded. Only by gaining relevant skills and knowledge are they able to change their lives. It is widely acknowledged that young people who have good education and are financially aware are better placed to help create stronger economies. The partnership was set to provide the youths with in-depth financial and enterprise skills training, career guidance, mentoring and work placements. Combining Barclays Bank’s financial expertise with UNICEF global experience in helping young people and working with national and local governments to influence policies that unlock resources and support, this ground breaking partnership has proved that real and sustainable change can be achieved. During the first phase, over 600,000 young people across 13 countries benefited. In 2012, Barclays and UNICEF renewed the effort for another 3 years (2012-2015) targeting 74,000 disadvantaged young people in Brazil, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Zambia. The second round included an element grants for seed capital and start-up loans to help trained youths to venture into business. The funds are raised by Barclays Bank employees through the “Wheels for Change” (WfC) Project. Zambia is one of the beneficiaries of the Barclays / UNICEF partnership through both the BYF and WfC projects. Zambia has one of the most youthful populations in the world and in sub Saharan Africa. According to the 2010 Census of Population and Housing, 37% of Zambia’s 15 million population are youths. According to the 2013 Human Development Report, the country has an annual population growth rate of 2.4 to 3 percent and a projected population of approximately 24.5 million by 2030. The youth cohort will continue to expand with an inbuilt momentum of high fertility. Young people make up a significant proportion of the labour force and unemployment rates for those aged 20 to 24 years is estimated at five times greater than for those older. Among the reasons for this are misalignment of education and labour market needs, lack of experience, nepotism and corruption in labour markets and lack of skills and entrepreneurship training. There are also gender issues in youth employment with certain sectors considered to be available only for men or women. Young women are more likely to report lower pay or not being paid at all for their work. There are a number of industries emerging in Zambia which, if properly leveraged, have high potential for increasing youth employment. These include telecommunications, tourism and agriculture. It is against the background of high youth unemployment rate that UNICEF, with funding support from Barclays, partnered with the Government of Zambia’s Ministry of Youth, Sports and Child Development (MYSCD) and other organisations on a programme for youth economic empowerment. The programme comprised the two projects BYF and WfC. The BYF project was implemented from October 2012 to October 2015 with a budget of US$1,392,870 and WfC from August 2015 to April 2016 with a budget of US$246,293.97. BYF sought to establish sustainable solutions to support adolescents and youths aged 15 to 25 years old to enter the business world and labour force. It intended to achieve this through: training of and equipping 4,500 youths with basic entrepreneurship, marketing and finance skills, helping 3,000 youth to start-up income generating activities, helping 1,500 youth to access start-up funds, providing 1,500 youth with follow up business advice, linking 1,000 youths to existing collective saving schemes and help at least 30% of them to open bank accounts and start saving. The programme was implemented in partnership with MYSCD, Advocates of Hope, Africa Directions,

2

CAMFED, Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), Trauma Healing Centre, Young Women Christian Association (YWCA) Chipata, Mansa One Stop Centre, Kasama One Stop Centre, Zambia Development Agency (ZDA) and Zambia Bureau of Standards. The project was implemented in eight districts in the first year and rolled out to twelve extra districts in the second. The objective of WfC was to stimulate creation of wealth and employment opportunities by supporting the growth and sustainability of youth-led enterprises. This was to be achieved through disbursements of small grants of up to 5,000 Kwacha (+US$500) to eligible BYF graduates to enable them start or grow their businesses followed by mentorship workshops. WfC was implemented in partnership with Advocates of Hope, Africa Directions, DEC, Trauma Healing Centre, YWCA Chipata, Mansa One Stop Centre, Kasama One Stop Centre and ZDA. It reached 575 vulnerable young people aged 15 – 25 years with grants in fourteen districts.

Map of Zambia

Notes: 1. The Building Young Futures Programme was implemented in eight districts in the first year: Mwinilunga, Lusaka, Kitwe, Kasama,

Mansa, Samfya, Chipata and Chongwe. In the second and third year it was rolled out to twelve extra districts: Petauke, Katete, Lunga, Lufwanyama, Chiengi, Milengi, Mungwi, Nakonde, Mpika, Livingstone, Choma and Mazabuka (UNICEF, BYF end of project report)

2. The Wheels for Change Programme targeted 14 districts of Mwinilunga, Lusaka, Kitwe, Kasama, Mansa, Samfya, Chipata, Chongwe, Lufwanyama, Nakonde, Livingstone, Choma, Lundazi and Mazabuka (UNICEF, WfC end of project report)

3

1.2 Youth unemployment situation in Zambia Youth empowerment policy environment The Government of Zambia has a number of policies and strategies aimed at prioritizing youth centred development. Perhaps the most significant of these is the National Youth Policy (NYP) which dates back to the 1990s. It was recently updated in 2015. Other national policies include the Sixth National Development Plan (SNDP) and Zambia’s wider development strategies notably the National Action Plan on Youth Empowerment and Employment Strategy. National Youth Policy The 2015 revision of NYP aligned it to national, regional and international goals such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Copenhagen Commitments on Social Development, the World Programme of Action for Youth (WPAY), Commonwealth Plan of Action for Youth Empowerment (PAYE) 2007 – 2015 and the African Youth Charter. The revision made the NYP more responsive to the current needs of youth people that include unemployment, high poverty levels and challenges of HIV and AIDS, among others. The policy has seven thematic area two of which, youth employment and entrepreneurship development and education and skills development, are aimed at economic empowerment of the young people. The employment and entrepreneurship development theme aims at promoting economic participation of youth through development of entrepreneurial skills and employment creation. Its strategies include: establishment of functional national apprenticeship and internship programmes; changing school curriculum to include entrepreneurial education and skills training at all levels of education; and establishment of functional business and technological hubs and incubators. The education and skills development theme aims at increasing access to quality and equitable education and skills development relevant to the aspirations of the youth and society. Strategies for this include construction of Youth Skills Training Centres, promoting accessibility for skills development including opportunities outside the mainstream education, and reviewing skills training curricula to respond to current labour market needs. Sixth National Development Plan In the Sixth National Development Plan (SNDP), government considers youth and child development as a key sector. The plan acknowledges the youth, child and sports development sector having potential to contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth through skills development and promotion of sports. Accordingly, the plan’s vision for the youth and child development is to “enhance youth and child development survival, development and protection through a well-coordinated and multi-sectoral approach by 2030”. The plan aims to achieve increased empowerment and participation of children and youth in all areas affecting their wellbeing and livelihood by upholding and protecting their rights in order to build a sound human resource base. To this end, the plan stipulates that government strategies should include facilitation and mainstreaming of entrepreneurship training in school, vocational and life skills curricula, establish youth business incubators in Lusaka and Chambishi, facilitate access to credit and business development skills training, mentorship opportunities and information on market opportunities.

4

Action Plan on Youth Empowerment and Employment In March 2012, the late President of Zambia, His Excellency Michael Chilufya Sata requested MYSCD to formulate an Action Plan on Youth Empowerment and Employment. The MYSCD working together with Ministry Finance, African Development Bank and International Labour Organization (ILO) carried out an Ex-Ante study on youth empowerment and employment. Results of the study together with recommendations of the 2006 NYP culminated in the National Action Plan aimed at growth and job creation. The success factors for the action plan include a growth of the formal sector, creating a youth employment friendly policy environment, enhancing youth participation in the formal labour market through acquisition of employable skills and enhancing the performance of the intermediation mechanism. In order to achieve the strategic goals of the Youth Action Plan, Government is formulating and implementing a framework for growth and employment expansion through the Rural Industrialization Strategy. This is implemented in part through the Citizens Economic Empowerment Commission’s (CEEC) Value Chain Cluster Development Programme. Under this scheme, five priority industries are targeted for development in each province, using comparative advantages and premised on the value chain cluster development approach. Each fiscal year, the Government hopes to pick up three districts per province to develop value chain clusters. The approach is private sector driven, meaning that resources and support services are made available for small and medium enterprises development through engaging financial and non-financial service providers including business development service providers. The strategy promotes an integrated package of support services including mentorship, entrepreneurial skills training, business development services and marketing support services Youth Development Fund Access to finance in Zambia is difficult and quite expensive. This is mainly due to high lending rates exacerbated by collateral requirements of lending institutions. Most Zambians, especially the youth, fail to access finance resulting in increased levels of youth unemployment and poverty. In response to this, Government through MYSCD, established the Youth Development Fund (YDF) in 2006. YDF operations have evolved over the years from grants to youth organizations to loans and decentralization to provinces. YDF seeks to, among other things, promote active participation of the youths in the socio-economic development of the country; encourage out of school, marginalised and unemployed youths to venture into sustainable income generating activities; and provide business support services for sustainable youth enterprise development. YDF’s delivery strategies include skills and entrepreneurship training at various resource centres, provision of equipment, tools and start-up capital, establishment of incubators and leadership training.

1.3 Youth empowerment in Africa Universities, Business and Research in Agricultural Innovation (UniBRAIN) programme There are a number of models being implemented in Africa that seek to address youth unemployment, empowerment and entrepreneurship issues. One notable model is the UniBrain (IITA 2015). UniBRAIN pioneers an approach of promoting agricultural innovation and improving tertiary agribusiness education in Africa. It is a Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) project with the Agri-Business Incubation (ABI) programme of ICRISAT's Agribusiness and Innovation Platform (AIP) as the handholding and mentoring partner. The initiative is funded by the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). The initiative is premised on public-private

5

partnership and pursues a market orientated strategy that links researchers at universities and colleges, the market and smallholder farmers. It seeks to improve the flow of technology and knowledge between and among actors in agribusiness value chains. UniBRAIN Agribusiness Innovation Incubators function as training, research and advisory centres for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) undertaking change and innovation. They are also businesses in their own right providing problem solving, testing and validation, and business development services to innovators and agribusinesses. UniBRAIN uses a value chain approach where actors include entrepreneurs and innovators, farmers and producers’ associations, input suppliers and produce buyers, processors and marketers. An African Agribusiness Incubator Network (AAIN) was established under UniBRAIN for collaboration and policy influencing at continental level. Some incubators are located in: Ghana on Creating Competitive Livestock Entrepreneurs in Agribusiness Consortium (CCLEAr); Kenya, on Sorghum Value-Chain Development Consortium (SVCDC); Uganda on Afri Banana Product (ABP) Limited and on Consortium for Enhancing University Responsiveness to Agribusiness Development (CURAD); and in Zambia, on Agribusiness Incubation Trust (AgBIT). AgBIT Limited is Zambia’s pioneer agribusiness incubator, focused on accelerating innovation and the growth of scalable enterprises in the sector. Through its business incubation programme, AgBIT is supporting the rapid growth of small but high-potential enterprises and start-ups in the agribusiness sector, minimizing the risk of business failure in their formative years, encouraging more innovation and a mentorship programme for high potential entrepreneurs. One of AgBIT’s most notable projects is the Young Agripreneurs Innovation Camp Zambia (YAINO Camp) that identifies and encourages potential young entrepreneurs in agribusiness.

2. ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 BYF/WfC assessment objectives The BYF/WfC assessment had three main objectives which were to:

a. Assess the BYF and WfC programmes in terms of the design, methodology, organisational structures and implementation and their efficacy with respect to youth empowerment,

b. Document the lessons that can be drawn on project(s) design, methodology, implementation and monitoring of a youth empowerment programme, and

c. Document how lessons learnt from BYF/WfC can inform the Government’s YDF and CEEF as well as other programmes for the empowerment of youths.

In order to achieve the main objectives, the assessment involved the following specific tasks:

i. Assess the programme in terms of its methodology and its impact on the beneficiaries. ii. Assess the structures responsible for administering grants and monitoring of the WfC project

including beneficiary selection criteria and the process of accessing and disbursement of the WfC grants.

6

iii. Assess the sustainability of the businesses set up after the BYF training with or without the WfC grants.

iv. Assess the criteria used to give grants as opposed to small loans. v. Document key lessons learnt on the overall implementation, impact and value added to the

businesses through the grants under the WfC programme. vi. Come up with recommendation for future lessons on similar or future projects on youth

empowerment.

2.2 BYF/WfC assessment methodology The assessment involved literature review and primary data collection through a structured questionnaire survey of BYF and WfC beneficiaries, Key Informants (KIs) interviews using interview guides, case studies using a guide and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) using a FGD guide. The data collection tools used in the assessment are included at the end of the report as Appendices 5.2 to 5.8. Key informants were purposively drawn from BYF/WfC programme stakeholders and Implementing Partners (IPs) including UNICEF, MYSCD, Ministry of Community Development and Social Welfare (MCDSW), Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), Advocates of Hope, Africa Directions, Kasama One Stop Centre, Kasama District Business Association, Trauma Healing Centre, Young Women Christian Association, Zambia Cooperative Federation, ZDA and Zambia Chamber of Small and Medium Associations (ZCSMBA). A total of twenty KIs, ten male and ten female, were interviewed at national and district level. Using population proportion to size and a simple random sampling process, 250 BYF/WfC beneficiaries of whom 185 were WfC and 65 BYF beneficiaries, were sampled from fourteen districts where both the BYF and WfC projects were implemented. However during data collection a total of 277 youths were successfully interviewed of whom 155 were WfC and 122 BYF beneficiaries. In addition four Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and eleven case studies were conducted and nineteen Key Informants were interviewed. Table 2.2 shows the numbers and percent distributions of interviews by district. Quantitative data from the survey of BYF/WfC beneficiaries was analysed using a Stata Version 13 statistical package. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were used to analyse quantitative data generated from the beneficiary questionnaire survey. Analysis of qualitative data from KI interviews and FGDs was done through assigned themes in line with specific tasks/objectives of this assessment. The analysis fed into a draft assessment report which was subjected to a validation workshop involving twelve representatives of programme stakeholders, including IPs. Feedback from the workshop was used to finalise this report.

7

Table 2.2 Study samples by district

District

WfC BYF WfC & BYF Stakeholder FDG Case

studies

Sample %

sample Sample

% sample

Sample % sample Sample Sample Sample

Chipata 16 10.32 6 4.92 22 7.94 2 1 0

Choma 10 6.45 3 2.46 13 4.69 1 0 1

Chongwe 7 4.52 5 4.1 12 4.33 1 0 0

Kasama 8 5.16 22 18.03 30 10.83 1 0 0

Kitwe 11 7.1 6 4.92 17 6.14 1 1 0

Livingstone 5 3.23 7 5.74 12 4.33 1 1 0

Lufwanyama 6 3.87 4 3.28 10 3.61 1 0 1

Lusaka 20 12.9 2 1.64 22 7.94 7 0 0

Mansa 13 8.39 27 22.13 40 14.44 1 0 0

Mazabuka 11 7.1 7 5.74 18 6.5 1 0 0

Mwinilunga 14 9.03 5 4.1 19 6.86 1 0 1

Nakonde 1 0.65 4 3.28 5 1.81 0 0 0

Samfya 25 16.13 5 4.1 30 10.83 1 0 8

Shiwang'andu 8 5.16 19 15.57 27 9.75 0 1 0

Total 155 100 122 100 277 100 19 4 11

2.3 Study team and ethical considerations The assessment was undertaken by an international and a national consultant with support from four local researchers8. The international consultant was responsible for ensuring quality of the assessment including that of the production of the inception report and the final assessment report. The national consultant worked closely with the former and was responsible for providing quality inputs into the inception and final reports and for data collection tools, and analysis, organizing and leading researchers in data collection in districts. Since the assessment involved some youths aged below 18 years, who could also be categorized as children, appropriate measures were taken throughout the study in line with UNICEF child research ethics. Approval of the inception report, including the data collection tools, was received from UNICEF Zambia. The researchers were people sensitive to gender equality and child rights. The training of researchers included a session on UNICEF child research ethics. Among issues covered were: obtaining informed and ongoing consent for interviews and focus group discussions, privacy and protection of identity, avoiding negative blow back to study participants and conducting safe interviews (ensuring physical safety of interviewees and focus group discussants and data safety). The researchers signed an engagement agreement that included a pledge to adhere to the ethical standards.

2.4 Study challenges On the whole, the conduct of the assessment was reasonably smooth with a few challenges during fieldwork. Among the challenges encountered were (a) a very tight schedule coupled with expansive

8 Profiles of study team members given in Appendix 5.2

8

coverage involving fourteen districts and long distances travelled between interviewees in some districts (b) limited information on addresses of BYF/WfC owing to unavailability of data bases (c) difficulties in locating some beneficiaries on sample lists due to mobility, and (d) unavailability of some key informants owing to short notice periods. The assessment team navigated around these challenges mainly by working round the clock and piecing together information on beneficiaries held by IPs. The team has high confidence in the findings of the assessment.

3. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

3.1 Background characteristics of beneficiaries Table 3.1 presents percent distribution of BYF/WfC beneficiaries that participated in the questionnaire survey by background characteristics. A total of 277 beneficiaries were interviewed of which 53.3 percent were female and 46.7 percent male. Of these beneficiaries, 50.3 percent of females and 49.7 percent of males received a WfC grant. About 45.0 percent of these beneficiaries were aged 20-24 years and 31.8 percent 25-29 years. Further, 62.0 percent of these youths were never married while 31.0 percent were married. About 79.0 percent of the beneficiaries have attained primary education whilst 11.0 percent had no formal education. In addition, 61.3 percent of the beneficiaries were from rural areas whilst 38.7 percent were urban. While the project specifications were clear on who should benefit, results in Table 3.1 show that three of WfC grant beneficiaries that participated in the survey were not trained under BYF.

Table 3.1 Percent distribution of BYF and WfC beneficiaries’ characteristics

Characteristics

Received training Received a grant

n=274 n=3 n=155 n=122

Yes No Yes No

Sex

Male 46.72 66.67 49.68 43.44

Female 53.28 33.33 50.32 56.56

Age

14-19 11.68 0 10.32 13.11

20-24 44.89 100 51.61 37.7

25-29 31.75 0 34.19 27.87

30+ 11.68 0 3.87 21.31

Marital status

Never Married 62.04 66.67 67.1 55.74

Married 31.02 33.33 29.03 33.61

Divorced 2.55 0 1.29 4.1

Widowed 2.92 0 0 6.56

Separated 1.46 0 0 0

9

Household head

Yes 33.94 66.67 32.26 36.89

No 66.06 33.33 67.74 63.11

Number of household members

1-4 31.02 66.67 34.84 27.05

5-9 62.04 0 56.13 68.03

10-15 6.57 33.33 8.39 4.92

More than 15 0.36 0 0.65 0

Education level

No education 10.95 33.33 10.97 11.48

Primary 78.83 66.67 73.55 85.25

Secondary 6.93 0 10.32 2.46

Tertiary 3.28 0 5.16 0.82

Region

Rural 61.31 100 52.9 72.95

Urban 38.69 0 47.1 27.05

District

Chipata 7.66 33.33 10.32 4.92

Choma 4.74 0 6.45 2.46

Chongwe 4.01 33.33 4.52 4.1

Kasama 10.95 0 5.16 18.03

Kitwe 6.2 0 7.1 4.92

Livingstone 4.38 0 3.23 5.74

Lufwanyama 3.65 0 3.87 3.28

Lusaka 8.03 0 12.9 1.64

Mansa 14.6 0 8.39 22.13

Mazabuka 6.57 0 7.1 5.74

Mwinilunga 6.93 0 9.03 4.1

Nakonde 1.82 0 0.65 3.28

Samfya 10.58 33.33 16.13 4.1

Shiwang'andu 9.85 0 5.16 15.57

Total 100 100 100 100

n: sample size

3.2 BYF project methodology and potential contribution to impact The BYF aimed at empowering unemployed and disadvantaged youths aged 15 to 25 years by providing them with an opportunity to develop business and entrepreneurship skills, build knowledge and confidence needed to set up their own small businesses or find jobs. This section looks into aspects concerning, among others things, how beneficiaries of the BYF project knew about the training, how they were selected and whether or not this training was beneficial.

10

Summary findings on BYF Various IPs employed different strategies of selecting youths to be trained through the BYF project. In most instances, the youths selected for the training were those that often visited or were associated with an IP such as DEC, YWCA and Trauma Healing Centres. Most (74.0 percent) of the respondents reported that they had been handpicked by IPs. Hand picking was mostly a reflection of non-acquaintance with detailed procedures required and set for anyone to be included in this project. Slightly over half (51.0 percent) of respondents were not aware of any guidelines or requirements needed to be considered for training. The limited implementation period for the WFC did not also give enough time for the IPs to fully comprehend and in turn explain the guidelines, processes, procedures to the recipients. Youths reported that the BYF project was very beneficial to them. After the training, about 45 percent stated that they gained knowledge on how to grow an old business, how to start and grow a business (27.0 percent) and 26.7 percent actually started new businesses. Notwithstanding this success, it is important to mention that methodologies employed by different IPs to select youths may have disadvantaged potential vulnerable youths who were not aware of the existence of these organisations and centres and were not members of certain social groups of youths in the community.

