Project Evaluation Report - Topic - Organization of American ...

FEM028 EVAL

Special Multilateral Fund of the Inter‐American Council for Integral Development (FEMCIDI)

Project Evaluation Report

Business Labs: Young Entrepreneur Training and Development Project, 2003 ‐ 2008

Principal Evaluator: George Plinio Montalván Contributing Evaluators: Benito Peña, Darwin Clarke

GRENADA

Evaluation Year

2009

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF ii

Table of contents

Executive Summary ___________________________________________________________ vi

I. Project Description and Evaluation Context______________________________________ 1

II. Evaluation Methodology_____________________________________________________ 4

III. Evaluation Findings _______________________________________________________ 8

A. Project Context and Relevance ____________________________________________________ 9

B. Effectiveness __________________________________________________________________ 12

C. Efficiency in Project Implementation______________________________________________ 20

D. Sustainability of Project Benefits _________________________________________________ 23

E. Success Factors and Difficulties __________________________________________________ 23

F. Lessons Learned _______________________________________________________________ 24

IV. Conclusions About Project Performance ______________________________________ 25

V. Recommendations _________________________________________________________ 26

Appendix I: Logical Framework (partial) for the Evaluation _________________________ 29

Appendix II: Main References Consulted – Documents and Videos ___________________ 32

Appendix III: Persons Interviewed ______________________________________________ 34

Appendix IV: YABT Website ___________________________________________________ 37

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF iii

Acronyms

AJE Association of Young Entrepreneurs (in several countries)

BLs Business Labs

CENPES Nonpermanent Specialized Committees

CEO Chief Executive Officer

FEMCIDI Special Multilateral Fund of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development

FUNDAPYME Fundación para la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa (Guatemala)

FUNDES Fundación para el Desarrollo Sostenible

GDLN Global Development Learning Network (World Bank Institute)

GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

ICTs Information and Communications Technologies

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

INDE Instituto Nicaragüense de Desarrollo

JA Junior Achievement Worldwide

LAC Latin America and the Caribbean

MASHAV Israel Center for International Cooperation (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

MCTC Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center

MDG Millenium Development Goals

MIF Multilateral Investment Fund (IDB)

OAS Organization of American States

SME Small and Medium-Size Enterprises

TC Technical Cooperation Project

YABT Young Americas Business Trust

YBI Youth Business International

YBP Youth Business Program (of the YBI)

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF iv

TABLE 1. PROJECT SUMMARY AND EVALUATION RESULTS

PROJECT TITLE: Business Labs: Young Entrepreneur Training and Development Project

PROJECT PRESENTED BY: Ecuador (2002); Grenada, with Antigua and Barbuda (2003 – 2007)

PRIORITY AREA: Social Development

COORDINATOR/INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE: Young Americas Business Trust; Roy Thomasson, Chief Executive Officer (OAS staff member - Principal Specialist, Executive Secretariat for Integral Development)

TYPE OF PROJECT: Regional

PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES: Initially: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Belize, Colombia, Ecuador, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Mexico, Dominican Republic, St. Lucia, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago. Fourth phase: Chile, Guatemala, Peru, El Salvador, Panama added. Bolivia, Colombia dropped out;

AMOUNT OF FEMCIDI FINANCING REQUESTED: 2002: US$288,200 (Phase AE-104/01)

2003: US$101,000 (Phase AE-170/03)

2005: US$147,000 (Phase AE-170/04)

2007: US$250,000 (Phase AE-170/06)

Total: US$786,200

AMOUNT OF FEMCIDI FINANCING APPROVED: 2002: US$45,000

2003: US$101,000

2005: US$147,000

2007: US$195,190

Total: US$488,190 (62 % of the total requested)

AMOUNT DISBURSED DURING PROJECT EXECUTION:

2002: US$45,000

2003: US$98,829

2005: US$147,000

2007: US$195,190

Total: US$486,019 (99.6 % of the total approved)

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF v

YABT AND OTHER DONORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS: 1 2004-05: US$4,511

2005-06: US$32,342

2007-08: US$127,420

Total: US$164,273

PROGRAMMED EXECUTION PERIOD: First phase: January - December 2003

Second phase: January – December 2004

Third phase: July 2005 – November 2006

Fourth phase: April 2007 – March 2008

EFFECTIVE EXECUTION PERIOD: First phase: January – December 2003

Second phase: January – December 2004

Third phase: July 2005 – November 2006

Fourth phase: April 2007 – March 2008

B. PROJECT PERFORMANCE Poor Fair Good Excellent

1. Design X

2. Relevance X

3. Effectiveness X

4. Efficiency X

5. Sustainability X

1 As reported by YABT in e-mail dated September 11, 2008.

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF vi

Executive Summary

1. The Proposal for the project “Business Labs: Young Entrepreneur Training and Development Program” was prepared under the direction of a Principal Specialist in the OAS’s Unit for Social Development and Education, and was presented by Grenada with Antigua and Barbuda for FEMCIDI financing for the period 2003-2007. The coordinating institution was to be the Young Americas Business Trust (YABT), a non-profit organization affiliated with the OAS since its incorporation in 1999, of which the Principal Specialist is Chief Executive Officer.

2. The original FEMCIDI request, contained in the Proposal, was for a total of $288,200 for activities to be carried out in 2003. A total of $45,000 was recommended by the 2002 CENPES and subsequently approved. Thereafter increasing amounts were approved -- $101,000 in 2003, $147,000 in 2005, and $195,190 in 2007 – for a total of $488,190, or approximately 62% of the total amount requested.

3. Prior to this project, YABT had established a working relationship with the Israeli Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center (MCTC) in connection with its “learning-by-doing” methodology. MCTC’s “On-the-Spot” workshop became, with pertinent adaptations, YABT’s “Business Labs,” which consist of a five-day training activity in which participants are divided into groups, each undertaking a “feasibility study” and then setting up a business of its own, with group members receiving a wage from the “small business” based on the hours they put into it and as agreed upon in advance between the instructors and the students.

4. The Business Labs project design is rated as “poor” because it scored very low in all eight dimensions of “evaluability.” Assessing the evaluability of a project indicates the extent to which it will be possible to determine a project’s development effectiveness, and provides a vehicle for assessing the consistency of a project’s elements with the desired outcomes. One critical drawback of the design is that it does not specify clearly the target population; it is not clear if the target is all persons ages 15 to 35, or those in said age group who are living in or near poverty, which is in YABT’s mission statement. The Business Labs project does not have adequate indicators for outcomes or outputs, which may have led to there not being any systematic or reliable reporting of resultsA project’s relevance is defined as “the extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies.” The first consideration, therefore, is the extent to which the project’s objectives are consistent with the requirements of young people ages 15 to 35, including those living in or near poverty as cited in the project’s proposal. It is highly questionable (a) whether Internet-based activities – which account for 23% of the project’s total planned expenditures over the four phases – are an effective and/or efficient vehicle for reaching this group, and (b) if an appreciable percentage of young people living in or near poverty can be found as students on university campuses. On the other hand, youth-related activities are considered a priority by the international community, including partners and donors. Since international organizations such as OAS, OIJ, ILO, and IDB are multinational

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF vii

governmental organizations, we can also conclude by extension that from a national perspective, youth-related activities also are considered among the priority areas. The project’s relevance is rated as “good” reflecting the fact that although activities to benefit youth are considered priority, many project activities did not fit the target population.

5. A project’s effectiveness depends on the extent to which it achieves its desired outcomes. Almost 80% of the total FEMCIDI financing was used in two components – training of trainers at the regional and national levels, and development of electronic network and e-curriculum. Therefore, the Business Labs project’s final outcomes – youth establish businesses, and/or youth are gainfully employed – are fully dependent on “multiplier effects,” the achievement of initial outcomes as well as on the occurrence of key assumptions: that trainers who were trained through the project will take the initiative to organize and facilitate Business Labs (initial outcome, see below); and that the target population has ready access to the Internet and, moreover, that when they access the Internet they will take advantage of the e-courses and other related materials (assumptions). The project’s effectiveness is rated as “fair” because while there is some vague reporting to indicate that initial outcomes were probably achieved, there is no reliable data to suggest to what extent final outcomes were achieved.

6. Efficiency in project implementation refers to the extent to which resources and

inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted economically to results. The project appears to have exceeded its targets during the first two phases, but fell significantly short in its two principal Components (#2, training of trainers, and #4, electronic network and e-curriculum) during the last two phases, when two-thirds of the total FEMCIDI financing was disbursed. The project’s efficiency in implementation is rated as “poor,” because of the foregoing reason, and also because 23% of total resources were devoted to Internet-based offerings that tend to miss the real target population. The component of “program institutionalization” included $26,500 – part of it paid to the coordinating organization’s staff – to prepare the “Nex Links” proposal, which is excessive (i.e. inefficient) and probably inappropriate as well.

7. The project’s sustainability is rated as “fair” because the political environment in countries has changed – for example, in Ecuador, Grenada, and Barbados – consequently less priority is being given to continuing Business Labs project activities. Moreover, at least based on empirical evidence regarding opportunity-based versus need-based businesses, its employment-generating benefits may be less significant than desired.

8. The lack of reliable, credible data on project results and financing hampered this evaluation. In project implementation, YABT ignored many of the recommendations made by the CENPES, especially in connection with the following:

• “Attention be given beyond delivery on outputs by defining and tracking expected results and developing a monitoring and evaluation framework that will allow measuring impact and sustainability aspects such as: a) number of businesses actually started; b) rate of success; c) quality of cadre of trainers; d) relevant and accessible online curricula; e) integration of training within education system and social services.” (2005)

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF viii

• “Clarify how and when they will deliver on provision of ‘advisory services’ and access to finance for participants…” (2005)

• “The creation of a database is an important element to provide information on new businesses.” (2006)

• “The project needs to submit more baseline data as regards the beneficiaries.” (2006)

• “The way the project is presented does not incorporate measurement of impact in the long run.” (2006)

In terms of data on project financing, the final reports for the project’s final two phases, 2005-06 and 2007-08, show actual expenditures exactly matching planned expenditures, for each disbursement and line-by-line, which strains credibility.

9. . Although it is possible that an improperly designed project can achieve valuable objectives, the OAS as a public, multilateral organization should strive to present operations to the CENPES and the IACD Management Board that give a full and complete picture of intended results, and the indicators designed to demonstrate their attainment. Projects possessing these characteristics help these bodies discharge their functions, and facilitate project monitoring and the evaluation of project results by both the General Secretariat and the beneficiary countries.

