Upload
phillip-flynn
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vocational Training for High School Students
BrazilIstanbul, May 14, 2015
Andrea Rocha – Secretaria de Educação do Estado do CearáInês Studart – Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Econômico
Victor Hugo de Oliveira – Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica do Ceará
Cristian Quijada Torres – WBCaio Piza – DIME/WB
Intervention SummaryI. Objective
– Evaluate the impact of the Vocational Education Program of the Secretary of Education of the Ceará State Government;
II. Components to be evaluated1. Vocational Education Program: combine high school education +
technical formation;• Full-day secondary school;• Compare outcomes between students from vocational program and students
from regular education;
2. Information about the returns associated to different careers to students who entered in the labor market;
3. Information to firms (employers) about the average quality of students who entered in the labor market;
Evaluation QuestionsI. Strategic Questions
a. What is the impact of the program on cognitive skills (Math, Portuguese, and technical skills) and non-cognitive skills of students;
b. What is the effect of the program on the employability, wages and other labor market outcomes?
c. Does the information about the returns of technical careers versus higher education (university) influence the decision making process about the career choice of students?
d. What is the impact of providing information about the quality of students who are in the labor market on the quality of job matching (employee-employer)?
II. Cross-cutting issuesa. Does the program have different effects between boys and girls?b. Does the program have heterogeneous effect between high-performing
and lower-performing students from the fundamental education?c. Does the program affect (negatively) the employability of students in the
control group (displacement effect)?
Evaluation Design• A large proportion of 112 schools that offer the program
has a waiting list (waiting list – oversubscription)– The program will focus on 10 out of 52 technical
courses that are more directly related to the private sector;
1. The selection into the schools will be randomized;2. Additional information about job market will be
randomly assigned to graduating students;3. Randomized firms to receive information about the
quality of students who want to enter the labor market.
Evaluation Design
Treatment 3: Information package about the quality of students…
Control 2: Current model of communication with the private sector
Treatment 1:Vocational education
Treatment 2:Vocational education +Information package
Control 1:Standard education
Experiment wth firms/employers
Expe
rimen
t with
stu
dent
s
Effect of T1
Effect of T2
Effect of T3
Effect of T1 and T3
Effect of T2 and T3
Pure control
Sample and data
• Currently: 45,000 students enrolled in the vocational schools (~500 students/schools)
• Sample to run the evaluation: 3,000 students.
Intervention Summary• The problem: entrepreneurs are not “investment ready” (e.g.,
unwilling to seek external private funding and don’t know how to sell their new ideas/projects to investors)
• Lack of investment readiness compromises the effectiveness of supply-side interventions such as the creation of Seed or VC funds (e.g., Serbia, Croatia, Lebanon, Morocco).
• The intervention objectives:• Provide a comprehensive investment readiness program (IRP) to
innovative start-ups in the region.• Evaluate if IRP facilitates access to equity finance. • Components of the intervention: 1) mentoring to be investment
ready (e.g., management, IPRs, commercialization, marketing, etc) 2) mentoring presentation skills, 3) pitch event with investors.
Evaluation Questions• 1) Are investment readiness program for innovative start-
ups an effective intervention to facilitate access to equity finance?
• 2) Is it worthy to spend a lot of money in a tailored investment readiness intervention vis-à-vis a low cost online program?
• 3) What is the impact of the investment readiness program on medium-term firm performance (e.g., sales, profits, employment)
• 4) Do the IRPs scores predict medium-term firm performance?
Evaluation Design• Randomized Controlled Trial (after a pre-screening stage)• 5 Countries: Croatia, Kosovo, The FYR of Macedonia, Montenegro,
and Serbia.• Target group: innovative start-ups (sample size: 150 firms group)
TREATMENT 1
3 months of face-to-face mentoring; IR
workshops; Presentation skills.
TREATMENT 2 (CONTROL)
52-hour online investment readiness
program
Real pitch event: top participants will be invited to a final pitch event with regional investors
Mock pitch event: participants will give a 5-minute presentation to a committee that will evaluate and score their proposals
Sample and data
• Sample: qualified innovative start-ups in the targeted region
• Sample size: 150 T and 150 C• Data: baseline and endline surveys• Data 2: IRP scores on investment readiness
Timeline
• July 2015: launch event and call for application, roadshow to promote the program
• Sept-Dec. 2015: online (control) and face-to-face (treatment) mentoring program
• Jan-Feb. 2016: mock and final pitch event• March-May. 2016: data analysis
14
Risks• Take up: concern that the region does not have a significant
mass of innovative start-ups, encouragement channels (promotional events, advertising on tv, radio, social media, phone calls, SMS, emails).
• Attrition: concerns that if the quality/reputation of the mentors is not high or international then some start-ups may not show up for the IRP.
• Spillovers: we have to make clear that the process is competitive so that no communication happens btw treated and control
Intervention SummaryThe High Impact Entrepreneurship Program has the objective to support firms to get tools to strength their development and operation in order to be more efficient and to have more opportunities to be successful.The firms must have an innovation in product, service or business model, high potential to be global and generate benefits beyond the economic factor.