3.2.1 Awareness of the BYF project by youths Youths trained under the BYF project in Get Ahead and/or OSAWE knew about the training from local authorities (35.0 percent), friends (28.0 percent) and NGO (21.0 percent), with a few having reported the media as a source of information about the training. Figure 3.2.1 details sources of information for BYF beneficiaries.

Figure 3.2.1 Percent distribution of beneficiaries’ awareness about the BYF project

3.2.2 Selection of youths for the BYF project The BYF was implemented using organisations already present and working with different youths in districts. These organisations included: YWCA, DEC, Africa Directions, Advocates of Hope, One Stop Centre and Trauma Healing Centre. In order to assess the methodology employed for the BYF project, beneficiaries were asked if the guidelines and requirements for the training were communicated to them, how they were selected for the training and how they rated the whole

11

selection process. Table 3.2.2 shows variations regarding communication of the guidelines or requirements for the training. On average, 52.0 percent of the beneficiaries were communicated to on the guidelines for the training. Similarly, 68.0 percent of the beneficiaries reported that they had been handpicked to be part of the training while 30.0 percent reported to have been selected after making formal application. In some instances, youths reported that they knew about the training and were chosen because they had been part of other programmes run by respective organisations. Others reported that they were simply informed that there was training and that they needed to attend without much information on what the requirements were. On average, 57.0 percent of the BYF beneficiaries reported that the whole process of selecting those to be trained was inclusive while 39.0 percent said it was selective. Some of the reasons cited for inclusiveness were that, the selection process accommodated any youth that was interested in such a programme.

Table 3.2.2 Percent distribution of the selection for beneficiaries of the BYF project

Name of

District

Communicated to on the requirement

How youths were selected for the training

Description of the selection process

Yes No

Through applying Hand picked Relative

Inclusive Selective unfair Don't Know Total

Chipata

80.95 19.05

23.81 76.19 0

66.67 33.33 0 0 100

Choma

38.46 61.54

23.08 76.92 0

46.15 53.85 0 0 100

Chongwe

54.55 45.45

18.18 81.82 0

45.45 36.36 9.09 9.09 100

Kasama

30 70

3.33 93.33 3.33

23.33 66.67 3.33 6.67 100

Kitwe

76.47 23.53

41.18 58.82 0

88.24 11.76 0 0 100

Livingstone

58.33 41.67

16.67 83.33 0

91.67 8.33 0 0 100

Lufwanyama 80 20

100 0 0

100 0 0 0 100

Lusaka

27.27 72.73

13.64 77.27 9.09

31.82 63.64 0 4.55 100

Mansa

32.5 67.5

7.5 85 7.5

37.5 57.5 5 0 100

Mazabuka

55.56 44.44

27.78 66.67 5.56

61.11 38.89 0 0 100

Mwinilunga

94.74 5.26

78.95 21.05 0

78.95 21.05 0 0 100

Nakonde

20 80

40 60 0

40 40 0 20 100

Samfya

51.72 48.28

17.24 79.31 3.45

62.07 34.48 0 3.45 100

Shiwang'andu 22.22 77.78

3.7 96.3 0

22.22 77.78 0 0 100

In interviewing representatives of IPs, similar questions were asked to establish how they carried out the selection process. There were variations in selecting youths for training. However, the common observation was that some IPs conveniently selected the youths that were either members of that particular organisation or who had knowledge of the existence of the organization. In the following paragraphs, excerpts of actual interviews attest to this assertion:

“One of the mandates for the organization is to deal in capacity building and economic empowerment. And it is against that background that we were able to identify some youths, and some of the youths were identified through the psychosocial counselling they had come for, and some were identified by our volunteers who mingle and know the challenges the youths face. When called to do the training of youths, it was easy for us because we have been in touch with most of the youths throughout our work and this made our mapping easier when it came to selecting the youths to be trained. The youths selected included both those who were doing some economic activity already and those who were not doing anything. Some were not doing anything because they didn’t have skills, funds to start up something” (Trauma Healing Centre, Kitwe).

12

“As YWCA we never went head hunting for youths, we are a volunteer organization so we have youths who are already organized, there are two types: there are those who are either vulnerable or passed through our office to seek a service. So we identified these youths and brought them for this training” (YWCA, Chipata).

“I was told to pick youths, vulnerable people and women alike in all age groups. Because of the work I do, I was able to mobilize these people and I worked hand in hand with the community development people and I was able to mobilize people, youth organization. It was a mixture of different groupings. At that time I was not told about the age requirement, to pick those less than 25 so it was across the board, age requirement was not specified” (DEC, Choma).

Some organisations went further by engaging neutral bodies such as the church to help in selecting youths. In Nakonde for example, youths were selected through churches (Catholic Church, United Church of Zambia and the Seventh Day Adventist Church among others). In other spaces, traditional leaders were involved. In Shiwang’andu, invitations were spearheaded by village headmen. This mixture of efforts indicated how different approaches were used to reach out many young people beyond those associated with IPs in some districts.

3.3 Benefits of the training on businesses of young people Almost all BYF beneficiaries (98.2 percent) reported that they found the training helpful as it, among other things, motivated them in doing business, boosted their confidence, improved their customer care skills, instilled financial management skills, helped them separate business matters from personal / family issues and inculcated a culture of saving. Specifically Figure 3.3(a) shows that, 45 percent of BYF beneficiaries had been helped to grow their businesses, 27.0 percent were helped to start a new business and grow an old one while 26.7 percent were helped start a new business altogether. In Livingstone for example, one beneficiary was quoted as saying:

“I have learnt how to save... I can budget and stopped misusing money. The training has taught me how to start a business with a very small amount. I don’t need a huge sum of money to manage a business”. (Participant, FGD for BYF beneficiaries, Livingstone)

Figure 3.3(a) Percent distribution of usefulness of training to beneficiaries

13

Text Box 3.3

Helped to grow and diversify business Elizabeth (28 years) from Samfya district said the training helped boost her confidence in talking to customers and how also to “handle them”. Elizabeth stated that an important aspect of the training was on value addition. Her initial business was making “munkoyo” (a non-alcoholic drink from maize meal). She then included buying and selling cooking oil. After raising enough money through savings in the OSAWE group, Elizabeth bought flour for making fritters. This enabled her to save more money and she now runs a small shop which stocks a variety of groceries.

BYF was also designed to provide mentorship to trained youths. A referral mechanism, for mentoring and job market information, through which youths were monitored by the various stakeholders was developed. All trained youths that were in business were supported with follow up business advice as part of their mentorship. Young people who needed additional support like funding, education, psycho-social support, were referred to appropriate institutions.9 Of the beneficiaries interviewed, 72.5 percent had received mentorship for their business and 97.0 percent found the mentorship helpful. Figure 3.3(b) Percent distribution of beneficiaries who received mentorship for their business after

training

Testimonies from beneficiaries were corroborated by IPs representatives. Particularly, some IPs reported seeing improvements in businesses run by some youths which they attributed to the BYF training. The following is an excerpt from one interview:

“Of course we have seen a lot of progress. Initially these people are also able to testify and we are able to see that they are able to save and earn a living by way of saving and borrowing and have established their own businesses. Initially those people who had no capital were literally not doing anything are able to borrow and come up with their own businesses; most of these kids, they have established shops, businesses where they are selling groceries, they are able to trade.....The Get Ahead training and OSAWE have been beneficial to the youth, because most of them are able to maintain records such as cash books, profit and loss statement of account and others have even been able to open bank accounts with the banks which they never used to do....and some have even gone as far as opening or formalising their business with PACRA. Others in deep down remote villages have even improved by way of cultivating larger portions of land because of the same monies they are borrowing....and this money has been like a revolving fund which have been going round. They empower each other by way of borrowing and saving....this has seen an increase in their capital base....And one of the benefit has been, those who borrow this money,....they reinvest that money in other businesses such as trading, buying and selling, they go and make profit from these businesses and comes and returns the money....we trained them that each one borrows....and invest in other businesses..” (One Stop Centre, Kasama).

9 UNICEF Zambia, End of Project Report, Building Young Futures, October 2015

14

3.4 Effects on livelihoods after training After acquiring business and entrepreneurship skills and being able to start and/or grow businesses, beneficiaries reported that they had seen remarkable improvements in their livelihoods such that 82.0 percent and 74.0 percent reported an improvement in access to food and clothing respectively (Figure 3.4). This was attributed to having acquired knowledge on how to manage finances, keep track of profit and losses and distinguish family money from business money. Youth participants in the FGDs were quoted as saying:

“It was hard to provide for the family and at the same time sustaining the business because we didn’t know how to spend, save and even manage the little money we had, hence we were going to end up using all our earnings so as to live a better life” (Participant, FGD for BYF Beneficiaries in Kitwe).

“We can see that they are able to send their children to school.... those who have children, especially the vulnerable ones.....some have been able to confirm that they are able to buy three meals a day, or able to eat or at least have a decent meal. Unlike the way it was before we trained them...” (One Stop Centre, Kasama).

Figure 3.4 Percent distribution of beneficiaries’ livelihood of after the training

3.5 WfC grant administration and project monitoring The purpose of this section was to assess structures responsible for administering grants and the monitoring of the WfC project, grant selection criteria and processes followed through in accessing and disbursement of the WfC grant.

Summary findings on WfC Guidelines and requirements for selecting beneficiaries were clear to IPs and these were reported to have been communicated to all the BYF project beneficiaries. However, at implementation stage, exceptions were made for applicants who were 25 years old in 2013 at the time of training and 28 years at the time of grant application. There was evidence of a few cases where these age limits were exceeded. Only applicants that were trained in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 were given the application form which they filled in with guidance from IPs. The general view of respondents was that the process of selecting beneficiaries was inclusive. However, sections of beneficiaries trained especially in 2012, 2013 and 2014 were of the view that because of the age requirement, not being selected in this grant reduced their chances of ever being selected. Further, stringent adherence to age was seen as “discriminatory” by some youths who participated in the BYF training but fell outside the age limits.