10. There are seven recommendations in this report: (a) strengthen the supervision of FEMCIDI projects; (b) place strict limits on the length of proposals, reports, and all other project-related documents, including evaluations; (c) proposals should include a clear specification of the project’s target group, as well as specific information regarding similar ongoing initiatives of other international organizations and multilateral financial organizations; (d) insist on quantification of indicators from the start, and on systematic data collection and reporting during project implementation; (e) YABT reports should include specific results, together with the corresponding tabulations and statistical tables, including complete and accurate financial statements appropriate for a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; (f) develop special (independent) supervision procedures for projects executed or coordinated by the General Secretariat and its dependent units to avoid conflicts of interest; and (g) carefully analyze the appropriateness of ICTs in projects. Since the decision has already been made to approve FEMCIDI financing for the “Nex Links” project, to be coordinated by YABT, recommendations (e), (f), and (g) may be especially worthy of consideration.

Evaluation Report, FEM028, GR, Business Labs, vF 1

I. Project Description and Evaluation Context

The Proposal for the project “Business Labs: Young Entrepreneur Training and Development Program” was prepared under the direction of a Principal Specialist in the OAS’s Unit for Social Development and Education, and was presented by Grenada with Antigua and Barbuda for FEMCIDI financing for the period 2003-2007.2 The coordinating institution was to be the Young Americas Business Trust (YABT) whose CEO since its establishment has been Roy Thomasson, an OAS staff member (currently Principal Specialist, Executive Secretariat of CIDI). YABT is a non-profit organization established in 1999 and affiliated through a Cooperative Agreement with the OAS as an outreach effort to promote entrepreneurship for young people in the Americas by developing programs in the areas of leadership, training, technology, and strategic alliances. YABT works with both government and private sector organizations in OAS Member States to create employment opportunities for young people, for themselves and others, through the establishment of small businesses. Its mission statement indicates that YABT “advances efforts to improve the quality of life of young adults – especially those living in or near poverty.”3 The original FEMCIDI request, contained in the Proposal, was for a total of $288,200 for activities to be carried out in 2003. A total of $45,000 was recommended by the 2002 CENPES and subsequently approved. Thereafter increasing amounts were approved -- $101,000 in 2003, $147,000 in 2005, and $195,190 in 2007 – for a total of $488,190, or approximately 62% of the total amount requested. Obviously, in evaluating efficiency, it is necessary to consider all inputs to the project, including FEMCIDI financing, other donor contributions (including by the General Secretariat) and counterpart contributions. The General Secretariat’s contribution, via Mr. Thomasson’s salary and benefits, as well as overhead (YABT office space, equipment, and supplies, etc.) has not been quantified, but the total for 2003-2008 most probably equaled or surpassed the total of FEMCIDI financing.4 It should be noted that prior to this project, YABT had established a working relationship with the Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center (MCTC). In 1999, students from Latin America received OAS scholarships to attend international workshops on microenterprises at MCTC in Haifa. In 2000, the Israel Center for International Cooperation (MASHAV) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided scholarships for YABT-identified educators and trainers to attend a course at MCTC in 2 The General Secretariat underwent a restructuring since the proposal was prepared. At present there is a Department of Social Development and Employment (SEDI) under the Executive Secretariat for Integral Development, and it would appear that the General Secretariat’s oversight of the Business Labs project would be this Department’s responsibility, although it is not clear that this is the case. 3 2002 Proposal, p. 16. 4 The information received was that the YABT Program Director (Luis Viguria) and Program Managers (5 in 2007) are not OAS staff members, whose salaries are financed by YABT. These contributions are likewise not included. It has not been possible to examine YABT finances, and the corresponding information is not reported in the YABT Annual Reports.


Israel. Initial activities were undertaken in 2002 in Ecuador, specifically two national “training of trainers” seminars at which a total of 38 teachers5 were trained in the Business Labs “model” by MCTC. Subsequently this “learning-by-doing methodology became the standard approach for the Business Labs project.”6 Indeed, the following statement in an article on the MASHAV website is illustrative of the very close working relationship between MCTC and YABT:

“The first MCTC On-the-Spot Workshop applying MCTC methodology, which the YABT called ‘Business Labs,’ took place in Argentina in 2001.”7

At this point it may be useful to define “Business Lab.” In fact, the 2003 CENPES evaluation sheet for the project contains the following recommendation:

“Provide more details on the nature of the various activities. Define the term ‘business lab.’”

YABT’s CEO described a Business Lab as a five-day workshop with the following program:8

Day 1. Organize the business (identify three possible products, etc.). Day 2. Finding the market (development of the selected product). Day 3. Producing the product (purchasing raw materials, making the product). Day 4. Selling the product (showcase and sell the product). Day 5. Counting the money (preparing financial statements, final reports and presentations).

This is described succinctly by two MCTC trainers, Ferdman and Lipman, as follows:

“…the first training stage is ‘learning by doing,’ combining classroom knowledge with practical skills in microenterprise training for teachers and students. The participants are divided into smaller groups and each one undertakes a feasibility study. Each group of trainees then sets up a small business of its own, with a division of labor, a clear internal management structure, and a record of finances and of the hours invested in production, administration, promotion and marketing. The group members receive a wage

5 There is a discrepancy between this total, provided more directly by MCTC and the total given in a YABT spreadsheet, “Business Labs Numbers – Activities & Partners 2002-2005,” that indicates that a total of 60 persons were trained, 30 in each seminar. 6 YABT, “Collaboration between the OAS/Young Americas Business Trust and MASHAV/Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center for Young Entrepreneurs Training in the Americas 2005-2006,” Washington, DC (no date specified) p, 1. YABT indicates that “the Business Labs as a brand (adapted from MCTC on-the-spot workshops) is YABT property” as agreed with MCTC. 7 Ferdman and Lipman, p. 21. 8 Roy Thomasson, “Business Laboratories: Young Entrepreneurs Training and Development Project,” PowerPoint presentation, no date given.


from the ‘small businesses,’ based on the hours they put into it and as agreed upon in advance between the instructors and the students….These workshops time and again prove the efficiency of the MCTC methodology and show how its simplicity enables it to be adapted to different target populations.”9

It is also important to mention that, as a follow-up to the Business Labs project, YABT submitted a new proposal to FEMCIDI for a project entitled “Young Entrepreneur Follow-up Networks ‘Nex Links’” for the period 2008-2011, and total financing of $814,755. We understand that the financing requested for the next phase of the project was recommended by the 2008 CENPES. This evaluation is really the result of a joint undertaking. Professor Benito Peña collected information regarding the project’s activities in Ecuador during an evaluation mission undertaken in September 2008. Darwin Clarke collected information during an evaluation mission to Grenada as well as in Barbados, where he resides. As principal evaluator, the author (George Plinio Montalván) collected information in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala during an evaluation mission, also in September 2008. Prior to undertaking the evaluation missions, the author provided the evaluators with excerpts of YABT Annual Reports and other project reports with country-specific information, as well as a set of evaluation questions. While the evaluation has been a joint undertaking, the conclusions reached in this report are solely the responsibility of the author.

9 Ferdman and Lipman, p. 22. Another excellent statement of the objectives, content and agenda for a Business Lab is in Guillermo Levinton, “Taller-Seminario: Gestión Empresarial” (no date given).


II. Evaluation Methodology This purpose of this evaluation report is to provide FEMCIDI and the Executive Secretariat for Integral Development an independent analysis of the performance of the Business Labs project after the completion of its four phases, covering the period 2003-2008. In this sense, it is a summative evaluation; however, since a decision has been made to finance a follow-up project – “Nex Links” – also to be coordinated by YABT, the evaluation may also be considered formative, for which reason we have included recommendations that could be implemented in connection with the new project. The evaluation is based on five main elements: (a) a reconstructed, partial logical framework matrix prepared for the evaluation (see Appendix I); (b) an outcome sequence diagram, prepared in an attempt to understand the project’s “theory” to evaluate its effectiveness (see Diagram 1); (c) interviews carried out during three separate evaluation missions, each undertaken by specialists who were also contracted for other project evaluations, as well as interviews with YABT staff in Washington, DC (see Appendix II); (d) examination of extensive documentation and several videos on the Business Labs project, including YABT Annual Reports (Appendix III); and (e) a meeting held on May 7, 2009 at OAS headquarters with YABT and staff of the OAS Executive Secretariat for Integral Development to discuss a draft of this report. As noted above, evaluation missions were conducted in Barbados, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala and Nicaragua.10 Therefore, one important limitation of this evaluation is that conclusions are based on a small non-representative sample of participating countries, complemented by information from the project’s reports, YABT’s Annual Reports, and videos. As will be seen in the following sections of the report, this project’s “evaluability” is problematic in the extreme. Assessing the evaluability of a project facilitates the measurement of a project’s development effectiveness, and provides a vehicle for assessing the consistency of a project’s elements with the desired outcomes.11 Although it is possible that an improperly designed project can achieve valuable objectives, the OAS as a public, multilateral organization must strive to present operations to the CENPES and the IACD Management Board that give a full and complete picture of intended results, and the indicators designed to demonstrate their attainment. Projects possessing these characteristics help these bodies discharge their functions, and facilitate project monitoring and the evaluation of project results by both the General Secretariat and the beneficiary countries. 10 The original plan, developed on an “exceptional” basis given the limited budget for FEMCIDI evaluations, was to include Mexico in the sample of countries visited; however, for various reasons this was not possible. In critiquing a draft of this evaluation report, YABT indicated that this was a “small non-representative sample of only some of the participating countries…” Nonetheless, the countries visited included Grenada, the country that proposed the project, and Ecuador, where the project had its origin and where a significant number of activities were conducted. 11 Joseph S. Wholey, “Evaluability Assessment: Improving Evaluation, Management and Performance,” mimeo, 2002.


An important note must be added to this methodology section: together with the poor degree of evaluability mentioned above, the lack of reliable, credible, and systematically-presented data on project results and project financing also significantly hampered this evaluation. One important responsibility of project management (YABT) and supervision (Executive Secretariat for Integral Development) is to ensure that reliable data is being produced to track results and account for project financing. Indeed, YABT ignored many of the recommendations made by the CENPES in 2005 and 2006, such as the following examples:

• “Attention be given beyond delivery on outputs by defining and tracking expected results and developing a monitoring and evaluation framework that will allow measuring impact and sustainability aspects such as: a) number of businesses actually started; b) rate of success; c) quality of cadre of trainers; d) relevant and accessible online curricula; e) integration of training within education system and social services.” (2005)

• “Clarify how and when they will deliver on provision of ‘advisory services’ and access to finance for participants…” (2005)

• “The creation of a database is an important element to provide information on new businesses.” (2006)

• “The project needs to submit more baseline data as regards the beneficiaries.” (2006)

• “The way the project is presented does not incorporate measurement of impact in the long run.” (2006)

Follow-up of these CENPES recommendations is clearly also a supervisory responsibility of the Executive Secretariat of CIDI.