Components to be evaluated Overall impact of the program The application process The support categories The monitoring process
Program Design
Promotion
Application Process
Proposal Evaluation
Monitoring
Evaluation QuestionsOverall Impact1.What is the impact of the High Impact Entrepreneurship
Program on firm’s performance (productivity, sales, job creation)?
Variations2. What is the impact of providing diagnostic/consulting services before applying to the program on the quality of the application and the firm’s performance?
3. What is the impact of eliminating the conditional expenditure categories from the grant scheme?
4. What is the impact of providing TA through project implementation on firm’s performance?
Evaluation DesignUniverse of interested firms
Randomly assignedconsulting?/diagnostic
services
Receive TA Don’t receive TA
Variation A)Technical
Assistance before application
Assess the impact on the quality of the application
Evaluation DesignFirms ranked above threshold
Randomly assigned matching grant
Receive Matching grant
Don´t receive Matching grant
Restrictedexpenditure categories
Unrestricted expenditure categories
Variation B)Elimination of
restricted expenditure categories
Assess the effectiveness of the design of the supporting instrument by
comparing performance
Assess the overall impact of the program on firm’s performance
Evaluation DesignFirms ranked above threshold
Randomly assigned matching grant
Technical assistance through project implementation
No Technical assistance
Variation C) Technical assistance
through project implementation
Asses the project implementation capacity
Receive Matching grant
Don´t receive Matching grant
Sample and dataSample: V1: Universe of interested firms (approx. 1000)
Q1: Eligible firms (approx. 500 firms)
V2,V3: Funded firms (approx. 100 firms)
Data:Administrative dataEnterprise/Managerial survey
Timeline1. i2i expression of interest: June 20152. INADEM approval of concept: June 20153. Concept note approval: November 20154. Launch of program: 2016 (month tbd)5. Baseline: tbd6. Endline: tbd7. Final analysis: tbd
Intervention Summary• Context & Objectives
– Create short-term employment opportunities for the unemployed (unskilled and semi-skilled) workers
– Contribute to the creation and/or maintenance of community infrastructure and services
– Improve access to basic infrastructure and community services among the target population
– Improve the employability of the youth through short-term training or support to facilitate transitions to wage and self-employment.
• Interventions to be tested – Community infrastructure component– Community social services component – Youth employability [not yet developed in this design.]
Evaluation Questions• What are the effects of the cash for work program [on social
and economic outcomes of beneficiaries/ communities?– Effects of short-term employment– Effects of infrastructure and social services
• Do social accountability tools—such as community investigations or complaint mechanisms—enhance the efficacy of the cash for work program?
• Does combining community infrastructure with social services achieve greater social and economic impacts than community infrastructure alone?
• Can the cash for work program influence the welfare of the whole community (including eligible non-participants and ineligible)?
Key outcomes of interest• Consumption/food security
• Human development outcomes (e.g., education & health)
• Labor market outcomes (waged or self-employment)
• Access to social services
• Quality of infrastructures
• Revitalization of local economy
• Social participation & cohesion
Evaluation Design• We use a cluster-randomized phase-in approach to identify
effects of the different treatments and sub-treatments
Data
• Select a representative random sample of 10 individuals in each of 400 study community– Total sample is 4,000
• We plan to use 4 data sources:– Household surveys – Community surveys – High frequency data (mass sms) – Administrative data ( MIS )
32
Timeline (tentative)
• Field mission: End of July 2015 Refine IE design (fine tune treatments & hypotheses) Design IE for the youth employability component Re-examine study sample Develop IE implementation protocols
• Phase one rollout : August 2015-October2016
• Follow up data collection : October-December 2016
• Phase two rollout : December 2016 – End 2018
Intervention Summary• Objective
– Increase the performance of the firm, providing the following services:
General Consultancy Training Technical Assistance
Components to be evaluated
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Evaluation Questions
• What's the impact of training provided by SME Centers on firm performance (Profit, Sales, Employment, etc)?
• What's the impact of training + technical assistance provided by SME Centers on firm performance (Profit, Sales, Employment, etc)?
Evaluation Design
Control Group
++
Treatment 1 Treatment 2
+
400 SME
400 SME
400 SME
4,800 SME Invited25% Take up= 1,200
Sample and data
• Centers provide services to MSMEs in urban areas (4 centers that serve firms in the services sector) and in rural areas (2 centers that serve farmers).– We may need to concentrate on urban areas, on small firms in the
services sector to reduce heterogeneity.
Pilot Project Profit
Sales
Employment
38
IE of SME CentersACTIVITY MONTHS
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IE Design
SMEs Invitations
Program start (BL Data Collection)
General Consultancy (Control)
GC +Training (Treatment 1)
GC + Training + Technical Assitance (Treatment 2)
Basic Follow up (3 variables)
Comprehensive Follow up
Thank you¡Gracias!
Contact Info: Noel Bou, [email protected] Cel. (829) 659-2913.
Rubi Breton, [email protected] Cel. (809) 467-2015