15

Using the bank to disburse grants ensured intended beneficiaries received the money. This also enabled accountability. However, in some instances using banks was a challenge for youths who had to travel long distances to bank branches. For example, some youths in Mansa had to go to Finance Bank in neighbouring Samfya district. A possible way round this challenge could have been to use different banks to increase branch network coverage. Depositing grants direct into beneficiaries’ accounts made it difficult for IPs to know who got the grant and when. This was considered a challenge for follow up monitoring and entrepreneurship counselling. This challenge could, however, been easily avoided by schedules of grant disbursements being availed to IPs. The positive side to the arrangement was the elimination of intermediary costs that would accrue from passing grants through, for example, an IP. There was no platform for IPs to interact and share experiences and find common approaches to operational issues. There were also no written memoranda of understanding with IPs outlining the roles and responsibilities of parties to the programme therefore providing for the essential two way accountability.

3.5.1 Selection criteria of beneficiaries for the WfC grant The assessment established that guidelines and requirements for grants support were provided to the IPs. The information was also communicated to BYF beneficiaries. In Table 3.5.1 results show that most beneficiaries received communication on the guidelines and requirements for one to be considered for a grant (97.0 percent of youths in Samfya, 92.3 percent in Choma and 90.9 percent in Lusaka). Majority of beneficiaries in almost all districts reported that they were selected after making formal application. The dominant view of survey respondents was that the process of selecting and giving grants was inclusive.

Table 3.5.1 Beneficiaries’ responses on guidelines, requirements, selection process and giving of

grants

Name of District

Communicated to on the requirements

How selected for grant

Description of process of giving

Yes No

Through applying Hand picked

Inclusive Selective Unfair Don't know Total

Chipata 81.82 18.18

100 0

50 50 0 0 100

Choma 92.31 7.69

100 0

61.54 38.46 0 0 100

Chongwe 66.67 33.33

85.71 14.29

8.33 83.33 0 8.33 100

Kasama 66.67 33.33

100 0

46.67 0 30 23.33 100

Kitwe 64.71 35.29

54.55 45.45

64.71 35.29 0 0 100

Livingstone 75 25

100 0

41.67 58.33 0 0 100

Lufwanyama 80 20

100 0

77.78 22.22 0 0 100

Lusaka 90.91 9.09

90 10

59.09 22.73 4.55 13.64 100

Mansa 66.67 33.33

92.31 7.69

53.85 5.13 17.95 23.08 100

Mazabuka 72.22 27.78

81.82 18.18

44.44 44.44 0 11.11 100

Mwinilunga 89.47 10.53

85.71 14.29

73.68 26.32 0 0 100

Nakonde 80 20

100 0

20 0 60 20 100

Samfya 96.67 3.33

88 12

93.1 6.9 0 0 100

Shiwang'andu 92.59 7.41

100 0

37.04 0 59.26 3.7 100

Although guidelines and requirements were communicated and the selection process was viewed inclusive, information between IPs and beneficiaries was asymmetric. Some beneficiaries only

16

provided information that gave them a higher chance of being selected for the grant. As a result, some of the beneficiaries for the grant were school going pupils who required to combine business and school. One recipient was reported to have gone back to and remained in school after receiving the grant. About 3.9 percent of respondents that were WfC beneficiaries were above the WFC upper age limit of 25 years. Youths that were in the ages 14-19 were posed with substantial challenges because they were still dependents. On the other hand, older youths (Above 25 years) were considered less flight risks. For example, some IPs thought that those who were older than 25 years exhibited more seriousness and potential to start and run businesses compared to younger persons whose decisions were still influenced by their guardians. In the same way, in districts such as Livingstone, youths that had not been trained received grants because the IP had no database or information on youths that had been trained as revealed in the following excerpt:

“Some people got the grant when they were not trained, we don’t blame the people giving because they were just sent a list from PPAZ. The people who were giving out loans claimed that they lost the names of the people who were trained. They asked the PPAZ the organization where we meet from and they sent names even for people who were not trained. Some people trained this year got the grant while someone trained two years ago has not got anything, it is unfair” (Participant, FGD-BYF Beneficiaries, Livingstone).

Some focus group discussants in Mansa raised concerns on the selection of beneficiaries for the grants. Particularly it was suggested that almost all youths in Kalaba village who benefited from the grant were relatives. This could not however be independently verified. Further, some youths were of the view that application forms were availed late and not enough time was given to enable them to fill them out. It is also important to note that issues of undue political pressure were also raised by some IPs. These were said to be linked to political campaigns as WfC was implemented during a period leading to elections in Zambia. One such example was when a District Commissioner pressured an IP to include youths from a certain political party ‘forcing” the IP representative to report the case to the Anti-corruption Commission.

3.5.2 Benefits accruing due to the WfC grant About 86.0 percent of the respondents reported that the grant helped them to start a business whilst 84.4 percent reported that it helped them to grow their old businesses.

Figure 3.5.2 Percent distribution of beneficiaries on how grant helped business

17

3.5.3 WfC grant operational structures The WfC project was implemented in partnership with Advocates of Hope, Africa Directions, DEC, Trauma Healing Centre, YWCA Chipata, Mansa One Stop Centre, Kasama One Stop Centre and ZDA. There was a National Steering committee comprising of representatives of MYSCD, UNICEF, Barclays Bank, MCDSW, ZDA, Zambia Cooperative Federation (ZCF) and CEEC. At district levels, there were District Steering Committees comprising the District Commissioner, MCDSW, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, the District Planning Officer, IPs and youth representatives. District committees received, evaluated and endorsed successful applications. Successful applications were passed on to the MYSCD for final approval by the National Steering Committee. Views gathered by the assessment were that the District Steering Committees only met for the aforementioned purpose. An observation arising from this was whether more value could have been obtained from both the National and District Steering Committees in terms of coordinating IPs around WfC activities and providing strategic direction. IPs indicated using their usual structures to support WfC activities without adding to their existing structural facilities. WfC used Finance Bank branches in districts to disburse grant support to youths. This was perceived by one KI as “smart” since this process ensured rightful beneficiaries received the grant. This also enabled accountability of the funds for the project. One disadvantage that has been noted with the use of banks is that when receiving money for the grant, some beneficiaries had to travel long distances. For example in Mansa, some youths had to collect the grant support from Finance Bank in Samfya. This posed a challenge as most of the beneficiaries lived in rural Mansa. Depositing grants direct into beneficiaries’ accounts also made it difficult for IPs to know who got the grant and when. This was considered a challenge for follow up monitoring and entrepreneurship counselling.

3.5.3 Monitoring of the WfC grant beneficiaries The WfC programme was premised on the assumption that IPs were already on the ground and did not necessarily need to wait for monitoring resources from UNICEF. Further, IPs were given a monitoring tool which served as a guide on items to focus on during the monitoring of grant beneficiaries. Although a workshop was conducted where IPs were brought together to inform them of their role in BYF project, there was no training specifically for the IPs to inform them of their role once the WfC programme was brought on board. The IPs were simply informed that they were going to be part of the WfC. When the assessment enquired on monitoring activities, IPs had different ways in which they monitored beneficiaries of the WfC programme. One IP said they monitored the activities of the beneficiaries at least once or twice every month. “We have to monitor them every quarter” said another IP. Other IPs reported that despite having the UNICEF monitoring tool, they would monitor the beneficiaries at random and this meant that they had no routine schedule or deliberate programme for monitoring. Some IPs said they only monitored beneficiaries when they had a programme in the areas where beneficiaries were located and took the opportunity to visit beneficiaries along with attending to their other activities. Some IPs indicated having developed their own tools that they used beside the UNICEF one while others only visited youth beneficiaries simply to observe what they were doing without the aid of a monitoring tool. One way in which some IPs were monitoring beneficiaries of the grant was simply to look at their capital before, current capital, whether they were making any profit and whether this made them grow and/or start another business; whether this translated in providing basic needs for themselves and their families.

18

Given differences expressed in the manner IPs monitored beneficiaries, it is clear that although they have guidelines, they seem to apply different methods. In some cases, there was simply no monitoring. In Mazabuka for example, no monitoring had occurred because beneficiaries had only received the grant less than 3 months prior to the assessment. IPs reported resource constraint challenges for monitoring since most of them were of the view that MYSCD was supposed to be sending them monitoring money. Despite this challenge, a few IPS including Africa Directions, DEC and YWCA were able to go into the field on their own to monitor beneficiaries. The IPs recognised the importance of monitoring and most of them said the consequences of not monitoring may result in beneficiaries becoming complacent. “The youths tend to be discouraged, because they need to be monitored and encouraged” said one IP. Monitoring was seen as part of mentorship, an area that IPs also needed capacity building in. Monitored beneficiaries by district In order to synchronise data from IPs on monitoring, survey participants were asked to state whether their IPs had visited them on monitoring basis or not. Figure 3.5.3 shows that all respondents that received grants in Mwinilunga, Kitwe, Lufwanyama and Mazabuka had their businesses checked by IPs or stakeholders after they received the grant. However, none of the beneficiaries in Nakonde had their business monitored. On average, more than 70.0 percent of the beneficiaries were monitored. It is, however, noteworthy that in some instances, business sites of youths were visited to see what business they had ventured into with their grant. In other cases, monitoring was said to have been done through the telephone. This was necessitated by long distance to various beneficiaries’ business sites.

Figure 3.5.3 Beneficiary’s responses by district on businesses that were checked after they received the grant

19

3.6 WfC project and the Youth Empowerment Programme Table 3.6 shows how WfC beneficiaries viewed possibilities of complementarity between WfC and the youth empowerment programme (YEP). Forty percent of the respondents were of the view that the grant contributed to reduction of unemployment among youths in the country. Less than two percent of youths were unable to link WfC to YEP.

Figure 3.6 Beneficiaries responses on how the WFC project can complement YEP

3.7 Access to loans and sustainability of businesses set after BYF project Measuring sustainability of businesses set after the programme, especially after WfC, would have been too ambitious in view of that most beneficiaries are still investing and returns are yet to be fully realised. This assessment, therefore, aimed at determining whether youths were able to access loans and what business skills they were able to apply. However, there was some evidence of potential for growth and indications of potential for sustainability. Figure 3.7(a) shows percent distribution of youths who sought loans from banks and other lending institutions and got the loans by district. Findings were that none of the beneficiaries of the training that sought for loans at banks and other lending institutions in Chongwe, Kasama, Lusaka, Livingstone, Lufwanyama and Mansa got loans. Of those who sought loans after the training, 25.0 percent in Chipata and Samfya each got loans. Half of the respondents that sought loans in Mwinilunga got loans. In the case of youths that never attempted to get loans, one major reason they cited was that banks and other lending institutions demanded collateral which many young would be entrepreneurs did not have.