Three examples, among many, of unreliable and inaccurate data on results and project financing are the following:

A. Data on project results

Information on participants trained contained in a YABT document “Collaboration between the OAS/Young Americas Business Trust and MASHAV/Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center for Young Entrepreneurs Training in the Americas, 2005-2006” was compared with an Excel spreadsheet table on “Business Labs Numbers 2002 – 2008” that was furnished by YABT at the meeting held May 7th at OAS Headquarters. Of the nineteen (19) training activities listed in both documents, discrepancies were found in nine (9) as shown below in Table 2. Another example of typical carelessness in reporting project results is that in his memorandum of April 30, 2009 commenting on the draft evaluation report, YABT’s CEO indicates that an example of “sustainability” is that YABT chapters “routinely now (in Mexico and other countries), offer Business Labs, even for the poor youth, Nicaragua 2009, with 100 poor young indigenous women…” However, following the meeting of May 7, 2009, an e-mail was


received dated February 10, 2009, forwarded by YABT, which reports 28 women that attended the workshop in Nicaragua in 2009.

B. Data on project financing

Since it was apparent from the various YABT reports that, apart from FEMCIDI funding, substantial contributions to the project had been received from several sources, including especially MCTC and also the World Bank, a request was made on August 22, 2008 to YABT to furnish data on YABT and other donor contributions by year and by source, as well as any other relevant information. On September 11, 2008 the Excel spreadsheet shown below as Table 3 was received from YABT’s Financial Manager (the totals of which are included in Table 1).

Table 2. Discrepancies in Information, Number of Trainees and Type of Training

Date/Country “Collaboration” document “Business Labs Numbers”

July 2005 – Grenada 75 76

November 2005 – Grenada 31 29

November 2005 – El Salvador 30 33

November 2005 – Colombia 41 50

June 2006 – Panama 28 35

July 2006 – Honduras 39 40

September 2006 – Grenada 14 17

October 2006 – Paraguay 31 30

November 2006 – Barbados Training of Young Entrepreneurs Regional Training of Trainers

Sources: YABT, “Collaboration between the OAS/Young Americas Business Trust and MASHAV/Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center for Young Entrepreneurs Training in the Americas, 2005-2006” and YABT,”Business Labs Numbers 2002 – 2008.” No dates for either document are provided.

In reviewing a draft of this evaluation report, YABT pointed out, in connection with Table 1, that “these YABT and other donor contributions are inaccurate and do not reflect the total matching share provided.”12 When it was pointed out that the information was received directly from YABT, the response was “[t]he other donor contributions part that you refer to here is not a major point in this as we acknowledge that this is the information we provided you. It still misses much of the local counterpart contribution that is not included in this figure.”13 This carelessness in reporting financial information

12 From the “track changes” to the draft evaluation report, received April 30, 2008. 13 E-mail from Roy Thomasson to author, May 1, 2009. A corrected accounting of YABT and other donor contributions was requested at the May 7, 2009 meeting.


may also account for the fact that for the project’s third and fourth phases (covering 4 years, 2005-06 and 2007-08) the reports of actual expenditures of FEMCIDI funding exactly match planned expenditures for each disbursement and line-by-line.

Table 3. Incomes for the development of the Business Labs Workshop FEMCIDI Contribution Period Amount January 2003 to December 2003 45,000.00 Total 2003 45,000.00 January 2004 to April 2004 32,729.00 May 2004 to August 2004 40,550.00 September 2004 to December 2004 25,550.00 Total 2004 98,829.00 July 2005 to December 2005 64,850.00 January 2006 to June 2006 46,350.00 July 2006 to November 2006 35,800.00 Total 2005 - 2006 147,000.00 April 2007 to July 2007 97,110.00 August 2007 to November 2007 57,660.00 December 2007 to March 2008 40,420.00 Total 2007 195,190.00 Total FEMCIDI contribution 486,019.00

YABT and other donors contribution

Period Amount January 2004 to December 2004 4,511.11 July 2005 to November 2006 32,341.75 April 2007 to March 2008 127,420.00 Total 2007 164,272.86

Total YABT and other donors

contribution 164,272.86

Total contribution for Business Labs 650,291.86


III. Evaluation Findings Project Design

The terms of reference for this evaluation include, as a first element, “the coherence, consistency, effectiveness and clarity of the project design, including existence of appropriate indicators, identification of risks, budget, etc.” International organizations have developed sets of “metrics” to evaluate project design, often referred to as “quality at entry.”14 Perhaps the most important element of quality at entry is a project’s “evaluability,” defined by OECD/DAC as the “extent to which an activity or a program can be evaluated in a reliable and credible fashion.”15 YABT’s CEO contends that these evaluation parameters were not applicable at the time the Proposal was prepared, but this is not correct. Based mainly on the proposal and on work plans, Table 4 below summarizes the evaluability of the Business Labs project for a total of eight dimensions that generally cover the items outlined in the terms of reference. The underlined terms in bold font indicate the ratings for this project’s design, as determined from the proposal and work plans. Following the table is a summary of the considerations behind the ratings.

Overall, the results of the exercise show a very low level of evaluability both in terms of the project’s more formal dimensions (indicators and metrics) and those related to its conceptualization (diagnosis, including definition of the target population, objectives, logic, and risk analysis). The diagnosis presents information that is not entirely consistent with the proposed intervention, by suggesting its target population is poverty-related and planning activities that are unsuitable for said target.16 There is little or no reference to other international youth-related entrepreneurial initiatives. The objectives are defined with little accuracy and offer an excessively broad scope (“poverty especially among young people of the Americas will be decreased”) that makes their correlation with the magnitude of the intervention difficult. The logical relationship among the project’s different elements (outputs and outcomes) is unclear. There is no presentation of assumptions or risks. There are no outcome indicators, much less corresponding baselines. Output indicators are presented carelessly as multiples (“each of 15 national trainers from 20 countries will train 50 students……by the end of 2004, 22,500 students will be educated”). Other than general items related to “project

14 More generally, there are “three Q’s” frequently applied to development projects: Quality at Entry, Quality of Management and Supervision, and Quality of Results. 15 The definitions of evaluation concepts (evaluability, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, results, outcomes, outputs, sustainability) are all taken from OECD/DAC, Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management, available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf . 16 YABT’s reaction to this statement is as follows: “While this is the overall purpose of YABT and indeed the project, it is not clearly specified as the target group for this project.”


administration” and the preparation of evaluations in the work plans for the third and fourth phases (without evidence that these evaluations were completed) there is no specificity related to the establishment of project monitoring mechanisms in the participating countries. Other comments on the project design are found in other sections of this report.

Table 4. Business Labs Project – Evaluability (Design) Ratings

Dimension Diagnosis

1. Diagnosis Absent or Unclear

Relatively Unclear

Relatively Clear

Clear

2. Definition of objectives Absent or Unclear

Relatively Unclear

Relatively Clear

Clear

3. Project logic Absent or Unclear

Relatively Unclear

Relatively Clear

Clear

4. Assumptions and risks Absent or Unclear

Relatively Unclear

Relatively Clear

Clear

5. Outcome indicators Absent or Inadequate

Inadequate Majority Adequate

Adequately Defined

6. Outcome indicator baselines Absent or Unspecified

Established during

Execution

Majority Specified or Established

Specified

7. Output indicators Absent or Inadequate

Inadequate Majority Adequate

Adequately Defined

8. Monitoring and evaluation systems Absent or Poorly Defined

Partially Defined Relatively Well-Defined

Well-Defined

Conclusion: The project design is rated as “Poor.”

A. Project Context and Relevance Essentially, the project Proposal and other YABT materials make the following case: a very high percentage of the population in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) consists of young people; LAC is the region with the world’s most unequal income distribution and thus, many young people are unemployed (twice the overall unemployment rate) and/or live in poverty; although the literacy rate among youth is very high (above 95%) in LAC, there is a mismatch between the formal education


systems and demand in the labor markets; there is an abundance of raw entrepreneurial talent in this age group; therefore what is required is practical (hands-on) intensive entrepreneurial training (with a strong motivational ingredient) for young people, to encourage them to establish sustainable businesses or, alternatively, to better equip them for employment (enhance their employability).

A project’s relevance is defined as “the extent to which the objectives of a development intervention are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners’ and donors’ policies.” The first element to be discussed, therefore, is the extent to which the project’s objectives are consistent with the requirements of “young people ages 15 to 35, especially those living in or near poverty”17 and whose “specific accomplishments” were stated in the proposal to include “[p]overty especially among young people in the Americas, will be decreased through training and advisory services for entrepreneurship and self-employment.”18 This is very important when we are considering a 4-to-5-year project of less than US$1 million total financing, because an “aim-shoot-shoot-shoot” approach, scheduling activities as opportunities appear with little regard for targeting tends to be less appropriate than “aim-shoot-aim-shoot,” where project management continually ensures that activities are impacting the target population. Were we to focus very specifically on that target group as described, it becomes highly questionable (a) whether Internet-based activities under Component 4 – which account for 23% of the project’s total planned expenditures over the four phases (see Table 2 in Section III.c below) – are an effective and/or efficient vehicle for reaching this group, and (b) if an appreciable percentage of young people living in or near poverty can be found as students on university campuses, warranting expenditures to attempt to incorporate the methodology into university curricula. The relevant MCTC instructor training course is “Entrepreneurship for Youth – a Tool for Poverty Alleviation,” the description of which states that it consists of “[t]ools and methodologies to transfer notions of business management to a young target population.”19 The experience in Ecuador bears this out, with significant differences in participants’ reactions to Business Labs depending on their provenance – private

17 The descriptor “especially those living in or near poverty” is taken from the Proposal to FEMCIDI (p.16) and from the section of YABT’s website (http://www.myybiz.net/yabt/main/about/organization) that specifies this organization’s “Purpose.” It is also referred to by Ferdman and Lipman (p. 21) as a part of the “YABT Manifesto.” The “Nex Links” proposal appears to modify the target group by specifying it as “young people ages 15 – 35 who are unemployed or under-employed, but who have a viable business idea or have started a business.” However, the justification for Nex Links begins with a reference to Millenium Development Goal # 1, which is “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.” (Some comments to the Nex Links proposal are warranted in this report, because preparation of its proposal was financed by the Business Labs project.) 18 Proposal, p. 5. 19 Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MASHAV Courses 2007, p. 27.


schools, public schools, or rural subsistence sectors – with greater resistance by the latter, which formally would be the target population. With respect to global or regional priorities, the United Nations declared 1985 to be the International Youth Year, and as a result many governmental programs were begun, as well as organizations established for the planning, management, and evaluation of policies, plans and projects directed toward this segment of the population. Perhaps the most recent expression of the priority of youth was at the 18th Ibero-American Summit held in October 2008 in El Salvador, which issued the “San Salvador Commitment to Youth and Development,” from which the “2009-2015 Ibero-American Plan for Cooperation and the Integration of Youth” was developed.20 Moreover, from the number of youth-related initiatives of multinational organizations, it is clear that this segment of the population enjoys significant priority. Some of those initiatives are listed below, with their corresponding websites.21 • Youth Business International (YBI) – founded in 1999 by The Prince’s Trust (UK) it is a network organization for youth business programs around the world that help young people to start up in business. The YBI Network provides access to capital and business mentoring for young people who have a business idea but who are unable to access funding elsewhere. Currently there are Youth Business Programs (YBP) in 10 LAC countries, pilots in two more and one under consideration. The link to YBI is http://www.youth-business.org .

