Cross-Sectoral Impact of PYD Programs:
Do PYD programs have significant positive effects on outcomes in multiple sectors?
- What are the barriers and opportunities to achieving cross-sectoral outcomes?
- How can we apply lessons learned in one sector to another sector?
- Can PYD strategies reduce costs and increase benefits by having impact on outcomes across multiple sectors?
Recent evidence has emerged in support of cross-sector impact of PYD programs. In a comprehensive review of workforce development (WFD) and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programs in LMICs, 48 programs that integrated workforce development and SRH services and had impact evaluations were identified and scored based on their impact on WFD, SRH, or both. Features of programs with the highest impact across sectors are described in some detail and recommendations made for future program development. Within these two sectors, there is good evidence that combining features from sector-specific programs with general PYD soft skill development has achieved impact in both sectors. They recommend a multi-level approach and suggest having curriculum that focuses on specific skills in both SRH and WFD, as well as general life skills training; social support in safe places; employer consultations; multi-level communication with community members, parents and policymakers; and strong linkages to SRH services.
There are several programs that use multi-level approaches to obtain impact in more than one sector. In India, a program (Improving Sexual and Reproductive Health of Young People by Increasing the Age at Marriage and Delaying the First Pregnancy) used a multi-level approach that included peer-to-peer delivery of life skills curriculum and Youth Information Centers to reach both married and unmarried, and in-school and out-of-school youth. The program held meetings with parents and other community leaders and trained key staff in governmental departments to facilitate the enforcement of laws against child marriage and the promotion of life skills and youth-focused health service programs available through the national government. The evaluation used a post-test only design in six villages (two states) and found effects on SRH and education outcomes. Although not a strong test, the data indicated some positive relationships between program exposure and a reduction in child marriage and early pregnancy (before age 19) as well as school retention. Effects on child marriage were only observed for girls, but other effects, such as effects of exposure to the media and youth center activity components of the intervention on a reduction in early pregnancy and school retention, were observed for boys and girls.
In Uganda, Educate! Experience was implemented in 24 secondary schools from 2012 to 2013 and evaluated using a cluster randomized control trial (RCT) over four years. The program content included a 35-session entrepreneurship and leadership course, one-on-one and group mentorship, and student business development clubs. Preliminary results of the RCT indicate significant improvements in soft skills such as self-efficacy, creativity, and stress management in graduates vs. controls. Some impacts were observed on qualities of personality, such as openness and agreeableness. Although no effect was found on business knowledge, related skills were influenced such as the ability to identify a business opportunity and win-win strategies. No impacts on employment or income were observed yet; however, the program led to higher high-school graduation rates, especially for girls, who were also more likely to continue their education after high school. Importantly, effects in SRH outcomes were found in the form of delayed family formation and reductions in intimate partner violence reported by girls who graduated from the program, compared to girls who were not exposed to Educate! Experience. These were truly crossover effects in a separate sector since the curriculum did not formally or directly address SRH issues. The results of this study also point to the importance of gender in evaluating program effects across sectors. In 2016, Educate! Experience conducted a follow-on quasi experimental study to assess the program’s impact at scale.
Recommendations for cross-sectoral PYD impact measurement:
• The biggest gap in evidence for PYD is in the democracy and government sector.
• Measure a broader array of outcomes for PYD programs which are currently focused on a single sector.
• Use research designs which evaluate the benefits of adding PYD features to increase the multisector impacts of PYD programs.
• Direct evaluation should be conducted on the potential added benefits of life skills training to a program with only single sector-specific training.
• Factorial experiments in which each component of the intervention is varied can be very powerful and efficient for understanding the effects of different program components on important short-term outcomes. Information about factorial designs and how they fit into a multiphase optimization strategies (MOST) can be found at the Penn State Methodology Center.
See also: What are the best ways to design and implement PYD programs with cross-sector outcomes in LMICs?