3.7(a) Percent distribution that beneficiaries sought for loans and managed to get after training

Figure 3.7(b) shows the percent distribution of BYF beneficiaries who reported that they were able to apply newly acquired skills to their business without difficulty. About 37.0 percent of beneficiaries

20

indicated that they were able to manage their finances without problems. Results further show that 21.6 percent, 17.2 percent and 17.1 percent were able to identify business opportunities, manage their business while incurring considerably small loses and were able to keep their business records, respectively, without any difficulty

Figure 3.7(b) Percent distribution on entrepreneurship skills beneficiaries are able to apply skills

without difficulties

Figure 3.7(c) shows percent distribution of how respondents describe their business after the WfC grant. A majority (95.3 percent) of respondents indicated that business performance was better after the grant. This result is indicative of the positive contribution that grants can make to business and that grants, however small they may be, have a potential to stimulate performance.

Figure 3.7(c) Percent distribution on performance of business after receiving WfC project

The assessment also sought to get beneficiaries views on whether their businesses could “stand” on their own. Figure 3.7(d) shows 69.7 percent of respondents were confident that their business could stand on its own without any grants. About 30.3 percent of the respondents did not have such confidence.

21

Figure 3.7(d) Percent distribution on sustainability of business without grants

Business sustainability is a function of many factors including hard work, commitment and determination besides financial support. These other factors were part of the business mentorship aspects the WfC sought to promote. The mentorship workshops addressed financial and non-financial topics including: the art of planning, perseverance, hard work, financial discipline, opportunity seeking, risk taking, information seeking, art of saving and ploughing back profits, associating with successful people, willingness to start small even from own little resources, self-confidence, consulting others, ambition, self-starters, goal setting, motivation to excel, making the customer the most important person in the business operations, being creative and innovative, elimination of the “self-pity” feeling and shyness, and separating business matters from family and friendship issues10. Both IPs and beneficiaries were of the view that business could still operate without receiving any further help since acquired knowledge and skills would help youths to run a business effectively and efficiently. Apart from skills in business and enterprise, some beneficiaries were of the view that being ingenious would also help young people to identify weaknesses in their current businesses and, therefore, ably diversify.

Text Box 3.7(a)

From vegetables garden to poultry and barbershop

Emmanuel Kapota (27 years), stays in Mwamfuli Plots in Samfya district. Before BYF/WfC, Emmanuel was vegetable farming getting K600 per month, which barely supplemented his parents’ efforts. He benefitted from the BYF training and also received a WfC grant. Equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills and the grant, Emmanuel changed his business and invested in poultry farming, a business he believes he understands better due to the BYF training. He says he is able to assess the risks and benefits of actions taken. His business is now worth more than the K5000 seed money. Working with ZDA, Emmanuel has been linked to markets including schools and lodges. Emmanuel states that this has made marketing and selling of his chickens easier. He also says customers linked through ZDA were more reliable and pay him promptly. With knowledge in financial management acquired from the BYF training, Emmanuel has realized the importance of financial discipline and has since opened an account with Finance Bank Zambia Limited. Emmanuel says he never saves money in the house anymore. He only goes to the bank to get money for reinvestment and for necessary inputs to the business. The training also made him aware of the importance of registration and as such, his business has been registered with PACRA. From his profits, Emmanuel bought two commercial barbing machines and started a barbershop, employing two youths. The youths employed have families who benefit, directly or indirectly, from their employment. Emmanuel says his immediate family has benefitted indirectly from BYF/WfC since he is now able to significantly contribute to the education of his siblings. He contributes to their school fees and purchase of books. He believes his business also contributes to the health status of the community as he provides protein where the only other source (fish) is steadily dwindling.

10 UNICEF Zambia, Wheels for Change end of project report, April 2016

22

Text Box 3.7(b)

After training 50 ngwee is a lot of money

Innocent Bwalya stays in Njipi area, Samfya district. He was trained under BYF and received a group grant through the Njipi Forward Group, formed in 2013 after the BYF training. The entrepreneurship training revealed to him how to “value and use money”. He says after the training he appreciates the value of all money denominations: 50 ngwee is a lot of money he says. Before training, 50 ngwee was nothing. Innocent started selling groceries in 2012 with an initial capital of K200. He says his business is now worth over K9,000. He attributes his business success to skills acquired from the BYF training. He sells on both cash and credit basis and orders his stocks through a local taxi driver in order to cut travel costs. He has another fish business that employs three young fish mongers who transport the fish to Chililabmbwe - Kasumba Lesa Boarder post on the Copperbelt Province. The Njipi Forward Group where Innocent is a member has 18 people, 9 males and 9 females. Each member makes a monthly contribution of K10. Money contributed by individual members is loaned out to members of the community of which teachers are the majority as well as other people in need. These loans are paid back with little interest. The group also has a humanitarian perspective in that when community members borrow to support a funeral process or to help look after a sick relative, no interest is charged. The group has managed to save over K5000, in cash since December, 2013. Group members share interest from the savings once a year and also loan out to members for income generating activities. The Njipi Forward Group received a group grant worth K5,000 which was used to buy maize and seed. He says although fertiliser distribution was late, the group managed to harvest 30 by 50kg bags of maize which they plan to sell to FRA. The group’s aim is to raise enough money to buy a hammer mill. At an individual level, Innocent says his livelihood has changed as he is now able to take care of his two younger brothers by paying for their school fees: one is in Grade 7 and the other in 9.

3.8 Grants vs. Small loans Through the CEEC and MYSCD, the Government aims at providing loans to empower youths. However, the BYF/WfC took a different approach where grants were preferred to small loans. The reason proffered for the preference was that the programme targeted unemployed vulnerable youths. Some KIs in government ministries were also of the view that loans were “bad for Zambians” as one KI put it.

“Zambians naturally are bad at debt repayment. Lessons learnt from the youth development fund on debt

recovery were also an important in consideration on whether to give a loan or grant “. (MYSCD KI).

Several IPs were of the view that grants were appropriate as they enabled youths to be more adventurous in starting businesses. Others also pointed to the potential negative aspects of a grant as one KI said:

“Much as giving a loan would make someone focused, responsible, answerable and serious with what they are doing ...... a grant would make them just consume the money and forget without using it for intended purpose because they know no one will follow them up. However, a grant can also be good as it helps them to grow their business. A loan comes with its own consequences and once these youths hear of a loan, all they think of is the interest. And the exorbitant interest rates puts them away”.

The debate on grants vs. loans was carried onto beneficiaries as well. Youths were asked what they would prefer between loans and grants. Figure 3.8 shows that all the beneficiaries in Choma,

23

Chongwe, Kitwe, Lufwanyama and Lusaka preferred grants as opposed to loans. Consistently, even for other districts, grants were preferred to loans by most respondents.

Figure 3.8 Percent distribution on preference between grants and loans, by district

FGDs shed some light on why majority of youths preferred grants to loans. Grants were considered good (a) for projects that are seasonal and depend on conditions that are beyond the control of youths such as weather in agriculture enterprises (b) for all businesses as all returns can be ploughed back to capitalize the business without the burden of debt (c) for quick spiral positive effect, and (d) as some youths are so vulnerable they need to be helped to start off. There were, however some youths that preferred loans. These argued loans were more readily available than grants which only come through when there is funding. They also added that loans would make youths more judicious in the use of money. Closely related to funding availability, youths in favour of loans saw revolving funds having potential to reach more young people than a grant of same amounts. A middle of the road view raised in FGDs was that grants would be good for establishing new business with running business going for loans.

3.9 Good practices and lessons learnt The BYF and WfC programme has come up with some good practices and lessons that can inform other current and future youth economic empowerment programmes in the country. The good practices and lessons are discussed below.

3.9.1 Good Practices Beneficiaries hailed the adopting of the Get Ahead and OSAWE entrepreneurship training packages by the BYF programme as well as building on through grants for seed capital for new and existing businesses. The benefits that beneficiaries got from the programme were clearly articulated in earlier sections. What can be added to the beneficiaries’ sentiments is that the programme did not seek to invent the wheel but rather build on proven models, which is a good practice. And the youth responded accordingly. Some youths in Choma and Samfya districts, for example, were found pooling their grants to increase their capital bases for bigger businesses than can be funded by individual relatively small grants.

24

Good practices were also observable at IP level in the administration or methods employed to achieve outputs. Using the MYSCD as the main structure, UNICEF worked with several partners whose focus was youths. These structures had the advantage of being present in communities and interacted on a day to day basis with youths including vulnerable young people. Indeed, most of the youths that benefited from either the BYF or WfC projects were selected based on their associations with IP structures. IPs working in tandem with district authorities contributed to selection of would be beneficiaries. This ensured local authorities buy in, mark of approval of the project as well as encouraging transparency. Besides adopting proven models, the BYF/WfC also worked in partnership with government, private sector and civil society organisations, riding on established structures for effectiveness, reach and efficiency. The programme was implemented in relatively short period of time: BYF from 2012 to 2015 and WfC from 2015 to 2016. During the period the programme reached 24 out of the country’s 105 districts. And this was achieved again with a relatively small combined budget of US$1.64 m. All this can be attributed to the approach of the programme. In training and mentorship, BYF and WfC respectively roped in other players beyond the IPs. Plan International was, for example used in training on Get Ahead and OSAWE. WfC roped in ZDA, CEEF, Barclays Bank, Finance Bank, Zambia National Commercial Bank, Patents, Companies Registration Agency and traditional leaders as guest speakers in mentorship workshops. This is a good practice of recognising the value of concerted effort in promoting youth empowerment. Different organisations brought in different complementary strengths. Working with various organisations also presented unique opportunities with regard to how youths of different backgrounds were approached by BYF/WfC. For instance, among many IPs, YWCA and DEC had a different method of youth empowerment in general. It was linked to the opportunity to provide business skills to vulnerable youths who had either reproductive health challenges or were in conflict with the law (on drugs or similar). YWCA and DEC used this opportunity to connect their vulnerable youths to these projects since some of the reasons youths had for being in conflict with the law included lack of business or entrepreneurial skills, among others. Thus, a combination of counselling and healing sessions on one side and empowerment with business and entrepreneurial skills as well as offering a small grant on the other was an avenue to intervene and help those youths who were indeed vulnerable. This approach presented a good model of youth rehabilitation and empowerment with potential for replication at national level.