• Ibero-American Youth Organization (OIJ) – this international organization, established in 1992 and headquartered in Spain, includes all Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries in LAC, Portugal, and Spain. Its main purpose is to strengthen youth organizations in its member states and it has held fourteen “Ministers of Youth” meetings since it was established. Its website is http://www.oij.org . There is no link to YABT or to the OAS in its “Links” page.

• Youth Employment Network (YEN) – managed by the ILO, with the United Nations and the World Bank as “core partners”. YEN is implementing a “Lead Country” initiative, whereby to date 21 countries – including Brazil, Ecuador, and Jamaica in LAC – have committed to tackle youth employment challenges at the highest level by formulating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating National Action Plans on youth employment (NAP) and regularly report on their progress to the YEN secretariat. The YEN Website is at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/yen .

• Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) of the Inter-American Development Bank – one of the MIF’s “topics” is youth training, and since 1994 it has approved some 20 national and regional grants mainly for training and mentoring youth to improve 20 OIJ, Plan Iberoamericano de Cooperación e Integración de la Juventud 2009-2015, available at http://www.oij.org/documentos/doc1226581409.pdf . We found no mention of YABT in this Plan. 21 There are two reasons for including this very partial listing: (a) There are various international initiatives in the area of entrepreneurial training for youth, although none is mentioned in the Business Labs proposal, and it is generally considered important that international organizations do not duplicate external assistance efforts; and (b) to make the point that entrepreneurial training for youth is relevant.


employability and to establish businesses, and its Entra 21 initiative22 is especially relevant and has published very useful reports. The pertinent MIF website is http://www.iadb.org/mif/subtopic.cfm?language=English&SUBTOPIC=YTRG&TOPIC=WSD .

• Junior Achievement Worldwide (JA) – organization headquartered in Colorado Springs, CO and with a history dating back to the 1920’s, it has activities in 26 OAS member states. JA is very active in schools, sponsoring programs at the elementary and secondary levels, in classrooms and after school. JA commissioned a longitudinal study published in 2004 that points out some very interesting conclusions including a very positive impact on students’ aspirations from participating in JA activities. Its website is http://www.ja.org .

There are many other important international initiatives not listed above, but the principal point is that youth-related activities are considered a priority by the international community, including partners and donors. Since international organizations such as OAS, OIJ, ILO, and IDB are multinational governmental organizations, we can also conclude by extension that from a national perspective, youth-related activities also are considered among the priority areas.

Finally, it is important to indicate that in 2005 YABT organized a Youth Forum, resulting in the “Declaration of Mar del Plata,” which was sent to that year’s Fourth Summit of the Americas. Similarly, in April 2009, a Young Americas Forum will be held within the framework of the Fifth Summit of the Americas.

Conclusion: The project’s relevance is rated as “Good” because, as indicated above, while youth-related activities have been prioritized, it is questionable

whether many of the specific activities are appropriate for addressing poverty.

B. Effectiveness

A project’s effectiveness is a function of its performance at the Purpose and Goal levels of a logical framework matrix. At the Purpose level, we focus on short to medium term effects, normally called outcomes. At the Goal level, we include medium to long-term effects called impacts. A project’s effectiveness is a measure of the extent to which (desired) outcomes and impacts were achieved.23

22 Entra 21 is a joint undertaking by the MIF and the International Youth Foundation (IYF). 23 An effect, in turn, is defined as a change due directly or indirectly to an intervention. For example, when teachers are trained, an outcome is the extent to which those teachers modify (change) something in the content and/or in the way they teach – in other words, the extent to which they apply knowledge and/or skills learned in the training activity.


To follow up on the conclusion regarding “relevance,” one issue to consider is whether the project’s activities are the best, most effective way to encourage entrepreneurship

among youth, especially poor youth. Indeed, according to a report on lessons learned by the IDB in promoting entrepreneurship, a key factor in training and motivating aspiring entrepreneurs is the use of exemplary entrepreneurship models that young entrepreneurs feel inspired to imitate.24 Nevertheless, in LAC very little use is made of more experienced entrepreneurs as role models, compared with Asian countries. The report also underscores the importance of networking and, in particular, the formation of long-term relationships and commitment.

Moreover, a 2002 study of 37 countries carried out by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)25 found that 85% of the new entrepreneurs surveyed had started their enterprise with the help of informal networks of relatives and friends. A 2004 GEM report on Ecuador – probably the country that has been the most active in the Business Labs project – concluded that one of the most serious limitations to entrepreneurship in that country was the lack of financing for small business.26 The above is the underpinning for the MIF-YBI approach, which is very different from the Business Labs approach, because it focuses both on financial and non-financial factors, and in regard to the non-financial factors, the stress is on mentoring. Projects typically also include training, development of networks, and financial assistance. While the Business Labs project was active in training and building networks, perhaps it would have performed better in terms of outcomes – i.e., a higher cost-effectiveness – had it devoted resources to organizing and providing mentoring instead of allocating almost one-fourth of total resources to ICT-related activities which, as stated previously, tend to be out of reach for low-income youth.27 Indeed, the 2005 CENPES recommended to “clarify how and when they will deliver on provision of ‘advisory services’ and access to finance for participants,” but this was ignored, as was the recommendation that “[i]n the final year, the project needs to provide funds to young people to start businesses and/or investigate resources available from other sources for this purpose.”28

24 Pablo Javier Angelelli and Juan José Llisterri, Juan José. 2003, “El BID y la promoción de la empresarialidad: Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones para nuevos programas,” Washington, DC: IDB, 2003. 25 GEM is a joint Project undertaken since 1999 by Babson College and the London Business School. 26 Virginia Lasio, Guido Caicedo, and María Elizabeth Arteaga, “Ecuador 2004,” GEM, 2004. 27 It should be noted that the proposal prepared by YABT for the “Nex Links” project included a mentoring component, in support of the IDB’s initiatives in this area. 28 In spite of the CENPES’ recommendation, the comment by YABT’s CEO to the points made in this paragraph was that “[t]he point this evaluation tries to make about the irrelevance of Business Labs and the relatively greater importance that financing and mentoring have is clear nonsense.”


In an effort to better understand the Business Labs project, we applied a technique sometimes called “theory-based” evaluation29 and prepared an outcome sequence chart or partial “logic model” that is presented in Diagram 1, where the causality or results chain flows in an upward direction.30 We did not include the piloting of Business Labs that was an Output in the first phase, nor the program institutionalization that appeared in the final two phases, although as part of the latter, some reporting on alliances and networks was included and is considered an Output in the diagram. The two Outputs that represented more than two-thirds of total FEMCIDI financing – Training of Trainers, and Internet offerings – are also at the bottom of the diagram. Effectiveness is what occurs above the dotted line in the diagram. However, in trying to carry out this analysis, we run into the following important evaluability issue: there is no systematic data on any of the effects or outcomes shown. Moreover, the project proposal, project reports, and YABT Annual Reports refer to the “creation” of businesses by alumni of Business Labs.31 However, GEM defines “established businesses” as those that have paid salaries and wages for more than 42 months, having survived the most risky stage of the entrepreneurial process. Unfortunately, we have no data as to how many of the business start-ups emerging from Business Labs actually survived long enough to become established. Our evaluation report on Ecuador, for example, refers not to businesses created or established, but rather to the business “ideas” that Business Lab students had upon completing the training activity.

29 See, for example, Carol H. Weiss, Evaluation - 2nd. ed. (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1998), Chapter 3, and Harry P. Hatry, Performance Measurement: Getting Results - 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2007), Part II. 30 The “logic model” or “results chain” is defined by OECD/DAC as “the causal sequence for a development intervention that stipulates the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives, beginning with inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in outcomes, impacts, and feedback.” For the sake of brevity, Diagram 1 shows a part of a results chain for the Business Labs project that only includes outputs, outcomes and impacts. 31 The Business Labs Proposal includes the following indicator: “Particularly in Ecuador, 40 Business Labs will be implemented, 4,000 students will be taught and 80 small enterprises will be created by the end of the year” (2003) p. 15.


Diagram 1 – Business Labs: Outcome Sequence Chart

Distal Effects

(Impacts)

Proximal

Effects

(Outcomes)

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

Outputs

Almost 80% of the total FEMCIDI financing was used in two components – training of trainers at the regional and national levels, and development of an electronic network and e-curriculum. Therefore, the Business Labs project’s final outcomes – youth establish businesses, and/or youth are gainfully employed – are fully dependent on “multiplier effects,” the achievement of initial outcomes as well as on the occurrence of key assumptions: that trainers who were trained through the project will take the initiative to organize and facilitate Business Labs (initial outcome, see below); and that the target population has ready access to the Internet and, moreover, that when they

Curriculum adjusted

Trainers trained Networks established

e-materials on-line

Educational institutions incorporate

Trainers conduct BLs

Support to BLs & Start-ups

Young people access e-materials

Business Start-Ups

Youth employed

Jobs generated

Start-ups established (>42 mo.)

Increase in youth employment

Decrease in youth poverty

Educational institutions incorporate curriculum


access the Internet they will take advantage of the e-courses and other related materials (assumptions). Another consideration related to effectiveness stems from GEM surveys and research. As opposed to the pattern in high-income countries, necessity outstrips opportunity as a determinant of business start-ups in developing countries, all the more so if we consider that at least an important part of the target population of Business Labs ostensibly consists of young people living in or near poverty (i.e., they tend to create businesses out of necessity). The issue here is that survey results indicate that

“growth aspirations also vary dramatically between necessity- and opportunity-driven entrepreneurs. About 14 percent of opportunity-driven entrepreneurs expect their new ventures to produce 20 or more jobs in five years (i.e., high-growth firms), seven times the percentage (2 percent) of high-growth firms expected from necessity entrepreneurship activities. In contrast, 9 of 10 necessity-driven entrepreneurs expect their new firms to provide no more than five new jobs in the next five years.”32

Therefore, at least based on empirical evidence (survey results) the employment generating effect of the Business Labs project may not be as significant as desired, thus affecting the project’s expected effectiveness.

