Intervention characteristics

The 26 studies included in the review evaluated 20 different programme interventions (hereafter interventions) providing TVET opportunities to young people in terms of specific outcomes. The number of reviewed studies is greater than the number of interventions because three interventions were evaluated by more than one team of investigators. Four studies evaluated different programme components/modalities available to trainees, sometimes in addition to an

examination of the intervention as a whole. One study evaluated several different interventions. One study evaluated an intervention comprised of different projects operating internationally.20 _{This chapter outlines the key characteristics of the 20} interventions, with further details provided in Appendix 8.10.

4.1 SETTING AND COVERAGE

Fourteen of the 20 interventions were located in Central/South American countries, with three situated in Asia, one in Africa, and two in Europe. Settings include ten upper-middle income countries (Argentina; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil; Chile; China; Colombia; Dominican Republic; Latvia; Mexico; Panama and Peru); two lower-middle income countries (India and Bhutan); and one low-income country (Kenya). Some were intended to provide a small-scale demonstration effect, whilst others were large-scale operations (sometimes involving complete transformation of previous training systems).

Twenty studies evaluated an intervention (and/or different sub-components or modalities) in one country only (Acero, Alvarado, Bravo, Contreras, & Ruiz-Tagle, 2011; Aedo & Nuñez, 2004; Aedo & Pizarro, 2004; Alzuá & Brassiolo, 2006; Analítica Consultores, 2006; Attanasio, Kugler, & Meghir, 2011; Benus, Rude, & Patrabansh, 2001; Bidani, Goh, & O'Leary, 2002; Card, Ibarraran, Regalia, Rosas- Shady, & Soares, 2011; Chong & Galdo, 2006; Chong, Galdo, & Saavedra, 2008; Chun & Watanabe, 2011; Delajara, Freije, & Soloaga, 2006; Díaz & Jaramillo, 2006; Dmitrijeva, 2009; Elías, Ruiz Núñez, Cossa, & Bravo, 2004; Espinoza, 2010; Hicks, Kremer, Mbiti, & Miguel, 2011; Ibarraran & Rosas-Shady, 2006; Jaramillo, Galdo, & Montalva, 2007; López-Acevedo, 2003; Mensch, Grant, Sebastian, Hewett, &

Huntington, 2004; Ñopo, Robles, & Saavedra, 2007; van Gameren, 2010).21 _One study evaluated several different interventions within a single country (Medina & Nuñez, 2005). One study evaluated an intervention in two different countries (Alzúa, Nahirñak, & Alvarez de Toledo, 2007).

Argentina:

1. Entra 21: an international programme (2001-ongoing) operating in 18 countries across South America and the Caribbean. The two Argentine projects evaluated are (i) Fundación SES (Sustentabilidad- Educación -Solidaridad), which

provides training in five regions of the country; and (ii) Agencia para el Desarollo Económico de la Ciudad de Córdoba (ADEC), which trains students from the area of Rio Segundo. This intervention was evaluated by Alzuá et al. (2007). 2. Proyecto Joven: a national programme which operated between 1993 and 2001

(distribution of the training activities was determined in accordance with regional populations). One of a series of Latin American training programmes sponsored during this period by the Inter-American Development Bank. This intervention was evaluated by Aedo and Nuñez (2004); Alzuá and Brassiolo (2006); and Elías et al. (2004).

Bosnia and Herzegovina:

3. Emergency Demobilization and Reintegration Project: a national programme implemented over a four year period (1996-1999). This intervention was evaluated by Benus et al. (2001).

Bhutan:

4. Rural Skills Development Project: operating between 2007 and 2010, this was a regional programme covering all sub-districts across the three rural districts of Haa, Trashigan, and Bumthang. This intervention was evaluated by Chun and Watanabe (2011).

Brazil:

1. (see above) Entra 21: the two Brazilian projects evaluated are: (i) Centro de Ensino Profissionalizante Rotary (CEPRO) based in São Paulo; and (ii) Instituto de Hospitalidade (IH), which operates in the northeast of the country. This intervention was evaluated by Alzuá et al. (2007).

21 _{Whilst some of these interventions may have entailed a number of different sub-components, they}

were not evaluated separately. Occasionally, authors provided results for more than one intervention site.

Chile:

5. Chile Joven (Programa de Capacitación Laboral de Jóvenes): one of the earliest in a series of Latin American training programmes sponsored during this period by the Inter-American Development Bank, Chile Joven was available between 1991-2002 (phase I: 1991-1995; phase II: 1996-2002). This intervention was evaluated by Aedo and Pizarro (2004).

6. Jóvenes al Bicentenario: the first cohort of this programme was in 2008, and since then at least 10 different regions have implemented the programme. This intervention was evaluated by Acero et al. (2011).

China:

7. Retraining programmes for laid-off workers piloted in 30 municipalities in 1994 and expanded to 200 cities by 1996. Training in the cities of Shenyang and Wuhan is evaluated. This intervention was evaluated by Bidani et al. (2002).