3.9.2 Lessons Learnt Programme design and methods used were appropriate. Having consultative meetings at national level and agreeing on models of intervention as well as implementation played a significant role to buy in at that level. Using local IPs with extensive knowledge on youths and various vulnerability challenges was a pertinent move whose results reduced substantially usual suspicions which ensue if and when players are based at the national level. This model could be replicated easily by other Youth Empowerment Forums. Although the methods and design were clear, attention required to be paid on the selection of actual beneficiaries. Methods employed to select youths for training and also to empower with funds could further be improved. While a number of youths may be vulnerable and require empowerment, it is clear also that there can never be a uniform application to meet their real needs. The project’s thrust has been to empower youths to venture into business. Not all youths have an entrepreneurial aptitude. This is why some youths granted loans used the money to return to

25

school. The screening for BYF and WfC beneficiaries did not take this into account and other programmes would need to find a way round this by prioritising those youth that are out of school, vulnerable and have demonstrated interest in business. The demonstration may include acts such as having already started an income generating activity or have applied for loan to start one. Another important lesson is the potential tension between BYF and WfC projects. The former was found to train in, among other entrepreneurial aspects, raising capital for business. The WfC project grants were found making BYF highly expectant of grants thereby potentially undermining the capital mobilisation or use of own resources spirit encouraged by BYF. This potential conflict calls for need to consider a mixed approach of grants and small loans. It is, however, important to note that the grant support scheme was motivated by request from beneficiaries themselves as some vulnerable youths were unable to access loans. While small loans have advantages of strengthening ownership and commitment to business enterprises and provide for more beneficiaries to be reached by a revolving fund, they may not be suitable for vulnerable young entrepreneurs starting new business. These would probably do better with grant support. Existing business that has established itself would be better placed to handle a small loan for growth.

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusion The BYF/WfC assessment focused on programme design and processes of delivering on various aspects of the programme seeking to draw lessons on programme delivery for youth empowerment in the country. This assessment was also expected to share whatever little evidence there is of possible outcomes and impacts (since impact usually manifests in the long run) to demonstrate efficacy of programme design and delivery processes. The overall view of the assessment is that the BYF/WfC approach to youth empowerment is effective. The BYF/WfC programme demonstrated the potential effectiveness and efficiency of (a) partnership and collaborative approach (b) building on existing government and civil society structures through the National and District Steering Committees (c) riding on proven process such as OSAWE and Get Ahead entrepreneurship training packages (d) providing a package of support services to target group, (e) extensive programme reaching twenty out of 105 districts in the country with a relatively small combined budget of US$1.64 million, and (f) disbursement of funds direct to beneficiaries. BYF/WfC programme has also already demonstrated potential towards youth unemployment and poverty reduction through youth starting and growing businesses. Like with any programme there were some operational aspects that could have been done differently for better effect. These should, however, not distract from the lessons that the BYF/WfC programme offers to youth empowerment programme. The assessment found the BYF/WfC programme design and process generally sound with respect to potential effectiveness and efficiency in delivering on youth economic empowerment. However, programme implementation faced some challenges that, with hindsight, could have been done differently within the design framework for better effect. One of these was the need for strict adherence to programme structural design of District Steering Committees. The District Steering

26

Committees structure was not used to full potential whereby it could oversee the dissemination of information on training and grants opportunities in addition to selection of applications. The tendency was for IPs to work with young people already associated with them. The National and District Steering Committees could also have exercised a more coordination role receiving feedback on programme activities and providing strategic direction to the programme. A platform for the interaction of IPs could also have been established for sharing experiences and finding common approaches to operational issues. Operational aspects that could have been done different include: recognizing that not all youths have entrepreneurial aptitudes or desire to venture into business which is why there were cases of grants being used to go to school and or college; having written memoranda of understanding with IPs to serve as basis for two way accountability; building capacities of IPs to monitor and mentor the young entrepreneurs as entrepreneurial development was not the core business of the IPs; managing expectations of BYF beneficiaries regarding grant support; simplification of the grant application process so as not to exclude young people with little or no formal education but have entrepreneurial aptitudes; and piloting a mixed approach of grants for seed capital and small loans for growing existing businesses. On the specific issue of grants versus loans, the former were found to be more welcome compared to loans (small or otherwise). BYF/WfC beneficiaries’ views on whether to receive grants or apply for loans were mixed suggesting that it should be possible to have a two pronged approach to financing businesses of young people. It was found that generally, loans are “feared” and grants are potentially “abusable”. There was a strong emerging view that grants could be more applicable to new businesses while established entities could be subjected or linked to loan facilities.

4.2 Recommendations In view of that the BYF/WfC programme design and process have demonstrated huge potential for effective and efficient delivery of youth economic empowerment programmes, the following recommendations are proposed to Barclays and UNICEF and to Government supported economic empowerment programmes such as YDF and CEEF. The recommendations are premised on experiences in implementing the various aspects of the BYF/WfC design and process.

1. Barclays, UNICEF and MYSCD should consider conducting a comparative impact assessment of BYF and the combined BYF/WfC approaches on youth empowerment in order to get a fuller appreciation of the effects of different packages of support services after a couple of years or such time that programme impact would have fully manifested.

2. Future youth empowerment programmes should consider a mix of entrepreneurship,

marketing and finance training on one hand and grants for seed capital and small loans on the other. Grants should be used for youths who would not have access to finance in any other way but are keen to venture into business. Resources permitting, revolving funds should be used to support youth in businesses they wish to grow. Market linkages for small loans should also be encouraged for youths who are positioned to access small loans from banks and microfinance institutions. The balancing act between grants and small loans requires thorough screening of young entrepreneurs’ capacities and interests.

3. Economic empowerment programmes such as YDF and CEEF should consider adopting the

public private partnership (PPP) approach used by BYF/WfC. Involving Government institutions, private sector players and civil society organisations has been demonstrated to facilitate cost effectiveness, extensive reach and transparency and integration of support

27

services that include entrepreneurship, market and finance training and access to capital. The efficacy of the PPP approach can be further enhanced by the establishment and use of inclusive structures at national and lower levels to provide strategic direction and coordination of stakeholders.

4. Youth empowerment programmes where a partnership and/or collaborative approach is

used with different participating IPs should provide for platforms for the interaction of IPs and capacity building of IPs to ensure standardisation of support to beneficiaries under their watch. This is an imperative in view of that entrepreneurship development and supporting young entrepreneurs would not be the core business but rather an add-on for most organisations that become IPs..

5. Information on entrepreneurship training and business funding opportunities, be they grants

or small loans, should be disseminated extensively to reach out to all potential young entrepreneurs and not only those already associated with IPs. The application processes should also be kept as simple as possible in order not to exclude youths with little or no formal education but have entrepreneurial aptitudes.

6. Youth empowerment programmes that support entrepreneurship training and access to

finance should prioritise youth that have, in different ways, demonstrated entrepreneurial aptitude either by starting income generating activities on their own, have applied for business loans with or without success, or taken some other action towards starting a business.

28

5. APPENDICES

Appendix 5.1 References

1. Central Statistical Office, (2012). 2010 Census of Population and Housing: National Analytical

Report. Lusaka: Central Statistical Office.

2. Ministry of Finance and National Planning (2011), Sixth National Development Plan 2011-2015.

Lusaka.

3. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (2015). Youths in Agribusiness within an African

Transformation Agenda. Background Paper

4. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)-Zambia, Wheels for Change End of Project Report -

April 2016. Lusaka, Zambia.

5. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)-Zambia, BYF Project final Report - October 2015.

Lusaka, Zambia.

6. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2013 Zambia Human Development Report.

Lusaka: UNDP.

Appendix 5.2 Assessment team members profiles Ephraim M. Dhlembeu (International Consultant)

ephraim.dhlembeu@gmail.com Skype ID ephraim-d Phone +263 772 369 033

Ephraim is a development consultant with a BSc (Agricultural Economics) and an MSc in Economics. He has over twenty years work experience at local, national and international levels. Experience at these levels includes management, coordination, technical services and consultancy on programmes covering a wide range of themes: livelihoods including income generation activities [micro-enterprise development and VSLAs], agriculture and food security, environmental conservation, health, water and sanitation and institutional capacity building with gender and women’s rights, orphans and vulnerable children and HIV/AIDS as core or cross cutting themes. His areas of expertise include strategic and business planning, programme appraisals, baselines and feasibilities and programme monitoring and reviews. He has had a hand in business as a smallholder farmer focusing on horticulture and apiculture and other small business. Ephraim has vast experience in designing and evaluating programmes on livelihoods and economic empowerment. He has worked for or done consultancies for many organisations working on child rights, gender equality and women’s rights and economic empowerment. He has done consultancy work for IOM, OXFAM, Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation, UN Women, The African Capacity Building Foundation, VOLENS, Voluntary Services Overseas, Action Conte la Faim (Action Against Hunger), ActionAid International, Plan International, World Education International and John Snow International, Diakonia, Women and Law in Southern Africa Research and Education Trust, Lutheran World Federation, PROGRESSIO, MS Zimbabwe, SNV and a host of local organisations in Zimbabwe.

29

Chabila C. Mapoma (National Consultant)

Unza, H.S.S, DPS, Mobile: +260962477531 P.O Box 32379, Lusaka. Email: chabilamapoma@gmail.com

Chabila is a Lecturer at the University of Zambia with over 12 years of service. He has well developed skills and experience in research, consultancy and training in Demography, Health and Monitoring and Evaluation. Chabila has conducted both detailed and basic research using qualitative and quantitative processes, with good understanding of statistical analysis and with ability to work on huge datasets such as Demographic and Health Surveys and Censuses. He is self-motivated and achievement oriented professional with a strict sense of goal setting. He works diligently and honestly with very little supervision. Ephraim holds a PhD in Population studies, a Master of Laws in Demography and a Bachelor’s degree in Demography with Economics. He has several vertical qualifications including Monitoring and Evaluation, Epidemiology, Statistics, Stata, SPSS and the like. He has also worked with government, non-government, private and civil society organisations and the United Nations in different portfolios and capacities. Tambulani Chayima Nyirenda (Researcher)

Unza, H.S.S, PAS DEPT, Mobile: 0978118552 P.O Box 32379, Email: tambulaninyirenda@gmail.com Lusaka

Tambulani is a Staff Development fellow at the University of Zambia where he is also pursuing a Master of Public Administration. Has has participated in national, regional, and local surveys as a researcher, team leader and data analyst. Tambulani has gained immense skills in data collection, data analysis and report writing. He is a versatile, enthusiastic and competent person who always strives to achieve a high standard in whatever is undertaken. He is capable of working as a motivated team member or independently adopting a practical approach and using own initiative. Mwewa Elizabeth Kasonde (Researcher)

35B Acacia Avenue Sex: Female Avondale Nationality: Zambian Lusaka Qualification: BA. Demography (UNZA) Zambia Email: mwewa.kas@gmail.com

Mwewa has worked as a Part-time Tutor at the University of Zambia, research assistant and supervisor, data analyst and in report writing. She has experience in both quantitative and qualitative research. Most of her research experiences have focused on children, youth and women. Mwewa is a self-motivated, well organised and hard-working individual with good work ethics, honest and trustworthy and able to work in a team. She has good management, administrative and communication skills. She is time conscious, able to pay attention to detail, meet assigned tasks and deadlines.