Instead of focusing on final outcomes – number of businesses established, number of jobs generated, number of trainees employed – we will examine some initial outcomes that to some extent might have been achieved by the project. That is, an initial outcome could be the number of Business Labs completed, without project financing, by teachers and trainers who were trained by the project; after all, 57 percent of total FEMCIDI financing was for training of trainers. Another 23 percent of project financing went to the development of an electronic network and e-curriculum, but we lack any kind of meaningful data on usage of these e-resources. Another initial outcome could be the extent to which the Business Labs curriculum was adopted or incorporated into the educational system. Yet another initial outcome could be related to the active support networks established in the participating countries and, in the last phase (2007-08) the establishment of Business Centers. In the following paragraphs we will attempt to piece together some of the evidence regarding these three initial outcomes.

1. Trainers conduct Business Labs (without project financing) First, it is important to clarify that Business Labs financed by the project – and there were relatively few of those, since the project concentrated on training of trainers workshops – would be outputs, not outcomes. When, as a result of the project’s training of trainers at both regional and national levels, these trainers on their own initiative undertake to organize and facilitate a Business Lab, it is an initial outcome, meaning

32 GEM, 2001 Executive Report, November 2001, p. 9. Available at http://www.gemconsortium.org/download/1237804927529/GEMGlobal2001report.pdf .


that it is a part of a causal chain that should lead to more final outcomes: Business Lab trainees start up businesses and/or obtain gainful employment (see Diagram 1). Second, as in any project involving several countries, implementation will be very successful in some and relatively unsuccessful in others. Consequently, outcomes will be easier to identify and report in those where implementation was successful. Typically, reports do not indicate that outcomes were not observed in a given country. Perhaps the most successful in the Business Labs project was Ecuador. Third, YABT reports are very confusing, because they mix training of trainers activities with Business Labs in which the participants are aspiring entrepreneurs. This makes it difficult to separate Business Labs financed by the project from those that were not. Therefore, the information mentioned below is only a very partial listing, and some of the examples may have received project financing. From our mission to Ecuador, this initial outcome was certainly achieved. It is important to point out that according to the GEM, Ecuador has a very high Total Entrepreneurial Activity index, lower than Peru’s, but much higher than Argentina’s or Brazil’s; therefore it is not surprising that the Business Labs project stems from an Ecuadorean initiative and that the project’s success in that country was probably greater than in any other. Between 2004 and 2008, 59 Business Labs were held, with a total of 3,788 attendees. Not only that, but several training of trainers events were held as well, where 234 additional Ecuadoreans were trained, many of them from entrepreneurial training centers. Interestingly from a social standpoint, some of these Business Labs were held for disabled persons, for women entrepreneurs, for incarcerated persons on pre-release programs, and for jail inmates. It was possible to hold these Business Labs because agreements were made, and costs shared, by local, national, bilateral and international development organizations. On the other hand, in Nicaragua there apparently has been little or no Business Labs activity, although at least one trainer participated in a training of trainers workshop in El Salvador and it was reported that 100 school teachers had been trained in 2004. Indeed, the leading training center for young entrepreneurs is the Instituto Nicaragüense de Desarrollo (INDE) which is associated with Junior Achievement Worldwide and has received support from national, bilateral and international organizations, including the World Bank. INDE was scheduled to hold a workshop in November 2008, financed by the World Bank, at which MCTC trainers were to carry out a workshop for 30 indigenous women in Bluefields, Nicaragua. INDE had no prior experience with this type of workshop. There is mention of a Business Labs workshop having been conducted in St. Kitts-Nevis in December 2004, facilitated by persons who had been trained in a training of trainers workshop held in October 2004. In El Salvador, the Asociación de Jóvenes Empresarios (AJE) represents YABT, but they also receive financing from other organizations. Apparently they were very active


during 2004 – 06, but were forced to close the office at the end of 2006 because of a lack of financing. They indicated that they had no information on results because there was no financing for monitoring and evaluation. They developed a “Student Guide,” but did not use it if the students’ profile (we assume this refers to scholastic achievement) was “too low.” Since 2003 when the Business Labs methodology was first introduced to the Eastern Caribbean, five Training of Trainers workshops for 127 mainly national participants and 2 Business Labs for 53 young entrepreneurs have been held in Grenada. An impressive feature worthy of note is the adaptation of the module to include a focus on agribusiness and the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME), both highly relevant topics for Regional economies. The training has afforded opportunities for replication through the participation of officers and community workers from the Youth Development, secondary school teachers and Ministry of Agriculture Extension Officers. However, the absence of follow-up reports precludes a verifiable determination of the full extent of replication or the number of businesses established as a result. The one recorded case of replication occurred in the sister islands of Cariacou and Petit Martinique. There was no data to verify information received through interviews that there was replication by the Ministry of Agriculture among farming communities in Grenada.

In Barbados, four Business Labs workshops were held between 2005 and 2006 for 93 budding entrepreneurs or recently established business persons. These workshops were fully financed by the Ministry of Education and Youth Affairs through the Youth Development Programme and the Youth Employment Scheme (YES).

2. Educational institutions adopt or incorporate Business Labs curriculum

As shown in Diagram 1, to the extent educational organizations – schools, vocational and skills training centers, etc. – incorporate elements of the Business Labs curriculum in their offerings, this will contribute to the overall objectives of encouraging start-ups and helping youth obtain gainful employment. In other words, it tends to narrow the gap between formal schooling and demand in labor markets. Our mission report on Ecuador indicates that the project had effects in the education system, by contributing to improve the teaching-learning process, by including didactic-productive projects, and by encouraging awareness of the connection between scholastic achievement and work, and organization for production. In El Salvador, FUNDES has a Program for Development of Entrepreneurship (Programa de Fomento a la Empresarialidad) financed by the MIF, and some of the Business Labs curriculum has been incorporated in the introductory modules. Although FUNDES operates in 10 Latin American countries and is dedicated to supporting SMEs, it does not include YABT as one of its “allies.”


In Guatemala, the process began with five trainers from the Universidad Rafael Landívar attending a training of trainers workshop held in Ecuador in 2003. Thereafter, the University established the Entrepreneurship Program (Programa Emprendedores), with a required course in the Faculty of Economic Sciences, the main result of which is that students develop a business plan. However, very few of these business plans result in start-ups.33 The Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas y Forestales has a project module as part of its curriculum for young people ages 14-18 with at least 9 years of schooling, but it was associated with GTZ and only in 2008 began to incorporate some of the Business Labs curriculum in their own. In Trinidad & Tobago, teachers from senior secondary schools and technical colleges were sent abroad for training, and as a result, the Business Labs curriculum was incorporated into the school curriculum to the point where credits for “entrepreneurial training” are recorded on the National Certificate of Secondary Education.

3. Established networks provide support to Business Labs and start-ups These support networks are important elements for helping business start-ups to survive. As suggested in Diagram 1, they can also help defray costs of holding Business Labs, and may even generate volunteer appearances at Business Labs by established businesspersons that could eventually result in mentoring arrangements. In YABT’s Annual Report 2007, it is claimed that of the 32 Member States south of the U.S. border with Mexico, there are 19 National YABT chapters, and in 12 others there are “affiliated organizations.” (The only exception is Belize.)34 Obviously, as in any similar context, these local chapters and affiliated organizations will range from strong and active, to weak and inactive. Nonetheless, from both effectiveness and efficiency points of view, the wisdom of incorporating so many countries into the project in view of the severe financial limitations is debatable. During the evaluation mission to Ecuador, YABT Ecuador decided to formally establish a network of training institutes and universities (Red de Colegios y Universidades YABT) in the three regions where the project has been active. This network now has the support of municipalities and of the Social Inclusion Ministry (Ministerio de Inclusión Social) in those regions. IN YABT’s Annual Reports and other project reports, there is ample evidence that a strong effort was made in every participating country to develop a network of public, private, and non-governmental organizations in support of the Business Labs project. To the extent local YABT chapters and other affiliates organized Business Labs, it is reasonable to expect that they counted on and received support from the networks. 33 This means that even if the initial outcome was observed, it did not lead to the final project outcomes. 34 YABT, Annual Report 2007, p. 7. Moreover, “since its inception in 2003, the Business Labs project has reached thirty-three of the thirty-four OAS Member States.”


Conclusion: The project’s effectiveness is rated as “Fair,” because while there is some reporting that initial outcomes may have been achieved, there is no data to

suggest to what extent final outcomes were achieved.

C. Efficiency in Project Implementation

Efficiency in project implementation refers to the extent to which resources and inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted economically to results, meaning that complete financial data is required to conduct the analysis properly. Although “results” suggests including the project’s Outputs (Components), Outcomes (Purpose), and Impacts (Goal) we will concentrate on the Outputs because, as indicated in the previous section, there is no systematic data on outcomes. However, we emphasize that in the Business Labs reports, data for Outputs (i.e., “deliverables”) are at best weak in terms of reliability and accuracy, as pointed out in Section II on methodology. As stated in the previous section on effectiveness, there is reason to doubt the effectiveness and efficiency of attempting to implement a project with a very large target group, and in a large number of countries with the available resources, even considering contributions by Israel-MCTC (training of trainers) the World Bank (largely for videoconferences) the General Secretariat (salaries and overhead) and YABT. In some of the project’s Final Reports there is a reference to insufficient financing as one of the difficulties faced during implementation. However, as increased FEMCIDI funding was approved for the third and fourth phases, much of it was diverted to “program institutionalization.” First, the “consolidated” logical framework matrix presented in Appendix I includes a total of five Components, although deliverables in all five were not planned for each phase. In Table 4 below we present the five Components and the total amount of financing planned for each in the project’s different phases. Again, from an overall standpoint and taking planned expenditures as included in the corresponding Work Plans, Components 1 and 3 together accounted for only 5.2% of the total expenditures of FEMCIDI financing. As we shall see below, in project implementation, there were no significant departures from the planned amounts. In fact, the $1,500 planned for Component 1 in 2003 was transferred to Component 2 because a study visit to Trinidad & Tobago “proved impractical”35. In the case of Component 3, pilot workshops were held in Antigua/Barbuda, Ecuador, and Grenada in 2003; thereafter there was no further expenditure planned for pilot workshops. Therefore, in analyzing efficiency, we shall concentrate the analysis on Components 2, 4, and 5. (Please refer to Appendix I for more details, where a logframe matrix with planned

35 Per project reports.


results for indicators of each Component is presented, together with the reported results.)