Colombia:

8. Jóvenes en Acción (Youth in Action): operating between 2002 and 2005, this was a national programme offered in seven of the largest cities of the country: Barranquilla, Bogota, Bucaramanga, Cali, Cartagena, Manizales, and Medellin. This intervention was evaluated by Attanasio et al. (2011).

9. SENA (Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje) job training programme is an ongoing national initiative. SENA is a government agency. The programme started over 50 years ago, in 1957. There are 20 regional offices in the main cities. This intervention was evaluated by Medina and Nuñez (2005).

10. Public sector vocational training that is not provided by SENA: national. This intervention was evaluated by Medina and Nuñez (2005).

11. Private sector vocational training: national (although concentrated in the main cities). This intervention was evaluated by Medina and Nuñez (2005).

Dominican Republic:

12. Juventud y Empleo: one of a series of Latin American training programmes sponsored during this period by the Inter-American Development Bank, this programme operated nationally between 1999 and 2007. (NB: A programme by the same name continues in a slightly different format, with evaluation results due later this year). This intervention was evaluated by Card et al. (2011).

India:

13. A livelihoods intervention implemented in 2001 as a year-long, city-wide pilot project (operating in Allahabad). This intervention was evaluated by Mensch et al. (2004).

Kenya:

14. Technical and Vocational Vouchers Program: a regional initiative operating since 2008 in the area of Busia in Western Kenya (still ongoing). This intervention was evaluated by Hicks et al. (2011).

Latvia:

15. Occupational training (OT) programmes for the unemployed implemented nationwide by the State Employment Agency of Latvia; operating since the early 1990s. This intervention was evaluated by Dmitrijeva (2009).

Mexico:

16. Bécate (and the programme sub-component Capacitación en la Práctica Laboral): this ongoing initiative started in 2004, as a replacement for SINAT (see no.18 below). This intervention/sub-component was evaluated by Analítica Consultores (2006) and van Gameren (2010).

17. CONALEP (College of Professional Technical Education): an ongoing national programme in operation since 1978. All 31 states in Mexico have CONALEP schools, although the distribution of students by state remains uneven, with large numbers attending schools within the metropolitan zone of Mexico City. This intervention was evaluated by López-Acevedo (2003).

18. PROBECAT-SINAT (Programa de Becas de Capacitación para Trabajadores Desempleados_ Sistema de Capacitación para el Trabajo): as a national programme initiated in 1984, PROBECAT changed its name to SINAT in 2001 (and was replaced by Bécate in 2004—see above); supported by the Inter- American Development Bank since 1996. This intervention was evaluated by Delajara et al. (2006).

Panama:

19. PROCAJOVEN: an independent sub-programme of the Assistance Program for the Building of a Training and Employment System in Panama (one of a series of Latin American training programmes sponsored during this period by the Inter- American Development Bank). Approved in 2002, PROCAJOVEN operated nationally until 2009. This intervention was evaluated by Ibarraran and Rosas- Shady (2006).

Peru:

20. ProJoven (Programma de Capacitacion Laboral Juvenil): an ongoing large-scale intervention first implemented in 1996, and one of a series of Latin American training programmes sponsored during this period by the Inter-American Development Bank. Originally, the programme was intended to be implemented nationwide. In practice, reduced funding resulted in the programme starting in Lima (the capital) and progressively expanding to more cities (13 in total as of 2010). This intervention was evaluated by Chong and Galdo (2006); Chong et al. (2008); Díaz and Jaramillo (2006); Espinoza (2010); Jaramillo et al. (2007); and Ñopo et al. (2007).

4.2 TVET MODELS

This section outlines some of the key characteristics that differentiate between the different TVET interventions considered in the review.

4.2.1 Type of TVET intervention

The interventions involved different forms of TVET (see Table 4.1). The most common form of intervention was a two-phase TVET intervention that combined both theoretical and practical training (usually in the format of classroom-based vocational training followed by a period of on-the-job training to provide

beneficiaries with work experience). Typically, these interventions were aimed at short-term semi-skill training in specific occupations demanded in the private sector, and provided basic job readiness skills and some trade-specific skills. Nine interventions were of this type. Two interventions consisted of different TVET- related sub-components, and young people seeking training could choose between the available options. The majority of the remaining interventions offered a single form of TVET.

4.2.2 Implementation

Various agencies were involved in the design and planning of the reviewed interventions, most commonly government agencies (Ministries of Labour, employment offices, etc.). Funding for the interventions came from a number of sources; many involved public/private partnerships between national and/or local government agencies, international development agencies (such as USAID) and multilateral organisations (most commonly, the Inter-American Development Bank). Social partners, in the form of employers, contributed to the financing of one intervention.

TABLE 4.1: CHARACTERISTICS OF TVET PROGRAMMES