Herbert Tato Nyirenda (Researcher)

The University of Zambia Mobile: +260 978 229 494; P.O Box 32379 Email: tatonyirenda@gmail.com Lusaka Nationality: Zambian

30

Herbert is a Master’s degree holder from the University of Zambia. He has worked as a part-time tutor, statistician, principle investigator, research supervisor, data analyst, research assistant and in many other positions and have gained experience in the field of research, monitoring and evaluation of programmes as well as national surveys. He is a motivated, innovative and conscientious individual with a work culture composed of hard work, interpersonal skills, communication skills and management skills. Herbert is determined and dedicated to assigned tasks.

Nkaama Mweene Justine

Kalingalinga Qualification: BA Demography (UNZA) House No 62/11 Mobile: +260 973 311 131 Lusaka, Zambia Email: junkajustins@gmail.com

Nkaama is a Part-time Tutor at the University of Zambia and has participated in various researches that include monitoring and evaluation of projects as a supervisor, team leader, research assistant and data analyst. He is an eloquent demographer, self and highly motivated person, hardworking, determined and results oriented. He is reliable and enjoys working with others. He can work effectively and efficiently in high pressure environments and meeting deadlines.

Appendix 5.3 National level Key Informants interview guide Respondent’s information

1. Name of interviewee...(interviewer to note sex of interviewee, date & venue of interview)

2. Name of organization

3. Position in the organisation

BYF/WfC projects

4. How, when (and where) has the interviewee been involved with BYF/WfC projects?

5. Interviewee’s views on programme design …..the model used and its logic for youth

empowerment?

6. How well did the BYF/WfC partnerships (public/private/civil society players work)?....and

a. what were the enabling factors?

b. what were the inhibiting factors?

7. Did implementation follow project design and plan …..if not, what were the causes for variance?

8. Interviewee’s views on projects implementation ….. and

a. was programme implemented same way in all provinces and districts? …..if not, why?

b. what worked well and what were the enabling factors?

c. what did not work according to plan and what were the inhibiting factors?

d. what could have been done differently (and better) ……why and how?

9. What major lessons can be drawn from the BYF/WfC programme

a. on programme design?

b. the model and its logic for youth empowerment?

c. organisational structure?

d. implementation? ……and

e. programme monitoring?

10. Interviewee’s views on YEF and CEEF and any other youth empowerment programme in the

country and how they can learn from BYF/WfC programme.

31

11. Any other observations or comments on the BYF/WfC projects and other youth empowerment

programmes in the country.

Appendix 5.4 District level Key Informants interview guide

Respondent’s information 1. Name of district 2. Name of organization 3. Position of respondent 4. Sex of respondent 5. Briefly tell me about yourself 6. What role were you playing in the implementation of this project? Economic activities prior to training 7. How would you describe the businesses operated by beneficiaries of this project before you

trained them 8. How were their livelihoods 9. What challenges were they facing in running their businesses? Training and knowledge in entrepreneurship skills 10. After learning business/entrepreneurship skills, how can you describe their business experience

now? 11. Do you think this training was necessary? How and why do you say so? 12. How have the learnt skills helped the youths to solve the challenges they faced in running their

businesses prior to the training? 13. How do you monitor beneficiaries of BYF/WFC? What tools do you have in place? Benefits 14. How did the skills learnt from the training help the beneficiaries? How? 15. How did the grants help the beneficiaries? How? 16. How has the project had any impact on unemployment levels? How? 17. How can you describe the relation between the skills the youths learnt and the kind of jobs

which are available on the market? 18. What have you done in terms of linking the beneficiaries with the jobs on the market? Access to grants and their sustainability 19. Was the selection process/guidelines for beneficiaries of WfC clear to you? How was this

information communicated to all the BYF beneficiaries? 20. Why did the funders settle on giving grants as opposed to small loans to these youths? 21. If there is need to change the process of disbursing grants and criteria of selecting beneficiaries,

how should this be done? 22. Can their businesses still operate (sustain themselves) without these grants? Implementation process and recommendations 23. Do you think this was the best way to go about this project? Explain why? 24. What are some of the major achievements recorded from this project? 25. After training/funding, does the implementing partners have a system or systems to incorporate

lessons learnt from the BYF/WfC project? 26. What are the major lessons learnt from this project 27. How are such projects supposed to be designed in future so as to make them more beneficial to

the youth? 28. Overall, what can you say about this project?

32

Appendix 5.5 Beneficiaries focus group discussion guide

The Research Assistant will open discussion by: a) observing necessary protocols in meeting with the FGD participants, b) introduce him/herself to participants and explain the purpose of the exercise, c) receive and answer questions from participants about the assessment, d) ask for their willingness to participate and allow those not willing to leave, e) encouraging openness in discussion, f) assuring participants that information volunteered will not be used in the report in a way that is

directly traceable to any particular individual,

The sentences in italics are basically for probing more and also as follow up in case they were not mentioned when answering/discussing the main question. 1. What businesses where you operating before acquiring these skills?

A. Did you have any business skills B. Experiences C. positives D. Challenges E. Attempted to make it grow, and the outcomes

2. How were your livelihoods during the businesses? A. Did you consider quitting your business (if no improvement in livelihood)

3. How did you receive the knowledge from this training? A. Helped in what way B. If no help, why and how C. In relation to business prior the training D. Help you gain confidence in running a business? E. Helped find jobs/provided links for getting jobs? F. What do you think needs to be done to help those who undergo these trainings get.

Jobs 4. Did you start new businesses after the training?

A. What businesses were started after training B. How useful were the skills learnt in relation to your businesses (either new or already existing one).

5. Did you receive any follow ups like mentorship after your training and probably after starting businesses?

A. How important were they? B. Do you think they are necessary, and why?

6. Did you receive a grant to support your businesses? A. Source of capital before the small loan/grant. B. Was the grant necessarily for your business? C. Did your business need it: why? D. Was the criteria used in giving grants explained and transparent. E. How did you find the selection process for giving grants?

F. Which one between a small loan and a grant would you prefer to be given to youths like you and why?

7. The businesses you started after the training/grant, are they still operating? A. Can it operate on its own now B. Pulling out the grant, it can still grow (probing further, for instance why do you feel so)

33

8. What are your experiences in business after the training skills? A. Any challenges B. Positives C. In terms of benefits at individual, family even community level D. Improvement in livelihood (e.g. increased income, etc)

9. Did you acquire knowledge on registering your business and saving with banks from your training? A. Have you realized the importance? Mention them. B. Do you think it is necessary though? C. Probe more to find out if they really registered and have a bank account

10. What are the main factors affecting the performances of your businesses and in what ways? A. Markets (suppliers and consumers) B. Social networks C. Skills, capital, etc.

11. How do your businesses compare with businesses of other youths who did not benefit from the projects?

12. How can you describe the whole project? A. Probe on negatives, limitations or weakness B. Reducing unemployment

13. Do you among beneficiaries or willing to work together and start one business? 14. Among yourselves, do you link each other to opportunities available on the market? 15. Do you adhere to standard of good regulation when packaging? 16. What recommendations and suggestions would you make for future projects similar to

BYF/WfC?

Appendix 5.6 Case studies guide

The Research Assistant will open discussion by: a. observing necessary protocols in meeting with the BYF/WfC beneficiary at his/her business site, b. introduce him/herself to the beneficiary and explain the purpose of the exercise, c. receive and answer questions from beneficiary about the assessment, d. ask for beneficiary’s willingness to participate: proceed is willing and stop interview if beneficiary

is unwilling or changes his/her mind about participation in the course of the discussion e. encouraging openness in discussion, f. assuring participant that information volunteered will not be used in the report in a way that is

directly traceable to any particular individual,

The case study discussion should cover, but not be limited to, the following: Venue of meeting (evaluator to also note date of meeting) Interviewee’s name, sex, district, project site, address, etc 1. Interviewee’s circumstance, e.g. source of livelihood before BYF/WfC interventions 2. How the interviewee benefited from BYF and/or WfC projects 3. What business has interviewee started or grown as a result of being a beneficiary of BYF and/or

WfC 4. What were the specific contributions of BYF and/or WfC to business 5. What are the factors for success of the business (market linkages, social networks, membership

of association(s), loans, etc) 6. Youths having national registration cards/certificates (enable opening of bank accounts)

34

7. Business registration 8. Bank accounts 9. Has business created employment opportunities for other youths 10. Book keeping and profitability of business……business sustainability prospects 11. How is the life of interview and his family changing as a result of the business 12. How is the community benefiting from the business 13. Any other comments by the interviewee.

Appendix 5.7 Participants information sheet Good day! My name is ________________ _____. We are here on behalf of the Ministry of Youth, Sport and Child Development, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)-Zambia and Barclays Bank conducting an Assessment of Building Young Futures (BYF) and Wheels for Change (WfC) Projects in Zambia; in districts where youths aged 15-25 years were provided with business and entrepreneurial skills and small grant in order to build knowledge and confidence, with a view of helping them to start or expand their businesses for wealth and employment creation. You have been selected to be a participant of the aforementioned assessment. This assessment is aimed at measuring the extent to which youth empowerment yields desired results and to document lessons learnt from the BYF and WfC projects and how these can inform other youth empowerment programmes in Zambia. Neither your name nor that of any other respondents participating in this study will be included in the dataset or in any report without your consent. We are asking for your help to ensure that the information we collect is accurate. The interview will take 45 minutes to 1 hour. Your participation in this study is of high value to the success of this assessment. However, your participation in this study is on a voluntary basis. You have the right to take part or to decline. If you do wish to take part in the study and along the way you wish to withdraw, you can end the interview without giving any reason. You also have the right to ask if you have any concerns before the interview begins. There are no known benefits or risks for you in this study. However, the information you provide will assist in planning for how best to address the problems of youths in Zambia in setting up businesses for generating wealth and creating employment for others. The information collected will be treated with the highest confidentially as it will not contain any names or personal information. At this point, do you have any questions about the study? Do I have your agreement to proceed? Name:

Thumb print

35

Appendix 5.8 Participant consent form

REFER TO THE PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET 1. Make sure that you read the Information Sheet carefully, or that it has been explained to you to

your satisfaction. 2. Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary, i.e. you do not have to participate if you

do not wish to. 3. Refusal to take part will involve no penalty or loss of services to which you are otherwise

entitled. 4. If you decide to take part, you are still free to withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of

services and without giving a reason for your withdrawal. 5. You may choose not to answer particular questions that are asked in the study. If there is

anything that you would prefer not to discuss, please feel free to say so. 6. The information collected in this interview will be kept strictly confidential. 7. If you choose to participate in this study, your signed consent is required below before I proceed

with the interview with you. VOLUNTARY CONSENT I have read (have been explained to) the information about this study as contained in the Participant Information Sheet. I have had the opportunity to ask questions about it and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I now consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study and understand that I have the right to end the interview at any time, and to choose not to answer particular questions that are asked in the study. My signature below says that I am willing to participate in this research: Participant’s name (Printed):...........…………………………………………….………………………........ Participant’s signature: ………………............. Date: ................................................................... Thumb print Researcher Conducting Informed Consent (Printed): ………..…………………………………………………………………………………………............... Signature of Researcher:……………………………..…………………………………………................... Date: ..……………………………..............................................................................................................