Table 4. Business Labs: Planned Expenditures by Component (FEMCIDI Financing)

(In US $)

Component 2003 2004 2005-06 2007-08 Total % 1. Curriculum development

1,500 10,000 --- --- 11,500 2.4

2. Regional & national training of trainers

27,000 60,000* 84,000 106,360 277,360 56.8

3. Start-up of (pilot) Business Labs

13,500 --- --- --- 13,500 2.8

4. Development of electronic network and e-curriculum

3,000 31,000 41,000 37,000 112,000 22.9

5. Program institutionalization

--- --- 22,000 51,830*** 73,830 15.1

Total

45,000 101,000 147,000 195,190 488,190 100.0

(*) Outputs B.1, B.2 & C.1. (***) Components 3 & 4. Sources: Work Plans for each phase. Since analyzing efficiency involves review of the project’s finances, we should point out that it seems highly unusual that over the last three phases of the project – 2004-08 – total expenditures showed a deficit of only $790.48 out of a total planned of $443,190. In fact, actual expenditures in the last two phases – 70 per cent of total FEMCIDI financing – were exactly equal, line-by-line, and for each disbursement, to planned expenditures, which is highly unusual in development projects. . Moreover, the “YABT and Other Donors’ Contributions” included in Table 1, which was reported directly by YABT, is much smaller than what appears in the reports; one important contribution it surely excludes is the value of the MCTC contributions over the years. Component 2: Regional and National Training of Trainers From the data we were able to tabulate, the project appears to have exceeded its targets during the first two phases, but fell significantly short during the last two phases. From execution plans we calculate the target to have been a total of 1,285 trainers trained over the four phases; from the reports we show that there were a total of 1,135 participants in training of trainers workshops, or 88% of the target. (Several of the


workshops listed in the reports were not for training of trainers.)36 The average cost per trainee was approximately $234, which seems efficient. Again, as shown in Table 2, this Component accounted for almost 57% of total expenditures. Component 4. Development of electronic network and e-curriculum

The website myybiz.com was launched in August 2005 (see Appendix IV) approximately one year later than planned. Two on-line directories were launched in 2004, and the website includes links to courses provided by other organizations. There appears to have been considerable activity through the World Bank Institute’s GDLN, although the value of the “Global Dialogues” is not readily apparent from the corresponding videos; there appear to be frequent connection problems, much time is spent on formalities and arrangements rather than substantive discussions, and sometimes there is an excess of participants, which allows little time for participants to fully express their views or enter into a meaningful exchange. The targets for the fourth phase of the project (2007-08) were not completed. We have not seen any data as to how young entrepreneurs access the project’s website; the Ecuador experience as reported to the evaluation mission was that access was an issue in lower income and rural areas. This Component accounted for 23% of total expenditures.

Component 5. Program institutionalization

This Component was included in the last two phases of the project, and accounted for 15% of total expenditures. The most important activity conducted under this Component appears to have been a regional conference “with almost 500 participants” held at the time of the OAS General Assembly in that country. The other expenditures were purportedly to finance project reviews and evaluations, which we have not seen, and to finance the preparation of the “Nex Links” proposal. From the financial information contained in the Final Reports for the last two phases, a total of $26,500 was spent in preparing the “Nex Links” proposal,37 In the end, it appears that this Component was also used to partially finance salaries of YABT staff.38

Conclusion: The project’s efficiency is rated as “Poor.” This is due essentially to two factors: (a) the project fell short of its training of trainers targets in the final two phases, and (b) 23% of resources were devoted to Internet-based offerings,

thereby missing the principal target population.

36 In some reports, this Component is presented as “training of trainers and young entrepreneurs.” We have retained the training of trainers concept since it was in the original project proposal, and is a substantially different activity to conducting training for young entrepreneurs. 37 This is the total charged to FEMCIDI for activity 3.2 (2005-06) and activity 4.2 (2007-08). 38 In addition to the CEO, who is an OAS staff member, YABT has a Program Director and five Program Managers.


D. Sustainability of Project Benefits

Sustainability is defined as “the continuation of benefits from a development intervention after major development assistance has been completed, he probability of continued long-term benefits. The resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.” Normally the sustainability of project benefits will depend on the financing of the maintenance of the goods and services installed by the project. If a desired “initial outcome” of Business Labs is the creation of business start-ups, the extent to which start-ups survive to become “established” would certainly be considered an important indicator of sustainability. However, there appears to be no data in this regard. In some countries, such as Ecuador, Grenada, and Barbados, the project’s sustainability is questionable owing to changes in governments.

Conclusion: In the short to medium term, the project’s sustainability is rated as “Fair.”

E. Success Factors and Difficulties From the project reports, two types of difficulties were encountered in implementation: (1) insufficient financing; and (2) weaknesses and/or changes in local YABT chapters, counterparts, and affiliated organizations that led to logistical and reporting problems. The insufficient financing was more of a problem in the first two phases, but it seems to have been exacerbated by the desire to incorporate as many countries as possible; an alternative approach could have been to select a sample of countries (e.g., 6) from different subregions in LAC, make sure that the Business Labs concept is adjusted and takes hold in that subset, and then see how to extend it to other countries via a “demonstration effect,” or requesting additional financing. In the Final Report 2004, it states that “given the modest level of resources and the scope of the project and number of participating organizations and countries, operation and financial issues only relate to how to accomplish the results intended with available resources, both OAS and non-OAS.” This was also indicated in the Final Report 2005-2006.

With respect to weaknesses and/or changes in local counterparts, the Final Report 2003 stated that “there are limited resources to make a more efficient supervision of the development of the workshops…usually there is not strong commitment from some of the parties involved to produce reports at the end of the training provided….the internal transformations that institutions we have partnerships with are constantly facing, which makes it difficult to give continuity to the project.” However, in Final Report 2007-2008, it states that “in some cases, because of the change of local authorities or counterparts, the program was affected at the level of no action at all, specifically in cases like Nicaragua and Ecuador.”


F. Lessons Learned 1. It may be preferable to charge tuition for training activities, because if they are

offered free of charge, participants may not appreciate the value of the training and may even come to question its quality.

2. Differences in reaction to the content of Business Labs were evident, depending on the participants’ provenance. If they were from private education centers, their reaction was much more positive than if they came from public education centers. Moreover, the latter required a much stronger dose of motivational content than the former. In the case of participants that came from the rural sector, the difficulty was even greater, perhaps because of the difficulty in getting products to market, and because they had a subsistence-based existence. This means that they saw business possibilities based on necessity rather than opportunity.

3. Adaptation of the MCTC “On-The-Spot” (Business Labs) curriculum to particular local conditions and heterogeneity of the target population was carried out over a period of time, that is to say, it was a progressive, continuous process. Currently the content (curriculum) is approximately 70% practical and 30% theoretical.


IV. Conclusions About Project Performance As we can see from Table 1, the Business Labs Project is rated as “poor” in relation to design, “good” in terms of relevance, “fair” in effectiveness and sustainability, and “poor” in terms of efficiency, with the reasons for each rating given in the corresponding section. The effectiveness rating may not be accurate, since we have been limited to analyzing initial outcomes due to the absence of quantitative data on the project’s intermediate and final outcomes. The relevance rating may also be overly generous, because while activities to benefit youth have received priority nationally and internationally, relevance is also a function of the appropriateness of project activities in terms of addressing beneficiary needs, and the project’s targeting is unclear and highly questionable.

As mentioned in footnote #12, in the evaluation of development projects, frequently the analysis is concentrated in examining the “three Qs” – quality of design, quality of management and supervision, and quality of results. The quality of design was poor, as noted above; the quality of management and supervision was also poor; and the quality of results is undetermined – while some excellent outcomes may have occurred, there is either no data on these, or the meager data available is demonstrably unreliable.

Overall, the performance and management of the Business Labs project was poor. CENPES recommendations were ignored. Whatever opportunity came along – MCTC, MIT Courseware, World Bank GDLN, universities, electronic courses, etc. – was incorporated into the project without sufficient consideration as to whether it fit the target population, because if the target population is simply “all young persons ages 15-35,” most any activity may be considered. As stated previously, the YABT reports are lengthy and appear detailed, but are carelessly prepared, and lack reliable and credible data. There is no systematic follow-up of participants in Business Labs nor is there information on the survival of business start-ups that resulted from the workshops. Remarkably, contracts in the amount of $26,500 were issued to prepare the proposal for “Nex Links,”39 but in spite of this, its quality is not much better than the 2003 proposal; it again grounds the project’s justification in the need to address extreme poverty and hunger (MDG # 1) suggesting that the phrase “living in or near poverty” has not been abandoned, but it does not clearly specify the target population and therefore reveals little in the way of matching activities with beneficiary requirements, suggesting that the poverty justification is merely lip service.

39 It was actually contracted to YABT staff, which may explain why its quality is similar to that of other YABT documents.


V. Recommendations A. Strengthen the supervision of FEMCIDI projects.40 On the basis of evaluations

we have completed of eight FEMCIDI-financed projects, it is evident that supervision of these projects by staff of the Executive Secretariat for Integral Development is weak, due to some extent to staff shortages, combined with the overly extensive paperwork associated with almost every project (see the recommendation below). This weakness is apparent in several ways: from the analysis and the ratings contained in the CENPES Evaluation Sheets, in the apparent lack of close follow-up to recommendations in the Evaluation Sheets, and probably a lack of analysis and feedback to work plans, progress reports and final reports. (For example, in this particular project, it is remarkable that in the final two phases covering four years – 2005-06 and 2007-08 – actual expenditures matched planned expenditures line by line!) The Executive Secretariat should make an effort to “re-engineer” the supervisory process and procedures so that its staff can better cope with project documentation, and can exert improved supervision.

B. Place strict limits on the length of proposals, reports, and all other Project-related documents. The Business Labs Proposal is 22 pages in length, the Final Report (Appendix V) for 2005-06 is 36 pages, not counting the financial section. Contrast this with the IDB, where a Profile for a TC is limited to 4 pages, and a TC “Plan of Operations” (which conceptually is similar to a FEMCIDI proposal) is limited to 10 pages – and most of the IDB’s TCs are considerably larger investments than FEMCIDI projects. There is an obvious trade-off between length of documentation and staff’s ability to read, understand, analyze, and react to it – especially when the staff is severely short-handed. We recommend that strict limits be placed on each type of document, including evaluations (!).