36

Appendix 5.9 Beneficiaries questionnaire

NAME OF DISTRICT:

37

QUE #

QUESTIONS RESPONSES OFFICIAL USE

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Q1 Sex of respondent 1. Male

2. Female

Q2 How old were you on your last birthday? ___________________years

Q3 What is your marital status?

1. Never married

2. Married

3. Divorced

4. Widowed

5. Separated

Q4 Are you the head of the household 1. Yes

2. No

Q5 How many are you in your household? 1. 1-4

2. 5-9

3. 10-15

4. More than 15

Q6 What is the highest level of education you have attained?

1. Primary

2. Secondary

3. Tertiary

4. No education

Q7 What is your area of residence

1. Rural

2. Urban

SECTION B: ENTERPRENEUR SKILLS BEFORE BYF TRAINING

Q8 Have you ever received any training in entrepreneurship

prior to the BYF empowerment?

1. Yes

2. No ......skip to Q10

38

Q9 If yes, where did you receive the training from?

YES NO

1. NGO

2. Government agencies

3. Private institutions

4. At school

5. Youth resource center

6. Other

Q10 Where you engaged in any economic activity before

acquiring skills from BYF project?

1. Yes

2. No .....skip to Q28

Q11 What economic activity (ies) were you engaged in? Yes No

1. Wage employment go to Q12

2. Business (non farming) go to Q15

3. Farming go to Q18

4. Full time-student go to Q21

Q12 What was your employment status?

1. Household keeper

2. General worker

3. Piece worker

4. NGO worker

5. Private sector worker

6. Other

Q13 What was your monthly level of income (K)?

1. Below 500

2. 501-1000

3. 1001-1500

4. 1501-2000

5. 2001-2500

6. Above 2500

39

Q14 With this level of income, were you able to sustain

yourself and your family.

1. Yes

go to Q24

2. No

Q15 What type of business activity (ies) were you carrying

out?

Yes No

1. Restaurant

2. Salon

3. Tailoring

4. Grocery trade

5. Marketer

6. Carpentry

7. Welding

8. Barber shop

9 Other

Q16 What was your monthly level of income?

1. Below 500

2. 501-1000

3. 1001-1500

4. 1501-2000

5. 2001-2500

6. Above 2500

Q17 With that level of income, were you able to sustain

yourself and your family.

1. Yes

Skip to Q24

2. No

Q18 What type of farming activities were you doing? Yes No

1. Poultry

2. Vegetable farming

40

3. Animal rearing

4. Bee keeping

Q19 What was your monthly level of income?

1. Below 1000

2. 1001-2000

3. 2001-3000

4. 3001-4000

5. Above 4000

Q20 With that level of income, were you able to sustain

yourself and your family.

1. Yes

go to Q24

2. No

Q21 What programme were you doing as a student?

1. Natural sciences

2. Social sciences

3. Education

4. Business studies

5. Vocational

Q22 During your time as a student were you engaged in any

part time income generating activities?

1.Yes

2.No ........skip to 28

Q23 What type of activities were you engaged in?

1. Internship

2. Voluntary work

3. Part-time wage employment

4. Other

Q24 Was the business able to operate on its own without

receiving any assistance from external sources?

1. Yes Skip to Q26

2. No

Q25 If no, why Yes No

1. Lack of market to sell

2. Competition from other

41

supplies

3. Demand was low

4. No skills to produce more

5. No enough money to stand

on its own

Q26 Did you receive any kind of assistance in terms of a loan

or grant to boost/grow your business before the

BYF/WFC project?

1. Yes

2. No

Q27 Was the business/economic activity your only source of

income?

1. Yes

2. No

SECTION C: TRAINING IN ENTERPRENEURSHIP AND BUSINESS SKILLS

Q28 Did you receive training from the BYF project? 1. Yes

2. No ....Skip to Q40

Q29 Was the training helpful? 1. Yes

2. No …Skip to Q31

Q30 How did it help you?

Yes No

1. Start a new business

2. Grow my old business

3. Start and Grow a business

4. Find a job

Q31 How would you rate the training?

1. Very good

2. Average

3. Poor

Q32 During the training, were you informed of any loan lending

institutions were you can access funds to start or grow

your business?

1. Yes

2. No skip to Q36

Q33 Did you seek for loans from anywhere after being told in

the training?

1. Yes

2. No skip to Q36

Q34 If yes, where? 1. Bank

2. Loaning institutions

42

3. Other………………………………………

Q35 Did you manage to get the loan? 1. Yes

2. No

Q36 Did you receive any mentorship on operating your

business after the training?

1. Yes

2. No Skip to 39

Q37 Was the mentorship helpful in running your business? 1. Yes

2. No

Q38

How would you rate the mentorship?

1. Very good

2. Average

3. Poor

Q39 Do you think even after acquiring skills through training,

follow ups such as mentorship and motivations are

necessary in helping run your business?

1. Yes

2. No

Q40 Does training matter in starting up a business?

1. Yes

2. No

SECTION D: SMALL LOANS AND GRANTS

Q41 Did you receive any grant under the WFC Project? 1. Yes

2. No ……….Skip to Q44

Q42 Was the grant helpful in starting your business? 1. Yes

2. No

Q43 Was the grant helpful in growing your business? 1. Yes

2. No

Q44 Are there youths that you know who were not trained

through BYF but benefited from WFC grant?

1. Yes

2. No

Q45 Which one would you prefer to be given to youths like

you, between a grant and small loan?

1. Grant

2. Small loan

43

Q46 Have you ever heard of the youth empowerment funds?

1. Yes

2. No ........Skip to Q48

Q47 How can WFC project compliment

this national programme?

Yes No

1. Sustain it

2. Help reach out to those YEF never reaches

3. No help in anyway

4.Reduce unemployment especially among the youths

SECTION E:SELECTION CRITERIA AND MONITORING PROCESS

Q48 Where did you hear/learn about the BYF/WfC project? Yes No

Social media

Friends

Local authority

Television

Radio

Newspaper

At church

Family

School

Q49 Were you communicated to on the guidelines and requirements for you to be selected for the training?

1. Yes

2. No

Q50 How were you selected for the training? 1. Through applying

2. Hand picked

3. Relative put me in

Q51 Were you communicated to on the guidelines and requirements for you to be selected for the grant?

1. Yes

2. No

Q52 How were you selected for the grant? 1. Through applying

2. Hand picked

3. Relative put me in

44

Q53 What would you say about the whole process of selecting those to be trained?

1. Inclusive

2. Selective

3. Unfair

Q54 What would you say about the whole process of selecting and giving out grants?

1. Inclusive

2. Selective

3. Unfair

Q55 Have there been people who came to check how you were applying your skills after the training

1. Yes

2. No

Q56 After receiving the grant, have there been people who came to check how your business (es) were doing?

1. Yes

2. No

Q57 Was your business registered before the training?

1. Yes

2. No

Q58 Was your business registered after the training?

1. Yes

2. No

Q59 Was it the training that made you to realize that you have to register your business?

1. Yes

2. No

Q60 Do you have a bank account where you save your gains from your business?

1. Yes

2. No

SECTION F:BENIFITS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ENTERPRENEURSHIP SKILLS/BUSINESS AND WFC PROJECT

Q62 What business and entrepreneurship skills are

you able to do without difficulty?

Yes No

1. Make business plans and proposals

2. Manage my finances

3. Manage my business with small losses

45

4. Able to identify business opportunities

5. Bookkeeping for my enterprise

6. Teach others such skills

Q63 Have the skills helped the family benefit as well?

1. Yes

2. No

Q64 After the training, how would you rate your

access to?

Water Food Clothing Shelter

1. Improved

2. Same

3. Worse

Q65 How has been the performance of your business

after receiving the BYF/WFC grant?

1. Better

2. Same

3. Worse

Q66 What is your income level now? 1. Below 1000

2. 1001-2000

3. 2001-3000

4. 3001-4000

5. Above 4000

Q67 Have you created employment for other youths

from your business?

1.Yes

2. No

Q68 Did you find employment/internship through the

referral system?

1. Yes

2. No .......skip to Q69

Q69 How would you rate the employment and

internship referral system

1. Very good

2. Average

3. Poor

46

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CO-OPERATION

Q70 Among yourselves (beneficiaries) do you link

each other to available opportunities on the

market?

1.Yes

2. No

Q71 Do you procure or advertise similar goods and

services together?

1. Yes

2. No

Q72 Have you ever worked together, that is putting

money together and start up one business?

1.Yes

2. No …….Skip to Q74

Q73 If yes, what business did you start?

....................................................

Q74 Can your business operate on its own if the grant

is pulled out

1.Yes ….....If yes, Skip to 76

2. No

Q75 If no why, Yes No

1. Business not profitable

2. Skills not adequate to operate business alone

3. Market not widened

4. Competition from other suppliers

5. Demand for our products is low

Q76 What can you say about this

whole BYF/WFC project?

Yes No

1.Strengthened my entrepreneurship skills

2. Created employment and source of income for me

3. Changed my negative attitude and perception

towards entrepreneurship

4. Can help reduce unemployment among the youths

5. Contribute to the growth of the economy

6. Improved the livelihood of many youths