C. Proposals should include a clear specification of the project’s target group, as well as specific information regarding similar ongoing initiatives of other international organizations and multilateral financial organizations. In the case of the Business Labs project, the project coordinators suggest that the evaluators have in essence set up a “straw man” in understanding that the target population consists of “youth living in or near poverty” in spite of the following facts: (a) the “background” section of the proposal makes special reference to poverty and unemployment among youth; (b) its first stated “goal” is “to alleviate two main problems that afflict young people in the Americas, that is [sic] poverty and unemployment;” (c) its first “specific accomplishment” is to be “[p]overty especially of young people in the Americas, will be decreased;” and (d) describing YABT as the coordinating institution by stating that “[t]he YABT advances efforts to improve the quality of life of young adults especially those living in or near poverty.” There is no mention in the proposal of youth-related initiatives of other international organizations, in order to ascertain how the proposed project would be complementary to such efforts.

40 Supervision in this case would consist of: careful analysis of proposals and monitoring reports, with appropriate and timely feedback to project coordinators; follow-up of CENPES recommendations; and ensuring that results and financial reporting is adequate, timely, and reliable.


D. Insist on quantification of indicators, especially of outcomes, and on data collection and reporting during project implementation. As in other international organizations and the multilateral development banks, documentation on FEMCIDI-financed projects lack adequate outcome indicators, some of which appear to have been pulled out of thin air, are ill-defined, and also do not typically include provision for collection of the relevant data, making analysis of effectiveness an exercise in post hoc storytelling. For example, in the proposal for the follow-up project we see information such as “more than 17,000 persons participated in one Business Lab over the past four years,” and targets such as “1,560 young entrepreneurs will benefit…..and 3,120 new jobs [will be created].”41 “Participated” means little or nothing, because some register, arrive and drop out or learn nothing; “entrepreneurs will benefit” suggests that 1,560 businesses will be started, with no monitoring to see whether they will survive to become established; and “3,120 new jobs” reveals little more than a multiple of 2 of the previous indicator.

In an April 30, 2009 memorandum reacting to a draft of this evaluation report, YABT’s CEO states as follows with regard to “next steps” to be undertaken:

“YABT will: o Develop more systematic data collection to be able to track participants after

the training o Preparation of more thorough reports and compilation of data to follow

established program objectives. o Continue to review the Business Labs material so that an accurate

presentation of this initiative is possible and is updated accurately and fairly o Train all YABT staff at HQ and in national YABTs in appropriate evaluation

methods and practices that meet international standards o Take into account some of the points brought up in this report, providing a

more accurate representation of the results o Use the overall structure suggested here to analyze and document the

project, using accurate data and more current information from the field o Build the revamped evaluation system into new projects so that there is clear

agreement among staff and with donors as to how such activities and results will be reviewed, analyzed, and reported.

o Crate [sic] a master database tracking system that will maintain counts of participants as well as provide for follow-up and continuity, not only of programming but also of participants.”

It behooves the Executive Secretariat of CIDI to ensure that there is follow-up to verify that this commitment is fulfilled, at least in connection with “Nex Links.”

E. YABT reports in general, and also Annual Reports, should include tabulations of specific results, for outcomes and by components as planned, together with the 41 This is from the Nex Links proposal, pp. 13,16.


corresponding statistical tables. YABT’s project reports and Annual Reports are little more than public relations documents, lack specificity in reporting results of its activities, and are also plagued with repetitive information and internal inconsistencies. For example, the Final Report to FEMCIDI for 2004 refers to a regional workshop held in Guatemala, and states that “almost seventy participants attended the meeting,” and a few pages later states that it was attended by “60 participants from 18 countries.”42 The Annual Report for 2006 contains the following phrases: “In 2006, there were close to 20 Business Labs conducted with more than 800 participants from 30 OAS Member States.” (p. 12) “The Bahamas……”Close to 40 individuals turned out for the training...” (p.12) “Honduras….” Over 40 participants were selected by the OAS National Offices..” (p.14). Moreover, the Annual Reports contain no financial statements or information for YABT. We suggest that henceforth Annual Reports include a statistical appendix, as well as financial statements (e.g., balance sheet and supporting tables) appropriate for a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

F. Develop special supervision procedures for projects executed or coordinated by the General Secretariat and its dependent units. Although formally the Business Labs project was coordinated by YABT, obviously this means that coordination is hardly separable from the General Secretariat. This poses special problems for supervision, some involving conflicts of interest, because oftentimes staff members are reluctant to criticize reports and proposals of colleagues.43 In these cases, it is recommended that supervision – especially the review of proposals and reports – be carried out, at a marginal cost, by independent consultants.

G. Carefully analyze the appropriateness of ICTs in projects. As is indicated elsewhere in this report, the use of ICTs in projects must be analyzed in light of the characteristics of the target population. Other considerations are that (a) websites should include administrative tools that enable the tracking of users, and (b) they should be updated on a continuous basis.

42 YABT, Appendix V – Final Report 2004, p. 2, 10. Other internal inconsistencies in the reporting of results are common. 43 This is not an ethical issue, but rather a practical one.


Appendix I: Logical Framework (partial) for the Evaluation

Narrative Summary Indicators Used for the Evaluation44 Planned Results Reported

Purpose Young people (ages 15 to 35, especially those living in or near poverty)45 create employment for themselves (e.g., obtain employment) and others (e.g., by establishing businesses).

Final (End) Outcomes 1. Business Lab trainees establish businesses

(survive 42 months). Not quantified. 2. Business Labs trainees obtain gainful

employment. Not quantified. Initial Outcomes

1. Business Labs completed by teachers and trainers without Project financing.

2. Business Labs curriculum adopted or incorporated into the educational system.

3. Support networks for young entrepreneurs established and consolidated.

1. No data in project reports. 2. No data in project reports.

1. No systematic data. See Report. 2. No systematic data. See Report.

3. No systematic data. See Report.

Component 1 Curriculum development

1.1 (2003) Entrepreneurial curriculum developed to be “used in both school/university environments and non-formal settings that serve unemployed, out-of-school youth.” 1.2 (2004) Curriculum improved “to be able to fully implement it at the national level.”

1.3 (2004) Course converted to be delivered on-line.

1.1 Final Report does not give specifics, but MCTC “On-The-Spot” curriculum adopted by Business Labs.

1.2 (2004) YABT, GDLN and university partners in 4 countries launched an Internet-based course on Corporate Social Responsibility. Not sure this corresponds to what was planned.

1.3 (2004) “Material for the Education Portal modules is complete and ready to be posted on-line.”

Component 2 Regional and national training of trainers

2.1 (2003) 50 trainers trained in 2 workshops (Grenada and Ecuador) 2.2 (2004) 55 teachers and development professionals trained in two regional workshops (training of trainers). 2.3 (2004) 225 teachers and development

2.1 173 (150 in Ecuador; 23 in Grenada).

2.2 75 in Panama; Grenada – no total given.

2.3 GR – 120; BR – 35; PE – 100; NI – 100; PN – 85. (Data is for only 5 countries and

44 The indicators included in this partial logical framework do not reflect all the project’s outputs, but rather they constitute the principal basis for evaluating the project’s efficiency in implementation. 45 From the 2002 Proposal, Sections II.2, p. 4 and III.1, p. 16.



professionals trained at the national level (15 in each of the 15 countries). 2.4 (2005-06) 500 trainers trained.

2.5 (2007-08) 455 trainers trained in 5 regional and 8 subregional workshops (175 on SME development; 280 on specific topics).

appears questionable.)

2.4 323 trainers trained. (Other workshops were held, but they were not training of trainers.)46

2.5 Reported 450 trainers trained in 15 workshops; from YABT report, counted 13 workshops, not all of which were training of trainers, and a total of 199 participants.47

Component 3 Startup of (pilot) Business Labs

3.1 (2003) 3 pilot sites (Antigua/Barbuda, Ecuador, Grenada) – national training exercises – held.

3.1 No data provided.

Component 4 Development of electronic network and e-curriculum

4.1 (2004) Ybiz.net Internet site built, operational, and continuously updated. 4.2 (2004) (2006-08) On-line platform (www.myybiz.net) offers Access for educational resources, networking communities, business opportunities, Exchange of lessons learned from other projects, business opportunities, etc. via on-line forums. 4.3 (2005-06) Technology platform with curriculum content, “how to” manuals, and on-line guides operational. 4.4 (2005-06) 10 GDLN sites developed and operational. 4.5 (2007-08) On-line platform (MyYbiz.net) developed, offering participants access to educational resources, networking communities, and business opportunities. 4.6 (2007-08) On-Line Resource and

4.1 No result given for 2004. Site launched in August 2005.

4.2 Two on-line directories established; links to MIT Open Course Ware, IFC’s SME Toolkit, My Own Business courses.

4.3 No results given.

4.4 Four (4) Global Dialogues developed with GLDN.

4.5 Not completed.

4.6 Not completed.

46 The Final Report 2005-06 states that “a total of 604 participants were trained as potential trainers on the Business Labs methodology. However, the total we calculated is 323, because several of the workshops were not training of trainers – two in Peru, one in Barbados and one in Paraguay. 47 The Final Report 2007-08 states “we developed 15 workshops, training an average of 30 potential trainers in each one, making a total of 30*15=450 trainers.” However, from a YABT document detailing individual workshops held in 2007-08, we arrive at the figures shown.



Reference Center operational.

Component 5 Program institutionalization

5.1 (2005-06) Project reviewed, evaluated. 5.2 (2005-06) Regional proposals prepared

for next phase of project. 5.3 (2007-08) Best practices seminar held

coinciding with 2007 General Assembly. 5.4 (2007-08) Program evaluation conducted. 5.5 (2007-08) Design of a “next step project”

completed.

5.1 Two consultants hired. Have requested copy of evaluation. No evidence of result. 5.2 Proposal for “Nex Links” prepared. 5.3 Regional conference held in Panama. 5.4 Country reports received after each activity, but no evaluation reported. 5.5 The “Nex Links” proposal was developed during the previous phase.


Appendix II: Main References Consulted – Documents and Videos

Documents

Business Labs, “Execution Plan 2005 – 2006.”

Business Labs, “Execution Plan 2007 – 2008.”

Business Labs, “Final Report 2003.”

Business Labs, “Final Report 2004.”

Business Labs, “Final Report 2005-2006.”

Business Labs, “Final Report 2007-2008.”

Business Labs, “Proposal 2003 – 2007.”

Shula Ferdman and Yvonne Lipman, “An Exemplary Model of International Development Cooperation – MCTC/MASHAV and YABT Cooperation,” Shalom Magazine (2007), on the MASHAV website http://mashav.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Data/128958.pdf , p. 21-23.

IACD, “Business Labs – Young Entrepreneur Training and Development Program.” (Proposal)

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MASHAV Courses 2007, “Entrepreneurship for Youth – a Tool for Poverty Alleviation,” available at http://mashav.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Data/106726.pdf .

Junior Achievement Worldwide, The Impact On Students of Participation in JA Worldwide: Selected Cumulative and Longitudinal Findings, Colorado Springs, CO, 2004. MASHAV, “MCTC Overview – 2008.” OIJ, Plan Iberoamericano de Cooperación e Integración de la Juventud 2009-2015, available at http://www.oij.org/documentos/doc1226581409.pdf

Thomasson, Roy, Memorandum Re “Draft Preliminary Version of Evaluation Report for FEMCIDI, Business Labs: Young Entrepreneur Training and Development,” April 30, 2009.

YABT, Annual Report (2003-2007).

YABT, “Business Labs Numbers – 2002 - 2008,” Excel spreadsheet.

YABT, “Business Laboratories: Report for 2007-2008 / Plan for 2008-2009,” Washington, DC (undated).

YABT, “Collaboration between the OAS/ Young Americas Business Trust and MASHAV / Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Center for Young Entrepreneurs Training in the Americas 2005-2006.”

YABT, “YABT/MIT Sloan Research Project on Internet-based Entrepreneurship Education” (undated).

YABT, “Young Entrepreneurs Follow-Up Networks – ‘Nex Links,’” Proposal for FEMCIDI financing, December 2007.


YABT, “Youth Reality in the Americas,” Washington, DC, September 5, 2007.

Videos

“Jóvenes Empresarios – Competir y Trabajar,” Ecuador, 2004. “Turning Learning Into Earning,” Trinidad & Tobago, 2004.


Appendix III: Persons Interviewed

Barbados (Darwin Clarke)

Thelma Green Director, Young Entrepreneur Scheme, Government of Barbados

Andy White Consultant /Trainer

Ecuador (Benito Peña) (Facilitators associated with YABT)

Elena Acevedo María Eugenia Cabal Eddy Calderón Víctor Manuel Campaña Pilar Castillo Isaac Castro Martha Hurtado Erika Manzo Wilson Mariño Tamayo Azucena Palacios Gustavo Riaño Reinaldo Rogel (Participants in an evaluation seminar) Miltón Hipolito Arévalo Claudio Inés Bailón Roldán Silvia de las Mercedes Cabezas Reinoso Hedí Bethrabé Calderón Carmita Chamorro Martha Dávila S. Mérridy Delgado Sancán Wilfrido Dieda Romero Luis. A. Duchi Julio Salvador Garrán Muñoz Juan Aleivar Guamán Guanga Yánez. Larco Mariana María Montero Cortez Carlos Niebla Álvarez Galo Yubert Orellana Suárez Yessenia Marisol Palma Ruiz Maria Leonor Parrales P. Mirella Peña Morales Lorena Roca Espinel Reinaldo Rogel Rivera Adalberto Saul Romo Leroux G. Santiago. P. Ron Mayuya Wilson. R. Salguero. A.


Karol Beatriz Santos Pazmiño Marcelo Soria Araujo Ana Tobar Mariana Avila Vélez Victoria Pilar Villacreses Hna. Ana Rafaela Velasco Julia Vaca Reinoso Mario Enrique Vesol Vargas Mirna Lorena Viteri Mendoza Hómer Vivamos Gallardo Fanny Zabala Larco Maria Eulalia Zambrano Mejia El Salvador (George Plinio Montalván) Karla Calvo DESHFRUTAL Mauricio Carballo Secretaría de Juventud Aida Lorena Ramírez CONDESA Rogelio Sotela Representative, OAS General Secretariat Miriam Urias FUNDAPYME Grenada (Darwin Clarke)

Terrence Craig OAS Representative in Grenada

Arkada Ventour YABT Assistant Coordinator (2005-2007)

Ken Fullerton Adviser, Ministry of Youth Affairs

Stephen Fletcher Ambassador to Brussels, formerly with Small Business Development Corporation (SBDC)

Andy White Consultant/Trainer

Teresa Marcheau Extension Officer, Ministry of Agriculture (trainee)

Karen Andal Assistant Extension Officer, Ministry of Agriculture (trainee)

Lennon Cummings Young Entrepreneur

Guatemala (George Plinio Montalván) María Luisa Cruz IDEA Isabel Palencia Universidad Rafael Landívar Sergio Reyes Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas y Forestales Nicaragua (George Plinio Montalván)

Aura Ivania Aráuz Briceño Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería


Erich Ulloa Ricaurte AJE Nicaragua

Lilly Berrios Directora Ejecutiva, INDE

Ana Carolina Alfaro Coordinadora Emprendedores Juveniles, INDE

OAS Headquarters

Yerutí Méndez YABT

Renato Paredes YABT

Roy Thomasson YABT and Executive Secretariat CIDI

Luis Viguria YABT


Appendix IV: YABT Website

YBIZ.NET Email

• Login:

Password:

Login

Get a free ybiz.net email address

Sign Up!

Chat

Directories

Entrepreneurs Organizations

Leadership

Biotechnology Leadership Links YABT-IDB Youth YABT - GDLN Young

Entrepreneur Forum

Training

Business Labs Financial

Education Loss Prevention On-Line Courses Scholarships Social

Responsibility Y.I.C.

Technology

Infobiz TIC Americas

Sponsors

Young Americas Business Trust

The talents and prospects of young entrepreneurs of the Americas and the Caribbean today will determine the Hemisphere's potential for future economic growth and democratic stability.

Enterprising, energetic young people offer the best opportunity for building the Americas of all our dreams. Reality reminds us, however, that only investment today will enable us to build this tomorrow. This Young Americas Business Trust – itself a young startup initiative - combines the energy of talented young people, as staff and representatives, with the experience and prestige of the Organization of American States, an international organization of the thirty-four countries of the Americas.

The most gratifying response to our work has come from young entrepreneurs and professionals, including interns and staff, from all across the Hemisphere. Their enthusiastic and unselfish contributions of time, talent, and money to support this cause shows its value give us much encouragement. In working with them, our respect for young entrepreneurs grows - young people who have the courage to make a start - whether in Buenos Aires, Bogotá, Barbados, or the countless small towns of the Americas.

But our progress thus far has only begun to tap the potential for our organization. We are proud of our accomplishments in making a solid start – to have dreamed like young entrepreneurs: with faith, facing and overcoming many challenges, achieving much "on a shoestring." The challenges have only strengthened our determination to move ahead. In this, we truly value our friends and supporters and sincerely thank the people - both young in age and young in spirit - who are a part of this effort and make it possible.

We go forward with the hope that other donors, good corporate citizens, and foundations will offer their financial support to enable the Young Americas Business Trust reach more young people, creating the productive enterprises that benefit everyone.

Related News

Newsletters

Previous News

Check the courses that Microsoft offers


Priorities from the Presidential Summits of the Americas

In the Declaration of the Second Summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile, the Presidents acknowledged "education as the determining factor for the political, social, cultural, and economic development of our peoples" and that "overcoming poverty continues to be the greatest challenge confronted by our Hemisphere."

The Member States of Organization of American States (OAS), in the Plan of Action from the Summit, pledged to "strengthen preparation, education, and training for the world of work so that an increasing number of workers can improve their standard of living … and to enhance employability prospects, take into account the development of entrepreneur skills."

To address these challenges the Presidents recognized the "importance and positive role played by hemispheric institutions, particularly the Organization of American States (OAS), and committed themselves to strengthen and modernize these institutions."

These priorities set for the OAS and other international financial institutions following the Second Presidential Summit of the Americas and other high level Ministerial meetings led to the creation of the Young Americas Business Trust, a mechanism to further the goals of the Summit.

The Young Americas Business Trust (YABT) has as its mission to address critical issues of poverty and unemployment among young people – issues that affect the development potential and progress as well as the social stability of all the nations of the Americas and the Caribbean and remain high priorities of all OAS Member States.

Additionally, during the 2000 Third Presidential Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, Canada, a consensus emerged highlighting the fact that democratic, economic, and social development are "interdependent and mutually reinforcing as fundamental conditions to combat poverty and inequality."

In particular, the Presidents recognized that, "increasing access to opportunities for sustainable entrepreneurship, productivity and employment among young people" are essential in solving the dilemma of persistent poverty and lack of congruity between formal education and the market.


Purpose

The Young Americas Business Trust promotes social and economic development in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere through programs, projects, and activities focused on: helping to create and advance efforts to improve the quality of life of youth and young adults, especially those living in or near poverty. In so doing, it will: A. Help create opportunities for the employment of youth and

young adults through entrepreneurship, enterprise creation, formal and non-formal training, application of technology, and the expansion of existing enterprises operated by young adults.

B. Foster greater awareness among governments, the private sector, and the public, of the contribution that youth entrepreneurship can make to economic growth, social equity, job creation, and poverty alleviation,

C. Formulate strategic plans to help encourage and accelerate entrepreneurial development at the community, national, and international, levels; including assisting new and existing organizations to plan and carry out entrepreneurial development and related employment skills training programs for young people;

D. Support the development of effective programs to foster youth entrepreneurship, particularly those carried out by the private sector by serving as a resource for: innovation; exchange of information and expertise; organizational linkages; and collaboration among those individuals, organizations, and entities which are working to strengthen youth entrepreneurship in the western hemisphere and elsewhere.

E. Increase entrepreneurship among young people through support of programs aimed at their: personal development; business and entrepreneurial education; employment and technical skills training; and accessing of technological and financial resources, including primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools, and community-based programs;

F. Collaborate with governmental and private sector organizations and entities to increase technical and financial assistance to support entrepreneurial development and employment skills training initiatives, particularly those aimed at young people living in or near poverty;

G. Solicit, manage, and provide funds, services, contributions, and in-kind contributions to all these purposes from public and private entities.


Who we are

Incorporated in 1999 as non-profit corporation in Washington, DC, the Young Americas Business Trust is recognized as a 501 (c)(3) organization by the US Internal Revenue Service. Contributions can be tax-deductible.

The YABT draws on more than seventeen years of pioneer OAS experience designing and developing innovative entrepreneur and micro-enterprise programs targeted to young people, including youth development, mentoring, training, and finance.

The policies and programs of the Young Americas Business Trust follow OAS priorities, including the Charter of the OAS that committed the Organization work to reduce the critical poverty that affects millions of people in the Americas, especially the young.

The YABT operates at OAS Headquarters in Washington under a General Cooperation Agreement signed by the Secretary General of the OAS and the Chair of the YABT Board of Directors.

Project Evaluation Report - Topic - Organization of American ...

Documents

Transcript of Project Evaluation Report - Topic - Organization of American ...